The Art of War

An in depth analysis of ideological subversion and its drivers.

In 1961, at the peak of the Cold War (1947 – 1991), and 1 year before the Cuban Missile Crisis, president John F Kennedy delivered an address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City (transcript available here, video here), in which he made the following statement:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match”

Some 23 years later, in 1984, a Soviet defector by the name of Yuri Bezmenov gave an interview echoing some of Kennedy’s remarks:

“the United States is in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not comrade Andropov of course. It’s the system. However ridiculous it may sound; the world communist system or the world communist conspiracy”

In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto, in which they called for “working men of all countries” to unite, in a ‘class struggle’ against the ‘oppressor class’, in this case, ‘the bourgeoisie’. In their pamphlet, Marx and Engels wrote; “the Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country”, suggesting that Marxism and its various offshoots is indeed inherently global in its outlook.

Soviet propaganda poster; ‘Comrade Lenin cleans the Earth from scum’ November 1920, Mikhail Cheremnykh, Viktor Deni

The comments made by both Kennedy and Bezmenov suggest that this ideology uses a wide range of tactics and tools to expand its sphere of influence, that goes far beyond the battlefield-centric, nation against nation concept of warfare, and perhaps most importantly, applies them in such a way that the threat is exceedingly difficult to detect, define and counter.

The Art of War

The ‘Art of War’ is a military treatise said to have been written around 512 BC by a Chinese military strategist and philosopher by the name of Sun Tzu. In it, he writes:

“all warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.”

The term ‘hybrid warfare’ was first proposed by Frank Hoffman in 2007 to describe the evolving face of warfare, which he defined in the following way:

“Hybrid Wars incorporate a range of different modes of warfare, including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts including indiscriminate violence and coercion, and criminal disorder”

According to an article published in Small Wars Journal, this concept has evolved over the years to include “non-violent subversive actions such as cyber-attacks, economic coercion, disinformation campaigns, election meddling, and recently weaponization of migrants”. The article states that increasingly, the groups involved are not nation states, but supranational organisations, that are well organised, funded and equipped. To take but one example, in 2016 it was announced that between 2006 and 2015, Mexican authorities seized 599 aircrafts from the Sinaloa cartel (in comparison, the largest legitimate airline in the country, Aeroméxico, has 127 planes). Mexican newspaper El Universal also reported that the cartel operates some 4,771 clandestine airstrips, which are dotted around Mexico's northern states.

Psychological warfare and ideological subversion

Sun Tzu also wrote that “the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field”.

In a paper published in 2022 discussing the application of psychological techniques to hybrid warfare, the author writes:

“the hybrid threat could be considered as the combined and synergistic use of different tools … Some of these tools are obvious, while others are hidden, others are military, but most of them are non-military instruments, such as propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, cyberattacks, support for specific movements or political parties in another country … The psychological element has always been of primary importance in the conflicts”

Psychological warfare is referred to by Bezmenov as ‘ideological subversion’, which he defines in the following way:

“ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate, overt and open. You can see it with your own eyes. There is no mystery, there is nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage intelligence gathering looks more romantic, it sells more deodorants. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and opinion of many defectors of my calibre, only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures”

These remarks have been echoed by other alleged defectors in recent years. In a statement made before the US state before the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2017, General Alexander, former Director and Founding Commander of the NSA stated that “active measures have been in use since the 1920s”, and quoted retired KGB General Oleg Kalugin, who described these activities as “the heart and soul of the Soviet intelligence”. According to Kalugin, the purpose of these measures was to “weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, [and] to sow discord among allies”, with a campaign that involved among other things, the dissemination of “all sorts of forgeries and faked material … targeted at politicians, the academic community, [and the] public at large”.

The end goal, according to Bezmenov, is to “change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent, that despite an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages”.

Bezmenov is said to have died of a “massive heart attack” in 1993.

Demoralisation

‘Demoralisation’ is defined as “the process of making someone lose confidence, enthusiasm, and hope”. According to Bezmenov, “it takes 15 – 20 years to demoralise a nation, because this is the minimum number of years it takes to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, that is exposed to the ideology of the enemy”.

And he emphasises how the approach applies the same principles as those found in certain martial arts, such as judo; rather than engaging in a frontal attack, an opponent’s weight and strength is used against them:

“the demoralisation process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it’s over fulfilled because demoralisation now reaches such areas where previously, not even comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards”

Born in 1891, Antonio Gramsci was a founding member and one-time leader of the Italian Communist Party. He is also credited with the development of ‘cultural hegemony’. Gramsci observed that “in advanced capitalist societies the perpetuation of class rule was achieved through largely consensual means – through intellectual and moral leadership”, and thus offered two strategies to bring about the ‘proletarian revolution’; a ‘war of maneuver’ (“a full frontal assault on the bourgeois state”) and a ‘war of position’ (“engagement with and subversion of the mechanisms of bourgeois ideological domination”).

In short, Gramsci understood that society is defined by culture, itself shaped by certain individuals and institutions, and that so-called Marxism could be brought in by stealth through the shaping of culture, such that it would be voluntarily accepted by the population (what some have come to refer to as ‘cultural Marxism’). Shaping culture requires taking control of the institutions that create culture, a process that is sometimes referred to as the ‘the long march through the institutions’; a phrase that is attributed to Gramsci, and aligned with his ideas, but is said to have actually been coined by Rudi Dutschke.

Target institutions may include, for example, the educational system. After her expulsion from the Communist Party of America in 1949, Bella Dodd, a teacher, lawyer, and labor union activist, became a vocal anti-communist, and in 1952, testified before the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee regarding the widespread infiltration of labor unions and other institutions by party members. In her testimony, Dodd states, “that there were among the nation's million school teachers about 1,500 card-carrying Communists who wielded an influence far beyond their numerical proportion”.

The Frankfurt School & postmodernism

Placing operatives in key positions requires giving them the tools to ‘get the job done’, and these appear to have come in the form of the Frankfurt School’s ‘critical theory’ and later, postmodernism.

The Frankfurt School refers to a group of researchers associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and said to be the first Marxist-oriented research centre affiliated with a major German university. Max Horkheimer took over as director in 1930 and recruited others which included Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin. Together, they developed a theory of society based on Marxism and Hegelian philosophy, known as ‘critical theory’.

‘Critical theory’ has been applied to a number of fields, including for instance ‘critical legal theory’ and ‘critical race theory’ or ‘CRT’. CRT is a ‘framework’ developed in the late 80s and early 90s by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado and others, which according to Britannica, asserts that “(1) race is a culturally invented category used to oppress people of colour and (2) the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, political, and economic inequalities between white and nonwhite people”. It is currently in the process of being banned across multiple US states.

Postmodernism is a late 20th-century movement that Britannica defines as being “characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power”. Key thinkers in this movement include Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Pierre-Félix Guattari, Fredric Jameson, Emmanuel Lévinas, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, and Slavoj Žižek.

Skepticism includes that aimed at what Jean-François Lyotard referred to as ‘metanarratives’ or ‘grand narratives’. Examples of ‘grand narratives’ include, for instance, Marxism and Christianity, as both seek to “provide an explanation for a wide range of things”. Metanarratives “are universal and objective in that they are intended to apply to everyone in all places”.

The assertion that there are multiple interpretations of any given narrative appears to be technically correct, as can perhaps be exemplified by the fact there are multiple interpretations of Shakespeares’s play, Hamlet. Postmodernism therefore, appears to provide a useful tool for introspection which is necessary for any society that prides itself on its ability to adjust its thinking over time, as is the case for so-called ‘Western civilisation’. Although some appear to suggest that these ideas were promoted for the specific purpose of pulling the edifice down, it isn’t entirely obvious that this was necessarily the case, given that postmodernism is at odds with the ‘grand narrative’ that is Marxism, and can even be used to ‘deconstruct’ Marxism itself.

Some commentators, perhaps most famously Jordan Peterson, have drawn attention to the fact that many postmodern thinkers are or where Marxists – not necessarily avowed, but exhibiting some sympathies. It is however worth pointing out that so-called intellectuals have a tendency to be more ‘left’, as discussed in great detail by Thomas Sowell in his book, ‘Intellectuals and Society’ and ‘The Vision of the Anointed’.

