Fall of Aleppo reveals that asymmetric warfare is bunkum

fourteen months ago, I said that Aleppo would very shortly fall.

Eight months ago I said that it had fallen for certain values of fallen, and its fall indicates that asymmetric warfare only works when the stronger side is fighting with one hand tied behind its back – usually tied by the State Department. My prolific commenter B complained that Aleppo had not actually fallen yet, therefore this failed to demonstrate that asymmetric warfare is bunk.

OK.

Now it really has fallen, and asymmetric warfare really is bunk. The weaker side really was unable to go guerrilla.

Mao’s guerrilla warfare consisted of raiding China from across a border behind the protection of Soviet troops. The terrorists are heading to the Turkish border to repeat this form of guerrilla warfare.

Syria simply has no problem with terrorism in the sense of Somali guy attends college, gets training that white people are microagressing against him, then runs amuck killing white people at the college, then the college apologizes to Islam and the Somali community and gives white people further training in refraining from microagressing. The only terrorism problem in Syria is shells, mortars, and rockets raining down on civilians from terrorist controlled territories, and they have just cleaned up the last terrorist controlled area in or near a big city, after the style of the siege of Grozny.

If Syrians do not have to put up with fourth generation warfare style terrorism, then we do not have to put up with terrorism, with fourth generation warfare, either.

You kill Somali guy. Then you put everyone who encouraged or enabled Somali guy in the gulag. And you don’t let them out until many years have passed since the last terrorist act. You level his mosque and his college, then you put all the instigators at college and mosque in the Gulag, and you make sure no one associated with his mosque or his college ever gets a job preaching or teaching ever again. That is how you do it. And you keep an eye out for anyone who sounds like those who instigated Somali guy. Oh, and you deport everyone who looks like Somali guy. But deportation is only half the answer since those who enabled and encouraged Somali guy’s terrorism were generally white.

Tags:

94 Responses to “Fall of Aleppo reveals that asymmetric warfare is bunkum”

  1. […] Fall of Aleppo reveals that asymmetric warfare is bunkum […]

  2. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    First link is returning a 404 yim.

  3. fnn says:

    This is why Greg Cochran calls William Lind a “nut.”

  4. Pepe minion says:

    > asymmetric warfare only works when the stronger side is fighting with one hand tied behind its back

    True, and illustrated by an earlier example. By the 1920s the British were already becoming cucked. When a small part of their Empire went to war against them, the path to enlightened approval in Britain was to denounce their own side if it committed the crime of fighting effectively. If, in preference to waiting to be shot, soldiers burned down a village suspected of harboring the IRA, the soldiers were considered monsters by both sides. So the British lost the war, abandoning 300,000 unionists in the 26 counties.

    Then came the Irish Civil War between the new Free State and the ultra-republican Irregulars. The Free State fought with both arms untied. For example after the killing by the Irregulars of a TD, the government took four prisoners from their cells in Mountjoy into the prison yard and executed them. The Irregulars eventally sought terms and were rebuffed. The Free State exacted unconditional surrender.

    For extra amusement: progressives in Britain regard the Irish nationalists as brave fighters for freedom against their British oppressors; but any British person who prefers his country to be free of the EU is obviously a vile racist.

    • viking says:

      Then theres always the theory that patches are better and when you dont try to rule people not your own you dont have ethnic freedom fighters within you “borders”

    • Alrenous says:

      Britain had a lethal case of cuckery by 1775.

      Indeed the writing was on the wall when the empire was nationalized and became formally an empire.

    • peppermint says:

      That’s because the ((liberals)) won. They gave Sin Fine most of Ireland in exchange for turning Ireland from ethno-nationalist into http://i.imgur.com/vWmKtOZ.jpg and the first country to vote for gay marriage.

      The people trying to maintain the Empire would have maintained the Irish as a nation.

      • viking says:

        not first country to legalize gay marriage, and probably last country to legalize abortion.It did unfortunately adopt marxism as a revolution but of course they really were sort of similar serfs as russians, yeah i know serfdom was technically abolished before Russian revolution. You want to rule as a monarch first rule if youre overthrown you were not worthy, second rule the people really are sovereign because ultimately if youre a bad enough ceo the shareholders have the ultimate monopoly on violence and youre done you dont even get to keep your shares.A pretty certain way to get fired is to stop paying dividends.

      • Cavalier says:

        »http://i.imgur.com/vWmKtOZ.jpg

        I raise you.

        https://i.imgur.com/eOTFDMc.jpg

    • Hidden Author says:

      The Left regards the Left as heroic and everyone else as villains. You guys invert that and say I’m a Leftist for refusal to invert with you. But instead of instinctively siding with the strong like you guys or the covetous like the Left, the human mind can address the matter through many angles.

      I, for one, do not automatically sympathize with the strong or the covetous but like many red-blooded Americans support the guy trying to humbly make his way through the world against the sort who would bully him. Thus the Bolsheviks and ISIS are obvious bad guys. But the American or Irish revolutionaries? It seems that those insurgents were more about stopping the bullying from London than powered by fantasies about bullying people themselves. Sounds like they deserved to win to me!

      • peppermint says:

        The American and Irish revolutionaries were allowed to win by London because London wanted to maximize social justice, i.e. the amount of bullying in the world. Sin Fine was given most of the Irish counties because Irish rulers would have an easier time confusing the people into accepting racial replacement.

