“We Have Leaderless Resistance, You Can’t Tell Me What To Do!”

Brushbeater nails it again. There is a number of those out there that love to blow up the “Leaderless Resistance” paradigm, simply because they love the thought of not having someone tell their martially ignorant, unorganized asses what to do. Just because children “think” they know what something is, doesn’t mean they actually do, but it’s easy making things up as you go along, isn’t it? Then you have the “I’m going to tell you how we’re gonna do the three man team ‘Leaderless Resistance’ thing as long as I’m in charge like I read Colonel Bank was.” crowd. Either one is a joke, and worse yet, a danger to anyone by their side when TEOTWAWKISTAN kicks off. Read and heed what he says, he’s spot on.


On ‘Leaderless Resistance’

If you’ve read enough Liberty Movement blogs, including the comments, you’re undoubtedly familiar with the phrase leaderless resistance. Like a great deal of topics in oft-misunderstood Unconventional Warfare, phrases and concepts seem to get parroted back and forth; whether they actually have merit or not is another topic entirely. We’ll discuss where and when it works, what it actually requires, and how its implemented.

Required Conditions

“Leaderless Resistance” is actually a misnomer- some equate this with “nobody’s the leader, I do what I want”, which is an excuse to evade personal and cohesive discipline. That’s wholly inaccurate; and is also one reason stand-offs and the like fail. It is not a fantasy of running amok in the countryside, rather it’s a bottom-up model rooted in the Marxist class struggle. At the core it is a description of cellular structure with no central command apparatus micromanaging movements as in a conventional army, all working to a common defined goal determined by the larger movement.

Neckacing Nelson offers some advice.

The concept relies upon the psyche of the envisioned captor- the insurgent must, in order to succeed, convince an active populace that there is first a problem and then second, that there is an oppressor in need of overthrowing. Risk encountered by the actors is justified; that victory mustbe attained at all cost; that any burden felt is indeed part of a worthy cause. The Left is adept at this, hence why a demonstrably failed philosophy as Marxism continues to be propagated.

Marxism is the oppressor. Marxism is perfected capitalism; it is the destruction of both a people and moral fiber which holds a civilization together. It is denial of human nature and natural biology, in an effort to break down thence remold in a new, totalitarian vision.

George Orwell, a one-time Communist himself, warned you about Big Brother.

Any outliers or ill-fit get removed; the bohemians used as cultural cannon fodder get rounded up as useless to the new state, murdered by the machine of which they helped to create.

The problem is that detail conveniently gets left out. Marxists aim to exploit any and every social fracture, targeting disaffected persons and statistical outliers. Everything is going to be made equal- if you just do it their way, allowing for complete oligarchical exploitation inevitably leading to failure. And they’ve perfected this propagandizing process since the early Jacobins first organized peasant revolts. I must remind those not well versed in history that Anarchism is not the absence of rule of law and obedience to no masters, but rather originally the absence of rule from the current rulers. Logically, and according to the conclusions of anarchist philosophers such as Noam Chomsky, this paves the way towards a new seemingly egalitarian ruling class, but as history proves in every case, the result becomes more tyrannical than the one replaced.

Useful idiots on parade.

All of this points to a couple of truths; anarchical resistance must first begin when there is a populace to support it and a common image of oppression constantly being reinforced to the proletariat. It is from this source that the movement exists, and until realized, any militant model will continue to be castigated and othered into obscurity.Those of you who remember the 90s will understand this concept well; the Clinton regime was much better at this than the Obamas, due entirely to the public’s willingness to trust the official propaganda outlets and widespread level of economic comfort experienced. The media painted the militia as outliers, rouges and criminals, a band of brigands who were social misfits and thus suitable political targets. 2008 and onward has been a different story due to the wider availability of uncontrolled media and a declining economy.

