The Inevitability Of Violence And How To Deal With It

[WhiteHealer]

The greatest undertaking in the path to survival is to accept and adapt to the perpetual prospect of
violence. It is a hurdle that many people struggle with, and one that some people embrace a little too
easily. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people in first world societies rarely if ever
experience physical combat. We are now a culture of words, memes and ridicule that has lost almost
all relation to the reality that at the end of every crisis waits a fist or a gun.
It's not something to be celebrated or romanticized. It just is what it is. And always keep in mind that
the people that tend to pontificate the most about pacifism and non-violence are often the same people
that rabidly demand that the government send enforcers to cripple and kill those who rebel against the
system.
Because so many people in the world are unequipped to deal with directed violence, society has created
numerous safeguards to mitigate their exposure. We have laws, courts and law enforcement to act as a
psychological deterrent to people who might do us harm, but this is nothing more than a stop-gap. If a
person really wants to harm you, they will. All the courts and cops in the world are not going to save
you, only you can save yourself by visiting violence back on your attacker in such a way as to eliminate
the threat.
The cold reality of conflict is that once an attacker engages with you and you defend yourself, the goal
is to destroy the attacker. It's not enough to hit back, he must be shut down completely or he may
continue to come after you even in injury. Now you have to ask yourself – Are you capable of doing
that?
Will you be able to set aside fear and emotion and put an aggressor down flat? Can you defend
yourself without suffering a panic attack or tunnel vision? Be honest with yourself. If the answer is
no, or you're not sure, then there are things you can do to train your brain to deal with violence.


Experience Is The Deciding Factor When Facing Violence

Training for self defense is vital, but going through the motions of an attack is not the same as
experiencing an actual attack or a very good simulated attack. This is why in martial arts full contact
training is essential: Students can practice for years but if they never engage in combat they will be
completely unprepared mentally for the real thing. They will most likely fail when the time comes.
If you can train in a full contact environment in boxing, wrestling, MMA, etc., I highly recommend it.
This is a way to condition your mind to adapt to threats while still in a controlled environment.
I generally seek to avoid conflict whenever possible because in life most things are not worth it.
However, some things are. In one rare altercation, I had to deal with a man who was intent on
threatening me with mortal harm and I made it clear that any action he took would be met with deadly
force. He then proceeded to grab an ax and charge at me with it. My first response was to draw my
pistol and take aim at his chest.
If I had panicked and tried to run I probably would not be alive today. The assailant saw the gun and
realized what was about to happen. He stopped, fell backwards and then scrambled away in terror. I
never had to pull the trigger. But, I continue to question what would have happened if he had come one
step closer, and why I didn't just shoot him immediately. Was I lucky? Did that act of hesitation put
me in a position to be seriously injured or killed? Or, did I just read the man's face correctly and
properly determined he was not as committed as I was? Was my response just scaled to the level of the
threat?
I figure that if he had produced a gun I would have fired instantly. But should that have mattered? I'll
never know. These are the kinds of situations you must consider as our future grows more unstable and
more uncertain. Getting physical experience in combat can make all the difference.


Societal Collapse And The Playground For Psychopaths

While some malicious people might be kept in check by social mores and the looming threat of legal
punishment, you will find that as the system begins to break down due to political clashes and
economic decline the real evil tends to slither out of the woodwork. It happens slowly at first, then all
at once.
In the US, I would say we are in the middle stages of such a collapse with many sociopaths and
psychopaths beginning to feel that they might be able to act out their worst impulses without
consequences. They are beginning to test the waters to see what they can get away with.
It is actually at this crucial time when a deterrent response is most important. Making examples out of
criminals that seek to rob or murder people sets a standard that innocent citizens are not going to
comply passively. This tends to frighten away other perpetrators, at least for a while. If no one acts to
eliminate the first wave of criminal actions during a social breakdown, then thousands of other
criminals will also move to take what they can get. The first wave becomes an avalanche.
At this phase law enforcement generally folds and retreats, leaving the public with no first line of
defense. Gangs form quickly and start to take territory rather than just taking people's possessions.
Organized crime at the local level leads to large scale death and minimal opposition. People are so
isolated and busy trying to scrape together a meager economic lifeline that they have no motivation to
fight back.
The point of no return comes when regular people are afraid to leave their homes. This cannot be
allowed to happen. Organization at the neighborhood level and the reciprocation of violence must be
enacted or the most vicious attacks will be visited on the population. The psychopaths will have to be
removed and the gangs erased.
In an even more dangerous scenario, the psychopaths we have to deal with during a collapse are within
the very government that is supposed to protect our liberties. This is a situation in which the criminals
are given license to use violence against the citizenry through the illusion of law. But laws are
irrelevant if they violate the boundaries of moral compass and conscience. The laws no longer matter
when they are exploited as a means to protect criminality.


