Theme: Crisis

by Josh Rieder I’m drawing on my observations, failures, and success for much of this. I’m not pulling much from other sources, simply localized experience. 1) what percentage of males would ‘show up’ to fight for a set of “just” demands? Percentage of MALES in general isn’t many. However, percentages broken down by demographics changes considerably between races, with a heavy tilt towards whites followed by Hispanic/whites. The longer any fighting lasts or the better known and understood the “just demands” are, the more show up. My own local percentages that I’ve tracked since January: Male pool of 90% white, 10% Hispanic who are supportive and care enough to be counted by name for this: 96% armed sufficiently (not sure why this isn’t 100%, but it’s not. The 4% are very supportive, yet nearly useless. Being unarmed is also an indication of being unable to take care of yourself or family.) 24% Equipped for combat (method of carrying basic/necessary equipment on self) 20% Physically able and equipped (Lack a sense of higher urgency for our current plight and are either complacent or feel scared of the world. Family is often the excuse for inaction rather than the motivation for action) 12% READY for action (not able to understand what’s happening in the world, but intuition tells them to be ready. They could show up if properly motivated by high agency leadership) 8% will show up for initial action (these are solid, ready, trained, equipped, and the modern “minute man”. Not activist marchers, but truly capable of winning a fight. 2) what is the percentage of the male population necessary for a successful revolution. Lower than most would think. By my numbers, 8–12% is enough for the rest to let someone else “do the fighting” for them and merely support the cause. 3) what is different about today’s revolutions by 4gw (think arab spring) than revolutions in the past? Group structure, we don’t need to build and train massive armies. Small and close groups of buddies can train as fireteams in a standardized method (communications, movement, tactics, etc.) and still be able to mesh with other groups for effective maneuvers. With limited coordination and highly vulnerable points of interest, these aligned groups are highly effective (and autonomous) on their own and able to use mass hysteria to their advantage. 4) why are revolutions in the anglo-saxon world more successful than revolutions in the rest of the world? There is a high level of commitment via risk. Once the line is crossed, the anonymity is removed and it’s “do or die”. It’s not simply participation in a riot or mass hysteria. The purpose of revolution is understood and articulated in a manner that can be explain in simple terms to most, and an understood in an intricate manner by those who can. It isn’t some implied demand for restitution in place of an excuse to run wild. It is a reform and control to the current state of affairs and problems rather than an addition to the problem. Essentially, there is an idea in place for what comes next, rather than simply burning everything to the ground. Eric Danelaw: Excellent. Although rule of law is missing from 4, and the number needed for 2 is under 3%. Well done. Really. Josh Rieder: Thank you! This was something I had answers for. Wish I coulda put more time into it. You would catch me on a day when I’m on vacation and punching this out on a phone while holding an infant.

by Josh Rieder I’m drawing on my observations, failures, and success for much of this. I’m not pulling much from other sources, simply localized experience. 1) what percentage of males would ‘show up’ to fight for a set of “just” demands? Percentage of MALES in general isn’t many. However, percentages broken down by demographics changes considerably between races, with a heavy tilt towards whites followed by Hispanic/whites. The longer any fighting lasts or the better known and understood the “just demands” are, the more show up. My own local percentages that I’ve tracked since January: Male pool of 90% white, 10% Hispanic who are supportive and care enough to be counted by name for this: 96% armed sufficiently (not sure why this isn’t 100%, but it’s not. The 4% are very supportive, yet nearly useless. Being unarmed is also an indication of being unable to take care of yourself or family.) 24% Equipped for combat (method of carrying basic/necessary equipment on self) 20% Physically able and equipped (Lack a sense of higher urgency for our current plight and are either complacent or feel scared of the world. Family is often the excuse for inaction rather than the motivation for action) 12% READY for action (not able to understand what’s happening in the world, but intuition tells them to be ready. They could show up if properly motivated by high agency leadership) 8% will show up for initial action (these are solid, ready, trained, equipped, and the modern “minute man”. Not activist marchers, but truly capable of winning a fight. 2) what is the percentage of the male population necessary for a successful revolution. Lower than most would think. By my numbers, 8–12% is enough for the rest to let someone else “do the fighting” for them and merely support the cause. 3) what is different about today’s revolutions by 4gw (think arab spring) than revolutions in the past? Group structure, we don’t need to build and train massive armies. Small and close groups of buddies can train as fireteams in a standardized method (communications, movement, tactics, etc.) and still be able to mesh with other groups for effective maneuvers. With limited coordination and highly vulnerable points of interest, these aligned groups are highly effective (and autonomous) on their own and able to use mass hysteria to their advantage. 4) why are revolutions in the anglo-saxon world more successful than revolutions in the rest of the world? There is a high level of commitment via risk. Once the line is crossed, the anonymity is removed and it’s “do or die”. It’s not simply participation in a riot or mass hysteria. The purpose of revolution is understood and articulated in a manner that can be explain in simple terms to most, and an understood in an intricate manner by those who can. It isn’t some implied demand for restitution in place of an excuse to run wild. It is a reform and control to the current state of affairs and problems rather than an addition to the problem. Essentially, there is an idea in place for what comes next, rather than simply burning everything to the ground. Eric Danelaw: Excellent. Although rule of law is missing from 4, and the number needed for 2 is under 3%. Well done. Really. Josh Rieder: Thank you! This was something I had answers for. Wish I coulda put more time into it. You would catch me on a day when I’m on vacation and punching this out on a phone while holding an infant.