Know Thine Enemy

Simon Sheppard examines the enemy without and within

The theme of a talk given at the Yorkshire Forum on 6 February 2016 and published in Heritage & Destiny magazine, issue 72, May-June 2016

‘Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.’

The traditions, structures, and innate morality of the West are under attack. To us nationalists this much is obvious, but it is unrecognised by the public at large. Why is this? Because the adversary has not done us the courtesy of declaring hostilities.

Historical battles took place along traditional lines: war would be declared, then special rules and forces would come into play. The combatants would square off, a bloody battle would ensue and finally a victor would emerge. The loser might be afforded respect, if he had fought valiantly.

The current contest is very different, employing subterfuge and deceit as its major weapons. Having not declared themselves, how are the contestants to be identified?

The contest is one in which the adversary cannot fight head-on; it is a war of feminine versus masculine. All the strategies used are feminine. In this game the female is the Protagonist, the main player who starts the game, and the male is the Opponent. I see it like this: generally in a stable situation the male is content, while the female wants more, she wants to advance, to proceed. Most games are started by the female, whether the male is aware of it or not.

Of course the tactics used are extended well beyond what is traditionally regarded as feminine behaviour, but we do not live in traditional times. Our present position is extreme and utterly unprecedented historically. Nevertheless, feminine these strategies are.

Note that above I have used the word “traditional” a lot – we might say that tradition is masculine, change is feminine. Thus, most games are started by female strategists. This is not necessarily a contest between males and females at all, but it is a competition between female strategists and male strategists. Particularly, I contend that Jews employ and extend female strategies.

Having defined who the players are, let us heed the words of Sun Tzu, to know our enemy: “Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.”

1. Profitable psychosis

One of the most powerful weapons employed against us is separation from reality, which is psychosis. In illustration we can look at the sales technique known as ‘Door in the face.’ Applying this method, you ask your friend for a loan of £1,000, and this makes it more likely that £100 will be forthcoming when you ask for that. Asking for £100 initially might see you only end up with a tenner. A large demand makes a smaller one seem more reasonable. So we can see how making an unrealistically large demand can be advantageous. With divorce from reality there is no limit to the claims which may be made.

Believing that one has a justified grievance, or an entitlement, is a powerful motivator. All one needs is to be convinced that it is valid.

First there is disconnection from reality, but the Protagonist might go further and shed reality entirely. A simple rule might be applied: ‘What’s good for me (us) is true, what’s bad for me (us) is false.’ The Protagonist is unable to appreciate the supremacy of cold, hard fact. She simply cannot comprehend it.

Just what is the supreme power of cold, hard fact? It is that if you ignore it, it will come round to bite you in the back. This will happen as surely as night follows day.

How is this shedding of reality applied in practice? When the female (strategist) seeks to justify or promote something, her mind casts around, seeking an argument that will serve the purpose. Whether the argument is sound, sensible or rational is immaterial. Does it sound reasonable enough to be accepted? Will it fly? This is all that matters. Perhaps she will repeat something she has heard in a soap opera, or an argument hinted at in a magazine. If an argument is suggested which is immediately perceived as ludicrous it will be quickly discarded and forgotten, as if it never took place. Numerous angles will be tried until one hits the spot, that is, sounds plausible enough to achieve the desired shift.

It is similar to throwing mud against a wall, a well-established method of character assassination. If enough mud is thrown some of it is bound to stick. If enough arguments are put forward, one will eventually be thought plausible enough for the goal to be achieved.

The Protagonist is driven by emotion. Her feelings are real to her and in modern society she has become insulated from the forces of the real world. Thus only her feelings have significance, and any argument whatever will be employed to try and validate those feelings. This is why she is impervious to logic and self-contradiction. The female has an astonishing capacity for ambivalence.

Here is a shocking, topical example. At the New Year in the Cologne police region, 126 gang-rapes were reported. Three weeks later close to a hundred Cologne women gathered to hand flowers to “refugees” in a gesture against “xenophobia.” To these women, sentiment is all.

Frequent appeals to emotion will be made because the emotional realm is the one in which the female excels. If the male can be held on that ground she will win. If the contest is held on rational, masculine ground she will lose.

2. Attack the Hindmost

Another powerful strategy is to set up a competition, not with a prize for the first, but with punishment for the last. This starts a reinforcing cycle, as everyone tries to secure a margin of safety for themselves. A person really does not want to be the one showing least enthusiasm, and neither do they want to be the next in line after he’s been picked off.

The following is from Baker’s book Race. Shaka was a notoriously cruel Zulu chieftain, and when his mother died in 1827 this is what happened:–

‘Universal mourning was immediately ordered. The chiefs and people began to assemble in a crowd estimated at eight thousand. To eat or drink was forbidden; weeping was compulsory. Lamentations continued all night. Those who could not force tears from their eyes – those who were found near the river panting for water – were beaten to death by others who were mad with excitement. Toward the afternoon I calculated that not fewer than 7,000 people had fallen in this frightful indiscriminate massacre.... Whilst masses were thus employing themselves, Shaka and his chiefs, the latter surrounding him, were tumbling and throwing themselves about, each trying to excel in their demonstrations of grief by alternate fits of howling.’

The above account is old but comparable scenes took place on the death of Kim Jong-il in 2011. Mechanisms like these are all around us and we should not underestimate their power.



