30 April 2012

Food Preps

While link clicking I came across the following: http://safecastle.blogspot.com/2012/04/perspective-on-cost-of-emergency.html and the advice given is that rice and beans are a very boring diet.  Yup, we can classify that one under the "no duh" theory of culinary preparedness.

Now, what isn't addressed is that with a little additional investment rice and beans can be "interesting" instead of "boring."  Because across the planet rice and beans are the staples of many varied ethnic diets.  Take rice and beans out of Mexican cuisine and you still have Mexican cuisine.  Take rice and beans out of Middle Eastern cuisine and you still have Middle Eastern cuisine.  But you miss out on refried beans and humus, arroz con pollo and Israeli Rice.  That isn't even including the massive number of East Asian ethnic cooking styles.  If you know how to cook with a dutch oven, a wok, a stew pot, a frying pan, and have access to some basic restaurant spice rack you can make even plain rice and beans delicious.

My point is that if you base your survival diet on rice and beans you have a lot of culinary ground to build on.  Buying restaurant size containers of curry powder, coriander, oregano, cumin, chili powder, dried herbs such as sage, parsley, chives, cilantro, and even such basic staples as salt and pepper can vastly expand on your taste options.  If you can stock dried/preserved/grow vegetables like carrots, celery, onion, garlic, broccoli, cabbage, you can once again vastly increase your taste options.  Vegetables aren't very good for calories, but they are great for nutrients.  Want a sour taste?  Stock some vinegar to bring a little more pucker to your dishes.  Want to add some heat?  Keep some chili peppers or sauce on hand.

So at the end of the world, break out the rice and beans.  Then break out everything else that you need to make rice and beans the basis of a diet that has a variety of tastes.  Then pity the poor folk who are eating a diet based on wheat berries.

29 April 2012

Guns and Crime

One of the enduring myths of the anti freedom crowd is that pulling guns off the streets makes crime go down.  Occasionally they can even pull some statistics off that seem to support their agenda.

Now, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Statistics are useful if you can show a link between the things that you are measuring.  Correlation does not mean causation, and showing a causal link is expressed as an R value, showing confidence in a link between the two factors.  The CDC studied every law and crime statistic they could and found no relation between gun laws and crime reduction.  The anecdote that "Crime fell in NY after Bloomberg was elected" is an anectode, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

So why does that lying sack of shit Jonathon Lowy continue with the lie that Bloomberg's restrictive policies somehow cleaned up New York City?  Because right now the trend is one of decreased crime, and despite more reasonable explanations like the correlation between abortion and crime reduction as discussed in Freakenomics telling the truth doesn't push the agenda.

Gun control is one of the "Big Lies" that if you tell long enough and hard enough you can get people to believe it.  You get people like Joan Peterson who have bought so deeply into the big lie that she can no longer separate truth from falsehood.

Recently Jonathon Lowy, lying sack of shit, decried the Gun Lobby for inconsistency in applying Federalist values.  Jonathon Lowy argues that if we were good little Federalists we would let the Federal Government remain silent on the restrictions of Enumerated Constitutional Rights by state and local governments.  Allow me to remind the reader that it wasn't that long ago that the Federal Government passed the Assault Weapons Ban and made it the law of the land.  Before that it was GOPA 1986 which restricted our ability to purchase automatic weapons (the one class of weapons that is implicated in less crime than death by hammers).  Before that it was the Gun Control Act of 1968 that took away our ability to buy and sell hunting rifles to citizens in other states and transport them through the postal service.  Before that the National Firearms Act of 1934 made safety devices like sound suppressors expensive beyond the reach of average citizens with a tax stamp that cost more than the yearly income of most Americans.

So, throughout the history of the gun control movement in the US has blatantly ignored Federalist principles that they are now saying that the NRA is ignoring.   First off the "Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act" would simply specify that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution applies to carrying a firearm as it does to motor vehicle operation.  States have different standards for drivers training and testing, and yet somehow our national highway which kills far more Americans every year and Jonathon Lowy, lying sack of shit, isn't calling for "local control" over drivers licenses.  After all, what works in New York may not work in Cheyenne.

So fuck you anti rights extremists, we are fighting at the Federal level for our God given natural rights because that is where the battle is, you lying sacks of shit.

28 April 2012

Action v. Reaction, thoughts on tactical patience

If a Canadian came to me and asked for advice on how to prepare to resist government aggression, we would have to sit down and talk.  I can't do a brain dump and give years of experience to someone else, and giving them a checklist of things to do is really setting them up for failure with a false sense of security.   What I would desire to see in my hypothetical Canadian friend is the ability to think about the problem, come up with solutions, and choose a solution that balances risk with reward.

In the history of warfare, there have consistently been two types of thinkers.  Those that believe they can reduce the art of war to a list of actions, flowcharts, and create a precise science of legalized violence (this can lead to fighting the plan instead of the enemy).  These were great men like Clausewitz and de Jomini.  Then there are those who problem solve.  The problem solvers take a look at what they have to work with and then they work the problem.  These are the most effective leaders in a rapidly changing tactical/strategic situation.  Patton, Rommel, and Ridgway come to mind.

Some lessons are best taught as analogies.  When two boxers square off in the ring and nobody gets knocked out, who wins?  That is a decision of the judges.  It seems highly technical to me, based on number of punches thrown, number of punches that land, who was more aggressive in a round or something like that.  I don't care for fights that are won by decision, and most good boxer's will fight to win by knockout if they can get there. 

Lets look at the "Rumble in the Jungle" between Ali and Foreman.  Foreman was the better hitter in my opinion, but Ali was the smarter boxer.  Had the "rope a dope" strategy failed Ali he would have lost on a decision.  He took a gamble and it paid off.  John Mosby recently wrote about why going on the defensive against a Superpower is a bad idea http://mountainguerrilla.blogspot.com/2012/04/defensive-considerations-for-resistance.html.

On the flip side, just like Ali, sometimes you are in the ring with a guy that will knock you out in 5 rounds if you fight on his terms.  Trying to outpunch Foreman in his prime is a losing proposition for just about anybody.   As a British Officer noted after the defeat at Dunkirk, "Wars are not won by evacuations."  But instead of a complete and utter defeat Britain stayed on the ropes.  Twenty miles of sea, a few pilots, and a strong fleet saved Britain from being crushed by the German War Machine.  Britain got lucky because of geography, something that France did not have.  Britain's strategy in WWII was the same as Ali's, stay in the fight long enough that you can exploit some weakness.

As I have said before, insurgents need outside support to be successful.  The French Resistance was quite active, but largely inconsequential to the outcome of WWII.  However it must be noted that for every act of sabotage and assassination pulled off by resistance fighters it was that much quicker and closer to victory for the allied forces (including the godless Communists being bled white on the Eastern Front).  But the OSS saw fit to give all the support they could to the Partisans as they were value added to the effort.  By fighting they gained assistance which allowed them to fight more, which encouraged foreign governments to give more assistance. 

In the movie "Alamo" there is a series of scenes where Dennis Quaid playing Sam Houston says nothing but "Break Camp" over and over, moving his insurgents into terrain unfavorable to the Mexican forces.  His men don't like it, they want to fight, but Sam Houston knows that he can't fight Santa Ana on his own terms, he needs to get the Mexican army strung out and unable to bring artillery to bear.  The strategy works and Texas wins. 

So, for the bulk of any given war, the resistance is on the ropes.  Teaching "maneuver warfare theory" to resistance fighters is largely academic, solely to flesh out an operational understanding of warfare.  In maneuver warfare theory their is an identifiable "forward line of troops" and lines of advance and retreat.  The "jab and thrust" of this type of maneuver warfare works well with the "rope a dope" strategy that Ali made famous.  Getting your opponent to overstretch himself has worked for Russia against Napoleon and Hitler, and then Russia did the same thing during the Cold War.  Russia fell because it was preparing for a war it never wanted to fight and couldn't sustain the economy needed to sustain a useless army.  Even when there aren't front lines such as in an occupation, a resistance can temporarily create such a line, and then just as quickly abandon it and go back to life as normal.

In an occupation, there is none of that on the macro level, and at the tactical level if you manage to create a "line" of "us v. them" then the "them" will call for long distance assistance and come at you from every possible direction.  Helicopters and artillery will really screw up your day.  I've written before on the power of the defense in small unit tactics, here, here, here, and here.  Everything I wrote is still true, but none of it is "the answer" to everything. 

Now that is all good at the "macro" or "theater/campaign/engagement" level of planning.  But how do you "jab and thrust" at the "resistance cell" level?  Instead of going against the "Desert Fox" or "Old Blood and Guts" you are going against "Lieutenant Tentpeg" or "Sergeant Beltbuckle" who have been tasked to occupy your neighborhood and "provide security" and "conduct COIN operations."  At that level you can't afford mistakes that get you killed.  Your number one goal is to stay in the fight, even if you are never highly effective at fighting.

So how do you stay in the fight?  The same way the VC, the Partisans, the Taliban, even Hammas, all stay in the fight.  With pinpricks.  With propaganda.  By winning the hearts and minds.  Every Doctor that gives free medical care to a village and speaks approvingly of the resistance gives more legitimacy to the resistance than any large scale assault on an occupier stronghold.  Right now you are thinking, "That sounds an awful lot like the COIN operations we tried to run in Iraq and Afghanistan."  Good for you, that is exactly right.  COIN is the flip side of insurgent activities.  Carrot and stick, winning hearts and minds and building lasting political and combat power.

Think of "good works" as ammunition for propaganda.  Every kid that gets a teddy bear, every housewife that gets assistance with her garden, every pile of firewood that gets chopped for an elderly couple, is one less person supporting the occupiers.  Imagine how useful it would be to simply leave a calling card with three black lines drawn on it to let someone know you did a good deed?  

Think.  Time spend planning it time well spent.  Once you have a plan, go into rehearsals.  A couple rehearsals will quickly bring to the front any deficiencies in your plan.  It may be true that no plan survives first contact with the enemy, but a good plan allows flexible thinkers to arrive at the desired end state even if everything else goes to hell.  Use your time on the ropes to gather intelligence and use that intelligence to refine your plan, and always be looking for opportunities that you can exploit.

27 April 2012

Freedom, unreasonable Freedom.


To me freedom means not having to ask permission to do an act that hurts no one.  Being able to buy from anyone and sell to others without asking for a permission slip on bended knee.  Being able to to speak my mind without fear of reprisal from an Inspector General, Equal Opportunity Leader, Sexual Harassment Assault Response and Prevention Coordinator, etc. 

But I can't do that.  The only place where I am free to speak my mind is here where I blog anonymously, or in my private correspondence that the NSA data mines for potentially useful intel.  There are always consequences to actions, and one of the consequences of speaking your mind is that you can lose your job for it.  Had I brought up in my place of employment the facts that blacks in America tend to have an IQ clustered around 85 I could be disciplined for creating a "hostile work environment" and possibly discharged from the service.

Never mind that the context could be inner city school reform or cultural relevance to intelligence, if someone is offended then the only standard that applies is "the reasonable person standard."  Unfortunately I have seen the writing on the wall, and "reasonable people" elected a Democrat majority to Congress and the White House in 2008.  Reasonable people are idiots.

