The View From Olympus: The Lone Shooter Problem

The latest massacre by a lone Islamic shooter, that in Florida of 50 Hispanic gays (somehow I hear the name of a 1940s big band: Xavier Cougat and his Gay Latinos?) again shows the helplessness of the state against the man who acts alone. There is little the state’s security services can do to prevent him from acting, because there is no plot to discover. Absent an ability to look inside everyone’s head (and God forbid the state should gain that ability), all the state can do is respond. And all “first response” is too late; the peace has already been broken, which means 4GW has again beaten the state.

As Donald Trump has suggested, we can stop importing more Fourth Generation war by blocking immigrants from groups prone to it, which include but are not limited to Islamics. (Hispanics are likely to bring with them another form of 4GW, gang warfare). But as was the case in Florida, the gunman will often have been born here (to immigrants, as it happens, but that will not always be true). We need an answer that goes beyond imported 4GW.

There is only one: a voluntary militia of men who pledge to physically assault any lone shooter they encounter, whether or not they are armed.

Think about it: in Florida, had everyone in the room (all presumably male, at least biologically) immediately gone after the gunman, as soon as he pulled out his gun or at least as soon as he started shooting, how many would have died? Five? Probably. Fifteen? Maybe. But almost certainly not 50. A couple hundred guys, even if they are gay, are going to overwhelm a single shooter. They could probably have beaten him to death with their purses.

I have proposed this before. It isn’t hard to create. The militia is in effect a sign-up sheet, where men formally pledge themselves to act against lone shooters. If they are armed, good. If not, they act anyway. They throw things at him, they charge him, they knock him down. A few die, but almost certainly a lot fewer than would otherwise. 4GW lone shooters are a form of war, and war has often demanded male citizens sacrifice their lives to defeat the enemy.

Women should not be part of this militia. Their role is to encourage the men to fight (“Go get him!”). Beyond that, they should run away. If they don’t, men will be distracted from attacking the gunman because they will instinctively act to protect the women. We need all the men focused on one thing: stopping the shooting.

Donald Trump might go for this. But the Establishment never will, even though it is the only potentially effective response. Why? Because it wants to suck us all into Brave New World, and in Brave New World citizens are infantilized. We are all to play the role of helpless babies who must be protected (and told what to do) by Nannie Government. Anything that would have citizens act on their own, and men be men, horrifies the Establishment. No, we must cower and wait for the “professionals” to rescue us. In Orlando that took three hours. In an active shooter situation, three minutes is a long time.

In military theory terms, what we see here is one combatant, the 4GW entities, using Auftragstaktik–on a very broad basis–while the other is bound for political reasons to Befehlstaktik. Any guess who has the faster Boyd Cycle? I will put it bluntly: unless the state can also use mission type orders–“Citizens, don’t let a shooter keep on shooting!”–the state’s helplessness before the 4GW lone shooter will grow. And the legitimacy of the helpless state will wither. favicon

2 thoughts on “The View From Olympus: The Lone Shooter Problem”

  1. This is the dumbest thing I have ever read, and I’m saying this after having read your attrocious novel, Mr. Lind.

  2. Criticism is welcome, but you need to list some points you disagree with or conduct an actual discussion. Proving yourself to be a moron, such as you have done here, will get you banned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *