Worth Reading: The Gentlepersons Guide to Forum Spies

The Gentlepersons Guide to Forum Spies

Selected passages:
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence. (The emphasis is mine, Ryan)


Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

Worth Reading- 9 Things To Consider When Looking For Your Survival House

I don't get to some blogs as often as I should and that is definitely the case with Food Storage and Survival formerly known as Adventures in Self Reliance. I saw this interesting post

Nine Things to Consider When Looking For Your Survival House

The only things I would change are that "#6 Animal Regulations" might be better stated simply as "Regulations." Can you build a shed or put up a 6" fence, what are the gun laws like,  can you have an RV or motor home in the yard, etc all are things to consider.
I would add something to the effect of "Comfortably within your budget." It doesn't matter if you buy the sweetest survivalist bunker Idaho has ever seen on 200 beautiful acres with spring fed water, 3 ponds, 4 forms of alternative power, all the outbuildings that you need and walls that will stop sustained fire from a .50 BMG if you get foreclosed on as soon as you hit a financial bump in the road! Also remember that there is a distinct possibility the world will not end so you need to be saving and investing which are hard to do if you have to scrape to make the mortgage every month.

Pretty conventional financial advice is that housing should not take up more than about 1/3rd of your take home pay. Dave Ramsey says payments on a 15 year mortgage should not be more than 1/4 of your take home which is pretty conservative. Something in this range is probably where you need to be. I see this as significant for 2 reasons. The first is that it lets you save and invest and do other things. You don't want to be "house poor." The second is that you have a better chance of being able to circle the financial wagons and make the mortgage if things get bad (which they will for just about everyone over a couple decades) than if you are reaching and scraping to make it work when things are going fine.

Also Jim Rawlses acronym WALLS: water, access, location, light, security, though specifically made with rural "retreats" in mind is still worth revisiting. You simply have got to have reliable access to water without grid power to have any sort of viable doomstead. This really should be from multiple sources like a small solar pump and a nearby spring or whatever. Not just one source, especially if it relies on something complex like an electric pump. Unless you are going out into the sticks access is not an issue. Light is a consideration to the degree that you plan to garden. Location is pretty important but touched on in the article.

Security is really the last consideration because unless you are completely hosed (a condo in downtown LA) it is the easiest to fix. An 8' high cement wall, a pallet of surplus concertina wire stashed in the shed, a couple RPK's with 3 drums a piece, some quality night vision, a dozen friends and some fairly basic planning can make the worst security situation into a pretty hard target. On the other hand if water is 500 feet down you are pretty much hosed.

Today I would like to welcome our newest advertiser Hush Tunnel

The privacy rights that we are supposedly afforded in life don’t translate to our online lives. When we send a letter we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The letter will arrive at its destination, unopened. Sadly, this is not the case online. Most traffic sent over the Internet is plain text, and even that which is encrypted with SSL is susceptible to a trusted man in the middle interception.

With this being said, there are ways to protect your internet privacy. You can prevent ISP's from spying on your traffic by using an encrypted tunnel such as hushtunnel.com. Most proxies available are SSL based and as such are prone to trusted man in the middle attacks. Hush Tunnel uses SSH and is the easiest way to protect your online privacy, encrypting and anonymizing your internet traffic with a single click. Hush Tunnel is devoted to protecting your online privacy rights!

Please go check out hush tunnel and consider using their service to help with your internet security needs.

Comment Reply- Security vs Profit

·         on priorities
Anonymous said...

If you have cash to pay for a new car, don't.
Take the loan for 0% or 1.9% etc. Let your cash stay in a high interest or dividend paying investment and earn more than you pay out.
Paying cash for large items is dumb when your money can work for you and not against you. ~~NGM~~

TOR here: I won’t say that I necessarily disagree with you but do have some reservations. Lets break it into cars and homes. Of course there are other things one might choose to finance (however you shouldn’t financing toys is not prudent) but they typically fall in the car price range. We will talk cars.

First of all you need to know yourself. Are you a person who has the self discipline to have a good chunk of money sitting allocated for one thing (the car, etc) earning interest and pay the loan from that account? Would it slip into the general fund or get siphoned off for other things? Some folks have that discipline and others don’t, it isn’t a mark against you if you don’t so long as you know it.

Secondly let’s get on the same page when it comes to the numbers we are talking about. Are we talking a high interest savings account, CD ladder or something else with a guaranteed payout and no (aside from massive inflation, end of the world, etc) risk of principal? A 5% savings account (a thing of the past) is very different from “on average the market earns 8%”.

For most people, most of the time the rate you will be charged for interest on a loan is greater than the amount you can get in a guaranteed, no risk of principle (aside from massive inflation, end of the world, etc) payout with the liquidity to make a monthly payment. Auto loans can be an exception when they do the .09% to 2% super cheap loans. However, even then, beating it by enough to cover the various fees involved in a guaranteed, no risk of principle investment.

Now if they offer you 0% then a very legit argument could be made to take it, even if you are just going to have the money sitting in a savings account available for other purposes. Some folks I know who have done very well with money (both in earning and managing) typically pay cash for cars. He needed a 3^rd consecutive Toyota commuter car (he puts a lot of miles on them) and planned to pay cash which is what they do. When they offered 0% he decided to take it and hold the balance of the cash.

Homes are a bit of a different thing. It is a much bigger situation with bigger implications. If I finance a car in the above scenario and something goes sideways (bank fails and my money is tied up for months, etc) it would suck but I could adjust things around and make the payment. Homes are much larger and the implications of that getting messed up are equally large. Typically paying off your primary residence is a prerequisite for retirement. It is also a huge step towards financial independence. Also a home is where you live, not something you drive. Worst case if you can’t pay for a car and it gets repossessed that sucks. A bit hit to your credit and you’ve got to figure out another set of wheels. However in a month or two you will have gotten over the personal feelings and figured out another set of wheels, hopefully a reliable beater paid for with cash. A home is where you live and a huge part of your life, particularly if you have been there for awhile.

With this there is definitely a trade off of security vs. profit. One in the hand vs two in the bush as they say. Personally I will take my one and lock it up somewhere then post an armed sentry. I just plain do not like owing people money. I like to know that as much of my future wages as possible can be allocated to meet my basic needs (food, shelter, fuel, etc) or toward whatever goals or desires I have at the time. Having money in an account set to make scheduled payments is cool if it all falls together right but in general just paying cash for stuff works out best. As part of this I know what is mine will continue to be mine if my income (or what it will buy) changes drastically. Nobody is coming to take my car if I become broke.

Well I hope that lays out my thoughts. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Spreading My Eggs Out

The owner of the Warehouse had mentioned that while it was fine for the TOR Armory to stay there it would probably be smart to spread it out. After consideration it made sense. The TOR Armory is pretty decent in size and resale value. It would also suck a whole lot if it was lost in one fell swoop to theft, fire or a tornado. Anyway I found an alternative location. During my time at home I moved some guns to an alternate location to be known as the cave. Sort of like on Lost I enjoy having names for places. (Also saying my stuff is at Cousin Timbos and that he gets drunk and leaves the back door unlocked on Saturday and lives at 9247 Johnson street, Hicksville, ID would be an OPSEC fail.)

I moved basically everything except what I plan to use and shoot while at home. I also kept a revolver, a shotgun and a .22 in the warehouse because you never know. When we move back to the states our residence will become the primary location for weapons storage. That will make the warehouse our alternate and the cave our contingency. I plan on keeping some weapons in home territory for the foreseeable future. We will likely live outside of convenient commuting range of home forever and keeping a few guns there makes sense. Thataway I can fly home empty handed or drive home with just a carry piece knowing their are weapons prepositioned. If I had a long term secure piece of land available such as a piece of land owned by a very close friend or relative with no plan to move I would set up a cache as my emergency portion of the firearm security PACE plan. I have some potential ideas on that one but not quite good enough. Before I go to all the hassle of properly burying guns I want to be sure they can rest undisturbed for the foreseeable future. Once we set down some roots the E location will figure itself out. Anyway I feel a lot better about the security of my eggs now.  If you have much more than a basic 4 (pistol, rifle, shotgun, .22) or especially if you have duplicates then it is probably worth looking to store a few off site. Remember Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency.

Fun With China

“China gets 10pc growth: the US gets 10pc unemployment. That doesn’t seem the basis for a happy marriage,” said Prof Fergusson

Read the rest of the article here

Rural Living for SHTF Security

Yesterday I ended up driving some distance through rural Germany. To quote a co worker everything is so beautiful I just want to take pictures of it all. Anyway more importantly I want to talk about how they live. Rural Germans live in little villages.

Village is a term I will use in the future because it is to me more descriptive than the ubiquitous phrase "town". There is a church, a couple little bars, a Gasthaus or two, a small market, maybe a couple random shops and then a few dozen houses. Between a village and the next it might be as little as 5k or more like 10+ in any given direction. In the middle are fields of all types and woodlots.

