 Pepper-ball launchers showed up on timeline recently. These are essentially paintballs filled with riot-control agents such as OC or PAVA. Upon impact, the ball delivers both the kinetic sting of a paintball and a “spicy” chemical to irritate skin, eyes, and lungs. Marketed as safer alternatives to firearms, Tasers, and traditional pepper spray, they appear attractive on paper. In practice, they remain a niche product rather than a reliable replacement for dedicated OC aerosol spray.
Types
The Good
Pepper-ball guns can be useful for selectively targeting high-profile agitators or leaders within a crowd while minimizing risk to bystanders. Their precision exceeds that of shotgun less-lethal loads, which is crucial if you are trying to minimize collateral hits to others. Rapid fire can create enough pain and irritation to slow or halt a charging individual or small group. The Bad
The handgun-style models (such as the Byrna) are inferior in nearly all defensive scenarios to dedicated OC spray or other less-lethal options. Their primary niche value lies in situations where aerosol spray would be counterproductive due to blowback risk, such as firing from inside a vehicle, through a window, or in confined spaces. They may also serve as a last-ditch tool for family members or neighbors who cannot be trusted with more potent less-lethal devices. Pepper balls are not inherently a bad tool, but they are far from a panacea. Their real-world performance is closer to an annoying, slightly spicy paintball than a dependable riot-control agent. They work best as a supplementary option within a layered less-lethal system, used alongside barriers, lights, aerosol spray, smoke, and shotgun less-lethal loads. When choosing a platform, shoulder-fired paintball-style guns are clearly preferable to pistol versions for their superior capacity, range, and volume of fire. In citizen defense contexts, pepper-ball launchers can fill narrow standoff or precision roles, but they should never be relied upon as a primary solution. Traditional OC aerosol spray remains more efficient for delivering a meaningful chemical dose, while shotgun less-lethal rounds provide superior kinetic effect when greater force is justified.  Look, if you’re seriously worried about a major terrorist attack, mass shooters, or full-blown SHTF chaos, let’s be honest: open carry is your friend. In those kinds of situations, concealment becomes a luxury you can’t afford. Open carry isn’t the liability many people assume it is out of ignorance or fear; it can be an actual asset. When seconds count and the world has gone sideways, the ability to draw fast, project real deterrence, and bring a rifle into the fight immediately can make the difference between surviving and becoming another victim.
Normally, whether carrying openly or concealed, the goal is to avoid a confrontation. Because of the potential of losing a fight, the civil and legal repercussions, and the emotional toll of a critical incident, it’s always recommended to walk when possible. With a terrorist or mass shooter, you may have no other option than to shoot your way out to safety. In these cases, the confrontation comes for you, so a hard posture with the best defense possible is the way to go, and your subcompact pistol beneath two layers of clothes isn’t going to cut it. To quote from the Judge VanDyke in Baird v. Bonta, “For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms…Similarly, for the first 162 years of its history open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life.” But by the mid-20th century, much of society was so tame and safe, free of Indians and crime, that carrying a gun was unusual and even criminal in many places. For those who did not live in the ghetto, it was a wonderfully safe high-trust society. Around 2010, open carry began a resurgence as shall-issue concealed carry laws began sweeping the nation. We saw panic and legislation in California, sensational images out of Texas, and read of legislative resistance in the “gun-shine state.” Open carry became a polarizing issue in more than jut the gun community. Since so few people have experience with it, it is the subject of ridicule, myth, and fear. Most negative aspersions of open carry involve the ever-popular images of “dumbass carry” that are the gun world version of People of Walmart. It’s not hard to cringe when some slovenly person with the bearing of zombie is shuffling to the parking lot with two Hi-Points strapped on opposite hips. A cynic might think that the world would a better place if, during a terrorist attack, they were the first to…no, that’s too cruel. Anyhow, images like these should make anyone who carries a gun have a small heart attack, and since they are such low-hanging fruit, we’ll have to assume for our purposes that open carriers are just as put together as the concealed carrier who shoots IDPA/USPSA every month. Author’s note: this material was prepared with the assistance of open-carry subject matter experts who requested anonymity. Why openly carry in a time of heightened threat? Rifles and carbines essentially have to be carried openly. They are unnecessary for ordinary day-to-day self-defense against criminals, but they become highly valuable in the face of terrorist attacks or active shooters. A long gun offers superior accuracy, range, penetration, and stopping power compared to any handgun. It is also far more visible, delivering a much stronger deterrent effect. A holstered pistol can be easily overlooked by a threat whereas a rifle slung across your chest is impossible to miss. Concealed carry remains popular largely because many people have a deep-seated aversion to being seen as armed. Even experienced shooters who are perfectly comfortable with a gun in private often lack the confidence to carry openly, even where it is completely legal. This discomfort usually stems from an unwillingness to openly acknowledge that the world can be dangerous, or from simple unease about carrying a deadly weapon in plain view. Police officers are a good example. Off-duty, they almost never openly carry. They already risk being recognized, and an openly carried gun only draws extra scrutiny, often the wrong kind. Many officers also dislike being pegged as law enforcement when they are simply trying to enjoy their time off. Ironically, the general public frequently assumes that anyone openly carrying a firearm must be police anyway. Concealed carry lets you remain armed while preserving the comforting illusion that you are not. It avoids awkward conversations, professional complications, and unwanted attention in everyday life. For many carriers, this social comfort is the main reason they choose to conceal rather than carry openly. All of these considerations shift when the risk to life exceeds the risk to reputation or career. In short, during elevated-threat periods, the speed, firepower, and psychological impact of open carry outweigh the social comfort of concealment. When seconds matter and the stakes are highest, open carry is a deliberate tactical choice that gives you the best tools and the fastest access when you may actually need them. This does not mean you need to open carry under normal, everyday threat levels if you are not comfortable with it. Concealed carry remains a perfectly valid choice for regular life. The key is recognizing the difference between normal times and truly