Hi folks….

I’ve been doing a lot of scanning over the last many years, of a LOT of the huge library and collection of original government created civil defense, nuclear preparedness, nuclear war planning, and most specifically, nuclear fallout shelter documents I’ve amassed over the last 15 years.

I solved a mystery tonight, that had been vexing me for a couple of years.

The document named in the title above is probably the SINGLE best compendium of FALLOUT SHELTER RADIATION SHIELDING I have ever run across.

I’ve had the first 124 pages scanning in for almost three years, and had lost place of where I was.

In my move of my main computer system from a tiny desk in the corner of the bedroom, to a huge corner desk in the living room, I also brought out several of the boxes of prepping hardcopy in my collection. A small part of it consists of xerox copies of the originals that I had checked out from interlibrary loan, and couldn’t scan completely in time. My fix was to xerox what I didn’t scan, and set aside for future scanning.

In this repurposeing of my living room corner into a work area, I went through a LOT of material, added two new bookcases to the living room, and sorted out hundreds of books.

Amongst the misc. stuff….several xerox copies of things…some complete, others partial. The most vexing one was around 150 pages, that started with page “4-81″…and all throughout, no mention of the title of the source book.

Great stuff, including that most astounding piece of fallout shelter info I have found yet that I’ve never seen online…7 full pages of a TABLE OF MASS THICKNESSES…also known as appendix B of TR-20(Vol. 1).

Examples…Adobe 12″ thick gives a P.S.F (protection safety factor) of 116.
4″ common bricks PSF 40, Ceramic tiles PSF 3., 6″ Cinder Blocks PSF 30, etc, etc.

Very useful info.

So, in other words, *I FOUND THE MISSING HALF OF VOLUME 1*

My last big batch of scanning was in the 2nd full year (2004/2005) of my return to college life full time with my wife and kids. Well, all but my middle son have earned several degrees, and I’ve been able to bring some focus back into getting these docs put out to the masses, and finishing already started projects.

With all of the world seeming ready to fall apart at the seams (russian planes, stock woes, Iran borders, dogs and cats living together), I’ve had that little voice in the back of my head the past few weeks saying “finish your work…finish your work”.

A few of you that know me really well know that can mean a lot of things for me, but for this middle aged guy, finishing this scanning job and getting THIS manual online is that *one note * that rings true in my very near term responsibilities.

Here is the first 7 pages of the scan, and a shot of the cover.

and here is the pdf file of the Table of contents…

http://www.survivalring.org/TR-20(Vol_1)Shelter_design_and_Analysis(sample-TOC).pdf
(166k in size and 7 pages long)

I’ll put many hours into it this weekend.

Something tells me this kind of info really needs to be available NOW.

Here’s the short version of different kinds of nuke bursts, blast waves, radiation and fallout, decay rates, values for dose and dose rate formulas, radiation effects on the body, barrier effectiveness vs. photon energy, mass thickness for different kinds of protection, and on and on.

This puppy is chock full of MATH, way over my head, has multitudes of charts for figuring out doses, effects, and such, and fallout shelter analysis of simple building to complex angular radiation paths.

There will be a few who really get the math part, and most folks should be able to get enough info to create safe fallout shelter spaces in whereever they plan to shelter…IF they need to shelter.

Here is a taste of the math part….

So, stay tuned. I also have vols. 2 and 5 scanned in already. No luck on 3 or 4. I’m still looking for those.

Comments welcome….

Rich

Source from Mit.edu

MIT Profs Protest DoD Nuke Proposal
By Brian Keegan
STAFF REPORTER

A proposed change in U.S. nuclear weapons policy has exploded into a controversy between the Bush Administration and physicists worldwide. Sixteen faculty members of the MIT physics department have joined over a thousand physicists in signing a petition repudiating a Pentagon proposal that would “foresee pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear adversaries.”

Kim Griest and Jorge Hirsch, two UCSD physics professors who started the petition in September, claim a change in the March 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations “crosses a line … and heightens the probability of future use of nuclear weapons by others.” The petition can be viewed online at http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/.

“Remember the Greek myth about Cassandra. Before every major disaster, there’s always someone who warns of it and gets ignored,” Professor Max E. Tegmark, a signatory, said in an e-mail. “This has the same feel to it. We scientists clearly have a responsibility to speak up.”

The petition, which has been signed by 1,061 physicists worldwide as of yesterday, includes 2004 Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek, 1990 Nobel Laureate Jerome I. Friedman, and 2005 Wolf Prize Laureate Daniel Kleppner from MIT.

“I believe strongly that the current Administration’s reversals of long-standing agreements and policies regarding nuclear weapons is short-sighted, self-defeating, and incredibly dangerous,” wrote Professor David I. Kaiser, a signatory, historian of science, and physicist, in an e-mail. “It is astonishing to me that after having learned so much about the incredible destructiveness of nuclear weapons over the past sixty years, some politicians today would seriously consider making their pre-emptive use part of this nation’s stated military and political policy.”

Real nuclear option

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations is the U.S. war plan for conflicts involving nuclear weapons. “It provides guidance for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations,” according to GlobalSecurity.org , an organization which “seeks to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons and the risk of their use,” according to its Web site.

Many analysts, even during the Cold War, believed that the U.S. would not be the first to employ nuclear weapons in a conflict, but rather, would only respond with nuclear weapons if first attacked with them. The most recent DJNO, however, describes many scenarios in which nuclear weapons would be used either preemptively or as a response to non-nuclear attacks.

“A great deal of information about these weapons has been available for a long time: they are not a new innovation whose consequences are difficult to discern,” Kaiser said.

DJNO states, in part, that “geographic combatant commanders may request Presidental approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions.” The report lists “an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations; imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy; to counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces; for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms; to ensure success of US and multinational operations; to demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD” as examples of qualifying contingencies.

Some signatories expressed concern about the lack of attention to this issue.

“I was horrified to learn the extent of the changes being proposed,” Professor Scott A. Hughes said in an e-mail.

“I found it very frightening that I had heard so little about the issue outside of the petition,” Professor Joseph A. Formaggio said in an e-mail. “Given people’s reactions to what is happening in Iraq, I think they would raise strong objections, too.”

The DJNO repeatedly states that “no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.”

Signatories feel responsibility

Hirsch and Griest call on physicists to take responsibility with both the petition and an October 2005 paper. The petition begins, “As physicists we feel a special responsibility with respect to nuclear weapons; our profession brought them into existence 60 years ago.”

Professor Emeritus Daniel Kleppner said he is motivated by this tradition. “The physicists who created the bomb felt a need to ensure that it was used responsibly,” he said. “I believe it would be a serious mistake for us to develop new nuclear weapons or even include them in our program for military preparedness, but that is exactly what the DoD is proposing,” he added in an e-mail.

While the members of the faculty had strong feelings about nuclear weapons, many were hesitant for MIT to take an official stance.

“When it comes to issues that are more political than scientific, I think it would behoove the Institute to inform rather than take sides in debates,” Physics professor Eric Hudson said.

Tegmark said, “It’s probably good that MIT avoids taking sides politically. However, we scientists clearly have a responsibility to speak up.”

Kaiser said he believed MIT should “take the lead in articulating for a broad public — in clear, accessible ways — some of the dangers (as well as the special promise) associated with scientific and technical developments.”

The leaders of two major nuclear-related groups on campus also reiterated MIT’s independence in policy debates.

Professor June L. Matthews PhD ’67, director of the Laboratory for Nuclear Science and a signatory on the petition, wrote in an e-mail, “LNS does not have an official stance or policy regarding this or any other socio-political issue. Faculty members … who have signed the petition have done so as individuals.”

“The Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, like other MIT departments, rarely takes an official stance or adopts an official policy in respect of specific initiatives,” Professor Ian H. Hutchinson, department head for Nuclear Science and Engineering, said in an e-mail.

Signatories doubt petition success

While most of the signatories were pessimistic about the impact of the petition on the Bush Administration’s final decision, they hoped to raise awareness of the issue.

Kleppner said that he regards petitions as a weak form of protest “because they take no effort to sign.” However, the strength of his conviction on this matter was such that he “felt compelled to sign.”

“A reasonable outcome would be that this petition will spark more widespread discussion of the proposed changes to the U.S. nuclear posture and the consequences that could ensue,” such as the final collapse of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Hughes said.

Other physicists felt that political motivations are limiting debate on the proposed policy.

Given the “low regard in which this administration holds scientists” Hudson said he expects “[the Bush Administration] to completely dismiss” the petition.

“It seemed the policy is being kept as quiet as possible,” Formaggio said. “My main hope for the petition was to raise public awareness to what we were doing.”

Theodore A. Postol ’67, professor of science, technology, and national security policy and an expert on nuclear weapon systems, said he agrees with some of the petition’s claims, although he is not a signatory.

Postol said he believes the new policy “tremendously stimulates” states to develop nuclear weapons. “It will cause countries to reconsider their nuclear status. As the world modernizes, more states will have the ability to develop nuclear capabilities.”

“The only way to prevent preemptive attacks is to develop arms” to deter these attacks, Postol said. He pointed out differences in perception towards attacking Iraq and North Korea as proof that possessing nuclear weapons can deter U.S. preemptive attacks.

Postol said that the U.S. has always been ambiguous about its nuclear first-strike policy because it serves the purpose of a deterrent. “The U.S. has the ability to strike anytime and anywhere. Tony Blair and Kim Jong-Il both know this.” he said.

This story was published on Friday, November 4, 2005.
Volume 125, Number 52

So sad that Paris Is Burning…

THIS is what will happen here, if the feds dont’ get their act together and start getting WORKING plans for disaster, preparedness, and Civil Disturbances….

Source from NYT

RIOTING BY FRENCH-ARAB YOUTHS CONTINUES IN SUBURBAN PARIS
By CRAIG S. SMITH
NYT Express
11/03/2005

PARIS — Angry French-Arab youths clashed with police and firefighters outside Paris late Wednesday in the worst of seven consecutive nights of violence set off by the accidental death of two teenagers.

By late Thursday, more cars were burning in at least one of the city’s northern suburbs.

Gunshots were fired at police officers and firefighters in three separate incidents Wednesday night, said Prefect Jean-Francois Cordet, the government’s top official in Seine-St.-Denis, a department north of Paris that includes a belt of working-class neighborhoods with a large immigrant population.

In the clashes on Wednesday night, a police station was ransacked, a garage was set on fire and a shopping center and two schools were vandalized, Cordet said. Riot police forces have used tear gas and rubber bullets to repel the attacks.

Traffic was halted Thursday morning on a commuter rail line linking Paris to Charles de Gaulle airport after stone-throwing rioters attacked two trains. One passenger was slightly injured by broken glass, according to local news reports. The violence picked up again as night fell over the capital with burning cars reported in the suburb of Stains.

Rampaging gangs have torched more than 200 cars in the past week, and dozens of firefighters and police officers have been injured, none seriously, since the deaths of two youths.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who canceled a trip to Canada this week because of the violence, urged citizens and the police to restore order. “Law and order will have the last word,” he told senators on Thursday.

The continuing violence has embarrassed the government and isolated the country’s tough-talking anti-crime interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, whom many people believe exacerbated the situation with his vow to “clean out” the troubled neighborhoods.

The interior minister’s initiative has been met with scorn by many people in the neighborhoods, who say they are being stigmatized by his campaign and that the increased police presence has resulted in harassment.

The latest violence began in the suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois a week ago after two teenagers were electrocuted by a power transformer while hiding from police. Local youths, who believed police had chased the boys into the transformer’s enclosure, took to the streets, setting cars on fire in protest. A preliminary government inquiry has since found that the youths were not being pursued by the police.

The report, released by the Interior Ministry on Thursday, stated that a third boy who survived the incident said he and his friends were aware of the danger when they entered the transformer’s enclosure. The report suggested that the boys were hiding from the police because one of those who died had a record of armed robbery and the other was among a group that had broken into a construction site earlier that evening.

The continuing unrest appears to be fueled less by perceived police brutality than by the frustration of young men who have no work and see little hope for the future.

This story came out today on the web, and the link came to me via a ‘Google Alert’ email that I occasionally receive when Google finds a new webpage that has the word ’survivalist’ in it. I have many Google Alerts running, and rarely does something come that I don’t already know about. This one caught my eye because of its long term implications by a very minor part of the vast quilt of humanity that makes up the American Way.

To put my point before you…anarchists are the leading edge of domestic terrorists. Nothing good comes from their work. They are socialist and communist in nature, and would prefer YOU not to have that which you have…security, safe homes, plenty of food, good jobs, and long term prospects for success. Anarchists live to bring down governments, corporations, and anything that is organized in a way THEY don’t like. They claim to be on the left…liberal…democratic at times. But don’t buy into their claims. They aren’t in it for YOU…only themselves.

However, this particular story is quite disturbing. On first read, it looks like the ‘anarchists’ having plans to ‘take over’ the small pockets of government, “when the opportunity arrives”. This sounds exactly like the classic Loner Survivalist…the kind of person who has a huge stash of weapons, food, and comm gear…waiting for civilation to fall, in whatever degree large or small…that will allow them to profit off the weaker survivors. They refer to the Loner as something they can learn from, but not what they themselves want to be. They want to convert entire communities to socialist agendas.

Take that in any way you can, these anarchists will loudly, or silently, destroy what the rest of us work for…it means the Bad Guys will rule the Weak Folks…and anarchy reigns supreme…meaning those who have the firepower…the lightning (electricity)…the passes (roads and transportation systems)..and the means…will take over and destroy whatever civilization may be left…a more selfish and manipulative group of useless mouthbreathers you’ll never find.

It means Bad Things.

I don’t post this story below to convert anyone to anarchists (Lord knows I’ve never made claim to be one, and never will) …I post it to make you aware of the threats we have in our OWN population, from people that live on the dark side…hidden in the shadows…waiting for the chance to hurt, injure, maim, or kill people THEY want to…without judges, juries, or law. Nothing more than scum and vermin…a lawless society. They claim to be “for the people” …helping the oppressed…freeing the slaves from the capitalist pigs. Right…have they been watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail again?

I’ll make the more disturbing phrases more visible in this mishmash below…it’s not well written by this “anonymous” a-hole. But, the ideas conveyed are worthy of your attention since they are a threat to you, and America, as these evil Americans will hurt every innocent that gets in their way, and never look back. It’s the kind of thing you expect to see in big epic movies about survival of a nation…our nation.

Pass the word…don’t let them get away with hurting others.

Source

Radical Readiness
Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:06 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous
WeiJi: Crisis= Danger + Opportunity
A call for Radical Preparedness

WeiJi is the Chinese ideogram representing the concept of “Crisis” which is made up of two characters Wei [Wei (representing “danger”) and Ji (representing “opportunity”). This symbology seems to perfectly represent the importance of crises for those seeking radical change, and why radicals must be prepared to respond to them.
Crises have been with humans since the beginning. Natural disasters, epidemics, wars, famine, social unrest, ecological disruptions and depressions are not new in this century and there seems no reason they shall not continue. In fact, many scientists and thinkers believe we are heading for many more and new types of disasters that due to globalization can spread quickly and widely. Only the most Pollyannish person could possibly believe that there shall be no more emergencies in the near future. Though it seems obvious that radicals (like anyone else for that matter) would put some energy and forethought into preparing for natural or human-made disasters this is often not the case.

There seems to be a natural knee-jerk resistance to emergency preparedness in even the most radical of the Left because of its association with military and government responses and terminology. The extreme right and religious fundamentalists of all stripes currently have a near monopoly on preparing for crises and thus have at least theoretically the best chance to capitalize politically on the opportunities available in our increasingly dangerous world.
This article will examine why radicals should care about being ready for crises and what are the dangers and opportunities that may come from responding (or failing to respond) to emergencies of all kinds. In addition, we hope to show why radicals are in a better position, than traditional survivalists to provide early and sustainable mutual aid during times of crisis.
Emergency preparedness should be approached like all of our political projects. Radicals, if prepared, have an opportunity to make deep social and political relationships with others during the crisis and create allies for future change.

----------

We should be prepared for crises for a number of reasons both social and political. The social reasons should be obvious. Crises present great danger for our lives and the lives of those we care about, work with and those we seek to help by making a world a better place. Often crises can bring out the worse in folks. The combination of stress, unfamiliar choices and a dramatic jarring of ones social constructs all work in tandem to make people react less than ideally during times of immediate danger. Ironically, it is at such difficult times that people need to draw most heavily upon their strengths, skills, compassion and good judgment. The strains of crisis can tear at the social ties with those we are most close to. Preparedness allows us to enhance our ability to act positively during times of flux and take time to concentrate on more than mere survival. By preparing ahead of time we are inoculating ourselves to much of the stress that accompanies disasters and emergencies. We know from research of emergency first responders and the military that practice and preparedness substantially reduce stress during actual disasters and assure better judgment and more decisive action. Often crises require immediate actions otherwise disruptions can actually multiply. The old adage “an ounce of prevention is a worth a pound of cure”, is not just good medical sense but also relates to emergency readiness.

No matter how prepared an individual is, they will undoubtedly need (or at least benefit from) the skills, thoughts and support of others. Crises can often disrupt our relationships with those we normally work with and trust. Communications may be so overtaxed as to be not available; travel may be seriously hampered or dangerous; normal gathering spaces maybe be vacant or inaccessible and normal routine encounters may be so disrupted that one can quickly find themselves isolated. Isolation during a crisis (despite what the right-wing survivalists say) is dangerous, unnecessary and possibly fatal. Our greatest security during any period of turmoil is to have a strong and prepared social network. Most people rely on a social network under current circumstances and would feel lost if it were suddenly removed in an instant. Part of preparedness is ensuring, as much as possible, that your social networks remain strong even during an emergency so collectively you can draw upon each other for support, mutual aid and decision making.

Autonomy and liberty almost always become the first casualties during an emergency.. Radicals have long critiqued various government agencies for being oppressive, irrational, exploitive, mismanaged, out-dated, inhumane etc. All of these faults are instantly multiplied during a serious crisis. It is naïve to believe that a government that daily exploits and oppresses large segments of the population without wealth and political capital will all of a sudden during an emergency care about those same people. All one needs to do is look at local and federal preparedness manuals of organizations like FEMA and one can see the first order on their agenda-- the priority is not to provide aid but to re-assert its control during a crisis. This has been the true since the dustbowl of the 1930’s to this year’s Katrina disaster. It should come as no surprise that government preparedness manuals for local and state governments spend as much time outlining plans to secure “commercial interests” as they do providing medical aid to those injured and in need. In fact, FEMA has a policy of not sending in first responders, like firefighters and paramedics , until police or military units “have established order”. The government’s concept of order, from reading the manuals, seems more akin to business as usual than doing anything to alleviate suffering. is the greatest government incursions in our lives occur during emergencies. Just when government should be promoting mutual aid and self-organizing among its citizens it does everything to marginalize these ideas and strip civil authority of all decision making. In one recent FEMA memo, during the Louisiana crisis, it suggests “Non-local Units [National Guardsmen from other states] should be used when possible…[because] local units may have too many connections to the local population”. In fact the entire concept of FEMA is to de-localize the problem, to bring in outside government authority that is not democratically elected in order to re-establish the status quo and to protect interests of capitalists and the politically connected. This type of callous and counterproductive coercion needs to be actively resisted during times of crisis. The government spends millions and prepares constantly to take control and assert exploitive and divisive powers over already weakened localities and populations during disasters; radicals must be ready to resist and bring control and decision-making back to the people most affected by the emergency.

Radicals that invest in emergency preparedness are in a unique position to aid local populations and actively resist the detrimental effects of non-localized government occupation. Leftists in this country have a long history of working with community groups, who are seeking to improve their neighborhoods and provide for each other what the capitalists and government will not. We have spent many years developing strong relationships and networks among a variety of people who have skills to organize. We have also taken time to improve and constantly re-evaluate our roles as organizers, seeking non-authoritarian ways of aiding self-organization among those exploited by capitalists and governments. We have not always been successful in our attempts to integrate with various oppressed communities but we continue to put a premium on organizing and activism, which puts us way ahead of most right-wing survivalists and makes our project of preparedness quite different from theirs.
Fortunately most people naturally seek to self-organize during a crises. However, often after an initial outburst of localized mutual aid and self-organization at some point the government and capitalists react. They always institute things like forced evacuations, curfews, frozen zones, etc. and then take control over all civil communications channels and seek to centralize people (often in refugee camps)which makes decentralized localized organizing very difficult if not impossible. Centralizing people breaks up normal affinity bonds like neighborhoods, religious affiliation, friends, co-workers, etc. treating all people as undifferentiated refugees. With these important affinity bonds destroyed people are forced to turn to the authorities who control all organizing efforts immune to criticism or advice from those most effected by the emergency.

Mutual aid is quite common during the earliest moments of a disaster, with neighbors helping neighbors and even helpful strangers lending a hand. Officials and “specialists” working for the powers that be usually interfere to stop such behavior under the pretenses that their help is “better”, more expert, and more appropriate. From daily experience we know that peoples’ needs are at odds with the powerful elites’ agenda. It would be foolishness to think if organizing was centralized by the elites that our best interests would be served.

For the radical interested in emergency readiness the crucial questions are: how to prepare in such a way as to promote spontaneous self-organizing and extend it; and how to resist government’s attempt to centralize all help activity. From experiences elsewhere (e.g. Argentina), it seems once people start organizing for themselves to take care of each other during a crisis they often are less willing to return to business as usual and defer power to the State. It is not surprising that most major radical social, political and economic revolutions have a occurred after some sort of disaster or crisis. Real life experiences in mutual aid and egalitarianism are worth a library-full of propaganda for creating lasting changes in society.

There are almost no models in the survivalist sub-cultures to draw upon for radical emergency preparedness. Right-wing and fundamentalist circles interested in survivalism do not have the same goals as us and thus their methods are quite different. While it is true most of these “survivalist” groups seek extreme changes to society (ranging from libertarianism to fascism to metaphysical theocracies) their models do not allow for radical social change.

Despite the popularity of such books like the Turner Diaries among right-wing extremists , there has been very little organizing among such groups. Even during their hey-day of the mid-1980’s and early 1990’s they could offer no organized response or message to such watershed events as Ruby Ridge or Waco. They lack both the communications infrastructure and the desire for group organizing. Instead they are taking a course of extreme individualist survival. They seek to provide bunker-like supplies, skills and support for only them and their family. In fact, they spend a great deal of time worrying about the spontaneous self-organizing of others. This leads to their nearly absurd preoccupation with weapons and self-defense. They have a deeply cynical view of others and hold many of the preconceived notions the elites have about poor or marginalized people (the most likely victims of any crisis in this country). The right-wing survivalists have failed to exstend mutual aid during times of crisis in this country. Instead they redouble their own personal efforts to prepare while offering nothing to those effected. Where the Left has been much quicker (though we must do more) to reach out and provide help to those suffering.

We need to reject the “bunker mentality” not only as right-wing fanaticism but as inherently not a good bet for actually creating sustainable communities after a major disaster. While it is acceptable for radicals to use the substantial infrastructural resources created by the right-wing for emergency preparedness their on-line supply stores; read their articles about storage; and even attend skill specific trainings however we must create our own models based on the work we already do every day, which is a much more complex task than what they are doing. We have a much better history and experience with organizing coordinated actions (albeit it’s often only temporarily) such as mass-mobilizations and extended campaigns that are regional, national or international in scope. We have developed fairly sophisticated processes for decision-making among varied groups that are both supportive and egalitarian. We promote decentralization but unlike the right, we want to coordinate decentralized groups into sustainable resistance networks based on concepts like solidarity and mutual support. In addition over the past few decades, we have been slowly been building relationships with various community groups engaged in projects different from our own, though these relationships have developed more slowly than most of us had anticipated.

We often complain about how the extreme right is out-organizing us, and how during a crisis “they have all the guns”. The reasoning seems to suggest that the right is better-prepared to take advantage of a crisis. This reasoning is not founded on any truth. The right has , perhaps, a better ability to “survive” as isolated individuals and families and protect what they have from outsiders but they are inherently unable to extend their influence to other communities or society at large. It must also be said that is not their goal. The few attempts over the past two decades for the right to resist the State has met with utter failure and little public notice or sympathy. In the end the right maybe able to survive a temporary localized emergency but never resist the State’s imposition of power.

We have natural advantages over the right, but there is still a lot of work to do. During any crisis we will not be competing for influence on the course of events that will effect millions of folks with small groups in their bunkers but with the government and private security forces.

There is so much to do and none of us know how much time there is before the next major crisis/opportunity. First we must continue with the projects we are already doing. Continue to network among ourselves and make in-roads with other community groups. We should keep building and strengthening our relationships based on mutual aid and solidarity and continue building infrastructure throughout North America. We must keep resisting, while analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of our resistance. But we must also do much more than that.

We live in an excellent time to start learning skills, sharing information and collecting valuable resources that may be in short supply during a crisis. The time to do it is now, because during a crisis time will be in short supply and the added stress will make learning new skills and techniques very difficult. Besides when people’s lives are on the line, it is no time to be honing your skills or dumpster diving for the tool you need to set up an alternative energy generator.

Now is the time to be talking, writing and scheming about being ready in a crisis. There is precious little discussion about emergency preparedness in radical circles, it is not yet even a blip on the Left’s radar. We should start with our friends, affinity groups, collectives and organizations. We need to start figuring out ways in which you and your comrades could provide mutual aid during a crisis. Decide what you would need to be effective and what skills, resources and knowledge you already have. Start developing alternative communication systems (e.g. short-wave radio)and get use to using them and making a presence known on them. Start collecting the resources now that you could provide to others who may need them.

Next time there is a hurricane, flood, blackout or any other crisis follow it closely and if possible go there to provide aid. You will find that experience is a great teacher for what is necessary. Provide report-backs to various communities and analysis. Build networks between various groups that are also involved in this type of preparedness project.

Post information, ideas and schemes to this web-site. We are trying to create a presence on the web for radical emergency preparedness. We are not experts, we are like you. As a community we can create a useful resource for others to start preparing for emergencies while also increasing our own skills and knowledge. The time is now to start. Please look at this web-site and get some ideas on where to begin and then add to this site to help others in the process. We can do it, but it must be together.

–Written by WeiJi NYC Collective (October 2005)

I dunno…my gut instinct tells me that Bush & Co. are in a heap 0′trouble…and it’s going to get worse.

Watergate worse? Don’t know…but we have enough problems in this country, that AREN’T Bush’s fault, and really don’t need another big national issue to get in the way…but, you know the liberal media is GOING to do it anyway…so they can make a profit selling books, newspapers, magazines, infomercials, and Lord know what else.

Rich

Source

October 26, 2005 — Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald quickly departed the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court House at 1:00 PM EDT. The Grand Jury met again in a court room in the new annex to the court house. Fitzgerald had no comment in response to several questions asked by a throng of reporters who huddled around him as he walked to his waiting car, which drove him from the court house to his New York Avenue offices. One question was whether Fitzgerald has requested an extension of the grand jury, which is due to expire on Friday.

There is informed speculation that Fitzgerald may have requested an extension of the current grand jury. Others have speculated that Fitzgerald delivered sealed indictments on Leakgate today and will ask for a new grand jury in order to seek further indictments outside the scope of the original leak probe because of additional evidence that other crimes were committed related to the use of forged documents by the Bush administration.

Some details have emerged about the makeup of the grand jury. There is a majority of African-American women, a large number of which are employed by the Federal government.

There are also unconfirmed reports that Fitzgerald met with Karl Rove’s attorney yesterday. A deal was reportedly offered to Rove in return for his cooperation. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby reportedly also reached a deal with the prosecutor in return for his cooperation against Vice President Cheney. Fitzgerald reportedly met with Cheney’s lawyers last Friday. Monday a questionnaire was reportedly delivered to Cheney by the prosecutor’s staff seeking additional information on Cheney’s knowledge of the CIA leak.

Fitzgerald entered the Court House this morning with a number of documents. Fitzgerald departed without the documents he he had in his possession when he entered the court house, giving rise to speculation that he delivered sealed indictments as WMR reported yesterday.

Since 1999, I’ve had spurts of time where I’ll go months without having a media person contact me asking to help them find “Survivalists”. I guess this is better than the FBI and other alphabet agencies asking for the same thing.

The lady below is looking for folks into prepping and practicing a lifestyle of being ready. If you’re interested in helping her out, send her an email below. She writes for StyleWeekly.com

Hi Richard,

I’m a magazine writer in Richmond, VA, and I came across your Web site today. I found your site to be quite comprehensive and I wanted to ask you if you’re acquainted with any folks or organizations in Virginia, particularly Central Virginia, who are interested in survival and emergency preparedness. If so, could you tell me how to get in touch with them?

Many thanks,

Melissa Sinclair
Melissa.Sinclair@styleweekly.com