PDA

View Full Version : The Doctrine of Thulean Warfare, a primer



Fenris
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 09:37 PM
The Doctrine of Thulean Warfare, a primer
by Fenris
In keeping with the musings and thoughts I've been inspired with recently, I thought it time to present a more martial aspect, to go alongside the political and spiritual ideology, thus for your reading pleasure I present the Doctrine of Thulean Warfare. Please bear in mind that what is presented herein comes from my personal interpretations and thoughts, I am by no means declaring myself an expert on warfare or modern military tactics. I am posting this more in the vein of what I believe would work insofar as adopting unconventional warfare methodology rather than adhering to ethical restraints like the Geneva Convention and acting as though ones enemy deserves to be treated well.
Introduction:
Warfare is a consistently evolving organism, having been one of the core driving factors of the scientific progress of mankind. Mankind has been at odds with itself since the first time two strangers laid eyes upon one another, and persists unto this day as an important part of the human way.
First we had primitive man, with his sticks and stones, and even his bare fists, then, as the warrior spirit of man grew, it developed new weapons with which to maim and kill its counterparts, thus came the sling, the dart, the javelin, blowgun, sword and axe. Then as man advanced once more, and became ever more a builder and innovator, we discovered the catapult, the ballista, the onager and the trebuchet. Mankind ever grew bigger and grander in his doctrine of destruction, and once the advent of gunpowder arrived, the honour of close, personal combat slowly came to an end.
Alongside the development of tools of warfare came the development of regimented structure, warriors advanced from simple hordes of men with sharp sticks to carefully-organised units of closely knit troops, and thus came the phalanx, the testudo, and the shield wall. Formations and tactics arose, turning what once was little more than two groups of armed individuals with no organisation and no structure into something far more versatile. Granted, warfare with unit formation and strong cohesion was an important thing, but as mankind progressed once more into newer methods of warfare, guerilla tactics took precedence over careful formation, and camouflage replaced the proud colours of ones homeland, highlighted more profoundly than anywhere else that immediately springs to my mind by the defeat of the English by the colonial Americans. The might of the British Empire was ground to a halt by a bunch of trappers, hunters and woodsmen who struck from forest and brush, decimating the strictly regimented formations of the English and finally bringing to an end the millennia-old practice of classical warfare.
Therein lie some of the fundaments of the Doctrine of Thulean Warfare: Adaptation, advancement, and breaking from convention.
To successfully combat conventional warfare, one must be unconventional; and to defeat an enemy, one must break him utterly and without remorse. No pity nor quarter should be given ones foe, for he means you harm, thus humanitarian ethics and conventions must be discarded to allow for the complete and total subjugation or annihilation of ones foe. It has worked since time immemorial for mankind, as it has the animal kingdom - and we at our basest are animals of a sort.
Thusly, I present first a few points to set the spirit of what I describe, some of which may simply be hashing over aeons-old edicts, though I've made no claim to be a learned scholar of ancient or modern warfare, I am simply positing my own ideas as they have come to me, for discussion by my fellow Skadites so I may improve upon what is written.
1: One must instill in ones people the fact that the enemy seeks to obliviate all that they know, all that they hold dear. The enemy is just that, an enemy, there should be no sympathy, no pity, no love lost. Sympathy for ones foe is sel-destructive, it breeds contempt for ones own military, and creates internal weakness which will be exploited by a savvy enemy. Here, propaganda works wonders, especially propaganda that strikes upon the things ones people hold dear as being threatened.
2: Hatred is a powerful, driving force and will galvanise both your people and your military, thus one must demonise his foe, one must instill a hatred that runs to the very core in the heart of ones people for the enemy. Here too propaganda is important, for both ensuring ones people know irrefutably that the enemy is just that, AND by instilling hatred towards the enemy in the hearts of the people, one ensures that all will work toward the common good.
3: Fear is demoralising, fear makes men do foolish things, fear makes men careless and irrational, thus one should ensure ones foe fears him with all their heart. Terror tactics should not only be employed, but encouraged. Here is where carefully calculated psychological tactics should be employed, from uniforms/armour designed to be imposing and threatening, to tactics and weapons whose use create panic and terror such as flamethrowers, fuel air explosives and biological and chemical agents.
4: There is no such thing as humane warfare, thus the edicts and strictures of such influences as the Geneva Convention have no place in war. Offering succour to ones foe is as foolish and dangerous as offering him a knife to plunge into your back for your sympathy. There is no sense in outlawing effective and proven tactics or weapons simply because they do their job efficiently.
5: It is not merely soldiers who are at war, but civilians too. Industry should be turned towards fuelling and repairing the military machine first and foremost during times of war, children should be given the first steps of a military education, women should be given training in first aid and the production of munitions and armour.
6: To annihilate, one must subjugate, thus every effort should be made towards ensuring the dominance and supremacy of ones own troops over those of the foe. Where numbers do not suffice to provide overwhelming force, strength of arms must replace it, and where possible, both numbers and force of arms should be provided for.
7: Be strong in your beliefs, do not doubt that what you do is right in defence and advancement of your people. Strong conviction is imperative, for if your troops and your people question their actions and whether or not they are doing the right thing, self-doubt will weaken the folk and bring it to its knees without the enemy having to strike a single blow.
Combat:
Modern war is fought in the streets, in buildings, amidst the trappings of civilisation, and in keeping with the principles of fear and domination, Thulean war doctrine must adhere to these principles. Striking at the heart of the foe relentlessly, one must demoralise, defang, and destroy him. There must be no question of remorse, no hesitation, no pity, only hatred and conviction, for to kill a man, one must hate him, and to live with killing, one must be assured that it was right.
There are many modern tactics for urban warfare but most are aimed at preserving civilians and aimed also at precisely excising insurgents. Not so with the Doctrine of Thulean Warfare, for an enemy is an enemy is an enemy. A civilian is still able to take up arms and engage in partisan activity, a civilian prisoner is a burden upon the people who imprison them, and by allowing the civilian to live, one is allowing the spirit of ones enemy to live. Harsh as it may sound, it is a simple fact. There can be no permanent victory without the obliviation of the enemy in its entirety for the time has long since passed when a nation will bend its knee to an aggressor for long.
Structure:
A military organism should be cellular, the whole should not suffer with the eradication of a part. There should not be overspecialisation, nor should the force be too generic in nature.
The fundament of the Thulean military model could be seen in the manner of a hand, four fingers and a thumb. The fingers making up the rank and file, and the thumb providing the leadership. The multiple of 4+1 can be applied to every level of the military. This however does not include auxiliary support or logistics units, this is the model for the core fighting contingent.
Four men equal a Cadre, plus one Cadre leader (corporal/Obergefreiter)
Four cadres equal a squad, plus one squad leader (sergeant)
Four squads equal a platoon, plus a platoon leader (second lieutenant/Leutnant)
Four platoons equal a company, plus a company leader (first lieutenant/Oberleutnant)
Four companies equal a Battalion, plus a battalion leader (captain/Hauptmann)
Four Battalions equal a Brigade, plus a brigade leader (brigadier general)
Four Brigades equal a Division, plus a division leader (major general/Generalmajor)
Four Divisions equal a Corps, plus a corps leader (lieutenant general/Generalleutnant)
Four Corps equal an Arm, plus an arm leader (Colonel General/Generaloberst)
Four Arms equal a Legion, plus a legion leader (Field Marshall/Generalfeldmarschall)
Four Legions equal an Army, plus an army leader (Grand Marshall/Obermarschall)
Unit Structure:
The structure of individual units and even entire brigades or divisions - if not a corps proper - should be geared in a specific direction, though have basic training in other primary modalities of warfare. FOr example, an Urban Pacification Division would be best served by maintaining arms and armour best suited for an urban environment, and for maximising damage both to property and to populace, while an Anti-Armour division would have a plethora of anti-vehicular armaments.
With the manner in which the four plus one man cadre and thus the twenty plus four squad is organised, there is room for a single squad alone to have sufficient firepower to do considerable damage in whatever task they are set to do. Even if just one man out of every cadre was given a heavy weapon, that is four heavy weapons while the rest were able to - with small arms - protect them as they did their work, further, those not using the heavy weapon would be in a position to tote ammunition for it thus maximising the field potential of heavy weaponry and ensuring that a single squad could devastate, for example, a tank platoon or fixed emplacement through the use of such armaments as rocket launchers.
Example of Armament: Urban Pacification Squad
Returning to the Urban Pacification Division mentioned above, an example of the effectiveness of the single heavy weapon trooper protected by his cadre would be the use of the flamethrower. For close quarters urban pacification, there are few things that can match the sheer horror and fear engendered by a stream of flame that sticks to flesh and refuses to cease burning. Given the closed nature of urban structures, it also makes the flamethrower an extremely viable solution for the clearance of buildings and the employment of demoralising terror tactics. Accompanied by an armoured vehicle with a much larger flamethrower, the potential of a single squad or perhaps platoon for large-scale urban pacification is considerable.
Further, the employment of a simple yet long-discarded method of protection would maximise the damage potential and longevity of an Urban Pacification Squad, the shield. Riot police already employ plastic shields in the manner of the roundshield and testudo, why then should not a military employ their beautifully simple protection?
A squad of shield-equipped troopers would have at their disposal two tactics that hasn't been used in the western world for centuries, the shield wall and the testudo formation, the latter of which would be of considerable worth in this time of snipers in windows and assault rifle-wielding hordes of partisan troops. A shield-equipped squad could set up a formation fully protecting themselves from an onslaught of small-arms fire and return fire from an instantly-erected and instantly-disassembled mobile emplacement. Of course, research into lightweight, munition-proof materials would be a must to counter the employment of jacketed, armour piercing rounds, but in the name of victory, a little financial investment into the protection of ones troops is nothing.
Example of Armament: Anti-Aircraft Squad
Aircraft are a bane to ground troops, able to deliver munitions precisely upon a target from a great distance away, thus to combat the airborne menace, the employment of Anti-Aircraft Squads would be a worthwhile investment insofar as protecting ground troops and armour goes. Equipped with portable satellite-uplinked radar data and man-portable ground-to-air munitions such as guided rockets, an AAS would be able to strike from anywhere - treelines, buildings, etc - while maintaining anonymity and stealth with regards to the airborne threat.
The New Mobile Infantry
"Speed kills," so it is said, and a fast-moving target is harder to acquire than a slow-moving or stationary one, thus where the opportunity presents itself - such as in the contest of rural regions for example - troops should make use of that simple, two-word aphorism. Light troops employing dirt-bikes and heavier-armed troops using buggies would have an advantage over slower-moving troops or vehicles. Buggies with recoilless rifles and machine guns, and dirtbikes with either one or two men - armed with either anti-infantry or anti-vehicular munitions would be able to outmaneuver standard ground forces and deliver decisive blows against said forces.
Questions? Thoughts? Constructive criticism?

Fenris
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 09:38 PM
Apologies for the formatting, for some reason the vB software saw fit to remove every linebreak from my post.

CountBloodSpawn
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 02:53 AM
this looks like a good model for combat, it should be handy being studied and utilized during the beginning of Ragnarok

Requiem
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 09:08 AM
I would consider now the time of ragnarok, the death age, the wolf age, the kali yuga. Mixing of races, castes, gender has no place, loss of ideals, loss of heroism. Now's the time to wage occult warfare upon society through any means possible, or to make sure you don't get wiped out in a China vs US war, bird flu, AIDS, chemical warfare, mass looting and rioting etc.

Deling
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 12:14 PM
It's "poor man's warfare" combined with Fourth Generation Warfare a la America. As such it expresses fundamental truths, which insurgents from Chechnya to Iraq uses against occupation forces.

But what confuses me isn't only that your doctrine combines:
A) "Poor man's warfare" (Guerilla war)
B) Fourth Generation (speed, hi-tech, small multi-weapons grade units, communication perfection)

...but also Clauzewitz' "Total War" (which is expressed in your Seven Points).

What you've written is essentials in the perfect genocide war. The Hutu/Tutsi war in central Africa combined many of these three factors, except the hi-tech. Hutus ordered 3 million bayonets from China, spread them to the militia, which spread accross the country (Rwanda) and on given time carried out Fastest Genocide world record.

Criticism though; much of what you've wrote isn't doctrine, but tactical suggestions. What is doctrine though; 4G Warfare, "poor man's Warfare", "Total Warfare" is a soup that produces a very unethical war, which despite hi-tech would be primitive, democidal and barbaric, not to mention mass annihilation. "Apocalypse War" doctrine, for fundamentalists and End of Days' zealots.

Wjatscheslaw
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 11:07 PM
"Apocalypse War" doctrine, for fundamentalists and End of Days' zealots.
Exactly.
War after which nothing may leave, only ruins. Remember Gernica? Remember Dresden?


I mean that Europeans ought to live in peace as possible. (Oh, that's core of human nature...)

@ Fenris
As abstractions your idea's are exellent.

Fenris
Wednesday, November 16th, 2005, 11:28 PM
Thank you all for your input, and thank you for clearing up the definition, Deling.

Yes, it could be seen as drawing from "poor mans warfare" because that in essence is the position we'd be fighting from should the need arise. We would not be a political juggernaut with a great military industrial complex, we'd be improvising with what we could, consolidating where able, and fighting from a much different stance than we would were we, for example, in the Reich at the start of WW2.

The combination of poor mans warfare, fourth generation warfare AND total war seems to me to be the most sensible approach to the threat of extinction. While I may not have read treatises on the subject or read the actual doctrines mentioned by Deling, as you can see the principles and ideas make perfect sense given the state of the world and with a retrospective view to all the documented wars and skirmishes that have taken place across the globe. We must learn from previous mistakes, take what is valid and effective, and improve further upon it.

A war in defence of ones own people - who are facing annihilation through one means or another - has every right to be barbaric, democidal and unethical. Ethics and genteel behaviour have no place in self preservation, which should involve the use of every tactic and means necessary to ensure survival.

"Exitus Acta Probat": The End Justifies The Means.


While I may not have a collegiate degree in military science, I am glad to see that others agree with what has been said - and Delings post has intrigued me, I shall be tracking down the explanations and such on the doctrines he mentioned, and I take the "what you've written is the essentials of the perfect genocide war" statement as a compliment, as to be honest that was the intent. It's a way of thinking that demands - should matters devolve to the point where it is necessary - utter obliviation of ones foe in defence of ones race and culture.

I'm no firebrand, I'm not sounding a clarion call to arms, I'm simply placing forth my ideas on the tools necessary for victory in such a situation. I think that sooner or later we are going to be backed into a corner from which violent, decisive and absolute action is the only means of liberation. We are being pushed into Ragnarok, in fact it could easily be argued - as Requiem already believes, and rightly so - that we are IN Ragnarok. Brother has slain brother a million times over, World Wars 1 and 2 would be the most poignant examples of that.

Deling
Thursday, November 17th, 2005, 02:08 PM
"The combination of poor mans warfare, fourth generation warfare AND total war seems to me to be the most sensible approach to the threat of extinction. While I may not have read treatises on the subject or read the actual doctrines mentioned by Deling, as you can see the principles and ideas make perfect sense given the state of the world and with a retrospective view to all the documented wars and skirmishes that have taken place across the globe. We must learn from previous mistakes, take what is valid and effective, and improve further upon it."

Your "Thulean warfare" (TW) really need a mass mobilization, and this "outside the state" according to you. Mao Tse-tung's military scripts (found in Collected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, four volymes) and his "People's War" is the first thing that comes to mind: Maoist insurgency, Sendero Luminoso and others - without 4G Warfare.

I've written some semi-poems about 'Warfare Society', with a deconstructed Russian state as its prime force. Eduard Limonov also writes about it in 'Another Russia': Eurasian hi-tech union of communes, not bureaucratic state, slowly expanding west-ward across European world.
TW can't be accomplished in Europe without:
1) A secured "base area" to launch its attacks from.
2) A sort of tribalism (like Teutonic order, Gothic Wandering a.s.o) as Plural-Political model, instead of centralised bureaucratic state.
3) Provinical, not metropolitan, gravitational point.

"A war in defence of ones own people - who are facing annihilation through one means or another - has every right to be barbaric, democidal and unethical. Ethics and genteel behaviour have no place in self preservation, which should involve the use of every tactic and means necessary to ensure survival."

You may be correct, and contemporary examples such as Balkan-Yugoslavian war, the historical cycles of Eastern European civil strifes and uprisings, are proof.
In the European world, there will be civil war inside the Russian Federation (and some other former Soviet Republics) within a few years. It has already begun (Chechnyan/North Caucasian conflict), and will spread to inner Russia. When it happens, half of Russian youth will stand on oligarchy's side, the next on opposition side.
If the war would erupt according to TW, it would fast as hell become filthy, barbaric, murderous (perhaps use of nerve-gas and nuclear weapons against eachother: Russian civil wars earlier have no limits, why would a probable future?).
The only result of such a civil war would be a whole generation wiped-out, even if the outcome would be salvation of the nation. According to your Ragnarök doctrine, it would be worth it: "Kill millions, or billions, for multi-billions of future unborn!".

"While I may not have a collegiate degree in military science, I am glad to see that others agree with what has been said - and Delings post has intrigued me, I shall be tracking down the explanations and such on the doctrines he mentioned, and I take the "what you've written is the essentials of the perfect genocide war" statement as a compliment, as to be honest that was the intent. It's a way of thinking that demands - should matters devolve to the point where it is necessary - utter obliviation of ones foe in defence of ones race and culture.

I'm no firebrand, I'm not sounding a clarion call to arms, I'm simply placing forth my ideas on the tools necessary for victory in such a situation. I think that sooner or later we are going to be backed into a corner from which violent, decisive and absolute action is the only means of liberation. We are being pushed into Ragnarok, in fact it could easily be argued - as Requiem already believes, and rightly so - that we are IN Ragnarok. Brother has slain brother a million times over, World Wars 1 and 2 would be the most poignant examples of that."

If TW would be implemented, European Kain will slay European Abel a few times more. TW is impossible to implement in Europe, most likely it would be used by a strong China in the future: hi-tech, 200 million-man in arms, no pardon, world-domination. In essence: State-TW.
In Europe, only Russia has the space to create a "base-area" necessary for TW Ragnarök. In essence: non-centralized TW.

What can't be forgotten is that "TOTAL WAR" is TOTAL WAR. Look: First WW. Premises of Total War is COMPLETE ANNIHILATION OF ENEMY, or vice versa. "Kill or be killed". Such wars aren't common, the only ones I can think of are the European world wars, the Warring States period in China, and perhaps during the Völkerwanderung 1,400 years ago (and: the Roman annihilation war against Carthago, something rather unique back then. States sacked eachother, but not annihilated one another).

'Fourth Generation Warfare', sure, but combining it with ethnical apocalypticism and Total War is a mix that to me may end up in NBC Guerilla warfare (perhaps what will be in Kashmir, when the Islamists have crushed Musharraf's military dictatorship?), the vision of Aum Shinrikyo ("kill everyone to save them"), intra-ethnical slaughter rather than inter-civilisational/cultural (End of History-Globalists against Ragnarök counter-Globalists).

Ethics must be, and logical assumptions/conclusions of a system of thoughts.

Fenris
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 07:09 PM
Thank you for your post Deling.

You're right that European Kain would slay European Abel a few times more, unfortunately such is the fruit that grows from the seeds of self-hate and multiculturalism that have been pushed down the throats of the masses since the close of WW2. The enemy have entrenched themselves so deeply in every layer of infrastructure - as well as in the hearts and minds of our own people - that it would take action of apocalyptic proportions to resolve. It's a sad, sorry state of affairs, but in removing a cancer of such an insidious sort, it would likely be necessary to cut out tainted flesh along with it.

I wish with all my heart that it would be possible to dislodge the parasite from our peoples vital organs without causing additional damage, because our people have suffered enough, I just don't see how it would be feasible to do so without an utterly uncompromising, remorseless pogrom of liberation.

You put forth a lot of good points, and I agree with many of them, including the likelihood that nuclear and biological weapons would be deployed eventually.




I've written some semi-poems about 'Warfare Society', with a deconstructed Russian state as its prime force. Eduard Limonov also writes about it in 'Another Russia': Eurasian hi-tech union of communes, not bureaucratic state, slowly expanding west-ward across European world.
TW can't be accomplished in Europe without:
1) A secured "base area" to launch its attacks from.
2) A sort of tribalism (like Teutonic order, Gothic Wandering a.s.o) as Plural-Political model, instead of centralised bureaucratic state.
3) Provinical, not metropolitan, gravitational point.


I find this interesting, and you touch upon a number of things I'd definitely agree are necessary. A secure centre of operations would be extremely important, though I would also try to establish a decentralised command structure, keep things much more mobile so that it would be much harder to break the back or sever the head, so to speak. A much more tribal societal/political model is likewise important, and would represent a great step back in the direction of our own culture rather than that of outsiders. Under said model, your provincial gravitational point would be perfectly logical. The entire system of government should be based around our Germanic common law rather than Roman edict law.


Your statement about China being the most likely to adopt Thulean Warfare rings quite true, as they're the largest nation on the planet, and they certainly have a much stronger sense of identity and obligation than western nations, and it fits well with one of Nostradamus' predictions. Though I did try with the Thulean military model to allow the potential for small groups to be mobile and varied enough to be viable, as well as be scalable enough to allow for mass mobilisation while maintaining a coherent structure rather than a simple horde methodology.

Deling
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 11:10 PM
"You're right that European Kain would slay European Abel a few times more, unfortunately such is the fruit that grows from the seeds of self-hate and multiculturalism that have been pushed down the throats of the masses since the close of WW2."

I understand what you mean by multi-kulti, but I would rather put European brother-war period before 1945 rather than after it. Whatever one feels about "multi-culturalism", it's a consequence of End of Brother-Wars, and archaic fighting instincts are put INWARDS towards society rather than between them. In this aspect I believe the latest 60 years of European history has been very progressive.

"I wish with all my heart that it would be possible to dislodge the parasite from our peoples vital organs without causing additional damage, because our people have suffered enough, I just don't see how it would be feasible to do so without an utterly uncompromising, remorseless pogrom of liberation."

Neither do I, but political power doesn't always come out of a gun barrel. And if one must resort to the uncompromising side, react like cornered foxes, consequences must be thought through. Few times in European history has there been violent overthrow of government (often societies are changed from within), while regimes that seems to never be able to shake of its despotic tendencies (like all the Russian) always meet the same fate.
Europe can change itself, and as a former Socialist-Communist, I know the discussion of revolutionary violence. It has been debated in radical left circles for over a hundred years.
What are the results? Outside Europe, it succeed. Within Europe, revolutionary violence always benefit the existing regime. A vitalistic street-movement with a competent parliamentarian alternative is THE productive way for political change. It is, despite the Western oligarchies and "Worker Aristocracies", possible.

Now to the militaristic aspects...

"I find this interesting, and you touch upon a number of things I'd definitely agree are necessary. A secure centre of operations would be extremely important, though I would also try to establish a decentralised command structure, keep things much more mobile so that it would be much harder to break the back or sever the head, so to speak."

This can be done, but it needs viable space to succeed. Look at Vietnam, a nation not larger than Germany, but with VERY favorable terrain and persistent (strong) peasant back-bone...not to mention fighting spirit. They won over the USA using the tactics you describe as TW.
But in the heart of Europe? A continent with a core consisting of apr. 300 million people, on a surface apr. 2,5 million km2? With unfavorable terrain, too many semi-authoritarian nation-states and reluctant populaces, without a history of violent uprising? No, it's not probable.
As I've claimed: only a Second Russian Revolution can use your TW idea, using whole Russia as base-area for Europe's liberation, and the deconstruction of the Russian (despotic) nation-state would make it impossible for the Western-Judaic oligarchies to use WMDs.

"A much more tribal societal/political model is likewise important, and would represent a great step back in the direction of our own culture rather than that of outsiders. Under said model, your provincial gravitational point would be perfectly logical. The entire system of government should be based around our Germanic common law rather than Roman edict law."

I don't believe there's ever been any specific Germanic common law, just ethics and simple tribal justice. I agree, like all anti-bourgeousie forces do, that the Roman law (the metropolitan-centered juridical philosophy, "Natural rights") is old garbage that isn't needed in New Europe. A New Rome needs a new law.

"Your statement about China being the most likely to adopt Thulean Warfare rings quite true, as they're the largest nation on the planet, and they certainly have a much stronger sense of identity and obligation than western nations, and it fits well with one of Nostradamus' predictions."

Chinese have adopted everything (except 4G Warfare) in TW already, during the internal war 1920/1930-1949. The same with the Koreans and Vietnamese.
And I'm certain that a future China, probably with elected representatives of the nation, can stabilize its urbanization/industrialisation and mass-mobilize the nation. Something the current decaying regime can't. That's why it will loosen grip, and allow a popular reign (anyone other than a yellow Hitler being the frontman would surprise me...), which can push China further.
About Nostradamus...that's an argument TOO much for this discussion.

Good debate, by the way!