No matter what your interest in this book is you're likely going to be disappointed. Are you studying contemporary extremism? Well if you're at all familiar with Iron March type revolutionary Fascist rhetoric and strategy you're not going to find anything you don't already know here. Studying the history of the far right in America? Besides a breakdown of the splintering of the ANP after Rockwell's death, some material on the NSLF, and a few tantalizing clues as to the role Charles Manson played

No matter what your interest in this book is you're likely going to be disappointed. Are you studying contemporary extremism? Well if you're at all familiar with Iron March type revolutionary Fascist rhetoric and strategy you're not going to find anything you don't already know here. Studying the history of the far right in America? Besides a breakdown of the splintering of the ANP after Rockwell's death, some material on the NSLF, and a few tantalizing clues as to the role Charles Manson played in the development of American NS during the 80s and 90s (and the Charles Manson section is one short chapter of a *long* book) there's not a ton of material here, even less of it that will be new to serious researchers of the topic.



Are you an aspiring Fascist revolutionary (or any sort of aspiring revolutionary at all for that matter) hoping to gain some illuminating new insights into how to kick off and fight the white revolution? Well once again, you won't find much that's new here and you'll find even less that's consistent. If you've talked to enough Siege adherents or enough read Siege posts you'll know all of this already. Disregard mass movement tactics, consider the forces of law and order the enemy, drop out of society, prepare for but don't rush into armed struggle with 'the system', if you *do* rush into armed struggle then go big, look out for number one, disregard 'system'/bourgeoisie morality. And that's pretty much it. When it comes to hard, practical suggestions on how to move from being a bunch of edgelord preppers with delusions of grandeur to an actual revolutionary movement Siege is pretty quiet and where it does speak it's not consistent. First we hear that NS revolutionaries should operate alone or in the smallest possible cells to reduce the chance of infiltration, then we hear that there's a necessity of creating an underground army under a unified command (granted that's Tomassi's take but Mason presents himself and his ideology as basically no different than Tomassi, as NSLF doctrine plus Manson) and that the way of vetting members will be to make them take a test and promise they're not feds (that worked out great for The Base didn't it?). In the case of Reagan we learn that individual system puppets are replaceable and therefore you should aim for the faceless bureaucrats but for some reason this rule doesn't apply at other times, as in the case of black celebrities like Michael Jackson who screw white women. Speaking of whites they're sometimes innocuous lemmings who mindlessly serve the system today but will mindlessly serve the new NS order tomorrow and sometimes totally debased and corrupted 'white' goyim (yes, Mason actually uses the word and what's more says Jews are correct in their use of it when it comes to white lemmings) who deserve to be terrorized for their subhuman nature and participation in the system. Deserve? I thought we were throwing out morals and becoming sociopathic ubermensch ('all hail the sociopathic ubermensch' is actually a line from the introduction)? That's what you get when you expect consistency from Mason.



Maybe you're interested in NS ideological tracts. Well as little detailed, practical discussion of revolutionary tactics and strategy as there is in Siege there's even less abstract ideology. If you're just dying to know what Joseph Tomassi would have been like had he been a fan of Anton Lavey and Charles Manson then go ahead and pick it up but you're going to be slogging through a lot of boring garbage to reach that (and if your interest is the political aspects of 'Mansonism' you'd be better served by reading the first edition of The Manson File, which not only covers Mason/Siege and is 400 pages shorter but represents Manson's thought much more accurately). Hell, are you just a fringe culture aficionado looking for some edgy editorials? Well you're going to be disappointed too. Not only does Mason say very little about very little but he's a terrible stylist. Rambling, vague, overly brief, quaint when he tries to be shocking, and most of all repetitive. If you're familiar with the quotes from Siege that get plastered on AWD propaganda you've already read most of the juicy bits. All this is is James Mason repeating again and again and *again* that mass movement tactics won't work and that we need drop out, armed struggle, and accelerationism. Not repeating it again and again with different historical examples and different arguments. No, probably 25% of this book is him repeating himself almost verbatim and that's a conservative estimate. My advice is to just familiarize yourself with the people following Siege if you want to understand it and perhaps to read the Manson section online if Manson is your thing. But there's absolutely no reason to read this entire book.