Buppert: Slaying Giants and Guerrilla Force Calculus – Beating the Odds

It ain’t the size of the dog in the fight – it’s the size of the fight (and the brains) in the dog.

Buppert cites two notable examples of that proverb; more detail re Luttow-Vorbeck at Mosby’s shop.

As for the civil affairs side of such a struggle, how about this for a starter?

1) We believe and act upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

2) Government, to the extent that it is even necessary, must be effectively and eternally constrained, lest it turn once again into tyranny.

3) We believe that it is each individual’s duty and responsibility to provide all necessary support for oneself and one’s family.

4) Beyond the limitations imposed by traditional laws against murder, robbery, theft, rape, and assault, rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

5) Being essential to the protection and support of ourselves, our families, and our country, no restrictions upon speech, self-defense, arms-bearing, association, worship, private property, parental authority, or the privacy of one’s affairs and writings shall be permitted or tolerated.

You are thinking about building the political basis for resistance, aren’t you?

Tempus fugit.

77 responses to “Buppert: Slaying Giants and Guerrilla Force Calculus – Beating the Odds

  1. Let’s not forget basic Christian morality either. Washington himself stated that the Constitution was for a moral and religious people. Not everyone in America was a Christian, but the country’s law were based on the firm understanding of the Law of God from Scripture. No one was ever forced to become a Christian, but Christian morality prevailed and the USA flourished for over 200 years.

    Now that we as a nation have abandoned that basis, everything is starting to go to pot. Both common sense and Scripture tells us we should be returning to the first works.

    • Semper Fi, 0321

      Sorry, but being a Christian does not make one a good citizen, or human. Many folks are just tired of religious hypocrisy, very few people truly live the life they expect others to conform to. So we now have a society spiraling downward in morals and ethics, along with 2,000 different religious branches, none of which can get along with each other spiritually, or politically.
      People have changed, as they have been doing for thousands of yrs, religions come and go, and you want to go backwards in time to solve your dilemma?
      Ain’t gonna happen.

      • Are you speaking to the theology itself and it’s moral principles, or merely to the imperfect people who practice it?

        • Semper Fi, 0321

          I know, everyone feels he himself is above the criticism.

          • And that means what?

            • Three quarters (give or take) of Americans identify as Christian. In my own nation I have seen the best of them and the worst.
              It is the most lazily appealing avenue to attribute the failing of society to the things we dislike.
              We can all play the guessing game but in some cases the facts are plain. America has been brought to its knees under the watch of an indisputable Christian majority, so if you want to blame it on the godless heathens be aware. That dog doesn’t hunt.

              • 1 Citations please, or your ‘facts’ are simply unfounded aspersions. In other words ‘Shit Smearing’.

                2 Stop putting words in my mouth, But please continue if you think it’s making points for you. I couldn’t care less what a person’s theology is. The quotation is: “By the results of their actions, you will know who you are dealing with.”
                3 Since you are apparently NOT a citizen I will toss an aphorism your way: You have no skin in the game.

              • Cassandra (of Troy)


                OUCH! Dashed impertinent of you to bring up that ‘inconvenient truth’, Wom old bat, decidedly not cricket! Btw, I seem to recall that there as here the religious authorities were foursquare behind the govt’s policy of exterminating the indigenous population by any/all means necessary w/ clemency only being granted to those who’d ‘accept’ the white man’s religion & the ‘benefits’ of his ‘civilization’. Interesting how as the Protestants besmirch the Catholic & Muslim practice of conquest & conversion they also imitate it & thereby simultaneously validate Ecclesiastes 1:9, Matthew 7:3-5, & Proverbs 16:18.

                There’s a word for that kind of behavior, starts w/ an H……

                Cassandra (of Troy)

            • Whooosh!

      • Say what you will Marine. The facts speak for themselves. When America honored God, she was blessed. When we weren’t murdering babies, committing adultery freely, blessing homosexuality and demanding that God be removed from our public life, we did pretty well. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the One True and Living God and honoring Him as a people, all of your assertions to the contrary.

