23 January 2015

How to fight the Crime Insurgency in South Africa - Part Two – A closer look at an insurgency

By Mike Smith

23rd of January 2015

What is an insurgency?

To find a definition of what exactly an insurgency is, is difficult. Here we have the moral relativism problem of “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Basically “An insurgency is a rebellion against a recognized government by non-belligerents.”

The US Field Manual 3-24 on Counter Insurgency says: “An insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region.”

I have a problem with that definition. I do not believe that the insurgent is after political control at least not as we understand political control, but more on that later.

My definition…Simply put: “An insurgency is an illegitimate claim to power over a sovereign nation by a group of thugs”,

…but the thugs want you to believe that those in power are illegally there and that they (the insurgents) are the legitimate ones and the “good guys”.

Who and what is the Marxist Criminal and his goals?

The Marxist insurgent is a cowardly criminal and a psychopathic thug. He wants what is legally yours. He wants your house, your car, all your wealth, your wife and your country with all its wealth. He will use any and all means to get it. He likes to play the victim, the small guy, the innocent, the oppressed, the morally superior and the just.

Like a typical skilled manipulating psychopath he often succeeds in getting public sympathy.

His goals are selfish not political. He has no “Great Political Cause”. It is just a deception, a lie and a front. He wants power for self-enrichment. He does not want political power to exercise good governance. He is a murderer and a thief. There is nothing noble about that.

Playing the victim and obtaining public sympathy

Think about it like this: If you see a big strong guy beating up a child or a woman, you will immediately, without knowing the facts, think that the big guy is evil and the weak one is the victim.

In fact you will probably try to protect the perceived victim, stop the fight and show your solidarity with the weaker one. This trait is human. Psychopaths know this only too well and use it to get public sympathy and support. Truth is that the bigger person could be the victim of a cowardly attack by a psycho posing as the weak victim.

This brings us to the dilemma of the soldier fighting the Counter Insurgency. He wants to be brave and prove himself.

The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than you are. If you are strong and fighting the weak and you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot.

No matter how clean you try to fight and stick to all the rules. No matter how righteous you try to appear, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal. There is simply no escaping this dilemma.

We have learned this lesson in Namibia, the Israelis have learned it against the Palestinians and the Americans have learned it in Vietnam.

What is the strategy of an insurgent?

Ultimately the insurgent wants you to lose your will to fight so you give up what is yours.

The insurgent knows that most normal people hate conflict. People do not like violence and fighting and will try to avoid it as far as possible. Most people will only fight when absolutely no other choice exists. Therefore the insurgent uses violence to get what he wants. This is the basis of Mao’s 20/80 principle that an insurgency is 20% war and 80% politics. More on this later.

The insurgent wants to prolong the fight so he can wear you down. He wants others to see how aggressive you are, how you beat him up, so that they will question you and put pressure on you to stop fighting him, “the timid, smaller guy”.

The insurgent wants you to question your own morality in fighting him. When you become disgusted with your own actions, you will lose your will to fight and he will take what is yours, because you will give up what is not worth protecting anymore.

The insurgent can lose all the battles and still win the war, when you lose your will to fight.

That is how insurgents managed to defeat first France and then the USA in Vietnam. That is how they managed to take all the countries south of the Sahara including Rhodesia, Namibia and now South Africa.

The insurgent is not in a hurry. Trường Chinh, second in command to Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, wrote in his “Primer for Revolt”:

“The guiding principle of the strategy for our whole resistance must be to prolong the war. To protract the war is the key to victory. Why must the war be protracted? ... If we throw the whole of our forces into a few battles to try to decide the outcome, we shall certainly be defeated and the enemy will win. On the other hand, if while fighting we maintain our forces, expand them, train our army and people, learn military tactics ... and at the same time wear down the enemy forces, we shall weary and discourage them in such a way that, strong as they are, they will become weak and will meet defeat instead of victory.”

What are the tactics used by the insurgents?

This article does not have enough space to put down the details of all the tactics of the insurgents, so I will only mention a few relative ones.

Appearing weak when you are strong is one of the tactics of Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” and at least 2500 years old.

For the insurgency to be successful the insurgent needs a safe border that he can withdraw behind. He will fight from a sympathetic neighbours turf.

Also essential to the success of the insurgency is the initiative.

When a woman walks down the street with her handbag, the thief has the initiative. He will pick the right moment and place to strike. He will strike when least expected and he will be successful. The terrorist who plants the bomb has the initiative of exactly where and when he wants to explode it. He wants to maintain this initiative.

Think about it like this: No matter how well you are armed, how well you are trained, how strong or how quick you think you are…you have weaknesses. You have to sleep. You have to go to the toilet. You do not have eyes in the back of your head. It is exactly at that point that the terrorist will stab you from behind.

The insurgent will form small groups or “cells” operating independently or together when needs be.

Through terror, the insurgent will coerce and intimidate the local population into supporting and protecting him. He hides amongst them. Ché Guevara would arrive at a village and try to recruit fighters. If they refused he would go away and return two days later with his soldiers dressed up in government forces uniforms. He would then rape, pillage and destroy and disappear again. The next day he would return again as the “Saviour Rebel Leader” and now would have hundreds willing to join his “cause” and feed his army.

The insurgent uses terror to attack the civilian population who expects the government security forces (army police, etc) to protect them. A government that cannot protect its citizens forfeits its right to rule. When they feel the government cannot protect them anymore, they become demoralized will put pressure on the government revolt or simply move away. All the easier for the insurgent to take the land and take over the government.

The ANC in the early 1990’s did all of this. They called it “People’s War”.

The insurgent is not interested in a fair fight under Queensbury rules. He will also use cowardly terror attacks on government forces to force them to withdraw.

If you think terrorist attacks in an insurgency are not successful, think again. The October 1983 suicide attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, for example, convinced the United States to withdraw its soldiers from Lebanon.

The United States pulled its soldiers out of Saudi Arabia two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 after building their troops up there for over a decade.

The Philippines recalled its troops from Iraq nearly a month early after a Filipino truck driver was kidnapped by Iraqi extremists.

The myths of an insurgency

There are many myths and misconceptions about insurgencies. It starts in the definitions and ends in military generals holding on to beliefs even if they have failed over and over. They learn nothing from the past and keep repeating the same mistakes. They overestimate the opinions of so-called “experts” and underestimate the opinions of others.

I fully agree with Martin van Creveld that most literature on insurgencies can be ignored. The most useless manual on Counter Insurgency is probably this one:

US Army field manual on COIN FM3-24

It can basically be summed up as such: “Beat your opponent down to the ground, break down his house, help him to his feet, rebuild his house, tell him where he can sit and where he can stand…and expect him to see you as his best friend”. Voila!

Further…It makes bullshit statements like this one:

“In all cases, insurgents aim to force political change; any military action is secondary and subordinate, a means to an end.”

Political change? …Military action is secondary and subordinate?


A corruption of the Pareto Principle - 20/80 in Counter Insurgency

General Jannie Geldenhuys repeated this Communist nonsense from above in his book “At the front” that an insurgency is 80% political and 20% war. He probably did not understand that you have to take it from whence it comes.

He got that from arch Communist Mao Tse Tung as cited in the book “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice” by Lt. Col. David Galula (1964) a French Jew who fought in the WWII French resistance and later in Algeria.

But where do the Marxists originally get this rubbish from? It is a corruption of the The Pareto Principle named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) who also coined the term “The Elite”. Pareto noticed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population “The Elite”.

People have applied the Pareto Principle to many other fields such as in business that 80% of your profit comes from 20% of your customers.

This 80% thing gets thrown around whenever people lack real statistical facts or evidence.

For instance, in South Africa, we often hear the lie from the Marxists ANC and EFF that 80% of the land is owned by 40,000 white South African families as the EFF’s Commissar for Land Revolution told Richard Branson in an open letter.

This of course utter rubbish. Do 40,000 whites own 80% of SA? The claim is incorrect

And so the Pareto Principle also found its way into asymmetrical warfare and was adopted by Mao Tse-tung.

You have to understand that the insurgents and the counter insurgents see this principle from completely different viewpoints.

For Mao, the “political” side was just a continuation of the war. He knew that people normally shy away from violence so he uses it to get them to negotiate. People will give away everything just to stop the violence. So for him indeed the violence was just a means to an end.

For Geldenhuys (and other western generals who misinterpreted the 20/80 principle) it meant the war was a half-hearted attempt and actually the job of the politicians. The politicians would have to do 80% of the work (that means talking) and the Generals only 20%. The politicians eventually would have to negotiate with the Communists and then the general can relax, because his job is done.

If a General really believes that his job is only 20% of the fight, then the nation is doomed and the insurgents will win. Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa are testimonies to this.

I strongly disagree with this belief that the insurgency is 80% political (talking), because the assumption is made that you can actually reason with unreasonable psychopaths.