People pretty much everywhere have traditionally clustered together for collective security. In wild and crazy days that are generally past an isolated family farm was easy pickings for some brigands or bandits. However 5-30 families clustered together could put up a defense and make the juice not worth the squeeze. In Germany the local villages control who can and can't build outside of the village area. Not saying it is right or wrong but well, German. Seeing a farmer driving a tractor with a trailer from his house in town to his fields a couple kilometers away is common place. Basically they live in town and go out to work their fields.

Rural Americans have for a variety of reasons (lower population densities, high gun ownership, sense of community, etc) gotten a pass from the violence that strikes elsewhere. Rural farmers in  Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe and South Africa have had a horrible time. Most of them lived in large family compounds, were quite well armed and often had combat veterans in the family. These folks were driven from the land their ancestors farmed because they were killed or legitimately feared being killed. A steady nerve and an FN-FAL did nothing to protect them. There was a rather unique situation in both South Africa and Zimbabwe where what essentially amounted to gangs of armed thugs got a get out of jail free card for anything they did to rich white people who somewhat justifiably (though short sight idly since they fed everybody) fell out of political favor. This is a stark reminder that how much law enforcement helps or hinders you is at least loosely related to the political favor of whatever group (s) you are identified with. It isn't nice to say and I hope it never gets that bad in America but it is something to consider.

One could say this situation is somewhat like that in the American Southwest near the Mexican border. I really wouldn't want to be a rancher within 2 gas tanks drive of the Mexican border. In Argentina living rurally is a bad idea, a very bad idea. Will America every get like this? I certainly hope not. If our economy gets much worse and folks who believe violent criminals are innocent disadvantaged youths get/ stay in power things could get worse.

The idea of a reinforced family compound out in the hinder boonies is nice. However realistically in any place isolated enough to be a good family compound candidate jobs are a real issue. If Pa can figure out how to earn a living that is great. However the odds that sons John and Tim and sister Jills husband can find jobs at livable wages which they can commute to are not good. The idea that everybody will just show up if S hits TF is great for a couple of very limited and unlikely scenarios. The odds that 6 armed like minded individuals will be hanging around your house on a random Wednesday when 6 meth heads decide to pull a home invasion on the couple with the nice house and all the guns/ stuff who live alone way outside of town are slim. You are going to be alone watching TV with the Mrs and there will be 6 guys coming to your house.

We have talked about living rurally vs in a small town before 1, 2. There are potential advantages to both. However just maybe a modest house in a small town on a big lot and a field with a shed/ barn a little bit out of town is an option to consider. I just think it is worthwhile to consider history and how peoples who actually lived through centuries of very rough times live. Furthermore it is naive to think that all villages/ small towns will turn into tyrannical little fiefdoms but rural people will be entirely unaffected by said fiefdoms AND not see a major increase in crime of things go truly crazy. The real answer is that rural people could well have most of the same problems as those in town AND face a real security problem.

Thoughts?

Katrina and Law Enforcement/ Medical Personnel

I had a interesting conversation with a fellow from work today. He was in the 82nd Airborne and went down to Katrina. He said it was pretty crazy and coming from a guy who has seen the elephant that means a lot. They took and returned contact around famous historic areas we have all heard of. I could talk more about that but it doesn't bring any real lessons; except that if people were crazed/ angered/ stupid enough to shoot at a bunch of guys in uniforms with guns they would surely shoot at a couple random people.

That wasn't the really interesting part. When the guy observed that he saw precisely one local cop the whole time somebody else said more or less "it would take a lot to go to work when your family was in that mess".  Seriously a whole lot of people died of all sorts of causes. Given the delayed response, the conditions bodies were in as well as the rapid cleanup I am not convinced we will ever know the true number of people who died violently. That got me to thinking about what I would have done.

First I thought the point was mute because Wifey and Walker and the cats would be watching the whole thing from a motel room or a friend/relatives house several hundred miles inland away from the whole mess. Seriously the first rule of surviving a disaster is to not be there in the first place. Especially in that scenario there was ample time to leave if you had any motivation. We would have rapidly (in a pre planned manner) packed a vehicle with all the essential stuff like some food and water, a few jerry cans, important papers and pictures, compact and high value items such as electronics, guns, etc and sent her on her way. If possible we would go together but if I had a job that prevented it she would have gone alone or with some friends. Her and the trusted family from down the block would probably travel together. I would have the majority of our supplies due to necessity and bulk so I would be well situated in terms of food, water filtration, and whatever else didn't fit in the vehicle. I would keep a couple guns (a spare pistol, a shotgun and a rifle come to mind) with ammo.  With Wifey safe I could do what I had to do. Now if it was an unexpected event that would not allow Wifeys convenient and safe evacuation the situation becomes a lot more complicated.

