( I’m sorry but it’s just not true. I can’t create a proof of it. There are just too many variations. There are people without a past tense. There are people of history. People of literature. People of myth. the value is in pack formation. And that is the reason we still possess the ‘feeling’. But why isn’t it just another kind of addiction? )
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 18:55:00 UTC
Of course gods are immortal. Of course demigods are immortal. I mean, otherwise we would have to create a new mythos for every generation. Don’t be ridiculous.
I mean, there are myths and fairy tales, and then there is just the practical problem of storytelling across generations.
I mean, what’s the value of myth if not intergenerational transfer?
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 13:09:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 13:06:00 UTC
5th Generation (Unrestricted, Post Westphalian Warfare)
The Architect And Fifth Generation Warfare
The architectural strategies being applied by al Qaeda in the War on Terror are not new. They merely represent the modern application of ancient and evolving concepts of war, albeit in new and heretofore unimagined forms. The writings of Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, one of the Islamic jihad prime theorists, apparently captured in Pakistan six months ago, provide insight into not only the emergence of Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW), but also the evolution of al Qaeda as the forerunner of future United States adversaries. To understand how his theories advance the evolution of war it is necessary to put the War on Terror in perspective.
One way to gain perspective is to consider the War on Terror against the evolution of warfare in the modern era. In The Sling and the Stone Retired Marine Colonel Thomas X. Hammes describes how modern warfare in the twenty-first century has evolved as the result of political, economic, social, and technological changes that have occurred over time in societies.(1) Hammes’ typology outlines four generations of warfare, and hints at what the fifth generation of war may look like. Each generation represents a dialectically qualitative shift in the methods of waging war. A litmus test for whether or not a change represents a generational shift in the methods of conducting war is that, controlling for disparities in size, an army from a previous generation cannot defeat a force from the new generation.(2)
A Generational Typology Of Warfare
The rise of nation states in the modern era brought the development of First Generation (formation) Warfare (1GW), also referred to as Napoleonic war, with its utilization of armies against one another in massive line and column formations. As a result of the industrial revolution and quantitative and qualitative improvements in massed firepower Second Generation (trench) Warfare (2GW) made its appearance during the American Civil War, and gradually replaced First Generation (formation) Warfare (1GW). It culminated with the trench warfare and mass slaughters of armies that occurred in Europe during the First World War. Third Generation (maneuver) Warfare (3GW) was conceived by the Germans during World War I, and later introduced at the outset of World War II by the German Wehrmacht with its conquest of Europe. It resulted from further improvements in available technology and is characterized by combined arms operations – sea, air, and ground – and rapid maneuver of mechanized formations. Third Generation (maneuver) Warfare (3GW) has been the dominant form of conventional military warfare between nation states, including the United States, in the modern era.
Fourth Generation (insurgent) Warfare (4GW) is a concept originated by William S. Lind, et al, and refined by Hammes in The Sling and the Stone. Its application was first conceived by Mao Tse Tung during the Chinese Revolution from 1925-1927, and used successfully to defeat the Nationalist armies of Chang Kai-shek and install a communist government in China. Fourth Generation (insurgent) Warfare (4GW) has several characteristics which give it a dialectical edge over Third Generation (maneuver) War (3GW) and enable quantitatively and qualitatively inferior forces to win over superior government forces. It uses asymmetrical strategy and tactics, applied over long periods of time, to shift its focus away from destruction of the enemy’s superior conventional military forces – which it cannot defeat – and instead toward defeat of the enemy political will to fight. It matches the political strength of one opponent against the political strength of the other. In its common form it is insurgency warfare. It was adapted and used successfully by the North Vietnamese to defeat the United States, by the Afghans to defeat the Soviet Union, and it is being used by al Qaeda today in its global insurgency.
Fourth Generation (insurgent) Warfare (4GW) characterized by its use of networks, its willingness to accept casualties, and its long length in time. It is measured in decades rather than campaigns lasting months or years. The Communist Chinese fought for twenty-seven years; the Vietnamese fought the French, and later the Americans, for thirty years; and the Afghans, supported by other nations, fought the Soviets for ten years.(3) Fourth Generation (insurgent) Warfare (4GW) stands unique thus far as the only type of warfare that has defeated a superpower, and it has done so on two occasions.
The Emergence Of Fifth Generation Warfare
Currently, no commonly accepted definition exists for Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW). However, given the rate at which change in warfare is accelerating it is reasonable to accept that Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW) is already making its appearance. It took hundreds of years from the development of the musket and cannon for First Generation (formation) Warfare (1GW) warfare to evolve. Second Generation (trench) Warfare (2GW) evolved and peaked in the 100 years between Waterloo and Verdun. Third Generation (maneuver) Warfare (3GW) came to maturity in less than 25 years.(4) Fourth Generation (insurgent) Warfare (4GW) was implemented immediately upon its conception in China seventy-five years ago, around the same time that Third Generation (maneuver) Warfare was implemented in Europe.