A so-called “Political solution” means sitting around a table and negotiating with Marxist terrorists (more talking). It is futile.

Marxist terrorists are psychopaths and do not understand diplomacy. To them a political cause is a front. What they want is absolute power so they can steal and rape to their hearts content. A Satanic, Communist heaven. When you show them that you are willing to engage in politics, negotiations and diplomacy, they smell weakness and go for the jugular.

To the Marxist psycho it is a binary decision. He wants what is yours or he carries on fighting. You don’t want to carry on fighting so you give him what is yours. Eventually you negotiate your entire country away. Simple as that. You think he is going to stop when he has what is yours? Think again…He won’t stop until you are dead.

Just beating him on the battle field does not help you have to completely DESTROY the insurgent

Even if you have beaten him on the battle field in every fight and think that you have proved to him that you are stronger and he should give up the fight, he will only pretend to. He will sign any and all peace treaties and later break them all again. Whatever it takes to get what he wants. He cannot share power. He must have it all. He will go for it only to get a foot in the door and then continue his “struggle” until you are gone and he plays Solo man.

Mugabe broke every single stipulation of the Lancaster House Agreement. He basically wiped his arse with it. In the time since independence, the Lancaster House Agreement was modified and changed more than 27 times. He refused power sharing with Ian Smith or Joshua Nkomo.

The same in South Africa. The ANC broke all the CODESA agreements. Where are the Afrikaner’s own schools and own universities? Where is the equal status of Afrikaans and all other languages? Where is the right to Afrikaner self determination?

Of all the “Checks and balances” F.W. de Klerk assured us of, nothing came. The ANC does what it wants. The Government of National Unity failed spectacularly and the whites of South Africa became political orphans dwelling in the wilderness of liberal ideology.

You are not dealing with normal people here. I cannot say it enough. Marxists terrorists are dishonest, unethical, and immoral, scum. Forget about a political solution with insurgents. The solution is 100% militarily. Politicians should get out of the way and let the military do its thing. The military should give 100%. The only way to have peace is to kill every last one of the insurgents. If you let even one cockroach live, he will lay his eggs and start a colony again.


  1. Anonymous11:06 am


    Mike in your first intro article into this series you mentioned we won all the battles but lost the war.

    I have to say though - 1990 was a truce from the ANC side to get into power and we bought it. The war isnt over yet nor has the final battle happened.

    So far the war on the ground and politically speaking is being won by the enemy but the battle rages on. When the white sheeple realize that this is a war cause no one is counting or checking statistic of murders (geez i wonder why they arnt doing that?) then the final battle to see who is victor in this war will begin.

    1990 in my mind was a truce from the ANC - and we said ok no problem you can rule so long blah blah blah

    They said sure - we will rule but will make some tiny changes blah blah blah and the battle continued in disguise out of sight out of mind but the final battle is yet to be decided which will decide who won the war.

    We won the battles outside of our country and ended the war due to international pressure/sanctions.

    We are still fighting the battle inside but blindfoldedly as you mention.

    In my mind its not over.

    We will see who wins when they start taking the land and plunge this place into complete anarchy at that stage the sheeple will huddle together and wake up and then when these sheeple wake up - i feel very sorry for the other side.

    When you realize your shop that you visit all the time has been ripping you off all along, all these years, you dont walk in to discuss it nicely with the shopkeeper, you run in grab him by his neck and drag him through the shop....

    The sheeple have blinkers on.....

  2. Anonymous11:53 am


  3. Anonymous12:13 pm

    Quote: "You are not dealing with normal people here. I cannot say it enough. Marxists terrorists are dishonest, unethical, and immoral, scum"

    We had McBride fumble a couple of words at the TRC hearings, and Tutu helped him to say the right things, and all is forgiven. Then we have Dr Basson who has been found NOT GUILTY by the High, Supreme and Constitutional courts, yet nearly 10 years later the HPSCA are still fighting him.
    Surely this is a joke. Surely, the "checks and balances" in our Constitution protects this man. Why is this man not allowed to continue his practice and be left in peace?
    De Klerk, my f@k, waar is jy wanneer jy vir jou mense moet verduidelik???
    Wigte of teenwigte, moes eintlik gewees het: Kul you hier, kul jou daar.


    1. Anonymous11:34 pm

      Get over the constitution, it is nothing more than the commie manifesto with different words.

    2. De Klerk? he is living the good life with his handler.

  4. Anonymous2:05 pm


    Mike regarding this...

