Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

[reggie]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Your wierd reality is too Bizarro for me.

To say that the powers that be in China were brought to the table by 4GW or whatever bulls**t magic crap you espouse, is to hide from reality.

China in the late '60s and early 70's was still firmly under the thumb of Mao.

To equate the leadership of Mao with the present Chinese leadership is truly the statement of the ignorant.

Perhaps you think the industrialization of China in the past 2 decades is on par with the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.

For my part, your already low credibility as eroded to zero.

So, would I be accurate in saying that in order to be considered credible [in your book], that I would need to believe in the Domino Theory as the rationale for the USA's involvement in the Vietnam War?

[c1ue]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

So, would I be accurate in saying that in order to be considered credible [in your book], that I would need to believe in the Domino Theory as the rationale for the USA's involvement in the Vietnam War?

Domino theory has not been mentioned by me.

Your statement about the Vietnam war being brought to push the Chinese oligarch's to the table is completely wrong.

You discount the presence and influence of Mao - who was in 100% control of China including advocating self-directed pogroms of China's own citizens as well as being directly responsible for the bulge generation powering the labor factories of Foxconn today.

The change in China's external stance did not occur until years after his death in 1976.

You can try to change the subject, but in this case you've clearly shown both bias and a disregard for fact.

Credibility continues to erode (if such is possible).

[reggie]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Domino theory has not been mentioned by me.

Your statement about the Vietnam war being brought to push the Chinese oligarch's to the table is completely wrong.

You discount the presence and influence of Mao - who was in 100% control of China including advocating self-directed pogroms of China's own citizens as well as being directly responsible for the bulge generation powering the labor factories of Foxconn today.

The change in China's external stance did not occur until years after his death in 1976.

You can try to change the subject, but in this case you've clearly shown both bias and a disregard for fact.

Credibility continues to erode (if such is possible).

Tell us then, what was the reason for the Vietnam War?.

And please don't talk about fact like you have a monopoly on the matter, because such statements clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the science of social reality creation (I've referred to material on this subject matter here before).

[neoken]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Very reminiscent of postmodernism, the layers of dimensions or Complexity that are being added are truly becoming mind bending.

Take for instance the breaking down of the 4th and subsequent 5th wall in acting in film/tv that has taken place over the last 20 years starting with reality tv and to the current crop of fake reality tv. Existing on many levels, the performer and viewer roles bouncing back and forth like two mirrors facing each other.

In other words:

For us mere mortals this is all just crap.

Those who theorize and think tank may have some influence on events, but never fully understand it.

Then there are those who think they know what's going on and see patterns and conspiracies where there are none.



I don't claim to know much but I actually admire some of the truly sociopathic politicians who can switch between all the various levels of human interaction required. I'm thinking of Hillary Clinton for some reason right now. I imagine being almost like an out of body experience having to cope and switch between various levels.

My apologies if this makes no sense.

[reggie]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Take for instance the breaking down of the 4th and subsequent 5th wall in acting in film/tv that has taken place over the last 20 years starting with reality tv and to the current crop of fake reality tv. Existing on many levels, the performer and viewer roles bouncing back and forth like two mirrors facing each other.

And this continues until the viewer and actor are fully immersed into identical culture and behavior, as all handles on reality are relegated to the desert. Remember the movie EdTV?

Now we have efforts afoot online to push our kids into virtualizing themselves, creating avatars and online personas via online games such as 2nd Life and social networks such as Facebook. Recall the movie, Tron?

Are we witnessing the organic evolution of media? Or, is this direction widely understood in the world of think tanks and Madison avenue ad agencies, that steer our cultural direction?

FYI, if you're interested, check out the 1998 white paper on Identity Construction in Virtual Reality (where these environment are affectionately described in academic circles as "MOO"). There is actually an excellent and recent Southpark episode that is very illustrative, in that it shows one of the characters having to fight with his online persona in order to get his life back.

[c1ue]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Tell us then, what was the reason for the Vietnam War?.

