Transcript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/53206294Speaker 0 (0s): Good.
Speaker 1 (15s): Welcome to this show. Everybody how's everybody feeling out their, you have a good weekend. He get some things done. You walk out in the yard a little bit, hang out with the family, go to the beach, or have a barbecue. What did you guys do? Well, whatever it was a hope you enjoyed it. It's the moment you get to spend with your family and loved ones. It's the moments like that, that you'll remember, and that the people in your family role remember.
So remember that make the most of your time with the people you love. We want to jump into a series today. I think you're all going to enjoy. I know I enjoy it. That is how we can apply military Strategy to our daily lives. Can we look back to some of the great battles in history and use the strategies on the battlefield that were implemented by these generals into our linguistic structure, into our daily lives in a two are relationships?
I think the answer is yes. And I also think once you hear this episode that you will think the same thing, I'm going to go over a few points here. I'm going to go over some of Germany. Strategy in the second world war. Talk about some revolutionary techniques. They used the effects of those techniques, and then I'm going to get some commentary on how those affects can be used in your life.
So without any further of my yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Without any further of that, let's dig right in here. The course of Germany's campaigns before and after the outbreak of actual war in 1939, provided a most striking demonstration of an indirect approach. He gave the technique of an indirect approach, a new extension, logistically psychologically, both in the field and in the forum later, the Germans gave up their opponents ample opportunity to exploit the indirect approach against them.
It is wise in war, not to underrate your opponents. It is equally important to understand his methods and his mind works. Such understanding is the necessary foundation of a successful effort to foresee and forestall his moods. The peaceful power suffered a lot from missing the bus, through their slowness to gauge what Hitler would next attempt an Asian made a profit a lot.
If the adversary Oregon's of government include it in army department, I'm sorry, an enemy department. We already have an army department covering all spheres of war and studying the problems of the war from the enemy's point of view so that in this state of detachment, it might succeed in predicting what was likely to do next. And there's a lot there. So let's dissect this part.
It is wise and more not to underrate your opponents. I think that goes well beyond just war that goes into the heart of any type of relationship that could be adversarial, be it a debate, be it a friendly, joking, be it a relationship with someone you love, be it a business partner or a business that you are competing with.
It is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. I think this is something that could be taught to kids in school. They're should be in my mind. I think that there should be a strategic life-course, you know, throughout at least when I went to school, though, it was always math and English and science, kind of the core, the core products of schooling. I I think you would be a good idea to add strategy to that particular whom room coarse, you know, financial Strategy as well as relationships Strategy in a lot of what we were talking about here, these points would be applied to both of those.
For example,
Speaker 2 (5m 16s): It is,
Speaker 1 (5m 16s): It is equally important to understand his methods and how his mind works. I think if any of us take time to really get to know someone thinking about your best friend or a family member, do you understand the methods they use to get where they're going? Do you understand the plan's they have, do you understand how their mind works, maybe for your family and for your best friend, maybe even for a group of people that are in your community or even your culture.
However, once you step outside your culture, once you step outside your neighborhood, all of a sudden the world gets pretty big. And so does the methodology which people use in order to attain their goals. The previous podcast had a lot to do with this about utilizing or processing language and the left and right hemispheres of the brain. It's so fascinating to me to think about strategic moves on the battlefield and strategic ways to wage war.
Because I think the majority of relationships we have at times are adversarial sure. Understanding is the necessary foundation of a successful effort to foresee and forestall his moves So in any type of debate, in any type of game, be a football, basketball, wrestling, whatever it is, this is such good advice. Let's just hit the three points again, never underwrite your opponents, do your due diligence.
It's important to understand their methods and how they think Understanding the foundation of your campaign. Kind of pre-gaming. What do you want to do will help you foresee and forestall the move of the person with whom you're debating or fighting or at war with As far as a nation might profit a lot. If the adversary Oregon's of government included an in an enemy department, I think you see a lot of that.
Now in corporate America, they call it red teaming and it can be a successful strategy that you can implement in your life. It's a good way to teach your children about Strategy and how to be successful and how to think things through critically. You know, if you're sitting at the dinner table, regardless of what your dinner table conversation is, you could introduce a new game called red teaming. Were you, and one of your kids and your wife and the other child, you could debate topics.
