A Strategy of Political Asymmetry

A couple of weeks ago, I watched as young men from Patriot Front were unceremoniously yanked from their chosen means of transportation, driven to their knees, zip tied, arrested, and mass doxxed by the police. All indications were that they intended to peacefully demonstrate against a deranged transgender celebration in an alleged red state. In fact, at that celebration, a black transvestite masturbated in front of little children as the police looked-on and did nothing to stop it. Yes, Patriot Front had defensive equipment – shields – but as we all know, Marxist agitators, like the antifa, carry weapons and projectiles in defense of pedophilia. It was logical that they would carry shields. Typically, Patriot Front does not engage in violence. Rather, they show up, march, and leave. The heavy handedness of the police, unlike the kid gloves afforded to Marxists, is emblematic of the state of our current society. The United States is dead.

It is no wonder that young men are driven to join dissident projects like Patriot Front. The system has fully failed them and the bias toward radical leftism is so systematically extreme, they are seeking some method for their voice to be heard. Whether Patriot Front has been infiltrated or is a fed-driven PSYOP does not matter. Such arguments entirely miss the point. Well-intentioned young White men, ignored by a Republican Party that was supposed to be the political voice of conservatism, have decided to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, I think they are going about it the wrong way. I believe the following strategy is the better path. I call it “Political Asymmetry.”

What is Political Asymmetry?

Political Asymmetry is a method of attacking and/or advancing political causes at a granular level from seemingly multiple angles, such that they are hard to both predict and defend. It exploits holes in the more organized political Left and the establishment system. It effectively weaponizes the democratic process by making it seem as though there are more voices in alignment with a given cause. In many ways, the Left has done this for years. A small group of radicals will call for the cancellation of a given political or cultural figure for holding unacceptable views. That small group is then amplified in ways that are larger than they really are, eventually effecting a result. Still, those are targeted, sustained attacks in the open. They are not asymmetric in nature. They are conventional.

Since the Right is larger than the political Left among the broader population, but far less organized, the implementation of seemingly disjointed, unaffiliated advances should be the method employed by the Dissident Right. A smaller number of dissidents can quickly galvanize support among a conservative citizenry in such a way that leads to meaningful revolutionary reform. This article hopes to show some of its readers how to make this work.

Why Political Asymmetry?

One of the greatest problems of the Dissident Right is that it has lost all faith with the election process. I fully understand and appreciate their position. After all, no one expects to “vote harder” and escape the current freefall collapse of Western Civilization. Consequently, it is only natural to avoid all political activity. Unfortunately, such disengagement empowers leftists. In the void that the Dissident Right creates, the Left steps in and dominates the space. It is time to retake the space, but not in the same way that the Left takes over political geography.

The first problem that the traditional political Right has is a myopic focus on national elections. The establishment Right is very good at rallying its base by being “less bad.” This helps them win senatorial, congressional, and presidential elections. It also helps win gubernatorial elections. Whereas those elections are important, that is not where the “sauce” is made. The traditional political Right largely ignores local elections, where a host of genuine, immediate impacts are implemented. More importantly, local elected bodies are the minor leagues of big-league politics. Aldermen become state congressional candidates who then potentially move up to federal congressional elections… governorships… senators… etc.

The Republican Party does not get nearly as ideologically tested at the local level as their Democrat counterparts. Consequently, by the time an establishment Republican has moved up to a more significant national seat, he is defined by his willingness to compromise in order to “get things done.” Meanwhile, the ideological vetting process for leftist candidates begins almost immediately upon entry to a city council. Local groups ensure philosophical purity. They form disciplined wings to protect their chosen political champions. Among the allies within those circles are local and student journalists. This level of grassroots organization and discipline is further facilitated by deep pocket donors who have a variety of agendas. The result is that Cultural Marxist positions are eventually elevated beyond the local decision-making body, such as a school board, and ultimately brought to the Department of Education or some other entity that makes national policy.

There are obvious problems with ceding the local elected officiating to the Left, but none more so than demoralizing the Dissident Right. Since the political Right has very little interest in critical cultural wars beyond empty platitudes, the Dissident Right sees no representation in sight. They are relegated to the sidelines, yelling from platforms like Gab about issues such as abortion, transgender debauchery, etc. Rather than yelling from the sidelines, however, the Dissident Right should step into the void that is left by establishment Republican officials at the local level. In essence, by becoming the local conscience of the movement, the Dissident Right can begin doing to establishment Right candidates that which the Left has done for decades: impose ideological purity through threat of removal.

At present, any right-leaning local board official is primarily hearing from engaged, elderly citizens. Younger men have to work. Retirees, however, are not as concerned with Critical Race Theory as they are about road conditions or tax abatements. If a group of concerned town fathers – younger men – went to the school board or the county commission to express concern over the removal of a statue or the introduction of homosexual propaganda in elementary school, that would likely get more attention. The Dissident Right cannot move a sitting U.S. senator toward their respective political posture, but they can more easily direct a local board official for the most basic human reason: self-serving need.

