Ideas with Swords

The Belmont club uses the phrase “ideas with a Sword” in article re a Phillip Bobbit article:

To those who think groups like al-Qaeda are myth, Bobbitt replies that on the contrary, they are the new challenge of the 21st century: ideas with a sword.

This sounds Meme-ish doesn’t it?

I think this –> Ideas-with-Swords = Armed Meme-Based-Networks (MBN)

Open Source Espionage and the Anti-Anti-Islamofascists

David Frum has an article entitled Whose Side Is the Left On about two concepts I have been mulling over in my mind recently: the emergence of Open Source Espionage and the non-trivial existence of Anti-Anti-Islamofascists.

He writes about what I call Open Source Espionage:

The Times’ terrorism-financing story followed two other intensely damaging leaks: One to the Times disclosed details of the National Security Agency’s program for intercepting terrorist communications; another to the Washington Post disclosed the locations of the prisons where high-value al-Qaeda captives were held for questioning.

Altogether, these three stories helped al-Qaeda to transfer money more securely, to conceal its communications more effectively, and to identify potential targets for terrorist retaliation and blackmail. Short of printing coupons to offer terrorists discounts on their next purchase of a nuclear device, it’s hard to imagine how a media organization could provide more assistance to the terrorist enemy than these stories in the Times and Post have done.

He writes this about what I call the Anti-Anti-Islamofascists (which includes much but not all of of the left):

The divulgence of crucial national secrets has elicited remarkably little outrage from Democrats in Congress. Few have stepped forward to defend the Times or the civil servants who leaked to it, but almost none has condemned the leak, either.

Now the Hamdan decision–and the resulting urgent need for new anti-terrorist legislation–forces a decision upon Congress and the Democratic minority. Where do they stand? What will they support?

This is more than merely a partisan question. It goes directly to the question of whether the U.S. and the West will be able to combat terrorism as united societies–or whether their left wings will opt out, or balk, or worse.

Some of the Anti-Anti-Islamofascists just don’t believe Islamofascism is a real threat. They believe that Democratic Capitalism in general and specifically George Bush and Republican/Conservative parties are their real opponents. These tend to be of the left or Transnational Progressives. They are focused on what Fonte calls the Ideological War Within the West, and which is turning into a sort of WesternCiv 5GW Civil War.

Other Anti-Anti-Islamofascists included Muslims who while not taking part in active Jihad, tacitly agree with its goals and help in soft ways like giving money to known faux-charities, and opposing sensible security controls claiming racism / islamophobia / victimhood.

Some Anti-Anti-Islamofascists are just this new long war’s version of Useful Idiots. Alot of the left and the democratic party stalwarts fall into this category.

Update: More on the Tranzis from Stephan Den Beste / USS Clueless

Freedom Spreading (aka Gap Shrinking) via the Promotion of Entrepreneurial Capitalism

Via the PSD Blog, Carl Schramm writes in USA Today, starting with:

Smith‘s great revelation was that political freedom would most likely emerge and persist under conditions of economic freedom, what we now call capitalism. Our democratic system as defined in our Constitution incorporated respect for this economic system. Like Smith’s invisible hand in the market, the Framers saw an invisible hand in our politics. They believed that, if allowed to work freely,
these hands together would shape America into the land where invention, creativity and entrepreneurial activity would flourish.

and then the money quote:

More than the export of democracy, it is the export of entrepreneurial capitalism that can produce a new birth of peace and freedom around our globe. Entrepreneurial capitalism is based on individual invention, and because wealth comes from one’s own initiative, it advances human dignity.

And here is the good news. Virtually every country, whatever its
political system, wants to embrace it. They have seen the success of
the American economy.

The benefits of PNM Theory‘s Globalization flows from the above. It is analogous to the Democratic Peace Theory, sort of an Entrepreneurial Peace Theory.

I have not written much on PNM Theory yet (I have been putting off a series of post on it). One thing that always bothered me was the avoidance of idea promotion especially democratic ideas. I did not see how the gap could shrink if it didn’t introduce new memes to replace long existing bad memes.

Entrepreneurial Peace Theory (aka PNM Globalization) is sort of a backdoor (think 3GW or 4GW) to the same result as Democratic Peace Theory (think 1GW or 2GW). Entrepreneurial Capitalism promotion might be more subtle/indirect then Democracy Promotion and therefore have a greater chance of success. The best results will come from promoting both as there is much overlap and re-enforcement between the two. Considering the above and PNM Theory, the effort on behalf of Entrepreneurial Capitalism promotion should be at least twice that of directed toward Democracy Promotion.

My New Term: Open Source Espionage

With the actions of the New York Times fresh in my mind, and while driving home listening to some leftists on NPR re-assure themselves, I yelled out a phrase – Open Source Espionage.

Open Source Espionage (OSE?) will be used in 4GW (and 5GW…though I haven’t thought about this in that context).

Consider this clear espionage scenario:

  • A US Treasury department official…
  • smuggles out the details of a legal but secret US Intelligence Program on a USB drive…
  • Passes it off to Abu Quisling who “pays him for his expenses and risk”…
  • Who shoves it up his ass…
  • Before flying to Europe…
  • To hand it off to the brothers…

We would call the above espionage – without a doubt.

Just like the methods of war-fighting change in 4GW, it appears that some new intelligence techniques now exists.

In the New York Times instance they, as anti-anti-islamofascists, have committed espionage against the US, but delivered the intelligence through a 4GW-ish method – public electronic information and media publications.

The anti-anti-islamofacists I listened to on NPR (and I presume elsewhere), are claiming freedom of speech or freedom of the press in the support of this successful espionage operation against the US. Those freedoms are about political speech and political media publishing. I don’t think it is meant to be an absolute right to say or print anything (slander, libel, death threats, orders to commit crime, etc.). Espionage by passing information via words and newsprint, is espionage just as if the information has been left at a dead drop on a microdot or smuggled out up Abu Quislings ass in a USB Thumb Drive.

The US leaders and public don’t really understand 4GW or how public policy and national security activity are effected by it (I am still gaining my understanding of it). The US leaders and public are still living in a mostly 2GW (slightly 3GW) world-view. They don’t really understand the changes wrought by 4GW (and the emerging 5GW). Perhaps, we have also gone soft a bit with out success over the last 25 years.

So what can be done to counter Open Source Espionage? I have a few ideas (very rough):

  • update the espionage act
  • educate relentlessly the U.S. leaders and public about 4GW and islamofascism
  • Create a counter-terror/4GW court/legal system with pro-American Nation Lawfare opportunities
  • Long-Term: need to do something about the untangling cohesivnss of the American Nation and Western Civilization
  • Short-Term: What do do about the Anti-anti-islamofascist and the 4GW / proto-5GW Fifth Column? Islamofascist supporters could be sued under R.I.C.O. (Perhaps a 4GW Rico-ish legislation needed including US Lawfare Options both criminal and civil)

Update: Related info on Hot Air

What Would a 5GW Civil War for the American Nation Look Like?

I write about the anti-anti-islamofascists here:

If the citizens and residents of the USA are not mostly united about the idea of the American Nation and Western Civilization we can not hope to win the combo 4GW/5GW war that we face against the Islamofascists. How large is the internal enemy: 10% / 20% / 30% or more of the population? In 5GW fashion, are they over-represented in vital institutions (like the media, educational services, the state department, the CIA even)?