        • Hidden Author says:

          An autocrat is great if he is the Messiah reigning over the people with perfect wisdom and justice but if he is a tyrant or even a mere mortal whose shit stinks like everyone else’s, people will want him to be accountable when he’s genuinely wrong. And if he puts down not genuine crime but people genuinely opposed to wrongs fairly and reasonably defined as wrong, then he is bullying the people. This does not necessarily mean that revolution is legitimate since civil war must always be the last resort after all other genuinely peaceful options are exhausted. But it can be the seed of a legitimate revolution. And ultimately the American and Irish revolutionaries were motivated not by ambition, envy or greed but by a genuine love of their friends and neighbors. But people like you discount this because you are unable to love your friends and neighbors…

          • Hidden Author says:

            And your racial replacement theory for London having at least some mercy for Sinn Fein is ahistorical. Mass nonwhite immigration to European nations is a matter of postwar (after WWII not interwar when the Free State emerged) prosperity and the UK, having enjoyed postwar prosperity first got the mass nonwhite immigration first.

            • peppermint says:

              Sin Fine would not have won if not for London, and London wanted Sin Fine because it was a den of traitors and bullies signaling treason and planning to bully. As you say, they saw Sin Fine as righteous.

              Mass mud importation was not about prosperity, since it began right after the war. Nor was it about, as the Beatles conjectured, importing pakis to vote Labour. Rather, they were imported specifically to rape preteen English girls and destroy the English nation, because the English deserved it for slavery and the Holocaust. The first shipment of mud illegally imported was imported by a skype, but not immediately deported and the skype uninstalled, not so much because England by then was ruled more or less openly by skypes, but because liberalism.

              • Hidden Author says:

                Prosperity’s relative anyways. The Pax Romana prosperity was wretched Third World poverty compared to modern conditions. And modern conditions may almost seem equally wretched compared to some Futurtopia that emerges centuries in the future.

                But we do know that the economy recovered quickly after the Second World War. And that, mass nonwhite immigration tended to occur at almost the exact time it did.

                As a polemicist, you choose the most damning narrative. As a historian, I look at the timeline. Ireland seceded in the aftermath of World War I. Mass nonwhite immigration occurred a generation later–but in Britain, not Ireland. In Ireland, it occurred in the next generation–when Ireland reorganized itself from the inward-looking potato patch favored by traditional Irish nationalists to the Celtic Tiger favored by globalist technocrats. And yes, the technocrats were globalists but they also established surplus jobs ripe for the picking by newcomers.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 established surplus jobs ripe for the picking by newcomers

                  Illegal migration accelerated during the Great Recession. Illegal migration is and was always intended to lead to the rape of Aryan girls.

                  Ireland was handed over to Sin Fine not with orders that they begin importing mud to destroy their people but as a leftist movement. Just as the American colonies were cut loose to prove that Parliament has authority beyond Great Britain, Sin Fine was the initial step towards destroying the entire Empire by turning over each possession to its most radical leftists. In fact the American thing was the same in that respect.

                  As a result of the particular circumstances of Irish and Indian independence, for several generations after independence the left could claim to be nationalists. In India, of course, being mudbloods and having a war with Pakistan and Muslims left behind in India has allowed real nationalists to rise. Ireland can’t rally around the Catholic church to become nationalist, so they must go to Hitler.

                • peppermint says:

                  Leftism is the future because imperialism is obsolete and loses to leftism.

                  The fronteir is closed because there’s no new land because the fronteir is closed, so don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys, there’s no further need for that kind of man.

                  But now there’s nothing left to give away, trannies is bathrooms are less sympatheric than muds and don’t rape White women as effectively.

          • peppermint says:

            Should the American Revolution should have succeeded? Yes, because the American colonies were by that time populated by people born there, and England was refusing to recognize the manifest destiny of the American colonists to conquer and subdue the entire continent. But England was refusing to recognize said destiny due to treason.

            Should the Irish Revolution have succeeded? No, because the Irish were immediately saddled with a leftist government that won the national revolution and thus was hard to make a populist challenge to.

            Neither the American nor Irish revolutions would have been necessary nor possible if not for the treason of London.

            • peppermint says:

              I don’t know what’s wrong with each of the colonies having its own royal governor and the parliament of England not exceeding its authority by legislating stuff outside of Great Britain. Maybe add a viceroy to oversee rapid deployment of colonial militias and any possible colonial army to defend the colonies against any rabble of stone age savages led by Frenchmen and Spaniards.

              Instead, following the fighting, it was confirmed that Parliament technically had the authority to legislate anything anywhere and even direct the war effort, while the colonies were handed over to enlightened progressives who would set up democracy.

              If America had a viceroy instead of a president, two houses of congress, and a supreme court, it may have ended up as one country anyway, but probably without needing the War between the States. If the Supreme Court hadn’t arrogated to itself both same power to legislate from the bench that the courts in England were assuming and the power to overrule state law, the War between the States would not have been necessary.

              You can’t talk about these things without talking about the eternal leftist.

              • peppermint says:

                The US Constitution says the states need to have a republican form of government.

                The US Supreme Court ruled that states that elect state senators on a county by county basis do not have a republican form of government because some counties have less population (this ruling was, of course, intended to favor the urbanites).

                As a result the US does not have a republican form of government.

                Our God-Emperor is Donald Trump.

          • jim says:

            We are always ruled by people whose shit stinks like everyone else’s. A secure autocrat has the right incentives. A democratic government has an incentive to first enfranchise, then import, cheap low information voters.

            • Dave says:

              If a secure autocrat invites foreigners to come settle her country, as Catherine the Great did, they’re going to be intelligent, productive citizens who will expand the autocrat’s tax base. The immigrants are allowed to keep their superior language and culture, as that’s part of the reason they’re so successful.

              Do you think any 21st-century autocrats might try this?

              • peppermint says:

                Siberia needs settlers. So does the Western US and Canada. There will be a short supply of young White men and women soon.

                • Cavalier says:

                  So do Mexico, Central America, and South America. At the very least, our Manifest Destiny should stretch to the tip of Argentina. I never understood why we considered the frontier “closed” when we reached the Pacific. The frontier never closed of its own accord, we simply drew an arbitrary line in the sand and granted all the land on the other side to the sombrero squatters!

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  This would presume many more people would want to live in Siberia.

                  There are good reasons many people don’t live there or in Wyoming (where I have lived ) which has a somewhat similar climate and twice the population density

                  To compare my little part of California has 50x the population density of Siberia and 25x that of Wyoming

                  Its the same silly thinking people the greed heads use , we should develop Wyoming or the Panhandle or Siberia because land

                  No we should not, Not all land is remotely equal and most of it not worth anyone’s time

                  People have voted for decades to live anywhere else and with good reason as there are plenty of nicer places to live.

                  Anyway if we solve our immigration problem we solve our population problem too .

                  Well for the short term anyway.

                  In the long term, unless millions of people become hardscrabble farmers or we go full Commie or regulate the shit out of things mass impoverishment is pretty inevitable for the whole of the future

                  Automation is going to reduce wages even more than it already has. And yes it had wages easily measured as percent GDP have declined by more than half.

                  About 1% per year from a 1973 base actually This is going to continue no matter what tax or immigration policies are chosen and you can’t run of to Siberia or Wyoming to fix it

                  As for colonizing the Americas as Cavalier suggests, this again presumes that there is a surplus of young men

                  This is not the case now and I suspect in the developed world so long as its stays developed there will never be again

                  As far as the distant past, getting enough women to go the colonies is a chronic problem. Women generally do not wish to be colonizers. Not a new problem the French in order to keep the men of early Louisiana from taking native wives took to shipping convicts and insane asylum inmates as mail order brides

                  Given women and men will have many more pleasurable things to do than hard work in some foreign dangerous land the number of women interested or capable of that is even more limited than in the past

                  In theory you could get super fertile religious colonists , ship them out but good luck keeping them loyal or high tech,

              • Hidden Author says:

                OK, Catherine the Great was benevolent to the German peasants colonizing the Volga but she also was malevolent in the sense that she enserfed free peasants in the Poland/Ukraine area to reward cronies oftentimes lovers that she accumulated through the sort of sluttery you guys otherwise condemn. William the Great’s removal of whole villages to obtain parklands for hunting was the medieval equivalent to the way the EPA, by hook or crook, confiscates the land of the rural people in the Western US.

                Another myth: Slavery was benevolent because the master had an interest in preserving his slaves. Sometimes he did. But the incentive was to minimize costs and so plantation agriculture in eras ranging from the Roman Empire to the European colonization of the Caribbean was to work the slaves to death (in Brazil the life expectancy was 10–and in most Caribbean colonies, importation rather than the birth rate was responsible for overcoming the death rate).

                Or: A businessman who pays a full-time laborer a low wage is OK because the market evens things out for the best. But if a full-time laborer’s wage is too low for him to survive without social services, the laborer, not the businessman, is scum for his anti-social behavior. So even a real-life example of market failure and uncaring bosses is ignored because caring and failure are concepts that can be molded and remolded by corporate cocksuckers.

                So no, I don’t believe that people who own other people have the best interests of the owned people at heart, whether the owners are the Politburo, the Crown or some plantation owner. Saying they do is succoming to a silly virtue-signaling spiral of the far right. Notice that I include the Politburo with the Crown and the plantation owner. Because the political spectrum is a horseshoe and the arc of centrist compromise is the sanctuary of consensus-building where the needs of the masses are met. You know, liberty for everyone, not just the strong, the rich and the bully. I also know, however, that tyranny is the natural state of sedentary cultures and that the tug-of-war between the left and the right to determine where the center is centered eventually destroys democracy and true liberty. But even if the People are no longer fit to govern themselves, I still reserve the right to mourn the loss of actual freedom for the everyday citizen. Fortunately the faith of the alt-right in Trump seems wildly misplaced–it seems that his shift rightwards is meant to center things against the Establishment’s shift leftwards. Good day!

                • peppermint says:

                  What you’re leaving out is that the slavery in the United States was good for the googlers, and a nation’s king is symbolically sire but literally in charge of his own flesh and blood extended family and has every incentive to do right by the nation.

                  In the future googlers will be treated much worse by Amerikaners than they were in the Antebellum South, if indeed our king permits any googlers to live with us at all.