Satisfaction vs. Justice: The Moral Quandary Of Violence

There is a fine line between utilizing violence in the name of saving lives and property, and utilizing
violence to gain personal satisfaction or revenge. I would say the moment a person attempts to use
violence against innocent people, even if it's meant to do harm to a criminal, they have passed into the
realm of evil action and left the world of justice behind.
For example, the concept of using people's families as a point of leverage or as a means to harm an
enemy is definitely a moral pitfall. No matter how terrible a criminal might be, their families are not
responsible for their trespasses.
Another scenario would be dealing harm to non-combatants as collateral damage during an attack on
the enemy. This is essentially terrorism, and an unacceptable dynamic for any freedom fighters. In the
case of corrupt governments, accusations of terrorism against freedom fighters will be rampant anyway.
It helps the enemy for a rebellion to hurt innocents, even if their methods do damage to the
authoritarians. The trade-off is not balanced.
For some, such tactics might seem reasonable, but they are fooling themselves with notions of justice
when they are only trying to fulfill a desire for revenge. Beware of anyone that suggests these kinds of
concepts in a serious way – They are likely just as psychopathic as the people you are fighting against.
The rationale for indirect attacks is almost always the same: People argue that the enemy would do it
to us, so we should do it to them first. This is faulty logic. The enemy is willing to cross moral lines
because they are on the wrong side of history. They are villains with no conscience. If the strategy is
to be just like them, then there is no point to the fight. You might as well join them.


Rebellion As A Tool For Regime Change

These days we hear a lot from the media about “democracy” and the righteous notion of free elections.
But, if each “free election” only brings us closer to tyranny, then democracy has failed. There is no
reason to continue pretending as if the system is fair or functional, it's time to move on. But what does
that mean?
Every collapse is a process, and there are stages of rebellion that fit each stage of collapse and decline
into authoritarianism. In some cases, you might launch alternative economies and “black markets” to
escape financial surveillance. In other cases, you might seek to organize and separate from totalitarian
influences. And, of course, in some cases you will have to fight.
What leftists and globalists are trying to convince the masses of right now is that fighting back makes
you the bad guy; that fighting back is “going too far.” No, it is not going too far, and the Founding
Fathers are a perfect example of the process of exhausting all other solutions before turning to the gun
and the sword.
If you are dealing with legitimately sincere people who are perhaps mistaken in their ideals but
otherwise have good intentions, then maybe violence is the wrong answer. But, if you are dealing with
obsessives and power mongers who have ill intent, then the time will come when they will either do
away with you or you will have to do away with them. Violence becomes the ONLY solution to the
confrontation. Whether or not it is “democratic” is irrelevant; the conflict is about freedom vs. tyranny
and political niceties mean nothing.
I am outlining this debate because there is a firestorm of propaganda surrounding it right now. There
are people who will try to convince you to be ultra violent with no regard for honor or morals, and
there are people who will try to convince you to never raise a hand to protect yourself or your
freedoms. Know that the middle path requires vigilance and the voice of reason, and no one is going to
be able to tell you exactly what you should do at any given moment. You will have to discern these
things for yourself based on the circumstances.
The first step is to train your mind to handle the reality of violence. The next step is to train your mind
to react with measure to violence and without fear. Finally, you must understand how to apply violence
without being consumed by it. These things are not easy, but in the chaotic world we are about to enter
into they are essential to keeping us alive.

[Agent_of_the_Avalanche]

Good topic.