heightened-threat environments, and being willing to adapt your carry method when the stakes demand it. Reasons to openly carryIt’s easier than concealed carry An unconcealed handgun is far easier to draw than a concealed one. There is no clothing in the way and the draw is often straighter and more natural. It also allows you to carry a larger handgun, which is useful if you have an attached light or want a service-sized pistol if you expect trouble. Open carry eliminates the need to draw from concealment, which can take critical seconds in a sudden engagement. Standing with the weapon already in hand or slung ready allows immediate shouldering and aimed fire if needed. For long guns, openly carried rifles or shotguns offer quicker access than concealed options (often tucked in cases) and greater capability against multiple or armed threats than a handgun. Realistically, you are not going to be standing at a defensive checkpoint with a cased rifle. You might have it in your vehicle nearby, but that will slow down your response should an emergency arise. A slung rifle can transition from safe carry to aimed fire in well under one second with minimal movement. Drawing a concealed handgun, clearing clothing, establishing grip, and presenting the weapon reliably takes noticeably longer, often 1.5 to 2.5 seconds or more under stress for experienced shooters, let alone the average, unpracticed civilian. Immediate access matters most. Terrorists exploit surprise and soft targets while resistance is disorganized. A slung rifle or openly holstered service pistol lets you transition to aimed fire in under a second, without clearing clothing or fumbling a draw. Seconds saved can mean lives saved, including your own and those around you. Rifles offer greater accuracy and capacity over pistols, making them more effective against multiple threats, armored attackers, or longer-distance engagements common in terrorist raids. A shooter can engage a threat from a greater distance more accurately and possibly even faster with a rifle than they can with a handgun. Larger magazine sizes combined with rifle bullets that do far more damage, including potential single-shot stops, are a force multiplier. These kind of advantages simply cannot be wrought from a handgun. Deterrence of opportunistic crime and looting It’s a scene that from many riots and devastated neighborhoods after tornados, hurricanes, and floods. “You loot; we shoot,” the signs read, while alert neighbors stand sentry with AR-15s slung over their backs. Visible firearms can and do discourage looters. It is not so much that looters will be shot—using deadly force is usually illegal to protect property—but that guns signals resistance and possible willingness to use them. Armed citizens being seen indicates that there is at least a basic level of awareness and disposition not to tolerate crime. Criminals seeking easier targets will go elsewhere. Dumber criminals will assume that they might be shot if caught looting; they might even assume the law allows looters to be shot by private citizens. Smarter ones know that should they attempt to force the issue, an armed citizen will not be easily cowed by the sight of a gun and will probably fight back. A hoodlum with a handgun is no match for a man with an AR-15. A visible long gun projects capability and readiness far more effectively than a hidden handgun. Attackers seeking maximum casualties prefer easy victims; an openly armed, alert defender raises the perceived cost and risk, often causing them to redirect or hesitate. It also allows quick identification as a “friendly” to other armed civilians or arriving responders, reducing friendly-fire confusion in ad-hoc defense. In states where open carry is legal, all one has to do is make sure their weapon is visible while keeping watch or going about one’s business. It’s possible even in some of the most restrictive environments. After the 2018 mudslides and flooding in Montecito, CA, deputies observed citizens openly carrying firearms (on their property) due to reports of looters. During the 2020 riots, retired peace officers also openly carried firearms at several SoCal gun stores to deter looters as well. Maintaining order A visible firearm has long been a badge of office for peace officers, especially where it was illegal (like Texas). To this day, open carriers are frequently mistaken for police simply because outside of law enforcement, it is uncommon. Carrying a rifle and wearing a plate carrier only enhances this effect and without impersonation, citizens can play on this perceived legitimacy. For those who don’t mistake an armed citizen as having an officially-sanctioned place of authority, the sense of authority is partially assumed from the firearm itself. Someone standing around with a firearm, particularly a rifle and especially if they are kitted up, indicates that the person has taken a interest in the safety and security of their community. With a correct alert and serious bearing, it is a sign that this person may intervene in any unwanted activity. Their authority may not be official, but it is often with the implicit assent of their community and it is maintained with the threat of force. Legal authority often rests on the implicit or explicit backing of force; police can compel compliance through the credible threat of arrest or violence. A civilian openly armed assumes a parallel dynamic: their "authority" derives not from law but from the immediate capability to enforce boundaries through force if necessary. A citizen often does inherently have that authority under the law and always through force. Response to terrorist or mass-casualty threats The Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, in Israel are an excellent case for open carry. Of course, once you are carrying a rifle into a combat situation it’s not so much open carry as it is, well, combat, but if you do expect to get into a gunfight in a situation like that, would you want it to be readily accessible? Remember on that day terrorists were loose about the country in a free-for-all type situation rampaging uncontrolled. Without the benefit of hindsight, terrorists might have appeared anywhere at the time. Terrorists often rely on speed, surprise, and overwhelming soft targets to maximize casualties before resistance organizes. This would be the ideal time to appear wearing your helmet, hard plates, and carrying an AR-15. Not only is it a signal of resistance to terrorists, should you be forced to act to defend your loved ones or community, you would be as prepared as can be in the moment. A visible rifle or shotgun projects immediate capability and readiness far more effectively than a concealed handgun. Terrorists may hesitate, redirect, or abandon plans upon encountering armed resistance. This can disrupt momentum early, buying time for victims to escape or for official forces to arrive. On October 7, armed residents who quickly accessed and displayed weapons (often rifles from community armories) contributed to forcing retreats in some locations, as attackers prioritized softer targets elsewhere. A visibly armed civilian can quickly identify as a defender to other residents, off-duty personnel, or arriving forces. Depending on how you kit-out, how your enemy is equipped, and what uniform or identifiers you have, you can stand out as a “friendly.” For instance, AR-15 armed Americans vs. AK-armed terrorists. This reduces friendly-fire risks and enables ad-hoc coordination where armed individuals can link up, cover sectors, or reinforce positions together. DeterrenceOpen carry has value for deterrence. Research on offender behavior consistently shows that criminals prefer low-risk, compliant targets. Interviews with incarcerated offenders frequently report that signs of resistance, such as the possibility that a victim is armed (or even just alert), can cause them to select another target. Criminals like soft targets, not hard ones that might fight back. Someone who is openly armed, paying attention, and projecting an air of competence is a hard target. Many mass shooters have revealed in their manifestos or interviews (if they survived) that they selected a secondary target because their primary target was too difficult because of armed security. Psychologically, a person "standing around" with a visible rifle (especially if kitted out and maintaining an alert, serious demeanor) communicates several things a proactive interest in community or property safety, rather than passive presence. The mere visibility often suffices to prevent incidents from materializing. In Minneapolis during 2020, armed residents positioned themselves to protect homes and businesses on streets like Lake Street, where looting had occurred. Accounts indicate that in targeted spots, their visible presence helped prevent further break-ins or vandalism when police couldn’t respond. The mere visibility often suffices to prevent incidents from materializing, as studies and accounts suggest an armed presence can shift antagonists’ perceptions. Open carry clearly communicates the potential for armed resistance. Unlike concealed carry, in which the criminal is unaware the “victim” is armed until the weapon is drawn, open carry is a signal that the person may be capable of defending themselves. From a deterrence perspective, that may discourage crimes where the offender is looking for an easy victim rather than committed to a predetermined attack. Remember that police and security are uniformed and drive marked vehicles to a large degree for deterrence. With open carry, the goal is not necessarily to stop every determined attacker but to increase the perceived cost and uncertainty of committing the crime. Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, there are no statistics and very limited anecdotal data on open carriers deterring a crime merely from being present. On the other hand, opportunistic criminals who are looking for easy prey may be more sensitive to open carry than a terrorist who is committed to the attack. Presentation Deterrence doesn’t come from carrying a gun alone. As we’ll see later, unprepared and sloppy open carriers have been robbed of their guns. Deterrence shows externally through a person’s bearing. People who are alert tend to carry themselves differently from those who are distracted. They look around occasionally, stand upright, move deliberately, and generally appear attentive to what is happening around them. That outward posture signals that the person is engaged with their environment rather than absorbed in a phone or focused entirely on a task. For opportunistic criminals, those signals matter. Many street crimes depend on surprise and on victims who appear inattentive or uncertain. Someone who looks alert, makes eye contact, and moves with purpose is harder to approach unnoticed and more likely to react quickly if something begins to unfold. Even small cues like turning to face someone approaching, shifting position to maintain space, or simply acknowledging another person’s presence can disrupt the attacker’s expectation of an easy approach. Bearing also communicates confidence and capability. A person who appears composed and self-possessed projects the impression that they are prepared to respond if necessary. That does not mean behaving aggressively or confrontationally. Rather, it means carrying oneself in a calm, deliberate way that suggests competence. Criminals often prefer targets who appear unsure, passive, or unaware; someone who looks steady and attentive presents a higher perceived risk. In some cases that bearing can even lead observers to assume the person has some form of authority or training. Individuals who move with confidence, scan their surroundings, and maintain good posture are sometimes mistaken for law enforcement even when they are not. That perception can strengthen the deterrent effect because it suggests the person has authority and is accustomed to dealing with conflict or maintaining control of a situation. Does standing around make you a target? Sentries generally have to stand somewhere visible so their presence creates a deterrent effect. However, not being under cover or concealment increases their risk if they are targeted. For example, a neighbor standing guard on a corner is vulnerable to drive-by shootings. Simply standing in the open like a lawn ornament with a rifle slung on your back is a bad idea. The goal is balance: remain visible enough to project deterrence and readiness, but never sacrifice basic tactical common sense. Visibility without safety is bravado, not preparedness. Weapons always need to be accessible for use. Hold them at the low ready or using a sling that allows a rifle to be readily brought to bear with one hand. You should always position yourself near cover (a vehicle, concrete pillar, building corner, etc.) so you can immediately duck or move if shots are fired. Maintain good situational awareness, keep your head on a swivel, and avoid becoming static or distracted. If you have an armed friend providing cover or overwatch from a protected position, that’s even better. Not brandishing Open carry generally does not meet the legal definition of brandishing because brandishing laws focus on threatening conduct, not simply the visible presence of a firearm. In most states, brandishing statutes require that a person display or use a weapon “in a rude, angry, or threatening manner” with the intent to intimidate or provoke fear. The key element is the behavior accompanying the weapon, not the fact that the weapon can be seen. A holstered handgun, or more uncommonly a slung rifle, does not meet the definition because it is not being used in a confrontational way. Even in states that allow open carry, behavior surrounding the firearm can transform lawful carry into brandishing. Removing the firearm from its holster during an argument, gesturing with it to emphasize a threat, or deliberately displaying it to intimidate someone could meet the statutory definition. In those situations, the issue is not the legality of open carry itself but the threatening manner in which the weapon is used. However, the way a long gun is carried can change how it is perceived. Caution should be used with a long gun carried at the low ready. This could be interpreted as an immediate tactical posture rather than simple possession. The public at large is generally ignorant of how a rifle is supposed to be carried in a tactical situation. What is prudent for a shooter or soldier, the low ready, might be seen as threatening by an uninformed civilian. Combined with a plate carrier, a long gun carrying citizen might be mistaken for a terrorist by observers or even the police. A good rule of thumb when openly carrying a rifle is slung over the shoulder behind the back.