Whatever the objective is or was, the fact remains that postmodernism itself does appear to have its use, and like any tool, analytical or otherwise, it can be used in a creative, or destructive way. Taken to its logical conclusion, postmodernism leads to the idea that there is no canonical form of morality, or truth; that no idea, concept, or body of work is better than an other; that everything in essence, is a matter of opinion, and that there is no objectivity, and therefore, no such thing as absolute ‘truth’. This philosophical undercurrent appears to have permeated every sphere of society, perhaps most saliently the arts, where decay is quite apparent, as can be seen when comparing for instance, classic architecture to postmodern or Brutalist architecture.

‘The Cascades’, Canary Wharf, London. Completed in 1988 and has come to be recognised as a significant piece of postmodern architecture.

The Barbican, London. Completed in 1982. Said to be an icon of Brutalist architecture, and of the UK's architectural treasures.

In his documentary ‘Why Beauty Matters’, the late Roger Scruton argues that where art and architecture once elevated people’s spirits, now it brings them down. Visiting a graffitied bus station in his hometown of Reading, he says “everything has been vandalised. But we shouldn’t blame the vandals – this place was built by vandals. And those who added the graffiti merely finished the job”.

No one wants to defend a decaying edifice, and thus seen in this light, it appears some of the ideas or interpretations of the ideas of postmodernism have paved the way for societal decay, itself reflected in the arts; arts being, according to some, a “reflection of society and culture”. This plays a key role in the process of demoralisation described by Bezmenov, and thus demonstrates why ‘grand narratives’ matter. It is noteworthy that Trump signed an executive order in 2020 aimed at promoting “neo-classical architecture as the official style for federal buildings in Washington, DC., and at new federal courthouses elsewhere” and established a new President's Council intended to ensure proposed federal buildings are “beautiful and reflective of the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American system of self-government”.

An interesting aspect of postmodernism is that it forces people to try and articulate ‘why’ certain ideas are better than others, rather than passively accepting them as inherently correct, and thus the negative influence of postmodernism can perhaps be thought of as a failure by our society (us) to do just that. It is said that Dostoyevsky wrote that “great events could come upon us and catch us intellectually unprepared”, and perhaps this is what he meant.

Moral relativism

Postmodernism also lays the ground for the doctrine of ‘moral relativism’, which asserts that “moral standards are culturally-defined and therefore it may be impossible to determine what is truly right or wrong”. Taken to its logical apex, any practice said to be cultural, however questionable, can be defended, and protected – all the more so when combined with a Marxist worldview, and in particular if the practice is said to belong to one or more groups said to be ‘oppressed’.

An example comes in the form of ‘trans women’ invading women’s sports, which is the inevitable outcome of a philosophy who’s guiding principle is that any perceived victim group – in this case, ‘trans women’ – is to be given preferential treatment and protection at the expense of another. ‘Not being born in the right body’, is apparently, the ultimate form of ‘oppression’ and in this case those who ‘identify’ as ‘trans’ lead the way in the so-called ‘Oppression Olympics’, trumping ‘women’s rights’.

‘Trans woman’, Lia Thomas, came out first in 2022 in a swimming competition, whilst competing against ‘biological women’.

Another example comes in the form of a particularly shocking and nasty piece of propaganda produced and broadcast by the Hamas-affiliated television station, Al-Aqsa TV from 2007 to 2009. The show, ‘Tomorrow’s Pioneers’ featured young hostess Saraa Barhoum and her co-host, ‘Farfour’; a Mickey Mouse-like mouse, where the two of them discuss daily life in Gaza. In episode 4, Farfour prepares for and takes his year-end examinations. He cheats, and is asked why by his Uncle Hazim (the show’s creator). Farfour replies “the Jews destroyed my home and I left my books and notes under the rubble”. The almost universally accepted victimhood of ‘the Palestinians’ affords ‘them’ certain protections, which will include any number of apologists for what would normally be deemed unacceptable behaviour.