I don't have intimate experience with combat. Just a little bit of training from the Army. Which I don't think prepared me very well for the asymmetric violence coming just around corner.

A good book I've read, just before discovering the Alliance, is King of All Things: A Guide to Man's Martial Purpose by Clark Savage, whom I discovered on the Neoclassical Reactionary side of Twitter. The book is loaded with typos but nothing an experienced internet explorer cannot mentally fix.

The answer to the riddle on the cover is WAR. War is king of all things. Ares decides who will rule.

In the book(if I'm remembering correctly), Savage recommends a physique to maximize the Martial Output of a man, which is 55% Raw Strength and 45% Stamina and Conditioning.He differentiates between the various types of encounters (Combat, Honor Fights, and Survival) and what skills are best for each. How weapons change everything. James Lafond and surviving in urban Baltimore (Harm City). Many good points in the book. Closes with Exemplars of Martial Virtues such as Nathan Beford Forrest and Andrew Jackson. I really liked the book.

Can't wait to get our Local Units up and running. Then we can train.

[FolkishFreya]

A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood. -Patton

I know I could defend myself. Absolutely no question in my mind, if it was between me or the "other guy" going down it going to be them. Especially if my loved ones were immediately threatened. Unfortunately, My first marriage exposed me to D.V. and I had to defend myself and my young son frequently. So I know I am up for a fight if put in the position.

It's a good idea for women to know how to defend themselves if the situation arises. You don't need to become Rambo but to know gun safety and a few moves would likely make you more confident.

Great artical WH, thank you for sharing.

[WhiteHealer]

A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood. -Patton

I know I could defend myself. Absolutely no question in my mind, if it was between me or the "other guy" going down it going to be them. Especially if my loved ones were immediately threatened. Unfortunately, My first marriage exposed me to D.V. and I had to defend myself and my young son frequently. So I know I am up for a fight if put in the position.

It's a good idea for women to know how to defend themselves if the situation arises. You don't need to become Rambo but to know gun safety and a few moves would likely make you more confident.

Great article WH, thank you for sharing.

Thank you FF, my hope by posting this is to get our people to think about and prepare for the violence that is actively going to seek them out.

WhiteHealer

[Will Williams]

[M]y hope by posting this is to get our people to think about and prepare for the violence that is actively going to seek them out. -WhiteHealer

Very thoughtful essay, WH, on an important topic for us all. The Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" is always good advice, but better still is avoid unnecessary conflict. It's not that difficult. However, should physical conflict be unavoidable, be prepared to end it early. Don't be impaired, be sober and in control.

Agent-of-the Avalanche hopes for the time when in an NA Local Unit there will be training in martial arts, but that is low on the list of what a Local Unit will be involved in. If there is a member in a Local Unit who is qualified to train others, fine, but Alliance-building, recruiting new members, is the top priority. There shall be absolutely no paramilitary training in NA Local Units.

AA aspires to be NA's top "grammar Nazi," which is admirable, but quite an ambitious undertaking. One of Dr. Pierce's pet grammar peeves was proper use of pronouns which is under attack by feminists and LGBT grammar cops these days more so that when he was writing. Not to nitpick, but in this essay it jumps out at me that in four or five instances (highlighted w/[sic]) when a plural pronoun is followed by its singular antecedent subject. Dr. Pierce was a patient teacher, and I welcomed his corrections of my own mistakes in grammar like that -- and now notice them by others when I see them. Another peeve of his was the common misuse of the word media, which is the plural of medium. It's not "the media is controlled by Jews," but "the media are controlled by Jews." Pierce focused on Jew control of mass media so he would cringe when a member would say "the media is controlled by Jews.

I apologize for getting so far off-topic on this important piece by WhiteHealer.