                  The non-contingent form of Kek has returned to us to herald the end of this age of darkness and the return of Aryan reason. Locke and Mill are obsolete. We will only have Hitler as our philosopher, because we are not souls of ((Yahweh)) but Aryans. Shadilay!

                • jim says:

                  (in Brazil the life expectancy was 10–and in most Caribbean colonies, importation rather than the birth rate was responsible for overcoming the death rate).

                  Did they? Where we have accurate data, which is to say, the USA and British colonies, the natural growth rate of the slave population under white supervision by private owners was pretty high.

                  Just as global warming is most severe where our data is least accurate, slave death rates were highest where our data is least accurate. Thus, for example, the high death rates in the Belgian Congo were not slaves working under white supervision by private owners, but black tribes allegedly massacring other black tribes at the alleged instigation of King Leopold.

                • Cavalier says:

                  »Where we have accurate data, which is to say, the USA and British colonies, the natural growth rate of the slave population under white supervision by private owners was pretty high.

                  Which is why it’s a very bad idea to keep slaves, no matter how natural they be.

                  Deactivate the EBT cards; reallocate the money to building a fleet of slow ships.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Thralldom is a privilege you reserve for people of your own blood, as in the anglo-saxon and broader Teutonic societies of old.

                • Dave says:

                  There’s no mention of thralldom in the British Isles after about 1200 AD, probably because, as Jim said, the horse collar made slaves obsolete in the northern latitudes. In the tropics and subtropics they needed niggers because horses can’t work hard in hot weather.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Guerilla warfare tactics work, but the technology has to be relatively similar between the two, though the size difference might be greater.

  6. lalit says:

    Jim, Interesting that you think Asymmetric warfare is Bunk. You make compelling arguments. It does lend itself to common sense that Guerilla warfare is effective if and only if aided by another state (As in Kashmir) or if waged in conjunction with Regular warfare (As in the Nazi Invasion of the soviet Union and in Indian history vis-a-vis the Mughals and the Marathas).

    That being said, what are your thoughts on fourth Generation war as espoused by Cultural Conservatives like William Lind at the Traditional Right? I believe you are familiar with his work. He writes here
    http://www.traditionalright.com/author/wslind/

    And he has also written a futuristic novel, Victoria, outlining the Break-up of the United States into several sovereign units somewhere around 2028. Some Chapters are provided here
    https://www.traditionalright.com/victoria/
    You might have already read this novel.

    Wondering what you think about 4th generation war and of this scenario.

    • TheBigH says:

      The guerilla warfare in the Soviet Union was mostly propaganda. The Germans had so little trouble suppressing it that was barely mentioned by the Generals.

      • Hidden Author says:

        They still needed to detach several divisions out of the over two hundred divisions involved to handle the partisans.

        • peppermint says:

          the only importance of the Einsatzgruppen was to be the sophisticated version of the holohoax palatable to people who couldn’t stomach the fake shower room death camp lie

          • Hidden Author says:

            I wasn’t talking about the Einsatzgruppen (i.e. executors of non-combatants)–I was talking about actual Wehrmacht and SS units sent to fight the NKVD-led army of combatants (armed combatants though admittedly they tended o evade direct confrontation) behind the rear while the bulk of Wehrmacht and SS units fought the Red Army at the front.

    • Alrenous says:

      Fourth Generation Warfare is actually a common academic disease/strategy, naming a prosaic thing by a fancy name. And it works, as you can see.

      4GW is actually 0GW, and reiterates the ancient wisdom of Morale Uber Alles.

      I don’t like single source ideas, but Gibbon plausibly argues the early Romans won simply because they didn’t quit. They catastrophically lost armies all the time, but they’d simply go home and raise another, whereas their enemies would quit after losing their first. Population dynamics were the same everywhere – if Rome had the men, so did everyone else. They won purely on morale.

      Lind correctly notes that if you have the means to attack morale directly, it’s more effective than trying to do so by breaking stuff.

  7. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Jim, Mao did not raid China from the USSR but from northern Shaanxi, a border region that was extremely desolate and underpopulated (by Chinese standards). If he went any north (or if the Japanese had not invaded) he would have died in the desert. Great post otherwise though.

    • jim says:

      Northern Shaanxi is the border with inner Mongolia. Mao raided from inner Mongolia, under the protection of Russian troops stationed on the border with inner Mongolia.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Jim, I hate arguing with you considering how much I learned from your blog but I really think you shouldn’t be using this example just for factual accuracy. The area right north of where Mao was is total undeveloped desert even today and he actually got his funding via Shanghai delivered by Chinese leftist entryists in the KMT (including Sun Yat-sen’s wife). Also, Mao wasn’t doing any raiding until after 1937 because before the Xi’an incident the entire communist army was on the verge of destruction, being surrounded by the KMT and the desert.

        I think a better example would be the Manchurian campaign during the war to suppress the bandits after WWII, when a large part of the communist army pretty much camped in the Soviet concession in southern Manchuria (which also contained a huge portion of the total communist ammunition production capacity). The Soviets also handed over all the captured Japanese equipment to the communists which gave them materiel superiority. So your point is 100% correct, without Soviet and US help the communists would not have came even close to winning, but I really think you should not use the Shaanxi example because when convincing people you have to be right on every point.