The bottom line is that in a widespread disaster many police, fire fighters and medical personnel will be calling in sick. You will be truly on your own. Just get that in your head and prepare accordingly.

Welcome to the Jungle

quote of the day

Why in gods name would I want to go to disneyland? -Madeline

Because it is a magical world with lots of witnesses and great security- Sam

An Interesting Discussion Going On At Surviving In Argentina, Again

Apparently I used this exact title before, go figure FerFal writes good stuff and his very practical ( and somewhat different) angle questions things. The discussion (1, 2, 3) is about rural living and security if things get weird. It goes pretty directly against a lot of what comes out of, for lack of a better word, the American Survivalist school. Personally I don't have strong opinions (we will get to my thoughts) but any time someone is really questioning things with some good points it is worth considering.To my thoughts.

First I think it bears worth repeating to be distinctly in town or out of town. Three acres with a little barn on a cul de sac or quiet side street at the edge of town probably often has the worst of both scenarios. Also the theme that small towns are safer but you can grow food in the country is rehashed.

After that I am less sure. One place where America might be different than Argentina is that by pretty much any measure rural and smaller town areas have far lower crime rates (particularly violent crime) than suburban and urban ones. I don't know exactly why this is but well it is. If things got bad in America crime rates would go up. I have a hard time seeing how they would not go up more or less proportionately with some reflection of economic changes by area.

One notable issue with the rural retreat plan is that its security relies on being able to bring 2 or ideally 4-6 couples (assuming no 16+ kids who would count as the same) together to provide local security. It is easy to say "when things go all Mad Max everyone goes to the Johnson place" and in that respect it is a solid plan. However are you going to go to the Johnson place because unemployment is at 18% and the crime rate has doubled? Can you commute to work from the Johnsons spiffy rural retreat? Sleeping in the living room at your buddies because there is a bad depression going on is a stretch in anybodies imagination. How would everybody live their lives and pay their bills with 4/12 adults pulling security at any given time? For many realistic situation especially a hyper inflationary economic mess or a slow slide it isn't going to be 3-4 families together. It is going to be you and the spouse and the kids all alone. Most likely at least one adult is going to spend a good amount of time elsewhere working, because well you need money.

One benefit of rural living, particularly if you can get at least a few acres away from the main road is that space buys you time. I've lived in places where you can see a car coming your way for a quarter mile. You just can't do that in town. A gate at the end of your road (depending on your setup) coupled with some sort of anti intrusion devices is a hard setup to beat. On the low end this could just be a dog and a motion light aimed at the road. If money is a bit less of an object a comprehensive system of intrusion devices and cameras would be difficult to beat. Realistically even without anything fancy a gate, a dog or two and some motion lights from home depot you have (before even factoring in harder homes and gardens stuff) a huge advantage over someone in the city. Time to grab a gun and if you are so inclined put on body armor. I do not know a ton about home invasions but would bet a lot that people who are awake and holding a gun (+2 for a long gun and +5 for body armor) when somebody tries a home invasion fare pretty well.

Then again if you are walking out of the shop in pajamas on a Saturday morning that one time you don't throw on a pistol and some bad folks show up the situation can get pretty ugly.

I don't know what is best. Guess it depends on where you want to live and what sort of scenario you are worried about. I hesitate very much to give a strong opinion but this has been a darn interesting conversation.

Fun With Books

This is brought to you by our VP of Awesomeness who awhile back was kind enough to send me a few books as well as a Glock mag. Today I will be talking about the book Home Security: How to select Reliable Locks and Alarms for Your Home, Office or Car by Carl Hammer.

I want to start by saying that I did not read this book cover to cover. There are some books (novels, etc) that you almost inherently need to read cover to cover. There are others that probably fall more into the reference category from which you read the parts you want. No reason to read 10 pages of super detailed directions  on canning stewed tomatoes unless you have a pressure canner, ample jars and a whole bunch of tomatoes lying around.

I guess lets stick with the normal book review format.

The good: I really liked that this book was realistic. Don't get me wrong, harder homes and gardens is a nice idea. It is just that unless you are looking at some sort of underground structure or very thick reinforced concrete walls it is not very realistic. Even then unless you have an almost unlimited budget anything beyond trying to find or building a brick home is probably a miss allocation of resources. There is a reason that people stopped building Castles when cannons were invented!

