April 4, 2026

Self-Reliance

Bayesian Inference: A Framework for Skeptical News Consumption

Bayesian Inference: A Framework for Skeptical News Consumption

Michael Cessna October 3, 2025 0

 

 

 

 

The world of 2025 is a highly confusing place. For years, if not decades, the news has been a confusing morass, frequently presenting as “news” what the average person clearly understand to be propaganda, only to be denounced and shouted down if they dare to question the Newspeak. It can be both upsetting and confusing.

What is happening?

It’s not so much some overarching conspiracy, for the most part. Some of it certainly is, but the vast majority is news organizations following the dictum of, “If it bleeds, then it leads“. Certain reference sites, like Snopes and Wikipedia, frequently engage in “gray propaganda”, gently seeming to tell you one thing, but in a very carefully curated way, that actually tells you the opposite.

But – how can the average consumer wade through the haze? Below, I will briefly present the method I relay on, for the most part, in writing.

In an era of information overload and competing narratives, the average news consumer faces a challenging question: how should we evaluate new information when we already hold prior beliefs about a subject? The answer does not lie in abandoning skepticism, nor blindly accepting every claim at face value, but in applying a mathematical framework that has served scientists and intelligence analysts for centuries: Bayesian inference.

The Bayesian Approach: Updating Beliefs With Evidence

Named after 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes, Bayesian inference provides a structured method for updating our confidence in a hypothesis as new evidence emerges. Unlike binary “true or false” thinking, Bayesian reasoning recognizes that most real-world claims exist on a spectrum of probability. We start with a prior belief — our initial assessment of how likely something is to be true — and systematically adjust that belief as we encounter new information.

The fundamental insight is deceptively simple: the credibility we assign to new information should depend on both the quality of that information and what we already know about the subject. Strong evidence should shift our beliefs significantly, while weak or contradictory evidence should barely move the needle. Recent research has shown that humans can be understood as performing Bayesian inference with systematic biases, suggesting our cognitive processes follow probabilistic rather than purely logical patterns.

Prior Probabilities: What You Think Before The News Breaks

Before evaluating any news story, Bayesian thinking requires honest assessment of your starting position. What did you believe before this new information appeared? This “prior probability” shouldn’t be arbitrary — it should reflect your accumulated knowledge, the base rates of similar claims, and the historical track record of comparable situations.

For instance, if a news outlet reports that a politician has been caught in a scandal, your prior probability should consider: How common are such scandals generally? What is this politician’s past record? What is the news source’s track record on similar stories? A claim that would be extraordinary for one politician might be entirely mundane for another, and Bayesian reasoning accounts for this context.

 

 

The challenge is that humans often have poorly calibrated priors. We overestimate the likelihood of dramatic events, underestimate mundane explanations, and let confirmation bias inflate our confidence in beliefs that align with our preferences. Studies have demonstrated that cognitive biases can distort public understanding and contribute to the rapid dissemination of false narratives, with misinformation spreading faster than accurate news because it aligns with existing beliefs and triggers emotional reactions. Bayesian thinking forces us to make these priors explicit rather than leaving them as un-examined assumptions.

Evaluating the Evidence: Likelihood Ratios

Once you’ve established your prior belief, the next step is evaluating how much the new evidence should shift that belief. This is where likelihood ratios enter the picture. Ask yourself: if the claim were true, how likely would I be to see this specific evidence? Conversely, if the claim were false, how likely would I be to see this evidence anyway?

Consider a news report citing “anonymous sources” claiming a major policy shift. If the policy shift were real, would we expect to see anonymous leaks? Almost certainly — major policy changes rarely remain largely secret until they are released. But if the policy shift were not happening, might we still see such reports? Also yes — media organizations sometimes run with unreliable tips, and disinformation campaigns deliberately plant false stories.

The key is that strong evidence is evidence we would expect to see if the claim is true, but not expect to see if the claim is false. Weak evidence is information that would be equally likely under either scenario. A photograph of an event is stronger evidence than an anonymous quote about the event. A leaked internal document is stronger than a second-hand account. Research on misinformation receptivity conceptualizes the problem as weighing the reliability of incoming information against the reliability of prior beliefs.

Common Pitfalls: Where Bayesian Reasoning Goes Wrong

Even when applying Bayesian principles, news consumers make predictable errors. Confirmation bias leads us to treat evidence supporting our existing views as stronger than it actually is, while dismissing contradictory evidence as weak or suspect. Studies show that people fail to update enough when truly strong evidence appears, remaining anchored to their priors even when they shouldn’t be.

Another common mistake is ignoring base rates—the background frequency of events. The base rate fallacy causes people to focus on specific case information while neglecting crucial statistical context. Dramatic claims about rare events require dramatically strong evidence, because the prior probability is low to begin with. A report of political corruption in a notoriously corrupt system requires less evidence to be credible than the same report in a historically clean government.

Media coverage frequently falls prey to this fallacy. If a person is shown a series of news stories about a particular crime, they may overestimate the frequency of that crime, even if it is actually quite rare.

Practical Application: A Daily Discipline

Applying Bayesian inference to news consumption doesn’t require complex mathematics. It requires disciplined thinking: acknowledge your starting beliefs honestly, evaluate evidence quality rigorously, and update your confidence proportionally. When multiple independent sources corroborate a story, your confidence should increase substantially. When evidence is ambiguous or sources are unreliable, your beliefs should barely shift.

The Bayesian framework doesn’t eliminate uncertainty—it manages it. In a media environment designed to generate clicks through certainty and outrage, thinking probabilistically is an act of intellectual resistance. It allows you to remain open to new information while maintaining appropriate skepticism, to change your mind when evidence warrants it, and to resist manipulation by those who exploit cognitive biases.

The news will always be noisy, biased, and incomplete. Bayesian thinking provides a rational method for navigating that noise without succumbing either to cynical dismissal of all information or credulous acceptance of comfortable narratives.

Conclusion

As I point out above, Bayesian methods are not foolproof – they can still lead to mistakes. However, overall, it is a good yardstick to start from. Why is this important? Because if you are reading this in the United States, you have the ability to effect change by voting – and if your thinking is skewed by those seeking to manpulate you, you need to be aware of how those parties are trying to manipulate you, because your vote counts.

This stuff seriously impacts your personal “bottom line”.

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

The Network State Rises in Forest City, A Chinese-Built Ghost City

The Network State Rises in Forest City, A Chinese-Built Ghost City

Paul Collier September 8, 2025 0

The Network State Rises in Forest City, A Chinese-Built Ghost City

Tech investor Balaji Srinivasan has announced plans to move into an abandoned resort city in Malaysia called Forest City where he hopes to build a “network state.” The network state is a type of anarcho-capitalism where “governments” are run by decentralized corporations.

The city was built by China at a cost of over $100 billion but has remained largely unused. The network state activist is starting a school in the ghost town called the Wake Forest School where tech utopians can come learn about the network state while they test their network state theories out in the ghost town.

Tech Utopians Are Using a Chinese-Built ‘Ghost City’ to Trial Their Network State Fantasies – Gizmodo
Source Link
Excerpt:

For the better part of a decade, tech investor Balaji Srinivasan has been calling for Silicon Valley to “secede” from the rest of the United States. The free-market tech guru doesn’t just want space from regulators and government officials; he literally wants the industry’s coders and bigwigs to split off and crowdfund their own separate country.

Over the years, Srinivasan has articulated his own political philosophy, which he calls “the network state” movement—an anarcho-capitalist school of thought that envisions the creation of privately run “countries” that are governed by decentralized corporations rather than governments.

Last year, Srinivasan announced the launch of a new school where interested tech denizens could learn how to take part in the Network State movement. The school, which was announced on his blog, was styled as a place where the founder’s followers could go to learn about the tenets of his philosophy, which is, admittedly, pretty weird.

Even weirder was the school’s announced location: a $100 billion city in Malaysia that was partially developed by the Chinese government as part of its “Belt and Road” initiative before being abandoned due to political turmoil between China and the local government. “Forest City,” located in Johor, is now considered a “ghost” metropolis, filled with uninhabited high-rises and other urban superstructures that no one is using. Well, no one except Srinivasan’s Network Staters, that is.