What’s for dinner?Can I help you with dinner?Where would you like to go for dinner?Here, have some wine.
Are you wearing that?You sure look good in brown!Wow! Look at you!Here, have some wine.
What are you so worked up about?Could we be overreacting?Here’s my paycheck.Here, have some wine.
Should you be eating that?You know, there are a lot of apples left.Can I get you a piece of chocolate with that?Here, have some wine.
What did you do all day?I hope you didn’t overdo it today.I’ve always loved you in that robe!Here, have some wine.

3. The pincer movement

One strategy remains intriguing, because I cannot identify a feminine origin for it. This is the pincer movement, as when an army attacks on two flanks simultaneously. In Jews, this strategy appears to have evolved as an instinct rather than a conscious tactic. For example in America, Jews are large contributors to both Republican and Democratic campaigns, and Jews notoriously finance both sides in wartime.

This is what is happening when nationalists endure the malevolent attentions of both the State and the extreme left. We are attacked from both sides. The State is supposedly the embodiment of the reactionary, capitalist Establishment. The opposition think of themselves as liberal, anti-Establishment revolutionaries. Yet both endeavour to stifle the nationalist message by various means.

Applying the principle again that the female will use any argument if it suits her purpose, these supposed anti-establishmentarians have little compunction in calling in the police or committing perjury in court against us.

As soon as a nationalist organisation achieves significant numbers it acquires Jewish members, and all the mainstream political parties (including UKIP) have a ‘Friends of Israel’ sub-party. The ‘pincer movement’ is applied by backing both (or all) sides, ensuring that Jews will always be on the winning one.

This indeed is combined with ‘Attack the Hindmost’ in our supposed democratic elections. Jewish donors provide campaign funds for the various candidates. Each candidate competes to some degree in showing deference to Israel, but since all are funded, any candidate requires a large campaign chest to run. Should a candidate be unfavourable to Jewish interests he will be deprived of funding, excluding him from the race. Unless that is, he is very wealthy and able to finance his own campaign.

In 2007 David Abrahams, a Jewish lawyer, used proxies to donate to multiple Labour candidates in the election campaign for the position of Deputy Prime Minister. This is notable because it was a single individual financing multiple candidates, and a specific example of this strategy.

4. Being killed by comfort

As Sun Tzu said, we must also know ourselves, and another adversary is within us. We need to be aware of our weaknesses. This is not to say that we are defective – our losses in the battle to date are not particularly due to our failures but to exploitation of our virtues. For example, projection, when we project our nature onto others. This has certain benefits. However it can be a serious flaw, because we are naturally trusting. We tend to assume others are worthy of trust when they are not.

The unwelcome fact is that we have become soft. We live in a world of plentiful food (historically very cheap), central heating and as much visual entertainment as we have time for. Imagine going back in time to the early days of radio and telling people about the scores of film and television channels available today! A few decades before that and they simply would not have believed you.

Many of us have become “addicted to pleasure.” Not only that, hardships and adversities which were commonplace before are now regarded as calamitous. The death of a child, financial ruin, death in war and a host of other travails were practically routine in former, harsher times. Families could have seven children and only see three of them survive to adulthood.

We are being killed by comfort. So sedate and apathetic have we become that almost anything can be done to us without provoking righteous anger. In hardier times men would have revolted against such impositions as being prohibited from smoking in a pub or bus shelter, never mind the politically enabled invasion of our country.

Luxury problems

There is a theory that we have a constant “worry level.” In this view, people will spend perhaps 5% of their time worrying, practically regardless of their circumstances. A housewife might worry about having the right change to pay a bill, or her son’s exam results. Her husband might worry about his standing with his boss at work, or the service his car needs. Only when a real crisis occurs, such as an accident or death, will these worries be seen for the quite trivial concerns they really are.

People spend a great deal of effort trying to make everything around them “just so.” There are thousands of retired folk with more money than they know what to do with, and air travel is so cheap that many take several foreign holidays a year.

One consequence of this is that people are unwilling to endure discomfort or disturbance. Taking on an arduous or tiresome task is too much to ask of many people, even for a cause they wholeheartedly agree with. Then what can happen is that those who are willing to make a sacrifice end up taking on more than their share, and having an inordinate number of tasks piled on them.

It’s no coincidence that this is another reinforcing cycle; it’s a very powerful rule, kind of like the inverse-square law in reverse. Once the small number of “willing horses” appreciate their solitude, they cease to become willing. Otherwise they could be flogged to death. Similarly in industry, dominated now by ‘Elf and Safety.’ The few men left who are prepared to take a risk soon end up taking all the risks for their entire industry. Shortly they think, Why should I?

No-one has any difficulty doing what they want to. Real work, to my mind, is the effort required to do something one would rather not. I was shocked when an active nationalist once told me that he never does anything he doesn’t want to. This is the philosophy of a spoiled child. How can one achieve anything worthwhile in this world, with this philosophy? Of course some nationalist activities are enjoyable, but that should be a bonus, not a condition.

One cannot do everything, or maybe even a lot, but doing something is infinitely better than doing nothing. In any case, events are likely to unfold in the future which force us to toughen up.

‘The Queen is most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Woman’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feeling and propriety. Lady Amberley ought to get a good whipping. It is a subject which makes the Queen so furious that she cannot contain herself. God created men and women different – then let them remain each in their own position. Tennyson has some beautiful lines on the difference of men and women in ‘The Princess.’ Woman would become the most hateful, heartless, and disgusting of human beings were she allowed to unsex herself; and where would be the protection which man was intended to give the weaker sex?’ Queen Victoria (1870)

‘At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of snivelling brats.’

P. J. O’Rourke

      Main Directory      

–– The Heretical Press ––