daily ad

Thursday, September 8, 2016

simplify or die 1 of 2

note: when I recommended the e-book "Zombie Apocalypse, The Coming Civilization Collapse" by Eirik Bloodaxe to you, it was $5 and worth it.  Now it is just $1.
click here
 However, do NOT under any circumstances buy any of his other titles.  The three others I bought were nearly worthless-just rehashes of the first.  The book on guns was especially bad, lacking anything other than generalized blather.  If anyone knows how to contact the author, I'd be happy to send him a free copy of a real post-apocalypse firearm book.
note: Top Ramen is $2.88 a case at Albertson's ( you might also try at Safeway as the two stores are one company ).  12 cents each is pretty hard to beat.
Back a bit when we were talking about returning to traditional mores, there was a lot of confusion.  When I stipulated that the tribe that returned first to traditional values, rejecting all those pretty glittery feel good unicorn fart new substitute practices like women’s lib and homosexuality and the like, they would gain an advantage over their adversaries, and I got quite a few “yeh, buts”.  Nothing wrong with that, our reconditioning has been taking place our entire lives.  Confusion is guaranteed.  It is natural to “qualify” any return to traditional values.  If anything becomes uncomfortable to the individual, we need to modify.  Kind of like the infamous dumbass-ness of “don’t ask don’t tell”.  But here is the thing.  If something was been the norm for tens of thousands of years throughout history amongst all cultures, it definitely has a survival value to the group.  Period.  We talked about that, and it confuses me why most people think they can quantify that.  I understand why you are confused, as per the above lifetime brainwashing, but I also can’t see why most folks don’t embrace the obvious when pointed out to them.


You would think this was a natural state of affairs, what with the decade long fight amongst my readers about semi-automatic weapons and the complete unsuitability of the Mosin-Nagant rifle and the passing of the rimfire era and the idiocy of fracking, and it really is.  I like it when nobody agrees with me as I must both sharpen my argument and collect more data ( not to say that it isn‘t frustrating ).  So, having confessed my confusion over your agreement, we’ll also accept it as the norm.  Heck, if you are just being contrary for its own sake I can applaud your efforts!  So, let’s approach this from another angle.  I’ve tried tradition as a survival tool, now let’s try simplicity as a helpful tool.  And by simplify, I mean black and white rules.  No exceptions, no hesitation and no confusion.  You want to say, but Jim, that would stifle creativity and expression and encourage drones.  In a way, yes, but you are looking at it like modern energy surplus luxurious Yuppie Scum.  In our current environment, we have the option of experimenting with culture and social mores.  Our petroleum surplus ( near three times what any other country is using ) provides a nice safe bubble to hide behind.  Traditionally, with barbarians at the gate, always, and famine one dumbass move away ( let alone from natural occurrences ), innovation and ignoring tradition were deadly.


But, sorry, back to simplicity.  Do you know what complexity in the law gives us?  Bill and Hilary Clinton.  Abe Lincoln and Barrack Obama.  Complexity allows manipulation.  More importantly, complexity encourages confusion.  Let’s look at an example near and dear to us.  Back when things were simple, a Peace Officer did one thing ( setting aside corrupt areas ) and that was keep the peace.  He didn’t care if you were smoking opium or diddling a whore, hurting your own horse or gambling all your money away.  He had one question-is this guy peaceful?  Now we have Law Enforcement Officers.  They enforce tens of thousands of laws.  The ones they can keep track of, anyway.  You aren’t safe around these guys, and for many reasons.  But one important one is, they don’t operate under a simple black and white paradigm.  You wonder why there are so many officer shootings?  Besides all the “oppressive regime” arguments.  One of the reasons, not the main one but still a factor, is that they themselves can’t operate under their imposed level of complexity and mistakes are going to be made as there is too much confusion and not enough time to sort out the mess. 


Give a soldier a gun.  Tell him, “you can shoot if he tries to enter your area.  Period”.  That is simple, black and white.  The processing time the brain needs to decide to shoot or not is reduced to a minimum.  With LEO’s, it should be as simple as “officer safety”, but their operating parameters are too complex and in some instances that screws with the decision process.  Nobody is accusing anybody of being a retarded serf that needs the king to think for him.  The whole point of simplification is to minimize mistakes and confusion.  It is to “get everyone of the same page”.  Not on the same multi-volume library of laws, just the single page.  As soon as you increase the parameters of behavior past a simple binary equation, as soon as exemptions and add-ons and addendums are introduced, you’ve created complexity and confusion.


You used to allow, for instance, women to work in a strictly selected number of jobs.  Police matron, elementary school teacher, nurse and the like.  Women thought they were so abused staying at home and calving and milking.  Oh, the humanity, to fulfill ones biological function ( of course, it was still okay for the males to go fight and die to keep the home front safe )!  There wasn’t much confusion or paralysis until bitches and ‘hos wanted to be beat cops and firefighters and office managers.  Now, a show of hands of who thinks this worked out all that well.  Anyone?  You humped it up by allowing exceptions, by departing from the script.  First off, males and females don’t work well together, especially if the ladies are in charge ( obviously, wives rule the roost even if hubby is macho, and a professional nurse can tell a male administrator to piss off if wrong,  but here I speak of hierarchy in an organization for its own sake.  Not a master of their trade other than just being a manager ).  And secondly, incompetence shouldn’t be legislated away by compromising standards.  How is that good for social function?


I won’t go on and on about how screwed our society is after having ignored traditional cultural values.  We do that enough most articles.  My point was merely to point out how departing from simplicity snowballs into unwanted directions.  You want a good example of how a Black/White society has the advantage over a Complex Society?  Latinos taking over America and Muslims overwhelming Europe.  We’ll take up there tomorrow.


Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page.  IF YOU DON’T SEE THE AD, DISABLE AD BLOCK ( go to the Ad Blocker while on my page and scroll down the menu to “disable this site” ). You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.  Pay your author-no one works for free.  I’m nice enough to publish for mere Book Money, so do your part.*** 
*Contact Information*  Links To Other Blogs *  Land In Elko*  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is www.bisonprepper.com           *wal-mart wheat
*Link To All My Published Books
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there


  1. I understood full well where you were coming from James. The liberal pipe dream of sitting around holding hands and singing kumbaya, all the while celebrating that we're “all equal” is just that, a laughable pipe dream at best, that could never have artificially existed even briefly outside of this anomaly that we've lived under for about the last 75 years. Mother nature is a cruel mistress, and doesn't do political correctness. And you're right that the indoctrination runs deep. I've even come across a fair number pro feminist sounding statements from members at mgtow and anti-feminist sites.

    A had a look at that Ferguson rifle that you mentioned before here. It didn't look to me as something that would be easy to produce at home. You might have an easier time of constructing, or modifying an existing break action weapon, or perhaps focusing on something like that air rifle that Lewis and Clark carried on their expedition (Girandoni air rifle, 20 shot repeater). Another alternative might be a form of railgun.


    1. A Ferguson was manufactured is a relatively low tech environment. Whether it can be duplicated isn't too important a question, as per the powder issue, but also because anything above bow and arrow tech will allow its duplication ( I assume a state arsenal, regardless of how small or big the state is-Japan was able to produce 10's of thousands of BP rifles before unification ).

    2. One of the videos that I saw actually mentioned that machining the rear breech bolt was a challenge, and part of the reason that it never really caught on. The other reason was that the rear bolt would foul really easily from powder during use. Maybe there are people out there that are such good craftsman that they would look at this sort of thing and exclaim to themselves “eh, no biggie”, but I'm certainly not one of them.

      I think a more practical approach James would be something closer to the Smith Carbine in design. Now the Smith Carbine was a percussion gun, so if you wanted a forever type flintlock ignition system such as the Ferguson, you would have to modify the design to include it.

    3. I'd imagine that an engineering challenge would be more easily overcome than a chemical/logistics one. Not that either would be all that easy in a devolution.

    4. I'd imagine that's true as well James. That's why when ever this topic comes up, I invariably find myself reverting back to primitive archery technology. I try to look at things from a worst case scenario. I feel that when the collapse finally does arrive, that we could find ourselves in a situation where 19th century technology will be something to strive for.

    5. And archery is fine as far as it goes individually. For group warfare, however, devolution has a military disadvantage.

    6. As far as killing goes, archers are pretty effective as long as inside effective range/tactics/vs. same or inferior tech. Archers in groups (mass-fire) can be more effective than black powder non-repeater models in the hands of the same number. Smoke and boom is intimidating, but these things don't kill the enemy, while revealing strength/location/weapon-type.

      The trick of fighting is to have intelligence that will allow you to show up with one-level better weapons/strength. If not, then don't fight. Weird combinations of ancient weapons with modern sensors/sights may be in our future. Terrain and food are the best weapons.

    7. Archers took a lifetime to train. The most primitive small arm black powder, a few weeks. Any decent metal worker can construct the less intricate arms ( ie, no higher tech trigger mechanism ). Wounding with a bullet is a whole other dynamic than an arrow. Archers are not hidden-just follow the trajectory of the arrow. A group of archers were in the open, just as were gunners-the smoke wasn't a "smoking gun" ( ha! get it? )


I must moderate-trust me. Criticize ideas, NOT the people behind them. Be civil. You will be warned twice and the third time just deleted. No N-Bombs. If you disagree with me, you must praise my hair first.