site banner
KulakRevolt  10mo ago (anarchonomicon.com)   2774 thread views

The Warlord's Reading list

anarchonomicon.com

Hey gang haven't been crossposting my stuff here as much recently, let me know if you'd like me do that more....

But I thought you guys would be interested in my latest mega-article project. (this one is literally book length)

For those of you that like "The Anarchonomicon Real Banned Books List"

I present "The Warlord's Reading List"

The idea is that its a curriculum for perspective warlord, revolutionaries, Militia Leaders, self defense forces, independent espionage agents, arms traffickers... All the interesting people, with the goal that heaven forbid chaos come to your country there is a pre-curated body of knowledge (with links) that you can quickly and efficiently develop a deep familiarity if not expertise through self directed study.

This this started as just a short list for myself, and then It slowly grew into its current 150+ entry, 22 category, 30,000 word, book length survey of the state of modern warfare complete with oppinions minireviews, and catgirls.

If you're interested in the theory of Marxist Guerilla warfare, Crypto-currency money laundering, special weapons and tacitcs, precision marksmanship and sniper warfare, nuclear weapons survival, effective leadership, operational art and the formation of general staffs, high and low tech logistics, prison economics, digital opsec, high speed mounted warfare, and forming your own blackmail networks... Reconsider you life priorities... But also check out my new booklist!

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Van Creveld's 4th gen Warfare manual is one I'd recommend for this list!

I'll have to look into it... Actually can you you name the work? "Van Creveld 4th Gen Warfare" doesn't turn up much

He made the list twice with Supplying War, and Fighting Power

I goofed the author! It was William S Lind:

https://archive.org/details/4th-generation-warfare-handbook

Hey gang haven't been crossposting my stuff here as much recently, let me know if you'd like me do that more....

Yes.

I appreciate the cross-posts. Twitter can feel like I'm walking through the crowds, listening to men preach from a soapbox. This is slightly more like a salon where at least I'm sitting down inside a building instead of walking along the street.

THIS IS A TANGENT POST

Humble request:

Something like this reading list for dissident right / post-liberalism. Think about "What would Oswald Spengler be reading today if he were still alive"

Thank you, Mottizens.

(Mods: This probably isn't the best place for this, but I don't know where else it would go? Maybe Sunday thread?)

Thank you for the detailed response and commentary. Great effortpost.

Let me know if this would make a suitable blogpost.

Probably. With the big "IF" upfront of - I don't think simply cataloging the NRx idea ecosystem is of a ton of interest on its own (outside of the morbidly curious like myself). What would be truly widely appealing, imho, is trying to trace how we got to NRx starting from post WW2 conservative / tradtional thinking (with pit stops in Big-L Liberalism) with a final section on what likely outcomes are.

This is exactly why I asked for recommendations. I'm try to build a deeper understanding of "how we got here" in order to have a stronger confidence in thinking about "where we are headed." It's important not to get too tied up in pure ideology - this was how Big-L liberals failed, how the neocons failed, and how the Progressive of today (Kamala) failed to even get off the launch pad*.

While the re-election of Trump has created a Right Wing honey moon period still very much in full swing, the Right in America / Britain is still very far from coalescing around a reality driven approach to the next 10,20,30 years. Right now, it's a coalition of angry populists (hardcore MAGA'ers), old Reagan style conservatives who have abandoned any idea of calm negotiation and co-existence with the Left, techno-libertarian bros (Thiel, Vance, etc.....frankly I think Yarvin is closer to this bucket that he wants to admit), and the centrist wanderers who have been so turned off by the really weird Left that they, for now, will happy vote against Blue Tribe. Oh, and then, of course, there's like 7-12 million younger men who feel utterly forgotten. This is a strange coalition to try to drive forward and, since 2016, it has been utterly dependent upon the person of Donald J. Trump. That lasts for 4 more years (Trump doesn't have the deep managerial ability nor the personality to existent as shadow emperor of the Republicans after the end of this term).

Sorry not sorry for the tangent. This is something I have a deep interest in. Again, thanks for the effortful response.