Worsening conditions at home and abroad, whether real or imagined, creates a space for militantism on both ends of the spectrum. Anger must have a root, and the justification for potential suffering must be realized. The battle then becomes one for the overall narrative and then for greater legitimacy among the general populace. All media is propaganda; he who controls the flow of information, controls the direction of the fight. As often shared in this blog, obscure media stories are most often the ones of greatest importance; they point to a pattern of future incidents. This leads us to the primary phase of an insurgency.

Narratives- the lead up to a Resistance

A brilliant example of Interior propaganda for the Liberty Movement.

Movements must begin with a common source of information. Gatherings, alternate takes on headlines, and reporting on unreported events are each key items in the effective propaganda model. Propaganda in and of itself is often viewed as a malignant term; it’s not, but rather is neutral depending on which direction it’s aimed. All media is propaganda. 

Propaganda falls into two categories: Interior and Exterior. Interior is speaking to a specific audience, your audience. It reinforces group memes and lays out objectives and a course of action. You likely will not win over many folks with Interior propaganda, and that’s fine. That’s what Exterior propaganda is for.

An early Anarchist rag, this one from Chicago.

In order to be effective, Exterior Propaganda must reach more than just its intended audience. One key element is the ability to identify and isolate paradoxes in the opposing side’s models for success. Communist propaganda over shortwave radio and currently on NPR domestically do this through eroding confidence in free market capitalism. Most commonly the concept of the wage gapbetween management and labor will be emphasized, and when that becomes negligible, race and gender in the workplace take the argument’s place. Anger builds from resentment of perceived exploitation, when in fact there likely is little of this in practice. Both labor and management must and always will exist; but a dichotomous relationship is created to serve the narrative based on class envy. It plants ideas without overtly calling for an overthrow of a management or ruling class, although this is the aim. Effective propaganda often avoids being overt, but rather guises itself in seemingly more accessible manners to a greater populace. It serves little purpose if it only talks to the same audience; it must grow in order to be successful.

Obama…er…Andy Stern’s vision for America.

Take this poster to the right. It’s aimed at “workers” but does not define exactly what that is. Any worker, whether in a factory or flipping burgers can rally behind this image. In actuality it’s a campaign ad for Obama and the Marxist Democrats from the Service Employees International Union, a Communist front group. That last part is left out.

The challenge then becomes taking images like this one, and directing a new narrative pointing out exactly to what extent this model has failed. And failed it has; but the root cause will always be deflected by the Left and construed as a result of Capitalism. Building a competent and coherent message specifically addressing an adversary’s failure is the cornerstone of conveying effective propaganda.

The growth of a message takes time. Movements are slow, but once they gain steam, can become mainstream very rapidly when given the opportunity. It is the propagandist’s role to realize when these conditions become ripe and greatly ramp up the pressure at that time.


The next part of the equation is visibility. In order to become viable in the public’s eye, they must first be aware of a movement’s existence and then be able to make order of it. Gang colors, message clothing, symbology and public outings are all part of this. Perceived uniformity conveys an idea of a unified message; it is not simply an angry gaggle. This becomes the point where a group can gain legitimacy or revert back to obscurity; it matters not the opinion of the followers but rather the public perception.

BLM delivers on its promises to act.

This imagery can become a double edged sword; a movement must walk the line between looking too inaccessible to the public and conversely, too clownish to take seriously. The difference between these two is the willingness to act.

When a group fails to deliver on its promises, it becomes less legitimate in the eye of its observers. The folks on the sidelines are the minds being fought for; when declarations are made, they must be followed. When they’re called on a bluff, a movement reverts back to the beginning of the propaganda phase, if it even continues to exist at all.


It’s been said that the Left benefits from chaos, and this is a bit simplistic. The Left rather creates chaos determined by the aforementioned factors, then exploits this created opportunity to either further the goals of the state or bringing the argument of the agitators to the forefront through visceral visibility, often times with both being accomplished depending on who holds the power of office at that time. The Right is thus left to react. That chaos is created in three distinct parts, with the first two overlapping somewhat, and highly dependent upon which action phase the insurgency lay.