Bloomberg reports that the Wake Forest school is officially open for business, and class is in session. What does a typical day in Forest City look like? Apparently, it’s not all that different from a typical day in Silicon Valley. The report describes participants’ daily experience as a combination of coding, fitness, fine dining, and long seminars where they get to listen to some rich guy talk—all things they could have enjoyed from the comfort of San Francisco:

Nearly 400 students, many of them entrepreneurs, have so far made the journey to Forest City to study everything from coding to unconventional theories on statehood. They’re building crypto projects, fine-tuning their physiques and testing whether a shared ideology — rather than just shared territory — can bind a community. The price starts at $1,500 per month, including lodging and food, for those who opt for a shared room.

The Ghost of Faustin Wirkus

The Ghost of Faustin Wirkus

Michael Cessna August 15, 2025 0

 

 

 

 

 

It is a general article of faith in most armed forces around the world, that the enlisted soldier – meaning, that 18 to 22 year old kid brought into the military, because war is a young person’s game – need close supervision by a college-educated officer, so that the young soldier can be kept out of trouble. But, while young adults, far from home for the first time, getting into trouble is a given despite supervision, that is not the real reason.

The real reason the establishment and their commissioned officers, is that unless the enlisted troops are closely monitored, they will invariably “go off script”. Case in point: Faustin Wirkus…

…Or, if you prefer, King Faustin II of La Gonâve, Haiti.

Born in about 1896, Faustin Wirkus was born into a Polish family in Rypin, Poland, then part of the Russian Empire. In around 1905, the family moved to the coal country in Dupont, Pennsylvania. After a few years working in the coal fields as a child, in 1915 Wirkus enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, and was soon deployed to the island of Haiti, rising to the rank of Gunnery Sergeant by 1920.

The United States had intervened in Haiti in 1915, following a wild series of uprisings that had resulted in the lynching death of the then-President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, to – as always – “protect American interests”. The United States quickly established what amounted to a military dictatorship, administered by the US Marine Corps. Part of this administration involved recruiting a Gendarmerie that could be carefully trained as a kind of “lightweight military police”, to keep the island under control and to hunt down bandits and rebels.

U.S. Marines and guide in search of bandits. Haiti, circa 1919. Department of the Navy photo, 1919. Public Domain.

 

Haiti, unlike today, had a very credible military reputation. After throwing off the yoke of French colonial oppression in 1804, Port-au-Prince decided to flex its muscle as the Spanish Empire began to collapse, invading and conquering the neighboring Spanish colony of Santo Domingo (the modern Dominican Republic) in 1822. Haiti’s 20-odd year rule over Santo Domingo was so brutal, that February 27 is celebrated as the day Dominicans finally overthrew Haitian rule, and gained their independence.

Following this, Haiti began its downward spiral, resulting in the collapse in 1915, that led the United States to intervene.

Following his basic training, Faustin Wikus was deployed to the island in 1915 as part of the “Advanced Base Force“, and was assigned to the “Haitian Constabulary” (the formal name for the Gendarmerie) in 1918. The Gendarmerie’s first US commander was the legendary Smedley Butler, then a Major in the Marine Corps, making it no surprise that the Gendarmerie’s all-Black Shooting Team went on to take Olympic Bronze in the Men’s Free Rifle Team event at the 1924 Paris Olympics.

Wirkus, meanwhile, apparently fell in love with Haiti, and worked hard to try and help stabilize the country. Because of how the Gendarmerie was organized, many enlisted Marines were given commissions as officers in the Constabulary, leading small units of native Gendarmes.

It was in this capacity that Wirkus eventually arrived at La Gonâve Island, in 1926. While there is some conjecture – nearly one hundred years on, hampered be scanty records – Wirkus came into contact with a woman named Ti Memenne. Recognized locally as a “tribal queen”, which was a position not recognized by the nation’s republican government, she was apparently arrested for “trivial voodoo offences“, where it seems that she came into contact with Wirkus for the first time, with him aiding in her release from custody.

When Wirkus (apparently volunteering on his own in late-June or early-July of 1926) was sent to La Gonâve to assume command of the Constabulary unit there, he had apparently made such an impression on Queen Ti Memenne, that she convined her subjects that he was the reincarnation of Faustin Soloque, the first (and last) Emperor of the Second Empire of Haiti…and then convinced them to agree that Wirkus should be crowned as King Faustin II, Co-Monarch of La Gonâve in a Voodoo ceremony.

Queen Ti Memenne (L) and GySgt Faustin Wirkus (R), on La Gonâve Island, c.1927. Unknown USMC Photographer. Public Domain.

 

Well, then.

Wirkus went on to “rule” the island until 1929, when he was removed from the island and transffered back to the United States, proper. Apparently, Wirkus’ efficiency at ruling the island had cut too deeply into the corruption kickbacks Haitian politicians were extracting from the island. The United States government was only too happy to comply with this request, because the idea of a US enlisted man ruling as a “king” of a foreign island while still on active duty, was very unpopular…”alarming”, even.

Wirkus subsequently left the Marine Corps in 1931, and did a stint on the speaking circuit, giving talks about his time as the “White King of La Gonâve“. Then, with war looming again in 1939, Wirkus reenlisted in the Marine Corps, serving first as a recruiter, then as a gunnery instructor, eventually rising to the dual ranks of Warrant Officer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_officer] and Marine Gunner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_gunner] for aviation gunnery.

Faustin Wirkus fell ill in January of 1945, and passed away on October 8th of that year. He was survived by his wife, Yula, and his son – Faustin, Jr. – who went on to serve in the Marine Corps as a helicopter pilot.

So. What does the story of Faustin Wirkus teach us?

Primarily, that enlisted troops – and especially Marines – are hyper unpredictable. Give them a clear goal, and they will do whatever is necessary to make it work.

Whatever. Is. Necessary.

And for the Establishment, that is not a good thing – after all, if some unlettered, uncouth enlisted critter can accomplish national goals with minimal supervision, why do their own high-society positions and privilege need to exist? I mean, how can their friends skim off the top of contracts, when some 25 year-old kid with a high school diploma, an attitude, a hangover and a coffee pot can do a better job, faster and more efficiently?

While the foregoing statement is rather “tongue in cheek”, it really isn’t, because it is very real – after all, how the hell can the Ivy League alumni expect to shave off hundreds of millions of dollars of money deducted from the troop’s pay to fund mess hall menus, leaving them eating lima beans and toast for “Thanksgiving Dinner”…assuming that the mess hall is even open? Because the $460 per month deducted from the troop’s pay to fund the mess halls on-post comes to $115 per week – I don’t know about you, but I can eat pretty well on $115 a week, including steak and shrimp…assuming that I can use a hot plate in the barracks – which on most bases, you can’t do.

Because you can eat at the mess hall. You know – dining on lima beans and toast.

And that’s LONG before we talk about telling troops to fix and repair their own barracks – It’s almost like there is little, if any, need for contracting with civilian companies to do anything beyond making weapons, ammunition and gear…and maybe uniforms. Maybe.

U.S. Marines with Headquarters and Service Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, show Brig. Gen. Andrew M. Niebel, the commanding general of 1st MLG, how they patch holes in the barracks during Operation Clean Sweep at Camp Pendleton, California, Oct. 16, 2024. LCpl Deja Rogers, U.S. Marine Corps photo. Public Domain.

 

And this extends to security, because as the recent mass shooting at Fort Stewart, GA shows, troops trained to handle some of the most lethal weapons on the planet cannot be trusted to go about armed to protect themselves from either jilted lovers or, you know, terrorists.

And believe me when I say that this has been the norm on US military bases for decades.

Feel safe?

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

The Gilded Cave

The Gilded Cave

Michael Cessna July 18, 2025 0

 

 

 

 

The ultra-wealthy’s latest status symbol isn’t a super-yacht or private island — it’s a luxury survival bunker. From New Zealand’s exclusive retreats to underground complexes in Montana, billionaires are spending millions on fortified sanctuaries designed to weather civilization’s collapse. But these elaborate preparations reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how disasters actually unfold and may create more problems than they solve.

While the idea of the “social construct” has been ballyhooed almost to death in the early 21st Century, it is a solid and verifiable doctrinal base. At the same time, the antithesis is also true…and in this context, the statement that “wealth is a social construct” is also a fundamental truth.

Although many people at the lower end of the economic spectrum may rage aginst the idea that they are taking part in a “social construct” from the moment they wake up in the morning, for the ultra-rich, the idea has been slowly growing that their wealth equates to them the level and aspects of medieval barons, that their wealth can insulate them from catastrophic events, events that result in a “Mad Max/Road Warrior” type of world. It is important to remember that the so-called “Robber Barons” of the late-19th Century in America and Europe may have been rapacious, but they were careful to cultivate actual loyalty among their guard forces.

For the modern mega-wealthy, such an attitude is what is known as “whistling past the graveyard“, a phenomenon best represented by the “luxury survival bunker“.

The modern luxury bunker industry promises the impossible: maintaining elite levels of comfort and safety while civilization burns above. Companies like Vivos and Rising S offer underground mansions complete with wine cellars, home theaters, and hydroponic gardens. The Survival Condo Project in Kansas converted a former missile silo into luxury apartments selling for millions, featuring a swimming pool, rock climbing wall, and armored vehicles. The implicit promise is that money can buy not just survival, but the preservation of pre-disaster lifestyle.

Underground World Home swimming pool built structure for the New York world’s Fair, 1964. Public Domain.

This approach fundamentally misunderstands disaster dynamics. Real catastrophes — whether economic collapse, climate disasters, or social upheaval — require adaptation, community cooperation, and practical skills, not isolation behind reinforced concrete. History shows that those who survive major disruptions are typically embedded in resilient communities with diverse skill sets, not isolated individuals hoarding resources.

We’re not talking about official, taxpayer-maintained “continuity of government” bunkers like Mount Weather, Raven’s Rock, or military command centers like the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. No, we’re talking about private residences purchased by the ultra-rich.

Photo of the North Portal entrance to Cheyenne Mountain. Public Domain.

The bunker mentality creates several critical vulnerabilities for both survival and immediate security. First, these facilities become obvious targets once their existence becomes known. A luxury bunker essentially advertises its contents to anyone desperate enough to attempt breaching it. The very features that make them appealing — visible wealth, sophisticated systems, stockpiled resources — make them magnets for organized groups with nothing to lose.

Second, luxury bunkers require massive ongoing maintenance and technical expertise that their wealthy occupants rarely possess. Climate controls, water filtration, communications equipment, and power systems all demand specialized knowledge. When the contracted maintenance crews can’t or won’t reach the facility, these sophisticated systems become expensive liabilities. A billionaire who can’t repair a generator is far worse off than a farmer with a hand pump.

Third, the psychological toll of bunker life contradicts its luxury branding. Extended isolation, even in comfortable surroundings, creates mental health challenges that luxury amenities can’t address. Humans require social interaction, purpose, and connection to larger communities. A gold-plated prison cell is still a prison cell, and the mental deterioration that follows undermines the clear thinking necessary for actual survival.

The real self-defeating irony is economic. The resources spent on individual bunkers could create far more security if invested in community resilience, renewable infrastructure, or addressing the root causes of potential disasters. A billionaire who spent bunker money on local food security, renewable energy projects, or disaster preparedness for entire regions would be far safer than one hiding underground with a wine collection.

The bunker fantasy reflects the same thinking that created many of our current vulnerabilities, chiefly the belief that individual wealth can solve mass social inequality, and the fact that systemic risks require community-level responses, not individual escape plans. By definition, if society has collapsed enough to require bunker living, the economic systems that created that wealth no longer exist to maintain the bunker’s operations.

Genuine resilience comes from building robust, interconnected systems and communities capable of adapting to change. The wealthy would be better served by investing in the social fabric that sustains civilization — or which can at least “restart” it — rather than planning its abandonment. After all, if your survival plan assumes everyone else has failed, you’ve probably misunderstood both the problem and the solution.

True security isn’t found in isolation — it’s built through interdependence, community investment, and addressing challenges collectively rather than hiding from them individually.

But there is another psychological area to address: the delusion of “elite leadership.”

Leadership is only hard when you’re not humble…and getting into the category of being among the “ultra-rich” argues strongly against humility. “Humble” people do not vacation at Lake Como or along the Riviera on a yacht that costs more than a mid-sized city’s fire department engines. Consider the battle-hardened special-ops veterans the ultra-wealthy hire as “private security” (whether they actually know what “executive protection details” actually entail): As long as the world is intact, and the paychecks continue to flow, sure, they are happy to protect – even in lethal situations – the person and family of the person signing their checks.

But really – when everything goes to hell, who is that elite Operator going to put first: the tech-bro whose money is now so much vaporware, or their own family? Think about it.

All of the above being said, preparing for disasters – even “mega-disasters” – is not wrong. It is highly prudent and advisable. But don’t expect that burning your credit card limits on stuff will save you. Supplies are good. Training is vital. But should the worst ever happen, you are not a “lone wolf”, whether you have a family or not.

Act accordingly.

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

Mega-Disasters – The Fears No One Wants To Mention

Mega-Disasters – The Fears No One Wants To Mention

Michael Cessna February 14, 2025 0

 

 

 

 

With all the continuous bombardment from all quarters about political-this, and war-that, sometimes, we need to step back, take a breath and consider something completely different. There are more things in theworld than politics, war or even high-tech-that-really-isn’t.

And this week, we’re going to revisit something that people don’t like thinking about, because they have been taught that they can do nothing about them, and neither can their governments…Like most things in this arena, though, that is not really true. So, this week, we’re going to talk about the “End of the World“.

While this was quite a popular topic about fifteen years ago, that is over a century in both dog and TV years…but the subjects still remain…Earth’s history includes numerous catastrophic events that dwarf anything in human experience. While rare, these “megadisasters” remain possible future scenarios that scientists actively study and monitor.

Megatsunamis represent a particularly dramatic threat, dwarfing regular tsunami waves. While typical tsunamis might reach heights of 30 feet, megatsunamis can tower over 100 feet tall. The most dramatic example in recent geological history occurred 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub asteroid impact generated waves possibly reaching heights of several thousand feet. More recently, in 1958, Alaska’s Lituya Bay experienced a megatsunami reaching 1,720 feet – the highest wave ever recorded – when a magnitude 7.8 earthquake triggered a massive landslide.

The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, while devastating with waves up to 100 feet high and causing over 230,000 deaths across multiple countries, pales in comparison to true megatsunamis. This event, triggered by a magnitude 9.1 earthquake, demonstrates the destructive power of “conventional” tsunamis, but megatsunamis operate on an entirely different scale.

The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami in Alaska remains the benchmark for these extreme events. When a magnitude 7.8 earthquake triggered a massive landslide, 90 million tons of rock plunged into the narrow bay. The resulting wave stripped vegetation off slopes up to 1,720 feet high – more than three times the height of the Washington Monument. Remarkably, despite its immense power, the wave’s effects were largely contained within the bay’s unique geography.

However, scientists are particularly concerned about the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma, Canary Islands. Studies suggest that a massive flank collapse of this volcano could trigger a megatsunami affecting the entire Atlantic Basin, including the eastern seaboard of the United States and canada. Models indicate that such an event could generate initial waves over 3,000 feet high, which, while diminishing over distance, could still reach the American East Coast with heights of 15-25 meters (50-80 feet). Cities from Miami to Boston could face devastating impacts hours after the initial collapse. While some researchers debate the likelihood and potential scale of such an event, the geological evidence of previous collapses in the Canary Islands suggests this scenario deserves serious consideration in long-term disaster planning.

La Palma Island, home of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, running along the spine of the island. USGS image, via Landsat 8, 2016. Public Domain.

So-called “supervolcanoes” pose an even more comprehensive global threat. These massive volcanic systems, like Yellowstone in Wyoming or Toba in Indonesia, contain magma chambers many times larger than conventional volcanoes. The last super-eruption occurred approximately 26,500 years ago at Lake Taupo, New Zealand. A Yellowstone super-eruption would eject thousands of cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere, potentially triggering a “volcanic winter” lasting several years. The resulting climate disruption could devastate global agriculture and ecosystems. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines, which destroyed Clark Air Base, lowered global temperatures by an estimated 0.5°C.

The June 12, 1991 eruption column from Mount Pinatubo taken from Clark Air Base. Photo by R.P. Holitt, USGS. Public Domain.

But Pinatubo was small compared to Tambora. The Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, in modern day Indonesia was so massive, it caused the “Year Without A Summer“, in 1816. Global temperatures dropped almost a full degree in Fahrenheit. Among the effects, were near-total crop failures across the globe, leading to the last time widespread famine was observed in North America.

Modern supervolcano monitoring has revealed these sleeping giants are far more dynamic than previously thought. Yellowstone’s massive magma chamber “breathes,” causing the ground to rise and fall by several inches over decades. These movements, while fascinating to scientists, often trigger public anxiety about an imminent eruption – fears that experts generally consider premature.

The last truly massive super-eruption transformed global climate during the Stone Age. Indonesia’s Toba volcano erupted approximately 74,000 years ago, ejecting an estimated 2,800 cubic kilometers of material – enough to cover the state of Texas in 15 feet of ash. Some researchers suggest this event created a global volcanic winter that may have reduced the early human population to just a few thousand individuals, though this hypothesis remains debated.

Today, there are about 20 known supervolcanoes worldwide. Besides Yellowstone, significant ones include California’s Long Valley Caldera, New Zealand’s Taupo Volcanic Zone, and Bolivia’s Cerro Galan. Each presents unique monitoring challenges. The Campi Flegrei supervolcano near Naples, Italy, poses particular concern due to its location near a major metropolitan area. Recent ground deformation there has led authorities to raise alert levels, though immediate danger remains low. Scientists emphasize that supervolcano systems typically provide warning signs months or years before major eruptions.

But perhaps the most dramatic potential megadisaster comes from space. Large asteroid impacts, like the Chicxulub event that contributed to the dinosaurs’ extinction, can fundamentally alter Earth’s climate and ecosystems. The Chicxulub impactor, estimated at 6-10 miles wide, released energy equivalent to 10 billion Hiroshima bombs. The impact created a crater 93 miles wide and triggered global wildfires, acid rain, and years of darkness from atmospheric debris.

The threat of cosmic impacts moved from scientific theory to witnessed reality during the 2013 Chelyabinsk event in Russia. The meteor, only about 20 meters across, exploded in an air burst with the force of roughly 400-500 kilotons of TNT, damaging thousands of buildings and injuring about 1,500 people. Most injuries came from broken glass as the shock wave blew out windows across the region. Remarkably, this relatively small object released energy equivalent to about 26-33 Hiroshima bombs.

Arizona’s Barringer Meteor Crater stands as America’s best-preserved impact site, offering crucial insights into cosmic collisions. Created approximately 50,000 years ago by a nickel-iron meteor only about 160 feet across, the crater’s nearly mile-wide diameter demonstrates the immense energy released in even moderate impacts. The meteor struck with the force of about 10 megatons of TNT, equivalent to a significant thermonuclear weapon.

The Burckle Impact Event, believed to have occurred around 3000 BCE in the Indian Ocean, may represent a crucial link between cosmic impacts and human history. Some researchers suggest this oceanic impact could have generated massive tsunamis affecting early civilizations, potentially inspiring various flood myths found in multiple cultures’ histories. While controversial, this theory highlights how impacts might have influenced human development.

The 1994 collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter provided scientists their first opportunity to observe a major impact in real-time. The fragmented comet’s pieces, some over a mile wide, slammed into Jupiter over several days, creating Earth-sized dark spots in the gas giant’s atmosphere. This event served as a cosmic wake-up call, demonstrating that large impacts aren’t merely historical events but ongoing phenomena in our solar system.

A NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, taken on May 17, 1994. When the comet was observed here, its train of 21 icy fragments stretched across 1.1 million km (710 thousand miles) of space, or 3 times the distance between Earth and the Moon. The image was taken in red light. Image from NASA. Public Domain.

These various events highlight different aspects of the impact threat: Chelyabinsk showed how even relatively small objects can cause significant damage, Barringer demonstrates the long-lasting evidence of impact events, Burckle suggests potential historical implications, and Shoemaker-Levy 9 proved that large impacts continue to occur in our cosmic neighborhood. Modern detection systems now track over 95% of potentially hazardous asteroids larger than 1 kilometer, but smaller objects – still capable of causing regional devastation – remain more difficult to catalog comprehensively.

Modern science provides both warning systems and potential mitigation strategies for these threats. NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office actively tracks potentially hazardous asteroids. The DART mission in 2022 successfully demonstrated humanity’s ability to alter an asteroid’s trajectory. Volcanic observatories worldwide monitor supervolcano systems using seismic networks, ground deformation measurements, and gas emissions analysis. Coastal regions increasingly incorporate megatsunami scenarios into their disaster planning.

However, these events remain statistically rare. The odds of a civilization-threatening impact in any given century are estimated at less than 0.01%. Supervolcano eruptions occur on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. Still, understanding these phenomena helps contextualize humanity’s place in Earth’s broader history and highlights the importance of maintaining technological capabilities that might help prevent or mitigate such disasters.

That said, these threats are always a possibility. And chances are very good that when they do happen, you are likely going to survive…initially, at least. As the recent disasters of Hurricane Helene and the fires that have incinerated large swaths of the Los Angeles Basin have demonstrated, you are on your own. Government might eventually get to you, and your family, friends and neighbors might make it, as well, but they are likely to be in the same condition as you – you need a plan. It is neither paranoid nor silly to take precautions, whether with supplies, an evacuation plan or both.

As in most things in the human experience, you are on your own. Make a decision on your future for something other than your finances.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

The New Face of Warfare: Democratized Military Capabilities

The New Face of Warfare: Democratized Military Capabilities

Michael Cessna August 30, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: Although The Freedomist is dedicated to the notion of a free and open press, there are realities that we must negotiate in our coverage. This article is one of those cases. Herein, we will be discussing very controversial subjects – more so than in our regular articles – and we must acknowledge here, that we are deliberately leaving out some information for, frankly, legal concerns. While we are steadfastly in favor of our Readers being fully prepared for any instance or circumstance, we cannot help in that if we face crushing legal action. That is the reality of the world of 2024. “YOU are your own ‘first responder’.”

 

 

In the dense jungles of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, a revolution is unfolding. But this isn’t just a political uprising – it’s a testament to a global shift in the nature of warfare itself. The conflict in Myanmar exemplifies a broader trend: the democratization of military-grade capabilities. This phenomenon is reshaping conflicts worldwide, from the streets of Syria to the arid landscapes of North Africa.

 

The 3D-Printed Revolution

Factions of the Myanmar resistance movements have embraced technology in ways that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. Anti-government rebels are using 3D printers to manufacture both components for weapons and drones, as well as complete firearms. This isn’t unique to Myanmar; across the globe, additive manufacturing is putting military-grade capabilities into the hands of non-state actors.

While the first 3D printed firearm, the “Liberator” developed by Defense Distributed of Austin, TX, in 2013 – was a crude, single-shot weapon created more as a protest against government overreach than as a practical weapons, that has now changed drastically. Internet based, open-source, online collaboration in real time allowed people around the world to rapidly develop and prototype ideas and leverage existing technologies…resulting in usable weapons that can be produced in a person’s garage, which requires minimal skill to complete.

The release of the FGC-9  in 2018-2019 radically reshaped the field, allowing the creation of a combat-capable weapon. The FGC-9, designed by Jacob Duygu, a Kurdish German gun designer (known on the internet as “JStark1809“, who died under questionable circumstances following a raid on his home by German police in 2021), is technically a “pistol caliber carbine” (or, “PCC”) that is one hundred percent 3D printed, down to the barrel and the bolt. The FGC-9 is now “combat proven” in Myanmar, with the weapons mostly being built in “guerrilla factories” across the border in Thailand, and smuggled into the fighting areas.

 

A photo of FGC-9 firearm unassembled components, 2020. Photo credit: JStark1809/Deterrence Dispensed. CCA/4.0

 

The fundamental difference between the FGC-9 and other “garage guns“, such as the WW2 STEN Gun or the weapons designs of Philip Luty in the 1990’s is that a person trying to build these weapons still needs at least minimal machine tooling and metal stock. In contrast, the FGC-9 needs plastic and powder-metal media, and a 3D printer capable of both running the required programs and curing the injected or sintered material, making it drastically harder to identify and control the flow of raw materials to guerrilla factories.

Likewise, if one looks around the internet hard enough, plans for heavier support weapons – everything from mortars and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), up to surface-to-air missiles – can be found. We will not list those particular sources here, for two reasons: first, because of legal liability, and second, because that information should be available to those needing it – such as the rebels battling a brutal dictatorship in Myanmar – because the balance of the potential good outweighs the potential for evil: “bad actors” will find a way to commit violent acts no matter what impotent, even if well-intentioned, laws prohibiting the ownership of inanimate objects are passed.

And it is not just the weapons themselves that are being printed. The manufacture of ammunition via a 3D printing application of laser sintering technology is now capable of producing not simply projectiles (i.e., bullets), but producing propellant. While still in the early stages of development, this eliminates two of the four components required to manufacture conventional ammunition, leaving only the case and ignition primer needing manufacture.

And then, we come to drones. While drone warfare is definitely not the overwhelming and decisive factor that it has been made out to be over the last decade, it does offer some significant benefits to non-governmental forces. Drones selling for less than US$100 on Amazon are capable of conducting missions ranging from aerial reconnaissance to combat target servicing, whether by dropping explosives onto a target, or by crashing into a target such as a battle tank, like a latter-day Japanese kamikaze plane. Likewise, drone parts kits are available to build much larger drones, capable of carrying much heavier payloads.

 

Greenville, NC Police department’s DJI Matrice drone. 2022. Photo by Greenville Police Department. CC0/1.0 Public Domain.

 

The implications heralded by the combat deployment and use of the FGC-9, on top of the repurposing of civilian drone copters for combat, are profound. State monopolies on military hardware are eroding, and with them, long-held assumptions about the balance of power in conflicts.

 

From Homebrewed Tanks & Artillery To Navies & Air Forces

The democratization of military capabilities isn’t limited to high-tech solutions. Since the 1980’s, pickup trucks converted into mobile fighting platforms—often dubbed “technicals”—have become ubiquitous in small-scale conflicts. These improvised fighting vehicles represent a low-tech but highly effective form of military innovation.

In Syria, this concept has been taken to new extremes. Civilian defense groups of all factions have constructed homemade armored vehicles, resembling mini-tanks, using salvaged materials and ingenious engineering. These vehicles, while not a match for modern main battle tanks (even when armed with ATGM’s), have proven surprisingly effective in urban combat scenarios. Of course, the use of these “technicals“, even if only otherwise standard pickup trucks fitted with machine guns in their beds, provides a low-tech group with a fast-moving force that can swiftly achieve spectacular results, given the right conditions.

But combat vehicles are not limited to armed pickup trucks. Returning to Syria, various forces in the mid-2010’s began building so-called “Hell Cannons“. These improvised artillery pieces fired homemade projectiles made from large propane canisters, capable of packing an impressive payload of explosives. While slow to load and not particularly accurate, these weapons are capable of inflicting significant damage on any area where their shells land. And, if fired as a battery, they can somewhat mitigate their slow reloading speed, as these weapons are almost always mounted on trailers, allowing them to be swiftly displaced and re-positioned.

 

“Hell Cannon” in Syria, 2014. CC0/1.0 Public Domain.

 

Similarly, there has been a maturing of “improvised navies“. Beginning, in the modern era, with the “Tamil Tigers” extensive use of smallcraft, as well as leveraging civilian freighters as mobile sea bases, many navies – notably that of Iran – have embraced the widespread use of small, high-speed boats to both attack larger civilian vessels, but also to execute the normal range of of uses for such vessels, such as inshore patrol and policing (in small, poor nations), guerrilla supply along inshore and riverine areas, and the insertion of small teams of combat troops – much like large-state special forces – into remote areas to avoid interception. This has occasionally escalated to actual, theater-level amphibious campaigns.

In the America’s, “narco submarines” have been a continual headache for police and naval forces in several countries. While these vessels (most are not really ‘submarines‘…but some are) are not known to be used for covert insertions, they certainly can be. For the moment, however, the United States seems to still be blessed with the rule from before the 9/11 Attacks, that most of the terrorist and guerrilla groups in the world refrained from attacking targets inside the United States, as most of their funding came from ex-patriot donations from their communities of immigrants and refugees living here.

 

Crew of the Coast Guard cutter Stratton interdicting semi-submersible vessel on July 18 2015. USCG photo bu PO2 LaNola Stone. Public Domain.

 

But there is also a little talked about element: “DIY Air Forces“. Increasingly, in addition to drones, well-funded insurgent groups are leveraging lightweight civilian aircraft, including autogyros. While the legions of internet flag officers around the world laughed at the Communist Chinese idea of deploying autogyros for lightweight air assault…but, after the Hamas offensive that began on October 7th of 2023, only the truly stupid still laugh, as Hamas deployed airborne raiders (against, being fair, a group of unarmed teens and 20-somethings at a rave) via paragliders, which are essentially a parachute driven by a large fan worn by the user.

Technology is advancing, and the once-fanciful shticks used as stunts in movies from the 1960’s to the 1990’s, are no longer fantasy, but hard, capable combat systems that are affordable – and acquirable – by virtually anyone.

 

Training, Command, and Combat Control in the Digital Age

Perhaps one of the most striking examples of democratized military capabilities comes from recent conflicts, where non-state actors have rapidly established sophisticated command and control systems using off-the-shelf technology.

In the terrorist assault on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008, the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacker’s command group repurposed a commercial office as an improvised command center, and did so at short notice. Equipped with consumer-grade computers, open-source mapping software, and encrypted messaging apps, they coordinated dispersed, complex operations, including verifying assassination targets in real time, using Google to match pictures of victims to their names and titles via facial recognition technologies, with an efficiency that rivaled traditional military and police command structures.

More and more, new desktop software and smartphone-based apps are offering armed non-governmental actors the ability to use many of the same tools as far better funded national armed forces. These tools run the gamut, from translation apps to 3D mapping and planning tools that, hwiler perhaps not exactly ‘military spec’, are certainly ‘good enough’; in some cases, regular national forces use many of these same programs and apps, because the civilian developers simply build better tools.

But there is a deeper question: How are “rag-tag guerrillas” acquiring the training necessary to conduct these operations?

In the ‘old days’, this was mostly done via trial and error or via some group of experienced advisors, either from the national military, or from a ‘friendly’ foreign power; occasionally, desperate but well-funded groups would hire foreign mercenaries to train and lead their “popular liberation forces” in the field…But today, those blocked or otherwise unable to attend formal military training courses have an alternate: finding military training manuals online.

There are literally dozens of archival repositories scattered throughout the internet, loaded with declassified or never-classified military manuals from dozens of nations. These are frequently the current editions of manuals on a given subject. It is important to note that this is no substitute for a measured, supervised course of instruction. Leaders – especially military leaders – are not created overnight. However…in an environment where military leadership is suddenly needed, those individuals who see themselves as filling that role, can now tweeze out at least a reasonable series of academic learning.

But what about actual “field training“?

In previous decades of the late-20th Century, civilians attempting to provide themselves with military training usually resorted, to be frank, to the old children’s game pf “Army”, shouting “BANG!” at each other with rifles; in this, they were not too different from pre-World War 2 training, at least in the United States. The US military, obviously, radically reformed its training regimen after that war, to make its troops far better prepared for the next go-round.

Today, however, the increasing popularity of “combat games” such as AirSoft (or the older paintball) offer a facsimile of military training – neither as good, nor as consistent as a regular force – that is still sufficient to offer much more than a “first step”.

 

The Global Implications of Military-Sphere Democratization

The democratization of military capabilities is redrawing the maps of global power and conflict. Small nations and non-state actors now have access to capabilities once reserved solely to major powers and their proxies. This shift is forcing a reevaluation of traditional military doctrines and international relations:

 

  1. Asymmetric Warfare Evolved: The line between state and non-state military capabilities is blurring, making conflicts more unpredictable and potentially more protracted.
  2. Proliferation Challenges: Traditional arms control measures are struggling to adapt to a world where military capabilities can be ‘printed’ or improvised.
  3. Ethics and Legality: The ease of accessing military capabilities raises complex ethical and legal questions about the conduct of war and the definition of combatants.
  4. Innovation Acceleration: The decentralized nature of these developments is driving rapid innovation, often outpacing traditional military R&D cycles.
  5. Global Security Landscape: As capabilities proliferate, the potential for conflict may increase, but so too might the barriers to large-scale war.

 

A Look Ahead

In this new landscape, the international community faces tough questions. How does the world manage the proliferation of military capabilities in an age of digital sharing and additive manufacture? Can international laws and norms adapt quickly enough to address these changes?

The democratization of military capabilities is not just changing how wars are fought; it’s changing who can fight them effectively and why they’re fought in the first place. As technology continues to evolve, so too will the face of warfare. The challenge for the global community is to navigate this new reality, seeking ways to harness its potential for defense and deterrence while mitigating its risks. The reality, however, is that the result of both the widespread dissemination of information, matched to blockchain technology, virtual private networks (VPNs), and additive manufacture, make controlling the flow of information virtually impossible.

In the jungles of Myanmar, the deserts of Syria, and countless other corners of the globe, the future of conflict is being written not just by states and their armies, but by individuals armed with ingenuity, determination, and increasingly, the tools to challenge traditional power structures. The world must take notice and adapt, for the genie of democratized military capability cannot be put back in the bottle.

At the same time, these tools are just that – tools. Tools are inanimate objects, and because of this, they have no independent intent. Tools are used for both good and evil actions, and those with the intent determine the direction and tone of the use of those tools – no matter where those tools are directed.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

Michael Cessna August 2, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

Amid the ongoing chaos of in the world of 2024, other areas of military research and development continue apace. Despite nearly thirty years of warfare in the arid climates of the Middle east, as climate change reshapes the Arctic and Antarctic landscapes, these once-forbidding regions are being strenuously studied as new arenas for potential conflict. Polar warfare, long considered a niche aspect of military strategy, is now gaining prominence as nations vie for resources and strategic advantages in these harsh environments.

Arctic region (orthographic projection) with national borders and land highlighted. 2023. Credit: Heraldry, Isochrone. CCA/3.0.

The Arctic, in particular, has become a focal point of international interest. With an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas, the region is attracting attention from both Arctic and non-Arctic nations. As ice coverage over the poles recedes, new shipping routes are opening up, promising shorter transit times between Europe and Asia. These developments have spurred a renewed focus on developing and improving military capabilities suited to polar conditions.

The Antarctic Continent, 1928 map. Credit: New York Times. Public Domain.

The challenges of warfare in polar regions are numerous and unique. Extreme cold, unpredictable weather, and long periods of darkness or constant daylight create a hostile environment for both personnel and equipment. Standard military gear often fails in these conditions, necessitating specialized cold-weather equipment and extensive training for troops.

One of the primary concerns in polar warfare is cold-weather logistics. The vast, often empty expanses of the Arctic and Antarctic make supply lines long and vulnerable. Fuel consumption increases dramatically in cold weather, and equipment requires constant maintenance to prevent freezing and malfunction. These factors make theater sustainment a critical aspect of polar military operations.

Naval operations in polar regions present their own set of challenges. Ice-covered waters require specially designed ships with reinforced hulls. Icebreaker ships become crucial assets, not just for clearing paths but also for projecting power and maintaining presence in these regions. Submarines, long seen as the ideal platform for under-ice operations, are gaining renewed importance in polar strategy.

The USCG Healy (WAGB-20) breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome, Alaska, Jan. 6, 2012. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis, U.S. Coast Guard. Public Domain.

Air power in polar regions is complicated by the lack of established airfields and the effects of cold on aircraft systems. However, long-range patrol aircraft and drones are becoming increasingly important for surveillance and maintaining situational awareness over vast Arctic expanses. While the US Navy has only recently resumed carrier operations north of the Actic Circle after a near-thirty year absence, there has a been a steady, if quiet, push to improve operational capabilities for ship-based aviation going on for the last decade or so.

Ground operations in polar environments also require specialized training and equipment. Troops require specialized – and thus, very expensive – training in cold-weather survival techniques and must be able to operate vehicles and weapons in the extreme environments they will encounter. White-out conditions, crevasses, and unstable ice make movement treacherous, requiring expert navigation skills and fast reactions. These aspects of arctic warfare were brought into sharp focus during the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982, when an attempt to insert a Special Air Service (SAS) team onto Fortuna Glacier on the island of South Georgia, went disastrously wrong, although fortunately without fatalities.

The role of technology in polar warfare cannot be overstated. Satellite communications, crucial for modern military operations, can be unreliable at extreme latitudes. GPS systems also face challenges, necessitating the development of alternative navigation methods. Advanced sensors capable of operating in harsh conditions are becoming increasingly important for detection and targeting in the polar environment.

Several nations are actively developing their polar warfare capabilities. Russia, with the world’s longest Arctic coastline, has been particularly active in militarizing its northern regions. The country has reopened Soviet-era Arctic bases and is developing new icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels, as well as hypersonic missiles adapted to the Arctic environment. The United States, Canada, and Nordic countries are also enhancing their Arctic capabilities, conducting regular exercises in the region.

In the Antarctic, while the Antarctic Treaty System prohibits military activity, nations maintain a presence through scientific research stations. However, the potential for future conflict cannot be ignored, particularly as the treaty comes up for potential revision in 2048. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, is attempting to establish its own presence on the continent, claiming both “property rights” on the continent, as well as stating that the terms of the 1959 treaty system do not apply to them, as they were never signatories to that treaty. It remains to be seen what, if anything, may come of this apparent (hopefully) chest-thumping.

Remaining in the forefront of the Treaty System’s signatories is “Operation Highjump“, now remembered in popular media mostly for various conspiracy theories. In fact, the United States sent a massive force, Task Force 68, totaling some seventy ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea (CV-47), acting as the flagship. Whatever the actual reasons for the expedition, the ability of the United States to operate in the extremes of the Antarctic was one of the factors that ultimately lead to the establishment of the Treaty System a decade later.

A U.S. Navy personnel use a bulldozer to clear a path to facilitate transport of supplies from ships during Operation Highjump in Antarctica. Note the supply ships USS Yancey (AKA-93), right, and USS Merrick (AKA-97) in the background. US Navy photo, c.1947. Public Domain.

The geopolitical implications of increased military activity in polar regions are significant. There are concerns that the Arctic could become a new theater of great power competition, potentially destabilizing the current international order. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for Arctic nations, has so far managed to maintain cooperation on issues like search and rescue and environmental protection. However, military matters are explicitly excluded from its mandate.

Environmental concerns add another layer of complexity to polar warfare. The fragile ecosystems of the Arctic and Antarctic are particularly vulnerable to pollution and disturbance. Military activities, from exercises to potential conflicts, could have severe and long-lasting impacts on these environments.

As nations develop their polar warfare capabilities, there is a growing need for international dialogue and agreements to prevent militarization from spiraling into conflict. Transparency in military activities, joint exercises focused on common challenges like search and rescue, and agreements on resource exploitation could help maintain stability in these regions. These needs for dialog and agreement, however, will only be effective if strengthened by realistic enforcement protocols, something that has been studiously avoided since 1959.

The future of polar warfare will certainly be shaped by technological advancements: autonomous systems capable of operating in extreme conditions to reduce the risks to human personnel; advanced materials science to provide better cold-weather gear and more resilient equipment; improved satellite and communication technologies could enhance command and control capabilities in these remote regions. These form only the tip of research that can be applied to the issue at hand.

Climate change – from whatever source – will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the polar battlespace. As ice coverage decreases, new areas will become accessible for military operations. However, this also means that the environment will be in constant flux, requiring adaptable strategies and equipment.

As the polar regions become more accessible and strategically important, military planners worldwide are grappling with the unique challenges of potential conflicts in these extreme environments. The combination of harsh conditions, valuable resources, and geopolitical tensions makes the Arctic and Antarctic potential flash-points for future conflicts. As technology advances and climate change reshapes these landscapes, the nature of polar warfare will continue to evolve, presenting both challenges and opportunities for nations with interests in these regions.

War happens everywhere. You either prepare for war in any environment, or you cede that environment to whoever gets there first.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Kathleen H. Hicks (2016), Undersea Warfare in Northern Europe
  2. Klaus Dodds and Mark Nuttall (2015), The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic
  3. James Kraska, Editor (2013), Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change
  4. Shelagh D. Grant (2010), Polar Imperative: A History of Arctic Sovereignty in North America
  5. Brian Garfield (1995), Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

 

One Step Closer – Congress Moves To Automate Draft Registration

One Step Closer – Congress Moves To Automate Draft Registration

Michael Cessna June 15, 2024 0

 

 

 

ICYMI — On May 22, Representative Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), sponsored a bill to automate the registration of all males within the United States aged 18 to 26 into the Selective Service System, also known as the Draft. This comes amid the ongoing disaster of military recruiting numbers.

Now, the House has passed this measure as part of the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Once again, Democrats all about putting your children “behind the trigger”…not theirs. Democrats love war – they just suck at waging it.

The only glimmer of brightness in this morass, is the inclusion of measures curbing various “woke” ideologies, including pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+, and various lunatic psuedo-environmental “Sciencisms”, guaranteeing some level of delay to the process.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Is Gun Control Finally In Retreat? You Had Better Hope So

Is Gun Control Finally In Retreat? You Had Better Hope So

Michael Cessna June 14, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

This morning, June 14th, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Trump-era ban on “bump stocks” for semi-automatic rifles.

Justifiably, the “Pro-2A Sphere” is rejoicing; predictably, their “anti” opponents are screaming hysterically, crying that there will be “blood in the streets” over letting what amounts to a toy that has never been used in a crime (that’s for an entirely different article). But the real question is: Is this really a victory?

Trump’s decision to push the bump-stock ban was an abject failure of leadership. It was also treasonous, as are every single blanket gun control law, proposed law or regulation, at every level of government and law enforcement in the United States.

Let me explain.

Gun control in the United States has a comparatively short history. Prior to 1934, there were no specific restrictions on firearms at the Federal level. At all. That included owning cannons and other types of artillery, as well as arming private warships, which someone should remind the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave about. The few mentions of firearms ownership at the Federal level of law enforcement either specified what weapons every citizen was required to maintain, but also specified – twice – that restrictions on civilian firearms ownership were not simply specifically forbidden, but that firearms ownership in the United States has a specifically military character. Naturally, anti-gun sentiment wants desperately to dismiss or ignore this sentiment. Increasingly – thankfully – these childish views are being dismissed, not only by the Supreme Court, but by lower courts as well, albeit in uneven language.

One recent tack anti-gun promoters have tried to employ is the “well regulated” clause in the 2nd Amendment, weaving the tortuous logic that “well regulated” somehow equates to the Federal Government having the ability to remove firearms from private hands at will. Clearly, these are silly arguments. A far better argument is to point out that “the Militia”, as such, has no ability to either muster or train…and that is absolutely correct. The Presser v. Illinois case cited above specified that the “several states” held the sole authority of managing military affairs within their state boundaries, except when it came to Federal military forces. The caveat to that was that states quickly took that as an excuse to functionally eliminate any requirement within their borders for militia to muster or train. And, at the Federal level, Congress also failed in its enumerated duties, because the 2nd Amendment is not the only place in the Constitution where the word “militia” appears.

In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States quickly found itself at war with its erstwhile guerrilla allies in the formerly Spanish-held Philippine Islands. That conflict lasted over three years, and presented a huge issue for the United States in terms of manpower – many of the soldiers enlisted for the war with Spain had enlisted for just that: the duration of war with Spain…no one had said anything about fighting Filipino locals, who had already been fighting the Spanish. Most of those volunteers came close to mutiny if they were not returned to the United States, or enlisted – at exorbitant cash bounties – directly into the Army.

To get around this problem, Congress created the Militia Act of 1903, popularly known as the “Dick Act”. This act created the modern National Guard, as we understand the term. The National Guard is described as forming the “Organized Militia”; in effect, it forms a reserve force for the US Army, which body regulates, arms and trains it, but which the states pay for during peacetime, and which they can use at the discretion of the state government unless the Federal government requires those troops for Federal use.

But back when the Dick Act was passed, there was a provision for “everybody else”: since the “Militia of the United States” defines the “Militia” as all ‘able-bodied males’ between 17 and 45 (unless you’re a veteran of Federal military service – see the link above), the Congress in 1903 lumped “everyone else” into the “Reserve Militia”, which was given a detailed organizational framework. In 1956, however, the “Reserve Militia” disappeared, replaced in the United States Code with the term “Unorganized Militia”…and, by definition, an “unorganized” group can neither muster nor train as a unit – something certain members of Congress are now attempting to formalize in law.

Don’t worry – we’re getting to the treason part, I promise.

The first specific example of Federal-level restrictions on firearms ownership came in 1934, with the “National Firearms Act”, known as NFA’34. This act is why you have to pay an additional $200 tax to buy any kind of automatic weapon (the real ones, not what the mainstream media thinks are ‘machine guns’), explosive device or noise suppressor for a firearm…assuming, of course, that one is willing to go through the byzantine paperwork to become one of a privileged class, who can be arrested at any time, for the slightest infraction.

But, I digress.

The 1934 NFA was, publicly, instituted to make it harder for criminals to obtain automatic weapons – despite those criminals usually stealing them from National Guard armories. In reality, the restrictions were aimed at organized labor, which had been growing increasingly restive during the 1920’s and 30’s, leading inevitably to the 1934 General Strike. The government was desperate to limit the access of unionists to military-grade weapons, and used the phantom of organized crime as an excuse. The National Firearms Act was so incoherent, the Supreme Court of the day actually used language that found against the NFA, while incoherently ruling that the act was, in fact, legal.

Aside from the scare to the federal government caused by the 1946 “Battle of Athens”, there were no real Federal attacks on private firearms ownership until the “Gun Control Act of 1968” (GCA’68) was passed. Prior to GCA’68, a person could order many types of firearms out of most gun and sporting magazines of the time, especially surplus weapons. Any person – including African Americans…more or less anonymously.

While certain parties had been pushing the core of GCA’68 since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, those parties managed to push it through following the twin assassinations of Martin Luther King and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, D-NY (JFK’s brother), in April and June of 1968, respectively. What GCA’68 did was eliminate the ability of citizens to purchase any weapon directly through the mail, from any source. This is why you, the Reader, have to fill out a government form to legally buy a firearm from a store or a licensed dealer. And – in contravention of the anti-gunners hysterical screams about the supposed ‘power’ of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – that organization, to its eternal shame, happily backed GCA’68 to the hilt.

The excuse given for GCA’68 was, aside from restricting mail order the access to firearms like those used in those assassinations, was to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminals and drug addicts (including modern users of “medical marijuana”)…which is rather odd, considering that without any kind of “instant check system”, no one with a valid identification could be refused a sale, a system which has demonstrated that any database is only as good as its inputs.

Again, this major bill failed to stop any crime – so, why was it passed? Easy: the Black Panthers.

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was formed in 1966, in response to increasing violence by police against black communities around the country…and, despite the pleas of leaders like Dr. King and Malcolm X, the BPP was determined to take a more confrontational approach, with its armed members “monitoring” police stops in black neighborhoods. In response to this, in California, the Mulford Act was proposed, criminalizing the open carry of firearms without a permit. In response to the proposed act, the BPP staged an armed protest on the step of the California State House in Sacramento. Whether this was simply a “publicity stunt” or not, the measure passed decisively, backed by both Republicans and Democrats, again with the full support of the NRA, and was signed into law by then-governor Ronald Reagan (who was no friend of gun owners, despite the misguided beliefs of many).

So. Given the history lesson above, where do I come off, claiming that restrictive gun control is “treasonous”?

Because it is.

Treason in the United States is defined as:

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

 

The important part, here, is the “adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere” part. “Giving aid and comfort” can take many forms, but, in light of the fact that blanket restrictions on firearms ownership pointedly weaken, if not eliminate, the ability of the average citizen to not simply protect themselves, but to defend the nation in times of distress. And, given the increasing number of unidentified and unregistered “military-age males” flooding into the United States currently, there is a decidedly high chance that the United States may soon face a wave of Mumbai-scale terrorist attacks, in many cities around the nation.

Should such a wave of attacks ensue, it will be completely and totally the fault of the Democrat Part in general, and the Biden regime, in particular.

The scale of the actions against citizen firearms ownership across the nation, coupled to the flood of illegal aliens, is too extensive to be a simple series of accidents – it is pointedly intentional in nature. It is a direct and immediate threat to the People of the United States, and it needs to be dealt with.

Donald Trump may not be the best candidate for President, and he clearly made serious errors in judgment while in office…but the alternative is a nest of active traitors to the nation.

All I can do is warn you – figure it out.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  2. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  3. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

The Chest Rig – The Real Military Revolution

The Chest Rig – The Real Military Revolution

Michael Cessna June 7, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

Some things, people don’t really think too much about. Even when people see pictures of it, they don’t really think about, much, unless it is specifically referenced. This week, we’re going to look at one of those things.

Soldiers carry stuff; sometimes, a lot of stuff. That is fairly well understood by most people, but for most, the idea of carrying this around centers on a backpack, purse or some other type of satchel. Armies around the world have had to deal with this problem for millennia. For the most part, armies before roughly the 1890’s had variations of a single solution: the baldric.

A baldric is simply a wide and heavy leather strap that goes over one shoulder, and holds something over the opposite hip, much like a lady’s purse, or a modern “messenger bag”. From the 17th to the 19th centuries, most European armies used a pair of baldrics to carry a cartridge box on one side, and a bayonet on the other; occasionally, some type of “haversack” was slung next to the bayonet. Anything heavier typically went into either a rather primitive (by modern standards) backpack, or onto wagons or pack animals. As long as soldiers used simple muzzleloading muskets, this was sufficient for most campaigns.

 

Watercolor depicting the uniform of the Continental Army’s 2nd Canadian Regiment. Painting by Charles M. Lefferts, 1926. Public Domain.

 

However, as small arms technology dramatically advanced in the late 19th century, new methods of carrying weapons were needed.

The problem was not simply new “bits-n-bobs”, but increasing weight. Weight is the bane of any soldier’s existence. Carrying heavy loads – frequently exceeding 120lbs/54kg – beats down any person quickly, and in a time where motorized transport was not an option, this could halt an army faster than any destroyed bridge.

 

American soldiers arriving at Schiphol Airport, North Holland, during the NATO exercise “Reforger”, 1978. Photo Credit: Rob Croes. Dutch National Archives. CC0/1.0

 

The solution, at first, was to connect a belt to suspenders. This distributed the weight between the waist and shoulders, and proved to be a great help in load carrying. This lasted into the 21st century, best known as “ALICE Gear” (All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment).

 

Basic ALICE rig. United States Army, FM 21-16, Care and Use of Individual Clothing and Equipment, 1972. US Army. Public Domain.

 

The ALICE system, and its foreign copies, was an excellent and highly customizable way to carry equipment, opening up the ability to carry more tools into combat (because there is no rest of the weary). But then, something new began to appear in combat zones.

 

Degar/Montagnard troops with U.S. Army soldiers during the Vietnam War. US Army Photo. Public Domain.

 

In the mid-1950’s, Communist China decided that it needed a load-carrying system for its troops, adapted to their adoption of the Russian SKS rifle. Since the SKS uses fixed, 10-round strip-clips, the Chinese created a bandolier that could hold some 200 rounds, along with a small bottle of cleaning oil.

 

Vietcong Exhibit, Fort Lewis Military Museum, Fort Lewis, Washington, USA, 2009. SKS bandolier is on the mannequin, on the right. Photo by Joe Mabel. CCA/3.0

 

While this was fine for the SKS, the Chinese quickly adopted their homegrown variant of the Russian AK-47 right after adopting the SKS. Since AK-type weapons all use a very prominent curved magazine, this required a completely new type of carrying equipment.

The result was the Type 56 Carrier (the first “Chest Rig”).

 

Chinese Type 56 Chest Rig (circled in red). Unknown Author.

 

Like the SKS bandoleer before it, the Type 56 Carrier fit over the front part of the body, but was completely off the waist, using its shoulder straps to carry all the weight. Will not at all modular (as that was not really a concern for any military forces at the time), it was a simple, easy to produce design that got the job done.

The Type 56 Carrier design swiftly began to spread around the world. It’s simplicity and ease of manufacture allowed it to be copied in small “guerrilla” manufacturing shops, giving small armies, as well as insurgent/guerrilla forces a huge advantage, bring them into the same equipment capability range as regular armies. In the United States, at least, new chest rigs developed from the Type 56 can be bought for as little as $36. As well, the chest rig design is highly adaptable, allowing for the carrying of hand grenades, radios and all sorts of other gear.

 

Chicom Chest Rigs of the Soviet Afghan War, c.1989. CCA/3.0

 

But there are added benefits to the design that other load-carrying systems cannot match: vehicles.

More conventional, ALICE-type harnesses can be problematic when the wearer tries to enter a vehicle, as the various pouches on the harnesses belt do not fit well with most vehicle seats. In fact, fully loaded pouches can be downright painful when sitting in most car seats.

In contrast, the chest rig allows the wearer a much more comfortable rid. An additional distinct benefit for the chest rig in a vehicle is the ability to reload a weapon easily; more conventional rigs to not lend themselves to this ability.

Chest rigs are certainly not without the issues: “hitting the deck” (i.e., getting as flat onto the ground as possible) is much harder in a chest rig than in a more conventional harness. At the troop level, however, troops find ways to compensate – training is, after all, more important than the tools themselves: you learn to train with what you have, not with what you might want.

So.

Why an article on something most people don’t give much thought to? Simply put, weapons are very, very good things to have. But, to make the best use of those weapons, a person needs to learn to use other tools to utilize those weapons to their fullest potential – when you look at pictures of troops, don’t “just” look at their weapons, look at what they are wearing, to carry all the other gear that they need.

It is said that you “fight as your train”. That is driven not just by the weapons you carry but by the gear you need to make those weapons work to their potential.

You never know when that might become necessary knowledge.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

You may have missed

The RPG-7: The Titan of the Man-Portable Anti-Tank World – Tools of the Trade

The RPG-7: The Titan of the Man-Portable Anti-Tank World – Tools of the Trade

Michael Cessna April 3, 2026 0
The Old Dog Learns A New Trick – Tools of the Trade

The Old Dog Learns A New Trick – Tools of the Trade

Michael Cessna March 27, 2026 0
The Real Military How-To, Part 1

The Real Military How-To, Part 1

Michael Cessna March 21, 2026 0
ZOMBIE TRAINS

ZOMBIE TRAINS

Michael Cessna March 13, 2026 0
Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here