It's funny to me that Moldbug opposes the Reformation and the puritans, whereas Carlyle was a fan of them both. I haven't read enough of either to have opinions on why that might be, given Moldbug's high esteem for Carlyle, but it's funny.

Neither have I but off the top of my head I think it's because Carlyle is a Great Persons guy and appreciates anyone with grit and zeal, while Moldbug is a systems guy and is mostly interested in the direction that society is moving rather than the individuals who think they are moving it..

That's definitely a part of it.

Check out "Democracy the God That Failed" by Hoppe, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" by Buchanan, and "Freedom Betrayed" by former President Herbert Hoover. Those are the good high level back to the source ones...

Also Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak (it's short... Pete Quinones did a podcast Audio version also)

and

200 Years together by Alexander Solzenhitzen

Those are the hot ones right now related to current events.

I find Buchanan to be so rife with basic historical errors and internal contradictions that it's difficult to take him (or anyone who would quote him positively) seriously. Is Churchill supposed to be an inveterate fuck-up, or a Xanatos-esque supervillain who played everyone in the world like a fiddle? The answer seems to change from chapter to chapter.

I also find it somewhat surprising and ironic to see 200 Years together cited here given Solzenhitzen's ultimate conclusions. I feel like a lot of people see (or hear about) Solzenhitzen's claim that the Jews share at least some blaim for the holocaust and various progroms and stop there without ever engaging with Solzenhitzen's arguments why.

Best I can do is some /lit/ charts. Sadly the wiki they were originally on got nuked a few months back but you can dig around in the mega for stuff. Schizo but a starting point, at least.

General Reactionary, right wing charts

Evola, Guenon & Friends

...

  • -10

I am not sure if this is a comment you deleted or if the "..." is supposed to be the comment, but please don't do this.

Last April, you said:

Israel cannot survive unless Iran is destroyed now. There’s basically no scenario where the tit for tat won’t escalate into an unending front of infinite Iranian resources in Lebanon, Gaza, and/or the Golan Heights,as well as constant back and forth air and rocket fire.

And Iran can't be destroyed unless the US implements a draft of millions of Americans which would start a civil war and end the US.

...

So after this move, basically the only thing that can save them from a death spiral is a major US invasion, which the US would lose militarily without a draft...

Such A draft that would cause a violent revolution/civil war in the US... A civil war that would quickly become ww3 as Chinese and Russian Assets egged on the US collapse and the US military tried to reply in kind.

...

This is probably WW3 Friends. stock up now. End of the age.

Do you think this was wrong? If so, how did you learn/update from the last 7 months?

You have also repeatedly predicted WWIII as well as a major civil war with >1,000,000 dead in the United States following the election. While you still have 50 odd days left for some assassination scenario or Biden to nuke Moscow, do you think the lack of violent protests (or serious protests at all, really) or the general acceptance of Trump's victory mean this was also a bad prediction? Is the point to be edgy clickbait or...do you genuinely believe the things you write?

Israel has seen it's fronts multiply and its geopolitical situation decaying as we speak as it fights mutliple iran backed enemies and has had major blow for blow exchanges with Iran, If Israel makes it to 2030 I'll say that they beat the odds. And I did not predict "as well as" I predicted a major conflict INVOLVING the US would continue, start, or conclude in that period... that could be civil war, that could be cartel war, that could be nuclear exchange with russia, but that could also just be Ukraine or Israel escalating to kill 1 million since the US is already involved in both. At the time of that writing 2 wars involving the US were already active Ukraine and Israel, and BOTH are creeping up through the hundreds of thousands dead right now.

My predictions have been VERY SPECIFIC. And the things I write are true, full stop.

Are you taking bets on any of this?

why would I? The headache and logistics of making a low dollar bet with someone from another country is way more effort than the expected return value I'm likely to get. Not to mention counterparty risk when they try to welch.

Transaction costs are a thing.

Why? If you actually believed the things you were saying, you'd do it to make free money. It would also greatly increase your intellectual credibility.

I would go over your objections one by one to demonstrate that they're just excuses (I'll make a high dollar bet with you, trustworthy escrow agents exist, etc), but obviously they are just excuses and there's no way you would actually put skin in the game to back up your bloviating.

