Comments on: 4th Generation Warfare on the Internet

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:57:45 +0000

Unfortunately you’re wrong. These groups are far from anarchistic. They actually wish to take over the responsibilities of the state. Look at the things they do: Enforce religious codes, regulate commerce, provide schooling and protect citizens from foreign invaders. Sounds like a state to me. Bloggers are the same. They don’t wish to see newspapers out of spite, but rather so they can take their place.

Not to mention you’re forgetting the rapid increases in technology. The power in an aircraft career 50 years ago was let’s say 1 million times the power an individual could have. Today it is 100,000. In ten years it will be 10,000 more. And so on and so forth.

And lastly, these groups don’t need to win. They just need to be problematic enough that it’s not worth fighting them. THAT is becoming easier and easier to do.

By: K T Cat

K T Cat — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:44:11 +0000

the path to power militarily or economically doesn’t necessarily lead through a nation’s capital

That depends on what you want to do. If you’re a nihilist and just want to influence states by killing and destruction, it is partially true. However, faced with a dedicated and overwhelming enemy, insurgencies eventually falter, just as the one in Iraq has.

If you want to project power and protect your civilization, decentralization doesn’t work very well. It’s hard to imagine an anarchistic society developing an aircraft carrier. It’s hard to consistently project power across the sea without one.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:11:26 +0000

Here you go: http://www.ryanholiday.net/archives/thoughts_on_productivity.phtml

By: Kilo

Kilo — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:49:06 +0000

“tools that have made one man as powerful as a newspaper now make twenty Muslims as powerful as an entire army.”

Made me think of the storm worm stories on reddit and CNN recently. Probably ~20 people control it, if that. If the network is 50 million computers, then can they shut down much more than an army could in much less time. Granted they couldn’t shoot someone, but if they jammed every airport in the US, there will be casualties.

And the worst part is, we wouldn’t even know who the enemy was past the network operators. If they don’t say who won the auction for the network, who could we invade?

By: Perez

Perez — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:21:06 +0000

Can you recommend other blogs explaining these concepts further? I have tried http://www.timferriss.com and got some useful info on productivity etc.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:26:09 +0000

Our enemies have nothing to do with those traditional media outlets or governments for that matter. Our enemies are a loose collective of individuals. That is why they are winning.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:23:08 +0000

His ideas aren’t any more complex, they are just more specific.

Knowing some of the internet terminology is key. Try The Long Tail, An Army of Davids, Wisdom of Crowds.

Also I linked to a Strategic Studies Institute paper a few days ago, read that. It covers a lot of similar ideas in an easier way.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:23:21 +0000

“We have the government strangling efficiency in media and technology because it serves the needs of politicians and not the people. This is the philosophy of failure. Our enemies do not think this way.”

Don’t they though? The majority of traditional media outlets in the Arab world are owned by the governments to whom the unchecked flow of information provided by the internet can only be viewed as disastrous. Could it just be that our enemies have a tighter strangle hold on their citizens, either through fear or propaganda, and that this hold forces the needs of the people to align themselves with the needs of those in power?

Also, I don’t think abandoning a bus on the 10 comes without risks. You should at least be prepared for some small arms fire.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:15:15 +0000

This is an awesome post. I am a fan of John Robb’s blog, but I often find it difficult to understand: the ideas he talks about are much more complex than Robert Greene, for instance. This post articulates the ideas I’ve been exposed to from John Robb’s blog in an accessible way, and it really is, quite profound.

Is there any reading you would reccommend as background to better understand the stuff John Robb writes about?