Can the enemy collapse us from within by leaking our secrets (to preserver their active fighters and the infrastructures of islamafascisim) while eliminating our collective will to fight/resist/win, and even gently dissuading us over time of the very notion that the American Nation and Western Civilization is worth preserving?

and here:

To the anti-anti-islamofascists, the war was a mistake, we are loosing it, and the best thing we can do to regain our prominent position in the world (now lost) is pull out of Iraq (and cease support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and of any country whose arab/islamic leaders are friendly to the USA) as quickly as we can (they had a government for 6 months in Iraq now after all). We have learned our lesson that the US cannot and should attempt military action overseas unless it is in no way in the national interest (besides the true purpose of the defense establishment is pork barrel spending at home).

I am reminded of the Fonte’s idea of an ideological war for western civilization:

Talk in the West of a “culture war” is somewhat misleading, because the arguments over transnational vs. national citizenship, multiculturalism vs. assimilation, and global governance vs. national sovereignty are not simply cultural, but ideological and philosophical. They pose Aristotle’s question: “What kind of government is best?”

In America, there is an elemental argument about whether to preserve, improve, and transmit the American regime to future generations or to transform it into a new and different type of polity. We are arguing about “regime maintenance” vs. “regime transformation.”

The challenge from transnational progressivism to traditional American concepts of citizenship, patriotism, assimilation, and the meaning of democracy itself is fundamental. If our system is based not on individual rights (as defined by the U. S. Constitution) but on group consciousness (as defined by international law); not on equality of citizenship but on group preferences for non- citizens (including illegal immigrants) and for certain categories of citizens; not on majority rule within constitutional limits but on power-sharing by different ethnic, racial, gender, and linguistic groups; not on constitutional law, but on transnational law; not on immigrants becoming Americans, but on migrants linked between transnational communities; then the regime will cease to be “constitutional,” “liberal,” “democratic,” and “American,” in the understood sense of those terms, but will become in reality a new hybrid system that is “post-constitutional,” “post-liberal,” “post-democratic,” and “post-American.”

Maybe I am just in a pessimistic mood tonight. I can’t help but think I am seeing 5GW shadows here.

The American Nation has had two bloody civil wars already (this one and this one) – we won’t have another. We have arguably had a third civil war that was a mostly peaceful 4GW Civil War (that is a debate for another post).

It is unlikely that a third bloody civil war will take place.

I think I sense the beginning of the fourth civil war – a 5GW Civil War. The institutions of the nations are being slowly subverted (Boiling the Frog style) to call for the rejection of the American Nation’s DNA from which it originated. The “other side” is both sub-national and “trans-national”. It is purpose-driven with long time-frames. It uses the institutions of the US against the US.

Okay, let me think more about this. While this might be a flash of 5GW insight, it might just be conspiracy mongering and paranoia (the excellent built-in defense of 5GW movements).

Anti-Anti-Islamofascists Expose US Intelligence Operation Monitoring International Financial Transactions

ZenPundit reports the the anti-anti-islamofascists strike again in an article entitled: The New York Times As Al Qaida’s Counterintelligence Arm. He writes:

Covert or cut-out financial transfers of funds are the lifeblood of jihadism and terror operations and detecting these activities is now going to be immeasurably harder, as more al Qaida funds transfers are shifted to alternate, underground, networks.

Words like treason and Fifth Column come easier to my mind nowadays.

If the citizens and residents of the USA are not mostly united about the idea of the American Nation and Western Civilization we can not hope to win the combo 4GW/5GW war that we face against the Islamofascists. How large is the internal enemy: 10% / 20% / 30% or more of the population? In 5GW fashion, are they over-represented in vital institutions (like the media, educational services, the state department, the CIA even)?

Can the enemy collapse us from within by leaking our secrets (to preserver their active fighters and the infrastructures of islamafascisim) while eliminating our collective will to fight/resist/win, and even gently dissuading us over time of the very notion that the American Nation and Western Civilization is worth preserving?

Maybe this is the cause of my insomnia.

Update: Related links on InstaPundit

Notes from Endgame:The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror by McInerney and Vallely

While killing time on Monday, I went through most of the book Endgame:The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror by McInerney and Vallely. The book was fairly thin and I got through it pretty quick (that may have also been do to the Iced Cafe Americano I was drinking).