Farfour the mouse ‘educating’ children on why all their problems are someone else’s fault.

Other statements include, for example the following; “we will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers”. These comments suggest in turn that there is a revolutionary dimension to what is being promoted, and therefore it comes as no surprise to discover that to take just one example, The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was spearheaded by a certain George Habash who is described as a “secular Palestinian Marxist–Leninist and revolutionary socialist”.

Moral relativism, in sum, creates double standards, which in turns create a discourse that provides legitimacy to any collective that deems itself ‘oppressed’ enough to do just about anything – including brainwashing children into hating their neighbour – which in turn, paves the way for an everlasting ‘war of attrition’ between the groups involved.

Haves, have nots, and scapegoats

These are just a couple of examples of the how the classic Marxist narrative has been recast into ‘oppressors’ against the ‘oppressed’. The groups involved vary across time and space; in Cambodia, it was the intellectual class that was deemed problematic, where some, were liquidated if they were seen wearing glasses. In Rwanda, it was the Tutsis. In Ukraine, the Kulaks. In South Africa, it is the white famers who are deemed to be ‘fair game’ and are routinely attacked, tortured, and murdered.

1930s Soviet propaganda poster stating: ‘Oust kulaks from kolkhozes!’

In some cases, the ‘oppressor’ class remains a constant, such as in the case of ‘feminism’, which makes extraordinary claims about a hidden power structure known only as ‘the patriarchy’, which apparently seeks to subjugate all women, everywhere, at all times. ‘Ex-feminist’ Erin Pizzey, known for having started the first and currently, largest domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Refuge (then known as Chiswick Women's Aid), has spoken at length about her reasons for leaving the movement, which included noticing that many of the individuals involved were aligned with the Marxist ideology, and having lived in China, was quick to understand what the movement was really about. Prominent feminist Germaine Greer, in her book, ‘The Female Eunuch’, made the following statement: “women's liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let's get on with it”.

The dialectic is also sometimes framed as a war between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, where demands for ‘equality’ are relentlessly put forth – an allusive and ever-shifting goalpost who’s logical conclusion is the demand for equality of outcome, which means redistribution, which can only happen through some form or other of state intervention. The main thesis that drives these demands is that any differences in outcome between individuals and groups, can only ever be explained by varying forms of ‘oppression’. An extraordinary claim, given that differences in outcome can be found just about everywhere, including in people with the exact same background – such as those born to the same parents. Once again, Thomas Sowell has done an excellent job of thoroughly debunking this idea in his book ‘Discrimination and Disparities’, which includes dealing with the ‘gender and racial pay gap’, which some relentlessly assert is the product of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’.

In short, the Marxist worldview casts aside any notion of individual responsibility, or desire for introspection, as found for instance in certain religious traditions. For evidence of this, we need look no further than Marx himself, who is said to have fathered an illegitimate child with the family’s maid, which he refused to recognise as his own. Seen in this light, it becomes clear that Marxism plays on fundamental aspects of human nature; namely envy, resentment, scapegoating, and the apparently innate desire to side with the perceived ‘underdog’. As the biblical story of Cain and Abel shows, envy and resentment are part and parcel of the human condition. Like anger and fear, these emotions can ‘spread’ to other members of a given ‘community’, through what the late René Girard referred to as the ‘scapegoat mechanism’, which he described as the tendency humans have “when faced with a crisis, to spontaneously imitate each other in blaming, or scapegoating, arbitrarily selected individuals or groups”.

