Skip to main content

The Matrix and Unrestricted Warfare

It was a real pleasure Steve invited me to be part of the blogger mafia. It is a pleasure to get information about some of the things I know about out there to the blogoshpere. It may seem a little depressing to start my first blog on the site with a posting about warfare and geopolitics, but if you take the time to read it you will see that in fact it is not depressing at all, it the technical and social equivalent of 1776.

There is a technological revolution going on in both culture and warfare that are highly and I fear will only become more significant in each of our lives as the years go on and I want you to read about them here where freedom of speech and moral conscience are an absolute right. With that let me begin and say welcome to all of you used to reading Steve’s magnificent work! I hope that you enjoy my posts and Tyler's excellent work.

Now that the introduction is over, I would like to ask a question. Do you ever wonder about the future of culture and warfare? Well, I do. And given our non-libertarian political culture, the answers I am coming up with are making me cringe.

If anyone has ever watched the movie the Matrix, you know that things have changed in the way Hollywood does things. The same is true in culture and warfare; that technology and technical innovation continue to serve as an engine of culture and warfare is a part of all culture.

I hope every person here reads Unrestricted Warfare. Written in 1999, by two Chinese senior colonels, it offers a view of warfare as a dynamic process. As it is too long to post here I am posting a link to it: http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf

Once you have read it think of creative ways in which this is at work now in our culture and between our culture and China. And ask our representatives why they are not adopting this strategy to handle complex issues like terrorism, or geo-politics?

My own work on the subject is called “Zen and art of Constitutional Warfare” makes the technical portions of this look like what a blunderbuss would look like to a frequency wave weapon. But until we take a defensive posture toward the world and start playing this game, we are going to have serious problems in terms of management styles and business and warfare. As the authors of Unrestricted Warfare note, nationalistic libertarianism is the best philosophy to fight and win a modern war. Makes you think. Makes Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu proud for sure.

It seems more than a little Ironic-with a capital I- that it was this nation and its people that invented that idiosyncratic fighting style during our revolution, and modified it to suit actual conditions. John Paul Jones took it to a whole new level in 1777 when he bombarded the English coast, and Washington and his generals made it new way of fighting. It will be interesting to see if our unwieldy bureaucratic structures can handle this type of conflict because frankly they remind me of the little formal square European armies fighting in the three dimensional American zone circa 1781. How often have we gone from starting with one set of weapons and technologies and moved to a whole new set? How often do we beat our swords into plowshares to make the types of fighting we do more humane? And how often do massive power structures do all they can to make it that much less humane?

This is a very interesting report coming from a Communist country that has typically never embraced libertarianism, but which selectively awards libertarian rights to bright young people in its culture.

Please read it and enjoy it and ask yourself in wonder, did our current batch of planners ever get this memo? Think to yourself, as they sit in rigidly hierarchical bureaucracies, with rigidly ideological ways of thinking, the Chinese who wrote this have already developed a maglev train and are developing technology with Tesla coils that makes deep space travel a real possibility. Think of it and think about the innovation it took to make the Matrix, and imagine what Libertarians at war can do for this nation.

I am filled with admiration and respect for Chinese scientists and artists; and I always wonder why our government and industries are not encouraging us as younger people the same way.

If they ever let us do so and harnessed our free-wheeling thought to science, put on the 1812 overture, and start ringing the liberty bell.

Comments

Purpleslog said…
Do you have a link for "Zen and art of Constitutional Warfare"?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...