It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mindless Barbarian : Brains Beats Brawn, Learn To Think, Violence Is The Answer?

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Isosceles
 


Okay, well since you put me through the drill, would you mind me doing the same?

How do you think a peaceful revolution could come about? Do you think enough people will ever be willing to partake in a tax revolt? Even if they do, do you think the government would collapse? During the 1920's Germany got less than 1% of their GDP from taxes, and the rest from the 32 printing presses running 24/7.

Would we just secede? If so, do you think violence wouldn't come out of that?

Do you think that voting more talking heads into office would change anything? Do you think enough people are woken up to the left/right false paradigm to elect truly independent people who can actually do some good in D.C.?

Do you think we will just default on our debts and the system will automatically revert back to the constitution without the will of the people their to enforce such a change?

I'm curious is all. It's nice to wish for a non violent way out of this, but I have yet to see a realistic suggestion, that has sound logistics backing it up.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by unityemissions]




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Thanks for that, SLAYER69.

Thinking intelligently is primary over everything else.

Usage of violence is only as a last resort, use your enemies strengths and weaknesses.

A wise man or woman can force their enemy to defeat themselves.


Originally posted by Logarock
I certanly agree with your premise. But would like to say, for some the only talking you can do with them is throught the end of a baseball bat. Stripes for a fools back. The M16 has its place amoung the forms of communication by default.


Yes, a baseball bat is a "talking point" with some people.

My stepfather taught me, you can talk your way out with words, but sometimes you have to talk with a 2 X 4, until that man is within an inch of their life.

This was a life lesson about dealing with bullies and how to take them down.

And that I had to find the man in the middle which is where I am now currently.

And via this not becoming the bully I was fighting to stop to begin with.

You just cannot reach into some people with intelligence.

And an M-16 is powerful, one man with a gun, but when one man can lead many guns, he is far more powerful, and strategy is important in that regard.

Guns N' Roses - Civil War, with lyrics



Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Fantastic as always SKL.

I too had never thought about it in this way, however your thesis makes much sense.

The world is changing however little it is from day to day, but we will grow as humans and we will come to realize our barbarous ways will eventually destory us.

I fear that our civilization must fall as a prelude to another that will actually remember the lessons of history.

~Keeper



That is what is important above all else is that history will be defined our actions.

And our actions define us as a society in that we are either intelligent or a barbarian.

Civilization is at a definable moment right now in that we have an opportunity to make changes, force changes, or control those changes through our actions.

Which action will you be defined from and how will you or I be remembered?

Me?

I am and have been since the age of fifteen a bully-buster using my intelligence to defend those who are weaker, stronger, or whatever, including myself against those who would rather use violence instead of intelligence.


Originally posted by whatukno
Today the Art of War has more to do with Business than the battlefield. (let's just get that clear right now) It is actually required reading in any credible business school.


It is indeed, whaukno, indeed it is more towards the business world unless we're speaking strictly military doctrine, and I know both, and I agree it needs to be implemented into business school because it is vital.

It is a way to commit to action the principles of command through cut-throat action.

You would love this book, as I have a copy of it, and seven other versions of The Art of War.

Hide a Dagger Behind a Smile: Use the 36 Ancient Chinese Strategies to Seize the Competitive Edge


Amazon Review :

Today's global economy is a battleground. To survive and thrive, you'll need every weapon you can get.

Microsoft, Sony, and Starbucks use business practices based on the ancient Chinese military text The Thirty-Six Stratagems-now you can, too.

Author Kaihan Krippendorff explains how to apply each stratagem to make your business profits soar, such as:

* Stratagem #1-Kill with a Borrowed Knife: Indirect attacks on your adversaries can catch them off guard.

* Stratagem #19-Watch the Fire on the Other Shore: Companies that temper power with patience will be more competitive in the long run.

* Stratagem #33-Hide a Dagger Behind a Smile: Threatened adversaries resist-trusting ones do not.

With Hide a Dagger Behind a Smile, you can take on your competitors and win-one battle at a time.

About the Author

Kaihan Krippendorff is a former consultant with McKinsey & Company and author of the forthcoming The Way of Innovation.

He is president of the Strategy Learning Center, a firm that helps companies worldwide-including Microsoft, Ryder, Pfizer, and DHL-outthink their competition.