Myths The main tactical objections to open carry rest on a single flawed assumption: that openly carrying a firearm turns you into a magnet for criminals. This is simply not true. Claims that open carry eliminates the element of surprise, makes gun snatching easy, or causes criminals to target you first are driven far more by fear and Fudd-lore than by actual evidence. In reality, the data and documented incidents show these risks are greatly exaggerated. Most objections crumble once examined against real-world encounters rather than hypothetical nightmares. In truth, these fears are largely unfounded once you strip away the myths and look at how open carry actually performs when threats escalate. The discomfort many feel is understandable, but it should not be confused with evidence that open carry is ineffective or reckless. Don’t let discomfort, social pressure, or unfounded fear prevent you from using a perfectly valid and effective method of self-defense when the situation calls for it. Even in ordinary daily self-defense situations, open carry remains a perfectly viable option and is far less remarkable than most people assume, even in urban areas. Remember: you the reader are almost certainly not the tactically-unaware person who would end up a victim of an open-carry targeting or any other crime. Many citizens actually support or are indifferent to it rather than alarmed. Regular open carriers frequently report that it serves as an effective, low-key outreach tool for the Second Amendment as it normalizes armed citizenship and provides an example of a responsible gun owners are simply prepared, not paranoid or aggressive. I Want the Element of Surprise! This is one of the most common arguments for concealed carry over open carry, yet it rarely holds up under realistic examination. What scenario are you actually imagining? Are you picturing yourself as a hostage with a gun to your head, needing to draw instantly without being noticed? That Hollywood situation is extremely rare in real-world violent encounters. Most armed citizens who successfully stop threats are never the initial target. In a mass shooting or terrorist attack, the attacker is typically focused on soft, unarmed victims and is moving rapidly through a crowd. You are very likely to have a brief window where the shooter is not yet looking directly at you. This gives you time to draw from concealment, move to cover, or advance toward the threat while the attacker is occupied elsewhere. Drawing from concealment in that moment is entirely feasible and does not require perfect stealth. In ordinary street crimes (robbery, assault, carjacking), the element of surprise works both ways. The criminal usually has the initiative: they choose the time, place, and moment to close distance and announce their intent (“Give me your wallet!”). By the time you realize what is happening, you are already reacting from a position of disadvantage, whether your gun is concealed or not. Surprise is almost never on the defender’s side in these sudden, close-range encounters. The real advantage of open carry is in high-threat situations. When facing multiple attackers, armed terrorists, or an active shooter, the ability to bring a rifle or large handgun into action instantly is far more valuable than hoping the bad guy doesn’t notice you are armed. If you aren’t lucky or aware enough to notice a terrorist when you are in the line of fire, before they start shooting, they have the element of surprise. The “element of surprise” is largely an illusion in real defensive encounters. Criminals and terrorists rarely give you the luxury of a perfectly hidden draw. What they do respect is immediate, visible capability. A prepared open carrier with good awareness can often present a firearm faster and more decisively than someone fumbling under a cover garment. Concealed carry is excellent for everyday low-profile situations, but in the elevated-threat environments where open carry shines (active shooter, terrorist incident, or civil unrest), speed and certainty of deployment usually outweigh the theoretical benefit of surprise. They’ll Snatch Your Gun! Yes, open carry makes it easier for a criminal to snatch a handgun than concealed carry because the gun is visible and there is no barrier (however minimal) of a shirt. Low-cut shirts and bikinis make it more possible for a nipple to pop out than a collared shirt or one-piece suit. What is the real danger? Frontier Carry determined there have been, in recent times, a ratio of 8:6 open carry to concealed carry gun snatchings. Essentially, the frequency of guns being taken from either kind of armed citizen is effectively the same. This does not make concealed carry automatically safer; proper retention, awareness, and reactions do. Cases suggest that vulnerabilities arise less from the mere presence of a visible firearm than from the combination of limited awareness, lack of preparation for a sudden close-range attack, and insufficient ability to control the weapon during a physical struggle. In other words, the person who was disarmed was not realistically prepared for a defensive incident of any kind. One recurring element, perhaps the main one, is a failure of situational awareness. The suspects approach from behind or from the side while the person is distracted, grabbing the gun before the carrier realized what was happening. Because the firearm was already within arm’s reach, the attacker did not need to overcome distance or draw time; the struggle began immediately. Police, who carry openly, train to keep distance from anyone who might be within arm’s reach of their pistol. Another is the lack of retention equipment or weak holster retention. In multiple incidents the firearm was carried in a holster without an active retention mechanism, or in a loose pocket or waistband. When the attacker grabbed the grip, there was little resistance preventing the gun from being pulled free. Police almost always carry in retention holsters that require some mechanism—a strap, a hood, or a thumb release—to be activated before the gun is released. Taken together, the incidents suggest a fairly consistent pattern: most gun-snatching attempts arise from proximity, surprise, poor retention, and momentary distraction, rather than from elaborate targeting or tactical