In this day, only unreasonable people make sense.  Ron Paul makes sense, his foreign policy stance makes me cringe sometime, but no one can deny the facts behind what he says.  Facts are a really good judge of truth, there is nothing "reasonable" about facts.  Facts can be insulting, insensitive, or even cold.  But facts are facts, and feelings are NOT facts.  How a reasonable person feels about my opinions, thoughts, and worldview could determine my fate should anyone ever be offended by them.

So I am personally not free, and I knew that coming into my job that this would be the case.  However, over the course of my career I've come to appreciate freedom more and more.  And I have come to see how a culture of fear of stepping out of line has created an Officer Corps that only one Lieutenant Colonel had the guts to say straight up that Obama isn't a legitimate President.

Given the facts that I know, there are at best serious doubts about the legitimacy of the President from a Constitutional standpoint.  I am not saying that the President is illegitimate or legitimate, I'm saying that I don't speak my mind where anyone can hear because it could cost me my job.  While it may seem like I've sold my soul for a paycheck, having uncompromising morals doesn't put food on the table.

If there is a smart, motivated individual who wants to join the US military to learn some combat skills and they have ANY other option, right now I hope they take the any other option.  Spending some of your hard earned cash on a commando school taught by veterans would be a more profitable use of your time than going through basic training/OSUT/AIT Ranger school, etc.  You don't need to know how to lead a platoon in the dark while starving, or shiver on the beach until you look forward to having your buddy piss on you for warmth in order to become an effective and disciplined warrior.  Don't get me wrong, there are some things you learn about yourself in those situations that you won't learn any other way, but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

Want to be a better shot than 99% of the Armed Forces?  Shoot High Power and 3-Gun matches.  Inside of a year you'll be better than 99% of the Armed Forces.  Want to get really good at CQB?  Take up paintball or airsoft and watch some Youtube videos.  Want to be able to sabotage train tracks like WWII Commandos?  Study for your commercial explosives license.

All the potential useful skills you think you want are available in open source products and commercial schools.  It used to be that the military was a great place to get training while you got a paycheck (still can be if you go into it knowing the full story) but right now I can't in good conscience tell anyone to enlist.

Be unreasonable.  If you ain't hurting anyone fuck them for thinking they have any say in your actions or interactions.

25 April 2012

Ever the victim....

In the face of any sort of opposition, credible or rhetorical, the default position of Democrats/Communists/Fascists (but I repeat myself) has been to whine like little bitches with an acute case of vaginitis.  Case in point, "Eugene Robinson" wrote an OpEd for the Indystar with this quote,
the extreme language we hear from the far right is qualitatively different from the extreme language we hear from the far left -- and far more damaging to the ties that bind us as a nation.
Which is complete and utter bullshit.  Allow me to quote our sitting President.
  If they bring a knife, we bring a gun.
we must punish our enemies.
Mmmm mmmm mmmm, Barack Hussein Obama......  But evidently there is nothing "disturbing" about that language.  How about this gem?

argue with [people], get in their faces
Or this one?

If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.

Of course the other part of "violent rhetoric" brought up by Eugene Robinson was Rep. Alan West calling out the Congressional Progressive Caucus as communists.  This isn't exactly news to anyone who has been paying attention to the subversion of the Democratic Party into socialism and communism, hell the CPC was founded by the only openly Socialist politician at the time and is still allied by the Communist and Socialist Parties of America.

Seriously, on one hand you have a junior Representative telling the truth and an aging Rockstar full of awesome invoking no violent rhetoric in terms of guns and knives, but you have a liberal President saying to bring guns to knife fights and that we need to punish our enemies? 

How about the violent rhetoric of Mansfield Frazier saying that to keep the blacks from rioting George Zimmerman should just take one for the team?

So in the spirit of "corrosive right wing rhetoric" I'm going to tackle the issue of left wing violence and violent rhetoric head on.

You know what is disturbing to me?  The violence of SEIU Purple People Beaters, the rising wave of Black on White Crime that Black "Civil Leaders" use as a club to enforce mob rule and skirt the rule of law. 

Although in the back of my mind I hope that Mr. Robinson gets his way and can silence the forces of truth.  Because the sooner that happens the sooner this nation will fall.  As Frazier tries to bully us into submission the sooner the "cold racial war" where whites don't fight back will turn into a hot racial war where people die by the thousands.  The sooner that this festering boil gets lanced the easier it will be in the long run.

I don't worry about a race war in the US.  I'm pretty sure that white people would turn out on top, and since I happen to belong to that group the calls for a race war from militant blacks seems like the yapping dogs walked by old ladies.  Why is this?  Numbers and experience.

Blacks avoid service in the Infantry, white boys turn down bonuses for highly technical jobs to serve in the Infantry.  There is not enough credible leadership in the black community to create any sort of credible threat to overcome their vast shortage of bodies.  And even if there were a highly skilled general willing to lead the great black revolt, there wouldn't be enough disciplined blacks to follow orders.

If the Black community would stop listening to the race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson, and listen to men who have truly excelled like West and Powell, this country would be a much better place.  Hell, if Powell was leading the great black revolt I'd say their odds of survival would increase dramatically.

I don't want a race war, I've seen the cost of war and it is not one that I would ever wish on my native land.  But damnitall to hell it seems like the left is pushing for civil war faster than cooler heads can calm things down.

24 April 2012

The Purge

As a thought experiment, ponder this question. "To create my ideal form of government, exactly who do I have to kill?"

To the Founding Fathers, the answer was "enough British Soldiers to win our Independence." To Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, it was "anyone who stands in my way." To Abraham Lincoln it was "as many as it takes to preserve the Union."

To many here in our own society who believe in a benevolent one world government run by the bestest wisest scientieist politicians ever it is "anyone who doesn't buy our bullshit about global warming." The calls for "re-education camps" and mass killings have already started, and if enough people tell the Big Lie long enough they'll get the sheep to believe it. Four legs good, two legs better. We have always been at war with....