        • What is wrong with you?

          America is a concept not a gender.
          A concept is incapable of *honoring* anything.

          *We* didn’t murder babies.

          Straighten up your act Ed.

          • Are you unfamiliar with the idea of the royal ‘we’? Our government has done this thing, with the acquiesence of a portion of the people. It is therefore correct to say ‘we’ in that sense. And I assure you sir, there is NOTHING wrong with me.

            • You don’t even know how much you don’t know.
              Don’t include me in your bullshit royal we nonsense and I’ll make an effort to not firebomb your collectivist house when the time comes.

            • Cassandra (of Troy)

              Ed Sumner/29Nov13@11:28,

              “Our goverment has done this thing, with the acquiesence of a portion of the people.”

              And w/ that you validate the point of Wombat’s post, ES.

              Cassandra (of Troy)

        • outlawpatriot

          You hang in there Ed. You’re not alone.

          And you’re right.

          Part of the battle that’s being waged is for the complete annihilation of Christianity.

          Many cannot understand or accept the connection between Christianity and the birth of our nation or the importance of it. I suspect that is also why some have such contempt for our Constitution and view it as the source of our present predicament.

          Never let them shout you down.

          • Gentlemen:

            Please remember that the founding docs (DoI, AoC, USC, BoR) do not reference Christianity in a single place (or at least my copies do not; pls provides cites if I am wrong).

            “Freedom of worship” is as far as it should go in terms of enumeration; personal choice (you know – Freedom!) can and should do the rest.

            There are good people who do not subscribe to the tenets of Christianity. Any place that would constrain SF0321 or Billy Beck for their freethinking is not a place for me – see generally https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/an-american-creed/. Moreover, anyone claiming that the post-war environment must be predicated on the establishment of a state religion (which is what is being discussed in his thread, isn’t it really?) is mistaken, to express the thought kindly.

            That is not to say that I am anti-Christian, but I most certainly against the imposition of Christianity via any means other than discussion, gentle persuasion, and, most importantly, personal example.

            • A Christian nation bases its laws and principles upon Christianity. Not every individual within such a country must be a Christian. It is the influence of the Believers within that society working within the framework of that set of beliefs that is intended to influence the un-Christian portion of the nation to at least adhere to the basic moral tenets of Christian thinking. This is how America operated. We executed murderers, we valued life, we punished thieves and other malefactors appropriately and so forth. Now our laws are being based on the Humanist Manifesto 2, which basically makes man to be his own “god” (which is incidentally, the first lie of Satan).

              No one can force another person to be a Christian. That is a sovereign act of God alone, working through his people. But a nation based on Christian values will most assuredly be blessed, and one based on some pack of lies (whatever they may be) will not.

              • Ed, you are still arguing for the establishment of a state religion, aren’t you?

                • No. America has never had a state religion until humanism came along. What we had was merely a nation adhering to established moral principles of a religion, without forcing others to adhere to the religion. Though we were a Christian country, one could be a Jew, Buddhist, atheist or whatever without fear that they’d get locked up for it. Now Christians wonder (perhaps wrongfully, perhaps not) when the midnight will come from DHS or one of the multitude of other government alphabet soup organizations.

                  • I will accept your word. But note that in reading your previous, it sure looked like you were arguing for C as the state religion.

                    • No, only for Christian principles/laws based on Scripture. The LAST thing we need is a national denomination. All of the denominations of Christianity serve as a freedom to those who wish to adhere to a particular understanding of Christianity. The Christian religion in general has served America well.

                      (Correction to my last post: Christians are starting to wonder when the midnight KNOCK will come.)

                  • “established moral principles of a religion”

                    You’re full of shit.
                    Moral humans precedes any religion.
                    If not, there would be no one alive today.
                    Your problem is that you have your head up against this religion wall you’ve built and can’t go any further.
                    You built that wall and only you can knock it down.

