note: okay, this is the last night time article. I'm going back to once a day posting, as per minion requests ( almost 4 to 1 preference ). And per a minions very helpful suggestion, one I hadn't considered ( I was thinking of all kinds of different solutions for getting rid of my surplus writing, from monthly magazines to weekly book posts ), I'm going to double or triple up in one day the article length ( as long as the articles are a continuation of the same subject. I used to publish part 1 today, part 2 tomorrow, now it is 1&2 in one day ), when appropriate. I had the next two weeks articles already written, so if you come across references suggesting the old two a day, just ignore. Thank you everyone, for the feedback and other assistance.
note: a $325 AR kit. I believe a weekend only special click here
Idaho Yuppie Scum Survivalist Guru’s are a rather easy target as a week rarely goes by without some pearl of wisdom from their sites having a hint of odor not usually associated with jewelry. They are too easy, and if I were a better man I’d feel bad about picking on their data points. But, I don’t. Hell, one was an officer, for goodness sakes. Why not just become a lawyer or politician while you’re at it ( oh, wait, another one was )? But my point is not to kick a dog when he’s down, rather to come to his defense. Nothing preached is too original. Not that I’m claiming that mantel. Nuke bread and the Jim Washer are it for me unless my memory loss is worse than I can remember ( get it? I can’t remember if I’m losing my mind. Anything? This is why I’m not doing stand-up ). Most of the ideas, flawed or otherwise, originated in the mists of time. The Redoubt idea? A combination of the Strategic Relocation book and the ‘80’s pulp survival fiction series Tri-State creation. Nothing wrong with that, as a good idea is good regardless of its origins. My issue is when you don’t understand WHY it was a good idea, and hence apply it inappropriately.
Strategic Relocation is one of those books that sounds better talking about than reading. Once you get into the meat of it you realize how weak the actual data is. Not only from being out of date, despite new editions, but for using the wrong indicators to even get those. I wouldn’t suggest anyone actually spend the $30 to compare their areas perceived problems or attributes with the reality it is now, but it is pretty bad. Their target relocation guide in western Nevada, full of ranchland, has for a very long time ( far more than the twenty years I’ve been around it ) been California implant suburbia, the land now so expensive not even the 10% top earners ( workers, not the rich ) could afford to use it as grazing cattle. It is a well watered ( for Nevada ), mild weather spot. And it is butt holes to elbows chock-a-block full of Yuppie Scum crammed into quarter million dollar houses that can’t be sold due to zero jobs in the area above minimum wage ( and the local county is great adding extra fees to the property tax to jack it above the already high state percentage ). Then, just reading on other states I’ve never been to, I find it doesn’t answer my questions that are rather pertinent. Like that employment picture and total property tax issue.
It is all well and good to have a map showing the largest taxes, but that doesn’t really help me all that much. What kind of taxes are important. If I don’t drink or smoke, and I own a piece of raw land rather than a house, Texas wouldn’t be the worst place to live ( liberal zoning outside city limits is a big help ). But if I was zapped by all three taxes, my burden would be far higher than what the chart indicated. I lived in Texas for a short while and worked at a convenience store, plus did a lot of reading online while buying land. These are the kinds of stats that are helpful but not really covered in detail. Really, Strategic Relocation isn’t too much better at deciding your U-Hauls direction than you are with your spotty grade school knowledge of the place you hope to move to. The book did one thing well, and that was protecting yourself from the projected fallout from Soviet nuclear strikes. And that was pretty much it. Any other information you hope to gleam from it is incomplete to the point of uselessness.
I’m not saying that the book isn’t worth the money, if that is the treat you are protecting yourself against. It definitely is. I don’t think we’ve moved our ICBM bases in the interim so that information, along with the earthquake zones, should be spot on. But going on and on about the dangers of nuclear fallout after the Soviet Union crashed and burned almost smells of desperation to me, a One Trick Pony insistent that his book sales continue. Hey, more power to ya, brother. I bought a copy when I was flush with book money. I might actually make use of it one day other than a quick review, who knows. It has some nostalgic value, also. I just don’t think much of the threat. It is a possibility rather than a probability. Anything can happen. But, really? All the Russians need to do is contain the US forces from advancing any further, really not anything they didn’t do in the Cold War, and have little need to act offensively.
In case you missed the newsflash, too busy spooning the beloved memories of your precious darling FDR, the Soviets were allowed to advance into Eastern Europe, by our Dear Leaders. We got ours, Germany occupation and most of the British naval bases, so they can have the Slavs. So they stuck their noses into Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. So did we and on equally flimsy excuses. The Cold War boiled down to keeping our military production up to the point we nationalized the factories almost as much as the Nazi’s did ( we just controlled them with defense contracts rather than bureaucracy, and allowed them the same profits ) so as to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. And profited the Federal Reserve as much as during that downturn. In hindsight, the Cold War was never going to turn Hot, both countries more concerned with controlling their populations and keeping the power structure than with dominating the globe.
So, with that hindsight, why are we still worried about another theoretical nuclear exchange? The only thing we must fear is our own people launching the nukes and then a Russian retaliation. While possible I wonder how likely that is. Not because looking at it rationally it makes no sense to do so ( our leaders are the furthest thing from rational ) but from seeing few scenarios where we would think we needed to ( using the convoluted “logic” of our elite ). Continued tomorrow.
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. ***You can support me through Patreon ( go to www.patreon.com/bison )***You can make donations or book purchases through PayPal ( www.paypal.me/jimd303 )
*** Unless you are in extreme poverty, spend a buck a month here, by the above donation methods or buy a book. If you don't do Kindle, send me a buck and I'll e-mail it to you. Or, send an extra buck and I'll send you a CD ( the file is in PDF. I’ll waive this fee if you order three or more books at one time ). My e-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org My address is: James M Dakin, 181 W Bullion Rd #12, Elko NV 89801-4184
*** Pay your author-no one works for free. I’m nice enough to publish for barely above Mere Book Money, so do your part.*** Land In Elko* Lord Bison* my bio & biblio* my web site is www.bisonprepper.com *** Wal-Mart wheat***Amazon Author Page
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
Your bleach bottle shower was something that I have only read here.ReplyDelete
No, I picked that up in an old Hippie book from the seventies-a mass paperback with Camping in the title. I'll try to find the thing-lots of frugal tips.Delete
This is fun to play with.ReplyDelete
Nuking L.A. wasn't as satisfying as I hoped.Delete
I nuked Birdsville, Queensland Australia with the Tsar Bomba. A bomb so powerful the mushroom cloud reached space. Yet there was only 10 casualties zero deaths.Delete
I nuked my city with the North Koreans best shot. As long as they accurately hit the cbd I'm alright jack :-)
I used the same Soviet bomb. Disappointing.Delete
Nuclear exchange is pointless.ReplyDelete
Destroy the earth to rule the earth?
Insanity is my biggest fear.
You better start fearing. You think Trump was any saner than the Kenyan?Delete
I give better than even chances of nukes being used. South Africa dismantled theirs rather than give it to Mandela. Will the French & British be so thoughtful?Delete
Then there's the question of will they work as advertised?
Are they as bad as they're made out to be? I watched some guy in the us give a speech saying it's bogus & he had radioactive stuff to prove it. Died of cancer (jokes - he died but not of cancer)
We used to be able to depend on MAD preventing nuke war. But that was back when we were ruled by nasty people who had some sense of sanity. I'm not so sure about today's nut cases . Putin will only do it as a last resort. The uk recently said firing nukes is a legitimate first strike tactic.
If I was a Brit I would be embarrassed by the Prime Minister being such a toady to the US agenda. Not that the US leadership isn't as bad with their banker masters. But in the case of the UK OK'ing preemptive nukes, that is a good way to get fried quicker, in which case selling out to the US will be deadly.Delete
Massive Nuclear War are probably the best hope for the survival of the human race.Delete
You read that right.
At least, if they are the cleaner variety targeted at major population centers.
The cleanest variety mostly just kill people, barely damages infrastructure, and only poisons the surroundings for a half decade or so.
Using them to kill off 80%+ of the human race over a 1-5 year period in a massive war, MIGHT give the survivors a chance to reduce their overpopulation, and use their remaining resources to tackle the hard job of exploiting (for profit) outer space and its resources. Without those outer space resources our species is pretty much doomed.
Now if some idiots in charge want to use the most poisonous type of WMDs (chemical, biological or nuclear) we are all F'd as a race - not that we couldn't eventually recover and survive it as a species, but that the survivors wouldnt be able to access modern resources until most of the knowledge of how to use them would be lost and the remaining resources would be to old to be as easily used to create a profitable space program (miniaturization robotics computers and remote control are all needed to make space profitable, and of course the national will to do so).
PS - I dont WISH for the nuke exchange. I wish for everyone in a position of authority to pull their heads out, agree that population control, non-fossil fuel power (fusion at a preference) and exploitation of space for a profit should be engaged in at all possible effort.Delete
They wont though.
Just like they wont do a clean population cleansing strike, instead probably choosing to do the opposite hitting hardened targets and sources of resources with the worst possible nuclear bomb types when one erratic leader gets his panties in a twist over some minor or accidental insult.
From the leadership POV, nukes are just another type of war for wealth. Keep in mind there used to be very little awareness as fallout being all that harmful ( just like a couple of dental X-rays! ) and probably still isn't ( Fuki didn't hurt anybody! ). So, yep, bring on the nukes if the fight for colonies goes past a certain point. So I'd argue that the best thing for the species would be a few strikes at the major petroleum processing areas, to put oil on a non-viable usage.Delete