Frame is everything. How you frame a point in an argument can have a huge influence on how effective it is. Controlling the frame is a vital skill for anyone attempting to stand against the decline and win people over. One such frame of reference that can be very effective to use is that of conflict. Today, we exist in the age of 4th Generation Warfare, also termed asymmetrical warfare.
What is asymmetrical warfare? Definitions only tell half a story so instead of offering one up we’ll look at some actual events that fit the term.
- Using drones to blow up a Ukrainian arms dump
- IEDs set off by cell-phones or Casio watches
- Attacking and damaging oil pipelines in the Niger delta or the Iraqi desert.
- Driving a truck down the seafront in Nice
- Hacking computers and locking them down for payment
- The mass sexual exploitation of white British girls across England
Now in a conventional understanding of 4th Generation Warfare the first three examples I listed fit the frame perfectly. Asymmetrical warfare is about causing high cost damage with little to no loss or cost. Guerrilla warfare is most effective when it adheres to this principle, and where the term grew out of. The smaller force is able to take on an advanced foe and exploit their weaknesses. That weakness might be the fixed nature of an oil pipeline and the importance of the revenues in generates for the government running it.
What makes asymmetric warfare different from mere guerrilla warfare? For John Robb, it is the push for moral victory over the foe through these tactics. Let’s look at the definition he offers:
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist — cohesion. This is done by reinforcing the following (according to Boyd):
- Menace. Attacks that undermine or threaten basic human survival instincts.
- Mistrust. Increases divisions between groups (ie. conservatives and liberals in the US).
- Uncertainty. Undermine economic activity by decreasing confidence in the future.
Let’s now return to the other examples given:
The truck attack in Nice – the use of vehicles by European Jihadis has become a rather consistent theme but it’s far more part of asymmetric warfare than mere guerrilla or anarchist violence. Studies have shown that public use of space falls after these repeated attacks. German Christmas markets would never tell you but those concrete bollards and armed Police do not do enough to allay the public’s fears. These kind of attacks create menace, mistrust, and uncertainty even if the mechanism of the attack is conventional.
Computer hacking – this is slightly different in that is not a form direct violence. Most evidence suggests that a good number of these organized attacks stem from DPRK or China. It may be that some of these attacks are more straightforward in their goals: to gain money and resources. However, it is inherently asymmetrical when it shuts down the National Health Service in England from 1000s of miles away. It creates both menace and uncertainty. It leaves people asking “can we trust this technology?”
Now we move to the last one
“The mass sexual exploitation of white British girls across England”.
This is the crux of why we are talking about the importance of narrative framing and why this should be seen as a form of asymmetrical warfare. It is a frame we must embrace. We must understand the reality of it as part of the threat system. This is not just something inherent to Islam. This is not just some nasty side effect of multiculturalism. Those are the passé narrative frames the rest of the right wishes to center these events as. The mass sexual exploitation of British girls, at its root, is a form of warfare. This is the side of 4th generation warfare that people seem unwilling to face head on.
Once the dam broke and these rape gangs were discussed in the media they got it wrong, which is to be expected. However, many on the ‘right’ got it wrong as well. They did not establish the correct frame to understand and deal with the issue. Establishing the correct frame is vitally important because it helps to focus on solutions.
These rape gangs functionally operate like a fifth column in these attacks. What they are doing is an incredibly effective warfare tactic, which is likely why it is being emulated. It breeds mistrust, and the kind of mistrust it breeds has been very effective. White British Police Officers now are willing to call 14 year old girls ‘whores’ and not believe them because they have such mistrust of the Muslim communities. They are inherently threatened by the prevailing forces of Political Correctness. The dogma of the time is to distrust young women because they fear not just accusations of racism, but the power granted to the Islamic community in Britain. That mistrust, once the story broke, has now flown into the more classic racial mistrust. This solidifies the Muslim in-group in Britain. The final part of the mistrust is to deepen divisions between the rest of white Britain.
We could break down the rape gangs in terms of menace and uncertainty as well. Why does this matter? You may think I’m quibbling about some definitions but framing is vitally important. Everyone knows this, no matter where they fall. If you want to argue against women in the workplace, there are frames you must use to illustrate your point. Those frames will be more effective and allow you to control the argument. In this critical example of the rape-gangs, we need to change the frame we look at it because of the key point of asymmetric warfare: the push for moral victory over the foe.
That moral victory element is what drives much of the attacks on any men or women who stand in opposition to PissEarth. The rape-gangs destroyed cohesion in the communities they attacked. The media attacks today; the SJW campaigners on Twitter are all the same. They are non-violent forms of warfare designed to destroy moral bonds between people. The treatment of the Covington boys was an excellent example of this. Something that is overlooked is the fact the initial Twitter account who posted the edited footage could have been a foreign actor. And what was the result of that – a level of mistrust that saw the boys own diocese castigate them publicly!
A word of caution though: narrative framing should not become reductionist. That trap is too easy for some to fall into. Instead it should always help turn the event so that you can evaluate it from a new perspective. It is especially useful in understanding how the forces arrayed against us function and as a way to illuminate their tactics. As the cycle turns and we move towards new elections the media’s asymmetric warfare will start up again. We would do well to remain vigilant to new attacks launched and remember what their goal is. Ultimately we ensure our own moral victory wherever we can.
3 Comments Add yours
Oosh, good point.
If I might offer a point, though, there is a risk of reducing everything to “4GW” the same way you warn people not to be reductionist in other ways. I won’t deny that it’s a phenomenon, but I would look to the culprits behind the acts of 4GW so we can target them ourselves.
Not sure I follow the latter half of your comment? “Look at the culprits” – can you elaborate?