                    • Cassandra (of Troy)



                      I’ve heard that what’s called morality is simply enlightened self-interest made nobler by being clothed in religious terms, gs, & such being the case causes me to remember the late Mel Tappan’s observation about noble verbiage & nefarious intent.

                      “Your problem……any further.”

                      There are many roads to the truth, gs, & my position is that one’s arrival at/acceptance of it is more important than the conveyance. But as I’m rather ‘liberal’ about some things, my ‘heretical’ views are de facto suspect according to more than a few.

                      Cassandra (of Troy)

            • outlawpatriot

              Uh, the DoI references God does it not? It not only references but says He’s the source.of our rights. Run down the list of Founders. Christian all with the exception of the Jefferson who was a Deist as was most probably Franklin.

            • Cassandra (of Troy)

              Concerned American/29Nov13@11:18,

              “”Freedom of worship”……do the rest.”

              And should that fail, corrective measures should immediately commence w/ their severity to be commensurate w/ the nature of the offense.

              “There are……kindly.”

              Agree. Funny how the spirit of William Penn keeps on re-appearing, rather makes Jefferson’s point about eternal vigilance as well as confirming the observation about the preservation of liberty being tiring.

              “That is not……personal example.”

              Ditto, w/ the last (imo) being the most important for a Christian or anyone else as per James 1:22-25 & 2:14-17.

              Cassandra (of Troy)

          • I WILL NEVER BOW. Not now, not ever. Magog can’t win. It’s impossible.

            • Aw, relax…bow to whomever or whatever you wish, or don’t. That’s hardly the point, which is whether or not you’ll show the same courtesy to others. So which is it?

              Hey Alan…do you figure you think you’re more right, than I do? Or for that matter, even the progressive commie-libs? None of that matters, and you damn well know it. This was never about being right (much to my dismay!), or even about thinking one is right…but about whether there’s going to be “unobstructed ACTION” or not, within the limits yadda yadda yadda.

              You’re a brave guy—so which is it?

              Spit it out already, and let’s move forward. Adams and those guys are long dead, so you’ve got nobody to speak for except yourself.

              • Jim, has Christianity in America ever tried to force anyone to BE a Christian? I contend that is impossible, as becoming a Christian is a sovereign act of God. Some of the backlash being seen today FROM Christians is that the atheist/humanist crowd is seeking to impose a dhimmi status on Christianity not unlike what Islam does to unbelievers in Islamic states. That and the upsurge in obvious government favoritism toward immorality.

                When I say, I will not bow, I mean to the agenda being shoved upon us all. Those who believe as you and some of the other guys here ARE here because you see it. We object for different reasons, but we DO object most strenuously, even to the point of taking up arms as we see necessary. It’s Christianity’s way of saying “We ain’t gonna take it.”

                • Fair enough, Ed. At this stage, I don’t really care what other people think, or even how they mess up their own lives. I only care about what they do, and even then only what they do to others.

                  I happen to have fairly righteous principles myself, but so what? I say let everyone have whatever whacked-out principles they choose, as long as they don’t try to stop the next guy from having his. The rational and the good will inevitably prevail. It’s time to move forward and let every person live whatever life he chooses. And if he tries to stop someone else from living theirs…well, we don’t argue about what to do with rabid dogs, do we?

                  It’s getting too simple already and we’re running out of excuses.

                • tried to force anyone to BE a Christian?

                  They were on my front porch, again, last week and the next time they show up around here I’m gonna turn the hounds of hell loose on them.

                  If they won’t respect my property rights and stay the hell off my land I’ll let them see something they never seen before.

                  And you have the gall to call these people moral?
                  You have’t the first clue, you’re just using religion as a tissue thin cloak for tyranny.

              • outlawpatriot

                I’d have to say I’m in agreement with you.

                I just think it important to know and understand where we come from.

                Unfortunately, far too many don’t care or reject that history.

                But I am picking up what you’re laying down with regard to the subject at hand. Like Nero, we fiddle while the country burns.

          • Cassandra (of Troy)


            “Part of……Christianity.”

            Troodat, op, & one of the most disgusting things is how much co-operation the Imperium gets from ‘good Christians’. But then that’s one of the directional indicators we were told to keep an eye out for, isn’t it.

            Cassandra (of Troy)

      • He did not say you must be a Christian. You came up with that based on your blinding bias to the word Christian.


      • Since when is living the standard the Corps was established on “going backward?” Being moral, ethical, and getting along with others is the basis of the Marine Corps, or was; I guess Marines can lie, cheat, steal, and have zero integrity and it’s cool now, the in thing. Thank God all the Marines I know are out now, they must be teaching things differently now. No, you don’t have to be religious to be a good or moral person, but history – not theology alone – teaches that once faith goes, EVERYTHING else follows.

        • Semper Fi, 0321

          I’m VN era, not new Corps.
          Going backwards isn’t a ‘few’ yrs of your modern history, but rather the historical history of religion. When has it SOLVED anything? It may create blindness to reality, but it never cured or solved anything.
          Being a good human being has nothing to do what the Corps taught. That comes from within. We’ve also seen what evil comes from the Corps. During my time in, I read of many Marines raping and murdering civilians, here and overseas, just for kicks. So don’t try to explain to me how righteous Marines are. They’re just as fukd up as any civilian out there.

          But saying that a specific religious code must be followed to be good is wrong, each person in his/her own right must find what their own guiding light is.
          Not what someone else says is right.
          I’m a lot like Jefferson, I believe in a Supreme being, God, but cannot and will not swear allegiance to any specific man made religion, because as history has shown, you nor any other man has the right to tell me what or how to worship my God.
          So telling me the Constitution is a Christian based Constitution doesn’t hold a lot of water as far as other people are concerned, Jews and Buddhists are good Americans, but the Constitution wasn’t written to include them?

          And as far as the ‘good old days’ when we were so blessed, you folks were all living a big lie. We’ve murdered a lot of folks; women, babies, old folks, for all kinds of reasons, including in the name of religion. It just wasn’t mentioned, when things went our way.
          Blind obedience to anything is not good, whether it be politics, religion, global warming, Ford or Chevy, whatever. Learn to think for yourself and stop following another mans ideology.
          Find your own. That’s what freedom is about.

          • Save it.

            Faithers *believe* because they have no capacity to do otherwise.

            They have maxed out the capability of their thought process.

            Like trying to reason with children.

    • Summer is correct. Like all things timeless and eternal, God’s law is concrete and immobile, like His grace and love. Objectively speaking, a Nations laws based on “Christian law” for lack of a more colloquial term, is the most fair place to live. So what if we want to worship our “invisible sky wizard”, at least we aren’t going cut your head off or charge you a jizya for being a nonbeliever.

      • America is a *she*.
        God is a *he*.
        Do you assign gender to your firearms and vehicles too?

      • “a Nations laws based on ‘Christian law’…is the most fair place to live.”

        So live in one. Are you saying that others should be forcibly stopped from either living their vision of fair, or throwing out the notion of fairness altogether? Why or why not?

        “Fair”…that rings a bell. Where have I heard that before?

    • Cassandra (of Troy)

      Ed Sumner/28Nov13@11:17,

      “Let’s not forget basic Christian morality either.”

      Like that which endorsed the systematic dispossession & near genocide of the American aboriginals & the enslavement of first whites then blacks in America?

      “No one was ever forced to become a Christian,”

      The aforementioned abos will take vehement exception to that statement, as will a great many historians.

      Cassandra (of Troy)

      • You’re an Australian I take it? You have no dog in this fight, Sheila. (Only Ozzies use the term ‘abos’. Betcha thought I wouldn’t catch that?) Colonists and Native Americans/Indians got along in some place and fought in others. It depended upon where you were. In Mass. and Virginia, the colonists got along fairly well with Indians. They learned the tricks of surviving in the harsh New World.