This book focuses on hardening entry ways, windows, locks and doors against discrete covert entry and slowing overt entry to give residents time to react. On this topic I recall something. For a long period of my life I occasionally spent time waiting outside of a particular arms room. That arms room had an official like sign on it. It said the arms room was rated to be secure for 400 hours (or something like that) against covert entry. It was only rated to be secure for 20 minutes against forced entry. Basically it would be impossible to ninja sneak into the darn thing but if you show up with a tools to destroy cement and metal or just strait up explosives it won't take long. The thing is to focus on reality, I know it is hard for us sometimes. However if somebody with a Browning .50 cal and plenty of ammo or even a small amount of explosives and the know how wants to get in they will. However you don't (if you do then think seriously re evaluate your lifestyle;) need to worry about that. You need to worry about 3-5 armed criminals either conning you to open the door or doing some sort of a forced entry. Ignore the books and people in forums and look at what you see on the news and read about in the paper. Following the advice in this book will take you a long way toward having a secure home.

The Bad: Being written in 2001 the book is a bit dated. In particular the relatively new do it yourself glass lamination film is a real cool product for realistic home security on a normal budget. I imagine security systems have improved some since then also.

The Ugly: No serious ugly though some stuff did bother me. However the vague hints at somehow having inside knowledge of para military and covert government activities that is often present in Paladin Press books was there. Also it was a bit needlessly redundant. When it comes to locks and stuff the guy could have gotten a camera and taken some pictures instead of only doing cheesy windows paint drawings.

I got some stuff out of this book and if you are looking to make your home more secure it is well worth reading. The copy I have is going to the shelf where it will stay until I purchase a home and want to secure it.

Taking Over A Town: I Call Bull Spit

This recent article on survivalblog reminded me of something I have been meaning to write. There are always bunches of ideas floating around in my head and often it takes a post somewhere that touches on the topic to remind me that I had a strong opinion/ article idea.

I grew up on Westerns. When I was in my mid teens and we got non antenna TV Dad and I would often pass windy and rainy winter days by watching the Western Channel. With rare exceptions there were only a few different plots. One of those plots was taking over a town.

It basically goes like this a fairly large group of say 12-40 bad guys show up in a town and ride roughshod over the sheriff and push people around generally doing whatever they want, until the hero comes......The thing is that in real life a loner who has a questionable past but is pure of heart with a white hat who is lightning fast with a Colt .45 doesn't show up. Also more importantly towns wouldn't need one anyway. They can take care of themselves pretty well.

If you think of the bank robbers of that era they did not stick around in an isolated town with their speed of drawing and shooting a 6 gun securing their safety. They grabbed as much cash as they could quickly and rode out of town (hopefully for them) before getting shot to ribbons by farmers and store keepers with rifles and shotguns. Most of the reason people did this is that in the pre FDIC days, if a bank got robbed the money people kept in it was gone. Nowadays average people have little to no incentive to get involved in this sort of crime but if the money in the bank/ grain in the silo/ whatever was essential to the towns very survival people would not just stand by.

I remember in one book Louis Lamour gave his opinion on that plot. Basically he talked about how it would never work and was totally rediculous. There were just too many veterans of the Civil War and the Indian Wars and too many guns in the hands of the townspeople. Some things have not changed. It is often difficult to wrap ones head around how many guns are privately owned by every day, law abiding average Americans. Not everyone is a gun enthusiast with a Glock/Sig sticker on their car but Americans own a ridiculously awesome amount of guns.

This reminds me of my late Grandfather. He was a normal professional guy, pillar of the community, member of the Kiowas and all that stuff.  In their nice normal home in a mid sized town he had a snubby .38, a full sized .357mag, a couple shotguns, a couple .22's and a bolt action rifle. Also one of my old Scout Masters comes to mind. Somehow when I was a bit older we got to talking about worst case scenarios. This Vietnam vet and normal retired guy casually mentioned that he had 4 AK-47's and 10 cases of ammo for them stashed away, as well as enough rimfire for a lifetime of small game. Few veterans I know are without a firearm and most have some sort of a defensive pistol as well as a defensive rifle (mostly AR's in this generation), not to mention whatever sporting arms they own.

Once you start looking at how many people are veterans, cops, hunters or just plain angry rednecks there are a lot. Thanks to the almost 10 year long GWOT we have a lot of young veterans and those Nam era guys are still around, heck a few Korea and WWII vets are still alive and kicking.  There were simply way too many armed, trained and experienced individuals in even the smallest town of say 750 people a lethal proposition.