The greatest undertaking in the path to survival is to accept and adapt to the perpetual prospect of
violence. It is a hurdle that many people struggle with, and one that some people embrace a little too
easily. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people in first world societies rarely if ever
experience physical combat. We are now a culture of words, memes and ridicule that has lost almost
all relation to the reality that at the end of every crisis waits a fist or a gun.
It's not something to be celebrated or romanticized. It just is what it is. And always keep in mind that
the people that tend to pontificate the most about pacifism and non-violence are often the same people
that rabidly demand that the government send enforcers to cripple and kill those who rebel against the
system.
Because so many people in the world are unequipped to deal with directed violence, society has created
numerous safeguards to mitigate their exposure. We have laws, courts and law enforcement to act as a
psychological deterrent to people who might do us harm, but this is nothing more than a stop-gap. If a
person really wants to harm you, they [sic] will. All the courts and cops in the world are not going
to save you, only you can save yourself by visiting violence back on your attacker in such a way as to
eliminate the threat.
The cold reality of conflict is that once an attacker engages with you and you defend yourself, the goal
is to destroy the attacker. It's not enough to hit back, he must be shut down completely or he may
continue to come after you even in injury. Now you have to ask yourself – Are you capable of doing
that?
Will you be able to set aside fear and emotion and put an aggressor down flat? Can you defend
yourself without suffering a panic attack or tunnel vision? Be honest with yourself. If the answer is
no, or you're not sure, then there are things you can do to train your brain to deal with violence.

Experience Is The Deciding Factor When Facing Violence

Training for self defense is vital, but going through the motions of an attack is not the same as
experiencing an actual attack or a very good simulated attack. This is why in martial arts full contact
training is essential: Students can practice for years but if they never engage in combat they will be
completely unprepared mentally for the real thing. They will most likely fail when the time comes.
If you can train in a full contact environment in boxing, wrestling, MMA, etc., I highly recommend it.
This is a way to condition your mind to adapt to threats while still in a controlled environment.
I generally seek to avoid conflict whenever possible because in life most things are not worth it.
However, some things are. In one rare altercation, I had to deal with a man who was intent on
threatening me with mortal harm and I made it clear that any action he took would be met with deadly
force. He then proceeded to grab an ax and charge at me with it. My first response was to draw my
pistol and take aim at his chest.
If I had panicked and tried to run I probably would not be alive today. The assailant saw the gun and
realized what was about to happen. He stopped, fell backwards and then scrambled away in terror. I
never had to pull the trigger. But, I continue to question what would have happened if he had come one
step closer, and why I didn't just shoot him immediately. Was I lucky? Did that act of hesitation put
me in a position to be seriously injured or killed? Or, did I just read the man's face correctly and
properly determined he was not as committed as I was? Was my response just scaled to the level of the
threat?
I figure that if he had produced a gun I would have fired instantly. But should that have mattered? I'll
never know. These are the kinds of situations you must consider as our future grows more unstable and
more uncertain. Getting physical experience in combat can make all the difference.

Societal Collapse And The Playground For Psychopaths

While some malicious people might be kept in check by social mores and the looming threat of legal
punishment, you will find that as the system begins to break down due to political clashes and
economic decline the real evil tends to slither out of the woodwork. It happens slowly at first, then all
at once.
In the US, I would say we are in the middle stages of such a collapse with many sociopaths and
psychopaths beginning to feel that they might be able to act out their worst impulses without
consequences. They are beginning to test the waters to see what they can get away with.
It is actually at this crucial time when a deterrent response is most important. Making examples out of
criminals that seek to rob or murder people sets a standard that innocent citizens are not going to
comply passively. This tends to frighten away other perpetrators, at least for a while. If no one acts to
eliminate the first wave of criminal actions during a social breakdown, then thousands of other
criminals will also move to take what they can get. The first wave becomes an avalanche.
At this phase law enforcement generally folds and retreats, leaving the public with no first line of
defense. Gangs form quickly and start to take territory rather than just taking people's possessions.
Organized crime at the local level leads to large scale death and minimal opposition. People are so
isolated and busy trying to scrape together a meager economic lifeline that they have no motivation to
fight back.
The point of no return comes when regular people are afraid to leave their homes. This cannot be
allowed to happen. Organization at the neighborhood level and the reciprocation of violence must be
enacted or the most vicious attacks will be visited on the population. The psychopaths will have to be
removed and the gangs erased.
In an even more dangerous scenario, the psychopaths we have to deal with during a collapse are within
the very government that is supposed to protect our liberties. This is a situation in which the criminals
are given license to use violence against the citizenry through the illusion of law. But laws are
irrelevant if they violate the boundaries of moral compass and conscience. The laws no longer matter
when they are exploited as a means to protect criminality.