It is an interesting thing to ponder, the killing of other human beings purely for ideological reasons. The other side, the statists and anti-liberty thugs all have their excuses. Traitor to the Revolution, bourgeoisie, Christ Killing Jews, whatever the label there have been enough people who have bought into those labels to literally murder millions of people who spoke the same language as their executioners.

Our Founding Fathers shot and killed men who spoke their language, were born in the same area, and kept on killing them with the help of those who spoke a different language, all because of political ideology.

It was easier in WWI when the opponent spoke German, and easy again in WWII with the Germans and Japanese. During the Cold War it was simple to hate the Godless Communists. But the enemy of freedom speaks your language, looks like you, and may even share the same blood. People often forget that our "Revolutionary War" was nothing more than a Civil War that succeeded from our point of view.

So, who would you kill? Would your ideal government be worth it?

22 April 2012

Weaver v. Isoscelese

Lately I've been reading yet again how someone is "all Weavered up" or "argh, that teacup is just so wrong" on ye olde intertubes.

When my facebook feed get a picture of "improper or dangerous grip techniques" and it includes the teacup as "unstable, unable to control recoil" I just want to grab a gunsnob by the lapel of their shirt, totally fuck with their OODA loop by headbutting them in the nose and then see how long it takes them to get into an approved isosceles stance.

Grip, stance, caliber, all that goes right the hell out the window in a fight. Hell, any martial artist who has been in a real fight knows that technique is the first thing out the window. Kinda like "fire control" goes out the window your first engagement. It takes a while to learn to slow down and think through the situation.

A little history on "The Teacup" is in order. Way back when the Army wore olive drab and the NRA pistol competitions were conducted with a 32 caliber revolver, the teacup came into being as a marksmanship technique. It must have done ok as some of those old shooters went to combat multiple times and came back ok. I wonder if Alvin York was grilled until every nuance of his shooting technique with a 1911 was registered and recorded for posterity (for the record that didn't happen).

As an example of why criticizing other folks shooting style is stupid... You don't see Carbine Class Ninjas shouting at High Power Competitors that "yer doing it wrong!" because it is obviously NOT doing it wrong, simply different stances for different sports. I mean seriously, who ever heard of putting on a special coat, getting all slung up before a fight? But no one argues that the skills learned shooting High Power aren't applicable in combat. After all, in Vietnam the first snipers were chosen from the ranks of competitive riflemen.

The teacup works. It doesn't work as fast as a straight up isosceles, but if you are shooting bullseye at distance it works fine (and if you really want to make your first round a precise hit, it might not be a bad choice). And if you do end up in a fight, then the point is survival, not to use someone else's idea of an approved technique.

Now, if someone wants to shoot accurately faster at halitosis distances and pays a professional trainer to help them achieve that goal, by all means good for them. I suspect they'll end up using the isosceles technique and becoming proficient with them. That isn't to say the 50 year old gal who has been shooting the same 38 special using a teacup technique for 40 years is wrong. As the bullet flies through the air it doesn't care if it was shot from someone using a particular technique.

Seriously folks, Weaver V. Isosceles has jumped the shark, fallen into the tank, been bitten to shreds, and is now a zombie corpse desperately in need of a headshot. Whether the headshot comes from someone using a Weaver or Isoscolese stance doesn't matter.

20 April 2012


I've written before on ballistics, internal here, external/terminal here, and terminal here.

The science of ballistics is fascinating, and internal ballistics and external ballistics are much more "scientific" than terminal ballistics. You can repeatedly measure the effects of changes on powder charge, primer construction, bullet mass with a good setup. You can accurately map the ballistic path of the bullet as it soars through the air. You can even calculate what a twist rate would do to group size due to bullet imbalance.

What you cannot calculate is whether or not a bullet will stop an attacker. The science of physics exits stage left and the science of biology firmly takes over when we are talking terminal ballistics.

This doesn't stop people from talking about "Taylor's Knock Out Formula" or "Major Power Factor" which are firmly in the realm of physics when describing potential lethality of two different rounds. This is stupid, but people like to argue. Sometimes I think the only reason the internet is so popular is that is allows people to consume porn in private and argue with impunity.

Lethality comes in threes, you need to accurately hit your target. The "center of mass" hold for pistol shooters is fine for a high probability of lethal effects, but it is almost a guarantee that a center mass hit will not "stop" an attacker. To stop an attacker you have to get a central nervous system shot, brain or spinal column, to get a guaranteed stop.

Secondly you need adequate penetration. A 17 caliber lead pellet from an airgun to a human skull will leave a bruise or break skin. A 17 caliber bullet from a rimfire rifle will penetrate the skull and reach the brain if fired at an angle approaching 90 degrees to the surface of the skull.

And lastly, you need tissue disruption. If the bullet is large enough it doesn't have to mushroom or fragment to disrupt enough tissue to kill the animal it hits. But as people who have had nails, knives, and even rebar stuck in their head and live to tell about it, a lack of disruption saved their life. This is where velocity assists in lethality, by providing "hydrostatic shock" at rifle velocities and imparting energy into the projectile to allow deformation or fragmentation even at pistol velocities.

Those who study the impact of bullets into ballistic gelatin can tell you that all things like permanent and temporary wound cavity numbers are not a good indicator of a difference in lethality between rounds of similar mass and energy. What temporary and permanent wound cavities are helpful with is comparing the potential for "bleed out" speed. Bigger holes bleed more, but as experienced hunters will tell you, ballistics gel ain't a living creature with layers of skin, fat, muscle, and bone to deal with.