For the purpose of this treatise, Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW) is defined as the use of “all means whatsoever – means that involve the force of arms and means that do not involve the force of arms, means that involve military power and means that do not involve military power, means that entail casualties, and means that do not entail casualties – to force the enemy to serve one’s own interest.”(5) It includes the appearance of super-empowered individuals and groups with access to modern knowledge, technology, and means to conduct asymmetric attacks in furtherance of their individual and group interests. Arguably, its first identifiable manifestations occurred in the United States during the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the ricin attacks of 2004. Both sets of attacks required specialized knowledge, included attacks upon federal government offices and facilities, succeeded in disrupting governmental processes, and created widespread fear in the public. To date, no individual or group has claimed responsibility for either attack, and neither attack has been solved. The attacks were quite successful in disrupting government processes and creating public fear but, thus far, their motivation remains unknown.
Today’s computer hackers, capable of disrupting governments and corporations on a global scale by attacking the Internet with malicious computer programs, may also be forerunners of super-empowered individuals and groups. They have already demonstrated that they are capable of single-handedly waging technological campaigns with overtones of Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW).
The potential power of Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW) was also demonstrated in the Madrid bombings of 2004. On this occasion, a series of mass transit bombings conducted by a networked terrorist group in a single day, on the eve of national elections, resulted in a new Spanish government being voted into office, and the immediate withdrawal of Spanish military support to ongoing coalition operations against the insurgency in Iraq. The Madrid bombings are significant because the terrorists behind them were also major drug dealers, part of a network running from Morocco through Spain to Belgium and the Netherlands. Although the Madrid bombings are thought to have cost only about $50,000 to carry out, law enforcement authorities afterwards recovered nearly $2 million in drugs and cash from the group.(6) In these attacks, a group which represented an extensive transnational criminal enterprise successfully brought about regime change in a sovereign European nation. In doing so it demonstrated how Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW) has a dialectically qualitative advantage over the methods of both Third Generation (maneuver) Warfare (3GW) and Fourth Generation (insurgency) Warfare (4GW).
The Impact Of Mustafa Setmariam Nasar
The impact of Mustafa Setmariam Nasar’s theories on the emergence of Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW):(7)
• Nasar’s “The Call for a Global Islamic Resistance,” has been circulating on Internet web sites for 18 months. The treatise, written under the pen name Abu Musab al-Suri, draws heavily on lessons from past conflicts. It serves as a how-to manual for uniting isolated groups of radical Muslims for a common cause.
• It proposes a strategy for a truly global conflict on as many fronts as possible and in the form of resistance by super-empowered small cells or individuals, rather than traditional guerrilla warfare. To avoid penetration and defeat by security services, he says, organizational links should be kept to an absolute minimum.
• Nasar says it would be a mistake for the global movement to pin its hopes on a single group or set of leaders. He clearly says that al-Qaeda was an important step but is not the end step and is not sufficient in itself.
• Nasar’s theories of war call for the most deadly weapons possible, and offer a new model aimed at drawing individuals and small groups into a global jihad.
• Nasar’s theories can be seen in Casablanca in 2003, Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. In each case, the perpetrators organized themselves into local, self-sustaining cells that acted on their own but also likely accepted guidance from visiting emissaries of the global movement.
Strategic Implications
The strategic implications for the United States are great. As the events of 9/11 demonstrated, the United States can be attacked on its home territory by its potential adversaries in the War on Terror. A successful national strategy, as well as transformation of that strategy to the emergence of Fifth Generation (unrestricted) Warfare (5GW) in the information age, is necessary if future attempts to attack United States citizens and interests, at home or abroad, are to be defeated or prevented. In a protracted and continuous war of finite conventional resources arrayed against infinite asymmetrical threats, the Nation must come to understand the character of the emerging threat it faces and adapt accordingly. Failure to do so could have grave strategic consequences and invite additional challenges to American political, economic, and military leadership throughout the world.
Footnotes:
(1) Hammes, Sling and the Stone, 14; William S. Lind; Keith Nightengale, Colonel (USA); John F. Schmitt, Captain (USMC); Joseph, W. Sutton, Colonel (USA); and Gary I. Wilson, Lieutenant Colonel (USMCR), “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,” The Marine Corps Gazette, October 1989; Hammes uses the description of the first three generations of war from the Lind, et al, article as a basis for his description of the development of Fourth Generation War. He makes only passing reference to Fifth Generation War, which he says he is certain is currently developing somewhere in the world.
(2) William S. Lind, “Fifth Generation Warfare?” Center for Cultural Conservatism, Free Congress Foundation (February 2004), 1.
(3) Hammes, “Sling and the Stone, 14.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America (Panama City, Panama: Pan American Publishing Company, 2002), 43.
(6) David E. Kaplan, “Paying For Terror,” U.S. News & World Report (December 5, 2005), 44.
(7) Craig Whitlock, “Architect Of New War On The West,” Washington Post (May 23, 2006).
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 12:36:00 UTC
Porch. Shade. Sunday. Noon.
Breeze. Pleasant temp. Sunshine. Birds. Feeders. Flag.
Church next door rotating through sessions of Catholics.
I’m working on reforming banking money and credit for … I don’t know what level. College?
The guy next to me is working on curriculum for vocational college students.
The woman next to him is working on college curriculum for teachers.
The targets are the same: students. But the content couldn’t be more different. Nor the expectations of the students.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 12:29:00 UTC
WHERE ARE ANY INNOCENTS?
by Al Freeman
Who, in our current world, is not initiating violence against you?
Our society currently thinks(and this includes those who follow the NAP) that violence should only be used against physical violence. We ignore social, political, and monetary violence.
Violence has been redefined. (CURT: we have shifted violence from laborers (slaves), to physical property, to ‘material interests’ to social capital, political capital, civilizational capital, and genetic capital.)
Not long ago, and for most of human history, voting for, or supporting Bernie Sanders would have been considered violence. Voting for a man who openly advocates stealing from others is an act of violence.
Voting for and supporting a removal of guns from civilians is an act of violence.
So, by advocating violence, am I supporting violence against innocents that are peaceful?
No. But where do you find such people in our society? Where are the innocents?
Taking money to redistribute it is theft, taking away guns is stealing, and destroys your ability to defend yourself.
These things are acts of violence.
Anyone who uses money, takes actions, or casts a vote to support these things is committing an act of violence.
Violence against which we can justifiably retaliate.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 12:16:00 UTC
Look at how HARD it is to get people to stop thinking democratically using large numbers exercising soft power, and to think aristocratically in small numbers exercising hard power. I mean, I bet about a quarter of my refuting posts are directed at correcting the ‘feminine’ perception that we need numbers, rather than aristocracy is a minority that uses hard power, and women and underclasses use numbers and soft power.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 11:25:00 UTC
—“The human brain’s processing power is estimated at about 38 petaflops. But all it needs to operate is about 20 watts of energy.”—
That’s less than half of the current supercomputer (that runs on algorithms). But an algorithmic computer that could produce anywhere near the plasticity of the human brain would need thousands of times that processing power.
Back in, i dunno, mid 2000’s I told people that the reason I got out of AI was when I understood that the power needed to create a general AI with current technology would turn the surface of the earth to cinders. And of course I was speaking (as usual) illustratively and therefore hyperbolically.
But you know, the whole point is, that it’s actually a hardware problem. Most of what we need to do is not calculate, but to search. Algorithms calculate. (expensive). Search is cheap. And while many models require calculation, most of what humans need is to do is search.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 11:18:00 UTC
—“Is criticism of economic velocity a sentiment against pure capitalism?”—Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
It’s that velocity is not a sufficient measure. At some point you’re either increasing risk(insufficient reserves) or decreasing accumulated capital(consuming reserves), or maximizing rents(creating fragility) such that it is not possible to (a) adapt to shocks, (b) adapt to change, because there is insufficient free capital or available debt to adjust the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, consisting in patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, and you achieve in organizational continuity, the same effect as deflation in economic continuity.
Collapses aren’t rare and usually occur in one generation or less. But they always occur for the same reasons: accumulated fragility.
All the drastic collapses occur from overextension, economic colonization, export of technology, reproductive decrease, and primitive (empowered underclass) migrations willing to pay higher costs to obtain than advanced societies are willing to pay to maintain. (china the durable exception that even egypt didn’t survive.)
Now, in our current condition this fragility is 3 hours of power, 2 days of water, 7 days of food, 14 days of gasoline, and about 30-60 days of ‘chaos’. (Which I’m sure enough people in govt know. I know members of the boards of power companies who are all too clear about it.)
So i view pure capitalism as full accounting of all changes in state of all capital, not what it is now, ‘just run at high rpm’s until everything breaks’. SO it’s not a criticism of capitalism but a criticism of keynesianism (measurement of velocity without measurement of capital.)
AFAIK: all economic collapse is a failure of measurement.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 10:03:00 UTC
Running and sex create the best highs. The psychedelics for trauma recovery (or adolescent ‘correction’). A little alcohol at festivals. cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs are a sedentary substitute for lack of physical activity.
Never did the alcohol thing much. Never did the cigarette thing at all. Did very little of the pot thing. Experimented with the psychedelics a few times. IMHO The fine Arts, the finest art: Women, sex, play, exercise, competition in Sport, Business, or Politics, are all better than drugs.
The thing is, you gotta give up on the selfish thing and confront your self image to get the joy from those things, and with drugs you don’t. I view drugs as lying to yourself as much as harming yourself. But as long as it’s not in the commons – more power to you.
Personally I think the school experience is so traumatic that most people need psychedelic therapy before they can move on into adulthood. I mean, there isn’t a lot of difference between school and prison because there isn’t that much difference between children and inmates. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 09:13:00 UTC