The book makes no mention of, nor does it acknowledge anything like 4GW. All of the commentary on US Forces is 3GW related. I didn’t really find that part of the book interesting or useful. The suggestion that the Army Reserves and National Guard should be heavy forces (and not what I think: Military police, engineers, civil affairs, intel/counterintel, and logistics) is just one example.

It did find several of the non-armed forces ideas interesting:

  • A new Five Freedoms as a global statement of values
  • reform of US Diplomatic efforts
  • Allow rapid appointment of vacant house seat in case of national emergency
  • Method for emergency succession of federal judges to Supreme Court vacancies in case of national emergency
  • Disperse Federal Agencies geographically across the US
  • Lay out specifically the rules and powers for Executive Branch to avoid confusion (and Lawfare opportunities, I think)
  • Special Terrorism Courts

I like the idea of Global Values/Aspiration statement like FDR’s 4 Freedoms (of speech, from fear, from wants, of religion). The authors suggest the following Five Freedoms:

  1. Freedom of Education
  2. Freedom of Economy
  3. Freedom of Information
  4. Freedom of Person
  5. Freedom of Governance

This was the strongest idea in the book. I have been mulling over the need of the west and it allies and potential allies to have shared core values that they can rally around. FDR’s Four Freedom just didn’t seem to be quite right and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is too lengthy to memorize. The authors Five Freedoms are short, get to the point, don’t exclude allies and potential allies and work well as a meme. Future Purpleslog will return to this idea in future posts.

The other part of the book I liked was a the short section on Special Terrorist Courts (an idea I have blogged on before). Here are the highlights:

  • create special federal terrorist courts
  • Three judge panel that presides over the trial and acts as the jury
  • Special rules of procedure to protect witnesses and intelligence
  • provides security for judges and prosecutors
  • Another panel of judges picks the defense attorney(s) from a vetted pool (I am thinking a sort of Special Terrorism Courts Bar)

Lastly, the book had a section on dealing with Iran. Here is the stated plan:

  1. Get a US Nuclear deterrence and shield in place – Regional Nuclear Umbrella
  2. Train a Free Iran Guerrilla Force
  3. Unleash US Air-power
  4. Coastal Navel/Marine Raids
  5. Raids from Iraq along the boarder
  6. Call on Iranian Citizens to rise up in rebellion

It sounded like a Persian Bay of Pigs plan to me.

It thought is was strange that the military specific parts of a book written by military guys were the weakest.

Notes from Liberty Magazine: John Mackey and the Freedom Movement

From Liberty Magazine, John Mackay has an article entitled Winning the Battle for Freedom and Prosperity [Update: Use this LINK] that I came across while killing time on Monday. It is both a first person journey into capitalism and libertarianism of Mackay, and his thoughts on the direction the Freedom Movement (read Libertarianism) should take.

There where many interesting portions:

The most important thing I learned about business in my first year was that business wasn’t based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives in the market place; employees have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers — they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics.

In other words, business is not a zero-sum game with a winner and loser. It is a win, win, win, win game — and I really like that.

The above definition, the systems of voluntary cooperation, is the best explanation of Democratic Capitalism I have ever read.

Continue reading

Am I Understanding the Gist of the Global Guerilla Concept? [Updated]

I am not sure if I understand John Robb’s Global Guerrillas Concept. Here is my summary of what I think it is:

The actions of the GGs are trying to:

Am I understanding this all correctly?

I am looking forward to the GG book and all of the discussions that will follow.

Update: GG is likely a 3GW variant. See the discussion in the comments.

Update: GG is not 5GW as was pointed out by Curtis (though a 5GW actor could manipulate or make use a GG or its environment). That was a typo on my part that I have corrected.

Update: More discussion at TDAXP on this.

