October 20

Ep. 0083: History of Irregular Warfare with Bill Buppert (part 6)

Here it is — the sixth & final installment of the DHP History of Irregular Warfare series with Bill Buppert.

Join CJ & Bill as they discuss:

  • Circumstances in which insurgents do or do not have the moral high ground
  • The impact of technologies on insurgency & 4GW
  • The importance of narrative
  • Alleged “best practices” for counterinsurgency (or COIN)
  • Links between the rise of the modern state and the proliferation of resistance to it
  • Lessons to be learned from insurgencies, even for those who never plan on physically fighting the state
  • Thoughts on methods of defense against external threats for a stateless society
  • The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka & why they failed
  • Tying things back into the trifecta of narrative, legitimacy, and grievances

Support the DHP via Patreon

Other ways to help support the show

External Links

Internal Links

Prof CJ’s Picks (buy anything from Amazon via these affiliate links to help support the show at no additional cost to you)

Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.

Posted October 20, 2015 by profcj in category "Interviews", "Military History", "Podcasts


  1. By profcj (Post author) on

    Thanks, glad you liked it. I don’t assign my students to listen to this show, but I do sometimes make short history podcasts for them on a particular topic, but those are not nearly as long or in-depth as I usually do on the DHP.

  2. By Ben Stone on

    Great end show for a great series!
    Bill and CJ, you guys knocked this out of the park.
    I’m so glad you addressed the ethical side of using irregular warfare within the scope of the Zero Aggression Principle. Bill was dead on target (pun intended) when he was discussing politicians and officers as combatants. This is a much more mature discussion than has been the case when some speakers have addressed the topic of who can be ethically engaged. (random cops, mailmen, etc.)
    Nicely done gentlemen!

    Ben Stone

  3. By Andrew on

    Thanks a lot for your efforts and time Bill and C.J. I really enjoyed this series.

    I will say though (as I said to Bill in a brief back-and-forth I had with him at the freedomfeens forum), I’m not nearly as convinced about the ‘blowback’ meme portrayed, especially in this last episode. That, ‘Fool me once…’, saying comes to mind. I’m by no means the student of history that either of you are but I believe reality falls a lot closer to somewhere in between intent and blowback. I very much believe the clandestine services work towards creating a strategy of tension and know, at least to a certain extent,l the repercussions of their actions.

    Also, I don’t know if Bill will see this but if so, can you expand on what you meant when you said the time of ‘peak deep state’ (you mentioned it in the same breath as the time of peak guerrilla, I believe)? I’m sorry I can’t remember exactly when but I think you mentioned it toward the end of part 3 or 4.

    The reason I ask is that I would assume that we are currently in peak deep state.

  4. By Bill Buppert on


    Thanks for listening and the kind words. I have no doubt the clandestine state organs are tentacled planet-wide causing all kinds of mayhem and idiocy. I highly recommend Legacy of Ashes for a nice thumbnail sketch of the havoc wrought by US “intelligence” services.

    Peak Guerrilla was 1916-1922 in my mind and the PDS is certainly where we are now.


    Bill Buppert

  5. By Clayton on

    Loved this miniseries a lot more than I thought I would. Good stuff, CJ. Just one question – why does Buppert call WWII “The war to save Joseph Stalin”? I googled the phrase and haven’t been able to find anything. Could you help explain that, or point me in a direction that I might be able to understand?

    Thank you!

    1. By profcj (Post author) on

      I think what Bill means with that remark is that, without the Anglo-American alliance helping the Soviets against the Germans, Stalin would have been more likely to end up with either a draw or a loss against the Germans (and he & his regime may not have survived such an outcome), but that with Anglo-American help, he not only survived & won the war, but ended up with most of Eastern Europe under his control, too.

      1. By Clayton on

        Is he implying that this was an intentional goal of FDR, or an accidental consequence?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.