I can only speak with some measure of experience about the Pacific Northwest and the Deep South as I have lived there. In either of those places there is probably more firepower in 3 or 4 city blocks than any group of bikers/ raiders would want to deal with.  A couple of smart local cops or city officials who are either veterans themselves, which is pretty common or have the basic sense to listen to those with applicable military experience could easily make the juice not worth the squeeze.

People talk about how the gloves would be off when it comes to dangerous, violent criminals (alone or in groups) doing whatever they want. That is true but those folks pretty much do what they want now, if they followed the rules they would not be dangerous violent criminals. The real game changer in the criminal to citizen relationship would be that the gloves would be off for the citizens. The idea of a group of bikers storming into town on screaming Harleys and taking over is the stuff of bad 60's era movies. Citizens and cops have a pretty good idea who the scumbags are, they are just currently bound by rule of law. I can see law and order societies, sheriffs posses, healthy reserve police forces and maybe just strait up vigilantes becoming the norm if things get bad. If you add up the police force, the local gun club, the Elks lodge, angry rednecks and all the veterans in a town of 750-2,000 there are ample numbers to make some thugs seek a weaker target.

If things were bad enough that nationwide law and order were gone and biker gangs could act without any fear of legal consequences they would likely meet a volley of rifle fire about a quarter mile from town. A biker on the move with a rifle or submachine gun (being a crook means you can ignore firearms laws which is a plus) would be no match for a deer hunter in a fighting position with a scoped flat shooting rifle, especially at a couple hundred yards.

Personally I see this sort of roving biker gang being a real issue for travelers, isolated farms, ranches and retreats. Without a serious plan to get outside reinforcements a group of 6-15 adults would have a very hard time dealing with a group of 1-2 dozen armed hard core criminals, especially if a couple of them had even minimal military training. I would be a lot more worried about relatively small groups doing what amounted to home invasions on steroids than some mobile mega gang a la Mad Max.

Got Emergency Fund

OUR 3 MONTH EMERGENCY SAVINGS ACCOUNT IS FULLY FUNDED!

While it isn't a lot more than we had last week we have reached our happy number which is a good thing. I feel secure knowing we can now weather most of life's various financial emergencies. I also feel very proud that we got this done in a bit less than 13 months. Also now that it is funded we can put the money which has been going there every paycheck to other purposes. We can now begin saving in earnest for a reliable second car.

It is great when a lot of hard work comes together into completing a significant goal.

Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think

Today at work Wifey had to go to a meeting. It was about terrorist and spies. The instructor made a big point that they should not trust foreigners. The instructor spoke with a very strong accent and was obviously not American.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think.

Ladies Don't Go Walking Alone

I saw a snippet on the news about a woman from GA who was kidnapped a few days ago. I personally do not think it is a good idea for women to walk/run/hike/bike alone in isolated areas or at night. Find a friend to run with or drag your spouse out of the chair or go to a public park during hours where is it busy or buy a treadmill.

Payphones, Cellphones, Communication and Security

About a month and a half ago I was at the little mini mall thing around lunch time. Some young Soldier asked if I knew where he could find a pay phone. I said I didn't know where one was and asked what he needed it for (was willing to let him use my phone if it wasn't going to be a long call to Josephine or Mamma). He said he wanted to call a cab to take him to the PX and I said if he knew the number he could just use my phone. He didn't remember the number right so I found a worker who knew where the nearest payphones were. If I would have had time I'd have just dropped him off (I hate how they have to spend such a disproportionate amount of their income on cabs just to get basic shit) but that is irrelevant.

I was part of the last age group to grow up before cell phones. I don't remember seeing one at all until I was in middle school and that was our family friend the Doc. Normal folks started having them when I was about halfway through high school. I personally got one just before my 22nd birthday. Fought the good fight on that but my desire to be able to walk to Wifey (then Girlfriendie I guess;) got the best of me.

Payphones can no longer be relied on as a form of communication simply because they are so unavailable. I remember when pretty much every gas station had one but not anymore.

I personally do not worry about the fact that my cell phone can be used to track or listen to me. I don't do anything illegal or say anything I really don't want to hear read back to me in a court room. If our LEO's decided to do that they would realize I am a pretty boring person. I sincerely hope they are able to more accurately target people so as not to waste our money.