        • jim says:

          So Mao, losing the war, marches 99% of the way back to his heavily armed backers, to a land where the people are racially and culturally different from himself and do not speak the same oral language, to a land where he and his men stand out from the civilian population like dog’s balls, to a land where he cannot possibly swim among the people like a fish in the sea, but not 100% of the way back to his heavily armed backers?

          And this action saves his goose how?

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            It didn’t, this is what saved him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi'an_Incident

            As someone with traditional gentry values, Chiang kept his promise not to attack the communists after they kidnapped him and extracted this promise from him. If he had just broke his promise they would have been cooked even before the Japanese attacked. Before the war with Japan, the communist army was down to 30,000 or less, after, 1 million plus. Mao actually told a Japanese communist visiting him not to apologize because without the Japanese invasion the CPC would not have came to power.

            Your point is 100% right regarding what happened after WWII though. The Communist army basically put its artillery ammunition production capacity and rear areas in the Soviet concession in Manchuria. if the KMT had a free reign to attack their forces there the communists would have been easily defeated due to losing a large part of their army and their artillery ammunition supply. Not to mention the Soviets gave them virtually all the equipment from the defeated Japanese army.

            The communists never swim among the people, more like bulldoze through them. There probably has been right wing guerillas that got the people to cooperate voluntarily (American revolution) but never communists. Their success just demonstrates the effectiveness of coercion and proves that your post is right.

  8. ilkarnal says:

    Clearly in war the strongest side does NOT always prevail. History is full of examples of weaker organizations eating stronger organizations’ lunch. The essence of these victories is usually stealth or speed, but it can also be sheer toughness, ability and willingness to endure punishment.

    You assume that American limp-wristedness is a result of philosophy rather than cowardice. I think cowardice flourishes wherever it is not driven out, and the reason it is not driven out is not because of some ancient and malign philosophical legacy but because of practical circumstances. The will to fight is like a callus, it requires stimulation to build up. This stimulation comes from abrasion, pain, hardship, fighting, danger. Lacking this you have a society with tissue paper soles/no real fighting spirit.

    The things the US was and is willing to do to civilians, and the odious allies that it courts, completely destroy the idea that the problem is not enough willingness to kill. The problem is not enough willingness to die. America lost Vietnam not because of some peacenik idiots but because the utterly ruthless people in charge did not have the guts to go invade North Vietnam, the obvious and only way of ending the war with a clear victory. They didn’t want to face the casualties and possible great power intervention as in Korea. They were SCARED. Not overly moralistic.

    As we emerge – temporarily – from the ocean of carnage that was most of human history, we deviate more with every generation from the war-forged values of our ancestors. This is a ‘secular’ process, not dependent on any ideology. We tend to be less TOUGH than the people of the shithole countries we invade, because they haven’t spent as much time as us outside of the toughening environment of real and constant danger.

    Our lack of toughness, primarily, is what creates our various military delusions, like the idea that you can win a war through so-called ‘strategic bombing.’ The only way to reliably defeat armies, now as in ancient history, is to put real men close enough to the enemy to throw a rock at them. Nowadays those men throw grenades instead of rocks, and they can call in artillery and airstrikes on the enemy’s head. But if you have just the artillery or airstrikes without the men on the ground, you are sure to fail. With guidance from men on the ground a stone’s throw from the enemy, a majority of ordinance does nothing – misses the target. Without that guidance pretty much all of it does nothing.

    If instead of targeting the army you target the civilian society, you simply waste valuable resources. To win, you must defeat the army. The army is only vaguely dependent on the society at large – its upkeep requires a very small percentage of a modern economy’s output, and it is threatened mostly by civilian greed, unwillingness to foot the bill. Civilian support for the war effort improves, if anything, when they are bombed. The army is VERY dependent on lines of supply, but cutting off those lines is impossible from the sky unless the army is in a very unusual position, and very unlikely in any case without having real men physically in between the army and its supply line.

    When you have to put men a stone’s throw from the enemy, some of those men are going to die. Some societies deal with this better than others. Ours has become spectacularly bad at it.

    • Dave says:

      You’re overlooking the fact that America *did* defeat North Vietnam, and they did it by carpet-bombing cities until they agreed to a peace treaty with South Vietnam.

      Only after a palace coup removed Nixon and treasonous Democrats cut off all support to South Vietnam did the North decide it was safe to invade and conquer the South.

      Was it not better for Tarkin to vaporize two billion rebels on Alderaan than fight them hand-to-hand down on the surface?

      • Cavalier says:

        Alderaan was a highly valuable planet with wonderful geography and plant and animal life endowed with many beautiful women and lots and lots of lebensraum.

        • peppermint says:

          So? The rebels were going to give it all to their monkey and squid friends as directed by their slug masters. The galaxy has millions of planets. Sometimes you just have to death ray the urbanites and start over.

          • Cavalier says:

            Kill the men and take the women and territory.

            Why waste a perfectly good world?

            • peppermint says:

              Okay, let Blackwater and volunteeer colonist soldiers take care of it in conjuction with local RWDS and maybe a palace coup. But maybe all that had already been attempted and it was either land stormtroopers or show the other rebellious planets what happens when the rebels win.

              The interesting thing about liberals and star wars is that Vader is cool and the prequel trilogy which sucked was all about Vader and everyone dresses up and Vader and the Stormtroopers, and now those guys are not only cool but explicit White supremacists, making the people dressing up implicit White supremacists. They would have been much better off making the rebels into the Confederacy and making everyone dressing up as a Stormtrooper into a soldier of progress.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Gravity wells are the biggest impediment to/energy drain of stellar civilization. Planets should be deconstructed into bite sized manageable chunks, which will incidentally also provide greater surface area and resource access.

          Also, stars? Extravagantly inefficient; we need to find a way to shut down that shit down, leaving a huge supply primo reactive material for our own reactors.

      • ilkarnal says:

        Bullshit. They agreed to a peace treaty that was favorable enough to them that the South did all it could to sabotage it and had to be strong-armed into agreeing. The US ally was forced to accept the terrible situation it was left in. When the North later gobbled up the South in violation of the treaty, the US sat back and watched. The US LOST. The Communists WON. It doesn’t get more blatant than this.

        By the way when carpet bombing the North the US lost about 2% of its B-52s per sortie… So it had damn good motivation to strongarm its ally into getting ass-raped and call it a victory.

        >Was it not better for Tarkin to vaporize two billion rebels on Alderaan than fight them hand-to-hand down on the surface?

        The popular fiction of a culture tells a lot about its delusions. You can’t just vaporize a country (which is the real world side of the planet analogy) like that, easy as pie – even with nukes. Sure, you can kill a hell of a lot of people very efficiently when they are totally unprepared and crowded up, but that success is very temporary. Once you move on to more hardened and more dilute targets the effectiveness drops off by many orders of magnitude. The ones that are hardest to kill are very, very hard to kill, and also happen to be the ones who you most NEED to kill, the ones who are most useful for and devoted to putting your ass under grass. The soft city dwellers are your biggest allies in disguise, hoovering up resources the enemy army needs and eager to betray them whenever they show signs of failing. The ones who cause you trouble are the hard men, tough as leather, who are either in the army or in the rough trades working outside the city proper. They are hard to kill.

        The Terminator nuke scene shows a lot about popular delusions too. Compared to what is portrayed in that film, nukes are a wet fart. That’s not to say they aren’t effective, a nuke is something like a high magnitude earthquake plus a big hurricane hitting a city. But to shatter reinforced concrete into dust a nuke has to be veeery close. In reality there will be a lot of survivors, and those survivors will be disproportionately tough and useful. Now, if you do what the Russians are prepared to do and follow up with bioweapons – smallpox, crop destroying fungi, etc – yeah, you can probably obliterate an unprepared country without getting ‘dirty hands.’ Not all unprepared countries at once, though. One decent sized one. And the rest will very, very, very rapidly become EXTREMELY prepared, and that trick won’t work anymore.

        Of course much more cheap, efficient, scalable, profitable, and repeatable is to go in with an army and slaughter the population on the ground until they submit, and make them pay tribute of some sort. That’s what sane, moral people do. Insane, immoral people dream of winning by avoiding a real fight and slaughtering random civilians from the sky. The Wehrmacht lost, despite being made up of the best soldiers and commanders ever to make war, because enough of the higherups were enthralled with this exact insane, retarded dream. Naturally the lesson everyone took from that war was that ‘strategic bombing’ was the future. Without constant real-world correction, the ideas that proliferate are the ones that are on the very surface compelling, regardless of their actual usefulness.

        • jay says:

          Kurdish rebellions were always completely crushed. Yet they persisted in their rebellion. Your method doesn’t seem to work in their case.

        • jim says:

          US was not carpet bombing the North, but should have been. Did in fact win by bombing the North.

          • ilkarnal says:

            A unilateral withdrawal in exchange for ceasefire is not a ‘win.’ It is an attempt to eke out a draw – an attempt that ultimately failed spectacularly. Why was Thiệu so upset about the situation if, as you assert, it was an unambiguous victory?

            http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2001/10/12/656ccc0d-31ef-42a6-a3e9-ce5ee7d4fc80/publishable_en.pdf

            I don’t see anything about the Soviet Union accepting limitations on arms supplies to North Vietnam – only the US limiting its own supplies to South Vietnam. I don’t see any concessions North Vietnam is forced to make in terms of their army’s dispositions, while the US agrees to withdraw completely.

            I see the ‘two South Vietnamese parties’ being referenced, and put into the cease-fire agreement – I assume this refers to the Thiệu government and the Viet Cong. So the Communists get to literally stay IN South Vietnam, while the US leaves.

            What a win.

            • jim says:

              North Vietnam agreed to stop invading the South, and did so. But only did so as long as there was a real threat of being bombed some more.

              While it stopped, the South was OK.

              The South fell, not to guerrilla war, but to open conventional invasion by the North. There was never any guerrilla war, or rather there was, but it was easily and decisively quelled. What there was, was continual over the border intrusions by the north. Bombing intimidated the North to halting them.

              After the US withdraw, and after the will to resume bombing ceased to be, then North Vietnam engaged in open conventional warfare against the North.

              So the Vietnam war illustrates that guerrilla warfare is ineffectual, and that bombing your enemy’s cities is effectual.