And please don't talk about fact like you have a monopoly on the matter, because such statements clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the science of social reality creation (I've referred to material on this subject matter here before).

You continue to try and change the subject.

Your clear inability to recognize indisputable facts surrounding your own Vietnam War example simply reinforces again and again that the base of your beliefs and arguments isn't reality.

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Reggie, I don't know anything about 5GW other than what you've posted, so won't comment on that. My question is on the main element of 4GW, Light Infantry (as the Europeans understand it). How do you see the LI concept as different from the Green Beret in the Vietnam theater and our current special forces?

[reggie]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Reggie, I don't know anything about 5GW other than what you've posted, so won't comment on that. My question is on the main element of 4GW, Light Infantry (as the Europeans understand it). How do you see the LI concept as different from the Green Beret in the Vietnam theater and our current special forces?

Very interesting. I am delighted to add my two cents. But I'm curious why you ask such a specific question?

[Dave Stratman]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

When considering my contribution to the 5GW discussion, we should consider the ratio of horizontal to vertical relationships in a human terrain area (be it a nation-state, sub culture, community, etc). In this context horizontal relationships describe "organic" human-to-human relations. This means blood relatives, spouses, extended family, friends, coworkers, community, etc. On the other hand, vertical relationships describe a relationship between the individual and the Leviathan - the state in most cases. In the case of Chicago the horizontal relationships had grown too strong - creating a classic insurgency controlled temporary autonomous zone within the inner city - and needed to be broken by a reassertion of the authority of the Leviathan. So what the city figured out was how to use a 5GW to break horizontal relationships and force individuals to turn to the vertical relationship offered by the state. This type of warfare may have wide ranging implication, from destroying narco-terrorists like the Black Kings to engaging in various social engineering projects. Indeed, the bulk of Lydon Johnson Great Society may have been 5GW operations that tried to destroy more informal, horizontal networks that were designed to help the poor and replace them with a vertical relationship with the state.

I am unfamiliar with Kilcullen or the 5GW concept, but what is described here reminds me very much of what was done by the government during the Boston busing struggle of the late 1960s--mid- '70s. The white and black working class communities of Boston in those years had powerful horizontal relationships--not with each other, I mean, but within black neighborhoods like Roxbury and black Dorchester and white neighborhoods like South Boston, Brighton, and white Dorchester. There was a militant movement of black parents for school improvement (desegregation was actually not high on their list of demands; they wanted more teachers, more textbooks, newer buildings). White parents had vibrant parent associations at many schools. Black and white parents were embedded in solidaristic working class communities, with militant unions. (An interesting aside--South Boston went overwhelmingly for George McGovern in 1972.)

The state and federal busing plan was used--very intentionally, in my informed opinion--to break asunder the multitude of horizontal ties within the black and white communities by destroying the neighborhood school as a focal point for establishing and nurturing the rich relationships that come from siblings and generations of families attending the same schools, knowing and becoming known by the same teachers, knowing and sharing concerns with other parents (many of them related by blood as welll as by school ties).

In Phase I of desegregation, thirty-six schools in the black community were closed and the black students bused to formerly all-white schools. (No white students were bused that first year, 1974.) In Phase II, virtually all students were bused to schools beyond their neighborhood. Not only was this busing plan used to stoke racial anger in the most manipulative ways; for example, the two most racially-closed and volatile communities, Roxbury and South Boston, were "partnered," so that the students from one where bused to the other.

The more lasting effects came from the destruction of many of the horizontal relationships that sustained the communities and gave them considerable power in the face of State forces. Students were moved from school to school each year, based on a lottery. (Our own two children attended six different Boston public schools in as many years.) Parents never knew where their children would attend school next, and frequently siblings attended different schools located at great distance from one another, so the ability of parents, especially working parents, to participate in their childrens' education dropped almost to nil.