Why Political Asymmetry Can Work

Like any politician, local officials work for the next election. Power is important. At the local level, many politicians have ancillary motives beyond doing “good.” Local councils have enormous power. In many ways, thanks to systems of block grants, local tax dispersion, and a disaggregated decision-making system, the local board is often more important than Washington, DC. Correspondingly, they are often comprised of business owners or bureaucrats who have a genuine need to stay on the board and ensure their personal needs are met. The restauranteur, for example, who wants a light at a given intersection, or the lawyer who represents defendants in front of the local judge, weaponize their local power from seats on a given local board. The risk of losing that power becomes more personal.

The Dissident Right should exploit this very human motivation the way the political Left exploits it. If a town council has one or two men who stand up and say, “Do not remove that statue, or we will remove you,” it may get heard. However, if fifteen or twenty young men say the same thing, it will absolutely resonate. Local officiating is often decided by a handful of votes. The Left knows this, and as such, they go to local boards and demand some level of Marxist accountability from their elected officials. I have personally witnessed this, whereby a group that had already met elsewhere, arrives in BLM tee shirts to argue for a given position as a bloc. The Dissident Right should do the same, except differently.

Political Asymmetry at Work

One of the key ingredients of the Left’s success is its ability to effectively label the opposition. The terms “racist,” “bigot,” and “fascist,” for example, used to have more weight, but they still cause some level of fear within normies. Labeling a group a “racist neo-Nazi” organization with the support of journalist allies makes it easier to weaponize a doxx. No one cares if an individual holds a conservative position, but if he holds a conservative position and belongs to a so-called “hate group,” then he loses his job. More importantly, self-serving politicians will distance themselves from “hate groups” and their members.

It is important to remember, the Dissident Right has not held the establishment Right to the same ideological discipline as the Radical Left has held the establishment Left. If a group called, “Transgender Extreme Rapist Freaks” (TERF) walked into a committee meeting, members of the Radical Left would require the establishment Left to listen to their grievances. The current political Right would not do the same. A moderate group, like the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), would be shunned by the establishment Right, simply because a Judeo-Bolshevik online newspaper called them “Nazis,” and the establishment Right would avoid giving even the appearance of favoritism toward their views. Again, that is the difference between the political Right and the political Left. Therefore, it does not make sense to play the game the way the Left plays it.

Street demonstrations, political rallies, and other forms of outward disdain for the current state of affairs may be exciting, but they simply play into the strengths of the Marxist Left. All law enforcement bodies, with the exception of some elected sheriffs, work for the political Left. This is true from the FBI to your local blue uniform. You will be arrested at some point. They will ensure you are. All schools are filled with leftists. Arguing with the teachers union at a school board as a member of a “hate group” will fail. Every facet of the media is leftist. You will never get sympathetic coverage for your cause and worse, through the power of labeling, your otherwise reasonable request will be considered “hate,” scaring away supporters at the polls.

Videos and demonstrations are cool, yet they serve a minimal recruiting purpose (e.g., “I want to be one of those guys marching in Charlottesville. Let me join.”). But most of those who would join your ranks due to some recruitment optics are likely already on your side. What are you – the dissident – achieving beyond boosting paid membership? If you are genuinely interested in winning for your people, it is time to go dark. It is time to get quiet.

The best way to effect change, therefore, is a strategic approach toward asymmetric political engagement. Rather than going as a labeled voting bloc, form small teams – regionally and state-to-state. Place a hyper-focus on council, committee, and board meetings. Meeting personally in towns away from your main activity, go over the proposed agenda. Do your homework. Work with one another to identify key elements of the decision-making process. Study the enemy’s arguments in advance. Hone your supporting arguments, practicing amongst each other. Identify the seating arrangements of the open meeting. Choose who will sit where. Choose individuals who will cheer and those who will speak. Dress nicely but naturally. Then attend the meetings as individuals, not as a group. When the meeting is finished, leave quietly, as individuals, without salutations toward each other beyond that which would be a pleasant exchange between two strangers.

At committee meetings, you will act as each other’s force multiplier. When one of you states a position, the others cheer – but as “individuals” seated in dispersed locations. With your varied members speaking, they reinforce not only the narrative of a given political posture, they make the position seem greater than it may be. It comes across as organic. Since you are dressed in a manner that is natural to you, the optics of seeing a businessman in a suit agreeing with a plumber provides additional weight to the breadth of support. When someone not in your group supports the position with their own words, cheer them on, too. When the Left argues, boo them. Mock the proposal. Sit in disgust. Do everything you can within the committee meeting, short of being kicked out, to amplify disdain for the leftist position. If some right-wing group comes into the meeting, do not admit that you may or may not be part of that group or hold sympathies for them, but demand their “right to speak.”