It's a pretty good idea and can be fun to sit down at a dinner table and have a debate and understand that the idea of the debate is not to hurt the other person. The idea of the debate is to solve a problem. However, as long as everyone at the table is fair game, I think it's a good strategy to try and use different techniques and know that way you can help go over your logical fallacies and why they're wrong and why they're Right.
However, this is all stemming from, you know, strategic thinking, strategic, which ultimately is kind of a form of warfare. So let's jump right back in here in to the book, nothing, they seem more strange to the future historian than the way that the government of the democracies failed to anticipate the course with which Hitler would pursue four Never has a man of such immense ambition. So clearly disclosed before hand, both the general process and particular methods by which he was seeking to fulfill it.
Mine confe together with his speeches and other utterances provided abundant clues to his direction and sequence of actions. If the amazingly clear self-revelation of how his mind works is the best evidence that what he achieved was not a matter of accident nor of mere opportunism. It is also the clearest confirmation of the proverbial saying what fools men are even a pulley.
It did not show such contempt disregard for his opponents and for the risks of unveiling, his intentions. If there was a parent carelessness in this respect showed a realization that men easily miss what is right under their eye, that concealment can often be found in the obvious and that in some cases, the most direct approach can become the least expected just as the art of secrecy lies in being so open about most things, that the few things that matter are not even suspected to exist.
Let me highlight a few points right here, The realization that men easily miss, what is right under there I that concealment can often be found in the obvious and that in some cases, the most direct approach can become the least expensive.
Speaker 4 (11m 7s): Good.
Speaker 1 (11m 9s): That is a very powerful statement in a very powerful, psychological maneuver. It's the old Hey look at this hand, but not in that hand for my boxing friends out there, you remember sugar, Ray Leonard. Remember you do that BOLO punch where he'd wind up one arm and then smack them with the other one. It's just the art of misdirection. It's talking about something right in front of someone and doing it in a way that the person thinks well, that can't be true.
They wouldn't tell me, write to my face would They it's so absurd that it couldn't be true. And that's the very reason people do it. It's it's almost that there are some aspects of covert right now that it is just so absurd. Write if you look at how have you guys seen in the event to Oh one where they, they pre-gaming, they all have, like we talked about on the last paragraph, they are, they kind of a red team. Did you know, they had a, a full scale war game on the co, but it's called event to a one.
If you haven't looked it up, go online on YouTube and does Google even two, a one, and it all, it will show you everything that's happening with. COVID like, they've already, they've already tried it. They've pregame it to see what a word. And it's kind of fascinating. I think that, that, that is a good example because it encompasses both a lot of what we talked about, the realization that men easily miss, what is right under there I the concealment can often be found in the obvious and that in some cases, the most direct approach can become the least expected.
Moving back, Lawrence of Arabia, remarked of linen, that he was the only man who have thought out a revolution, carried it out and consolidated it. That observation can be applied also to Hitler with the addition that he had written it out. It is clear to that he had profited by studying the methods of the Bolshevik revolution, not only in gaining power, but in extending it, it was Lennon who enunciated the Axiom that the soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the delivery of the mortal blow both possible and easy.
Speaker 2 (13m 53s): Let's listen to that Axiom again, right?
Speaker 1 (13m 56s): The sound is Strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the delivery of the mortal blow both possible
Speaker 2 (14m 9s): And easy. This is something that
Speaker 1 (14m 15s): It has been going on for a long time. If you look at the United States Strategy or China Strategy or any of the big players on the world stage, if you look at what they normally do, when they go into a third world country, you know, let's, let's take what we did recently in Venezuela or what we have done too. A lot of countries in the middle East, or even Russia or North Korea, like our first move is usually to play sanctions on them, write.
And the, the idea of sanctions is, you know, morally disintegrate then, right? You want to, you want to render the enemy morally ruined. You want them D moralized. You want them to have problems with their money. You want them to have, you want to be somewhat scared and in panic, right? You just don't go and bring your army over there in line them up and run them.
I thought that's, that's a, what a lot of members are the movies where they were just storming the beaches of Normandy and just getting mowed down like that particular type of warfare is in the past. Now, the first thing you want to do is soften up the target. I think it's so relevant to today as well. If you look at what's happening to our country in the U S I think you could make a pretty good argument that whether its been through subversion or a plan or whatever it is, I think you can make a really good argument that were being demoralized right now.
The fact that were bringing up, you know, how horrible Americans are for slavery and if it's all, Hey, it's you listen in to this man? And you're a horrible person. Cause slavery can't believe you did. Why'd you do that? Why did you do it? It's all your fault. Everybody knows it was you like you can't blame the entire nation for something that happened that long ago. I don't think it's, I think it's morally reprehensible. However, where does the money come from for people to go out and riot like that?
Why is it that there's a lot of people talking about people setting those fires, by the way you guys see Joe Rogan had to go out and apologize for saying on his show that potentially there were Antifa members setting fires in Oregon. It's kind of interesting. If you want to check that out, she'd look at Joey D is making fun of him. That's pretty funny. Okay. Back here to the book of what we've got going on here, and there is a marked resemblance between this and Hitler saying that our real Wars will in fact, all be fought before military operations begin in routings account, have a discussion on a subject in Hitler speech.
He declared, how do we achieve the moral breakdown of the enemy before the war has started? That is the problem that interests me. Whoever has experienced wor at the front will want to refrain from all avoidable bloodshed and concentrating on that problem. Hitler diverged from the Orthodox trend of German military thought, which for a century had concentrated on battle and had led most of the other nations along the same narrow path of military theory, accepting the Prussian philosopher of war Von Clausewitz, which we've done some stuff on.
You should check it out as their master. They blindly swallowed his undigested aphorisms such as the bloody solution of the crisis. The effort for the destruction of the enemies forces is the first born son of war only great in general battles can produce great results. Blood is the price of victory. Let us not hear of generals who conquer without bloodshed Clausewitz rejected the idea that there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed.
And that this is the proper tenancy of the art of war
Speaker 3 (18m 50s): He dismissed, right?
Speaker 1 (18m 52s): It has a notion Bourne and the imagination of philanthropists who took know account of the fact that it might be dictated by enlightened self interest by the desire of an issue profitable to the nation, not merely a gladiatorial decision. The outcome of his teaching applied by unthinking disciples was to incite General's to seek battel at the first opportunity. And instead of creating an advantageous opportunity there by the art of war was reduced in 1914 and 1918 to be a process of mutual mass slaughter.
So something interesting is happening here as, as you follow along in this book or on this particular chapter that were starting with you are seeing the evolution of battlefield tactics. So 1914 in 1918, you have, you know, think about these people who just lining up and having this mass battles and going and slaughtering people. What we're about to get into is the way that Hitler and the Germans were able to move so quickly and have so many winds with such a smaller fourths.
But I think it's important to understand the evolution of battle and war theory as we move along here, whatever the limit of his light Hitler, at least transcended these conventional bounds Roush and quotes him as saying people have killed only when they could not achieve there. Aim. In other ways, if there is a broadened Strategy with intellectual weapons, why should I D moralize the enemy by military means if I can do so better and more cheaply in other ways are a strategy is to destroy the enemy from within to conquer him through himself.
Okay. Now let's think about how that particular line of dialogue and Strategy can be used in today's world. As far as our a strategy is to destroy the enemy from within to conquer him through himself. When I think of that particular strategy and in those words, I think of subversion. I think of this strategy on an overt scale would be censorship, however, on a much more fine tuned scale, it would be self censorship, right?
And that's the art of political correctness. That's the art of the gender pronouns. That's the art of, you know, peer pressure, usually in academic circles where people are not supposed to say certain things. And so if they don't say things and they self censor themselves in what they're doing is when you self sensor, when you say self censor, you are actually training yourself to think a certain way, and it's much more effective on you.
It's much more effective on the group than having an overt censorship. It's pretty common for pow is that were captured in Vietnam or by the communists that they would be subjected detection techniques like this, where they be captured. And then there would be asked to write a letter to the U S government saying they didn't agree with Y they were there. I would start on a very simple, they, they starved them, they beat 'em and they will look, I will give you some fruit.