He holds an MBA from Columbia Business School.

He has been mentioned in or written for publications such as Inc. magazine, Harvard Business Review, and Harvard Management Update and has appeared on many radio programs including NPR's Marketplace.


I wrote the thread below after reading the book above, about Bush.

Pretexts Towards War and the President’s Dagger Hidden Behind A Smile


Originally posted by whatukno
In history, Barbarians were anyone that weren't a part of the Roman Empire. Genghis Kahn was considered a barbarian, yet, he was one of the most successful military commanders of all time, and built the Mongol empire. Hannibal was a Barbarian, yet he also was quite the successful military strategist.


Of course, barbarians were considered as those mortals who took part in pagan rituals, who did not value "Rome" and her ways. I have a friend who suggested I would be a good Ghengis Kahn, meaning a very violent man, is I so choose to be, but I see him as a mindless barbarian, a minor warlord, if you will, compared to Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, or Leonidas.

I felt that her reference to me being a Ghengis Kahn type as a backhanded compliment of sorts.

Of course I was speaking to her about puppet dictators at the time and wrote this thread.

False Flag Operator, Become Sheep-Dipped Or Wolf-Dipped, and Become A Puppet Dictator?


Originally posted by whatukno
If you truly studied the art of war, an important lesson would have been to never underestimate the desperate. Both Hannibal and Genghis Kahn used their minds quite effectively in battle yet were in history considered barbarians.


Agreed.

Of course, the underdog should never be underestimated, he or she will surprise you every time, because once someone is backed into a corner, they will truly fight.

Warfare is indeed a complex and diverse element in that using strategy is both vital and at the same time such an intense part of tactics because without survival is impossible.

Situation dictates tactics, tactics dictate outcome, outcome dictates survival.


Originally posted by whatukno
Strategy has it's place and must always be thought of. In warfare of any kind one must remember that battle is a constantly fluid situation and one must always update their tactics to the situation, but also remember that sometimes over thinking the enemy is equally as dangerous.


How apropos, whaukno, I never thought you would have posted at length and in this amount of depth, not because I underestimated you, but because I did not know you knew what you have shown through our discourse within this thread.

You have come to surprise and as well please me that you have stepped up your post in regards to this topic, because I am impressed with you even more than before.

We have known each other on ATS for quite some time and we have as well discussed politics, over many extremes, many political fields, and historically as well, but to date your reply here within this thread is by far my favorite of yours.


Originally posted by kinda kurious
Nice work SKL. Only to add: "The pen is Mightier than the Sword." -Edward Bulwer-Lytton

But because a 2nd line is always prudent:
“When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her.”
- Oscar Wilde[edit on 27-3-2010 by kinda kurious]


Truly and verily the pen is mightier than the sword, because a sword can be wielded, just like a gun, but when one man can lead with one gun, and the same man can lead many men with guns via the stroke of a pen upon a sheet of paper, he is indeed far more powerful, because he has power rivaling all else.

Using your mind is indeed more powerful than a mere weapon.

A thought is faster than a bullet and or the man using it and with a pen can fell the man holding the weapon through signing a law, bill, or act in order to repress people.

One of my favorite scenes in any movies is from The Matrix.

The Matrix


Stopping the bullets is more a metaphor than a reality in that he knows how to stop them with his mind, and any man that can stop bullets with actions and words is far more powerful than the man firing that weapon.

Odd is it not that the man though armed with a weapon like that of Lee Harvey Oswald can stop a powerful man, and his never coming to justice in court was stopped via Jack Ruby, another man with a gun, violence begat violence.

And those who colluded to make the appearance of a "Lone Wolf" won.

And America lost in the final stages of a rise of the Shadow Government.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
There is a difference between "violence" and moral force. If you believe "violence" never solves anything, I suggest an observation of the natural order of things. An evening with National Geographic should suffice. Or reading Col. Cooper's Principles of Personal Defense.

The Living Energy of The Universe has given human beings many different forms of weapons to use...as it has to each living creature on this planet and planets throughout the known universe.