    • jim says:

      The things the US was and is willing to do to civilians, and the odious allies that it courts, completely destroy the idea that the problem is not enough willingness to kill.

      The US has no hesitation in doing whatever it takes to destroy the enemies of the state department, as was demonstrated in the Congo. It is when the Pentagon fights the friends of the State Department that it suddenly develops moral qualms and finds it difficult to torture women and children to death.

    • viking says:

      its more than that before wagering ones life one needs a decent return on wager if won. usually most people decide wager shows no clear gain loss either way and stay out. Its not sdo much the odds of winning as the intersection of winning and whats to be won.A 90% chance of winning more of the same is like playing russian roulette with a 10 cylindered revolver for the sheer fun of it.

  9. Jack Highlands says:

    ‘You kill Somali guy and get tough as hell with everything and everybody that led to Somali guy.’

    OK, but almost every )))White American((( understood this perfectly well on September 12, 2001. And look what we got.

    How to resolve the paradox? Sure it’s an over-simplification, but the short answer is: it’s the Jews. There is just no other force that could’ve resulted in what did, in fact, happen – higher Muslim immigration rate here since 9/11 than before.

    And obviously, Trump won’t take every one of the tough measures you outline, but he’s far closer to a step in that direction than any American politician since, I dunno – Teddy? So why is he reviled by globalists?

    Because, to a 1st order approximation globalism = Jews.

    If we’re talking root causes, which are always 80% genetic, those who enabled and encouraged Somali guy’s terrorism were generally ‘white.’

    • Cavalier says:

      First you shoot Somali guy. Then you shoot Somali guy’s family. Then you deport all still-living Somalians back to Somali. Then you carpet bomb Somalian industry, if any. Then you glass the major Somalian cities. Then you glass the Somalian country. Then, after this very thorough cleansing, if there remains any earth that might possibly feasibly grow anything green within the next two thousand years, you salt it.

      • pdimov says:

        The people who imported the Somali guy and convinced him that whites are microaggressors and need to die don’t care one bit for whether you glass Somalia. They’ll find someone else to import next.

        • Cavalier says:

          Because my recommended course of action requires control of the nukes, it implicitly presupposes control of USG, and because it implicitly requires control of USG, it implicitly assumes that you have already shot all of those people.

          • pdimov says:

            But it doesn’t, for some reason, implicitly assume that you’ve shot or deported all Somalis while you were at it. Instead, you of course have to keep them until they kill someone, then go and bomb Somalia, as if that’s going to help anyone.

            • Cavalier says:

              Deporting the various species of nigger back to their homelands, demanding their complete submission, and glassing them incrementally should they fail to comply is of course the action I would take immediately after subjugating and/or shooting the Brahmins, were I to obtain command of USG.

              But that doesn’t work for my hypothetical, which hypothetical was what I would do regarding Somalians were I to have command.

              And to further this hypothetical, let me say that immediately after achieving the (?:sand|rice|curry|malaria)niggers’ complete submission, I would go about making their countries great as England once made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great.

      • Alrenous says:

        Whereupon the Progressives outflank you on Christian compassion.

        Again.

        • Cavalier says:

          Were I to have Authority over them, how many legions would the Cathedral have?

          I think they would find outflanking me to be rather hazardous to their health.

    • Alrenous says:

      Bush attacked the wrong country, then another, different wrong country.

      The world learned that the bear is blind, and while it will definitely smash something if poked, there’s no telling what.

      (Though plausibly the military-industrial complex was using it as an excuse to encircle Iran.)

      Meanwhile the other party continued its ‘elect a new people’ / maximize ‘impact’ strategy. (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/09/honduran-rebellion-or-states-invisible.html)

      This all seems terribly Carlylian to me. It’s totally normal in a democracy. And Carlyle neither knew nor cared about Jews.

      Heck it’s pretty much what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle said about democracy, and they barely even knew Jews existed.

  10. Cavalier says:

    With the God-Emperor’s impending Tausendjähriges Reich, even Assad is speaking more openly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hm0SBOdDy0

    He does an interesting little head bob thing when he finally outs with the truth. It’s clear that even such a man as he feels the Jewish thoughtcrime commissar in his mind.

  11. redking says:

    Yes, white and (((white))). There are probably 10% of white people that are hardcore enemies, and will need to be sent to the gulag. And 100% of (((white people))) that will have an excellent opportunity for aliya, and failing that the gulag.

  12. Glenfilthie says:

    Well done.

    Question: is asymetric warfare the same as 4th Generation war?

  13. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim you are too absolute in your characterizations but generally yes God is on the side of Firepower and the Big Battalions. We’ve ignored Treason as well and we see for ourselves why Treason MUST have terrible penalties.
    Speaking of which we must advance on the Traitors. We let this go in 89 and have suffered dearly for it. Forward. We’ll never get another chance.

    • Alrenous says:

      Treason does have terrible penalties. Say ‘nigger’ in public and you’ll instantly get convicted of lese majeste. Trump is functionally a usurper…or at least, that’s what everyone hopes.

      You’re propping up your enemies with this rhetoric.

