The other day I wrote about what I would buy if I were starting over. Article here.
Some people have complained about that article, and seem to think that I am telling them to buy what I would buy. That the stuff I talked about is too expensive, etc. I never said you need to buy a Colt 6945 and set it up EXACTLY the way I have mine set up.
That write up was about what I would buy if a fire or hurricane, etc destroyed my collection. For example, one bit I omitted, I love my M203. I wouldn’t recommend it as a serious gun for anyone (unless you have a source for HEDP). I find mine so very fun that it would be one of the first guns I’d order a replacement if mine were destroyed in a disaster or lost in a boating accident.
If you read that last article, you now know what I would be ordering if I was standing in a gun shop with an insurance check right after a tragic disaster.
When people ask me what guns to buy, I give the same answer. Colt 6920 with an Aimpoint PRO and a Glock 19.
The quote above was the very second paragraph in that previous article.
Let us think about this for a moment.
If someone who has no guns, suddenly for what ever reason, decides they need/want a gun. That is a complicated situation. “Why?” becomes the important question. If they are only interested in hunting cape buffalo, the advise for them would be very different than someone who is in fear of their life because of a local gang.
Generally it is our assumption that someone is going to buy a firearm for two main reasons. Protection of life & liberty as well as for the fun and joys of shooting.
Most any firearm can be fun to shoot, but not every gun is a good choice for self defense.
I always recommend the Glock 19, but plenty of other Glock models are available at good prices used. J&G Sales has used Glock 42s for $350. Other vendors have G22 for $270, G23s for $340. There are some LE trade in Gen 3 G19s for $380 shipped to your dealer, that includes 3 magazines. The .45 GAP model Glocks are nearly being given away at $260 or so.
Why a Glock? They work, and tend not to be fucked up by previous owners. There are less people taking files to the guts of the Glock than their 1911, Highpowers, etc. They are common and extremely easy to service. There are a great deal of cheap Beretta 96 .40 cal hand guns out there, but if a novice has a mechanical issue, it is so much harder to work on.
Someone out there is going to advocate some C&R or surplus gun like a CZ82 , PA63, or a Star/Lama, etc. Now some of these guns are great guns. Some of them have broken and sitting in a box for five decades. You are still generally talking at least $200 for many of these, and if it breaks or doesn’t work it you might not be able to get replacement parts. Many of these old blued steel guns can rust easily and require more maintenance than a Glock. Maintenance that a novice or spend thrift is not likely to do.
I could go on and on. If someone can buy a used Glock for $300, isn’t their life worth that cost?
They are still going to need to get some ammo, some training, time to practice. Buying a gun is just a very small part of the process of defending ones self and others.
Now once they have that Glock, they need to buy a Colt 6945 and set it up exactly like mine, the one above. Just joking. From the self defense side of things, many would not have need of a long arm. It irks me when people recommend a pump shotgun to the novice for home defense. While the shotgun has nearly countless merits, it is larger and heavier and most importantly a two handed weapon. Watch a novice holding a bad guy at gunpoint with a shotgun while trying to use their cell phone to contact the police. It is a mess. A shotgun will not easily be able to use it in a compact car to defend ones self. The point I am trying to get to is that a pistol is handier and most importantly, concealable. For the person worried about self defense that only has one gun, a pistol is what makes the most sense in our modern society.
There are tons of cool things out there, and plenty of cheap stuff out there, giving countless options. There are many good choices out there, but a used Glock handgun is just a very simple, less expensive, and easy way to get off on a good start.
This is some pretty big excerptimizing ( is that a word ?) Of a series of articles where an Australian Army officer writes about comparing their service rifle( bullpup) to the M4 which everyone likes better, even the Australian Army. I post it here for discussion and interest for those who wonder what allies think of their service rifle compared to ours.He gives a very good try at convincing his fellow Aussies that their service rifle is “just as good” but his reasons are less than convincing to anyone who has actually used an M4/Ar15. His reasoning and argument gives a pretty good chuckle.No offense to our esteemed readers and commenters from Down Unda who we love.
The purpose of this series of five articles is to provide a succinct and
accessible resource for members of the Australian Army engaging in
conversation about the relative merits of the EF88 and M4 in order to
improve the quality of discussion on small arms. The method of this
article is to outline the context of both rifles’ design development, to
dispel common misconceptions in the area and to try to understand the
social phenomenon of some soldier’s preference for the M4 FOW over the
F88 FOW. In doing this, several documents have been declassified or
collated and made publicly available so as to help to improve the
factual basis of discussion on the topic. In short, all of the weapons
in discussion are very good and have a variety of subtle strengths and
weaknesses that tend to be overstated in general discussion.
The Human Factor Part 1: The reason these articles exist: Why there is a group of regular soldiers who like the M4 and hate the F88
For better or worse, there is a substantial and vocal minority of Australian Regular Army soldiers and officers who fiercely advocate that the AUG is a horrible platform that should be replaced as our service rifle with something like the M4A1, yesterday. This is a complex social phenomenon and includes some individuals who demonstrate a very poor understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the various weapons and provide invalid or indiscernible justification for their view, as well as some who have a very good understanding and who tend to legitimately very highly value certain characteristics in a weapon that the M4 possesses. This section will attempt to explain the existence of the phenomenon and to validate the assertion in the preface that in a majority of use cases relevant to the Australian Army that M4 derived designs aren’t particularly better than the EF88.
Totally valid reasons; the M4 is really light, really customisable and handles really well. At the time attraction to the M4 began, the regular Australian Army was engaged in predominantly low intensity counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and all parts of the weapon system they employed were nearly identical to US forces and special forces – a Trijicon TA31 sight, SS109 clone ammunition and the option of mounting an M203 grenade launcher – except the rifle itself, which weighed nearly twice as much as some M4 based rifles (the M4 in Australian service weighs as little as 2.7kg unloaded and without attachments). Soldiers in this period were critically overloaded[i], and the high weight of the rifle compounded this problem: loaded F88SA2 weighs almost exactly the same as the full power 7.62x51mm SLR that the F88 replaced, and even more with attachments. The rifle was also not more accurate in practice than the high-end AR15s that were beginning to proliferate in military and civilian use. While the AUG had been significantly more accurate than the M16A2 during SARP, new AR15 designs had adopted free floated barrels that made those systems slightly more accurate than the F88 in theory, but these rifles had options for the installation of better triggers, adjustable stocks, bipods and adjustable foregrips that made them much more handleable and accurate in practice.[ii] In Afghanistan, engagement ranges and characteristics tended to either be so short that a short barrelled M4 would be adequate, or so long that even a full length barrel F88 was inadequate, with unusually little engagement in the intermediate distances for which assault rifles are intended[iii]. Soldiers carrying an F88 would also only be exposed to the increased stoppages (inherent to all small arms) in adverse, dusty and sandy conditions for that rifle and would not necessarily be aware of the (more serious and more frequent) stoppages of the same type on M4 based weapons. It seems certain to me that these completely legitimate reasons were a large part of the cultural capital that formed the foundation of the (ongoing) preference in some circles for the M4 over the F88 FOW.
Totally invalid reasons: absolute furphies. Having acknowledged the legitimate reasons, it must be pointed out that military personnel can be incredibly adept at formulating reasons to complain if no valid ones are apparent to them. Digging into the Centre for Army Lessons database yields a fantastic spread of primary sources from soldiers and officers on, or recently returned from, operations in the period that raise a variety of criticisms of the F88 compared to the M4 that have no basis in reality. Soldiers have claimed the M4A1 is variously: more powerful[iv] (the opposite is true), more accurate (the opposite is true), more reliable[vi] (the opposite is true) and a quarter the price of an F88[vii]. The last is an understandable guess based on Wikipedia, some non-milspec M4 clone prices, and some bad currency conversions, but it’s mostly incorrect. In reality we could buy something closer to 21 MILSPEC M4A1s for the price of 20 F88s of a given variant (but we’d also have to spend many tens of millions of dollars retraining and replacing magazines, tooling and repair parts, making an M4 acquisition almost certainly more expensive overall)[viii]. Furphies and rumours such as these have remained largely uncontested and have spread widely throughout the diggernet, popping up in Facebook memes, comments and ordinary discussion regularly.
The human factor part 2: SF Cast A Long Shadow
The M4 is a super-rifle because SF use them and SF are super-soldiers. Over the same period valid reasons to prefer the M4 to the F88 FOW emerged, Australian Special Forces obtained a mystique they had never before enjoyed amongst regular forces. In wars prior to Afghanistan, regular Australian troops had been the primary forces used to seek out and destroy enemy combatants and positions[i][ii], and even logistics soldiers would conduct clearing patrols, standing patrols and ambushes as a matter of routine[iii]. In Afghanistan, for Australia, these functions were almost exclusively fulfilled by Special Forces[iv], and the equipment, clothes, weapons and habits of Special Forces became fashionable and desirable in regular forces who largely lacked their own sense of credibility, purpose and achievement[vi]. The disparity of combat experience and training resources between regular and Special Forces also manifested in training, where special forces were seen as the undisputed experts of all forms of infantry tactics and shooting, with their methods gradually but surely being adopted by wider Army through the excellent All Corps Urban Operations packages and the later Combat Shooting Continuum. The M4, along with other SF artefacts and ideas, thus came to be symbols of status, authenticity and combat prowess, not entirely undeservedly. The very simple argument, that Special Forces use it and so it must be better, is probably the most common argument used even today – but it’s not a very good one.
The reasons that SF use the M4 are not particularly relevant to the debate. Australian SF have a tremendous ingrained dislike of the F88 family of weapons that goes back all the way to teething problems SASR experienced with the rifle in the early 1990s[vii]. Special Forces are not so special that they can’t generate subjective cultural biases for and against things like any ordinary group of people might, but there are very good reasons why an M4 based rifle makes sense for them in ways that it doesn’t for the regular Army.
The use of STANAG compliant magazines and a common manual of arms is potentially important for organisations that integrate with M4 equipped coalition Special Forces below the section level and who may be deployed without a substantial Australian logistics footprint. Access to the vast AR15 and M4 aftermarket industry in the US is similarly compelling for organisations which purchase equipment in smaller numbers for more specialised tasks. The ability to rebuild rifles for more specialised functions using interchangeable parts already in inventory or on the market also offers potentially useful opportunities to forces who operate small fleets of specialised equipment[viii]. The forward placement of the magazine permits the inclusion of magazine release functionality, a well-placed bolt release catch, a conveniently placed fire selector switch and a tame case ejection pattern far from the shooter’s face when shooting off-hand. The weapon has the option for adjustable stocks and adjustable triggers for different roles and different protective/load carriage equipment. These features combine to create a weapon system with a very high skill cap that will reward shooters who are going to practice handling it for hours every day and shoot thousands of rounds every month with better practical accuracy in a wider variety of circumstances under pressure and quicker reloads while retaining better situational awareness than many other designs.
These advantages are just not directly relevant to the regular Army. Due to its scale, it is unlikely to ever be in a position where it could accept the configuration management challenges that accessing the US aftermarket to customise rifles would bring, or even to want to give soldiers the ability to customise their firearms. It is unlikely to ever be well enough resourced to train regular soldiers to anywhere near the skill cap of either the EF88 or the M4 (which is an exceptionally resource intensive and highly perishable skill[ix]) and even if it were there would be far more urgent ways to spend those resources, while it is not at all clear that the higher skill cap translates to a higher skill floor. It will seldom integrate its soldiers with a coalition partner (or vice versa) to such a low level that a common manual of arms and common magazines would be important, and it would be forced to deploy a logistics tail for a conventional deployment such that access to coalition repair parts and magazines would be mostly irrelevant. In other words, there are many reasons that the M4 is a weapon exceptionally well suited to Australian special forces, but these reasons tend to apply very poorly to the Australian Regular Army.
One weird trick insurgents don’t want you to know: the particular issue of the difficulty of firing an F88 from the non-master side, a shooting technique inherited from Special Forces, is brought up with incredible frequency but is of unconvincing merit on balanced consideration. It remains unclear how useful this technique is in practice for regular forces (the Israeli Defence Force, who very successfully operates in almost habitual urban warfare does not train in non-master hand firing and allegedly consider it an inefficient use of training resources to attempt to do so, while conversation with special forces operators with multiple high intensity tours often reveals that they’ve never actually adopted a non-master side stance on operations). It also remains unclear just how impractical it is to do with a bullpup (elements of the British Army train a technique for doing so with their L85, which even has a reciprocating bolt-handle, by tilting the ejection port of the weapon downwards when firing from the non-master side[xi], and case deflectors are absolutely a viable option to largely negate the need for such a technique[xii]). The initial existence and spread of this objection seems to be a manifestation of the fact that our combat shooting practices are derived from our Special Forces (which is a good thing, but comes with baggage that we need to keep in mind) who don’t employ any bullpups in combat and so don’t have any combat techniques specific to the use of bullpups. This tends to imply that further regular forces development and innovation may be required. The manner in which this issue is presented, as a warstopper and with its narrow scope and potential solutions conspicuously omitted, gives the strong impression of post-hoc reasoning based on an existing premise that we should adopt the M4.
A Final Aside – Civilian Use. The AR15 is overwhelmingly the most popular modern sporting rifle platform in the largest shooting community in the world (the USA) and there are a lot of very good reasons for that which I mostly won’t go into. ( because it would defeat his entire argument) In discussing bullpups on the civilian market in America, one of the questions always brought up is why competition shooters (“power users”) basically never use bullpups. The answer seems extremely simple to me – the rules create no good reason to use a barrel any longer than you need to, and that’s basically the whole reason for the existence of bullpups. If everyone using a carbine length barrel got half the points for targets at 100-200m compared to those using full length barrels, I strongly suspect that there would be a lot more 2 and 3 gun competitors using bullpups despite the fixed lengths of pull, poorer triggers and slightly slower manuals of arms. So yeah, he just talks out his ass.
Solomon Birch is a RACT officer currently posted to the Road Transport Wing, Army School of Transport. Past postings include 1 Sig Regt, 1 CSSB and 1 CER.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the position of the Australian Army, the
Department of Defence or the Australian Government.
Back during Hurricane Irma I spent a good bit of the time during the power outages thinking about this topic. From my thoughts on that topic I’ve done a fair bit of reorganizing my collection since then. I’ve started this article several times, and held off writing it as I wanted to use it as a discussion point for when we restart the podcast. But since we keep putting off making the podcast again, and I have a hurricane heading towards me again, I figured I’d finally write this up.
When people ask me what guns to buy, I give the same answer. Colt 6920 with an Aimpoint PRO and a Glock 19.
If I was starting over with that, I would be pretty happy with that start.
But personally, I’d buy something different for my self.
A problem with thoughts like this, is considering the availability of items. There are plenty of things I currently own that are unavailable now. I couldn’t buy one to replace it, or it would be extremely hard to replace. That makes the decision a little harder. All sorts of questions like, would I want to buy the coolest newest stuff or still with older time proven equipment? Off the shelf guns, or customize everything? Etc.
For the sake of brevity, we will ignore mags, ammo, cleaning gear, etc.
For pistols, it would be pretty simple. I carry a Glock G26. So I would start with one of those. Then I would buy another to be a spare. I’d carry one while using the other for training, and switch between them each year. As I do currently.
Then I’d pick up a Glock 19. I’d be perfectly fine with a gen 2 or 3, but I would spend a little more to get a Gen 5 MOS so I would have the option of mounting what ever optic down the road should I choose to do so.
Horribly simple. I’d pick up more pistols as fun guns. Plenty of them, but they would be for fun.
What about rifles?
Now for a while now my favorite rifle has been my Colt 6945. Over time it slowly pushes my other AR15s out of that spot. So I would order a replacement Colt 6945.
I’d throw a Aimpoint T-1 or T-2 on the top. Then I would order a Surefire can for it.
But, unfortunately, the NFA process sucks and can take a long time. So I would need a non-nfa rifle around.
I’d pick up a Larue PredatAR. I love the accurate light weight barrel and the design of the hand guards on it.
I like the extended hand guard. I love how light and handy it is. The PredatAR feels equally at home with a reflex sight as it does with a magnified optic. It is great for run and gun, or you could slap on a big scope and shoot tight groups at distance. It is my favorite non-NFA AR15 configuration. If I were starting over, I’d order one immediately and would probably put a lower power variable optic on it.
Now the PredatAR uses a proprietary rail unlike the more popular MLOK and Keymod. If I wanted that, I could go with the Larue Ultimate Upper option, but given the choice, I’d just stick with the PredatAR.
So I got some Glocks, and some AR15s. What else?
Sometimes, you just feel you want something not as nice as an AR15. Something less handy, not as light. You know what is like. Sometimes you just crave something not small caliber high velocity. There are countless lesser firearms that could fill that niche.
I’d order a Larue PredatAR 7.62. All the same reasons as the PredatAR 5.56. Accurate, light and handy. Feels just as right with a red dot or a high magnification scope. For this, I would likely mainly use a higher magnification scope and set it up for firing from the bench or from the prone.
Having not started from scratch, I settled for the cheaper and easier to get Larue UU kit in 7.62 with the PredatAR barrel.
A .30 cal AR gives me a familiar platform than I can use in any number of ways. With a reduced mag, I could hunt with it in locals that don’t allow hunting with a .223. But for the most part it would just like the 5.56 PredatAR would be used. Just launching a little larger diameter projectile.
I’d have to get a silencer for each.
After putting together this core few guns I’d start buying all the other odd, rare, cool looking, or obscure guns I want. But these few listed would be the first.
“When I was a kid, people used to say that ‘It’s a free country,’
but they don’t say that anymore.” I tried it out the other day. The
response? “It hasn’t been a free country in a while.” I turned him
into the FBI for that kind of hate think.
I was driving in the middle of Midwestia in the middle of a quest
that you’ll probably hear about on Wednesday. One of the videos that
was in my suggested list was about “America’s Cold Civil War.” This
isn’t a review of the video, but it brought up some interesting points.
The one I want to make clear to every single person that loves freedom
in the United States is: if you’ve ever seen a movie about that rag-tag
elements of a group fighting a foe that has nearly utterly defeated
them, it’s us. We are the Wolverines.
I get to be Charlie Sheen, mainly because he’s still alive. I think.
I don’t mean to say that to create a feeling of defeat – far from
it. But the first step in dealing with a situation is understanding
reality. And reality is very simple today. At a minimum, the Left has
coopted the following elements of culture in the United States – they
have been, over time, “converged” into Leftism:
The K-12 educational system.
Colleges and Universities.
Most Protestant religious organizations.
Most Catholic organizations.
The psychological establishment.
The American Medical Association.
All mainstream news media.
All mainstream entertainment media.
Most departments of the Federal government, absent the armed services.
The general officer corps of the armed services.
Silicon Valley tech companies.
Many (but not all) Fortune® 500™ companies.
This isn’t an accident, it’s entirely by plan. And not only by
plan, it’s by a plan that was entirely shared. From Verified Communist
Traitor® Herbert Marcuse, in his book Counterrevolution and Revolt (bold added):
To extend the base of the student movement, Rudi Dutschke has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions:
working against the established institutions while working within them,
but not simply by ‘boring from within’, rather by ‘doing the job’,
learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels
of education, how to use the mass media, how to organize production, how
to recognize and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, et
cetera), and at the same time preserving one’s own consciousness in
working with others.
I could prove all of the above Institutions have been converged
through the Long March Through the Institutions and will probably
discuss a few of these in the future, because I could do a post on each
one. Heck, maybe it would be a great book, but only if I could figure
out how to pair hot chicks and communist propaganda.
East German girl swimmers bench pressing 300 pounds in 1976 is completely normal.
In almost any context, these organizations reflect the values of the
Left, not of the Right. I specifically don’t use the label conservative
here – the conservative movement has utterly failed in the United
States (to quote absolutely everyone) to conserve anything. We live a
country where adults telling four year old boys that being a girl is
okie-dokie (and vice-versa) aren’t thrown directly in prison for a
decade or more (after a trial, of course) for child abuse. The goals of
the above organizations would be cause for mass revolt if they had been
publicized in 1990, but now, despite no vote, no public acceptance,
each point of the Left has been accepted as the new normal.
And telling a boy that he’s a girl? Oh, wait, that’s brave. Sorry.
Despite all of that, this is not a post about giving up. Screw
that. Each day makes me more independent, not less, more wanting to
tell the truth.
And if you’re reading this, no one is done here. Freedom is always
the underdog. I really wish we’d just stop waiting until 2:00 in the
fourth quarter to start playing.
I remember seeing a film in Social Studies in High School about the
Korean War. In the black and white film, almost all of Korea had been
lost. The film ended right at what is known as the Pusan Perimeter,
right where the North Korean Army was about to kick freedom off of the
Korean peninsula, forever. It was tough watching that film.
But then we learned what happened next: MacArthur led the naval
invasion of Inchon and turned the tide of battle, leading a combined
United Nations® force that cut off the North Koreans. This turned the
course of the war, and in the process helped to create the free country
of South Korea that is a world leader in technology, bad music videos,
and wealth creation today.
Spoiler alert: we tied.
Our Pusan Perimeter is now. I had a great boss once upon a time, he
would continually remind me, “John, start with the end in mind,” which
is #2 of Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. As I look at the state of the Right back in 2016, we were at the Pusan Perimeter. As we as a nation blindly stumble toward Civil War II, I can’t predict the outcome, but I can see the full range of outcomes.
We’ll go from best case to worst case for people who love freedom. Although there are variations, I think I’ve captured all of the big picture end games below.
I named operation Aesop after the Raconteur Report’s Aesop. You can read him here (LINK).
1. Operation Aesop: Total victory.
What it is: The Right wins. Traditional
society is restored. Mothers and fathers in committed relationships are
again honored. A Constitutional republic of limited government
replaces the democracy of unlimited power. The United States is
unified. Think of it as a return to the 1950’s, but with color TV and
What it takes: Oh, not much more than the
bloodiest war in the history of the country. The only way this results
in victory is as Von Clausewitz wrote about in On War:
[Accomplishing . . . ] “three broad objectives, which between them cover
everything: destroying the enemy’s armed forces; occupying his
country; and breaking his will to continue the struggle.”
That’s what happened in the first Civil War. That’s what happened to
the Germans and Japanese in World War II. The concept of continuing
was even more horrific than the concept of trying to continue to fight.
It’s total capitulation. This is actual war until the enemy is not
capable of continuing. Not talking heads on a television show. Not
voting. Not discussion. Not a “mission accomplished” after five weeks
moving across Iraq where the “will to continue the struggle” is still
Outcomes: Some freedoms we see now would
be curtailed. Political discourse would be constrained. But teenagers
would be pretty polite, again. And you wouldn’t really have to worry
about the border.
I’m related to Patrick Henry, or so my aunt told me. I like to
imagine Patrick getting a bit tipsy and writing mean letters to Madison
about how short Madison was and how Dolly might want to give up on the
2. Operation Founding Fathers: 50 Independent States.
What it is: A return to base principles.
Originally, the United States was conceived as just that, independent
free States. The majority of decisions to be made were to be made at
the state, and not the Federal level. Each state was to be free to make
decisions. Texas could be Texas. California could be Venezuela.
Vermont could be stoned. The free decisions of free States was
allowed. The free movement of free peoples was likewise allowed. This
is returning to that state.
That taught me one thing: the thing the Left hates the most is . . .
freedom. Liberty. In many ways the Left would rather lose a shooting
war and be subjugated to the views of the Right than to be allowed to
turn Seattle into the Siberia of the PacNorthwest.
The only way this can take place outside of warfare is a Second
Constitutional Convention. I think that alone would lead to a shooting
war from the Left and a complete revolt from all of the Leftist
institutions shown above. But we can dream that the Second
Constitutional Convention would turn out well. If we did it, oh, in the
next year. The clock is ticking on this being a viable outcome. It’s
probably time to do it now. As in, well, now.
Conservatives (not the Right) seem to feel that everything is going to
come out fine, so until the wolf is at the door, I don’t think they’ll
move an inch.
The problem is that Conservatives (again, not the Right) seem to
think that the Left likes the Constitution. Since the Left gained the
institutions I’ve listed above, the Left doesn’t care about the
Constitution – the Left cares about power. Pure, unadulterated, 18 year
old with a 12 pack of Coors Light™ behind the wheel of a 1969 Camero®
Outcomes: In many ways this is the best
outcome, but in my opinion the most unlikely. This is the only outcome
where we can still have the full freedom of political discourse and the
full Bill of Rights. I’d love to turn over freedom to choose to a
California that can choke itself to death on Leftist feelgoodism while a
Rightist Arizona can deny admission to every illegal and return them
via a trebuchet if they want to.
I was expecting more girls in bikinis from Bruckheimer, but this is a good start.
3. Operation Fort Sumter: Going our separate ways.
What it is: Secession. Splitting up. It’s not you, it’s me Oregon.
The problem is that unlike in 1860, the dividing lines aren’t so
clear. Then there was a line which, if everyone agreed, would have been
fine for a split. The North could be the North, the South could be the
South. Oops. Now it would be a county by county fight.
What it takes: Just like a psycho
ex-girlfriend, if the Right tried to succeed in Texas, the Left wouldn’t
accept it, and would demand tanks on the banks Red River by morning,
which would be hilarious because tanks don’t float. Unless the
succession were overwhelming in number of states, numbers of the armed
forces, and nearly immediate, I see only a small path to a peaceful
succession. For succession to stick, the Left and Right would have to
feel that conquering the other side was more costly than trying to forge
Outcomes: If succession happened and
maintained, the United States would be irrevocably broken, unless it was
re-stitched by a Caesar sequentially conquering the Balkanized United
States. Maybe Caesar Pugsley Wilder the First?
Think they need a reason to send you to the Gulag? Sure they do! It’s Monday – that’s good enough.
4. Operation Gulag in The Dakotas:
What it is: This is the darkest timeline
not only for our nation but for our world. And, amazingly, the only
timeline (outside of a Second Constitutional Convention) that we can
vote ourselves into. It is the Leftist takeover of everything.
Although it is sold as a Denmark, in reality Denmark is capitalist with
stronger social institutions because Denmark is, well, Danish and I
think they put mayo on their fries. In the United States it will look
much more like the U.S.S.R. – but not the basketcase 1988 U.S.S.R., but
more like the 1932 “starve to death millions of citizens that Stalin
doesn’t like” (In the World Murder Olympics, Communists Take Gold and Silver!) U.S.S.R.
What it takes: Nothing. We keep going as
it is. In less than 20 years, we will be in complete tyranny. The
erosion of rights we have seen won’t continue in a linear fashion. It
Now we know the stakes.
Big Brother is our friend! And we’ve always been at war with Eastasia