And I did not predict "as well as" I predicted a major conflict INVOLVING the US would continue, start, or conclude in that period

Well, you gave an actual civil war almost 50% likelihood:

Civil War or “Troubles” is still slightly below a 50% likelihood

Then:

After [the election] either Trump wins, in which case they are incentivized to reverse entirely and wield all those new migrants and existing problem ethnicities to riot and act as shock Troops against Trump supporters. That way House Democrats and Regime Republicans can try to prevent a Trump confirmation, Something they have openly discussed and plan to do.

And in the event of a Trump or Vance election mass rioting will begin, in American cities, and probably widespread rape and murder by the millions of violent foreign migrants imported and strategically shipped across the country to strategic regions and municipalities.

(There’s probably no way to prevent that even if the Regime cared to, the people they imported are from countries where rioting, and killing people in riots is simply not the hard distinction Americans perceive it to be, you’d have a hard time explaining to many Haitian and central American illegals why looting and burning shops would be fine but killing the shop owners and raping their wives and daughters wouldn’t be)

Yes, which means I gave "NOT a civil war" MORE than 50%, which given there were mutliple assassniation attempts on the lead candidate one of which came an inch from killing him, that sounds right or even conservative .

In reply to the "then" please read the introduction to my immediate previous piece on the topic and civil war preparedness.

The predictions for which I give probabilities are the predictions.... The long elaborate descriptions of scenarios to be prepared for NECESSARILY CANNOT BE, because everytime you describe something additional happening the overall likelihood of all of it happening lowers.

I described about 20 different possible dynamics and scenarios in that piece as preparedness exercise. NECESSARILY the value and detail of a scenario for planning and preparedness is ANTI-CORRELATED with its overall total likelihood since each additional piece of information or dynamic, which is valuable for preparedness, is another thing that may or may not happen.

In short I give probability predictions in keeping with the norms of Less-Wrong rationalism because that is valuable for declaring your priors, then I give the elaborate scenario planning, because that is how militaries and serious organizations wargame.

Specifically the mass rioting if Trump won, I expect that would have 100% happened if he had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote (which strikes me as a vastly more likely scenario than what happened given his track record) then there would have been a cause to argue Trump's win was a result of systemic white supremacy and the American system favouring white rural voters over urban voters... which could have been ginned up by media like the summer of Floyd... Trump's total electoral victory was very unlikely given available information (most odds had him 40-45% to lose and presumably another 20-30 to only win closely)

His incredibly decisive victory (contrary to his previous 2 elections) was an surprising factor... though there's still a fair amount that can go wrong between here and inauguration, or in his first year... not least 2 very unstable wars right now.

The predictions for which I give probabilities are the predictions.... The long elaborate descriptions of scenarios to be prepared for NECESSARILY CANNOT BE, because everytime you describe something additional happening the overall likelihood of all of it happening lowers.

It's a little confusing to say that it's not a prediction when you say that sometimes is going to happen. It did not seem to me that this part of the essay was hedged as one possibility, rather, you seemed fairly confident that it would happen.

I described about 20 different possible dynamics and scenarios in that piece as preparedness exercise.

Indeed, but there were two plausible scenarios listed for the outcome of the election based on who won, so I think it's fair to evaluate one conditional now that we know the outcome. After all, one of the two cases should have come true, if they are so confidently stated.

Specifically the mass rioting if Trump won, I expect that would have 100% happened if he had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote

I don't believe this was hedged like this in the original article, although I may have missed it. If not, this seems like post-hoc cope to me.

My predictions have been VERY SPECIFIC. And the things I write are true, full stop.

That has yet to be the case, ever.

The things you write are what you want and hope will happen. Whether you really believe they will happen or are just trying to manifest them into being, I'm genuinely unsure.

I predicted a major conflict INVOLVING the US would continue, start, or conclude in that period

A bold prediction to make considering it exhaustively covers literally every possibility

1 Million people dead, in a conflict involving the US, overlapping with a 3 month window is "literally every possibility"

I mean I agree the US is a violent unstable regime, but I don't think it's quite at the point of INEVITABILITY that it will always be involved in a mass die off.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats