A book (Master's Tools), a short lived journal (2 issues of Insurgencies) and a short lived think tank (the Institute for the Study of Insurgent Warfare).
Then listen to Tom Nomad's regular (i think) segment on the last third of the show:
There's some interest, but it seems to me that the broader discussion of national and international policy and political trends leaves little room for the other considerations that held my interest in the earlier works mentioned above.
There was a drift from material specificity of engagements, towards philosophical abstraction, and pedestrian political analysis.
Is there anyone interested, and sadly it must be asked, qualified to pursue the line of inquiry that was left orphaned by the initial efforts of those involved in the projects mentioned? Must @ peeps interested in insurgent warfare refer to Mao and Che, or can anyone or has anyone filled that niche in more recent times?
Similarly, we can see a Peter Gerderloos drift toward a more removed historical speculative writing, and macro-trend forecasting, when his first texts were more grounded.
Articles like these (https://anarchistnews.org/content/usa-property-destruction-not-enough) also prompt the question.
Talk of insurrection has spread mainly as vacuous texts of French affected rhetoric, poetic self-aggrandizing communiques.
Is this trend due to the practice being a dead end, the topic not having an audience, or a lack of interested and capable authors?
Just something I'd like to hear people's opinion on the forum. What makes you disinterested in the topic? Why do you find it irrelevant to your life?