If so-called right-leaning board members appear to show some level of support for the positions of the political Left, make it known that they will be voted out. Ramp up the pressure. When they allow organized leftist political teams to present proposals, ensure that everyone on that board knows it is not only unacceptable, but there will be consequences. This needs to be civil but relentless. There is no option of taking one’s foot off the gas. It should be constant pressure – do not take down that Confederate statue or you will be gone in November… do not introduce protection for teachers who support transgender hormone therapies for children or you will be voted out… do not introduce that book into our schools or you will be gone… Such messaging cannot come from just one person, but a seemingly disjointed, number of individuals who are “not” organized. Concerned citizens paying attention to their towns and making it accountable.

Political Asymmetric Organization

The following may make some feel uncomfortable, due to the language I am about to use (nothing crass), but it is the most effective form of asymmetric engagement. It has broken the intelligence community’s ability to respond effectively to certain types of acts. I am not about to advocate for violence, but I am advocating for the formation of dissident cells. Such organization should employ a counter-terrorism concept called Segmented Polycentric Integrated Networks (SPIN).

By adapting a SPIN strategy of asymmetric political engagement, there is no need to reinforce strategic objectives or ideological zeal among the members. Joining the cell is a commitment to the strategic goal of shifting local councils to the political Right. The messaging is embraced by individuals with no central hierarchy or even interconnection beyond shared beliefs. Each cell need not know other cells that are engaged in similar activities. Leaders may or may not meet, but they never do so in large, organized gatherings. Rather, one or two men meet for a beer or a cup of coffee, exchanging ideas and tactics, without the use of a blackboard or traceable communications device. Meanwhile, the small cell works independently – with no more than ten to twenty members of any given cell. Each region of a state is carved out and counties provide overlap, especially counties that are politically neutral and can potentially move to the Left. This enables two cells to work on the one area simultaneously, but without the benefit of knowing the core members. Amplification of political and cultural messaging is the key strategic goal.

Cells should have a commanding officer (CO) whose only mission is to ensure that the cell meets frequently enough to be effective. There should be an executive officer (XO), who acts as the COs back-up. Only the CO and the XO meet other COs and XOs. The less who know the rest is best. There should be a treasury officer (TO) who collects funds from the members, keeps careful records of the dollars – but not the names – and contributes funds to PACs or candidates that advance the causes of the group in a legally compliant way. Finally, there should be a political affairs officer (PAO). This should be a highly engaged member who informs the group of upcoming meetings, agenda items, locations, etc., of various local committees. Other members of the cell should be assigned tasks that work well within their natural talents. Someone may be a very good online sleuth (recruitment officer). Another may be a great orator (event lead). Yet another may be an excellent Op Ed writer (propaganda).

Meetings should be frequent enough to be effective. These cells may or may not be democratic – that would be up to the cell. While cells may or may not be democratic, they should be fraternal entities. Women should not be admitted to the cell, but they should be encouraged to participate. What do I mean? The problem with many dissident organizations is that they are often undermined by a variety of matters, because they are new, ideological, and structurally fragile. Unfortunately, jealousies and sexual impulses lead to a break down in group cohesion. It would be best to keep women out of the cell but encourage members to bring their wives or girlfriends to committee meetings to amplify the perception of greater grassroots support for whatever is on the agenda for that evening. They should know, however, that the goal requires individual anonymity.

Finally, the deployment of cells should serve to both amplify political messaging and stretch out enemy forces. They cannot know where or which town council will get hit by our political messaging at any given time. There are only so many journalists. There are only so many antifa. But there are entire districts comprised of concerned conservative citizens. Blending among that population to advance a cause can be used to maximum effect.

Conclusion

Such a strategy requires agency and discipline. This requires commitment. Most important, however, is that it requires anonymity. This is not a strategy that seeks collective praise from online fans. Rather, it is a strategy that requires the adherents to stay quiet while being called a “cuck” or some other such foolish ad hominem attack. You are doing more for the cause than they could ever do.

The fact is, the Dissident Right has tried to fight like the political Left for far too long. In essence, the communist Viet Cong should be our guide in the way we engage politically. The Vietnamese could never defeat the United States on its own terms. Westmoreland had at his disposal all the money, weapons, men, and materials to win any conventional war. He had the logistics capacity to deliver a force anywhere he wished. Yet he lost to Trân Vӑn Trà because Trà led a disciplined, unconventional attack – not on South Vietnam specifically – but the support capacity of the South Vietnamese to remain both relevant and legitimate. In essence, he simultaneously eroded the support of the local people for the government in Saigon and the American people for the war, through the use of dogged attrition.

Today, the Left is Westmoreland. It controls everything. It has the means to deliver forces to the Dissident Right at will – from the police to the banks. It is time to stop fighting like the Left. It is time to engage asymmetrically and win by means of eliminating their ability to counter us.

One final thought: Identity Dixie is a Southern Nationalist website. It seeks the South’s freedom through secession. Anyone invested in federal power is unlikely to support secession. If Southern Nationalists want to achieve the goal of secession, they need to work locally and within their respective states. Federal power agents are lost causes. Our towns, however, should be owned by us.

Retake every town, one at a time.