planning. The suspects see someone who is not paying attention, who is carrying an unsecured firearm, and decide almost on a whim to steal the gun as thrill. Many gun-snatching victims were not actively prepared for a defensive encounter at the time. They were typically caught unprepared, unaware, and unable to react quickly enough to prevent the grab. Despite having a gun, the carrier did not appear to be mentally oriented toward the possibility of a confrontation. Very few armed citizens, concealed or open, have trained in retention tactics. Weak holster retention, poor positioning, or unfamiliarity with weapon-retention techniques allowed the attacker to gain control of the firearm quickly. Gun-snatch incidents historically involve struggles with law-enforcement officers, not private citizens, and that documented snatchings from civilian open carriers are notable because of their rarity. While gun snatches from police do occur because officers physically engage suspects, criminals rarely attempt similar actions against ordinary citizens. Your job, as a private citizen, is not to engage with a possibly suicidal person with a death wish. Many attempts to disarm an officer do not result in successful firearm takeover, thanks to retention holsters, training, and wariness—all things that basically every victim of an open carry snatching didn’t have. RetentionUse retention; this is a Level 2 or 3 holster, usually law enforcement duty-style holsters. Open-top friction only concealed carry holsters are not appropriate. Holsters should be secured to the belt through loops or special “grabber” hooks. Wear a stiff, thick belt. Holsters should not be floppy and never further back on your body than where your arm naturally falls (3 o’clock). For rifles or slung long guns, use a sling, secured around the torso, with quick adjust/release features. Practice transitioning from slung to shouldered without fumbling. Remain situationally aware. Scan your surroundings, watching for people closing distance unnecessarily or fixating on your gun. Keep potential threats at least arm's length away. Step back or angle your body to create space if someone approaches. Project a confident bearing; most victims are attacked when unaware and looking sloppy. An alert posture, deliberate movement, and occasional eye contact signals you are not an easy target. If a struggle begins, yell something like “Get away! Get away from my gun! He’s trying to grab my gun!” If someone seizes your holstered handgun, the priorities are: keep it in the holster if possible, break their grip, create distance, and then counter the threat. Handguns Trap and press: Immediately place your strong hand over the attacker's hand (or on top of the gun) and drive downward hard to pin the firearm in the holster. Sink your weight low for stability. Body rotation and leverage: Pivot or spin your torso away from the grab (often 180 degrees or to the side) while keeping downward pressure. This torques their arm and forces them to readjust, buying time. Strikes to disrupt: Use your support hand or elbow to hammer the attacker's forearm, wrist, or face (eye gouge or palm strike). Follow through with body weight behind the strike. The goal is to break their grip and drive them back. If you have a knife on your other side, and can get a hand free, consider stabbing or slashing them. Pepper spray (OC) at this distance is more likely to incapacitate you. Counter the threat: If you are able to break their grip, immediately move away and create distance. Run, don’t try to draw or fight. Once you have created space, if they are not on top of you and still a threat, you can draw and fire, if they are still an imminent threat. Long guns The immediate goals are to maintain control of the weapon, keep muzzle pointed away from you or others, disrupt the attacker’s balance or grip, and create space. This assumes you have chosen a sturdy sling. Maintain physical control: Keep at least one hand (preferably the strong hand on the pistol grip or fore-end) firmly on the rifle at all times to prevent the attacker from gaining full leverage. Control the muzzle: Direct the muzzle away from bystanders and yourself if possible. If the situation allows and you have a free moment, consider rapidly ejecting the magazine (a round may still be chambered). This step is secondary to retention and should not delay more urgent actions like strikes or movement. Use the sling to your advantage: Ensure the sling remains routed around your torso, not around your neck. If the attacker pulls hard on the rifle, lean or rotate your body into the tension to use the sling as a leverage point. This can pull the attacker off-balance toward you or sideways. Use a quick-release if the sling begins to choke you. Use off-hand strikes: Use your free hand or elbow/knee for aggressive strikes targeting the eyes, face, throat, or the hands/arms gripping the weapon. Eye gouges, palm heels, or hammer fists can create pain and reflexive release without requiring you to let go of the rifle. Body movement and positioning: Pivot your torso, drop your level (sink your hips), or step to create angles. Drive forward or sideways into the attacker to break their posture rather than engaging in a static tug-of-war. If taken to the ground, fight to keep the rifle between you and the attacker while protecting the muzzle. They’ll Shoot the Open Carrier First! There is zero evidence whatsoever that an openly carrying citizen in the US has ever been shot by a criminal merely for openly carrying. The idea “open carry will get you executed first by surprise!” is nothing but fear. There is very little documented evidence that mass shooters or terrorists deliberately target visibly armed civilians (open carriers) and kill them first. When researchers review active-shooter datasets and narrative reports, the pattern that emerges is different: attackers usually fire indiscriminately at victims. The legally armed citizens killed or wounded when intervening were concealed carriers, including the most notable incident in 2014 when Joseph Wilcox attempted to intervene when Jerad and Amanda Miller, after killing to Las Vegas Metro officers, entered the Walmart where Wilcox was shopping. Wilcox drew from concealment and moved to engage Jerad, unaware that Amanda was covering him, and was