So, straight up - Read the Art of War. It's like baby's first book of strategy. Forget all the business dorks who think it gives them an edge in the corrugated cardboard industry or something. Fuck those guys. The Art of War is a solid treatise on when, why, and how to engage in conflict. It can be applied to all kinds of conflict at all levels. It also has some of the hardest lines in all of world literature.
-
All warfare is based in deception
-
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you will succumb in every battle
-
The acme of skill is not to win a thousand battles. The acme of skill is to win without fighting
-
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
When you're reading it try to look past the specifics of the iron age from which Sun Tzu is speaking and try to see how the underlying principles can be applied.
For instance, when he talks about positioning yourself on accessible ground, he is speaking about iron age armies. He says
With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage.
At an action in a city this might be applied to an open park - If there's a raised area move you crew there. There are numerous advantages - If it rains water will flow away from you. If you're approached by cops they'll have to move up hill towards you. The reach of their weapons will be shorter, and the opposite is true as well. You'll be able to see further and more clearly.
In a meeting this would mean positioning yourself where you are visible to the chair or the dominant political clique so they will see you when you or one of your allies is speaking. Position yourself where you can see opponents or hostile cliques so you can observe what they are doing and how they respond to propositions or discussions.
The shit in there about camping is invaluable. I really should rewrite the art of war as a guide to being homeless.
I had a chance to employ "how to camp good" knowledge a few years ago and ended up being the only person in camp whose tent wasn't flooded out!
I can certainly see the applications. Laying down a defensible camp can apply whether you're doing it with one shelter or a whole army. You still want to prefer high ground and drainage, be conscious of what your options would be in an emergency.
True dat. I learned a term recently; the urinary leash. It's the idea that there's a time limit on how long a person can go without needing to pee, and in a society where peeing is a crime if you do it in the wrong place that puts a limit on how long you can be in public and how far you can travel from wherever an accessible toilet is.
I never thought of it that way but yeah. IBS does a similar thing to folks. Either they have to constantly keep tabs on where the nearest toilet is or they end up in a bad situation... up shit creek without a paddle. For some its like a materialist agoraphobia.
It's really cruel. Cities shut down their toilets to terrorize homeless people, which is horrible on it's own, and their callousness causes great harm to all kinds of disabled people, elderly people, pregnant people. It's sicko thinking. Tormenting the most vulnerable people justifies inflicting harm on other vulnerable populations.
Actually reminds me of something i've been told cops in the south used to do. I'm told that back in the day black people, men especially, had to carry a few dollars cash at all times in case the cops stopped them and tried to arrest them for "loitering". If you had cash on you then you had at least a chabce of defending yourself by saying you were heading to a shop and hope the cop decides to move on. Another way of making it illegal to exist in public.
- There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
not even if the US fights to the last Ukrainian?
The US as a whole isn't benefitting, only certain individuals who are making bank off it. From a country level perspective it's been disastrous.
As I was reading it last night I was thinking about how the author would view the recent wars of the US.
i read this shit in 4th grade and it took me a long ass time to grow out of the... idk antagonistic mentality this book puts you in
12 rules for life it aint
Oof. I'm sorry comrade. I can sympathize. I read some books when I was a kid that I didn't have context or experience for and it was probably a bad idea.
It literally was baby's first strategy for dumbass nobles raised in court
-
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you will succumb in every battle
-
All warfare is based in deception
The two go together. It's precisely because knowledge of yourself and the enemy leads to victory that you must engage in deception and prevent the enemy from fully knowing you. Otherwise, the enemy will know you as well and render the advantage of knowing yourself and the enemy null. Giving a healthy amount of respect to your opps means they will also engage in deception. The end result is you must gather intelligence of your opps keeping in mind they will deceive you and purposefully revel misleading info while at the same time engage in your own psyop to fool the enemy.
Here's some other passages:
- Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted. Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.
This just means you must be proactive and can't be purely reactive. Being proactive allows you to dictate the terms of the battle or war. If you always fight based on the terms of the enemy, you will inevitably lose. It's not enough to not be tricked or not be defeated by the enemy. The enemy has to be on the defensive every once in a while.
-
Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength.
-
When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
-
In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage.
I put these three together. People fight harder when there's no escape and fight less hard when there's an escape. This means you could offer false paths of escape that actually lead to death traps. The enemy will either take the bait or if not taking the bait, will still fight less hard because even a false escape still holds some power as a false choice. The reverse is true. The enemy will offer baits. If they're on the defensive, they'll offer baits to entice you to attack and expose yourself. If they're on the offensive, they'll offer baits in the form of false escapes.
-
