Naval warfare is in many ways a completely separate beast from land warfare; many times tactics fail in favor of technics, etc.
Mahan, Hale, and others should be mandatory reading for an understanding of the base theory of war at sea.
1/
Also histories of the dreadnought race: the nuclear arms race of its day.
Due to the investment and pacing of naval warfare, as well as its inherent bureaucracy, it functioned on a strange and alien level throughout 19th-20th c. history. Still does today, to an extent.
We also used to inspire boys with stories of seafaring hardship and adventure, and actually send them out as midshipmen and crew; obviously this is no longer the case, but the memetic weight of the grand and dangerous sea persisted through WWII before fading.
It was once a major element of school curriculum; crossing the T at Trafalgar and repelling the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto were major points of interest.
It's less tactically relevant today... but I'd argue more spiritually important, as inspiration.
True education would include a strong history of the sea and warfare on it, to inspire wanderlust; aspirations to greatness and adventure. A spiritual inculcation to man's most ancient and powerful impulse.
I would recommend these works:
-Famous Sea-Fights, from Salamis to Tsushima by Hale
-Naval Battles of the 20th Century by Hough
-The Influence of Sea Power Upon History by Mahan
-Blind Man's Bluff by Drew, Drew, & Sontag
I did produce a version of Famous Sea-Fights via @Dissident_Rev, with the intention that it'd be nice enough to do the subject matter justice.
The hardcover is below. It is also on Gutenberg if you'd like to read online. amazon.com/dp/B0C9SBNV7F?…
The other three are widely available (Mahan at least is public domain and thus free online), and come highly recommended.
Blind Man's Bluff is most relevant to the modern day, an excellent work of history covering Cold War submarine antics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Sea Peoples posed a legitimate threat to centrally-ruled societies interested in maintaining their own existence. Multiple rulers went to war with subsets of them, with mixed results.
Chicago “bloods” pose no such threat to anyone, not even their gangland enemies.
Uncontrolled, piratical barbarians are one thing — but petty inner-city criminals are (at best) zoo animals.
They only exist because of idiotic fictions accepted by liberals, and subversives in law.
They do not present a serious threat to anyone.
I could see the argument made for cartels in Mexico, but even they only exist due to the grace of the CIA, etc.
Houthis, Hamas are similar — they can posture all they want, but they are allowed their existence because opposing statesmen/generals don’t want bad PR.
New commie paradigm and talking points in development
Something of a revival of “liberation” axes of the 1970s with slight modifications (terminology & total hatred of white people, rather than including the Irish and Slavs and such as “oppressed”)
I don’t think people understand just how messed up zoomers were by the culture war.
An entire generation reaching the “learn how to talk to girls” stage at the exact same time as MeToo & the “campus rape crisis”.
It’s a big part of why younger people aren’t dating.
These sentiments don’t just spring up out of nowhere — they’re conditioned neuroses.
Between media and situations in daily life, the message internalized by a lot of guys is “talking to women presents risk with no payoff”
Imagine trying to learn “game” with no support from male family members (their advice is outdated)… while constantly being reminded that you are a potential rapist and women are guarding themselves against you.
Then, on top of that, the threat of false accusations.
The Cold War and nuclear détente created a new religious mythos for Americans, a new eschatological framework.
A dozen world powers have the ability to annihilate everything — yet they don’t.
Even unstable leaders like Kim Jong Un shy away from The Button due to a complex set of international and intra-national policies.
Beyond that, hundreds of individuals (submarine captains, missile silo commanders, etc.) theoretically have the power to pull the trigger, but don’t due to many bureaucratic checks and failsafes.
I've never understood the leftist's pathological empathy for the worst types of poor people, and I especially don't understand any sympathy from conservatives. Thieves, bums, addicts, degenerates, and the like only make your life worse. They make everything more expensive, more oppressive, less trusting, dirtier. Singapore, Japan, etc. prosecute this low-class behavior severely, this is why they have a functioning society and we do not.
I have no empathy for those who are not me, my family, or my people. And neither LaKwanda running an EBT scam, nor Crystal having a meth freakout at Piggly Wiggly, nor Derek sucking down public assistance on the streets of San Francisco are my people in any sense of the word.
"It's easy to hate the rich, but it takes courage to hate the poor"
The pathological need for politicians to imagine a "low-class" background I suspect is part of this instinct. "I'm salt of the earth, I've eaten cup ramen before!"
Have some self-respect. One of the deleterious elements of mass democracy is that all must appeal to these types
Homelessness rhetoric from the Right often falls flat because of this tiptoeing around "being mean to poor people"
The low-class, low-impulse-control freaks destroying our public spaces aren't Jean Valjean. Usually they belong in prison.