And shits on it, because it is terrible
https://www.traditionalright.com/victoria/
>>>/k/30422117
>>>/k/30443812
From the OP of the second thread, highlights of the first thread
>William S. Lind (born July 9, 1947) is an American monarchist, paleoconservative, columnist, Christian, and a light rail enthusiast.
Preface
>The state upheld its unpleasant responsibility of setting torch to faggots, was what marked this as an act of Recovery
Chapter 1
>We lost a lot of guys on Iwo, and they were men, not women. Of course, these were the years of “political correctness.” Our colonel was running for general, and he figured he could kiss ass by being “sensitive to issues of race, gender, and class.”
Chapter 5
>The scum depended on them; no lawyers, no scum (a point we have enshrined in Victorian law, where you must represent yourself in court).
> Boyd was the greatest American military theorist of the 20th century
Chapter 8
>“And in the Marine tradition, I propose a toast, gentlemen,” I concluded. “To the Christian Marine Corps, and confusion to our enemies.” Appropriately, it was drunk in Sam Adams beer.
Chapter 11
>Books like Martin van Creveld’s 'The Transformation of War' had opened quite a few minds.
>Fedora Man
>Who, I would like to point out to those who didn't read Chapter 10, actually wears a fedora and LARP's some idealized version of the late 1940s with his family.
Chapter 12
>“Because Don and the rest of the gays have me by the balls, that’s why,” Hokem said. “Well, not that way, but you know what I mean.”
Chapter 13
>“Ms.” Lateesha Umbonga LaDrek, the Secretary of HUD
>I don't necessarily disagree with Lind, but when he puts it this way it's pretty autistic
>\thread t b h
>Like the Russian BMP, the Bradley was an explosion waiting to happen, a tin-clad rolling armor dump that any anti-tank weapon instantly turned into a Viking funeral for its crew.
/k/ is always so predictably one-dimensional.
why not read a book for its literary merit instead of pandering to your own interest(s) then circle-jerking in your echo chamber.
>>8223628
Oh, believe me. We do that and there's a place for it if we want to post about it. It's called /lit/.
This book is specifically a propaganda piece for the phrenology of the military sciences: multigenerational warfare.
I wish /k/ were a real place I could go and they would teach me to handle firearms responsibly
Instead I just watch videos of guys shooting watermelons, and then masturbate to anime fart porn
>>8223959
Check the sticky.
stop bullying conservative nerds ;~;
>>8224226
Yeah... he's a monarchist. We don't have to claim this guy.
omg... you need to fucking read this.
It flies off the rails in the middle of the second thread, around chapter 20.
>But his Secretary of Defense wanted to say something. She had represented Harlem in Congress, and after her defeat by a Black Muslim candidate the administration had given her the defense job to maintain her visibility; she was one of its biggest supporters in the black community. The 42nd Division was her baby – in fact, she had carried several of its babies, until the abortionist had restored her shapely figure – and she wanted it to have its chance to shine.
>“Mr. President,” said the Honorable Kateesha Mowukuu, “I am the only black woman at this table. We have heard what these white men have to say. I would remind you that in this war, white men are our enemy. Now you will hear what a black woman has to say, and I expect all of you to listen with respect.”
>“Black people have been the only warriors in history. White men can’t fight. It’s because their noses are too small. Courage comes from the nose, not the heart, as the African spiritual healers you call witch doctors have long understood. That’s why black people eat their snot. What do you white folk do with your snot? You wrap it up in a little white surrender flag and put it in your pocket. So you don’t have no courage.”
>“All the great warriors in history have been black. Caesar was a black man, and so was his enemy, Hannibal. The Spartans were black. They just dyed their hair blond, to fool their enemies into thinking they were weak white people. Charlemagne was a black man. In French, ʻcharlemagneʼ means ‘kinky hair.’ The Vikings came from Africa, which is where they got those helmets with horns on them. Gunpowder was invented by ancient Zimbabwean scientists, who made it from elephant shit. You ever hear an elephant fart? Black scientists knew there had to be some juju behind that.”
>>8224380
>implying that it didn't fly off the fucking rails during the author's puberty.
>>8223609
>>8224380
Thanks, OP, this is gold.
>>8223628
You don't like watching a trainwreck?
>>8224380
You forgot the part where Mexicans sacrifice the US Ambassador on a pyramid, Aztec style.
>read Vox Day's blog for some stupid reason
>he promotes this book in a post because his publishing house is distributing it
>now see /lit/ and even /k/ ripping into it
It's amazing how easily VD and pals collapses outside of their echo chamber. Also not exactly /lit/, but what are some criticisms of 4th generation warfare? It seems most people picked up on the basic idea from Iraq/Afghanistan.
>>8224715
Not OP, I'm /lit/
>>8223628
Hi Lind.
>>8225421
Hi. I came in with >>8224907
Generational Warfare Theory dates from the 80s as a sort of vague idea of "what comes next" in terms of military tactics and doctrine. It was expanded on with Martin Van Creveld's 'Transformation of War.' After the 2000s, 4GW proponents really got in the idea that Islamic Insurgents were practicing 4GW tactics against a 3GW military.
The generations can be summarized as follows
>1st Generation
Massed manpower - the apex of which is generally considered to be Napoleonic tactics. And this generational model somewhat breaks down when you consider the battles of the 3 Kingdoms of China where, even though the numbers are almost certainly exaggerated, were perhaps the apex of massed manpower in a pre-industrial society. They also gave us Sun Tzu, who talks about maneuver warfare, massed firepower, and psychological aspects that Generational Warfare proponents tend to ignore.
