As a partisan political weapon, lawfare is the penalization and literal criminalization of dissent from the ruling order. For years, through a series of largely uncoordinated – but ideologically homogeneous – actions, the Radical Left has been weaponizing the American judicial system with the aim of enforcing racio-cultural norms, and specifically the destruction of the white race, by actively seeking to not only ostracize dissidents, but to punish them as well. By definition, a dissident is one who challenges the establishment, and as such, those of us on the Dissident Right are precisely those people that lawfare seeks to destroy by whatever means possible. Thus, it’s not unfair to state that lawfare is the bane of any and all politics which orient even slightly right of center. Compounding matters further is the fact that the process of juridification (i.e., the over-proliferation of laws) has transformed the contemporary Western world into one which is overly zealous in its effete litigiousness.
Throughout the entirety of the European world, the oft-touted concept of the “rule of law” has become not only a twisted perversion of its former self, but has been weaponized against the white race under the auspices of lawfare. Traditionally speaking, the term “rule of law” refers to the authority – and thus the influence – that law exerts over a people or society. By design, laws are intended to constrain behavior through a system of rules, but when the system of law itself has become corrupted and transformed into a fourth-generational weapon of war, injustice and chaos is always the eventual result. In the Western philosophical canon, both Plato and Aristotle argued that the possibility of excess, and thus of the tyranny of the rule of law, is a very real thing, and that more specifically, when a law or a series of laws becomes corrupted, they are by nature unjust. As Aristotle wisely stated, “law is order, and good law is good order,” hence lawfare is a corrupting force which has rendered the Western legal systems unjust.
Charles Dunlap, who is widely regarded as being the one who coined the term “lawfare,” defines it as the use of law as a weapon of war. War can obviously be either offensive or defensive, but those of us on the Dissident Right have found ourselves on the defensive. As a movement we’ve only been using lawfare as a means of defense, when in reality, like the Radical Left we should be deploying it as needed, on an ad-hoc basis, for purposes both offensive and defensive. In order to regain the strategic initiative, we must recapture the offensive, and lawfare is one way to do that.
Lawfare, through the deceptive guise of “rule of law,” has dragooned the idiomatic antithesis which exists between the “spirit” or intent of the law and the “letter” or written word of the law. In point of fact, up until very recently, the great Western legal tradition and its jurisprudential predecessors, whether those based on Common or Civil law, operated under the underlying principle that it was the spirit or purpose of the law which should remain sacrosanct. For example, in the American context, the framers of the Constitution, specifically in the various “Federalist Papers,” argued that the founding documents of the US should be interpreted according to their “spirit,” or underlying purpose and intent, rather than through a literal interpretation of the explicated text, thus opening the door for the Radical Left. The purpose of all law is to serve, maintain, and protect; when it fails to provide these very basic elements to those beholden to it, it becomes a mockery of itself and is thus able to be manipulated through the use of creative lawfare. Thus, “rule of law,” so often spouted off by establishment Conservative, Inc. types, is Orwellian doublespeak for “accept the status quo or else,” particularly as it relates to the Dissident Right.
The debate surrounding “birthright citizenship” as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the American Constitution perfectly illustrates the dichotomy between the “letter” and the “spirit” of the law, and how the blurring of the lines between the two has radically transformed American law so as to render it inert with regards to the pursuit of actual justice. At the time it was enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment simply granted freedom to the recently manumitted African slaves following the end of the Civil War, but in more recent years it has been used to justify demographically suicidal immigration and citizenship policies, its “spirit” and even its “letter” having been altered in large part due to unbridled radical Leftist activism in the American judiciary. Jacob M. Howard, the now tangentially famous author of the “citizenship clause” section of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated quite explicitly and articulately that the recently formulated amendment didn’t apply to individuals beholden to other nations in terms of national allegiance and legal jurisdiction. In more practical terms, this means that citizens of other countries – such as, say, the economic migrant from central Honduras – cannot become American citizens, as they are beholden to the civic and legal sovereignty of another state. Technically speaking, the offspring of said Honduran immigrant couldn’t become American citizens, either, regardless of where they are born.
Given the present degenerative state of America, it’s not all that surprising that the Fourteenth Amendment itself expressly mentions these things, albeit in slightly ambiguous language, but that this is nevertheless unequivocally ignored and surreptitiously manipulated by the establishment. Senator Lyman Trumbull, another figure instrumental in drafting it, stated quite categorically that the “citizenship clause” should be interpreted such that citizens are individuals “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” At present, both the “spirit” and the “letter” of the Fourteenth Amendment are being completely ignored by the coercive force of lawfare. As A. Graham points out in his aptly titled article, “The Original Congressional Debate on Birthright Citizenship,” it wasn’t until the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 that the notion of birthright citizenship was even addressed at all, and prior to that, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania voiced concern that the amendment should be worded more precisely so as not to entice hordes of immigrants to come to our shores in the hopes of gaining American citizenship for their children.
The above should illuminate why the argument that there is an antithesis between the “letter” versus the “spirit” of the law is in reality nothing but a poor attempt at Kabuki theater being used to distract from the real issues. Saul Alinsky, author of the monumentally influential Rules for Radicals, wrote quite unabashedly that the ultimate objective of the Left is power – power by any means. Power is the medium through which societal transformation is possible, and the Left seeks to rule through transformation. Thus, the debates surrounding the “letter” and the “spirit” of the law and of the nature of the American Constitution (i.e., the “living” versus “textualist” debate) are in actuality nothing but fodder for the “Great Unwashed.” Contrary to the contemporary protestations of the Radical Left, these debates have never truly been about Constitutional interpretation, but rather about power and the quest for profound civilizational transformation. In both theory and practice, the concept of lawfare is a tool to destroy or delegitimize so as to gain power and thus catalyze transformation. The Radical Left vacillates its positions in all things, from the power of the federal government versus the rights of individual states, to racial equality for all, to racial equality for all but those of European heritage, solely for the pursuit of power. As others have correctly posited, not only is this hyper-pragmatic position extremely disingenuous, but it is also emblematic of the level of the cognitive and philosophical dissonance present within the collective psyche of the Radical Left. In a highly revealing fashion, Don Lemon, an “anchor” for CNN, exemplified this when he stated that “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the Right, and we have to start doing something about them.” According to Don Lemon we shouldn’t “demonize people” unless those concerned are “white men” “radicalized to the Right,” and thus persona non grata.
For an interminable period of time, the Dissident Right has been crippled by lawfare, ranging from absurdly frivolous litigation to the more recent waves of deplatforming. The time for recovering the initiative is nigh. Along these lines, several days ago a young man named David Wu began promoting the idea that sex workers – specifically, sex workers who charge users a fee for access to their lewd premium Snapchats – should be reported to the Internal Revenue Service for tax fraud. Mr. Wu and several of his compatriots went one step further and posted step-by-step instructions so that anyone can report sex workers committing tax fraud (which is in essence all sex workers) via the IRS Form 3949-A.
I’m not advocating some kind of puritanical revolution, but I am advocating that this should be done – in the words and “spirit” of Saul Alinsky – for acquiring power. As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “This world is the will to power – and nothing besides!” In evolutionary theory, there are two main types of aggression, reactive and proactive, and in relation to the Hobbes-Huxley paradigm, it is the latter which is more adaptive and thus transformative of the two. To phrase things more simply, in order for our movement, and in turn for our race, to progress, we must once again become proactive and aggressively pursue our own collective racio-cultural interests. As Michael Polignano wrote in Taking Our Own Side, as a people and a race, we dwindling few of European descent must take our own side in all racio-ethnic conflicts, and proactive, aggressive lawfare is one such tool to be added to our rapidly expanding arsenal.
Of course, the Dissident Right has enjoyed some marginal success in the realm of lawfare already. The success of Jared Taylor v. Twitter comes to mind, but his was a minor victory and purely defensive in nature; Mr. Taylor and the New Century Foundation sued Twitter only after being removed from the platform. Nevertheless, most of what little success the Dissident Right has enjoyed in lawfare has been of this type, with our side committing the folly which has plagued “conservatism” for decades – i.e., the defense of that which is already lost. This strategy is only a forestalling of the inevitable: the total collapse of European civilization. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote, the Radical Left relies considerably upon the “exploitation of envy,” and as envy and its foul sister, discontent, are peculiar to the human condition, this duo represents a bastion of unending ammunition for those who will never stop until the white race is extinct. With an enemy this virulent in its hatred and hypocrisy, a more bellicose approach to lawfare must be undertaken.
The action undertaken by David Wu and his compatriots represents a return to the robust type of offensive action analogous to the valorous martial spirit of the white race. The “New World” wasn’t conquered and the Moon reached by a taciturn, passive people, but by a vigorous and aggressive one. The Faustian soul of European man is always gazing ahead – a gaze always on the lookout for an opportunity to attack. As Sun Tzu wrote, “Attack is the secret of defense; defense is the planning of an attack,” and as such incorporating lawfare into the arsenal of the White Nationalist revolutionary is of critical importance.
The IRS isn’t something that many of us on the Dissident Right look fondly upon, yet by utilizing it towards our own ends and objectives, we are exercising the offensive historical agency intrinsic to both the greatness and uniqueness of all European peoples. In Plato’s Republic it is injustice which causes strife, and its inverse, justice, foments peace and harmony. Unlike the Radical Left, we on the Dissident Right seek power not for the nihilistic ends of global capital, but as a means for the perpetuation of our people. Our cause is noble and just, and in true Platonic form, it will eventually lead to greater peace and prosperity via increased civilizational homogeneity and stability.
More saliently, the reporting of sex workers to the IRS, should those who do so publicly identify themselves on the requisite paperwork, does offer the reporter a financial reward, namely a percentage of the taxes once they are recovered, which could be used to better oneself or the movement as a whole. Theoretically, the IRS could collect millions of dollars of back tax revenue from proactive Dissident Rightists reporting sex workers, and the financial benefit and ensuing publicity gains could be astronomical. Additionally, David Wu and others, like the rather contemptible Roosh, aren’t exactly epitomes of Aryan racial purity, but nevertheless are performing a much-needed service and should be commended for it. Moreover, it’s important that others, especially our fellow racial kinfolk, retake the initiative and begin launching actions similar to the “Great Thot Purge of 2018.” Innovation and ingenuity are the hallmarks of the white race, and over the long term have been the key to our racio-cultural success. As such, we as a people and a movement should seek new and inventive vectors as a means of working towards the acquisition of power.
The juridification of twenty-first century warfare is an inescapable reality. The Dissident Right has been victimized by rampant lawfare by the establishment and its vanguard-in-arms, the Radical Left, for decades, and thus needs to begin to better defend itself against such assaults. Moreover, as a people, we’ve been on the defensive for far too long, and through the revitalization of white ingenuity and innovation, and thus a reversion to our time-tested ancestral traditions, we can reverse this trend. The creative use of lawfare as a transfiguration of the European martial spirit brings us one step closer towards reclaiming our ancestral birthright.
 Aristotle, Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
 Kurt T. Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
 Friedrich Nietzsche (ed. By Anthony M. Ludovici), The Will to Power (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2006).