Satisfaction vs. Justice: The Moral Quandary Of Violence

There is a fine line between utilizing violence in the name of saving lives and property, and utilizing
violence to gain personal satisfaction or revenge. I would say the moment a person attempts to use
violence against innocent people, even if it's meant to do harm to a criminal, they [sic] have
passed into the realm of evil action and left the world of justice behind.
For example, the concept of using people's families as a point of leverage or as a means to harm an
enemy is definitely a moral pitfall. No matter how terrible a criminal might be, their [sic] families
are not responsible for their trespasses.
Another scenario would be dealing harm to non-combatants as collateral damage during an attack on
the enemy. This is essentially terrorism, and an unacceptable dynamic for any freedom fighters. In the
case of corrupt governments, accusations of terrorism against freedom fighters will be rampant anyway.
It helps the enemy for a rebellion to hurt innocents, even if their methods do damage to the
authoritarians. The trade-off is not balanced.
For some, such tactics might seem reasonable, but they are fooling themselves with notions of justice
when they are only trying to fulfill a desire for revenge. Beware of anyone that suggests these kinds of
concepts in a serious way – They are [sic] likely just as psychopathic as the people you are fighting
against.
The rationale for indirect attacks is almost always the same: People argue that the enemy would do it
to us, so we should do it to them [sic] first. This is faulty logic. The enemy is willing to cross
moral linesbecause they [sic] are on the wrong side of history. They are villains with no conscience.
If the strategy is to be just like them, then there is no point to the fight. You might as well join them.

Rebellion As A Tool For Regime Change

These days we hear a lot from the media about “democracy” and the righteous notion of free elections.
But, if each “free election” only brings us closer to tyranny, then democracy has failed. There is no
reason to continue pretending as if the system is fair or functional, it's time to move on. But what does
that mean?
Every collapse is a process, and there are stages of rebellion that fit each stage of collapse and decline
into authoritarianism. In some cases, you might launch alternative economies and “black markets” to
escape financial surveillance. In other cases, you might seek to organize and separate from totalitarian
influences. And, of course, in some cases you will have to fight.
What leftists and globalists are trying to convince the masses of right now is that fighting back makes
you the bad guy; that fighting back is “going too far.” No, it is not going too far, and the Founding
Fathers are a perfect example of the process of exhausting all other solutions before turning to the gun
and the sword.
If you are dealing with legitimately sincere people who are perhaps mistaken in their ideals but
otherwise have good intentions, then maybe violence is the wrong answer. But, if you are dealing with
obsessives and power mongers who have ill intent, then the time will come when they will either do
away with you or you will have to do away with them. Violence becomes the ONLY solution to the
confrontation. Whether or not it is “democratic” is irrelevant; the conflict is about freedom vs. tyranny
and political niceties mean nothing.
I am outlining this debate because there is a firestorm of propaganda surrounding it right now. There
are people who will try to convince you to be ultra violent with no regard for honor or morals, and
there are people who will try to convince you to never raise a hand to protect yourself or your
freedoms. Know that the middle path requires vigilance and the voice of reason, and no one is going to
be able to tell you exactly what you should do at any given moment. You will have to discern these
things for yourself based on the circumstances.
The first step is to train your mind to handle the reality of violence. The next step is to train your mind
to react with measure to violence and without fear. Finally, you must understand how to apply violence
without being consumed by it. These things are not easy, but in the chaotic world we are about to enter
into they are essential to keeping us alive

[Agent_of_the_Avalanche]

There shall be absolutely no paramilitary training in NA Local Units.

My mistake, sir.

Due to my experience, when I read the word "Unit", memories of uniforms, formations, and various kinds of military training sprang to mind.

I bet the media would love to get footage of our future Local Units practicing boxing and jiujitsu(Hitler's recommended fighting styles), let alone training with firearms. We best not give them such a treat.