Some of you might be worried about being tracked/ listened to by your cell phone. Maybe you are caught up in some bad shit or your tin foil hat is preventing air flow to your brain. Could be you aren't doing anything wrong but just don't want anyone in on your business. So the question is how to communicate with people over distance without a cell phone. These days pay phones probably aren't the answer due to a lack of ready availability.

Pre paid cell phones are pretty cheap and (at least for now) completely anonymous. They are used by all manner of people from teenagers to illegal immigrants to those who don't want to sign a contract and criminals. If used properly these phones are completely anonymous and their traffic is just a whisper at a Metalica concert.

The computerized programs which track phones are truly amazing. Whether for good or evil depends on your perspective but still.

Lets hypothetically say someone was interested in knowing who you are talking to and what you are talking about. The cell phone with a contract in your name isn't exactly hard to track nor is your home phone. Lets say you pick up a pre paid at the convenience store. The rub is that if numbers you regularly call (close friends, wife, mamma, etc) are also being watched (and they would be) your pre paid would be anonymous until you call one of those numbers then they've got it. Your pre paid is going to be anonymous as long as it only calls numbers which aren't being watched. Calling another pre paid phone, a random person in Wisconsin about buying their used '95 Dodge or ordering a pizza to your buddies place for poker night are all fine. The rub with 'networks' is that your pre paid opsec is only as good as the pre paid OPSEC of EVERYONE involved. So Bubba the idiot savant of alternative energy using his pre paid to call Momma will not only screw him but everyone else.

Often the solution to this problem is to 'dump' these phones after a certain period of time or in very extreme cases a single use. So the whole poker club needs to be on the same page. In my experience (where and how I will keep to myself) the way networks fuck up is that they switch phones in onesies and twosies. If 8 phones are being tracked and one new phone talks to two of those numbers that phone is now compromised. Maybe it is before/ after a certain event like the big poker night or maybe it is monthly/ whatever. A group of poker buddies who purchase anonymous pre paid phones which only talk to eachother and simultanously get given to homeless people would be all but impossible to track.

The topic of code words and such is worth mentioning. It has been discussed in great detail elsewhere by folks smarter than I so great detail is not needed. Book codes are great for beating anyone who does not have ready access to a super computer. If nothing else they may be good for time sensitive stuff that would be useless if it is seen later. Depending on when your poker game is and who may want to find out about said game someone knowing 24 hours after the fact that you played cards in Jim's basement last night might not be an issue, then again it might.

Off the top if my head I can thing of two ways of communicating a short message which are almost impossible to break. The first is a completely random phrase or couple phrases which set in play (or stop) some sort of action.

"The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall.
John has a long mustache, John has a long mustache."

See I just gave you a message. The chair is against the wall means we are going fishing this afternoon at the lake. John has a long mustache means I buy beer and you buy bait.

Another method which could work is using joint personal experiences to set a meeting. A description that would be meaningless to anyone except you and that other person is probably pretty darn safe, at least for a single use. If I called Chad or Ryan and told them to meet me at 7 at the place that we used to go for chicken strips they would know what I was talking about. All the super computers in the world would not know what I was talking about.

Thoughts?

Travel, Life and Security

I am in the process of out processing right now. Lots of lines and paperwork and fun times. This area has been pretty good to us but I am ready to get into a more settled position.

I/ We have done some thinking and talking about exactly how much to share about the upcoming move. Decided that saying absolutely nothing would not be practical as tid bits of everyday life slip into here anyway. Saying Europe would not make any real sense because aside from the 173rd Airborne in Italy and a few people here or there it basically means Germany anyway. I am not going to say more than that, tis my compromise. If you pick up more by putting pieces of stuff together please keep it to yourself. I would be bummed to reject a great comment because it mentioned in passing where I am.

We are moving to Germany. I put it on my wish list back in the day and never thought they would actually give it to me, turns out they did. The move is going to be significantly more complicated then say throwing our stuff into two cars and driving across the country. This is going to be exciting and interesting.

I am pretty excited about the whole thing though somewhat apprehensive. Wish I could take some guns but other then that I think it will be fun. Wifey is excited about the travel opportunities though apprehensive in general and disappointed that finding work might be difficult to impossible. She is concerned about jumping through all the right hoops and stuff for getting the cats there without it costing wads of cash and them sitting in quarantine. Also the Anti Terrorism briefing kind of freaked her out.

I really want to go to Switzerland and Wifey wants to go to Paris. She has some family in England so that will be cool. To be honest I can't think of a place I don't want to go. We plan to travel as much as time and finances allow. Since we will already be there it seems like a lot can be done on weekends (especially 3-4 day passes) and if you want at fairly reasonable cost.