If you just write this letter that says you don't agree with some of the things. And it was this slow rollout, just as you know, this incremental approach. And then finally, you know, you had people like John McCain that we're just, you know what, unfortunately, just telling on Everybody and And. And I can't imagine when he was susceptive to it, but that, that was the outcome of what happened to him. It started off slow. And then by the end, he was, you know, giving up all the, all that he could.
And that's another thing to think about torture. Like you're, you're probably going, regardless of how strong you think you are when it comes to torture, you are going to tell people what ever they want, but let's, let's move on forward. The extent to which Hitler gave a new direction and wider meaning to the German doctrine of war may be best be seen by comparing his theory with that of general. <inaudible> the director of Germany's war effort in the last war. And Hitler's former associate in the abortive 1923 project to seize control of Germany by a March on Berlin, after the establishment of the totalitarian state.
And after he had nearly 20 years for reflection on the lesson's at the last war Ludin door set forth, his conclusions as to future totalitarian warfare, he opened was a heavy attack on the theories of Clausewitz, which have been the foundation of the German doctrine in 1914 to Luton door. Their fault was not that they went too far in the way of unlimited violence, regardless of cost, but that they did not go far enough.
He criticized Clausewitz for allowing policy too much importance, not to little as typical of Clausewitz. He sided a passage concluding the political goal is the end and warfare is a means leading to it. And a means can never be thought of without a certain end in lieu to Norris view. This was out of date. The totalitarian principle demanded that in war a nation should place everything at a service and in peace at the service of the next war.
War was the highest expression of the national will to live. And politics must therefore be subservient to the conduct of war. That's an interesting idea, right? It is. It it's just full nationalism. It's a full conquering it's it's wor for war's sake almost its like a, a more pure form of war.
When you look at, I think what he's saying is that when you get politics involved, the Strategy that would be used by the generals is often messed up. It's going to be, you're gonna, as a general, you are not going to be able to implement the strategy of total destruction or winning the war. Once politics get as involved. And the problem there is that he is right and he's wrong.
Politics do get involved and they do cause problems. And what he's missing is that the politicians AKA the bankers, they have an end and it's not necessarily winning the war in the way a general would when it right. Like that's one of the, one of the biggest, we'll the at least one of the biggest concerns that I have heard is that some generals, when talking about the middle East, they say that there is no strategy to win because we're not trying to win or our version of winning.
Does it look like us going
Speaker 5 (26m 44s): Over there and taking over the object? The object of the war in the middle East is to build a greater Israel. The object of the war in the middle East is To privatized the resources to a multi, to multiple multinational corporations to build infrastructure, to build a new set of supply chains for the future. That's the purpose of the war in the middle East, its not to spread democracy or free women from wearing hijabs.
The, the purpose of that war is to create new supply chains, privatized at the profits, socialized the loss is and to build a, a greater Israel in that region and have it be the hang of it,
Speaker 1 (27m 34s): Have it be its own
Speaker 5 (27m 38s): Project of manifest destiny for, for Israel. I believe that that's what's going on over there. And that's what the American forces are are being used for is a, is a manifest destiny to clear out the indigenous people have that land reading loon and Doris book. It became clear that the main difference between his theory and Clausewitz was that the former had come to think of war as a means without an end, unless making the nation into an army, be considered an end in itself.
This was hardly So new as Ludin Dora. It appeared to imagine Sparta trading and in the end, so to come to self-inflicted paralysis with the aim of developing the nation for war of creating a super Sparta Ludin endorse primary concern was to ensure the physical unity of the people towards this. He sought to cultivate a religion of nationalism through which all women would accept there, that their noblest role was to bare suns, to bear the burden of the totalitarian war and all men would develop their powers for the purpose in short to breed and to be bred for slaughter.
The other positive suggestions, which Ludendorff offered toward achieving psychical psychical psychical unity, a mounted two little more than the age old prescription of suppressing, everyone who might express or even entertained views contrary to those have the high command. Another condition of which Ludendorff insisted was the need for a self-sufficient national economic system suited to the demands of the totalitarian war from this.