Yes, the thrust of your statements are correct, using a weapon: the active mind, from safe distances to outmaneuver your enemy would be the the optimal situation. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the fight comes to you, unexpectedly. As it has been said, "fighting is decision-making at high-speeds." Yes, most fights should be anticipated but the fact remains: human beings are imperfect. Even the greatest warriors can make mistakes and have great errors in judgement. History tells us this and if you look inside your self, you will find it to be true.

In terms of human affairs, it has been said, "The answer to 1984 is 1776." If there is ever to be a Second American Revolution, it can happen through non-violent means but for all those who care to live in freedom and liberty: "hope for the best but prepare for the worst".

A viewing of the film, Seven Samurai, directed by Akira Kurosawa will also prove my point.

Remember the Ainu, Remember the Basque.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Ainu Basque]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Isosceles
 


Okay, well since you put me through the drill, would you mind me doing the same?

How do you think a peaceful revolution could come about? Do you think enough people will ever be willing to partake in a tax revolt? Even if they do, do you think the government would collapse? During the 1920's Germany got less than 1% of their GDP from taxes, and the rest from the 32 printing presses running 24/7.

Would we just secede? If so, do you think violence wouldn't come out of that?

Do you think that voting more talking heads into office would change anything? Do you think enough people are woken up to the left/right false paradigm to elect truly independent people who can actually do some good in D.C.?

Do you think we will just default on our debts and the system will automatically revert back to the constitution without the will of the people their to enforce such a change?

I'm curious is all. It's nice to wish for a non violent way out of this, but I have yet to see a realistic suggestion, that has sound logistics backing it up.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by unityemissions]


Well, unfortunately I do not have all the answers to the problems that plague our planet. I think that it is a very complex issue. I don't think that it can be solved over night. I believe our entire existence plays a role in our enslavment.

Be it our social structure, our political ideologies, our religious beliefs, the current heirarchical system, the political bodies that make up that heirarchical system, the corporations as well as the financial institutions that dictate the majority of governmental policies throughout the majority of the world. The corruption and greed that stem from those policies. The current class system certainly plays a role in the amount of crime and violence that exists throughout the world.

Let us not forget the media, their pundits and the agendas that they espouse in order to shape and mould the minds of the people throughout the world. They have been the tool of governemnts worldwide, for many years, and they are highly effective.

In essence, the model of our entire societal structure works in their favor. Whether it be capitalism, communism, or socialism. It doesn't matter. Every political ideology is structured to benefit those at the top of the pyramid and no-one else.

Why do I believe violence won't solve anything?

I believe that violence wont solve anything becasue those that try to carry out said violence will be demonized by the media and the governement. We have already seen proof of this over the last couple of months.

Joe Stack is a prime example. He flew his plane in to an IRS building and guess what the media and the governments response was? More regulations and surveillance is neccessary on the world wide web in order to keep Americans safe from foreign and domestic terrorism.

These suggestions and eventual measures will only increase everytime another act of violence is commited against the American government.

Soon, all Americans really will be living in a police state. They will be forced to stop at military and law enforcement checkpoints, more surveillance will be instituted throughout the country, and more draconian measures will be implemented in order to keep the American citizenry safe from harm.

Why do I believe peaceful measures will garner better results?

Peaceful measures will garner better results because peaceful measures will not provide the government with the ammunition that they need in order to erode your freedom and liberty at an accelerated rate.

I mean think about it. How can they possibly retaliate against a movement that is completely lawful and peaceful. Especially when tens of millions of Americans are involved in the process?

You work together as a team. United under one purpose.

(Continued)



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
(Continued)

More Americans would support a peaceful revolution would they not? As opposed to participating in bloodshed, chaos and death?

Which scenario to you sounds more plausible?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
The problem with this topic is that the people who should read it won't read it, or can't.

So it is like teaching a wild dog to not bite.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by ALLis0NE]



The idea is to know when to bite and when not to bite. Is it not?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Nicely done op. By the way if anyone wants a copy of the art of war you can find it at shambhala pocket classics. I bought mine in 1972, its come in handy for many years.




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Isosceles
(Continued)

More Americans would support a peaceful revolution would they not? As opposed to participating in bloodshed, chaos and death?

Which scenario to you sounds more plausible?



Yes they would rather not use violence. There are very very few folks out there that really believe that this is a good idea at present.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Most people, though -- are all talk, no 'do'

They like to sit around swapping theories they've culled from here, there ...

But when it comes time to act, they stand there, flatfooted -- no plan and no action

and they wait for someone else to save them

As someone said higher in the thread, it comes down to knowing when to bite and when to blend into the scenery

And if you're going to bite, you'd better be prepared to finish it or die trying

That's elementary



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Thanks for that, SLAYER69.

Thinking intelligently is primary over everything else.

Usage of violence is only as a last resort, use your enemies strengths and weaknesses.

A wise man or woman can force their enemy to defeat themselves.


Originally posted by Logarock
I certanly agree with your premise. But would like to say, for some the only talking you can do with them is throught the end of a baseball bat. Stripes for a fools back. The M16 has its place amoung the forms of communication by default.


Yes, a baseball bat is a "talking point" with some people.

My stepfather taught me, you can talk your way out with words, but sometimes you have to talk with a 2 X 4, until that man is within an inch of their life.

This was a life lesson about dealing with bullies and how to take them down.

And that I had to find the man in the middle which is where I am now currently.

And via this not becoming the bully I was fighting to stop to begin with.

You just cannot reach into some people with intelligence.

And an M-16 is powerful, one man with a gun, but when one man can lead many guns, he is far more powerful, and strategy is important in that regard.



My meaning was anyone that made up his mind. Interesting that you chose "bully" to fill here. As if a "bully" had never seen a 2x4 and is anyones easy pray. To defeat you I would only have to act the bully or set pen and paper before you.

There was a great japanese swordsman that reproved an opponent for tossing away his scabbard. It says so much.

But alas the great Perseus defeated the Kraken with the head of Medusa.

A great greek general won the day by noticing the hidden phalanx moving behind the screen because their spears were lifted to high.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 



But thats classic art. Feign confusion and flat footedness.
At any rate there is no need to allow oneself to be provoked.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 




violence never solves anything


Those who advocate yin without yang are no wiser than those who advocate yang without yin.

Violence does solve some problems. Perhaps not the problems that you have. But to someone else you may be the problem which violence solves.



"mindless barbarian"


It is a mistake to assume that because a person resorts to violence that they are mindless. Just as there is mindless violence, so too is there mindful violence.

Who is more dangerous? A thug with a sword, or a geek with an ICBM?

Now...whichever way you answered, who is more dangerous, they...or a thug with an ICBM?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Wow, nice thinking my friend
I was about to hint upon this as well. But first, I wanted to say AWESOME thread SKL you know I am a fan. Once again you have compiled good info for a common good. Now lets see what we have to look at. I mostly agree with some things, but we must remember that one cannot survive without the other. The Violent acts in turn must have non violent acts. It is the way the world works. Not to mention that violent acts do not have to be physical violence, but can be also verbal and even on certain levels peaceful violence. Verbal warefare is very strong and can seriously damage a persons psyche, infact many Teens kill themselves because of bullying that is Verbal rather than physical, such as calling a young girl fat and/or ugly and calling a young boy queer and/or ugly. Infact, while violence manifests in many different way, the goal of peace is certainly attainable, but not highly likely at all. For many reasons ranging from blood feuds, to mental diseases, to first come first serve, and finally survival. In many instances, thinking will get a person killed it is with proper reaction and instinct that the hunted must be the hunter.

As you know SKL, I was raised by parents who taught me how to avoid situations of conflict. By following these rules:

1) Talk your way out of the situation
2) If you cannot talk your way out walk away
3) If they refuse to let you walk away- run
4) if they pursue and catch you and you have exhausted all efforts- fight.

In many years of martial arts ranging from- taekwondo, to hapkido, to akido, to brazilain jujitsu, to weapons training, to personal protection (bodyguard) training and many other martail arts. There will always be a situation of conflict whether it be Physical, Verbal, or even peaceful. These situations will always exist and while these people may seem like barbarians to us, they are indeed heavily and devilshy smart. Bullies always have a point of action- to make the other person feel as bad as possible. Same goes for the violence of men- there is always a goal, even if that goal is not apparent at first. The son of Sam killed for the thrills. Ted Bundy did the same, he loved the rush! While this may not seem like a good excuse to you or I, to them it made perfect sense! That is because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every reasonable person born there is an equal and opposite irratinale person born. Miguel the archangel had as his opposite Lucifer. Jesus has the Anti-Christ. And so on and so forth. If you get rid of physical violence another violence will take its place. The world is built with evil and good. The two CAN CO-EXIST, but wont be able to for a long time and may never be able to...




So, with all of that being said I of course curious why it is that ATS thinks that people do not think, but act through violence first, when it comes to many things in life, whether it be the actions of many where the group setting and mentality is lowered by the common denominator of racial make-up and the IQ of the room reduces to mob-mentality, to those few who act out of fear through violence and or threat of violence like the recent incident when the Healthcare Reform Act was passed and a Congressman was not only threatened, but threatened with violence to his family, because of the man's beliefs.


People who are in groups often become more brazen, becaus ethey feel that there friends will go along with them. And often so the friends do not do such things, but rather stay out the way and do NOTHING. It is for this reason that thinking rather than reacting is not a good idea. For instance:

Your friend is about to throw a rock through a window. You have 3 second to say something before he throw it. Without thinking your concious takes over and you shout stop with your body launching forward to grab his arm. You stop him, situation diffused, not by thinking, but by instinct.

Threatening people with violence, is just that a threat. Rarely is it acted upon and if it is acted upon it is done so through the use of the attacker acting out on breaking the victims material possessions rather than actually physically harming the person. Much like what we saw after the health care bill passed and the republicans for the health reform had threats and finally had there windows smashed in with rocks.

But is all violence mindless? Absolutely not. While it is not something that I enjoy seeing at all, it is not all mindless. Sometimes it is the only thing that can be done. Is thought necessary? Not all the time, infact it is better to act on instinct in some situations.

Cool thread SKL
And thanks for the material you have provided and thanks for making me use my brain!..lol..



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Spot on, spot on. Within minutes these "intelligent" people turned into a mob of barbarians.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Everyone is given a set of weapons they can fight with.

Some are given their physical strength.
Some are given their brains.
Some are given both.

Then comes how effective you are at using your skills.

"Violence is never the answer" is in my opinion a quote formed by INTELLIGENT beings (not the most physical, or they did not choose to be that way).

It is like a nerd facing a hulk...if the nerd sets the rules, he will win. That is what the world is about. Setting the rules. If you can set the rules, you will go far. If you can break the rules and get away with it, you will go far.
If you can do both, you will dominate.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kelliott

... the only way to overcome this potential violence.... is to drop out of the system! i know people think they cant bc they rely on money to survive... YOU ARE HUMAN BEINGS! YOUR MENT TO SURVIVE.

Is it too hard for people to grow there own food for there families. that way they have alll the spare time on the planet until they die?

You people think entertainment is more important then Life? (Tv, Video games, Music, Movies)Get out of the system! Stop going to work, stop and drop your stupid life distractions called entertianment and do whats right for humanity and your family, the poeple you love!

Just STOP THE STUPID ROUTINE THEY CONSISTENLY HATE DOING DAY IN AND DAY OUT!We can drop the system and build our own!



This is naive thinking. So say you just drop everything. How do you expect to have water to raise your crops if you have no money to pay the water bill? How do you expect to have heat in a green house if you have no money to pay for electricity? Or perhaps you can survive eating only in the growing season?

How will you have that "little patch of growing land" if you do not purchase it and pay taxes on it?

You are living in a dream world.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Alethea]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
*They* are banking on the principles of the Hegelian dialect.

According to what seems to be the plan, there must first be some kind of revolutionary activity before the unification can take place and the implementation of a reformation.

So what would be an anti-thesis to this?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
You have raised valid points OP. I do not believe that violence will cease. The Art of War gives a very good description of a great leader. A general who can take a city without a siege is an enlightened leader.

What do you do when an opponent absolutely refuses to settle a dispute, such as making peace or resolving outstanding issues? Indeed, we humans use violence to make change when civilized options fail. Violence is the ultimate peace treaty, the absolute victory, when ALL other options have failed.

It is also important in what context one regards violence. For example, blockading a city-state, principality or a nation will not produce widespread physical violence. It will produce violence in the context that force is being used to make one faction submit to the others will.