In spite of the sustained government attack on their organic human relationships, once black and white families found themselves with children at the same schools, they made commonsensical and good-hearted attempts to forge new relationships and come together on their children's behalf. Interestingly, though, the Federal Court did what it could to discourage horizontal relationship-building. For example, the court ordered that Racial-Ethnic Parent Councils of a few members be established at each school, supplanting the long-established and broad-based PTAs and PTOs. The court further ordered that Black and White parents (and later also Hispanic parents) must caucus separately to elect representatives of their own racial group to the Council. Furthermore, the Racial-Ethnic Parent Council was empowered to discuss only matters of safety; discussion of education and educational improvement was verboten. (In the REPCs that I experienced, we voted to do away with these rules. In the summer of 1975 we had enough of a parent organization of Black and White parents to chase the Boston School Committee out of its chambers on two occasions, to take their seats, and to conduct our own hearings on the busing plans. When the School Department held a special meeting in Dorchester to denounce the organization of black and white parents we had built at one school there, we took over the meeting, drove the principal and associate superintendent from the stage, conducted a discussion with parents and teachers of the needs of the school, and got the associate superintendent to agree to adding a reading teacher to our school staff.)

All these destructive changes were made under the banner of "Reform." But these changes were the beginning rather than the end of school reform in Boston. They were used to weaken the horizontal community and make it more vulnerable to the far-reaching reforms that followed. These later reforms, such as Charter Schools, Pilot Schools, School Choice, School-Based Management, and others which continue today, have all been of a strongly privatizing character, intended to set schools (and parents) against each other in a competition for (artificially) dwindling resources.

It seems that our rulers are clever enough to use both vertical relationships--direct government interventions, such as forced busing--and faux horizontal relationships--charter schools, competition to get your child in the "right" school--to wage class war on the population.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

The state and federal busing plan was used--very intentionally, in my informed opinion--to break asunder the multitude of horizontal ties

Thanks (I guess) for posting that. Well said. Pisses me off.

[don]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

When considering my contribution to the 5GW discussion, we should consider the ratio of horizontal to vertical relationships in a human terrain area (be it a nation-state, sub culture, community, etc). In this context horizontal relationships describe "organic" human-to-human relations. This means blood relatives, spouses, extended family, friends, coworkers, community, etc. On the other hand, vertical relationships describe a relationship between the individual and the Leviathan - the state in most cases. In the case of Chicago the horizontal relationships had grown too strong - creating a classic insurgency controlled temporary autonomous zone within the inner city - and needed to be broken by a reassertion of the authority of the Leviathan. So what the city figured out was how to use a 5GW to break horizontal relationships and force individuals to turn to the vertical relationship offered by the state. This type of warfare may have wide ranging implication, from destroying narco-terrorists like the Black Kings to engaging in various social engineering projects. Indeed, the bulk of Lydon Johnson Great Society may have been 5GW operations that tried to destroy more informal, horizontal networks that were designed to help the poor and replace them with a vertical relationship with the state.

I am unfamiliar with Kilcullen or the 5GW concept, but what is described here reminds me very much of what was done by the government during the Boston busing struggle of the late 1960s--mid- '70s. The white and black working class communities of Boston in those years had powerful horizontal relationships--not with each other, I mean, but within black neighborhoods like Roxbury and black Dorchester and white neighborhoods like South Boston, Brighton, and white Dorchester. There was a militant movement of black parents for school improvement (desegregation was actually not high on their list of demands; they wanted more teachers, more textbooks, newer buildings). White parents had vibrant parent associations at many schools. Black and white parents were embedded in solidaristic working class communities, with militant unions. (An interesting aside--South Boston went overwhelmingly for George McGovern in 1972.)

The state and federal busing plan was used--very intentionally, in my informed opinion--to break asunder the multitude of horizontal ties within the black and white communities by destroying the neighborhood school as a focal point for establishing and nurturing the rich relationships that come from siblings and generations of families attending the same schools, knowing and becoming known by the same teachers, knowing and sharing concerns with other parents (many of them related by blood as welll as by school ties).

