Thanks to Vox, I have been reading John Lind’s writings on 3rd and 4th generation war.
Man is a killer ape, his evolution spurred by tribal war long after the megafauna went extinct. Better at war is not necessarily better, and this evolutionary impetus explains the sapiens mess. Nevertheless, since war is the acme of man, war strategy is the acme of strategy. All life is war, because the last remaining constraint is human. And man finds fulfillment of his nature in it, because that is what we evolved to be. Thus Lind’s writings are far more valuable than their narrow military topic would suggest.
Of course, war in the original sense is 4GW in the modern sense. Otherwise the above paragraph makes no sense.
Combining Lind’s 4GW theory with Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men, we discover a new facet of the disaster of modernity:
The rifled firearm necessitated the Peace of Westphalia and the monopolization of violence by the state in the Christian West. This completed the disarming and emasculation of the male gang that began with the agricultural revolution. With men emasculated, the success of feminism in destroying the West was guaranteed.
The entire post-agricultural history of humanity can be seen as a weakening and corrupting of the male imperative, leading to its eventual conquest by the feminine imperative. As this cycle nears completion, the remnant must synthesize a solution to this megatrend.
In the first stage, the tribal gang is dispersed into farm plots and eventually cities, losing cohesion. This facilitates the rise of conquering tyrants who exercise anthropologically unprecedented levels of both numerical and geographical scale and de-facto absolutism.
In stage two, the rifled firearm empowers the citizen soldier, replacing the tyrranies and oligarchies with populist movements ruled by mass religion. These popular theocracies are extremely vulnerable to leftist holier-than-thou singularity, increasing the thrust behind the feminine imperative.
A state is necessary to win at modern war. The question becomes, is it possible to have a state which does not monopolize violence? Must we choose between emasculating the tribal gang and emasculating the state?
To restore individual virility, legalization of dueling, the right to bear arms, and patriarchal family authority are minimums. Thus to restore tribal virility, the rights to territorial sovereignty and private war must be restored. In fact, since every man’s home is his castle, the solution to this historical megatrend must be truly federal sovereignty, nested all the way down to the individual level.
I suggest a Dunbar-limited base numbering system for determining the maximum assembly size for any level of nesting. Perhaps 13 is the right number, the same as Jesus’ tribe, the most successful movement in history. Maybe 10 is easier; I don’t know.
All this fits with the theory of ideal state I’ve been elaborating – the blood and gold houses, etc. I just hadn’t realized it had to be gangs all the way down. Limited internicine war during periods of low external threat can provide the necessary churn to achieve the anthropologically correct high-pressure k-selected environment, measured by a 40-60% male casualty / incel rate.
Plus, admit it, you want to be able to shout “Inglewoood” like a nigger.
As statelessness rises, there will be opportunities for Red Pill Pilgrims to found this brave new world. Lower case, because the Brave New World holds nothing but cowards.
Just remember, that two solutions to problems measured in millenia that you heard here first:
1. Federal gangism + blood and gold house formalist/RedPill solution
2. Neanderthal revival via MT war
My proof of the supernatural is somewhat smaller in timescale, being measured in centuries, but it is in service of a higher strategic level.