        The Indians were taught Christianity. Some accepted it, others took exception to it, same as anywhere. And undoubtedly, there were some men on both sides who were less than decent people. The same as in any time two cultures come together for the first time. Up in New York State, there were ‘abos’ (if you like) who attacked settlements simply because they were there and killed the inhabitants in ways they’d never known a man to use. Some of that lot were cannibalistic, a sign of pagan worship. So spare me the liberal horse crap, it doesn’t wash here.

        Slavery was partly a product of African tribal wars. So don’t lay that totally on white people. The Arabs had a hand in it as well. And Christianity didn’t necessarily endorse slavery. My ancestors freely intermarried amongst the Cherokee here in the South. I’m about 1/8 Cherokee and mostly English and Scots.

        • Ed, why does any of this matter? Either a guy is a thug or he isn’t. I strongly doubt that you are, and I’m utterly convinced that Alan, for one, isn’t.

          So please answer this—what in the world makes either of you believe that you can change your nature through agency? If you don’t wanna be a thug, then don’t be one. But please don’t pretend that you can remain a non-thug by assigning, through consent, thuggery on your behalf.

          Seriously, is there any more to it? Can we change the nature of a thing simply by calling it something else? I understand that we can FEEL better by using words like “justice,” “civility,” “righteousness” and so on. But hundreds of millions of innocent lives get snuffed out by the ACTIONS behind those words. So do YOU wanna be part of that, or not?

  2. Please don’t shoot the messenger. Regarding No. 2, X cannot physically constrain Y, while Y simultaneously constrains X. I may not have the right answer–“Rebuild now”–but I know two things cannot overpower each other simultaneously. (A > B) —> [!(B > A)]. And if a government can’t physically constrain its citizens, I can’t imagine what would make it a government.

    Sorry, but no point in everyone learning the hard way. Logic always holds.

  3. It’s a problem, isn’t it?

    People on the healthier side of the freedom continuum generally (and correctly) mock Team Collectivist for their reliance on the “the theory is right; it was just misapplied that time/it will be different now that WE are in charge/do it again, just harder this time” school of thought.

    But like tracers, that criticism can work both ways. Team Freedom, a/k/a for some “As much freedom as I can stand those people having”, should try to keep in mind that “freedom is an inherently offensive lifestyle”, as the quote goes.

    As horrifying as the thought may be, the best case scenario for the post-collapse future is one in which all are forced by exhaustion and/or prudence into a “mind your own business” posture.

    Imagine MYOB.

    You can, if you try.

  4. How can A hire B to run C’s life better than C can?

    If that happens C has the natural right to kill B and A.

    When gov’t was small it was tolerable but when it became big it became intolerable.

    Where did it cross the line from tolerable to intolerable?

    Everybody has their unique breaking point and you won’t know it until you snap.

  5. “1)We believe and act upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

    2) Government, to the extent that it is even necessary, must be effectively and eternally constrained, lest it turn once again into tyranny.

    3) We believe that it is each individual’s duty and responsibility to provide all necessary support for oneself and one’s family.

    4) Beyond the limitations imposed by traditional laws against murder, robbery, theft, rape, and assault, rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

    5) Being essential to the protection and support of ourselves, our families, and our country, no restrictions upon speech, self-defense, arms-bearing, association, worship, private property, parental authority, or the privacy of one’s affairs and writings shall be permitted or tolerated.”

    LIfe, Liberty, Property.

    An excellent basic set of principles. Combine these with toleration of differences outside these principles and FreeFor has a winning campaign. We must hammer home the fact that the reason this country is in the horrible mess we are in is because we ignored the above.

  6. Rather than list murder, robbery, theft, rape, etc. Just say aggression against a person or his justly owned property which includes things like arson, no list necessary.

  7. One of the interesting tidbits that most readers may have simply passed over is his mention of the 1916 uprising in Ireland – after 800 years of occupation. Just one interesting thought about that – how does a people retain enough of their culture to remember who they are/were after 800 years of occupation by another people who probably imposed a significantly different paradigm for so many generations. Rhetorical, of course.