Anyway that is all for now.

Applied Ethics and Ballistics With My Bestest Blogger Gal From OK

I got this comment from Pearls yesterday and have been stewing on it since them. Didn't come to any real amazing answers since then.

If you missed the background here is what you need to get up to speed.

Pearls says, Its the fact that people will do anything to survive that would keep me from allowing someone to cross my land. I don't want them telling someone else how they traveled. I don't want to become accustomed to "outsiders" so close on my land. I done want someone to see our diggs, preps, outside buildings, gardens, livestock or my family.

I am very familiar with the original guys post on western OKC/OK as well as the land he was describing and have been following the post afterwords with interest.

Cutting a fence will get you shot - I find a lock that isn't mine on my chain....well, the chain will be cut off - a new one put in its place and a close watching of the gate will ensue.

TOR is right - people will do what it takes to survive - keeping my land off limits is just one step in making sure that is exactly what happens to my fam...

A trespasser (which is what they are) may have absolutely no intent on harming me or my family, but I have no way of knowing that and I am not willing to take that chance that they do want to do us harm....

I realize that the original poster was talking about bugging out and I am coming from a "set" position, but both sides need to be evaluated before you take any action - just looking at it from someone wanting to pass and ignoring the landowner is dangerous.

TOR replies:
Pearls, Great comment. Interesting perspective and points. I can definitely see where you are coming from. These sort of ethical discussions to not lead themselves to clear cut moral clarity but I believe the process of thinking through them has some value. I certainly agree that looking at it solely from the side of the traveler would not be a realistic perspective.

My one real question is... Would you would rather have a desperate person (or group) who went through the pasture then bypassed the blocked bridge/ whatever and is driving away or a desperate person (or group) stewing knowing you are the person preventing them from getting home?

Consider the risks of NOT allowing simple passage as well as the risks of allowing it.

As for my other thoughts. I think it depends a lot on the size of your land and its potential as an alternate route. If you live near a choke point (bridge, highway intersection, pass, etc) and your land backs up to BLM/USFS/etc land with viable alternate routes this is probably a significant issue to think about. If you live towards the end of a dirt road and are surrounded by other private land owners with routes to nowhere then it is a minimal concern.

While the criteria for lethal force varies significantly from state to state I can't see anyplace possible being cool with drilling some guy in the face with an '06 from 300 yards because he gets near a fence with a pair of wire cutters. In all but a genuine full on TEOTWAWKI shooting someone simply because they arguably attempt to cut a fence is going to get you at least a decade in a small cement room with a large woman (who probably likes women) named 'Spike'. And that is assuming you win the gunfight. Crazy things happen when people get in gun fights and a sure thing can quickly turn into a very bad situation.

I did come up with one potential easy get out of this ethical conundrum option for the land owner. As a 'traveler' would be wise to at least attempt to gain permission instead of trespassing a land owner could be well advised to simply do their homework and know another way to the likely alternate route (aside from across their land). Lets say people might want to cross your pasture to get to a gravel road which leads to unimproved road 231 that will get them around the bridge and home. The path of least resistance might be suggesting going back one mile to Johnson road where you will take the third left, travel one half mile and then take the first right which T's into unimproved road 231.

It is probably worth considering other potential variables into the equation such as:

-What sort of event is this? Blackout/ hurricane/ earthquake/ riot/ etc or a genuine TEOTWAWKI. This will factor heavily into what you are capable of doing to protect your property without visiting 'Spike'. It will also factor into the desperation and potential reactions of travelers/ possible trespassers.

-Are you willing to kill someone because they want to cross your land? It is easy to think about a couple meth maggots who cut your fence but what about a Mom with two kids who really wants to get home and will not leave the front gate?

-What is your real ability to stop potential trespassers. Just as it is easy to see the moral clarity of our position it is easy to see how our plan will work as we intend it to. Assuming an armed threat or even shooting someone will end the matter is very idealistic.

As a final thought I do not have any clear or concise answers to these questions. Real world ethics questions are difficult because they live in complex shades of grey. It is interesting that people almost universally see the moral argument for THEIR perspective while somehow ignoring that any moral argument could exist on the other side.

quote of the day: O'Reilly on Border Security

"Look BIG FENCE OK"
-Bill O'Reilley

Keeping A Low Profile

Keeping a low profile. Stumbled onto this while looking for something else. Threw it up here for no good reason, just felt like it.