Case Studies Are Necessary

Either we are serious about resistance and doing it right, or we aren't.

Honest critique isn’t disloyalty. It’s discipline.

Photo by Matthew Waring on Unsplash

I’ve written various studies of groups, both in passing and as in-depth critiques. They’re popular in terms of views—they definitely get around—but they aren’t always well-received.

What’s interesting is that even when I get angry emails or hear through the grapevine that my work is “stupid,” no one has ever countered my points with anything besides vitriol.

Why is that? Because what I’m advocating for is correct, and they know it.

They can’t claim hypocrisy on my part; I write about my own past OPSEC and counterintelligence failures just as often as anyone else’s. I do that because I own those mistakes—that’s how I learned.

They can’t claim the effects of their actions aren’t what I’ve predicted or warned about. These failures result in near misses at best, and catastrophic destruction of people’s lives at worst.

They can’t claim the leaders I’ve called out aren’t what I said they were. Time and again, the same patterns of grifting, deception, and psychological manipulation surface in public view, in groups on both sides.

They can’t even claim I’m only targeting the right. I’ve critiqued leftist groups too—and I’m working on another one now. I’ve said for years that ideology isn’t what I’m analyzing. Actions are.

There are groups on both the right and left that—strictly from a counterintelligence and organizational resilience perspective—are doing it right. I want to highlight their tactics.

And there are groups on both sides that are absolutely not. I want to point that out too.

My own beliefs? “Leave me alone, get out of my life, and stop making me pay for other people’s poor life choices.” That’s a simplification, sure, but it’ll do for now. Besides, there’s enough of my writing on the internet at this point to make very clear where I stand.

The point is: My beliefs aren’t the point. In fact, I started The Shepard Scale with one solitary goal: to make my side better—smarter, sharper, and harder to infiltrate.

All I care about is this:

• Is a group’s activism—its operations, recruiting, vetting, and internal dynamics—furthering its mission, or sabotaging it?

• How can I find the fractures, and build actionable tools to help the groups I believe in stop making the same mistakes?

That’s what The Shepard Scale is for.

In the coming months, I’ll be publishing deep-dive case studies for paid subscribers—across the political spectrum. Some of you will know the groups I’m analyzing. Some of you will know the people I’m talking about. Some of you might be the people I’m talking about.

Whatever you feel while reading, know this: If your goal is to further your cause, then owning your failures is the fastest path to getting better. What’s more, you’ll help your overall cause too, because you’ll help other groups alongside you get better.

If your goal is validation, clout, or a warm fuzzy feeling that you’re “making a difference,” then I guess I’ll be getting a nasty email from you, because you’re going to be angry.

And one last thing. I’ve been accused of “helping the enemy” by posting this kind of material publicly, because it makes our opposition smarter.

If that’s the case, then the solution is simple:

Apply it first. Apply it better. Apply it faster than they do.

I can help you do that.