What appears to have enabled Marxism to gain so much traction is that it has codified and packaged these ideas and emotions into a pseudo-scientific discipline that gives it moral and intellectual legitimacy – and sounds a whole lot better than simply admitting that one is driven by resentment, or even a desire for revenge. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche wrote “the doctrine of equality! … But there is no more venomous poison in existence: for it appears to be preached by justice itself, when it is actually the end of justice”. This sentiment is echoed in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ in the chapter titled ‘The Tarantulas, where he writes the following passage:

“Welcome, tarantula! Black on thy back is thy triangle and symbol; and I know also what is in thy soul. Revenge is in thy soul. Thus do I speak unto you in parable, ye who make the soul giddy, ye preachers of equality! Tarantulas are ye unto me, and secretly revengeful ones! But I will soon bring your hiding-places to the light: therefore do I laugh in your face my laughter of the height. Therefore do I tear at your web, that your rage may lure you out of your den of lies, and that your revenge may leap forth from behind your word ‘justice’. Because, for man to be redeemed from revenge – that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

Otherwise, however, would the tarantulas have it. ‘Let it be very justice for the world to become full of the storms of our vengeance’ – thus do they talk to one another. ‘Vengeance will we use, and insult, against all who are not like us’ – thus do the tarantula-hearts pledge themselves. ‘And ‘Will to Equality’ – that itself shall henceforth be the name of virtue; and against all that hath power will we raise an outcry!’”

The perceived underdog isn’t always right, or moral either, meaning that blindly supporting any ‘victim class’, without judging the actions of the individuals involved, and on the sole basis of their perceived victim status, is a large part of the problem. An extraordinary example comes in the form of San Francisco-based group ‘QUIT’ or ‘Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorists’, who’s motto, ‘Queers for Palestine’ is somewhat at odds with the dominant view on homosexuality in said territory; “what makes QUIT oxymoronic is that their affinity for Palestine isn't reciprocated. There may be queers for Palestine, but Palestine certainly isn't for queers, either in the livable or empathetic sense”.

What these examples show is that whatever the actors involved, the pattern is always the same; people with certain attributes are deemed to be the cause of one or more problems affecting another group, and the removal of the individuals causing the problems from society will solve the other group’s problems. The ‘victim group’ is in turn to be ‘supported’ at any cost, much like one supports their favourite football team.

Seen in this light, the target group is seen as a sacrificial animal, and thus Marxism and all of its offshoots, which arguably includes National Socialism, very much resembles a pagan cult. At Nuremburg, the French prosecutor general, Francis de Menthon, suggested that the fundamental problem with the doctrine of ‘National Socialism’ was its ‘racism’; “this sin against the spirit is the original sin of National Socialism from which all crimes spring. This monstrous doctrine is that of racism”. However, as should hopefully now be apparent, this is a superficial explanation that doesn’t address the fundamental question of what motivates so-called ‘racism’. Perhaps this is why the crimes associated with the ideology that travels under the banner of ‘communism’ – which can also be thought of as ‘international socialism’ – has not been scrutinised in the same way that the ‘national’ variety has. Basic ‘explanations’ such as ‘racism’ are woefully inadequate, and are part and parcel of the same fundamental problem; namely, that a given group of people (in this case, ‘the racists’) are ‘the problem’.

Interestingly, postmodernism seems to provide a method by which such narratives can easily be deconstructed. If the proposition is that people are inextricably linked to one or more groups, this leads to the proposition that no group is wholly innocent or guilty, given that one finds people who perform good and bad deeds in every walk of life. As Solzhenitsyn remarked; “evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system”. Thus, no individual within a given collective can claim to be a victim without also taking on the burden of being a perpetrator, which in turn nullifies the ‘grand narrative’ of group victimhood, and any claim made by any individual that they deserve to be treated as a victim or a perpetrator passed solely on their belonging to one or more identifiable groups.

Multiculturalism and identity politics

The oppressor and oppressed dialectic only works if individuals can be turned into collectives that can be turned against each other at any given point in time. Enter ‘identity politics’, defined as “a political approach wherein people of a particular race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, social class, or other identifying factors develop political agendas that are based upon these identities”.

Identity politics plays on so-called ‘communitarianism’, a philosophy that claims that “a person's social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationships, with a smaller degree of development being placed on individualism”. Another nice sounding idea, communitarianism in reality is nothing short of a racket; it demands conformity from its membership, who in turn, face the prospect of being cast out should they try to break ranks, which makes it difficult or even impossible for them to do, and in particular when the ‘community’ is being painted as a homogeneous whole. Communitarianism provides the means by which distinct individuals can be held hostage by one or more ‘communities’, with the full support of those external to them, who will in turn use them for political manoeuvring and private gain.