  14. Tommy Judea says:

    There is a logical fallacy in Jim’s argument that it ‘only works if big guy has one hand tied’. Because the aim of 4GW is to tie the hand, to leverage subversive elements in the big guy’s home country, to take the war to him in ways that undermine his ability to take it fully to you. Which is why one might have to jail professors to win. Remember, the Yankee Vietnam-era students were not just too pusillanimous to fight, they had to make a moral crusade of their anti-Americanism. It’s when the little guy has that kind of in, whether created by him or his distant friends, that 4GW makes sense.

    So it’s white guilt, not the Jews, who are to blame, you bozos above, no matter how much white guilt got historical energy from Auschwitz. Was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 a Jewish conspiracy?

    • viking says:

      jews were early adopters of enlightenment more jew than non jews contemporary admirers of Voltaire

      • Tommy Judea says:

        Where do you get this from? The number of bourgeois “enligtenment” Jews was a minority in Europe and worldwide, at least as late as a couple of decades into the twentieth century.Voltaire had no love for the Jews. In any case, the “enlightenment” was obviously overwhelmingly a gentile product, and much of it was a reaction to earlier Christian scholarship focussed on the Hebrew Bible.

    • jim says:

      Which is why one might have to jail professors to win.

      Well of course you have to jail the professors to win. I thought I made that clear in my discussion of Somali guy.

    • Jack says:

      A cat chased around by a hound fell into a deep pit. No sooner had she attempted to climb up than a colony of mice began pelting her with stones. Said she: “were it not for the vicious hound, I would not be thus abused.” A sly old fox passing by rejoined her: “that may be so, dear, but indignation at the past won’t relieve you of the present.”

  15. thinkingabout it says:

    Any deeper reasons as to why progs are going crazy about Aleppo these days?
    What do they stand to gain? Without the presidency in their hands, what end goal could there possibly be to all this Russophobia?

    • jim says:

      They want to rule the white world. They feel they are entitled to rule the white world. Under Putin, Russia has regained the intellectual sovereignty that Alexander the Liberator gave away.

      • Cavalier says:

        I want to rule the White world and feel entitled to rule the White world. My rule would be so horrifying as to drive the good little Harvard mice to madness, or perhaps the Katyn Forest, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong in uniting the White world under one banner, and indeed quite a lot of good in it. With multiple power centers, we’re just back to fractious fighting and eternal squabbling as the Eternal Anglo endlessly played the continental Powers off one another, whereas one people united under one power will finally be free to focus its attention on the rising tide of color threatening to drown us all in its flood of mud.

        It’s high time to make the world great as the Indo-Europeans once made most of the world great, but this time around we’ll finish the job.

  16. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Asymmetric warfare works when the rules of engagement are asymmetric.

    Even the Soviets in Afghanistan were bound by asymmetric rules of engagement, since their religion required them to accept a coreligionist government composed of locals, with its own army and its own officers, and disallowed them to simply colonise Afghanistan, as the Tsar would have done.

    • Hidden Author says:

      And they were afraid to cross the border into US (double-crossing, treacherous) “ally” Pakistan like the mujahideen did. Still dropping toys for children to bring into camp where they exploded was fun for the Soviets while it lasted!

  17. Javier says:

    Someone once said, “There was no Soviet Ghandi.” Point being you only get as much ‘passive resistance’ as you tolerate. The success of Ghandi didn’t show the power of peaceful protesting, but the forbearance (or cowardice?) of the British government. Ghandi shows us if you are unwilling to use force against your rebellious subjects, then you have no subjects.

    The big hype in modern liberal/progressive thought is that killing dissidents creates martyrs and martyrs are just like the most awesome thing ever. Therefore you must do all in your power to prevent your enemy from having martyrs for their cause, even if it means letting them win.

    In America there were two Italian immigrants who were involved in Anarchist groups; we put them on trial for trumped up charges and had them executed. The left protested and wrote songs about them and lionized them as holy saints. According to the left this should have resulted in a nation-wide movement of anarchy as these two immortal unstoppable martyrs spread the cause throughout the earth. Instead they were largely forgotten and the anarchist movement died with them.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Churchill called Gandhi “a seditious Middle Temple lawyer”, anticipating Moldbug’s thesis that anti-colonialist movements are muppets of anti-colonialist movements in the metropole, not spontaneous popular uprisings.

      The Raj never fell; the Union of India is the Raj. It is still run according to British principles, just Fabian principles rather than Liberal principles or Company principles. The last Indian polities with any genuine claim to historical legitimacy or native origin were the Princely States – which were destroyed on “independence”.

    • Cavalier says:

      The Brits let their crown jewel slip away because America had them by their Lend-Leased balls, the rabid drunk Jew-puppet Winston Churchill having sold out his country and the greatest empire in the history of man in order to “win” the Second World War.

      And now the lowest forms of dredged-up nigger-sludge are pouring into Europe by the tens of millions, just as the Leader prophesied in My Struggle exactly 90 years ago.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Indian independence had been accepted as inevitable even before WWII, Churchill having been somewhat outside the overtones window in his refusal to accept that in the mid 30s.

        • TheBigH says:

          You’re thinking of Churchill’s conservative rhetoric instead examining his actions. He always said what we wanted to here and then always rolled over for the commies.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Atlee granted Indian independence (I.e. handed India to his friends in the Fabian Society). “Commies” never had much influence on the whole Indian question; Fabians did, but Fabians were British and overwhelmingly gentile.

Leave a Reply