  1. Lone Actor, Small Team, or “Lone Wolf” Attacks
  2. Mass Mob Attacks
  3. Overt Warfare

Lone Actor, or “Lone Wolf” attacks are commonly what we know of currently as “terrorism”. While academics argue over a coherent definition to suit politically defined models(and they fail to do so out of a need to leave the door open for targeting political opponents), I define terrorism asPolitically motivated violence against a populace for the gain of attention to a cause. And yes, all religion is political too. These actions happen by small cells- little groups acting independently of one another, often very loosely, attacking targets of opportunity over time. These exist to tie up the efforts and discredit capability of the perceived oppressor to keep it’s citizens safe.

One of the DC snipers’ motivations are quite clear through his drawings.

Realizing this is asymmetric, attacks follow the CARVER model with a heavy emphasis on Recognizability. It is these small groups that are commonly known as “sleeper cells”, going active on command or at some predetermined point from a culmination of other factors. Events or attacks may not be overtly linked but it must be remembered that each are validated by the realization of the common goal- and the belief that victory will eventually be attained at some point, but only through greater recognizability and attention spread to the cause through violence. This is the method most amateurs associate with “Leaderless Resistance”. In truth, this method is but one element of a much larger equation. Skipping to this method without first establishing a support structure ensures complete failure. Each mistake causes irreplaceable losses without a support structure to replicate new followers. The oppressor has limitless manpower resources and a loss does not mean that much; the aggressor does not.

Mass Mob Attacks, or “flash mobs” are another, often simultaneous act, a bit more sophisticated attack requiring organizational skill, normally at low physical risk by its organizers compared to Lone Wolf attacks. The goal is to flood an area, creating a physical denial or disruption of service. This style of attack occurs concurrently to the first method, normally by enticing youths already prone to criminality to do what comes natural. Most of them may or may not support a common goal, but have a common recognized interest, and once the group mentality takes over none of the differences matter. flashChaos ensues, and amongst it, a handful of the organizing cadre will be seen wearing message clothing attached to the movement. It is this cadre that must be identified; they hold the keys. Within this category, there’s two levels; localized, being isolated in a sole store, mall, or other limited area associated with the oppressor, and second being a riot. I must at this point emphasize that during the “Arab Spring”, each of the riots followed this same model, including Ukraine. My personal belief is that the same people caused the chaos in all locations, but I digress. It gradually accelerated into full blown civil war. Pictured below is Egypt, Ferguson, and Ukraine, respectively in their riot phases. The similarities should be obvious, and cannot be ignored.

Overt Warfare is the final phase of action in an insurgency. This cannot occur until the sides have fully galvanized and but one way forward is realized. The people, who will bear the complete burden of the actions of the guerrilla, must completely support the combatant element. The entire populace, naturally, will not support your efforts. But a good number in a region bound by common attitudes must. This should be accomplished through the propaganda phase and continues by highlighting the successes of their forces. The victories must outweigh the setbacks, the poverty must be justified, and the population must be willing to run the risks associated with criminal activities. Rebellion is always a criminal act.


Standoffs are dead ends. That’s reality. Failing to act at crucial points is also a dead end, killing a movement in its infancy. Failing to grow your base is a dead end. All three of these traps are pitfalls which the Liberty Movement continuously finds itself mired in.

In order to succeed, the Right must understand and competently deliver a response beyond simply countering propaganda. The Liberty Movement in particular must remove the wanna-be stigma, and in order to do that must appear on its face to be legitimate in the eyes of its potential support base. This means knocking off the Tac-team crap in public. Through legitimate actors, another obstacle exists in that most are competent, productive citizens unlike our Leftist counterparts who are largely unemployed or the product of a wealthy bourgeois existence they so despise. We stand to lose while the Left only stands to gain through unconventional social activity. Until this changes, it’s hard to counter. It must also be realized that the Right views the world from a moral high ground; the Left sees no such thing. Their idea is to win at all cost, and morals can be recreated to fit the needs of the new state later, normally at heavy cost of life. Until a movement can begin to successfully exploit the roots of anger, using every method possible to stir up as much fury as possible, it cannot get past the visibility phase. Once at that point, it must act. Morals are relative to the situation; we’re a long way past civility.