‘Multiculturalism’, is the idea that “cultures, races, and ethnicities, particularly those of minority groups, deserve special acknowledgment of their differences within a dominant political culture That acknowledgment can take the forms of recognition of contributions to the cultural life of the political community as a whole, a demand for special protection under the law for certain cultural groups, or autonomous rights of governance for certain cultures”.

In other words, ‘multiculturalism’ lays the groundwork for enabling the creation of separate nations within nation states, thus creating different classes of citizens, and all the while asserting that nothing can or should be done to prevent it – as the incoming culture is no better or worse than the incumbent one. Political correctness, which we’ll come on to shortly, prevents any form of discussion on the subject.

Britannica itself notes that “multiculturalism stands as a challenge to liberal democracy. In liberal democracies, all citizens should be treated equally under the law by abstracting the common identity of “citizen” from the real social, cultural, political, and economic positions and identities of real members of society”. Although multiculturalism in theory, asserts that all cultures are equally good or bad, in practice, we find that some are to be celebrated, whilst others denigrated. In 1996, PayPal founder Peter Thiel discussed this subject in relation to the publication of his book, The Diversity Myth, where he says; “I will suggest to you that the single most important theme that runs through much that goes under the rubric of multicultural is that it is anti-western. It is not non-western – it is still focused very much on our own society, but it is primarily a vehicle for denouncing it.”

Thiel gave the example of the protests led in the late 1980s by Jesse Jackson at Stanford University, which were characterised by the chant “Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go”. Recounting the experience, Thiel says: “it was not a demand for inclusion it was a demand for exclusion. Now why does Western culture have to go? The basic claim is the West is uniquely bad because it is racist, it is sexist, and not only is it does it have all these problems but it has them much worse than other societies”.

Political correctness

‘Identity politics’ and ‘multiculturalism’ require ‘political correctness’ to operate unhindered. Thiel frames the issue in the following way:

“let me suggest to you that multiculturalism and political correctness must be thought of as different sides of the same coin; the multicultural side is a side where we look for the victims. The politically correct side is the side where we go after the victimizers. The two are inextricably interconnected”

In a video published in 2019, Roger Scruton, discussing what he referred to as emerging ‘witch hunt culture’ stated that “political correctness … both promotes hatred and also excuses it. On the surface political correctness seems like a way of standing up for victims; be they women, minorities, gays, transsexuals or whatever. In reality however, it is about creating victims”

Political correctness provides the means by which any inquiry into the demands being made by some for special treatment – some of which may be antithetical to the values held by the majority – can be dismissed out of hand as being the simple result of blind ‘hate’. An example comes in the form of a proposal to ban male circumcision, which some have claimed is somehow ‘antisemitic’. ‘Antisemitism’ is commonly understood to mean “prejudice against or hatred of Jews”. Male circumcision however, isn’t a practice limited to Judaism, and interestingly certain members of this apparently homogenous ‘community’ have backed these calls. Taking one example, a group operating under the name ‘Jews Against Circumcision’ wrote a letter in 2018 where they stated that “we want it to be known that, on the matter of involuntary circumcision, these organizations [Anti-Defamation League, the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities and the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organizations] do not speak for all Jews and they do not speak for us”. An article published by Reuters in 2012 states that in Israel, “some rebel against circumcision”. It would appear therefore – and this may come as a great surprise to some, that not all who identify as Jewish – subscribe to the exact same beliefs, and thus so-called advocacy groups and ‘community leaders’ are really nothing of the sort.

The problem with the labelling and name calling is perhaps best explained by Scruton who uses the example of ‘Islamophobia’:

“ordinary people wonder whether the God of Islam permits the crimes that are committed in his name. But they dare not pursue the matter for fear of attracting the charge of Islamophobia. The question that cannot be asked is like a festering wound filling the mind with suspicions and in this way political correctness stirs up fear in the place of reconciliation by turning doubt about Islam into a thought crime it recasts legitimate anxieties as acts of aggression and lays at the door of Islam's critics the crimes that are committed in Islam's name similar things have happened with the homophobia and transphobia labels the isms and phobias have been used in order to put some complex matter beyond discussion so that only one perspective can be publicly confessed to namely the perspective that is politically correct moreover because political correctness deals in thought crimes it closes the gap between accusation and guilt in the world of political correctness there is no presumption of innocence but only a hunger for targets”

Ultimately, the purpose of political correctness is to drive wedges between various groups, who in turn close ranks, which in turn erodes trust, and fuels the very thing that those who enforce these rules of engagement are allegedly trying to prevent.

Destabilisation & crisis

Having planted the seeds of discontent and division, the next stage, according to Bezmenov, is destabilisation and crisis, which is usually followed by “a violent change of power structure and economy”, after which comes the period of so-called ‘normalisation’.

If and when the point of crisis is reached, what matters according to Bezmenov, “is essentials; economy, foreign relations, defence systems”. In other words, it is critical for people to have faith in the system. If faith is eroded, patterns of behaviour such as panic buying may start to manifest, which may lead to shortages and hoarding, and this in turn to further destabilisation as essential supplies run low and people start to fight over dwindling resources – essential, and not. This may well explain why, the CEO of Tesco told people at the peak of COVID that “there is no need for Britons to panic buy groceries”, which is somewhat at odds with the charged that is levied by certain people that the ‘elites’ are apparently, trying to starve us all to death.

A document published by the US government in 2009 titled ‘Counterinsurgency Guide’, defines insurgency as “the organized use of subversion and violence” to “subvert or displace the government and completely or partially control the resources and population of a given territory … Insurgent activity is therefore designed to weaken government control and legitimacy while increasing insurgent control and influence”.

In 2020, the death of George Floyd sparked a series of international protests against ‘police brutality’ that included rioting and looting, similar to that taking place in France at the moment. According to an article published by Axios, the “arson, vandalism and looting” that occurred during these protests resulted in “at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims”, which will “cost the insurance industry more than any other violent demonstrations in recent history”. In France, it was announced in 2018 by Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, that the ‘Gillets Jaunes’ protests would cost the state (meaning, the citizenry) around €10bn to ‘defuse’, money he said that “will be offset by cuts in other government spending”.

The events themselves, and the tactics used, appear to not be all too dissimilar to those prescribed in a series of articles published by Robert F Williams, an American civil rights leader and author, best known for serving as president of the Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Whilst in Cuba, he and his wife published a newspaper titled ‘The Crusader’, in which the assertion is made that ‘black Americans’ form a nation within a nation, and are in the fight of the lives against ‘white America’, which is apparently uniquely ‘racist’ and ‘colonialist’ (unlike, for example China). The assertion is based on the legacy of slavery, which is apparently worse than, for example, that of the Arab slave trade (which appears to still be a major problem to this day). Here once again, we find the same double standards are involved, and quickly discover that slavery is not a black on white issue, as documented extensively by Thomas Sowell.

In his publication, Williams writes that “the race question is America's Achilles heel. America's great abundance is what makes America America, without it she - would be a wretched land of chaos. Her economy is already under stress and her military might is spread out too thinly throughout the world”. He then lays out the methods that can be used by the ‘brothers’ to overthrow the ‘white supremacy’ that is ‘oppressing’ them. This includes, for example, guidance on how to fight the ‘racist police’ on the streets:

“During times of massive rioting too many of our people are forced to fight armed cops and troops with bare hands and stones. Cops and troops must be disarmed and their weapons turned against other cops to obtain weapons of defense. Tanks and armoured cars must be knocked out with molotov cocktails and captured when possible. Bazookas and mortars must be taken from troops and national guard armories to prevent heavy concentration of troops and invasion by overwhelming force”

Other methods promoted by Williams include measures to create the conditions needed for a full blown civil war:

“The weapons of defense employed by Afroamerican freedom fighters must consist of a poor man's arsenal. Gasoline fire bombs (Molotov cocktails), lye or acid bombs (made by injecting lye or acid in the metal end of light bulbs) can be used extensively. During the night hours such weapons, thrown from roof tops, will make the streets impossible for racist cops to patrol. Hand grenades, bazookas, lights mortars, rocket launchers, machine guns and ammunition can be bought clandestinely from servicemen, anxious to make a fast dollar. Freedom fighters in military camps can be contacted to give instructions on usage. Extensive sabotage is possible. Gas tank on public vehicles can be choked up with sand. Sugar is also highly effective in gasoline lines. Long nails driven through boards and tacks with large heads are effective to slow the movement of traffic on congested roads at night. This can cause havoc on turn-pikes. Derailing of trains causes panic. Explosive booby traps on police telephone boxes can be employed . High powered sniper rifles are readily available. Armor piercing bullets will penetrate oil storage tanks from a distance. Phosphorus matches (kitchen matches) placed in air conditioning systems will cause delayed explosions which will destroy expensive buildings . Flame throwers can be manufactured at home. Combat experienced ex-service man can easily solve that problem.”

And finally, Williams reveals what the ‘white supremacy power structure’ he wishes to overthrow really is, when he writes; “the bourgeoisie has very little stomach for massive blood and violence. They love their property, the source of their power and wealth. They are highly susceptible to panic”. It comes then as no surprise that Black Lives Matters founder Patrice Cullors describes herself and other members of her organisation as ‘trained Marxists’, following in the footsteps of other Marxist ‘black advocacy’ groups such as the Black Panther Party.

Concluding remarks

The US counter-insurgency manual defines counter-insurgency “as ‘comprehensive civilian and military efforts taken to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address its root causes’. It also notes that it is “an extremely difficult undertaking, is often highly controversial politically, involves a series of ambiguous events that are extremely difficult to interpret, and often requires vastly more resources and time than initially anticipated.”

It is easy to see why. In a free society, the deployment of counter-measures can easily be seen – understandably – as government overreach. Cracking down on outright misinformation – some of which may be the product of subversive forces – can quickly lead to the deployment of assets criticising the measures as antithetical to ‘free speech’, and the actions of creeping authoritarians. As a result, certain elements within society can be further galvanised, convinced that anyone in a position of authority is seeking to do them harm, which itself as we have seen, is an important tool of demoralisation. In an article published in Small Wars Journal on how to mitigate the effects of ideological subversion emphasises the effects such campaigns can have on the longterm health of a given society:

“Although only becoming mainstream in recognition within the last few years, the concept was initially devised by Soviet agents using ideological subversion to weaken our democracy through division, a diminished sense of trust in our government and its institutions, and using combinations of disinformation and misinformation to make absolute truth nearly impossible to recognize”

The article further asserts however, that every individual can contribute to the effort of countering such measures:

“Mitigating the effects of ideological subversion is a whole of society effort, which can be achieved through a concerted campaign involving the government, journalists, internet providers and social media outlets, educators, and consumers or individual members of society. As a nation, we must come together as one body, led by the nonpartisan recognition of the threat by our elected leaders, and armed with a well-established means of critical thinking and an acceptance of each individual's responsibility in the effort … Through an apolitical and comprehensive whole of society strategy, the effects of ideological subversion can be mitigated. Although the battle for our minds will likely never cease, recognition of its existence and the identification of its methods will arm our government institutions, corporate information sharing entities, and individual citizens with the tools necessary to lessen the acceptance and spread of misleading and destructive narratives within our society”

Roger Scruton, in his concluding remarks on the ‘witch hunt culture’ offered some similar advice when dealing with ‘politically correct’ opponents, who wish to prevent an honest conversation on a given subject:

“we must speak peaceably even to our accusers. We must avoid the name-calling, shrug off the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ when they are heaped on us. Confess to our true faults, and robustly deny the invented ones. Most importantly, we should venerate Truth and ignore political correctness, which is not the cure to our conflicts but the ultimate source of them”

In the final analysis, our responsibility as individuals lies in how we treat and relate to one another, which in turn will define how our society as a whole behaves. Looking for scapegoats, replacing justice with ‘social justice’, rioting, looting and cheering on said destruction, and trying to shut people up for their difference in opinion, isn’t a recipe for social cohesiveness and long-term success.