Lastly, common sense has to have a role, 20 rounds of 22 magnum to the torso is likely to be plenty "lethal" as is 10 rounds of 9x19. But it is a waste of brain power to argue with is "more lethal" because that is like arguing which corpse is "deader." Life and death are binary states. A calculated numeric value based on "energy, momentum, bullet construction, velocity, sectional" isn't very useful at all in determining how a non CNS hit will affect a living animal.

19 April 2012

Racist or Factist?

In the first season of "Breakout Kings" one of the lines that is repeated is "I can't work with this racist" and the reply "I'm not a racist, I'm a factist."

It seems that anyone who notes any sort of difference between races will be accused of racism, unless you happen to be a minority. Minorities can't be racist, or if they are it is only because "whitey made me do it." Of course I don't see how setting a white kid on fire while screaming "you deserve this whitey" isn't anything but a racist hate crime.

That being said, what follows is something that I have been pondering for a bit, and there really is no way to sugarcoat it and make it politically correct. Does that make me racist or a factist? I thank God that I blog anonymously because as any Soldier knows, this sort of frank discussion is not approved by the Equal Opportunity program. What follows would be called a "hostile work environment" or "discrimination" should I bring it up where someone who is offended could here. So knowing that my career could be on the line if someone finds what follows offensive, here goes.

The IQ spread of various "races" is an easily quantifiable data sheet. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx I say it is easily quantifiable because others have done it. Repeatedly. Peer reviewed studies and everything. Decades of data.

Leftists attack this disparity between "races" at every chance, pointing out that IQ tests written by Europeans automatically disadvantage Africans. Unfortunately this discounts that Asians score better than white Europeans. Remember my previous post about "if the data shows the theory is wrong people who can't discern truth from falsehood cling to their theory?" Well here is one that is guaranteed to piss off both the left and the right.

If we accept that the data is scientifically significant then the idea that "race is a social construct" is false. Even though all humans can interbreed with each other the data shows that on average blacks aren't as smart as hispanics who aren't as smart as whites who aren't as smart as asians. http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2009/04/iq-by-nation-iq-by-race-us-iq-inherited.htm

Secondly, since the data suggests that there are differences in "race" then the idea of "equality" is absurd. There are the Larry Birds in the NBA, and there are Black chess masters. But the bulk of the NBA is black, and the bulk of serious chess players are not black. An unequal racial distribution among different activities is to be expected if there are differences in heritable attributes amongst the races.

But why do I insist that "racial equality" will never be achieved? Because of the math. If we had an equal population of blacks, hispanics, whites, and asians and distributed the intelligence of each group along known curves, then on average the smartest people in the room will be white and asian. On the flip side the "dumbest" people in the room would be black and hispanic. Since most occupations or careers require intelligence as a large portion of the mix that determines success in monetary terms, we would then see an unequal distribution of earned income along racial lines.

Now a Leftists would want you to believe that the unequal distribution of income along racial lines is due solely to "racism" or "injustice" and anything but actual, measurable differences in racial attributes. A racist would say that all blacks are subhuman and "white power" or some other equally offensive nonsense.

The truth is that both "genetic race" and "cultural race" play a part here. High intelligence black parents with a good work ethic pass those genetic and cultural traits on to their children who grow up to be successful. Low intelligence white trash who cook meth pass criminal skills on to their children who grow up to be unsuccessful members of society. The difference is that in "white culture" criminal activity is seen as disgraceful and in "black culture" the "thug life" is seen as sexy and even laudable.

If we accept that Darwinian concepts such as "fitness" and "hybrid vigor" then we see speculate that Culture creates the environment where stupid people in the black community pass on genes for physical strength and aggressiveness instead of intelligence because those traits are more successful in that culture. Somehow the successful black family in "The Cosby Show" has been replaced by "Snoop Dog" in the audience that needs it the most, inner city blacks. That isn't to say that "white culture" doesn't have "Eminem", only that white America never really left "The Brady Bunch" (or "Dawson's Creek" for the younger crowd). The ideas of what constitutes success in each culture is "getting paid" so to speak, but often from very different sources.

However none of this data disproves the existence or non-existence of widespread racism (which is the beauty of calling someone racist, it is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?"). Blacks are still more likely than whites to be successfully prosecuted on a drug charge (although it could be that there are more stupid blacks getting caught with drugs than stupid whites getting caught with drugs if you argue it from an intelligence perspective). But it could also explain why there is such a disproportionate percentage of blacks in prison verses asians. However, cultural difference also explain the data.

At the end of the day, or at the end of the blog post, you have multiple data sets that say there are measurable differences in intelligence between races that can explain everything from income distribution to incarceration rates or you have the alternative that those differences are the result of artificial constraints placed on minorities (except for those statistically pesky asians) is a result of racism. I can't disprove racism (you can't prove a negative, it is impossible) but I can show that there are very valid explanations for why things are the way they are.

What minorities need is a culture that embraces the traits that allow them to compete with other races on more equal footing. If black women refused to sleep with black men who had an IQ less than 105 within three generations the IQ gap would be statistically insignificant. Unfortunately while "Urkel" may be the answer to black underachievement, "Urkel" isn't likely to get much play from the ladies. I would say that white culture could do the same thing, but who isn't rooting for Leanord to get back with Penny on "The Big Bang Theory"?

14 April 2012

6.5x55 reloading

There are a lot of rumors, some based in truth, about American made 6.5x55 brass.

Typically American brass uses a .473 inch case head, and European brass uses the correct .480 inch case head. This is fact.

What is disputed is whether or not the brass is the source of case head separations.

Case head separations are caused by lateral stress on the brass brought on by excess headspace. The radius of the brass at the case head is only .0035 difference. Measuring my once fired Winchester shows a slight bulge .300 above the case head expanding the diameter of the brass to .478 but there are no internal cracks. After running the once fired brass through a full length resizing die, that dimension was reduced to .474, so there may be some work hardening going on further back on the brass than I care for, but .002 inches of diameter reduction isn't unheard of (hence the current lineup of small base dies from RCBS).

One poster on a forum stated
This bears repeating. R-P cases in my Swedish Mausers and especially in an ag42 autoloader wouldn't last more than three loadings, Winchester fared even worse.

There is a reason that even with premium brass those who load for match grade autoloaders say "4 reloads and chuck it." Autoloaders are VERY hard on brass. Mauser's aren't exactly known for having tight chambers, and "slightly oversized" is good for reliability. I might take a drill, cotton strips, and some metal polish to the inside of my resizing die to make it a tad more oversized and therefore custom to my chamber.

In my experience excess headspace is the source of case head separation. The excess headspace allows the brass to expand forward without being stopped by the chamber, causing a lateral stress to the brass. The stress goes beyond tensile strength and the brass cracks where the brass starts to thicken near the case head. The brass near the case head is thicker so it resists stretching better than the thinner sidewall and shoulder brass.

I'll keep monitoring my brass for cracks, but I'll probably just get a neck sizing die and be done with it. Once fired brass is "dimensionally correct" for the chamber it was fired in, so sizing the neck will not work harden any of the body and allow the brass to stretch a lot less on repeat firings.

Belief, science, public policy, truth, falsehood

I apologize that this post is rambling, and pulls a bunch of different threads into one cloth, but I can't seem to make it any simpler than it currently is.

In a legal court there is a plaintiff and a defendant. In science there is theory and data. In a legal court the judge and jury can rule for either party. In science data trumps theory every time. It is theory's job to explain the data, data needs no defense.

Last year I was trying to explain to a fellow infantry officer who wears a Ranger tab that while the theories of Dave Grosman (former infantry officer who earned the Ranger tab) fit the data he had when he wrote the book, two decades of new data conclusively prove his theory wrong. The other officer wouldn't hear of it at all, and fell back into the logical trap of "appeal to authority" because he didn't know the data. In his mind the theory was true, and the data was invalid. I know that "perception is reality" but I have to say that people who cling to a theory that is shown to be wrong by the data can only be suffering from "Joan Peterson Syndrome" and not in the amusing Adam Savage "I reject your reality and substitute my own" way.

This gets us to "global warming" where the data does not fit the hypothesis that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and therefore heats the atmosphere. The data that we have does not support the theory (at best the data can be massaged either way). The best data set for this would be weather balloon data because it measures atmospheric heat without confounding factors such as "urban heat island" affects or having an air conditioning unit blow directly on the thermometer as happens with ground based measuring stations. The balloon data shows no warming despite a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/18/weather-balloon-data-backs-up-missing-decline-found-in-old-magazine/

This also gets us to "Creation Science" where the assumption is that the writings of bronze and iron age feudal tribes are true, and the goal of "research" is to support that truth. Obviously that isn't science, and while it is interesting (if you want to find all the holes in Darwinism, Neo Darwinism, and whatnot the Creationists are an easy place to start).

Global warming alarmists have taken the same stance, that an unproven theory proposed by a man regarded as "a lunatic" by his peers in meteorological research in the 1970s that Carbon Dioxide might be able to stop the onset of global cooling is true.

Tam and others have noted that people get their ego, their self identity, built into any new gun they purchase. If you hang around the internets long enough you'll see plenty of "I just bought the Bangwiz 30k, tell me how awesome it is" for those who are seeking validation of their choices, which means validation of their entire being.

If "global warming" were truly science then scientists would scrap the theory that CO2 causes atmospheric temperature increases due to absorption of radiation in the IR spectrum and propose a different hypothesis. Oftentimes a "null hypothesis" is part of a well designed experiment simply to give a balance in statistical data. If you look at the data, which is more true, the hypothesis or the null hypothesis (and I apologize to all mathematicians for the gross simplification).

However, there are those who suffer from "Joan Peterson Syndrome" and refuse to accept that the null hypothesis is valid and the hypothesis is invalid. Now we could say that this is a simple mental problem, if it were not also accompanied by an unhealthy sociopathic desire to act on this false reality and impose their will on other people. And this is where the rubber meets the road, in control. Joan Peterson wants to take away your guns and create a police state, Al Gore wants to make you live like a third world peasant in a police state, and Dave Grossman wants your kids to not have graphic video games (Dave may be correct on other aspects of his work, but he is clearly wrong on violent video games turning kids into highly trained violent commandos).

But back to science and the courtroom. Who will win in theory v. data is largely up to the side that invests the most. After all, how many millions have died trying to make the lies of Communist theory true? The data says otherwise, but people suffering from "JPS" are more than willing to give it one more college try, no matter what the previous data says. Seriously, do you want crazy people to make decisions that affect everyone based on their inability to determine truth from falsehood because it would destroy their very identity as a human being?

What is worse, is that people looking for data to support their "theory" that they have already decided is true is rampant even among those who should know better. This is why scientists discuss whether an experiment is "well designed" or not. A well designed experiment avoids the pitfalls of small sample sizes, unambiguous data sets, and a control experiment. A "well designed experiment" is above all else one that can produce repeatable results. The "Peer Review" process is supposed to weed out poorly designed publications, unfortunately that doesn't always happen.

When the theory can't produce repeatable results (or produces consistent results that disprove the theory) then you need to scrap the theory, not cling to it bitterly. But from "gun control" to "global warming" to "violent video games" to "socialist paradise" we see that people are incapable of abandoning a known falsehood.

12 April 2012

Why Zimmerman's arrest is another kick to the dead horse of impartial justice.

Sometimes children playing games will come across an outcome that one or more doesn't like, and then they will choose to alter the rules or go outside of the rules of the game to get an adult involved in order to get the RESULT that they want. Because to children, everything seems like a life or death matter. And it doesn't matter that the rules favored someone else today will favor them tomorrow, it just isn't FAIR NOW!

Congratulations whiners, you win. The local police and District Attorney didn't give you the result you wanted so you clamored to the Justice Department, got the President involved, got the Governor and the State Attorney General involved in a matter blown completely out of proportion by a hostile press looking to create news where none existed.

Having worked in government for three administrations now, and seen first hand how investigations unravel, I know that the Florida AG is not seeing anything that the local DA hasn't seen. There is no "new evidence" that is causing the AG's office to prosecute, only as others have noted, that arresting Zimmerman will allow Martin's family to sue him in Civil Courts after the State of Florida loses on Murder 2.

This is how I can tell it is a show trial, Murder 2 is going to be "Casey Anthony" all over again. The jury will let Zimmerman walk and then the civil trial will begin, and like OJ Simpson, Zimmerman will lose in civil trial where "preponderance of evidence" is really a "glorified smear campaign" where Zimmerman's character and reputation are in question, not his actions.

I could tell that the AG is planning to lose this one from the get go based on the minute long lecture on the appeals process for prosecuting attorneys. Seriously, no jury in the world will say that a guy with a busted up nose and bleeding from the back of his skull is going to say that killing the little punk wasn't justified. This case is designed to lose, but it is also designed to last long enough that the whiner community will lose interest in this case and move on to a different "injustice" to clammer about as mindless mobs are prone to do.

Now, if you aren't a whiner, and have more sense than to register as a Democrat in Florida and call 911 before following a suspended thief who is wandering through your neighborhood casing houses. Had Zimmerman NOT called 911 this would be no big deal, because only the forensic analysis of the scene and his injuries would be on trial. Lesson learned? Dialing 911 is probably a bad choice if you can handle it yourself. Better to dial 911 after the bodies are starting to assume ambient temperature.

Since justice is dead, I'd like you to remember the 3 S's.

Shoot, Say you will cooperate after you've talked to an attorney, then Shut the hell up. Then actually call an attorney, hell call two or three, and do your damndest to build a defense before the cops try to crush a confession out of you.

Of course this post bemoaning the fall the the Republic is just one of many, and this isn't a call to action, just a sad commentary on what is our reality.

10 April 2012

Wil asks the 64,000 dollar question

In my previous post about economic collapse and killing and dieing, I got an interesting comment.

what will those in .mil do if/when the money is no good?
Default by .gov at this point is no longer 'if', but 'when...'
Your paycheck, as well as mine, will be worthless.
If it gets bad enough & for those overseas, ie: the sandbox, how wil they get home?
Do the troops ever sit around and discuss these things?


This is actually a subject I've put a lot of thought into.

If economic collapse happened to me while I was in Afghanistan my plan was to walk North to Russia, or Southeast to India. India being by far the easier walk. This was assuming that for some reason the government of the United States just ceased to exist. This was my last ditch, no hope for help from anywhere plan. I gave myself about a 2% odds of success. It wasn't a good plan, but with the assets I had available on my own it was all I had.

However, when a .gov collapses normally the .mil is spared the ravages of collapse for a little while. I think it was in "Starship Troopers" where Soldiers fighting for the US Government were just abandoned overseas after a ceasefire was declared. Somehow the veterans made their way home and took over government....

If a large body of disciplined fighting men were unconstrained in the mayhem that they could unleash upon the steppes of Asia, it wouldn't be the first time. From the Mongols, to the Tar Tars, to the Cossacks, a large number of English speaking professionals would immediately form the biggest, baddest tribe around and start flexing muscle to get home.

My odds of getting home as a member of the biggest baddest tribe to move out of central Asia are much better than me doing it alone. And before anyone wants to bring up the British retreat from Kabul, there aren't too many American Commander's that will not secure the high ground to secure passage through a valley. After all, that is the role of scouts, cavalry, light infantry, and snipers.

Still, I would like to think that the collapse wouldn't be so sudden as to catch everyone with their pants down, especially given how much warning we have.

07 April 2012

Patriots and Enemies Foreign and Domestic, thoughts on currencies

The Left and the Right agree, the America of individual freedom is dead. The Left bemoans this fact loudly and proudly, lamenting that they are not further along on the road to petty tyranny and re-education camps for recalcitrant scientific skeptics. The right differs from the left only in the speed of self destruction on the path to tyranny.

In JWR's "Patriots" the collapse was brought about by economic design and the fighting and dieing came later. In Matt Bracken's EFAD, the fighting and dieing came first followed by an economic collapse. Other than that characters could be interchangeable. People with an internal drive and can do attitude survived as best they could for as long as they could. People who let life happen to them perished or at best went along with the flow and bowed before the jack boots of tyranny.

One of the things that is so very basic that there is very little attention payed to it is that all welfare states require a fiat currency. From Rome to Russia, the UK to the US, a fiat currency is required. One of the enduring myths of our age is that the "Pound Sterling" is in fact redeemable for a pound of silver, which would have been true three centuries ago, but now a "pound sterling" will only get you .5% of a pound of silver. Or, over the course of nearly four centuries the Pound lost 99.5% of its value.

The fall of Rome is famous for devaluing the currency. Coins got smaller, then coins were "dipped" in silver instead of being silver, then the people that made worthless dipped coins passed laws saying they were worth the same amount as older coins, and then the barbarians sacked the empire.

So there you have it, Senator Ron Paul and his talk about a Gold Standard that is pooh poohed by the mainstream media seems to be the only guy who isn't whistling past the graveyard of history when it comes to money matters.

Now, is having a commodity standard any sort of insurance against collapse? No. The medium of exchange doesn't stop the trading and devaluation of debt, and when debt can be bought and sold it is effectively creating money out of thin air. Cut notches into a stick, slice it in two, and make money! When the whole system becomes unsustainable, change the rules and burn the sticks... Also things like, you know being conquered by an invader, really make the security of a commodity currency a little less comforting.

So the problem of money is that neither fiat currencies nor commodity currencies can stop a collapse. However the problem isn't the currency, it is the debt and trading of debt, which causes the whole house of cards to come crumbling down. As warm and comforting as the Wookie Suit can be, simply going back to the Gold Standard will not prevent our current iteration of civilization from collapsing. Entropy, like Mother Nature, is a stone cold bitch.

Entropy really has no place in the history of humanity, since it is a concept used to explain the loss of energy from closed systems, but when it comes down to it, the three laws of Thermal Dynamics could apply to human history.

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

But back to why any government bribing its citizens needs a fiat currency is because there is no other way to finance it. Governments do not create wealth. Therefore to keep paying for things everyone has to buy into the polite fiction that the fiat currency has some "worth" to it. The old line is that "This dollar is backed by the full faith and trust of the American People." But that isn't true, I know more and more Americans are not trusting their currency. I know more and more Americans have watched inflation eat their wealth and leave them destitute. The difference between the TEA Partiers and OWS isn't the politics, it's about 30 years of work history.

I guess when the system isn't fair to anyone it is fair to everyone? I don't have a problem with people earning different amounts for doing amazingly little work. Yes I know actors, athletes, and CEOs make more than they really deserve, but I don't care. Every artists dream is to make a couple masterpieces and then retire to live a life of leisure creating art without any thought of monetary reward. In my experience hungry artists are a tad more passionate about their work.

Bottom line? According to the experts, either we have dieing and killing before the collapse, or dieing and killing after the collapse, to happily anticipate. The sooner everyone realizes the Emperor has not clothes we can all get around to agreeing that the next ruler, be he Dictator, Czar, or President for Life, is impeccably dressed.

05 April 2012

I give up, you can't fix stupid

So browsing through the Science section of Google News I came across this little gem of wisdom.  http://news.discovery.com/earth/ancient-orbit-melted-permafrost-released-carbon-120405.html

  • A team of Earth scientists have proposed that cycles in Earth's orbit allowed permafrost to melt and release carbon dioxide, warming the planet.

  • So the warming caused by variations in Earth's Orbit which caused "Global Warming" wasn't really the cause of warming, only to the point that "greenhouse gasses" took over and orbital mechanics and solar radiance played no further part in "global warming"?

    Seriously, this is stupid.  Even when the evidence points out yet again that atmospheric carbon dioxide content FOLLOWS cycles of heating and cooling do the powers that be want to control the narrative and somehow assign a causative affect to CO2. 

    Eventually someone will figure out, "If the planet warmed enough to melt the permafrost, without the help of CO2, and then the planet cooled off again even though there was an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by the non-CO2 related warming, we should really think about changing the narrative to fit the facts, not twisting facts to fit the narrative."

    And people want to send ME to a "re-education camp" because I'm a skeptic.  This Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming has gone so far beyond "science" that it is the New Religion, and if the "re-education camps" become a reality, it will have it's own "Inquisition" to match.

    01 April 2012

    Reloading Review, Lee Pro1000 review

    Like most reloaders I have a bunch of different reloading brands present on my bench, but the two most common brands are RCBS and Lee.  Lee is known for making low cost reloading tools, and it has been said that Lee has gotten more people into reloading than all the others combined.  Based on cost alone, I think this is likely a true statement but I can't prove it one way or another.

    I've been using the Lee Pro1000 to reload 223 ammunition for the last couple months, and my decision to go with a ball powder (Alliant Power Pro 2000-MR) may not have been necessary.  I haven't had a chance to compare with a stick powder like my favorite 4064, but the ball powder kind of ends up everywhere.  On the flip side of that, the Auto Disk Pro dispenser works fine once I swapped over from return chain to spring.  The return chain was screwing up my feel for the primer seating step, so going to a spring return fixed that.  The return spring also makes tool head swaps much easier as everything is a self contained unit ready for detachment and replacement.

    Other things I did wrong?  I lubed the squeak out of it, but that also caused the auto indexing rod to come unscrewed from the shell plate.  Nothing like having your press come undone midstroke to make you scratch your head.  

    The priming system is working ok with the Wolf primers, but I've been debating making a few more notches in the post to rattle the feed tray even more with each stroke as there is the occasional failure to get enough pressure behind the priming tube to advance another primer.  But now that seating the primer is the only operation on the upstroke, it is easy to feel a missed primer and correct it.

    Would I go with a Pro1000 again?  Yes, but not for 223.  The Pro1000 is just fine for 9x19 or 45ACP or any other pistol cartridge you care to load in quantity.  For 223 I would get something a little higher end that could handle other rifle cartridges such as 308 or 30-06 which would make more sense for me as I shoot a lot more rifle than pistol.

    Now, am I going to get rid of my Pro1000?  Definitely not.  It does what is was advertised to do, and that is load plenty of ammo in a pretty short time.  I'm not to worried about inconsistent COAL measurements because it is too easy for me to seat long on the Lee and do a final seating on my RCBS Jr. single stage press if I wanted to.  Right now I'm not a good enough shooter to know the difference, but maybe down the road.

    The number one thing that having a progressive press have taught me? Case prep is a beast, I just ordered a Possum Hollow power trimmer to speed up my prep process.  Trimming to length 2000 once fired milsurp 5.56 brass isn't something you really want to spend the rest of your life on...