Basic AK Reload (Updated and Bumped)

(H/t The Firearms Blog)

Update (6/30/2015): So my son and I were practicing this the other day with my AKM clone. The magazines were East German steel ribbed magazines. I was not able to grip the magazine and operate the magazine release with my thumb; my son could after some practice. What I resorted to--and as I've seen demonstrated elsewhere--is briskly striking the magazine release with the front top of the new magazine (the divot where it locks on the front tends to act as a bit of hook to help grab the magazine release lever) to knock the old magazine out of the rifle. However, turning it as indicated in the video did noticeably help. My son is left handed, so the reload is even quicker--he only has to turn the rifle on its left side (right side up) for both switching the magazine and charging the rifle.

I suspect (wonder) if it might be easier to grasp the magazine and operate the release with the thumb using polymer magazines that do not have the large rib of the metal magazines.

Modern Ruins: The Crumbling Palaces of Former African Despots

The former palace of Mobutu Sese Seko (more photos and story at The Daily Mail)

A Quick Run Around the Web--June 30, 2015 (Updated)

A few articles for your perusal:

• American Mercenary writes about "Military body armor and small arms" and how most military rifles--even the more powerful sniper rifles in .338 and .50--can only defeat SAPI plates at shorter ranges. As for services rifles, he suggests "don't bother trying to defeat the body armor with a service rifle. Aim for the hips and face."
• The Silicon Graybeard wonders "Is A Major Finanical Collapse Imminent?"
• SNAFU! notes that "Something weird is going on with the Chinese Stock Market..." Well, not that weird. China is an export driven economy, and so the value of Chinese stocks is very much a reflection of confidence (or lack thereof) in the economies of its largest trade partners--the E.U. and the U.S.
• "U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s." In a test between the F-16 and the F-35, the F-35 lost. While this may seem to you like a trillion dollars down the toilet, it is only because you do not understand the purpose of the U.S. military. While you may believe that the Department of Defense is supposed to protect the United States from foreign aggression, its primary role is actually procurement--the bigger and more expensive the weapon system, the better. The design of the F-35 is so flawed, the plane should be scrapped; but whatever happens, Congress will allot more money to replace or fix it. Thus, viewed from the perspective of the DOD's primary mission, the F-35 is an outstanding success.
• "Fifty teenagers storm Georgia Walmart at 2am causing thousands in damage and assaulting an elderly shopper for FUN." The instigator, Kharron Nathan Green, looks as though he could be Obama's son.

California is Cursed

On top of the drought (which, in reality, stretches back to 2008), geologists have discovered relatively high levels of Helium-3 in gas from around a 30-mile stretch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los Angeles Basin. Because Helium 3 is only found in the Earth's mantle, it indicates that the fault is far deeper than previously believed. This indicates that an earthquake along this fault could be more severe than prior estimates.

The Benedict Option and the Death of the Republic (Updated)

Notwithstanding the Court's gay marriage ruling, many religions still oppose the practice. For instance, the LDS Church authorities stated:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

I have written a bit about the implications of the recent gay marriage ruling and the potential for persecution of Christians here and here. As I noted, we have only to look at Canada for a glimpse of the future, where gay activists will use the legalization of gay marriage as a stick with which to beat Christians and Christian organizations. The question is "now what do we do?"

One route is civil disobedience and continuing to fight to retain our religious rights. For instance, USA Today reported a couple days ago that "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement Sunday saying state workers can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if doing so is contrary to his or her religious beliefs." Various pastors have called for civil disobedience, including many black pastors (an interesting development which could see many blacks lose their enthusiasm for the Democratic party) (See also here). Bishop Michael Jarrell, the bishop of the Catholic diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana, has also advised Catholics to resist even if it means breaking the law. Others, including some senior Republican leaders, believe it is time to just move on.

Whether civil disobedience or "moving on," Rob Dreher, writing at Time magazine, warned that Christians must now learn to live as exiles in our own country. He writes:

It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?

For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.

For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. [Docent: activists are already calling for this--"Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions," an op-ed at Time). The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.

This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.

One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.

It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said “a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict.”

Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts. How do we take the Benedict Option, and build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile, and under increasingly hostile conditions? I don’t know. But we had better figure this out together, and soon, while there is time.

Hunter Baker similarly warns at The Federalist:

It is not hard to see where this is going. The gay marriage debate is not about gay marriage any more than the Confederate flag debate is about racism. It is about free speech. The court’s ruling on gay marriage announces that in due course the First Amendment is to be sacrificed on the altar of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this ruling, bakers and wedding photographers had already suffered fines and the threat of imprisonment for refusing to serve gay customers. Brendan Eich was among the first high-profile CEOs fired for his views on gay marriage, but he will not be the last. Eventually, churches and religious nonprofits will have their tax status threatened if they do not accommodate the new consensus on gay marriage.

It is not enough for the Left to live and let live. You must change your mind. You must not hold disfavored views. You must be the right sort of person. If you’re not, you will be muzzled.

A few years back, the late Cardinal George of the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, who died in April, said this: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the Church has done so often in human history.”

The implications of the Court's decision on gay marriage go beyond merely its impact on Christians and the institution of marriage. That decision--as well as several others from this past week--go to the heart of whether our Constitution is the highest law of the land, or merely guide stars representing vague ideals that can be reconstructed and reinterpreted as desired. I read sometime yesterday or the day before an article where the author noted (lamented, in fact) that there has been so little activity to amend the U.S. Constitution. However, as I have noted in other times and places, there is no need to formally amend the Constitution when all it takes is 5 justices to agree to a new interpretation. Rand Simberg addresses this issue further in his article, "How Republics Die." He writes:

But too many people (including, apparently and sadly, many of the justices themselves, perhaps even including the chief justice) think that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to give them things they like, like subsidies for health care, or the right to marry someone of the same sex. They care only about the results, and are utterly indifferent to the process (as we saw with the way the PPACA was passed). They believe that the ends, if sufficiently desirable, always justify the means.

But the means matter.

If, as Chief Justice Roberts implied yesterday, ambiguous laws can be changed by judges per their divination of legislative intent, then there is no law except what the judges think it is. (I would note that in fact his reasoning was fundamentally flawed by his statement that it was Congress’s goal to simply “improve insurance markets.” I think their intent was to increase their control over our health providers, and ultimately lead us down a path to single payer. But neither of us knows.) This was not judicial activism — it was judicial nihilism.

Similarly, if the Fourteenth Amendment contains a hitherto unknown right to marry someone of the same sex, then it contains multitudes of rights that will be discovered in the future by more “enlightened” judges.

 * * *

It [single-sex marriage, or SSM] was becoming legal in more and more states (though often, as was the case here, not by a popular vote, but by judicial fiat). Such a trend was probably inevitable, and young people are much more favorable to the idea than older ones (though they may change their minds as they age, as people do on many other issues). It was creating a problem in terms of “full faith and credit” between states that recognized it and those that did not.

But the Founders foresaw this sort of thing. That is why they put a provision into the founding document to deal with it. The proper way to address the issue, in terms of making SSM universal, was not to manufacture a new right from the Constitution, but rather to amend it. But that is something that hasn’t happened in a long time, because it is (rightly) difficult to do, and the Congress, the courts and the public have become too impatient, and prefer to sidestep it (which in fact has happened in, among other things, the federal War on Drugs, which somehow didn’t seem to require an amendment even though the prohibition of alcohol did).

The Constitution was meant to be the bedrock of laws, and the laws were to be enacted by the Congress, and signed by the president, not ignored or superseded by the president, or rewritten by the chief justice, to satisfy their own preferences, or those of others, even a majority. We are neither a tyranny of men, or that of a majority. As has often been told, when Benjamin Franklin came out of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “Mr. Franklin, what have you given us?” His reply: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

When we ignore and side step the Constitutional and legal process to achieve a desired end, the bedrock starts to turn to sand. When the laws are ignored by those who have sworn to uphold or review them, the rule of law itself disintegrates. When the public doesn’t care, or understand the role of the branches of government, but votes anyway for people who tell them they’ll just give them stuff they like, that is how republics are lost.

 (See also "Justice Kennedy’s Matryoshka Doll" by Roger Kimball; and "Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Blackmailed?" by Wayne Root).

Update: The Silicon Graybeard: "On Today's SCOTUS Ruling." Also, Brad Torgerson notes that marriage, as an institution, has been on the rocks for a long time, and reminds us that strengthening the institution of marriage begins at home. And that we will be judged individually by God as to how much (or little) we work on our marriages. But there is the other side of the coin which is that God does judge nations, and even the innocent suffer in such times.

Another Update: Daniel Greenfield warns that there can be no truce or accommodation with the left:

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. ... The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

 He also dismisses "living with it" or "moving on" when it comes to the important social and political issues recently won (or taken) by the left. Instead, he encourages freedom loving individuals to be the best saboteurs they can be.

Also, read "Marching Happily Toward Our Cultural Decline" at Diogenes' Middle Finger.

Update (7/1/2015): More about the death of the Republic. From "Supreme Court Disasters" at Real Clear Politics:

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where "we the people" are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the United States says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution -- and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both this year's Obamacare decision and last year's ObamaCare decision, as well as by the Supreme Court's decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

Last year's Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government's power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year's ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the actual words of the law, and decided that the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare Exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those federal subsidies to be paid anyway, to Exchanges [set] up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, "we the people" are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our "public servants" are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

 See also "Hard Questions on Same Sex Marriage" by Richard Epstein at The Hoover Institute. He writes, in part:

Can the IRS now deny tax exemption to the Roman Catholic Church on the ground that it rejects, on religious grounds, same-sex marriage? If so, that judicial notion of “fundamental interests” works effortlessly both to expand and contract state power. It can insulate the exercise of some liberties from state control, but allow other liberties to be burdened by differential treatment of other liberties, including those expressly embedded in the Constitution.

The point here is not idle speculation. Here are three data points. In Martinez v. Christian Legal Foundation (2010), a five-to-four majority with Justice Kennedy concurring, held that it was perfectly proper for Hastings Law School, a public institution, to deny the tiny Christian Legal Foundation the full benefit of school facilities largely because of its opposition to same-sex marriage. The government can offer its subsidies to some groups but not to others, and in so doing, force small isolated groups to subsidize powerful gay rights organizations. Religious intolerance best describes that outcome.

Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Last year there was public outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which upheld claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that a closely held company did not have to supply contraceptives to its female employees in a fashion inconsistent with its owners’ religious beliefs. And more recently, claims for religious autonomy have been crushed in state court decisions that have fined individuals who have refused on religious grounds to make wedding cakes for same sex couples. No one seems to be concerned with the autonomy and dignity of those under the state’s thumb. They will have to abandon their chosen profession to honor their religious beliefs. I see no evidence that gay and lesbian rights advocates are prepared to back off of these statist claims.

 As for the dominoes or slippery slope arguments, I would note an article from U.S. News entitled "Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them."

Another Update: The AP reports that a handful of state probate judges in Alabama are still refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay marriage, leading to a threat from a federal judge to hold them in contempt of court. Although not mentioned in the article, a person can be jailed indefinitely in contempt of court so long as he/she refuses to comply with the court's order.

How Memes Spread

The video uses the term "thought germs" instead of memes, but it is the same idea.

Some Ominous Wording in the Gay Marriage Supreme Court Decision

The editors of The Federalist, wishing to see signs that Christians will not be persecuted in the future for still opposing gay marriage, point to some language in the decision that they believe indicates a willingness to protect continued opposition to gay marriage. I think they (the editors) are very wrong. The relevant comments in the Court's opinion are:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

 The Federalist editorial states:

As I read the majority opinion, it seemed that Justice Kennedy veered away from his earlier practice of describing opposition to gay marriage as some kind of pure product of irrationality and hatred. Though it didn’t change the result, I think this opinion accorded more respect to those who wish to preserve the traditional (and extraordinarily predominant) male-female view of marriage.

Kennedy may have veered away from describing opposition as pure irrationality and hatred simply to avoid crippling the Court's reputation, but his comments are pure sop. Reading his comments carefully, you will notice that there is nothing in there that suggests that Christians will be protected in any practice or act that opposes gay marriage. Rather, it very specifically indicates that opponents will only be allowed to "advocate" and "teach the principles." In other words, an opponent's right to express an opinion as part of their right to free speech will not be restricted, but there is nothing about allowing that to extend any further than mere speech.

I would again remind my readers of the Court's decision in  Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), upholding laws criminalizing polygamy, and holding that there was no exception for religious practices. (I've discussed the Davis holding before). The key point from the case was this:

 The term ‘religion’ has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. The oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punishments inflicted, by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform, in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question. It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion [sic].

 In other words, the free exercise of religion only means that a person is free to believe in his mind what he will, but is otherwise subject to criminal law. To take an extreme view, you could be free to believe that you should be able to partake of a sacrament of bread and wine to honor Christ, but the government, in theory, could forbid you from the physical act of consuming such sacrament.

So, that Kennedy's opinion allows Christians to advocate against gay marriage or teach that it is morally wrong is small solace when our livelihoods and property are at risk from a civil rights complaint or law suit should we actually attempt to act on our opposition to gay marriage.

This case is also yet another example that Federalism is dead. Although the courts pay lip service to the concept that we live in a federal system where the powers and authority of the Federal government is limited, it is a sham and lie. There are now no real restrictions on what the Federal government (whether it be the bureaucracy, Congress, or the courts) can legislate or regulate.

The implications are broader than just gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg recently wrote about the general absurdness of the extreme positions being advanced by the left and where he sees it taking the nation as a whole. He writes:

When I was growing up (“How’s that going? Seems like you’ve got a ways to go…” — The Couch), it seemed like lots of people talked about post-modernism, critical-race theory and all that junk. Today, it seems like no one talks about it, but everyone lives it — or is being forced to live with it.

I’ll always remember that line from Wendy Doniger when McCain picked Sarah Palin for veep: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”

Whatever criticisms you might have for Palin, there was a time when the one thing everyone could agree on is that she’s, you know, a woman. But now we live in an age where we must say Bruce Jenner is a woman, but only Right-wing cranks like me bother to complain that a professor at the University of Chicago could write that Sarah Palin isn’t one.

* * *

My real fear isn’t that the left will win. I still have some faith that the American people, including large portions of the Democratic base, don’t actually buy all of this nonsense, or at the very least it’s reasonable to assume they won’t continue to buy it for long. Why? Because it’s exhausting. ...

No my real fear is that the center will not hold. I’ve discussed this a bit when it comes to the debate over Islam. I don’t like the practice of insulting Muslims — or anybody — just to prove a point. But what I like even less is the suggestion that Muslim fanatics have the assassin’s veto over what we can say or do. So I am forced to choose sides, and when forced, I will stand with the insulters over the beheaders. But that is not an ideal scenario. That is the Leninist thinking of “the worse, the better.”

So what I fear is something similar in our own society; that the left gets what it’s been asking for: Total Identity Politics Armageddon. Everyone to your tribe, literal or figurative.

Spending as much time as I do on the internet, it’s easy to think this world has already arrived. It’s basically how political twitter operates. But what I fear is that it spills over into real life, like when characters from The Matrix walk among us.

The Left’s identity-politics game is a bit like the welfare states of Europe, which exist solely by living off borrowed capital and unrequited generosity. Europeans can only have their lavish entitlements because they benefit from our military might and our technological innovation. Left to their own devices, they’d have to live quite differently.

Similarly, identity politics is fueled by generous subsidies from higher education, foundations, and other institutions designed to transfer resources to the Griping Industry. But if you spend enough time teaching people to think that way, guess what? They’ll think that way.

 Looking more broadly, the Court's decision is yet another propaganda victory for Muslim terrorists. They can point to it and proclaim that it is just more evidence of how wicked the West has become and that it must be destroyed. For instance, following the Tunisian massacre, ISIS claimed the massacre was an "attack upon the nests of fornication, vice and disbelief in God."

Review of the Volund Gearworks Atlas G-Hook Belt

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

-- Matthew 7:26

It may seem odd to start a product review by reference to a scripture, but it is actually relevant here. Of course, in the above passage, the Lord was discussing the need for a solid foundation upon which to base one's faith. Similarly, a good shooting system must also rest upon a good foundation. When it comes to handguns, you generally read of that foundation being the holster. But beyond that, is the belt supporting the holster and firearm.

A bad belt will lack the stiffness and strength to support the gun and holster. In doing so, it will stretch and twist or fold during the day, allowing the holster to sag or lean slightly outward. If you are carrying concealed, the result may be that a firearm effectively concealed first thing in the morning is printing rather badly by the end of the day. This sag also increases the strain on the spine, which can lead to greater muscle fatigue, lower back pain and, for those with preexisting lower back issues, increased susceptibility to attacks of sciatic pain. All of this is exaggerated with narrow belts, as commonly used for business attire. Conversely, a good belt for carrying a firearm, whether concealed or in the open, will be stiff, not stretch, and wide enough to provide a good foundation to support the handgun and holster.

Volund Gearworks Atlas G-Hook Belt

Some 7 or 8 months ago, I ordered the Atlas G-hook belt offered by Volund Gearworks. Volund offers different methods for securing the belt (to "buckle" the belt, although none of the systems is a true buckle). (I think some of this has been added since I ordered by belt). However, the system I was looking at was their G-hook system.

The G-Hook

Loops for hooking the G-hook

Hook through Loop

System cinched down

The belt itself appears to be constructed of a base of two layers of thick, heavy cordura (or similar material) stitched together (although I suspect that there may a third layer of another material to add further stiffness) to form the backing. On front of this is another, more narrow material (the trim), which holds the G-hook, is stitched to form the loops for the hook, and holds the velcro to secure the loose end.

To fasten the belt after you have slid it through your belt loops, the end with all the small hoops for the G-hook (on your right hand side), goes through a loop at the other end (i.e., at your left-hand side), and the belt pulled tight. Taking the "tail" with the G-hook (on your left hand), pull the belt to the right until you reach the desired tightness and hook the G-hook into one of the hoops, and then pull the tail back to your left to tighten. Finally, secure the loos end of the tail along the velcro so it is not flapping loose.

To undo the belt, you pull the tail loose from the velcro, hook a finger under the G-hook and pull up to get some slack in the tail, then unhook the G-hook. Then slide the thicker portions (the base) of the belt apart.

The result is a very strong, secure system for your belt. Just don't wear this belt if you think you may need to use the restroom frequently, as it is a bit slow to undo!

One of the great things about Volund are the number of options available. The belt is offered in 6 sizes--from small to 3X. The steel G-hook is available in three colors: coyote, black, and foliage. There are also numerous colors available for the base and trim, with some 44 combinations. As you can see, I went for a conservative black G-hook, black base, and foliage trim.

The belt also comes in two widths: 1-1/2 inch and 1-3/4 inch. The latter is the maximum width of most belt loops on jeans and work pants. It may be too wide for some casual dress pants, and definitely too wide for anything more formal (although this is the wrong belt for that type of dress). I ordered the 1-3/4 inch because most carry gear (holster loops, etc.) are designed for that width, but I've also found that some clothing manufacturers like to cut it close on the size of the loops, so it can be difficult to feed the belt through at times.

However, the real issue is performance. I have had this belt for, as I said, 7 or 8 months now. Obviously I can't wear this daily because I work in an office, but I have used it on weekends and in the evening when possible, so I believe I have given it a pretty good workout. In short, it has been an excellent belt. First, it is comfortable. The only issues I've had is when sitting for long periods of time, and that is probably more an issue of having the widest belt and my "spare tire" around my waist. Second, as I noted above, it is a strong system: I've never had it loosen up, even when carrying heavier weapons such as a service revolver. Third, and perhaps most significant, is that it is very stiff and resistant to stretching. It has only been in the last couple of weeks that I have noticed even a very slight stretch or deformation of the belt reflecting my body contours--so slight that I doubt anyone would notice except me because I've been watching carefully for evidence of any deformation. This is compared to a standard thick leather belt that I have to switch around fairly frequently to stretch back into shape so it hangs straight.

In short, this is an excellent belt, and the fact that it is only $50 (at the time of this writing) is just frosting on the cake.

Survival Lilly Discusses the Air Rifle for Survival/Bug Out

Building a PVC Pulley Bow (Parts 1 and 2)

Surviving the Coming Collapse: "1 Weird 2 Cent Trick For Precision With A Pistol"

An article discussing using a small mark (which is termed a "gip") on the front sight post of a pistol for your focus and, thereby, increase your accuracy.

H/t: Active Response Training's "Weekend Knowledge Dump" (and check out the other articles in the "Knowledge Dump").

Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Mad

While a certain segment of the population celebrates the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, groups like La Raza are probably celebrating a lessor publicized story: that "non-Hispanic whites are experiencing negative population growth, seeing 61,841 more deaths than births between 2013 and 2014," and that by 2044, whites will be a minority (in the numerical sense).

A few weeks ago, I cited a statement from Angela Davis, former president of the US communist party, that the refugee movement would be the movement of the 21st Century. While correct, this is part of a larger issue: demographics. Demographics will be, I believe, the single most important issue of the 21st Century. Absent significant and widely available treatments to expand life spans, the world population will peak mid-Century at just over 9 billion, and start to decline, because of the crash of birthrates all over the world. However, before the decline sets in, and well afterward, there will be a bulge of old and elderly people. This will lead to general economic decline for various reasons:

• First, and foremost, is the drain on the economy and workers to support a burgeoning number of retirees/pensioners. This is not an insignificant drain. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) reports that in 2013, national healthcare expenditures ("NHE") totaled $2.9 trillion, accounting for 17.4% of total GDP. NHE is anticipated to grow at an average rate of 5.7% through 2023, outpacing the growth of GDP, to account for 19.3% of GDP by 2023. (Note that these projections are several years old, and undoubtedly are optimistic in both underestimating growth of costs, and overestimating economic growth). The same source indicates that in 2010, the average yearly per person cost of care in the United States for an elderly person were 5 times that spent on children and 3 times that of someone of working age. The Social Security Administration reports that social security and medicare accounted for 41% of Federal expenditures in 2013. The same report warns: " Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run program costs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers." And then there are the overburdened public pension funds of states, cities, and other local governments that are edging toward crises. The basic gist, though, is that "As a nation’s population ages, more and more older people may draw from support systems such as Social Security, yet fewer workers may be around to pay into those systems. The problem is more dire than we think. The ratio of workers to retirees will drop precipitously in numerous countries worldwide this century, potentially sending nations into a financial tailspin." 
• The high taxes needed to maintain the system not only drain funds away from essential government services, but, because the funds necessarily comes from taxpayers and workers (workers that otherwise not pay income tax must nevertheless pay employment taxes). This represents not only money that would otherwise have been spent in investments that would build the economy, but is a significant drain on what otherwise would have been disposable income.
• All other things being equal, as the number of workers declines vis-a-vis the number or retirees, the per capita GDP also declines. 
• Most economies rely on consumer spending, whether from within their own nation or, for export nations, from within those countries to whom they export. Although the consumption of health goods and services increase in the elderly, consumption of other goods and services decrease. (See, e.g., here, here, and here; although this study is from 1990, it also explores this issue). Thus, as the population ages, overall consumer demand will decrease, further depressing economic growth and demand for international trade.

In short, a population with an increasing proportion of non-working retirees is going to see a stagnant or declining economy due to reduced consumer spending and investment.

Western nations have attempted to resolve the issue through immigration: import a younger population of workers (with the added benefit of having to pay the workers less). There are, however, two general problems with this approach: workers of overall lower education and ability, and populations that have no cultural investment in the host nation. Moreover, there is no evidence that the strategy works over the long term. As we can see in the few studies on the subject, the uneducated or undereducated immigrants often consume more resources than they contribute to the economy (further exacerbated when much of their money goes oversees in the form of remittances to family in the native country). This policy of allowing runaway immigration to jump start an economy stagnating due to declining native populations did not work in the Roman Empire, it has not worked in Europe, and will not work in the United States. Absent stopping the import at an early level (e.g., the ban in importing slaves into the U.S. in 1808), or eliminating the immigrant population (the Islamic solution to stymie the growth of slave populations), the result has always been, not assimilation, but a population of aliens hostile to the native peoples and culture, with the ultimate result of dissolution of the host nation. To expect a different outcome now is madness.

A reasonable person might suggest that a nation facing declining populations might attempt to stabilize the population by encouraging the formation and maintenance of families. But this is where the madness is most manifest. No-fault divorce has destroyed the family by making it easy to dissolve a family, and reducing the incentive to form a family in the first instance. This has been exacerbated by the unfair weight in favor of women in divorce proceedings. The costs of raising a family has increased in real terms (for instance, because of car seat laws, instead of squeezing another child into the back seat of your car, you now have to buy a larger car), while the rewards (both economic and social) have declined. Of course, seeing this, a larger number of young adults have forsworn children and/or marriage.

But it does not stop there. Going back to the news story I cited at the beginning, we now live in a nation that requires states to recognize gay marriage. Ironically, the court opinion begins by recognizing the importance of marriage, stating:

“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices. 

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy wrote.

Of course, when the Court begins with a statement of the absolute important of a thing, it is because they are about to take that thing away. (If you have a chance to peruse the Court decisions where they determine that school students do not have certain rights while at schools, the Court will nearly always begin by recognizing that students do not leave their Constitutional rights at the school door, just before they take another of those rights away). And such is the case here. After recognizing the importance of marriage (speaking of course, of traditional marriage), they then essentially argue, "but what the hell, let's get rid of it anyway."

But the madness will not stop there. Canada legalized gay marriage 10 years ago, and the result has been an increasing attack and censure of religious organizations. Why should this matter? Because, people of faith reproduce at much higher rates than godless liberals. An attack on religious institutions, and the people that comprise those religions, is an attack on families and a new generation of workers--i.e., an attack on the very people and institutions necessary to arrest the decline in population.

Such is the madness.

Desert Bloom

Something I saw during my travels

Pistol Grips

Not those you attach to the pistol, but how you hold the pistol. The article--"Professional Shooters Talk Pistol Grip"--at Blue Sheepdog discusses the author's experience with different types of grips, and his favorite, as well as video from others discussing gripping the pistol. The author's favorite is shown below:

(Source)

I'd be a little afraid of using that grip simply because I also shoot revolver, and could imagine getting a singed thumb if I inadvertently used that grip while shooting the revolver.

Art of the Rifle on Shooting Handguns

The author of the Art of the Rifle blog had been on hiatus for several months, but he is back (as of May) and posted several new pieces. The most recent is entitled: "'On Demand' Performance" discussing some lessons learned and unlearned from shooting USPSA; namely, that loosening up your standards of accuracy may help your time on the competition field, but may have bad consequences in the real world.

Shotgun News: "The African Rifles: The HK G3 and FN FAL"

A short article at Shotgun News about the use of the FAL and G3 in Africa, mostly focusing on the wars and conflicts during the period of de-colonization.

Looming Real Estate Crash in California?

A few days ago, it was reported that the planned community of Mountain House, California, was about to have its water cut off due to the drought. The community gets its drinking water from an irrigation district which has been ordered to shut down its canal. In April, it was reported that thousands of wells were going dry. And since there is less water to drive hydro-power generators, Californians will be paying more for electricity. The California housing market has been in trouble for awhile, but Mike Adams, writing at Natural News, thinks that the loss of water (or at least the dramatic rise in costs) may cause property values to plunge concurrent with a population exodus from the state.

I don't see California becoming a dust bowl soon. The large cities will certainly have enough water, even though the price of water may go up. Also, landscaping may have to transition to that found around homes and businesses in Arizona (lots of rock and gravel and very little grass). Small communities and rural areas will face the largest problems, and very well may depopulate as wells run dry and agricultural jobs blow away in the wind. It won't be rosy, but the drought, by itself, will not be the death of California.

The real issue is that California is so regulated and taxed that it has little surplus to deal with a crises. The pension crises means that California taxes have no place to go but up. Consequently, there will be a constant hemorrhaging of small businesses to other states, and the ability of the State to raise cash will be limited. But, with no surplus to draw upon, California is vulnerable to other shocks. So, an extended drought (as this appears to be) combined with a major earthquake or other disaster could see California and its citizens extended beyond their limits.

Your Morning Laugh: Some Math Humor

Live Science: "Did Ebola Strike Ancient Athens?"

The article ponders whether the Plague of Athens, which began in 430 B.C., might have been Ebola based on recent evidence showing that Ebola has been around for much longer than previously believed, and the symptoms and supposed source from south of Egypt as recorded by Thucydides.

Ol' Remus Guest Post At Liberty's Torch

For those of you missing insights from Ol' Remus at the Woodpile Report, he has written a guest post published at Liberty's Torch on June 3, 2015 (and, ironically enough, discussing race relations).

Southern Baptists Call for Civil Disobedience of Gay Marriage Laws

Via Fox News, the Southern Baptist convention released the following statement:

“We strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships,” the statement declared.

While affirming their love for all people – regardless of sexual orientation, the former Southern Baptist presidents said the “cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage.”

“Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man,” they emphatically stated.

As Lund has repeatedly stated in his statements concerning fourth generational warfare, the biggest challenge for the state system in the 21st Century will be a crises of legitimacy of the state.

Thoughts on the Charleston Church Shooting (Updated)

Details are still coming out about the shootings at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina. Here are reports from CNN, CBS News and the Post and Carrier. As we know from past incidents, early reports are nearly always incomplete and wrong. However, the basics, at this point, appear to be that a 21-year old white male (Dylon Roof), facing a felony drug charge, committed the shooting. He apparently was given the weapon (a handgun) as a birthday present by his father (Update: Actually, it has now been discovered that Roof purchased the gun himself, passing a background check). Roof is reported to have gone into the church in disguise to attend a bible study meeting and started shooting after being there a substantial time. Allegedly he stated that he was there to shoot black people, and that: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”

Of course, the left (including Obama) is jumping all over this as evidence of the need for stricter gun control laws and the need to address race relations. Never let a tragedy go to waste is their motto.

Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter:

• To me, this is further evidence of why concealed carry is necessary. You never know when you might be subject to a violent attack. I recognize some jurisdictions restrict concealed carry to churches, but such restrictions should be lifted.
• Obama's comments will likely set off another frenzy of gun and ammunition buying unless the gun control talk is dropped quickly.
• This event will conveniently eat up the media's attention over other, more significant events, such as the TSA's utter inability to stop terrorists, the hacking of OPM computers (including security clearance information) by China, and Obama's various foreign policy disasters, as well as divert the public from the issue of the trade bill before Congress.

Update: Agitators want riots, it seems, based on this Washington Times article:

Black community activists raised alarms Thursday about the mass murder at the historic black church potentially sparking race riots in Charleston, South Carolina.

“We don’t need any more bloodshed and we don’t need a race war,” pleaded J. Denise Cromwell, a black community activists. “Charleston has a lot of racial tension. … We’re drowning and someone is pouring water over us.”

Ms. Cromwell said that nerves were still raw from the fatal shooting two months ago of a black man, Walter Scott, by a white police officer in neighboring North Charleston, which ignited major protests.

Black activist Michelle Felder, 58, said she feared the city’s young people “aren’t thinking” and might seek revenge, an emotional reaction that she said she understood but was mature enough to resist.

“This is 2015 and we are still going through the same things we went through 50 years ago,” she said. “This is so sickening. We are so tired.”

Smithsonian Magazine: "What Will Really Happen When San Andreas Unleashes the Big One?"

Not as much detail as I would like, but the article makes a few good points and has some links to other sources of information. The article states:

To figure out what could realistically happen when the Big One finally strikes, a team of earthquake experts sat down sat down several years ago and created the ShakeOut scenario. Seismologists modeled how the ground would shake and then other experts, including engineers and social scientists, used that information to estimate the resulting damage and impacts. The detailed report examines the effects of a hypothetical 7.8 quake that strikes the Coachella Valley at 10 a.m. on November 13, 2008. In the following minutes, the earthquake waves travel across California, leveling older buildings, disrupting roads and severing electric, telephone and water lines.

But the quake is only the beginning.

Hundreds of fires start, and with roads blocked and the water system damaged, emergency personnel aren’t be able to put them all out. Smaller fires merge into larger ones, taking out whole sections of Los Angeles. The lines that bring water, electricity and gas to Los Angeles all cross the San Andreas fault—they break during the quake and won’t be fixed for months. Though most modern buildings survive the shaking, many are rendered structurally unusable. Aftershocks shake the state in the following days, continuing the destruction.

The scenario is actually somewhat of an underestimate, notes one scientist behind the ShakeOut, USGS seismologist Lucy Jones. The report’s team was surprised by the extent of the fire damage from the quake, Jones says, but it could be worse if the Santa Ana winds are blowing when the event happens. These seasonal winds blow dusty, dry air from inland toward the coast, increasing risks of wildfires. And while Los Angeles keeps a supply of water on its side of the San Andreas, the reservoirs have been drained by the current drought—if the quake struck today, water reserves wouldn't last the maximum of six months that they would when full, she notes.

Overall, such a quake would cause some $200 billion in damage, 50,000 injuries and 2,000 deaths, the researchers estimated. But “it’s not so much about dying in the earthquake. It’s about being miserable after the earthquake and people giving up on Southern California,” says Jones. Everything a city relies on to function—water, electricity, sewage systems, telecommunications, roads—would be damaged and possibly not repaired for more than a year. Without functioning infrastructure, the local economy could easily collapse, and people would abandon Los Angeles.

The Load Out Room: "To Shoot or Drive?"

A look at what to do if you are involved in a shootout while in your vehicle. Basic advice: drive away if you can.

Administrative Matters

I just wanted to note that I've added a number of new sources on self-reliance and disaster preparation hosted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) to my Useful Links page. To make them easier to find, I have placed them in their own category at the top of the page.

Also, as a reminder, I try to update the Useful Links list with additional sites as I come across them, so check through it periodically.

Helping the Disabled in a Disaster

The other day, I cited an article from Mom with a Prep called "Emergency Preparedness Resources for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing." In thinking about the subject further, besides the resources listed in the foregoing article, I would also remind readers that the Hesperian Foundation has various books on helping the disabled that are available for sale or as a free PDF download.Some of the titles are:

• Disabled Village Children
• Helping Children Who Are Blind
• Helping Children Who Are Deaf
• A Health Handbook for Women with Disabilities

Although written for the use and benefit of third world villages, there may be information useful for a disaster or grid down situation.

Also, don't forget the Red Cross booklet, "Preparing for Disaster for People with Disabilities and other Special Needs." The Red Cross also has information on helping the elderly, including a booklet entitled, "Disaster Preparedness For Seniors By Seniors."

Jade Helm Update?

From ABC News:

The FBI is in the midst of a broad campaign to disrupt potential terrorists inspired by ISIS, with several arrests expected before July 4th, law enforcement officials told ABC News.

The latest arrest that is part of this campaign came Saturday in New York, where a college student thought al Qaeda was getting soft and "making efforts to prepare an explosive device for detonation,” according to the FBI.

Hundreds of investigations are underway in all 50 states. Many involve suspected ISIS supporters, authorities said.

TTAG Tests AR-15 Flash Hiders

The Truth About Guns has previously tested the efficacy of various muzzle brakes, but then turned its hand to testing flash hiders. Its results are here. Coming out in first place as best flash hider was JP Enterprises’ Flash Hider.

How Old Is That Marlin Model 60?

Last Friday, a reader of my article on "Replacing the Feed Throat on a Marlin 'Glenfield' Model 60" emailed to ask when my Marlin Model 60 was manufactured. Interesting question. I knew that the particular model I used in my article dated from before the mid-1970's, but not the particular year of manufacture. In making a quick search, I came across the web-page for a company calling itself the Antique and Collectible Firearms and Militaria Headquarters which had several resources for determining manufacture dates for various manufacturers, including Marlin. It stated that, for Marlin firearms made between 1969 and 1990, "[t]he first two digits of the serial number designate the year of manufacture, either as the last two digits of the year (in 1969-71) or as a number code (1971 and later)." According to my reader, the system for 1971 and later was to subtract the first two digits of the serial number from 100 and that would give you the year (in a 2-digit format). My particular model was made in 1970.

Back-Up Bug Repellent

We sent my oldest son off on a weeklong pioneer trek today. These activities not only allow the teenage girls and boys that attend a chance to camp, but to get an idea of what some of the early Mormon pioneers (in handcart companies) experienced crossing the plains and Rocky Mountains to get to Utah. Adding to the experience, each of the boys and girls was supposed to pick a pioneer (a family ancestor, if possible) and to share a story or details from that pioneer's journey.

Unlike the pioneers, though, the members of this modern handcart company were supposed to pack insect repellent, particularly since the area that this year's trek is being held is famous (or infamous, rather) for mosquitoes. We sent him with both a spray on repellent and a wrist band repellent. However, after dropping him off, my wife mentioned using Bounce dryer sheets in a pinch when she was helping cook at a girls' camp a few years ago. She swore it worked, saying that those that rubbed the dryer sheet over their limbs and face did not have problems with mosquitoes, while those that scoffed wound up being "just stupid."

There has been some limited research into this. In 2010, HortScience published a paper that found that Bounce dryer sheets were effective at repelling fungus gnats. The study found that the sheets released several volatiles, including linalool and beta-citronellol, both of which may work as repellants. There is, nonetheless, a big difference between fungus gnats and mosquitoes. Nevertheless, I found a couple informal tests (here and here) testing out various commercial repellants and dryer sheets (Bounce and generic brands) that found that the dryer sheets did seem to work to repel mosquitoes. (The second test also tested vanilla extract and found that it also seemed to work).

So, my wife's experience and others indicate it probably works.

"Sharpening a Case Trimmer Cutter"

An article at Blue Collar Prepping.

"Emergency Preparedness Resources for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing"

An article at Mom with a Prep.

ISIS Threatens Outskirt of Baghdad

From Townhall:

ISIS encroached on the outskirts of Baghdad today when three militants, disguised as Iraqi military, attacked a government office in Amiriyat Al-Falluja. The attack involved a suicide bombing and took the lives of at least eight people, leaving 17 wounded. Two of the three militants are said to be still at large. ISIS claimed credit for the attack, saying it had killed "dozens of apostates."

ISIS has continued to take large swaths of Iraqi territory, despite the ongoing US-led air campaign. ISIS is now positioning itself around Baghdad, the heart of Iraq's remaining stronghold.

"The Extent That the Central Bankers Distort the World"

An op-ed/book review from the Silicon Graybeard.

The Continued Run on Greek Banks

The Financial Times reports on how Greeks (especially the wealthy) have been removing their money from Greek banks to avoid being caught up in a "bail-in". From the article:

Banking regulators are watching closely, with Greek banks required twice a day to report their deposit outflows to the central bank, and once a day to the ECB’s single supervision mechanism, the new eurozone banking watchdog.

Most large depositors by now have pulled out their funds, the bank analyst said. 

“Last month the amounts being moved by individual depositors were noticeably smaller, between €200,000 and €100,000. We’re getting to the bottom of the barrel,” he said, estimating Greeks had stashed about €5bn under mattresses and floorboards since January. 

Meanwhile, Greece’s 3.5m pensioners and civil servants fret that despite Mr Tsipras’s promises, the government may be unable to pay them this month. 

Some pension payments were delayed for 12 hours last month by what the finance ministry claimed was a computer glitch. It was later revealed that the state payment agency had temporarily run out of funds. This month, payments to workers at a state organisation disbursing EU subsidies were held up for a day. 

Areti Simopoulou, a retired store owner, said she heads for the cash machine at her local bank branch at the end of the month and withdraws all her pension money at once. 

“I used to take out half and leave the rest for an emergency,” Mrs Simopoulou said. “Now I feel relieved it’s there and make sure I take out every last lepto [cent].”

Read the whole thing.

Modern Self Protection: "Best Way to Stop Bleeding"

An article covering the basics of controlling bleeding.

"How to build the perfect fire: Structures should be as wide as they are tall to generate the best flow of heat and air"

An article from The Daily Mail.

What If The World Is At War And Didn't Know It?

Richard Fernandez recently posed the question: "What if the world were at war and didn’t know it?" As the readers of this blog know, I've been attempting to follow the developments of the war of Ragnarok since just before its beginning on February 22, 2014. Since then, we have seen Russia secretly support the separatist civil war in Ukraine, while simultaneously increasing its provocations against NATO and the United States. 

That, of course, is the subject of Fernandez's article, cited above, called "The War of the Little Green Men." Fernandez suggests that the United States and Russia are, in fact, at war with another through indirect warfare (a type of proxy warfare). He writes:

Since the ability to attack without actually triggering a response confers a distinct advantage, Russia has actually designed a form of warfare to evade the threshold of cultural psychology and avoid the detection of legalistic minds like President Obama’s. The approach is called hybrid warfare. ”Hybrid warfare is a military strategy that blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyberwarfare. … By combining kinetic operations with subversive efforts, the aggressor intends to avoid attribution or retribution.”

The Kremlin has already employed this mode of conflict in the Ukraine. ...

This merely  continues a trend since WWII to obfuscate war by not calling it by its name (instead we have interventions, peace keeping, police actions, and kinetic action) and not officially declaring it.

But there is more. Michael Ledeen asks who (or what) is ISIS, and concludes that if it is not a Russian puppet, it certainly has ties with Russia. He observes in his article, "Who is IS?" that the ISIS leadership is dominated by former Baathist leaders under Saddam Hussein. Ledeen further opines:

Those of us who have studied states run by the SS or the KGB see familiar patterns in these accounts, and suspect that there are still active connections between the IS leaders and the men who trained them. We know that there is long-standing activity by the Russians in Syria–Assad is a principal client of Putins’s–and that Syria is strategically imperative for the Russians, as for the Iranians, another piece in the pattern. Our suspicions become stronger when we see the presence of Russians and their neighbors in ISIL. Indeed, the top IS military commander, Abu Omar al-Shishani (the red-bearded jihadi frequently misidentified as a Chechen), is a former Georgian military officer, and IS just recruited a former Tajik special forces colonel. They’re not all Iraqis. Moreover, the Russians are exploiting their strategic position in Ukraine to set up transit facilities for IS. Ukrainian security forces recently arrested five IS volunteers: three from the ‘stans, two from Russia.

So I think the Russians are involved, in tandem with the Iranians, who have had their own troops on the Syrian battlefield for years. It’s part of the global war, of which Syria is only one killing field, and IS is one of the band of killers. A big band, at least for the moment. But still just one army, at the service of a totalitarian caliphate, itself helped and guided by two much bigger totalitarian states.

If we only focus on IS, we will not see the real war. Nor the global alliance amassed against us.

 But it is not Russia alone that is attacking us. China, likewise, has entered into its own hybrid warfare against the United States; if not in concert with the Russians, probably with at least some common design. China has followed three primary means of attacking the U.S. or its interests.

First, China has been directly attacking us technologically, either through cyber attacks designed to funnel off critical information, or through old-fashioned spying. The recent hacking attack that netted it information on millions of current and former Federal employees suggest that it is using the cyber attacks to support its spying: not only does the information allow it to mine the data to determine who works for intelligence agencies or hold key positions, but probably to identify persons that would be vulnerable to being turned into Chinese intelligence assets.

Trade Routes (source)

Second, China has been attempting to bully its way into controlling the South China Sea and the important trade routes through it. Control of those trade routes would grant China significant influence over Korea and Japan--the only countries other than the U.S. that could possibly challenge its supremacy in the region. However, China's military is confident that the United States will not successfully be able to stop Chinese expansion. Due to American weakness (which I return to below), Japan is beginning to step up to take a more active role in its own defense, including strengthening military ties with the Philippines. Thus, according to Richard Fernandez, in another article entitled "The Vast Pacific," it will likely fall to Japan to militarily defeat China in another war for control of the western Pacific; and the Philippines, because of its geographic location, is critical to the success of any such venture.

In writing about such a conflict, Fernandez observes:

Both Japanese and Chinese naval strategy are dictated by these basic facts [of the need to control shipping lines]. If Japan can hold the First Island Chain it can starve out China. If China can take the First Island Chain, it will starve out Japan. The Japanese counterstrategy to China’s is exactly symmetric: control the chain. In Japanese nomenclature, the First and Second Island chains are called the Tokyo-Guam-Taiwan Triangle or TGT. You can see how this works in a map and analysis by the RAND Corporation. First note how the TGT line forms a triangle of undersea mountain ranges which break the Pacific’s surface as island chains. It is widely believed that the TGT is heavily wired with sensors. It is certainly patrolled by ASW assets (in which most of Japan’s naval investments consist) and possibly by UUVs and other wizard devices.

Blockade Map (Source)

 It will be instantly clear from the map that if Japan can defend the interior of the TGT, it can do two things at once: 1) prevent Chinese SSNs and aircraft from significantly cutting its lifeline to the Americas and the Middle East (though via the north of Australia) and 2) blockading China into the bargain. ... Hold the TGT and the survival of Japan is assured and the near-blockade of China becomes a powerful threat. Lose the line and Japan is probably finished.

From here all the crucial points are easy to understand and can be identified in relation to the map above. China is claiming the Senakaku islands because they lie on the TGT line, between Okinawa and Taiwan. If they can take that, they can move around the south of Okinawa to mine and blockade Japan. In preparation for that they have created the largest mine warfare force in the world.

Defensively the United States is developing Ulugan Bay in Palawan to block access to the Sulu Sea. The Camilo Osias Naval Base on the extreme tip of Luzon has the potential to become crucial. The Sunda and Malacca straits are important chokepoints. And of course there are the bases in Guam, Japan and Okinawa. But the keys to whole defense are Taiwan and the Philippines. Japan has an existential stake in holding these. Without them the whole TGT falls and Japan must reconcile itself to being a vassal of China.

But does Washington have any such stake? Or more to the point, does Obama? The USN arguably has the fallback of distant blockade from the Indian Ocean. It can interdict the Chinese supply route from much further back than Japan. This is an inferior strategy. But the point is that the national survival of the United States does not directly depend on the survival of Japan — or even Australia.

Third, China--and Russia--have been acting to weaken the U.S. and its allies in the Middle-East. Both the Russians and Chinese supported the Assad regime in Syria (and, hence, Iran) because they knew the U.S. would expend considerable resources to contain Iran rather than focus on Russia and China. I would not be surprise if China--which has been investing heavily in Pakistan of late--is behind Pakistan's public pronouncement that it will not be providing nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Behind this all, though, is our weak leader, completely out of touch with the reality of the situation. As Fernandez points out in his "Little Green Men" article, "None of this has escaped Russian, Chinese or radical Islamic notice.  They have got the president’s obvious limits down pat. Obama’s approach to aggression is to give proxies a bunch of weapons and training at arms length, then 'run out the clock'." More to the point is J.R. Nyquist, who writes:

The poor blameless Chinese and Russian militarists are Obama's “victims.” Yet if Obama is so wicked, then why did the “excellent Polish analyst” cited by Cernea say the Russians must act before Obama’s second term is up? Perhaps Obama isn’t an imperialist after all. Perhaps, for Russia and China, he represents an opportunity, a strategic opening, that Moscow must soon act upon. And yes, there is danger of war. But this danger is not because of Obama’s imperialism but on account of Obama’s weakness.

The rural roads in the Ukraine and Russia will soon dry out to be passable to armored vehicles, so perhaps the next few weeks will show us if this indirect war will become more direct.

The Load Out Room Reviews A Wilderness Trauma Kit and Salt Tabs

A couple reviews from the Load Out Room that you might find interesting:

1. A review of the Wild Hedgehog Get Home Alive Medical Kit--"a simple medical kit stocked with the basic and necessary items to stop a bleed, splint a fracture, or clean a wound."
2. A review of SaltStick Caps--a buffered electrolyte replacement capsule. From the review: "SaltStick Capsules are critical to minimize muscle cramping, heat stress and fatigue due to unbalanced electrolyte levels. SaltStick Caps are formulated to closely resemble the electrolyte profile lost during activity: sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium."

Tire Balls

Tire Balls

An interesting idea on puncture proofing ATV tires:

Tires containing the TIREBALLS tire protection system use a multiple air cell design which allows puncturing of several cells without total loss of air pressure. As hazards are encountered, cells are individually deflated, while remaining cells expand to fill the void. As a result, off road rescuers safely continue emergency operations without stopping to repair a flat.