The Art of War and the Army of Life

How enemies can work together to defeat The Great Reset

Note: Nothing in the following essay should be interpreted as advocating or condoning violence in any way, shape, or form. Words such as “fight” and “army” are to be understood figuratively, as they are used in common parlance in terms such as “fight for equality” and “army of social justice warriors.” Words such as “resistance” and “opposition” should be understood as referring to peaceful, legal, non-violent expression of opinions and concerns.

The Problem With an Opposition Coalition

Question: How can groups that distrust and dislike each other unite against a common foe?

Answer: It’s a trick question. They can’t unite. But they can still oppose a common foe.

I’ve argued previously that The Great Reset (as a shorthand term for the genocidal, transhumanist agenda promoted by the ruling elite) poses an existential threat to all of humanity, and therefore we should put aside our ideological differences long enough to defeat it.

By “we,” I mean the White Nationalists, Orthodox Jews, and Nation of Islam members who have vocally opposed the authoritarian measures imposed in the name of COVID (and, coming soon to a country near you, climate change), as well as the vast number of people who don’t ascribe to a marginalized affinity group, but who don’t want to be turned into bug-eating, brain-chipped slaves prior to being exterminated.

In other words, “we” is everyone who agrees that a global cohort of psychopathic technocrats should not be destroying our lives.

But, I’m a realist. Much as I would love to see Ice Cube, Andrew Anglin, Steve Kirsch, and Sufyaan Khalifa join hands and sing Kumbayah around a bonfire of Klaus Schwab’s books, I know it’s not going to happen. You can’t fight alongside people you don’t trust.

Even within the self-proclaimed liberty movement, there are constant accusations that so-and-so is “controlled opposition,” or compromised in some way and therefore subverting the cause. Not only does this internecine conflict undermine productive work, it plays into the hands of the elite. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book because it works.

In other words, the technocrats don’t have to convince the public to agree with their insane agenda, all they have to do is keep everyone who’s opposed to them fighting amongst themselves. Which, obviously, means that the only way to defeat them is to stop fighting amongst ourselves.

So, how do we square this circle? A 1,500 year old book called The Art of War has some advice, as do a long-dead intelligence agent, and a former KKK leader.

Formlessness and Leaderless Resistance

When you have no form, spies can discover nothing, and your enemy cannot form a strategy.

- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

One of the often-overlooked principles in The Art of War is the idea of striving for formlessness. According to Sun Tzu, the superior army is as fluid and difficult to contain as rushing water.

This might sound like useless, fortune-cookie advice, but it is actually the philosophical antecedent of contemporary “phantom cell structure,” also known as “leaderless resistance.”

The term “leaderless resistance” was coined by OSS (forerunner to the CIA) agent Colonel Ulius Louis “Pete” Amoss. Looking at Eastern Europe, he proposed that small, independent, unconnected groups of activists could fight Communism more effectively than a traditional, hierarchical resistance movement. Partly, this was because of constant surveillance, and partly because hierarchical “pyramid” organizations were prone to infiltration and subversion by spies.

“We do not need ‘leaders’; we need leading ideas. These ideas would produce leaders. The masses would produce them and the ideas would be their inspiration. Therefore, we must create these ideas and convey them to the restless peoples concerned with them.”

Col. Ulius Amoss

After Amoss’s death, KKK and Aryan Nation leader Louis Beam picked up the concept. Ostensibly writing from a White Nationlist standpoint, he wrote an excellent essay explaining how leaderless resistance could - and should - be used against a tyrannical Federal government. In the essay, Beam gives several examples of leaderless resistance in history, including the “committees of correspondence” that operated during the American revolution.

“It was, as the first American patriots knew, totally unnecessary for anyone to give an order for anything. Information was made available to each committee, and each committee acted as it saw fit.”

“From the point of view of tyrants and would be potentates in the federal bureaucracy and police agencies, nothing is more desirable than that those who oppose them be UNIFIED in their command structure, and that every person who opposes them belong to a pyramid type group. Such groups and organizations are an easy kill. Especially in light of the fact that the Justice (sic) Department promised in 1987 that there would never be another group that opposed them that they did not have at least one informer in.”

-Louis Beam

I am deliberately quoting Beam at length, to make a point. Because I am a Jew by heritage and religion, Beam and I would never trust each other or feel comfortable working together. However, I agree with his concerns about government tyranny, and although I don’t see anything online from him more recent than 2012, it is highly likely that he and I have similar opinions on The Great Reset. The same goes for the Nation of Islam (which would despise both Beam and me), and other groups that may be incompatible with each other, but are aligned in their opposition to global technocracy. We are unlikely to ever join forces, but we can still work towards a shared goal.

Leading Ideas Not Leaders

Historically, the key benefit of leaderless resistance was resistance to inflitration and subversion. Today, the key benefit is that ideologically opposed cells can act in harmony to oppose a common enemy.

As the quotes I selected from Amoss and Beam explained, leaderless resistance is based on the idea of decentralized cells following “leading ideas,” rather than traditional leaders. The only common ground needed is a shared goal. Cells can share information (preferably through some non-direct means, such as blogs or social media), but each cell determines what action to take.

In my opinion, leaderless resistance is the only viable path for resistance to global authoritarianism. With only a few leading ideas in common, people across the world, speaking different languages, with different worldviews and different biases, prejudices, and hatreds could work in concert to defend all of humanity.