    As to the civil affairs structure: I think that is what the guys in Philadelphia had in mind. Their document could have been written a bit “tighter”, now that we have 200+ years of hindsight, but the list above re-captures that premise. Where we will stumble again, if we win, is #2 – Men must not let other Men get away with even the first instance of a power grab. On this point I am not sanguine Man has what it takes to remain that vigilant – perhaps Man really is something to be surpassed…

    But, we have to live for ourselves, and future Men will have to take care of their own Liberty, as best they can, and want…

    • “Where we will stumble again, if we win, is #2 – Men must not let other Men get away with even the first instance of a power grab.”

      Brings back memories. Unless you’re proposing Rule by Extraterrestrials, the “must not let other Men…” has to be done by men. Can you see the contradiction YET?

      Yes, you see it because you’ve got “Men” doing it. So now it’s, “Which men, and how do you propose to decide?”

      You can either turn to Alan (chill Alan, it’s the principle!) or you can turn to the facts of physics—there are nothing but individuals out there. I mean, you’ve got the answer, and so do we all. It’s just a matter of accepting the FACT of the responsibility—“A MAN must not let other Men get away with even the first instance of a power grab.”

      BTW, this is all Obama is about. He may be the first instance of a homo sapiens who has managed to achieve what he has, COMPLETELY DEVOID OF RESPONSIBILITY. That’s why he’s loved and that’s what he represents…he’s the poster child for the idea that men can exist with absolutely no responsibility. It’s a preposterous idea, but that’s what it is…pure, utter, naked collectivism.

      In the human volitional realm, “absence of responsibility” is synonymous with “death.” It’s all simple physics.

      • More…if you consider the Collectivist POV, you’ll see that it’s essential–in order to “prove” their preposterous idea–that anyone who says otherwise, must find himself dead, and not them.

        This is the battle–individualism versus collectivism–and that is both the scam and the tactics to pull off the scam. There’s nary a soul here who doesn’t understand this, in essence.

        So in the end, it’s ONLY about responsibility and where it’s to be found. It’s either in EACH individual, or it’s in something else. Physics.

  8. Being a simpleton, the NAP is quite enough for me. But for those who wish it spelled out in better detail, I don’t see any flaw in Jefferson’s Rightful Liberty statement. “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

    So each person may engage in unobstructed willful action as long as he obstructs no other person’s willful action. I can’t see it…what’s missing?

    • There is nothing missing, Jim.
      There is something added.

      Children fear a monster under their bed at night.
      Most outgrow it.
      Some do not.
      We live now among a majority consisting of children that have never grown up.

      They believe their fears supercede my natural rights.
      They are wrong of course and cannot be convinced otherwise.

      So how do you prevent an adult with a child’s mind from forcing it’s will upon you?

      Lead and steel.

  9. I like that set of principles, except it is lacking in one respect: it still assumes one political answer can be found that works for everybody. In other words, it still results in imposition, because there is no conventional political recipe that works for everyone.

    There actually is a non-conventional political principle that works for everyone except for tyrants: Panarchy. That is, people form groups or “polities” that satisfy their particular political needs. They operate politically only within that polity. They do not impose on people in other polities. In other words, conservatives can be conservative, liberals can be liberal, even communists can be communist. They may trade with each other but they cannot tax or regulate each other, or otherwise impose on them.

    The concept is similar to the way we treat religions today. Normally, Catholics no longer impose on Lutherans, or vice versa. This is much different from what was considered normal 400 years ago.

    • As long as there is an opt-out option I have no problem with clubs.
      It’s all about the NAP.

      • So that I am compelled to opt out of something? In other words, signed up by default? Might want to think about that..

        • Thanks for pointing out my error, let me rewrite that sentence.

          “I have no problem voluntarily joining clubs as long as I can leave without prejudice whenever I want to.”