>2nd Generation
Massed firepower and pitched battle, which they consider to have reached the apex in WW1 especially with artillery. Except that concentration of firepower appears earlier, Clausewitz at the latest. Again, Sun Tzu discusses massed firepower. While the pre-WW1 artillery arms race (it's worth reading Massie's Dreadnought to get an idea of how quickly artillery capabilities were advancing in the late 19th century) did produce a revolution in tactics due to its technological superiority, Generational Warfare proponents ignore the psychological and political components of battles like Verdun, whose intent was to break French political will through attrition. The Germans underestimated French resolve.
>3rd Generation
Maneuver warfare - based on speed and initiative. They see the infiltration tactics of WW1 stormtroopers and German blitzkrieg as exemplars of this warfare. And not Soviet deep battle because Lind is a wehraboo.
The problem, if you read Guderian, is that blitzkrieg (which was never an actual component of German doctrine, which further discredits their historiography) was designed around efficiently performing the breakthrough operations of WW1 with new equipment. They were, in essence, fighting the last war.
>4th Generation
Has no coherent definition because its proponents, in a very Marxist fashion, try to shoehorn events to fit their mold and retroactively prove the predictive power of their theory.
They also misread Clausewitz and the Treaty of Westphalia. By this point, you should get the idea that conduct of warfare is fluid, and that history doesn't fit into these neat little generation boxes. Critically examining Generational Warfare Theory reveals that it is in fact a hindrance to historical analysis and predictive work.
Echevarria's "Fourth Generation Warfare and Other Myths" has a longer, well-cited, and more in-depth argument of what I just summarized.
>>8225527
Where does Hybrid warfare come into this?
>>8225527
First guy you quoted, been reading through your thread on /k/, thanks for spelling it out for us non-mil retards. I'll admit I kinda bought 4th-gen warfare for a bit because, again, pretty much everyone back in the Bush (W) era could tell shit was different from fighting Germany. Even with organizations like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS there isn't really a central state of angry Muslims doing angry Muslim things.
I suppose generation theory could be kinda justified by saying technology at a given time favors certain strategy and tactics, but even ignoring the complexities of geopolitics and how that affects warfare predicting technology is really fucking sketchy; if it weren't we'd all be in flying cars by now.
>>8225578
By the time people coined and were interested in Hybrid Warfare (with case studies going back to the 2006 Lebanon conflict), Generational Warfare Theory was mostly discredited. I guess you could call it 4GW, but the case study of Lebanon contradicts what Lind, who is a big proponent of 4GW, calls the crisis of the state. Because Hezbollah and Hamas are integrated into the existing political aparatuses rather than supplanting the authority of the "Westphalian state" (which 4GW proponents got wrong anyway).
This is me shooting from the hip rather than citing someone, so I'm certainly open to criticism.
>>8225591
4GW ignores different "generations" of warfare coexisting in the same conflict
>>8225578
A proponent of 4GW would argue that 4GW is hybrid warfare as it uses all available fronts such as the media and the political system.
Basically, he's pretending that insurgency never existed and then framing insurgency with concepts from the World Wars.
>>8225617
I've heard some Lind fanboys (the one who comes to mind is Anonymous "rabbit season" Conservative) talk about how we're stuck using 2nd gen tactics against 4th gen, so I guess there's some acknowledgement of mixed generations. It kinda ends up self-contradictory, of course, but like that ever stopped internet ideologues.
>>8225656
The example that jumps to my mind is the extensive use of partisans, propaganda, and psyops in WW2.
>>8225660
Well of course, I was just trying to work within the argument.
Of course, when you get down to it, the basic idea of angry decentralized combatants as a new paradigm of warfare is pretty damn silly. 4th gen warfare has been with us for a long time then, it's called slums.
>>8225655
That ignores the "4th Generation Warfare is about the crisis of the legitimacy of the state" that Lindists harp on aboutqarras route
>>8225688
You could call it a return to form if you think of this as the form of war used by the tribal confederations that brought down the WRE.
If so, then it's more a return to form than anything and no matter how you look at it, it's a bad way to contextualize combat.
>mfw Fedora Man is a Prussian sleeper agent
>>8224715
Man, as much as I love a good trainwreck, there's a point where it get's to be just too much.
That anyone reads and writes this and can take it with the utmost seriousness is actually just really upsetting. It feels bad to laugh at people that detached from reality and mired in their own hate and paranoia, it strikes me as a really depressing/joyless existence.
Of course, I guess he's probably say the same thing about some unamerican heathen like me so maybe fair's fair
>>8226071
>Peasant detected
>>8226026
>le emoji face
Thanks for the let's read, though, it's an absolute blast.
>>8224380
>What do you white folk do with your snot? You wrap it up in a little white surrender flag and put it in your pocket.
Filing that little beauty away in my "steal if given the opportunity" pile
>light rail enthusiast
But of course.
>>8226416
Explains a lot, right?
>>8226524
>MUH T34s ARE STILL A COMPETENT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT NINETY YEARS AFTER THEY WERE FIRST FIELDED!
>>8226538
You're just stuck in a 2GW mentality, man
>>8226590
*tokes blunt*
>>8226538
combatreform.org
where do these cold war holdouts keep coming from?
>>8228401
Thank them for endless entertainment
GOD this is so fucking shit, it makes me *literally* angry
An American wet dream
