Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tuesday links


  1. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty January 29, 2013 6:53 am

    We know the sociopaths in power WANT to ‘track us” in every way possible. We must remember that it is imperative to deny them the power to use it – or anything else to control others.

    Yes, finding new technology and methods to confound the tracking will be good and necessary in the meantime, but that’s can’t be our whole effort.

    We must kill the roots of this malignant cancer. And keep killing it each time it sprouts anew, as sadly it will.

  2. Matt, another
    Matt, another January 29, 2013 7:44 am

    I believe the “due process” is simply a beauracrat deciding to put someone on the hate/kill list. The courts, congress and voters seem happy with it.

  3. G.W.F.
    G.W.F. January 29, 2013 7:59 am

    Wow….”Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists” that is rich. Doesn’t the US government have about the worst record in history of picking the wrong side and end up arming future terrorists?

  4. Matt, another
    Matt, another January 29, 2013 9:54 am

    I’ve been thinking about that “mere firearms aren’t enough.” It is a theme I have heard discuss by liberal colleagues. Goes along the lines of we don’t need “assault weapons” because the military has jets and artillery, dones and nukes etc. I call that deafist B.S. I doubt the U.S. will nuke your house. Might nuke your whole city, but if things are that bad you should of already bugged out. The U.S. deployed Main Battle Tanks, Aircraft, Artillery, Armed Drones, etc to Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. did kill a lot of people, but they were sucessfully opposed by farmers and shop keepers with small arms. AK-47 (real full auto versions), some light and medium MGs, a few RPGs and the IED in its many versions. The difference is the will to fight and even keep fighting when everyone else says you can not win. If it is worth fighting for you keep fighting even through privation, starvation etc. Most times it is the side willing to hold out the longest that survives. History is full of examples of peoples that survived slavery and genocide because they decided to fight an unwinnable war.

    That said, a lone patriot defending his single house against dozens of black coated gunmen probably won’t last very long. Numbers do count. That same patriot with just small arms suitable for a militia will last a lot longer if his tribe, neighbors, community joins in the fight to defend freedom. To survive we will have to break out of our individualist molds and fight together. Quantity has a quality all its own.

  5. Pre-press veteran
    Pre-press veteran January 29, 2013 12:25 pm

    Matt, another – I’m reading “Invisible Armies” (It’s a really long book…), about just such guerilla tactics, through history. Most of ’em never achieve their goal… and some of them have even repelled Napoleon. Success is even measured in simply denying the success of the invading or occupying army — Afghanistan is a good example of this. First Alexander, then the British, Russians and now the US have failed to “win the hearts and minds” of the populace. At tremendous cost to the Afghans, themselves.

    One interesting tidbit of information, is that the more successful attempts have migrated toward a more organized military structure… a hybrid of guerilla tactics with the comms, discipline, logistics, and strategies of traditional standing armies.

  6. Matt, another
    Matt, another January 29, 2013 1:15 pm

    Resistance is also helped by having the enemies of your enemy providing ammunition, better quality arms, food, sanctuary etc.

  7. David
    David January 29, 2013 1:27 pm

    I canceled my subscription to BWH back when Dave Duffy started cheerleading for the war in…hmm…I think it was Afghanistan? I got the impression that family was involved but still didn’t want to pay for more of it.

    On the tracking-people front, I don’t think it’s possible to turn back the clock. We might have to hope for a “mutual assured destruction” scenario, where it becomes…gauche?…for folks to call attention to one another’s peccadilloes. Though getting there promises to be a wild ride.

  8. Aaron
    Aaron January 29, 2013 2:36 pm

    Over the past few years BHM has become less interesting to me. It seemed like the publisher became less and less connected to the lifestyle the magazine promotes. When Annie announced that she was moving to Eugene to take advantage of the better social welfare available there that sealed it for me and I didn’t renew. I subscribed for many years but my and their philosophies have been diverging the last few years. Claire’s blog is the only interesting thing left at BHM.

  9. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember January 29, 2013 4:09 pm

    Did you see, “What Hitler Did in Austria,… an article by Kitty Werthmann who was a witness to the annexation of Austria by Hitler’s Germany… [and the three videos] discussing her experiences during the German rule.” ? :

    It was a calm interview that seemed to cover about every aspect of life then.
    It was eerily similar to today and the exceptions jumped out at me.

  10. naturegirl
    naturegirl January 29, 2013 4:21 pm

    As long as BHM has Jackie and Claire, I’ll be reading it…..

  11. stryder
    stryder January 29, 2013 4:44 pm

    This doesn’t really go with the subjects but since others brought it up, I miss Oliver Del Signore. While I seldom agreed with his thoughts he was interesting and gave us a chance to think. As for the rest, yup, laire and Jackier are read every day they post, but I do read everything else I can get my pixels on.

  12. stryder
    stryder January 29, 2013 4:45 pm

    dang sticky keyboard, that should be Claire, not laire…..sorry.

  13. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember January 30, 2013 7:34 am

    “This is how MSNBC crafted heckling where none occurred:ā€

    Man, those TV People come across as downright evil anymore.

    The means is always justifiable to them.

  14. Claire
    Claire January 30, 2013 7:47 am

    Man, yeah. That is despicable. Utterly.

    Reminds me of a couple of years ago when MSNBC used a cropped photo showing an eeeeevil “assault rifle” on a guy’s shoulder at an anti-Obamacare demonstration in AZ. Obama was in the vicinity, I believe, and the media’s purpose was to show what a bunch of threatening racists gun owners were.

    To make their point, they had to crop close enough to hide that the guy with the gun was black.

  15. Laird
    Laird January 30, 2013 12:46 pm

    On the “mere firearms aren’t enough” topic, I’ve been thinking about that, too. But I really think they are enough. Guerilla forces protecting their homes and families are remarkably effective against conventional armies. That would be doubly so when the conventional army is itself engaged in its own homeland, fighting its own family and friends, and especially where (as here) the entire army is volunteers who, in the main, share the values of those against whom they’re nominally fighting. After all, it’s the sons and daughters of us gun-toting rednecks who enlist in the first place, not those of the liberal elite. Who are they going to listen to when the order comes to fire on their friends? It would be an extremely bloody and costly struggle, and I seriously doubt that the government has the stomach for it (even Obama).

    That said, I also believe that we should be able to own any weapon we want: fully automatic rifles, tanks, bazookas, hell, even an F-16 if I could afford it. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it limit “arms” to small arms? The colonials were armed with exactly the same weaponry as the British regulars, and while some of that was the property of the colonial governments much of it was privately owned. The Revolution was sparked by attempts at gun control (that’s what Lexington and Concord were all about), and I don’t believe that the people who suffered through that and bequethed to us the 2nd Amendment intended to limit it in any way. All weapons want to be free!

  16. David
    David January 31, 2013 7:29 am

    This is one of those things that appears to bother nobody but me, so be warned that reading further is probably a waste of your time.

    I guess I can see why folks in power would want to call the people in the various armed forces “volunteers.” Though the term “army” itself, as opposed to “militia,” gives a clue that it’s not correct.

    I don’t go along with it myself. Those people are paid. If “volunteer” means “person who chose his/her job”…that’s pretty much everybody, right? So the word doesn’t mean anything. I like words to mean something.


  17. David
    David January 31, 2013 7:31 am

    Hmm. I made a comment a moment ago and it disappeared. Maybe my Tor address seems wonky to a spam filter?

Leave a Reply