I would also like to point out that non violent, thinking people can also hurt people, through manipulation and subterfuge, just to name two possible methods. "Civilized" people are capable of atrocities just as "barbarians" are. Being civilized does not automatically make a person superior in regards to character. At it's essence, a civilized nation is nothing other than a nation that has progressed to the point of building cities. I know you are using the term barbarian in the context of violent people and non-thinkers. I am using civilized in the context of thinking, non physically violent people that continue to commit atrocities. It happens all the time, and they think outside the box to do it.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The Art of Fighting without Fighting - YouTube link (embedding is not working for me)

Perhaps we underestimate how many people who are in high places of power within the establishment of government and business are in a like mind with the sorts of freedom loving people who post here on ATS.

Some years ago the late Sherman Skolnick made claims that there was a group of US flag officers who were murdered by means of airplane sabotage before they could carry out their planned coup and arrest of then president Bill Clinton. Skolnick article

Continuing along the lines of 'thinking outside the box' we shouldn't necessarily limit ourselves to organizing and educating the citizenry outside the realms of power in an effort to wholesale remove all that are currently in power. Maybe we need to look for ways to weave into the established power and connect, link, and leverage with those in power that share our same principles and values. After all, unless you believe our government is entirely run by reptilians, they are all still humans with minds that operate on basically the same principles of operation as our own.

Of course there are some obvious challenges to such an approach, not the least of which is that inevitably we would be running into many individuals that never will be of a like mind and some that may pretend to be sympathetic just to gain trust and become a mole. Still I'm not convinced that all those challenges couldn't be either overcome or successfully endured. Yes, using one's mind to it's optimum resourcefulness could indeed be the key for a march to utopia.





[edit on 28-3-2010 by QtheQ]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
This discussion is meaningless.

Hasn't WW II taught you anything?

Neville Chamberlain's complete fiasco at negotiations with the Nazis?

The Nazis' stalling? Their final, utterly deceptive and fake agreement with the Britain, made only as a means to buy some time until the war machinery was fully prepared? Do you even know how much hard effort the Nazi military had to put in the production of as much armor and weaponry as possible, just a couple of years before their invasion of Poland?

It was a miracle in the making, and everyone could see it. Everyone knew what it meant for everybody. But it was hope that kept people's heads buried in the sand. I don't see anything different today.

People will have to lose all hope before they will do anything, and that's a known fact.

The problem you have is not a lack of plan. The problem is very accurately described in these words, also from The Art of War:



IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS

1. Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put
themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then
waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our
own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy
is provided by the enemy himself.

3. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat,
but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

4. Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer
without being able to do it.

5. Security against defeat implies defensive tactics;
ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.

6. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient
strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength.

7. The general who is skilled in defense hides in the
most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in
attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven.
Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves;
on the other, a victory that is complete.

8. To see victory only when it is within the ken
of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.


Just speaking from the top of my mind, I can count a dozen opportunities when you had clear victory at hand, and you miraculously and quite competently (in the manner in which the incompetent do) succeeded at fumbling at all of them.

You fumbled because you lack the right people at all the right places, and you lack the right people because you don't have any kind of support system for them to act from. They have no safe ground, no logistics, no communication lines. They have absolutely nothing to work with.

How do you expect your soldiers to fight for you when you don't even provide them with the ammunition they need?

What I can tell you, and it's not any kind of secret among those who know on either side, is that you already have all the right people spread throughout the whole civilian-military spectrum. But fortunately, both for them and for you, they are much more competent at their job that you are at yours, and they will not step forward before some kind of safe ground is firmly established... and that ain't gonna happen before all hell breaks lose.

Do you really think that those who are even remotely competent would give themselves away within any of the already established institutions, all of which are highly centralized, compartmentalized, and under extreme surveillance? Not gonna happen.

It's only when everyone starts running for their lives that these people may choose to step forward. And that won't happen because someone gave them some friggin' order. It will happen when they make that decision themselves, and to the best of their discernment.

You're toy soldiers being pushed over the plastic battlefield, simply following the orders of your chair commanders.

The soldiers I'm talking about are of a completely different kind. Each is an army in small, and each can build a real army when the opportunity arises... if it does at all.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join