All is not lost; if they could’ve won completely by now they would have (although they’re a lot closer to it than we are), but to simply dismiss yourself into an ineffective half-model and staffed by lazy or ignorant people is a recipe for loss. Now is not the time for games. The Left will begin to go fangs-out soon, likely coupled with an economic implosion, but if not that then definitely from the next election (provided we make it that far) seeking the minds of the masses in an effort to blame the same factors they helped create. If you’ll also notice, the entire model I’ve used is based on actions of the Left(and their Islamist proxy), concluding Overt Warfare. They’re getting ready, already meeting both of the first two conditions of action, and we’re the target.

Leaderless Resistance is much more than a simple fantasy of running amok in the countryside with little to no discipline.



American by BIRTH, Infidel by CHOICE


8 thoughts on ““We Have Leaderless Resistance, You Can’t Tell Me What To Do!”

  1. “…rather it’s a bottom-up model rooted in the Marxist class struggle.”

    That is not only historically wrong, it is simply nonsense.

    The rest of the argument falls flat on its face because of this first error.


  2. JC,
    Excellent, well stated and hits the nail on the head in so many corners of the building.
    I am glad you wrote it (you are a much better author then myself and others) and hopefully it will make sense to enough folks that the concepts will be adopted and attitudes adjusted accordingly. Keep up your good work. Cheers, LP

  3. Nice content in Brushbeater’s article. That model he presents is valid and important, and essential for any movement.

    Bad news: there is not, nor can there be, a “Liberty Movement”.

    A “movement” needs three things: identity, mission and will. All of these have to be positive things, as in:

    A positive identity: who “we” are (not simply who “we” are not).
    A positive mission: what we want to accomplish (not simply things we will not do).
    A positive will: we will accomplish our mission (versus practically any other choice of actions).

    Can the Liberty Movement be defined in those three terms? Two out of three, maybe. I don’t think any of them apply.

    At best, “liberty” is everything left after all the bad stuff is taken out. This is why it continues to lose and erode.

    For example: assume one “liberty” mission is “people have a right to bear arms”. This does not contain a mission, it is only a non-mission (as in not taking arms away). Is this “right” a duty? If so, it stops being a right, and becomes a mission: “thou shalt bear arms lest the barbarians overtake us.” I’m OK with that, but that isn’t a right, nor is “bearing arms” a mission, so it cannot be a fundamental principle of a movement. Pick any other “liberty” tenet and the same analysis applies.

    This sounds all sea-lawyery, but it is the essential reason why “liberty” can not, and will not, continue in the face of determined opposition. At best, the word is just a propaganda piece. Look how much damage can be done by one scumbag wielding this word amongst well-meaning people. Now imagine how much damage can be done with it by a determined adversarial group bent on destroying a culture or a nation.

    The best that can be managed is to carve out and hold some piece of civilization. Then, all the tools discussed on these and related pages apply to identity, mission and will.


      • Actually, it is the other way around.

        An obligation is the origin of a right. Another way to phrase it; “There are no rights without obligations.” Or; “No obligation, no right.”

        Why is this? Because a right is a moral compulsion on others so one can perform one’s obligation.

        The inversion, “with right comes duty (or maybe not, depending)” is an “Enlightenment” depravity. (Or as I call it, the “Enblightenment.”)


        • I always thought of them as being parallel, or having “The Right” first. Since everyone has a soul, and the right to exist without having to prove they deserve to be able to exist, and that they don’t have to show what they bring to the collective table. When you are to the point of being responsible enough to handle weapons (securing the right to carry a weapon, and it’s not an age, it’s a “maturity”), at that same time you’ve gained that right, you have also gained a duty to use them to protect those in your care.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s