So then, I guess preparing oneself and one's family and (White)friends for the Inevitable Violence must take place outside of the Local Units - outside of the NA? On ones own time and dime, right? As individuals who like to dabble in action and adventure?

I will initiate a topic on Local Units. This way, other newcomers can know, at least, what the Local Units will NOT be.



ᛉ
The Cosmotheist Affirmation

There is but one reality.
That reality is the Whole.
It is the Creator, the Self-Created.
I am of the Whole.
I am of the Creator, of the Self-Created.
My Purpose is the Creator's Purpose.
My path is the path of the Creator's Self Realization.
My path is the path of Divine Consciousness.
My destiny is Godhood.

[Will Williams]

There shall be absolutely no paramilitary training in NA Local Units.

My mistake, sir.

Due to my experience, when I read the word "Unit", memories of uniforms, formations, and various kinds of military training sprang to mind.

AA, it is your inexperience as a relatively new Alliance member (and veteran of the military) that has you assuming an NA Local Unit has something to do with military training. For our purposes the word group simply means a constituent of a whole.

I bet the media would love to get footage of our future Local Units practicing boxing and jiujitsu(Hitler's recommended fighting styles), let alone training with firearms. We best not give them such a treat.

That is a bet you would win. Jew-controlled media love to lump NA in with militia groups when we have little in common with them beyond preserving the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment.

Experience in Our Cause counts for a lot, AA. For instance, in 1986 I attended each of five days of a trial in federal court in Raleigh, NC, as Morris Dees of the SPLC, working with the U.S. Attorney's Office, banned the perfectly legal White Patriot Party, of which I was a member at the time. The reason for the banning: violation of a consent decree that Dees had finagled the WPP Leader to sign, agreeing to not conduct paramilitary training. Incredibly, Dees actually took over U.S. Attorney Sam Currin's role as prosecutor in the case and introduced WPP's own video footage of paramilitary small unit training to a sterile jury. The WPP leader, without legal representation, had foolishly treated Dees's "law center's" consent decree as a "scrap of paper." Observing that trial, gavel to gavel, was a valuable learning experience for me, seeing up close how the judiciary worked hand-in-hand with an actual anti-White hate group to ban a pro-White organization.

So then, I guess preparing oneself and one's family and (White)friends for the Inevitable Violence must take place outside of the Local Units - outside of the NA? On ones own time and dime, right? As individuals who like to dabble in action and adventure?

I will initiate a topic on Local Units. This way, other newcomers can know, at least, what the Local Units will NOT be.

In our rebuilding phase there are no NA Local Units -- we lost all of them, more than 20, scattered across the country during the dozen years after our Founder's death, due to mismanagement by his successor, my predecessor. We will get there again. Be patient. I hope to have a Membership Coordinator on staff here at the National Office shortly. He will be liaison with members "in the field," like you, who show interest in organizing locally.

Gliebe's 1995 revised NA
Handbook removed this
chart. Big mistake.

Rather than try to tell us what Local Units will not do, find the section here on WB, taken from our 1993 NA Membership Handbook that tell what people -- single units, if you will -- not to recruit into our Alliance. That Handbook is outdated, not only because it was written in the pre-Internet era, but because it was essentially a guide not just for individual members, but for our Local Units. When we have Local Units again, there will be an updated, revised Handbook.

[Richard_G_603]

AA aspires to be NA's top "grammar Nazi," which is admirable, but quite an ambitious undertaking. One of Dr. Pierce's pet grammar peeves was proper use of pronouns which is under attack by feminists and LGBT grammar cops these days more so that when he was writing. Not to nitpick, but in this essay it jumps out at me that in four or five instances (highlighted w/[sic]) when a plural pronoun is followed by its singular antecedent subject.

Maybe this rule used to be different, and do to my young age (comparatively) I am unaware of that fact, but throughout all of my Elementary and Collegiate education I learned this is acceptable in particular context.
In MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of Style formatting Mr. Chairman, using "they" to refer to the concept of a generic individual in which gender has either not been established or is irrelevant, is acceptable. You cannot write "If a man were going to the store, they would likely buy milk." because gender has been provided, therefore grammatically the pronoun "he" must be used. However, you can write "If a person were going to the store, they would likely buy milk." The gender of the person is both unknown and irrelevant, making "they" an acceptable placeholder pronoun.

[Will Williams]

AA aspires to be NA's top "grammar Nazi," which is admirable, but quite an ambitious undertaking. One of Dr. Pierce's pet grammar peeves was proper use of pronouns which is under attack by feminists and LGBT grammar cops these days more so that when he was writing. Not to nitpick, but in this essay it jumps out at me that in four or five instances (highlighted w/[sic]) when a plural pronoun is followed by its singular antecedent subject.

Maybe this rule used to be different, and do to my young age (comparatively) I am unaware of that fact, but throughout all of my Elementary and Collegiate education I learned this is acceptable in particular context.
In MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of Style formatting Mr. Chairman, using "they" to refer to the concept of a generic individual in which gender has either not been established or is irrelevant, is acceptable. You cannot write "If a man were going to the store, they would likely buy milk." because gender has been provided, therefore grammatically the pronoun "he" must be used.

But you will notice that it is frequently not used that way these days, even when the male gender is provided. That is anti-male feminist language creep, Richard. You wouldn't know that because you were taught by MLA, APA, and the Chicago Manual of Style, whatever they are instead of by The Elements of Style that served White America well for a century, and is still available for reference The feminists and LGBT-types can't stand it when they see us defying their preferred "gender neutral" pronoun standards, so that is all the more reason to use pronouns properly.

However, you can write "If a person were going to the store, they would likely buy milk." The gender of the person is both unknown and irrelevant, making "they" an acceptable placeholder pronoun.

I could write like that, but I won't, thanks.

We're getting way off topic, but I found this pdf of Strunk's Elements of Style: https://faculty.washington.edu/heagerty ... kWhite.pdf
It's short and good for studying nuances of proper English grammar, but I don't see a section on proper use of plural pronouns in it. I did find this compromise rule though elsewhere:

Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
An antecedent is the word that a pronoun takes the place of or refers to in a sentence. So in the sentence Carla found an alligator under her bed, the pronoun is 'her' and the antecedent - the word that the pronoun refers back to - is the proper noun 'Carla.'

An important rule to remember is that a pronoun and its antecedent must agree in number. In other words, if you have a singular antecedent, you'll need a singular pronoun. Likewise, a plural antecedent must be matched with a plural pronoun. This makes sense. If you told me that Carla found an alligator under their bed, you'd be using a singular antecedent, 'Carla,' and a plural pronoun, 'their,' and I'd be wondering who 'their' referred to and what Carla was doing in their room.

Here's a quick rundown of singular and plural personal pronouns. Singular personal pronouns include I, you, he, she, and it; me, him, and her; and my, mine, his, her, hers, and its. Plural personal pronouns include we, you, and they; us and them; and our, ours, their and theirs.

One of the most common errors that people make when it comes to using a singular versus a plural pronoun is one that looks like this: A store manager should make sure that their customers are satisfied. On first glance, this may seem ok. But let's identify our pronoun and antecedent and see if they agree in number. Our pronoun is 'their,' which is a possessive plural pronoun. The antecedent to which our pronoun refers, though, is 'manager,' which is a singular noun. We know, therefore, that we have a pronoun error, and we need to consult our rule about singular and plural pronouns and antecedents.

This type of mistake with plural pronouns, especially the pronouns 'their' and 'they,' is really common. Always check your antecedent. Here, we can correct our pronoun by switching it from plural to singular: A store manager should make sure that his or her customers are satisfied. We could also correct our error by making both the pronoun and antecedent plural: Store managers should make sure that their customers are satisfied.

It should be noted that 'they' is increasingly used to refer to singular antecedents without specifying a gender. However, the singular and plural distinction taught in this lesson is still necessary in certain formal settings such as the SAT and ACT tests...

Note that the use of "his or her" rather than "they" have become acceptable, even to the LGBT pronoun cops, when the gender of the antecedent is not specified, but to use the older preferred way, using the singular "he" when the gender of the singular antecedent is unknown cannot be ruled wrong.

[FolkishFreya]

I am glad I am not Carla or I would never sleep again.