He appeared to realize that military military power rests on an economic foundation yet curiously, when he dwelt on the crippling difficulties, cause in the last war, by the allied blockade, he did not see how this admission reflected on his belief. That Wars are decided by battle between the armies on this score. He considered that Germany is old master deserved. Praise Clausewitz only thinks about the annihilation of the hostile armies in battle in Ludendorff to view this remained and immutable principle.
Whereas in Hitler's original view, the true aim of a war leader should be to produce the capitulation of the hostile armies without a battle Luton door's picture of the way that the next war would be waged was merely an intensified reproduction of the offensive. He carried out in 1918, which had been brilliant in their opening, but barren and their issue for him. The offensive was still a battle process in which the infantry would be helped forward by artillery, machine guns, mortars and tanks, until it overwhelms the enemy in Amanda man, fight all the movements.
It should be a battle. Mechanization would merely Quicken the Rusch to battle. It's an interesting point to think about there as well. When you close your eyes and you think about warfare now, or no, maybe it, if you play called a duty or any sort of The the games in which you, you, you, what do they call that when you Simulate warfare, right? Whenever you're simulating a warfare, is it, would you agree that the movement should lead to battle?
Mechanization is a quick rush to battle. I think even today's youngest kids who are familiar with a different type of, of war games, like they're creating different strategies, which is on a tangent here a little bit. Isn't it interesting how that pretty much all children in the U S whether it's fortnight or whatever, a game is big call to duty, it's all a simulation for a warfare, right? It's a kind of goes back to the idea of Ludendorff just a little while ago, talking about war as a means without an end, you know, making the nation into an army.
Speaker 3 (32m 6s): And so,
Speaker 5 (32m 8s): You know, ensuring that ensuring unity, he thought to cultivating a religion of nationalism through which all women would accept their noblest role and the men would accept their role too. Just be soldiers in a way, the foundation of American boys is brought up on war that's it's in our blood. As much as we want to talk about nonviolence in as much as we want to say that you shouldn't, you know, there should be no violence. That's not what we teach as to what we teach at all. And sometimes it makes me think like little boys are taught nonviolence and a lot of their dads and a lot of their grandparents' have been in war.
So in a weird way, the educator speaks to the young child and tells him that his parents are wrong. Right. That seems to be a weird dichotomy that children are being taught. Hey, don't be violent. Where's dad, he's in Iraq. What's he doing over there? He's spreading democracy by killing all of these people. You know, I was in Vietnam and I remember being told nonviolence in and you know, my dads like, that's ridiculous. Look, sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man.
So you get these young kids getting these mixed messages. And I think it could be problematic. It's kind of, you were kind of gone off on a tangent, but it's definitely something to think about. It was not that Luton DOR have had any moral or even soldierly objection to the more widely spread forms of warfare. He remarked that the requirements of totalitarian warfare will ever ignore the cheap theoretical desire to abolish unrestricted you, but warfare while aircraft would in future combined with submarines at sinking every ship, which try to reach the enemies, ports, even vessels sailing under neutral flags.
Let me read that again.
Speaker 2 (34m 2s): <inaudible>
Speaker 5 (34m 9s): He remarked at the requirements of totalitarian and warfare will ever ignore the cheap theoretical desire to abolish unrestricted you warfare while aircraft would in future combined with submarines at sinking every ship, which try to reach the enemies. Portes even the vessels sailing under neutral flag's. And in regards to the question of striking direct at the civil population, he emphasized at a time would come when bombing squadrons must enter exonerated and without pity or be sent against them, write their is your demoralization.
You are going to start taken out in the sand people, then your going to demoralize that population. I think it's interesting prior in that paragraph, he talked about bombing every boat that went to the enemy's port, regardless of what PFLAG they were flying. It just goes to show you that the false flag attack is something everyone is aware of. And that if you really want to make sure that there are no false flags, then you bomb every PFLAG, but on military grounds, which for him were paramount, the air force must first be use to help and beading the opposing army only then should it be unleashed against the interior of the opposing country while welcoming every new weapon and instrument.