In Phase I of desegregation, thirty-six schools in the black community were closed and the black students bused to formerly all-white schools. (No white students were bused that first year, 1974.) In Phase II, virtually all students were bused to schools beyond their neighborhood. Not only was this busing plan used to stoke racial anger in the most manipulative ways; for example, the two most racially-closed and volatile communities, Roxbury and South Boston, were "partnered," so that the students from one where bused to the other.

The more lasting effects came from the destruction of many of the horizontal relationships that sustained the communities and gave them considerable power in the face of State forces. Students were moved from school to school each year, based on a lottery. (Our own two children attended six different Boston public schools in as many years.) Parents never knew where their children would attend school next, and frequently siblings attended different schools located at great distance from one another, so the ability of parents, especially working parents, to participate in their childrens' education dropped almost to nil.

In spite of the sustained government attack on their organic human relationships, once black and white families found themselves with children at the same schools, they made commonsensical and good-hearted attempts to forge new relationships and come together on their children's behalf. Interestingly, though, the Federal Court did what it could to discourage horizontal relationship-building. For example, the court ordered that Racial-Ethnic Parent Councils of a few members be established at each school, supplanting the long-established and broad-based PTAs and PTOs. The court further ordered that Black and White parents (and later also Hispanic parents) must caucus separately to elect representatives of their own racial group to the Council. Furthermore, the Racial-Ethnic Parent Council was empowered to discuss only matters of safety; discussion of education and educational improvement was verboten. (In the REPCs that I experienced, we voted to do away with these rules. In the summer of 1975 we had enough of a parent organization of Black and White parents to chase the Boston School Committee out of its chambers on two occasions, to take their seats, and to conduct our own hearings on the busing plans. When the School Department held a special meeting in Dorchester to denounce the organization of black and white parents we had built at one school there, we took over the meeting, drove the principal and associate superintendent from the stage, conducted a discussion with parents and teachers of the needs of the school, and got the associate superintendent to agree to adding a reading teacher to our school staff.)

All these destructive changes were made under the banner of "Reform." But these changes were the beginning rather than the end of school reform in Boston. They were used to weaken the horizontal community and make it more vulnerable to the far-reaching reforms that followed. These later reforms, such as Charter Schools, Pilot Schools, School Choice, School-Based Management, and others which continue today, have all been of a strongly privatizing character, intended to set schools (and parents) against each other in a competition for (artificially) dwindling resources.

It seems that our rulers are clever enough to use both vertical relationships--direct government interventions, such as forced busing--and faux horizontal relationships--charter schools, competition to get your child in the "right" school--to wage class war on the population.

Americans are generally clueless as to the real role of Liberalism, including Affirmative Action, Quota Systems, etc. Thanks for posting.

[c1ue]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

It seems that our rulers are clever enough to use both vertical relationships--direct government interventions, such as forced busing--and faux horizontal relationships--charter schools, competition to get your child in the "right" school--to wage class war on the population.

This may be, but perhaps you could illuminate who exactly were the 'rulers' in this case.

Was it a judge/the court system? Was it a federal commission or agency?

According to Wiki, it was a specific judge implementing the plan of the Massachusetts State Board of Education - opposed by the Boston School Committee

In the Boston metropolitan area, Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found a recurring pattern of racial discrimination in the operation of the Boston public schools in a 1974 ruling. Garrity's ruling found the schools were unconstitutionally segregated. As a remedy, he used a busing plan developed by the Massachusetts State Board of Education to implement the state's Racial Imbalance Law that had been passed by the Massachusetts state legislature a few years earlier, requiring any school with a student enrollment that was more than 50% white to be balanced according to race. The Boston School Committee consistently disobeyed orders from the state Board of Education. Garrity's ruling, upheld on appeal by conservative judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and by the Supreme Court led by Warren Burger, required school children to be brought to different schools to end segregation. By the final Garrity-decided court case in 1988, Garrity would have assumed more control over a school system than any judge in American history.^[2]

Garrity in turn was a Lyndon Johnson appointee and furthermore a Massachusetts native. Outside of the general 'Great Society' meme, it is unclear to me just how Garrity fits into this NWO-like construct.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

This may be, but perhaps you could illuminate who exactly were the 'rulers' in this case.

Was it a judge/the court system? Was it a federal commission or agency?

According to Wiki, it was a specific judge implementing the plan of the Massachusetts State Board of Education - opposed by the Boston School Committee



Garrity in turn was a Lyndon Johnson appointee and furthermore a Massachusetts native. Outside of the general 'Great Society' meme, it is unclear to me just how Garrity fits into this NWO-like construct.

The "Great Society" reflected a strategy of social control developed by government policy makers, think tanks and university seminars (the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Brookings Institute, Kennedy School of Government, the Woodrow Wilson Institute, the Foreign Policy Association, etc.) as a sophisticated means of controlling an increasingly rebellious populace--most visibly Black people engaged in the civil rights movement and urban rebellions, but also a wide range of working class whites in Appalachian coal mines, auto factories, the construction trades, the military, and elsewhere. The Great Society was meant to channel the popular forces of change into a safe legal and institutional framework and to enforce the lesson that positive change comes from the elite, not from the masses.

The Great Society concept was developed by intellectuals in the service of our rulers, but carried out by a whole range of people. Politicians, state and local governments, federal courts, the media--all had roles to play to carry out the strategy. Not that the government or a cabal of powerful people can flick a switch and make things happen. But when the class that is in possession of the State has determined on a course of action, it has a thousand ways of bringing many actors into the strategy and prepping them on their roles. For example, politicians and higher-level civil servants in D.C. are brought into frequent rounds of seminars and retreats where people higher up the ladder and better connected than the audience share with the audience their opinions of available and desirable policy options.

It's not terribly subtle. You get clued in on what to think, who is thinking it, and where a successful career path lies. This doesn't mean that the participants are necessarily insincere; the policy proposals are generally very well thought out and plausible. All you have to do is to accept the fundamental assumption--positive change comes from the top--and the rest follows. (I served a year--1976-77--as an Education Policy Fellow in the U.S. Office of Education, Department of HEW, and was treated to a number of such seminars.)

School desegregation was one application of the Great Society concept wherein the same entity that is prosecuting a criminal war in Vietnam magically becomes the savior of black people here at home. By stirring up fighting between blacks and whites, busing also presented a picture of white working people as deeply racist and not to be trusted. Those images of Black children being stoned in South Boston were deeply demoralizing to millions of people and made the idea of bottom-up social change seem highly unrealistic.

Did Judge Garrity realize that he was playing a deeply destructive role in the Boston schools? I suspect he knew what he was doing, but perhaps not. All he had to believe--and I think it highly likely that he felt this--was that White Bostonians were deeply racist and Black Bostonians deeply ignorant, and that neither were competent to make a plan for better and desegregated schools together, so Garrity appointed "experts" from Boston University and Harvard to come up with plans. He had no intention of allowing mere parents to have a say in the disposition of the schools. When we, an intergrated group of Boston Public School parents, attempted to become a party to the suit, he denied our petition. The message was clear: shut up and listen to your betters. I remember about a year later telling Herman Goldberg, U.S. Director of Civil Rights Policy (I think that was his title), that Black parents in Boston were as opposed to the busing as White parents, and he replied, "These people don't know their own interests."

Remember also that there had been years of "scholarship" by well-known academics claiming that integration--that it, sitting next to white students--was the answer to low school achievement by black students. (My mind is blanking on the guy who wrote the book on that.)

My experiences during busing opened my eyes on the role of liberalism as a means of social control. The vigorously pro-busing mayor of Boston at the time was the very liberal Kevin White. The two best-known racist leaders of the anti-busing movement were Louise Day Hicks and Pixie Palladino. Louise Day Hicks went from a seat on the Boston School Committee to Congress. Pixie took a School Committee seat as Louise left. Here's the kicker: both their husbands were employed during all those years by Mayor White.

Times have changed dramatically, of course, since then, and the Great Society meme has been replaced with the "free markets" meme, and I'm sure we'll have others along the way. But they'll all have essentially the same goal: control the people.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

Americans are generally clueless as to the real role of Liberalism, including Affirmative Action, Quota Systems, etc. Thanks for posting.

Thanks, Don. I agree, Liberalism is a powerful and, in my view, still the dominant ideology of social control, though it can take many forms. For what it's worth, here's my take on affirmative action:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION-or CLASS SOLIDARITY? A New Democracy Flyer (newdemocracyworld.org) There are good people trapped on both sides of the affirmative action debate. We think there is a way out of the trap which can unite working men and women of all races. TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN The liberal and conservative positions on affirmative action claim to be opposites. In fact they amount to the same bad idea. Liberals support affirmative action, saying that it is important to make competition between the races and genders fair; by favoring one group over another now, liberals say, affirmative action makes up for past discrimination. Conservatives oppose affirmative action, saying that, by favoring one group over another, affirmative action unfairly affects competition between individuals. The liberal and conservative positions on affirmative action both favor the idea of competition. They share the view that society consists of groups and individuals all competing in a war against everyone else for jobs and other goods. Liberal and conservative both accept class inequality as permanent and competition among working people as good. WHAT "GROUP" DO YOU BELONG TO? The corporate and government elite always tell us to identify with one group against all others. "What group are you part of?" they ask. "Asian male?" "Black female?" "Angry white male?" People care most about what they have in common, but the government stresses the differences. People know there has always been discrimination in job and other opportunities. Yet people also know that more discrimination, even in the name of "fairness," attacks people's natural inclinations to overcome differences and work together. Affirmative action continues the game of pitting people against each other. It distorts what people mean by racial justice, which would require decent jobs for all. Instead the government promotes unemployment while it encourages competition among racial groups. There is only one "group" that the powerful do not want us to identify with-the working class. The ruling elite know that they can keep groups based on race or gender fighting each other forever. The elite cannot control a united working class. SCARCITY IS ARTIFICIAL The elite force us to compete for scarce jobs and necessities like medical care. But the scarcity of jobs and other goods is artificial. The US economy is more productive than ever. The corporate and government elite intentionally cut jobs and programs, while taking an even greater share of the wealth for themselves. While corporations lay off millions, the government gives them tax rebates to ship jobs overseas. The government cuts taxes on the rich, then slashes Medicare for workers, saying that there's no money to pay for it. The goal of job and program cuts is to control people by making them feel insecure. PART OF A LARGER BATTLE The debate over affirmative action is part of a larger battle over the direction of society. Politicians may play roles as "liberals" or "conservatives," but they all have the same goal: to tighten elite control over working people. They promote competition in every way they can. Most working people believe in equality and solidarity of all workers. We have been at a terrible disadvantage in this battle, however, because no working class leadership has firmly rejected both affirmative action and discrimination of all kinds in favor of solidarity of working people against elite rule. SOLIDARITY: THE ANSWER TO DISCRIMINATION Solidarity is the answer to discrimination. The real struggle for equality has always come from the solidarity of working people in their everyday lives. Let's continue and extend the fight: Build bridges among people in your plant or neighborhood. Stand up if any of your brothers or sisters is treated unfairly. Fight against all layoffs. Slow down against speed-up. Refuse overtime, so businesses are forced to hire more workers. Support strikes and spread them. Fight for real equality: not the false equality of fighting each other for a handful of jobs, but a world where the wealth we create is ours. Please copy this flyer and pass it on.

[reggie]

Re: Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

When considering my contribution to the 5GW discussion, we should consider the ratio of horizontal to vertical relationships in a human terrain area (be it a nation-state, sub culture, community, etc).

Thank you for posting that excellent example.

Another example of migrating society away from horizontal to vertical relationships is the use of generational labels in cultural segmentation (ie Gen-x; Gen-Y, etc.). By leveraging public education, Hollywood, Silicon Valley tech, the music industry, and Madison Avenue ad agencies, children were cultural shifted from family originated culture and behaviors toward [Theodor Adorno's] mass centralization of the same via vertical relationships with these cultural and educational suppliers.