  10. I have the greatest respect for JM aka Mountain Guerrilla and enjoyed his editing pastiches in the essay on L-V; for the most part, illuminating and insightful but he is dead wrong here at the very beginning of the essay (JM comments in paras):

    I’ve come to believe a simple truth. “The Germans of the 20th century did more to advance modern warfare than any other nation (in technology, administration and tactics) but they just couldn’t win.” (I don’t know that I agree with this, but it may have some validity as a basis of argument. The problem is, the German contributions have focused on the typically Prussian banality and unquestioning obedience to the leadership, rather than intuitiveness and initiation-J.M.)

    This notion of German automatons may have stood the observation test before 1816 but not afterwards. No army on Earth in the industrialized world managed to institutionalize initiative and small unit autonomy better than the Germans and especially the 20th century German war machine. If you want automatons and lack of operational imagination, look to US performance in both World Wars (excepting the USMC in WWI, especially at Belleau Wood).

    It all boiled down to the German concept of Auftragstraktik or mission type orders that relied on thorough training and education of all ranks to be able to seize the initiative as the battlefield morphed and changed through fog and friction. This is why the Germans could fight battalions with the surviving LT. This is why German General Officer casualties were ten times the US comparison in WWII. (Read Tom Rick’s interesting but deeply flawed book on General failure). German officers were acquainted with commander’s intent three levels up and not the two levels all serving officers in American forces were. Intent was understood and the “how” was left to the unit commander, this in turn maximized flexibility and adaptation.

    I recommend three books on the subject:

    Culture of Command by Jorge Muth

    Fighting Power by Martin van Creveld

    And thanks to the Herculean efforts of John Baum’s cottage publishing operation in OH: http://www.germanmanuals.com/REmanuals.html

    Pay special attention to the 1943 Reibert Manual.

    More on Auftragstraktik by my good friend Don Vandergriff:


    He refers to it as Adaptive Leadership and the concepts hold up well for both small and large unit combinations. He and I are both students of John Boyd who in a more American fashion captures the essence of what made the German system so formidable at the tactical and operational level.

    I would suggest that American arms is still at a 2GW+ level of operational practice and one can take the enormous coffee table book that replaced my beloved FM 7-8 (Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad) from the ‘90s that fit in a cargo pocket and simply issue an index card to all modern infantry leaders that reads Call for Fire. Guerrillas don’t have that luxury and the practice of maneuver and the adoption of mission type orders will go a long way toward making future small units in the coming unconventional conflagration that much more effective.

    Don’t buy into the popular media portrayals of German automatons which for a variety of reasons has been memed into the public psyche. No apologies are made for the National Socialist regime and its corrupt political framework. Much like the Roman fighting formations, their effectiveness was usually in spite of political mismanagement.

    Bill Buppert

    • “…one can take the enormous coffee table book that replaced my beloved FM 7-8 (Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad) from the ‘90s that fit in a cargo pocket and simply issue an index card to all modern infantry leaders that reads Call for Fire…”


      I defer to the FMG (former .mil guys) for confirmation, but this statement confirms a niggling suspicion that has been scratching at my brain – to wit:

      What DOES a modern Army unit do when it hits the first stage of an insurgent ‘position’ and it CANNOT call for arty or air?

      Especially when that unit is the degraded version that will be likely facing many FreeFor teams?

  11. That ‘panarchy’ sounds much like ‘voluntary co-operation’ … which sounds like the ‘free market’ … which sounds like the ‘Zero-aggression principle’.

    Do you know, I think we are talking about the exact same thing.

    • Anyone can support the notion of panarchy – even a communist. However anarchists MUST support panarchy, or they are not really anarchists. Yes, it derives from NAP (non aggression principle), and also from MYOB (mind your own business).

      Keep in mind that WITHIN their polities, NAP does not necessarily operate (and in most cases, since anarchists are a minority, won’t operate). Liberals can still be regulated and controlled in the ways they love to be, same as conservatives in their polity. It’s just that BETWEEN polities, there is no aggression. Again, it parallels religious tolerance.