He added them to his armory than fitted them into any grand strategic pattern. He conveyed no clear idea and seemed to have none on the relationship between the different elements in war. His message was in brief, multiply every kind of forced as much as you can, and you will get somewhere, but where he neither wondered know worried. The one point on which she was really clear was that the military commander in chief must lay down his instructions for the political leaders and the ladder must follow.
And for, for them in service of war. In other words, those who are responsible for national policy must give him a blank check drawn on the present resources of, and future prosperity of the nation. Much as there was in common between Ludendorff and Hitler and their conception of the race, the state and the German peoples right to dominate their differences were quite as great. Especially in regard to method while Ludin Dorf demanded the absurdity that Strategy should control policy, which is like saying the tool should decide its own task.
Here are the resolve that problem by combining the two functions in one person, thus, he enjoyed the same advantage as Alexander and Caesar in the ancient world or Frederick the great and Napoleon in latter times, this gave him an unlimited opportunities, such as No pure strategist would enjoy you, prepare and develop his means for the end, he had an interview. So he had right,
Speaker 6 (37m 15s): And both VI
Speaker 5 (37m 18s): Strategy of the general and the plan
Speaker 6 (37m 23s): Well will have
Speaker 5 (37m 25s): The government because he was both at the same time, he had early grasp what the soldier by his very profession is less ready to recognize that the military weapon is. But one of the means that serve the purposes of war one out of the assortment, which grand Strategy can employ. While there are many causes for a, which a state goes to war its fundamental object can be epitomised as that of ensuring the continuance of its policy in face of the determination of the opposing state to pursue a contrary policy in the human will Lise the source and main spring of conflict for a state to gain its object in war.
It has to change this ad verse will into compliance with its own policy. Once this is realized the military principle of destroying the main armed forces on the battlefield, which Clausewitz disciples exalted to a paramount position fits into its proper place, along with the other instruments of grand strategy, which include the more oblique kinds of military action, as well as economic pressure, propaganda and diplomacy.
A lot of times you can see these strategies used in business. And a lot of times people say war is business. So it makes perfect sense. You know, you have, like, we talked about the us going into Venezuela are the middle East. We have economic pressure, then you have propaganda and then you have diplomacy. And again, like, I, I just, the more that I read about this Strategy of warfare, the more that I read about propaganda, the more I began to see it in our own country, it's kind of like, have you ever talked to a doctor that went to med school and they start reading about all of these diseases and then they start thinking they have all of these diseases.
It's kind of like, you can see it here, like is not, COVID putting economic pressure on people and is not the, the very definition of propaganda is to muddy the waters. What is it that what's happening with? What COVID is like, there's so much propaganda, but there is so much economic pressure about it. And then, you know, your, your beginning to see the diplomacy in that, like, okay, if you get the vaccine and you can go back to work, it's like, they've problem reaction solution, right?
They've they've set this thing up. And then there are going to present you with a false choice. It could be Cause, I've been reading a lot of this. However, I think you could really make a case that we are in some sort of wore right now, be it against an invisible enemy, which is, seems like we always are right. Communism, terrorism, and now the flu or COVID or, or whatever it is back to the book. Instead of giving excessive emphasis, two, one means which circumstances may render an effective.
It is wiser to choose and combine whichever are the most suitable, most penetrative and most conservative of effort. I E which will subdue the opposing we'll at the lowest war cost and minimum injury to the postwar prospect for the most decisive victory is have no value if a nation be bled white in gaining it. So that's, that's why you see these different levels of sanctions being put on people.
It's like, you don't wanna destroy the infrastructure. If you don't want to destroy the people there who just wanna take it over, or it should be the AME of grand Strategy to discover and piers the achilles' heel of the opposing governments power to make war. And Strategy in turn should seek to penetrate a joint in the harness of the opposing forces to apply one strength. When the opponent is strong, weekends oneself, disproportionately to the effect attained does the next part is a clutch.
Listen to this, To strike with strong effect. One must strike at weakness. Let me say that again. To strike with strong effect. One must strike at weakness, right? If you're a small guy and you're going to fight a big guy, you should probably kick him right in the nuts, right? If you're a woman and you're fighting a guy, we should probably kick him in the nuts to strike with strong effect. One must strike at weakness. However, there's always this code of chivalry.
People talk about, about a fair fight. It's never a fair fight. A fair fight is something that professional fighters do write. That's a fair fight, something with a referee and there, but a war has not a fair fight. Relationship's are not a firefight. And if your going to get in a fight in a parking lot, don't worry about fighting fair, especially if your a smaller additionally, and in conversations, how can you use some of these techniques in a conversation or a debate, or how to solve a problem at work or, or in your daily life?
You know, it, it should be your Strategy to discover your opponents Achilles heel. You know what to turn in turn, you should seek to penetrate a joint in the harness of the opposing forces. So I think a good way to think about that is can you fall when someone says something, if you're arguing or your in a debate should be looking for the logical fallacy, you should be trying to dismantle the argument at the weakest link.
Speaker 7 (43m 22s): So is it, is it
Speaker 5 (43m 24s): Possibly something he said, was it a straw man argument? Was it an appeal to authority? You know, was there a red herring in there somewhere, if you can listen for those particular logical fallacies, even though their entire argument may be better than yours, if you could point out the reason the reasoning they're using is flawed logic, then you can probably turn that debate around and in at least safe face, in my opinion, is this more potent as well as more economical to disarm the enemy, then to attempt his destruction by hard fighting for the mauling method entails not only a dangerous cost and exhaustion, but the risk that chance may determine the issue as a strategist should think in terms of paralyzing not have killing.
Even on the lower plane of warfare, a man killed is merely one man, less, whereas a man unnerved as a highly infectious carrier of fear, capable of an epidemic or panic panic. Okay. Let's apply that to today. A strategist should think in terms of paralyzing, not of killing what is COVID doing to our nation, what does Cova doing to the world?
One way you can think about the riots in the streets and COVID in all of what's going on is sometimes it's very difficult to see the problems in your relationship and your culture, but all you need to do is just look at a different relationship or a different culture. And for this example, think about the students protesting in Taiwan. Does anyone really think that the American CIA or the America's, you know, I mean, I don't know what group would be doing it, probably some FBI or CIA or some sort of funding for instability.
However, that it's probably, it is clear to me anyways, that funding is coming from our country to create instability in China. And that's what you see the students protesting. So if that is true, shouldn't it also be true or isn't it likely true that the BLM movement over here is getting funding from other countries more than Lakeland, more than likely Right. And the propaganda about COBIT is, is exactly the same only different in that.
Whereas a man, a nerve like even on a lower plane of warfare, a man killed is one man less. However, whereas a man, a nerve is a highly infectious carrier of fear capable of spreading an epidemic or panic. I mean, is it, is it the panic of COVID worse than the actual side effects of COVID like the fact that people are scared, the fear out there The that particular part of the COVID-19 is worse than the actual effects.
It seems to me it's having the strangling affects in our society and the issue's of that way. Going a little bit long here would be a 40, and we've got almost an hour on this one. So let me try to put a little bowl on this here too, to kind of tie it off. And then we'll jump in tomorrow with some more. I want you to think about the key note of the analysis of war. Did the analysis of Wars shows that while the nominal strengths of a country as represented by its numbers and resources, this muscular development is dependent on the state of its internal Oregon's and nervous system upon it.
The stability of control morale and supply direct pressure always tends to harden and consolidate the resistance, have an opponent like snow, which is squeezed into a snowball. The more compact it becomes, the slow ride is to melt. I like in policy and in Strategy or to put it in another way in the Strategy of both the diplomatic and the military. Sphere's the indirect approach. It's the most effective way to upset the opponent's balance, psychological and physical cool thereby making possible as overthrew.
The true purpose of Strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance. The true purpose of Strategy is to diminish a possibility of resistance. The true purpose of Strategy is to diminish the possibility of resistance. You guys got it pretty interesting, right? We can learn a lot from the great Wars that were fought before us. We can learn a lot about how we can act in our daily lives. By watching the physical Wars, have the power.
I hope you use this power in the strategies to make your life better instead of hurting people. I know some of you guys out there, I love Yeah. In fact, I have all of you. We just think about who you want to be and what you need to do to get there or use the strategies that have been waged successfully in the past to better your lives. All right. All Aloha my friends. I love you.