Update: John Robb has a post responding to the TDAXP post

Update: Zenpundit post responding to the TDAXP post

Update: Here is an old comment by TDAXP on a ZenPundit GG vs. PNM Theory post. TDAXP suggests GG might be a new form of 3GW and makes this point: “Global Guerrillaism’s flaw is that it is Clausewitzian: it wants to attack the strong-point of rich states — money and technology — with money and technology.”

Update: Here is a recent comment by Curtis Gale Weeks/Phatic Communion on a Coming Anarchy post entitled Leaderless resistance. Among other things, Curtis says: “What happens when these different “disconnected” groups begin warring on each other because they are quite unalike in various ways? That would show the lie that some singular “leaderless” movement has formed”

Update: Curtis Gale Weeks/Phatic Communion has a new post that is both broad and deep entitled “Lind, Robb, Dan, PurpleSlog, CGW”. It covers 3GW, 4GW, 5GW, the rethinking of the the previous, The xGW framework overall, GG, phenomenon vs emergence, stability/resilience vs. open source…well lots of stuff. I have read it and impressed. I am going to print it out and read it again later and comment on it later tonight.

Update: BlahSploitation calls me (Purpleslog) a GG skeptic. The point of my post was not express skepticism. Instead, I was try to seek clarity on what may be an important (but fuzzy) concept. I think Robb’s forthcoming book might help on that.

Update: Jeez…I used the correct spelling for Bazaar throughout.

Update: Robb’s book – Brave New War – will be out soon.

Update: Discussion begins anew at TDAXP:

Final thoughts: The systempunkt does not exist, open source warfare is suicidal for groups that practice it, and bazaars of violence are regular but unstable features of social life in unstable countries. For this reason, Robb’s theory rely on super-altruistic global guerrillas, who practice open source warfare despite its high costs in order to extend the life of violence bazaars.

5GW Reply and Intro to ThunderPig and other stuff

So, I kind of had a crappy Memorial Day. My family and friends were out of town. I intended to go to the local parade and a memorial service afterwards (and then maybe a movie V for Vendetta at the budget show), but a security customer of mine (from a previous job) wanted to engage me a small project and Monday was the only time he could meet with me.

Of course he never showed up (he later called in the evening and rescheduled).

I ended up chatting with the bussers and the hostess/greeter at the restaurant while I waited until giving up and having a salad and a Diet Pepsi. The bussers were hanging out in front opening up doors. Believe it not 4GW came up with them. I wrote down some names and stuff for them to look up on the internet.

I then hung out at Barnes and Nobles in the late afternoon sucking a large Iced Cafe Americano (espresso, ice water and ice) and "evaluating" books and magazines (some post to follow).

When I got home, I read this post excerpt by Thunder Pig (linking to me):

What? When did 5GW get invented?!?

Well, so now I had something to do tonight!

Here is some (most of) what I wrote on his blog as a comment:

Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) is a new and evolving concept. Some would say it doesn’t exists, or it just 4GW misunderstood or applied in a new / different / expected way. William Lind, one of the fathers of 4GW and the Generations of Modern War framework, does not think 5GW is emerging yet ( ).

I think 5GW is a logical addition to the Generations of Modern Warfare (xGW) framework.

There is much discussion still as to the characteristics of 5GW – there is no definitive statement or definition.

Where 3GW is Maneuver Warfare (or Lightening Warfare) and 4GW is Netwar, 5GW is Secret War.

Secret War (5GW) is performed by super-empowered individuals and very small dispersed networks. It is possible that a 5GW groups will be the result of emergent/leaderless behavior. The 5GW group is separate from the state (and perhaps not known to the state or its leaders), SecretWar will be waged on the behalf of the state or an idea/Meme(s) or the small 5GW group itself. The fifth generation rides on the trend of the state loosing the monopoly of power.

Blogger TDAXP mapped the Generations of Modern War to the OODA Loop. (Here is my flick graphic version: Fifth Generation Warfare attacks the Observation part of the OODA – it aims at the intelligence of the enemy.

I think 5GW will be heavy on the infiltration and redirection of state and institutions and non-state network, and 4GW movements.

Direct Action in 5GW would be limited to the manipulation/redirection of 4GW groups, and small “it looked liked an accident or infighting” assassinations on future-leaders or existing important (to the opposition) human network nodes.

5GW should be able to use at least 1 magnitude less human resources to accomplish the same things as 4GW.

SecretWar requires well, secrecy to be successful. Since knowledge of the 5GW will often resemble weird conspiracy theories, 5GW practitioners will use that to there advantages to discredit and marginalize those that might be starting to recognize the 5GW movement. Most societies will by default consider weak evidence of 5GW as non-sense or wacko/crazy conspiracy thought and dismiss it.

Time-spans for 5GW war may be longer then that of 4GW wars. This is still being discussed.

I think the 5GW planning phase will be long, but 5GW tactical operations will be small, have short timespans, and be numerous (to avoid detection). I call this boiling the frog 5GW-style (

Zenpundit puts it best: “5GW is conceived in terms of strategic vision over an even longer time frame [referring to 4GW], sometimes before an opponent realizes that they will be an opponent but the execution time may be very short in comparison to 4GW. The operative question is probably whether the attacker or the defender has initiated 5GW – once you are already attacked you have missed your opportunity to shape the battlespace.”

There might even be high-tech versions of 5GW where future technology (like nano-technology) will allow the super-empowered individual the ability to accomplish massive things on his own. ( example: )

Examples of Possible 5GW
Control and redirect the activity of a 4GW group for a separate purpose
( )

Infiltrate the cultural and learning institutions of an enemy over time to change the enemy’s future generations.
( )

Assassination of potential future leaders of an opponent or key current network nodes. The assassinations will not look like outsider assassination: e.g. car accidents, drug overdoses, mugging gone bad, heart attacks, in-fighting/civil war

Lastly, 5GW is not John Robb’s Global Guerrillas (GG) concept. GG does not quite fit into the xGW framework. GG seems to use the tactics of Netwar, but concentrates on disrupting the complex systems of modern societies to: distract/disrupt the state, collapse part or some of the state, and create ungoverned spaces which can then be used by the GG patrons for some other ends (the GG are not modern high anarchists) At last, this is how I understand the GG concept right now. I await his book and the months of blogger postings that will appear afterwards on the concept.

I have been meaning to put together a short Wikipedia entry on 5GW, I will use this post as my start point. I hope the 5GW blog community will help expand it out over time.

Update: Sorry for the spelling/grammar mistakes. I was typing very late and did not take enough care. I have updated my notes that will be used in the Wikipedia entry itself.

Here are the other 5GW references I gave in the post to ThunderPig for now:

I have my version of the OODA/xGW drawing from TDAXP/ComingAnarchy available on Flickr:

OODA and OODA with xGW (Combined Image)

Update: More Links

Future China: You Might Be a Superpower if…

The Futurist has an interesting post entitled: Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030.

He states that it is unlikely that China will reach superpower status by 2030. The superpower status criterion listed are:

  1. Have an economy near the size of the US economy.
  2. Create original consumer brands that are household names everywhere in the world
  3. Have a military capable of waging wars anywhere in the globe.
  4. Have major universities that are household names, that many of the worlds top students aspire to attend.
  5. Attract the best and brightest to immigrate into China, where they can expect to live a good life in Chinese society.
  6. Be the leader in entertainment and culture.
  7. Be the nation expected to thanklessly use its own resources to solve many of the world's problems.
  8. Adapt to the under-appreciated burden of superpowerdom – the huge double standards that a benign superpower must withstand in that role.

With each criteria he discusses were China will fall short.

The criteria is very USA-centric, but I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I think the criteria really just describes a benevolent superpower. A Totalitarian Superpower (more of a classical Empire) would care little about things like, thanklessly using its own resources, being unappreciated, and would be more control focused.

Read the article and the excellent comments (and look over other posts at the site) – it is worth the time.

I especially like these other post from The Futurist:

Possible Explanation for the Growing Coziness Between Islamofascists and Transnational Progressives

It has seemed very strange to me that Transnational Progressives and Islomafascists are making common cause on some things.

I thought that their opposite views on religion and competing power goals would have kept them apart. I figured the Tranzis were taking a tactical position of anti-anti-islamofascists because they didn’t really see islamofascism as a threat and it seemed like a could way to oppose American style Democratic Capitalism and soft nationalism (and the Anglo-sphere)

There is another explanation: their common Universalism philosophy.

TCS Daily has an article by James Pinkerton entitled: Universalism vs. Nationalism. One excerpt:

The answer is that all four of the above — Mahony, CAIR, the ACLU, and the Journal — have chosen universalism over nationalism. The four embrace different visions of universalism, to be sure, but each one of them is similar insofar as it seeks to transcend passports and borders. Each of the four pursues a trans-nationalizing, world-flattening globalism that regards nation-states as, at best, necessary evils — and at worst, unnecessary evils.

The article is interesting and covers much more ground then my spin on the the topic (immigration, 4 flavours of Universalism, strengths, weaknesses, and public policy ramifications). It is well worth the time to read it all.

“Just Another Eloi Planting Flowers for the Morlocks”

Somebody posting as Jimmy the Dhimmi at American Future had a great line commenting on a speech by a Tranzi:

Jean Rohe is just another Eloi planting flowers for the Morlocks.

I love the analogy!

The Two Theories of War

A long time ago when I was an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I took a course called Problems In American Foreign Policy. I was not a Political Science major, but I gamed the system pretty well so I was able to take upper-level/grad Political Science courses for most of my social science electives and other filler credits. The course was great and was taught a wonderful professor John Armstrong who retired a few years later.

One of the books for the class was The American Threat by James Payne. Future Purpleslog will cover this book at some time in the future.

For now, I would like to just bring up quickly the 2 theories of war it discussed:

  • The Excitation Theory of War
  • The Appeasement Theory of War

Continue reading

Lawfare and 5GW Secret War

I just posted on Lawfare and 4GW.

The role in 5GW for Lawfare is much reduced from that of 4GW. By its nature, 5GW is Secret War. The 5GW practitioners will not be able to directly pursue Lawfare because that will expose them and exposure kills 5GW (or at least transforms it into a low-odds 4GW).

Lawfare will only come into play in 5GW in that 4GW movements may be created (that include using Lawfare as a tactic) as means to achieve the 5GW goals.

Lawfare and 4GW Conflict with Examples

I summarized and extended conflict techniques from Unconventional Warfare in a prior post.

One of the most interesting is Lawfare aka Legal Systems warfare. Lawfare is the use of national and international legal systems to further ones political goals and to deceive / deter / deflect / demoralize / de-legitimize / destroy ones political opponents.

Lawfare will be especially used by 4GW movements where an actor with weak conventional military strength can use legal systems against a stronger conventional military opponent to get an outcome more favorable (or less unfavorable) negating the opponents conventional military advantage.

Continue reading

4GW, Nation-Building as Soft-Colonization,Time Ranges in War/Conflict, and Meme Wars

Blogs Tdaxp and ZenPundit have linked to an interesting post on Amendment X regarding PNM Theory, 4GW, and war/conflict in general. There are some real gems in the comments (pay no attention to any nastiness or sniping to get to the good stuff).

I especially found the following comments interesting by "J Smith" interesting.

"J Smith" comments:

From what I can tell, 4GW has been used since about the beginning of time. Analyze any historic period where native populations are being subdued or where they are becoming restless again. You'll see right there almost every single tactic which these so called military theorists insist amount to 4GW being used by the natives.


But that just makes it all the more plain don't it? The only way to when a "4GW" war or a 5GW war or whatever the fuck they are calling it these days, the only way to win a war against an insurgent native population is, here's the punch line, to colonize them!

And this country just doesn't have the stomach for the grueling and vicious nature of colonization. We aren't an empire because our people don't want to be one. So let's stop it with the warfare evolution mumbo jumbo and just be honest and acknowledge that fact. Certainly would make my life a lot easier. What we are witnessing is not 4GW. It is a failed "soft" colonization policy which over and over again throughout history has been shown to be completely worthless.

I am leaning toward the idea of 1GW thru 5GW have always existed (and dropping the Pre-Modern war idea, or re-characterizing it as 0GW). The way to think about them is not historical time periods or types of technologies, but general methods and the part of the OODA they center on.

Is nation-building Soft Colonization? I had never thought of it that way. Machiavelli in The Prince would suggest that Soft Colonization would be more likely prone to failure. He suggests the Prince should make the tough decisions and get any harsh measures that need to be taken over with a soon as possible. For Iraq, the idea would be to have the US rule-top down harshly from the beginning, while building up Democratic practices from the bottom up (and then slowly turning over responsibilities to democratic local units – federalism from the ground up).

Later "J SMith" writes:

Let it look like this then. The first world has been in a war with the third world since the industrial revolution. All "wars" fought since that time which include parties in the first and third world respectively are merely battles in this war.

The issue of when a war/conflict begins and end has always frustrated me as I try to study. Where WW1 and WW2 different wars? Or at a higher level where they the same conflict? Many examples of the can be given. TDAXP has explained the rise of Christianity as a non-violent 4GW of the small christian social network against Roman Empire.

Movements (e.g. Christianity, Rome-as-Civilization, Mexica-as-Reconquista) are meme/people based and ebb and flow over generations (over time). These Meme-Based networks (MBN) compete and therefore might grow, shrink, mutate, or die over-time. Perhaps is is best to think of the wars/conflicts in the context of the greater movements. Maybe abstract MBN vs MBN is 6GW? Do MBN make use of states and non-state actors over big units of time to fight for advantages in the MBN vs. MBN conflict? This is abstract war/conflict or perhaps unconscious war/conflict, and maybe leaderless war/conflict (over long units of time). More to come on this…

Ideologies and USAv3

Econlog has a post that links to the article on TCS entitled Tribal Politics that is about immigration.

In it, Arnold Kling lays-out competing ideologies/systems:

Transnational Libertarianism

  • individual rights based
  • no economic borders
  • locally focused
  • amoral relativism (Purpleslog description)
  • Utopian
  • big problem: getting there from here
  • This the Kling preference


  • Islam as transnational expansionist totalitarian political movement

Transnational Progressivism aka Tranzis

Statist Collectivism

  • Big government
  • Power centralization orientation
  • Nationalism
  • As defined by Kling there seems to be no distinction between a democratic focus and totalitarian focus.
  • According to Kling this ideology's adherents broadly include President Bush and Paul Krugman

I think I would add to this by making a distinction between Democratic focused Statist Collectivism and Totalitarian focused Statist Collectivism.

A few days ago wrote about the direction I would like to see the America go in, entitled USA version 3. I am still just starting to be express the idea. The USAv3 as I see will be a sort of USAv2 + Mexico as a Market-State with American Core values. This ideology would be Nationalistic Libertarianism.

Nationalistic Libertarianism

  • Maintain national identity and values (including democracy and capitalism)
  • Expand economic and political borders
  • Smaller government, more federalism
  • Concerned with National Security
  • This is the Purpleslog USAv3 preference

I am okay with Transnational Libertarianism being USAv4, but the world needs to be mostly democratic/capitalistic/free before that transaction can take place.

I will think some more about this at a later time.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers