One of the reasons I do so is to maintain awareness of existing and developing potential threats. Every month, more or less at the start of the month, I review the information available to me with regard to potential threats to me and my family. I expect that many of you, O gentle readers, do the same, and that you review also your planned response to same. Recently, Fran Porretto wrote about his concerns for what these presently united States are facing (see link here) His article was looking more at the threats posed by the collapse of philosophy, morals and ethics, but it is worth your time to read the whole thing; Mr. Porretto's web log is worth a regular stop, BTW. Here is an excerpt of his post, which shows the following list:
- Islamism on the march.
- Russia remilitarizing as it absorbs Ukraine and eyes the Baltics.
- China preparing its long-awaited invasion of Taiwan.
- Israel beleaguered by Middle Eastern Muslims, principally through their "Palestinian" cat's-paws.
- Hordes of illegal aliens swarming across America's southern border.
- The accelerating rise of the inflation-driven cost of living.
- The jobless "recovery."
- The surging tide of government dependency.
- Federal and state harassment of political adversaries.
- Economic strangulation by regulation.
- Judicial assaults on freedom of religion and expression.
- Vote fraud and voter intimidation.
- Resurgent union militancy.
- Rising black-on-white violence.
- The use of the "Justice" Department to prevent the prosecution of injustice.
- Deliberate weakening of our military and alienation of our allies.
- Unceasing deceit from the circles of power and their media annexes.
- Refusal to close our borders against Ebola.
- EMP attack.
- Mass warrantless searches of your private effects (electronic and otherwise.)
- Voter fraud.
I organize my threat assessment as follows-
Likelihood ranges from v.low, low, moderate, high, to certain. (1 to 5) I look at threats over the short term (6 months,) near term (6 mo to 3 years,) medium term (3 years to10 years) and long term (10 years plus.)
Impact ranges from negligible to low, moderate, high, severe, catastrophic, CEE, and ELE. (1 to 8)
Risk is the result of multiplying likelihood by impact (1 to 40) and ranges from
Very low (1-3), Low (4-8), Moderate (9-), High (16-), and Very high(25+)
Threat likelihood(6 mo.) Impact overall risk
on me (likelihood x impact)
-Wildfire V. Low (+rainfall) high low (4)
-Earthquake (local) low low low (4)
-Earthquake (NMSZ) moderate mod-high moderate (9-12)
-Carrington event low CEE* moderate+(14+)
-Hurricane ~0 (season over) moderate none
-asteroidal impact V.low (no Torino>0) varies widely low(4+)
-crop failure/drought moderate moderate moderate(9)
-EMP mod.; increasing CEE High (21)
-Fukushima in US moderate* Severe *depends on likelihood
of triggering event(4-25)
-Surface burst nuke low moderate moderate(6)
-Nuclear exchange low+ (increasing) Severe mod-high(10+)
-Economic collapse high Severe High (20+; could trigger others)
-Civil war High Severe High (20+; could trigger others)
-Pandemic (Ebola) Certain(ongoing) High+ High (20+; could trigger others depending on spread)
This is not my whole list by any means, as there are a number of potential issues that I track that are not presently a concern, and I assess threats on a longer scale than 6 months. I wanted to share this partial list with you, O gentle reader, to point out that there are only 4 that I consider a high risk in the near term, all of which are manmade threats. One concern, that of a civil war breaking out within the next 6 months, has gone up significantly in risk.
It appears, with the CT elections safely behind them, (the means by which this has been done not being germane to this article, I will not discuss them here,) that the present regime in Connecticut is rumored to be considering more aggressive enforcement of their illegal diktat with respect to laws infringing upon the individual right to own and carry weapons. By this I mean SWAT raids, illegal armed and violent breaking and entering by the 'authorities' into the peaceable homes of gun-owners who have no criminal intent, but who are determined to maintain their right to own and carry weapons.
This un-Constitutional and tyrannical action is likely to kick off an extremely bloody civil war. If only 1% of the more than 300,000 newly made felons in CT decide that enough is enough, and proceed to do a "Henry Bowman" on the local Gestapo thugs and their enablers in the media and legislature, then the howling from those who think that they rule us will be deafening, and likely to result in Federal intervention to support the tyrants in CT. This, in turn, will likely broaden the conflict to adjoining states, and ultimately the entire country. Regardless of the outcome, the effects of a another civil war in these united States would be disastrous.
The worst part about a civil war is that once it starts it will become extremely hard to stop, particularly so in this case as there is no leadership as such on the Patriot side, and there won't be any left on the tyrants side within a few weeks, except possibly those receiving Federal protection or who have fled abroad. Make no mistake, there will be no real winners in such a conflict. Anyone doubting this judgment is invited to read the various reports from the recent 3 sided civil war in the former Yugoslavia. Selco's cautionary tales are definitely worth a read- see link here.
The fools presently in authority in Connecticut would be well advised to rethink their present course of action. If they do in fact attempt to enforce their Intolerable (and unConstitutional) Act, it will cost them very dearly. The fools on the Patriot side who seem to think that they'd prevail overnight, and who blather about "Let's get this done!" would do well to shut up and use their heads for something besides a pop-up target. I hope that both will find wisdom in time, but I expect disappointment.
Per Pournelle's Iron Law, those in authority seek to continue to be in authority and to expand that authority. That is their primary goal; like cancer, they seek growth. Patriots seek to restore the rule of Law and the Constitutional limits on that authority.
Like surgeons, they must remove the cancer and leave healthy tissue (or innocent civilians) intact. There has been far too much time spent discussing the tools to restore Liberty, and far too little spent on the strategy. The first step is awareness of the risk, but one must then come up with a plan.
How do you plan to do this, O gentle reader? *I* do not need to know the answer to my awkward question, but you do. More in a later post, on this, but in the meantime, tempus fugit.....
With regard to all who serve the Light,