  12. “No, you don’t have to be religious to be a good or moral person, but history – not theology alone – teaches that once faith goes, EVERYTHING else follows.”

    First, history got us here; so much for that.

    It takes a lot to offend me, but the implication that absence of faith is some marker for a person who isn’t good, is extraordinarily offensive to me.

    Faith is as opposed to reason. Personally I don’t give a shit how anyone goes about living their lives, though I am doing my best to argue for reason. What floats a man’s boat is his business; I’m just waiting for the day when GOOD men will keep their paws off’n other GOOD men, so that we may all find the success, wealth and happiness that we each earn for ourselves.

    Virtually every person here knows what’s coming down the pike. If you wanna wish, hope and pray it away, then go for it. Me, I’m stickin’ with the only thing I know, which is pure unadulterated REASON. If that’s some cause to try and stop me, or string me up, then get in fuckin’ line.

  13. The two main tenants of ‘Christianity’ that made America possible were it’s focus on the individual and on the corrupt nature of man. It had nothing to do with ‘Churches’. Individual ‘rights’ and limited power were the results.
    In NT Greek the word interpreted as ‘faith’ means ‘ to be persuaded’. A person comes to be persuaded in the same way a juror is; hear the evidence for and against until you are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt,or not.Faith, as God would define it, is always reasonable. Of course the ‘world’ does not define faith the same way God does. Unfortunatly church-going people just accept the world’s wisdom.
    Morality is the chains society puts on people through it’s culture. Morality has nothing to do with right and wrong, or with God. God does not want moral people, He wants holy people. They are opposites, not the same.

    • Correct, holiness and morality are unequal principles. One can be moral and not be holy, while a holy person is by Christ’s nature, also truly moral. Morality comes from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which the first man was commanded NOT to eat of, but did anyway. therefore, it’s not God based morality but man based. Still, in a society, it is better to have people who conduct themselves morally than those who do not. Christians act as salt (preservative) and light (guidance) to a society, steering it on a path of decency. Winthrop said something to the effect of ‘Man must be ruled by something, either from without, or from within. Man will be ruled, either by the Bible, or the bayonet.’ (Not an exact quote)

      The adage that morality cannot be legislated is a fallacy; ALL legislation is somebody’s morality. the question is: Whose morality?

      Whose principles would you rather live by as a human being, those of Christianity which assigns all men basic worth because they are creations of God, or those of humanism which basically says that man is nothing more than a product of some unobservable evolutionary process, and basically an uber-intelligent animal? Look around you and you can see where the latter leads. Any of you who have lived long enough can remember when America adhered to Christian principles as a people. I personally prefer Christianity to humanism. (Of course, as a Christian of 40 years, I’d say that.) I’ve only started living under humanism’s yoke and I am already chafing. And the intellectually honest amongst you will agree that humanism doesn’t fit YOUR neck well either.

      • outlawpatriot

        Roger that.

      • Christian morality is as diverse as Christian sects. As many Christians support abortion as do not. More Christians support murdering Muslims than evangilizing to them.Christian morality like all morality is from the pits of Hell. I try to live by what God says, but I will never again wear the chains of morality.

        • “I will never again wear the chains of morality.”

          Now that would be a neat trick. It would mean you stopped breathing.

          Morality–choosing–is in every waking step you take. No doubt you mean the chains of external morality, or someone else’s morality…in which case you’re as great as a man can become.

          • Morality is simply choosing? When I choose to have fried chicken I have made a ‘moral’ choice? Maybe, If you are from PETA. And that is exactly my point.

        • NO Christian supports aborticide. One can claim to be a Christian and support it, but that doesn’t make it so. War is an unfortunate fact of life. The militants unfortunately have to be killed from time to time. What I DON’T support is extermination of Muslims.

          • And you Ed are going to sit on God’s throne and decide who is ‘Christian’ and who is not? You are going to pull up the tares before the harvest? You are going to separate the sheep from the goats? I personally ain’t trusting you to do that.