[W]ar crimes exist only under (a) Westphalian state responsibility for actions of all citizens and their agents – a monopoly on violence. (b) Soldiers under direction of the state. War crimes were necessary under state run warfare in order to i) license states’ wars of aggression, ii) with conscripted soldiers, and iii) protecting the populace from harm, iiv) while preventing escalation that will prohibit the population from tolerating cessation and settlement. In other words the purpose of war crimes is to facilitate the cooperation of the population with the state in the conduct of the state’s war. Otherwise, war is war and there are no limits on behavior, and all else is pretense and deceit. Islam broke the Westphalian peace with islamic terrorism Russia broke the postwar consensus by seizing Ukraine. We are in fourth generation warfare: the end of the european domestication of warfare. The state no longer has or can have control over the monopoly of violence. The non-state actors are more effective at fourth generation warfare in urban environments than are states and armor in the fields. TOTAL WAR Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs. The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines “total war” as “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” Fourth-generation Warfare (Premodern Warfare) Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians. The term was first used in 1980 by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The treaties of Westphalia brought to an end a calamitous period of European history which caused the deaths of approximately eight million people. Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, though this interpretation has been challenged.
Source: Original Site Post
-
War Crime?
[W]ar crimes exist only under (a) Westphalian state responsibility for actions of all citizens and their agents – a monopoly on violence. (b) Soldiers under direction of the state. War crimes were necessary under state run warfare in order to i) license states’ wars of aggression, ii) with conscripted soldiers, and iii) protecting the populace from harm, iiv) while preventing escalation that will prohibit the population from tolerating cessation and settlement. In other words the purpose of war crimes is to facilitate the cooperation of the population with the state in the conduct of the state’s war. Otherwise, war is war and there are no limits on behavior, and all else is pretense and deceit. Islam broke the Westphalian peace with islamic terrorism Russia broke the postwar consensus by seizing Ukraine. We are in fourth generation warfare: the end of the european domestication of warfare. The state no longer has or can have control over the monopoly of violence. The non-state actors are more effective at fourth generation warfare in urban environments than are states and armor in the fields. TOTAL WAR Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs. The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines “total war” as “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” Fourth-generation Warfare (Premodern Warfare) Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians. The term was first used in 1980 by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The treaties of Westphalia brought to an end a calamitous period of European history which caused the deaths of approximately eight million people. Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, though this interpretation has been challenged.
-
What have you done to be worthy of leaders you seek?
“We need leadership!”— The Right
“What have you done to be worthy of leaders?”
-
What have you done to be worthy of leaders you seek?
“We need leadership!”— The Right
“What have you done to be worthy of leaders?”
-
Thoughts on American Military Tech
Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform. But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles. Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something. Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight. Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport. And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own. I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition. There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases. The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands. We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.
-
Thoughts on American Military Tech
Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform. But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles. Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something. Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight. Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport. And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own. I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition. There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases. The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands. We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.
-
P Logic in Relationships
[Y]ou don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfriend – even if you probably should use it with your daughters. You use P to UNDERSTAND your wife or girlfriend, so that you can ask the right questions and give the right answers.
—“I can only imagine the fallout from telling a significant other during a heated discussion that her emotions were simply a response to a perceived change in property.”—Michael Churchill
The most important of which isn’t to tell her her feelings are wrong, or her desires are wrong, but whether they are possible or not, and whether they would achieve desired ends or not. Women need you to listen while they work through suppressing the emotion and impulse. They need you to support them as they work through those thoughts impulses and emotions so that you relieve them of the burden of doing it alone. And they need you to help them come to a conclusion on their own – just as they help you through your male anger or frustration when it clouds your vision. And they need you to say ‘no’ when it’s your fking job to say ‘these are the limits’ beyond which you are not willing to go – and not apologize for it. Be a man. Give her room to exercise emotional frustration by emotional expression like you exercise emotional frustration by physical expression.
-
P Logic in Relationships
[Y]ou don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfriend – even if you probably should use it with your daughters. You use P to UNDERSTAND your wife or girlfriend, so that you can ask the right questions and give the right answers.
—“I can only imagine the fallout from telling a significant other during a heated discussion that her emotions were simply a response to a perceived change in property.”—Michael Churchill
The most important of which isn’t to tell her her feelings are wrong, or her desires are wrong, but whether they are possible or not, and whether they would achieve desired ends or not. Women need you to listen while they work through suppressing the emotion and impulse. They need you to support them as they work through those thoughts impulses and emotions so that you relieve them of the burden of doing it alone. And they need you to help them come to a conclusion on their own – just as they help you through your male anger or frustration when it clouds your vision. And they need you to say ‘no’ when it’s your fking job to say ‘these are the limits’ beyond which you are not willing to go – and not apologize for it. Be a man. Give her room to exercise emotional frustration by emotional expression like you exercise emotional frustration by physical expression.
-
Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
- Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
- Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin
-
Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
- Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
- Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin