How many “lone wolves” would you need?

I read something incredibly interesting, and to follow along with the rest of this post, you need to read it too:

It’s a bit of a read, but all of the information is important. Especially the part about the existing power structures that support violent leftist groups, and the distinct lack of power structure that would support right wing violence.

The author’s conclusion then that in a potential civil war, that leftist violence would be better organized and logistically supported is rather sound. You don’t expect the John Birch society to take up arms and bombing.

So, if the author’s conclusion that “right wing” violence will take the form of racist groups and lone wolves the next logical question is, “well, exactly how many lone wolves do you need to not lose to the violent left?”

And that…is a very good question. So what follows are just my thoughts, as I pondered the potential scenarios playing out. It might make for an interesting intrigue novel or series of short stories, so it’s been on my mind.

But, here is what I think.

One thing about lone wolves is that in order to be effective against an actual organization is that they need information in order to find out, “who do I kill to have the most effect?” And that information really has to come from outside the lone wolf themself, because one of the good rules of getting away with a crime is to not get caught casing your victim, er, I mean “target.”

At any given time, there are multiple hard left groups willing to either support violence or conduct violence. Student groups, political groups, and some groups that aren’t groups just flash mobs of multiple groups.

So imagine that the recent trip by Milo to Berkeley was supported by just one “lone wolf” with a silenced rifle. How many people throwing molatov cocktails could that “lone wolf” kill before someone decided that being an anarchist was less important than letting the police know that someone was killing the anarchists? That’s a very, very good question and I don’t have an actual answer for it.

But, I do know that if “right wing” violence is to be effective it needs to be a few things.

1, it needs to be targeted at hard left groups actually conducting violence. Yes this will make martyrs, but not all of them will end up like Che with a line of T-shirts.
2, it needs to target violent leaders whenever possible. Che, despite a highly successful line of Tshirts wasn’t much of an asset to any people’s revolution as he decomposed into base elements.
3, it needs to be anonymous. Rather than claiming acts every “right wing” organization needs to issue statements that they do not condone violence, but respect the right to defense of life and property.

Because the “hard left” will target police and businesses. The “hard right” needs to target the “hard left” specifically in the acts of targeting police and businesses. Nothing wins the hearts and minds of the people like the feeling that someone out there is on their side. Notice that’s how Trump got elected, as a backlash against people feeling that the “coastal elites” weren’t on their side, and didn’t care at all about “flyover country.” (Which, if you look at the lefts reactions to the wildfires in Tennessee, confirms that the coastal elites really think rather poorly of people in flyover country.)

So, how does a “lone wolf” go about this?

Well, they first need information about what the “hard left” is going to do. Remember that part about the Episcopal church supporting a parasitical hard left group? Well a “lone wolf” can join a “hard left” group and let them feed the information on where the next violent protest will occur. Let your ideological enemy feed your operations.

What this means is that the most successful “hard right” lone wolves will look a lot more like hipster douchebags than redneck Rambo. Camouflage is important, and hipster douchebag will have a lot more access to “hard left” activities than some veteran with a “Death From Above: AIRBORNE!” Tshirt.

It also means the potential “hard right” heroes are Black, Asian, and Latino and have a lot more females as those groups will get less scrutiny than Steve Rodgers.

And what would success really look like? When the “hard left” groups start purging the hell out of each other trying to eliminate the moles in their ranks and they stop being able to effectively commit violence on the population at large.

I guess you could say that those “lone wolves” are much more like “sheepdogs” in a grand scheme of things. And you would need about one “lone wolf” per every “hard left” group that could possibly become violent, in every local chapter. That’s an awful lot of lone wolves, and I don’t see too many “threepers” or “sheepdogs” lining up to infiltrate the base of power of the “hard left.” And by the time the “lone wolves” could recognize the need for that it would probably be too late.

So how many “lone wolves” would you need? More than you’ve got. Still, it makes for an interesting thought experiment.

Comments are open if you have any better ideas on how a “lone wolf” could be effective against a widespread conspiracy driven leftist agenda.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to How many “lone wolves” would you need?

  1. DW says:

    I remember the Hearst kidnapping, the black panthers and all that related mess, but I was a teenager in high school during the middle 70’s so my focus was definitely not on politics and all the protests. But in reading your post, the status451 post and thinking back on what went on back then, the parallels between things now and things back then are interesting, in a frightening way.

    Whatever one thinks of Milo, those Berkeley protestors in black garb and hoods were not some group of random bad actors, but appear to be a fairly well trained group who knew exactly what they were doing. So while it’s easy to dismiss a lot of the snowflake left, clearly there’s a well-organized element someone on the left is training & running and they definitely represent a real threat to whatever defense the “right” or non-progressives intend to counter with.

    So this situation does support your premise that should it come to some civil war precursor, taking out the leader(s) or heads organizing these leftist militia groups is a valid 4th gen war response. But identifying who these people are, is the problem as you discuss.

    One of my bigger clients is actually based in the San Francisco Bay Area ( in a wealthy area of ) and not surprisingly the majority of the people working for this company are progressives. Several took the day off to participate in the pink-pu$$y march. Needless to say my primary objective is to make as much money as I can before things go south. So I focus on being very efficient and effective in my work there & I bite my tongue and try to keep all conversations work related.

    I don’t & can’t see myself spending any time with them in a non-work situation. I doubt that I could contain my disdain for them in that environment. As you might know the bay area has embraced the oxymoron “living minimum wage” and there are 100’s of other regulations that make employees in the bay area prohibitively expensive. However the management there is strongly in favor of all this regulation. But guess what, they just outsourced all their clerical functions to India, claiming that future local hiring would be too expensive for the company.

    The fact that they cannot see the hypocrisy in their actions is stunning! So the question I have is how successful can we be infiltrating these groups?

    I guess the metaphor is having the ability to appear to drink the kool-aid. It’s a skill set I don’t have. Hopefully we have some folks that do, but it will be a tough job. I don’t have any answers at this point, but I do know that historically “lone wolves” have a low success rate ( reference – Selco Balkan civil war). The John Ross novel: Unintended Consequences is somewhat of a “lone wolf” success story that spawns hundreds of other lone wolf actions to take down the bad government. It’s a great read, but I haven’t found any historical precedence.


    • rthtgnbs says:

      It’s easy to infiltrate a leftist organization. Just eat vegan and complain bitterly about “the man keeping you down” and how the patriarchy needs to be replaced by a fully developed collective consciousness.

      Seriously, just act like a douchebag with no personal accountability and you’ll fit right in.


  2. B says:

    Well geography has everything to do with altitude of success. The more dense the area, the less lone wolves needed. “flyover” country is sparse on hard left. IMHO the beginning of the operation would be regional travel and patrol for random targets (al la Jack Hinson). When the head of the snake decided to avoid public areas due to risk vs reward, then a more traditional old man from the mountain approach would be needed to get in the end zone. Because the lack of logistical operational support, the minimum level for success would need to be a dedicated cheerleading squad. The propaganda is where the real battle is won anyway.


    • rthtgnbs says:

      Remember that Jack Hinson hosted the commander of the entire Union Army in his house. It was only after the Union murdered his boys that he got into the fight, and that is the danger with the people who have skills sitting it out early on, you miss the easy shots on big targets.

      But…hopefully it won’t come to anything remotely like that.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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