    “The guiding principle of the strategy for our whole resistance must be to prolong the war. To protract the war is the key to victory. Why must the war be protracted? ... If we throw the whole of our forces into a few battles to try to decide the outcome, we shall certainly be defeated and the enemy will win. On the other hand, if while fighting we maintain our forces, expand them, train our army and people, learn military tactics ... and at the same time wear down the enemy forces, we shall weary and discourage them in such a way that, strong as they are, they will become weak and will meet defeat instead of victory.”

    I have heard US generals and fighters say the only reason they lost the war was because every battle they fought the vietnamese would cross borders into china/neighboring countries.

    Many felt ristricted by the rules of war of what they were allowed to do. If they could have fought the same war without red tape, rules set out by the UN those vietnamese would never have survived but there is another side to war as well which is out of the context with what you are writing about.

    Perhaps the art of the 20th/21st century is not so much to win but to bankrupt and finance - the borrow is slave to the lender. Vietnam had toget finance after this war and who better to get it from than the US.

    Same with our sanctions - who were the first companies to setup shop here and the first to whack us with sanctions?

    War is war and with savages women and children are not off the table so to speak - all savages must go

  5. Anonymous2:11 pm


    Me again Mike

    Of all the “Checks and balances” F.W. de Klerk assured us of, nothing came. The ANC does what it wants. The Government of National Unity failed spectacularly and the whites of South Africa became political orphans dwelling in the wilderness of liberal ideology.
    Mike this is why i said the battle/war is not over.

    They broke the truce so the battle/war continues. They realize it, while the white sheeple havent woken up yet to this fact.

    If they had not broken their truce then i could say they won or we atleast ended it but since they broke it - we can therefore assume that the battle is on again and who ever wins this battle will win the war that started in the 1960s and as we know stems back to the forming of the ANC when we were under British rule.

    Mike but is not the military also part of this insurgency, i mean if they control the cops, army, everything thing in this land then, how would they bring the army in?

    When the masses wake up to this new stage of warfare then the battle will be on...

    And the reality is many are waking up, all one has to do is look at how the rise of "racial incidents" have occurred over the past year or so

  6. Anonymous2:16 pm

    Just .39 Cents - Saturday Night Live


    Regards, Besoeker

  7. Anonymous4:16 pm

    Ok let's say the whites start fighting back and fight back good, who will the big players in the world side with? The BRICS nations have Russia as their mother, NATO/EU and the US would want to maintain their liberal belief around the world, and side with the perceived victims - the African black. No country in the world would want to side with the "racists" and supply them arms. I think no conservative white in South Africa wants to make deals with the devil again. There needs to be a paradigm shift worldwide before any attempt can be made.

    Once this fight for freedom starts a blitz is necessary and the head structure of this viper must be cut off ASAP. The moral loss will be crushing to these terrorists.

    1. Anonymous9:12 pm

      TRue what you say there, a world paradigm will have to occur, a change in doctrine will have to happen worldwide before it can change in SA.

  8. Well... I don't think I've ever seen so much wisdom in so few words.

  9. Anonymous10:50 pm

    The following is an interview in 1971 with Ian smith of Rhodesia whom suggest s that the black dissidents in his country are communist agitators.


    It is interesting to note that while his sensible answers give logical reasoning to the political structures of white Africans at the time, these types of answers have never been brought to whites outside of African shores. The only narrative we ever heard was the poor black man of Africa was deni d his home and being downtrodden.. In away the insurgents have being successful in structuring what the narrative should be and the truth considered both irrelevant and racist.

  10. Anonymous11:24 pm

    We need a rally point, something or someone to rally behind, without that we are lost.

    1. Anonymous4:02 am

      Here You go... It is also a nice alternative to the rugby gods that you serve

    2. Anonymous11:45 am

      Hahaha almost fell off my chair laughing

    3. Anonymous10:42 am

      @Anon 4:02 Sorry don't like rugby much, try again little one.

    4. @ Anon 10:42 AM.

      You know what mate, I find your comment childish. Do you have any idea of how East Germans brought down the wall? They did not hold gatherings and invited people to come and listen to them...The went TO the gatherings. They went to the churches where people were gathered and spoke to them. They went to the football matches and spoke to the crowd.

      Afrikaners should wake up and learn from the former East Germans how it is done.

      You have all these Afrikaans festivals where thousands of Afrikaners congregate along with the Media...why is nobody speaking to the people?

      Wake the fuck up and study how revolutions get started.