fatally shot by her. Only three open carriers have been killed with their own guns in recent times. In 2010, Stephen Sharp was killed, after retrieving a pistol from his vehicle, and attempting to go after a co-worker armed with an AK-style rifle. In one case from Virginia in 2011, an open carrier was shot and killed only after his gun was stolen by a criminal and the now unarmed victim tried to chase the suspect down. In 2025, an open carrier in Las Vegas was shot with his own gun after struggling with a mentally unstable person with a history of robbery and drug trafficking. In 2026, during a robbery attempt, the openly carrying victim was actually able to draw and shoot the suspect. Although in this case the victim died, his gun was not taken unawares and he was able to fight back even though his murderer already had the drop on him. While allegedly the man was targeted for openly carrying, this is a bit dubious as the suspect was already armed with his own gun. In any event, there is little about this case that might not have applied to a concealed carrier. There is clearly no pattern to suggest that criminals or mass shooters identify open carriers and target them first. True, internationally terrorists often prioritize security personnel. They are the most likely source of effective resistance so removing them early increases the attacker’s freedom of movement and prolongs the attack. However, targets are frequently selected because they lack armed protection or have limited security screening. International attackers tend to view police and security differently than American active shooters. Police/security uniforms are far more identifiable than an openly carried handgun or the bulge of a concealed one. Security is generally placed in predictable locations, so attackers can easily identify and plan and neutralize them. An armed civilian’s presence is spontaneous, often unexpected, and not obvious. In most environments they are difficult to identify beforehand, and even when someone is openly carrying a firearm, that signal is less standardized than a uniformed officer. Moreover, civilian behavior is inherently unpredictable. A civilian might intervene immediately, seek cover, move others to safety, or leave the area entirely. That uncertainty makes it difficult for an attacker to plan around them in the same way they might plan around a security guard or police presence. The idea that a terrorist will execute open carriers first implies that the terrorist does not immediately launch into an attack, but reconnoiters the area first, looking for potential threats to themselves. Most killers are not that sophisticated, and if they are, they target more predictable risks like security guards. Very few terrorist scenarios, especially in the United States, involve Hollywood scenarios in which attackers carefully clear a space of potential defenders before acting is not typical. When bad guy has the drop on you Another case often cited occurred in Las Vegas in 2026 and appears to be the only modern example of an open carrier becoming involved in a gunfight specifically over his firearm. In that incident, a robber confronted the victim at gunpoint and demanded his handgun. The victim drew and returned fire, but in the exchange of gunfire he was ultimately killed. The case illustrates that it is possible for a carrier to draw and fight when confronted, but, as in any armed robbery, drawing second offers no guarantee of winning the encounter. This incident shows that drawing and returning fire is sometimes still possible even when the attacker initiates the confrontation. Having the “drop” on someone does not always mean the victim is physically incapable of responding. People under threat can and do attempt to draw, move, or fight back. Second, it highlights the inherent risk of drawing second in an armed robbery. When the attacker already has a weapon presented and is controlling the interaction, the defender begins the exchange at a disadvantage. Returning fire may still be the only option, but the outcome becomes highly uncertain. Once a robber has decided to threaten someone with a firearm the situation may already be escalated to a point where compliance does not necessarily guarantee safety. Open carry or not, the victim is at risk regardless of whether they attempt to resist. Situational awareness Situational awareness is the key to avoiding being caught short because most violent encounters develop from proximity and opportunity rather than elaborate tactics. An attacker generally has to close distance, position themselves, and initiate the confrontation. A person who is aware of their surroundings is far more likely to notice those cues before the attacker reaches the point where the victim has no time to react. In practical terms, situational awareness means maintaining a basic understanding of what is happening around you: who is nearby, where people are moving, and whether someone is behaving in a way that draws attention. It does not require constant suspicion or hypervigilance, but it does involve periodically scanning the environment and recognizing when something is out of place. If you are carrying openly, this includes someone who unnecessarily fixates on your gun. Situational awareness provides time for mental preparation. If a person recognizes a potential threat before it becomes immediate, they can begin thinking about what they would do if the situation escalates. Those seconds are critical. Most of the incidents where a firearm is grabbed or where someone is caught off guard occur when the victim is distracted, stationary, or focused on something else. In those moments the attacker can approach without being noticed and close to arm’s reach before the victim realizes anything is wrong. Situational awareness also allows a person to manage distance and positioning. Simply recognizing someone approaching from behind may allow the person to turn, step away, move to a more open area, or create space. Even small adjustments can disrupt the attacker’s plan, because most opportunistic crimes depend on surprise and close proximity. The visible presence of a firearm can deter victimization in general, but it is usually the overall demeanor that keeps an open carrier safe from being judged an easy mark. A person who appears organized, aware, and comfortable with themselves communicates a different message than someone who looks distracted or uncertain. Taken together, alertness and confident bearing can reduce vulnerability helping recognize developing problems earlier and signal to others that the carrier is attentive and capable of responding. The Police Will Confuse You For the Terrorist! No, the police aren’t going to simply shoot you for openly carrying. A holstered handgun is not an immediate threat. In the incidents where an armed citizen was shot by police after intervention was because the officers saw a gun in-hand, not on someone’s waist. There have been vanishingly few incidents of armed citizens intervening in mass shootings being killed mistakenly by police. The most notable one is from 2021: John Hurley in Arvada, CO, used his CCW to shoot and kill a mass shooter. Hurley then picked up the suspect’s rifle and was shot by a responding officer who confused him for the killer. In the last decade, there have only been 3 total cases of police-on-civilian shootings. Based on FBI, 14 were stopped by armed citizens and there have only been one known mistaken-identity shooting. The largest predictor of being killed in an active shooting situation is attempting to intervene. Based on FBI data of 350 active shootings 2014–2023, about 25 were killed white intervening (the data does not break down armed vs. unarmed). Internationally, the number of documented cases where a civilian intervening in an attack is mistakenly killed by police is very small. When civilians are mistakenly shot during police responses, the error usually arises from behavioral cues or perceived resemblance to the suspect, not simply the presence of a weapon. Often the persons physically look like the criminal or terrorist or act suspiciously, such as running instead of complying with police. Police are trained to discriminate potential threats; their academy and continuing training places heavy emphasis on threat discrimination, the ability to quickly determine who poses a lethal danger and who does not. In fact, while police marksmanship might be below that of a serious civilian handgun enthusiast, the one area police are almost certainly better trained in than someone with a CCW is threat recognition. Force-decision simulators (FOS) are video-based judgment trainers that put officers inside filmed scenarios where the outcome depends on the officer’s actions. A suspect might surrender, draw a weapon, reveal a phone, or flee. Live-fire training in Hogan’s Alley type ranges feature targets that represent armed attackers, civilians, or police. Role-players in exercises with airsoft or Simunition play panicked civilians, armed citizen, or suspects. The goal is to counteract the natural tendency under stress to shoot reflexively. To avoid being mistaken as a suspect:
Other tactics Preparation must be realistic and layered. Open carry shines when paired with spare magazines, a load-bearing vest for gear or a plate carrier, armor as appropriate, and back-up guns. Back-up gun Consider a concealed back-up gun, like a subcompact semi-automatic or a lightweight revolver. If your primary weapon is snatched, you can get to cover and re-engage with your secondar gun. Your back-up is not meant as a primary fighting tool, but as a last-ditch option when your main weapon is no longer available. You can also carry a knife, though folding blades may be hard to deploy under stress. Carry the back-up on the opposite side of your body from your primary weapon. Avoid ankle holsters for rapid access under stress; they are slow and difficult to reach when moving or on the ground. Pocket carry or a dedicated inside-the-waistband (IWB) holster on the weak side usually offers the best balance of speed and concealment. If you choose to pocket carry, use a double-action revolver or carry a semi-auto in a holster that covers the trigger. Truck guns A long gun kept in the vehicle can serve as a useful supplement to a handgun, but it comes with significant limitations and risks. A vehicle-stored long gun is not ideal for most sudden active-shooter events inside buildings, but it does have practical value in specific scenarios. When driving through or near areas experiencing looting or mob violence, quick access to a rifle from the vehicle can provide a strong deterrent while you extract yourself and others from danger. On long drives through remote areas where breakdowns, carjackings, or animal threats are more likely, a compact PCC or folding carbine in the vehicle gives you far more capability than a handgun alone if you must defend from or around your vehicle. When you anticipate needing to stand post or provide overwatch for a planned security details like protecting a business, church, or event in a high-risk environment, staging a rifle in the vehicle allows you to arm up quickly without openly carrying the long gun all day. If you are already outside the vehicle, and the situation escalates, the truck gun can be retrieved faster than running back into a building. Folding or compact pistol-caliber carbines (PCCs) that share magazines with your handgun are the most sensible choice. They provide better accuracy, control, and capacity than a handgun while remaining relatively compact. Examples: the Kel-Tec SUB2000, Flux Raider, Smith & Wesson M&P FPC. Compact AR-15-style pistols or short-barreled rifles (SBRs) are also viable, but you’ll need to carry extra ammo. Generally, weapons shouldn’t be carried in vehicles due to theft when left unattended. Never leave a gun in plain view, such as in a back window shotgun rack. Any firearms left in a vehicle should be out of sight behind/under a seat or in the locked trunk/tool box. They should also be in their own locked case or rack that is physically secured to the vehicle. Getting into a vehicle, even the trunk, is trivial if a thief wants to put in the effort, but it’s much harder to pry a gun from a locking rack or cut through a cable without real tools. In most real incidents, a long gun left in the car is of limited value. If an active shooter or terrorist attack occurs while you are inside a building, are you realistically going to exit to your vehicle, retrieve the rifle, and run back in? That plan is tactically unsound. Your primary responsibility is to get yourself and your loved ones out safely. It is neither your moral nor legal duty to mount a solo rescue. The role of a truck gun is better suited for situations where you are already outside or near your vehicle. To survive a critical incident, your goal should be to evacuated yourself and your loved ones. You are likely under-trained and unequipped for building clearing or rescue operations (no Level IV plates, no team support, no breaching tools). Re-entering with a rifle dramatically increases the chance that arriving police will mistake you for the threat. Spare magazines Have at least one spare magazine for your handgun, preferably more. Police usually carry two spare magazines. Under extreme stress, accuracy drops dramatically. You will likely fire more rounds than you expect, especially against moving targets, armored threats, or multiple attackers who are using cover. Despite most real-life gunfights involving 3-8 shots fired, this considers normal defensive shoots between citizens or police and criminals, not terrorists. In terrorist incidents/mass shootings, round counts tend to be higher due to longer fights, longe shots, dynamically moving targets, and multiple bad guys. If a handgun is necessary, usually these fights are taken care of with one higher capacity magazine’s worth of ammo, say approximately 15 rounds. A Glock 17 can hold 18 rounds standard, so a spare magazine or two for a compact or sub-compact pistol that only holds 6-10 rounds is a good idea. Understand that under stress you are probably going to shoot far more poorly than you do on the range, even if you compete. You will probably be shooting at a moving target, that might have armor, who might be using cover, and possibly on the move or from behind cover for yourself. Covering or suppressing fire might even be a possibility. All of these factors will eat up ammo the way shooting a mugger in an alley won’t. A spare magazine is more than just extra capacity in an extended gunfight. If you drop a magazine during the adrenaline dump of a fight, a spare keeps you in the fight. A malfunction can often be cleared quickly by ripping out the magazine and inserting a fresh one (tap-rack-bang may not be enough if the magazine itself is the problem). Keep spare magazines on your non-dominant side, either in a dedicated belt pouch or in a separate pocket. This allows your strong hand to stay on the gun while your support hand retrieves a fresh magazine. Avoid carrying spares in the same pocket as your phone, keys, or other items that can interfere with a fast reload. Armor and plate carriers Do you need hard plates? For the vast majority of situations, the answer is no. Hard armor is designed for extreme, low-probability events such as sustained rifle fire during civil unrest, mass terrorism, or active combat. These are all scenarios the average American is highly unlikely to encounter. Everyday law enforcement officers typically rely on soft body armor because the most common firearm threats they face are handguns. Only in high-risk operations or critical incidents do officers don full plate carriers. Soft armor offers important advantages: it is lighter, more flexible, and covers a much larger area of the torso than hard plates, which usually protect only the front and back center mass. Level II or IIIA soft vests will reliably stop most common handgun rounds and are far more practical for daily wear. However, soft armor provides little to no protection against rifle rounds. In the realm of preparing for terrorist attacks, mass shootings, or urban disorder, the threat is far more likely to involve rifles (AR-15 or AK-style platforms). Here, hard plates become relevant. Level III or III+ plates will defeat common 5.56mm and 7.62×39 threats (including M855 “green tip” in many cases), while Level IV plates add protection against armor-piercing rounds such as .30-06. Even then, plates only cover a small portion of the body and add significant weight and bulk. A ballistic helmet can stop pistol rounds and high-velocity shrapnel but will not reliably defeat rifle ammunition. It is also noticeably heavier and hotter than a simple bump helmet. Hard plates and full carriers are overkill for ordinary criminal threats such as robberies or crimes of passion. They may be worth considering only if you have credible reason to anticipate a rifle-armed mass casualty event. For most open carriers, a vest with soft level III plates (if any armor at all) provides a more realistic and practical level of protection without turning everyday carry into a burden. A load-bearing vest (or chest rig) of some kind can still be genuinely useful even if you decide hard armor plates are unnecessary. A lightweight, low-profile vest or rig allows you to carry spare magazines, a tourniquet, medical supplies, a flashlight, radio, or even a back-up handgun in an organized, immediately accessible manner without crowding your pockets or belt. In an active-shooter or terrorist scenario where you may need to move, reload quickly, treat minor wounds, or sustain yourself for more than a few minutes, having that gear readily available on your body dramatically improves your effectiveness and survivability. Unlike full plate carriers, a simple load-bearing vest can be comfortable enough for extended wear and does not scream “tactical operator” when worn over normal clothing, preserving a lower profile while still providing practical utility. Carry with a loaded chamber Carry your handgun with a round in the chamber. The common objection “But the Israelis do it empty-chamber” does not translate to modern American carry. Israeli forces in the 1940s were often working with unreliable pistols under wartime conditions, and many of their personnel were minimally trained conscripts in a country with extremely restrictive civilian gun ownership. Today you can purchase some of the most reliable, drop-safe firearms ever engineered. You are not in 1940s Israel; carry like a confident, competent American. Holstering or drawing is statistically the most likely time for a negligent discharge, but this risk is managed through training and familiarity, not by leaving the chamber empty. If you shoot and dry-practice enough to truly know your firearm, you will develop the muscle memory and confidence to handle it safely with a round chambered. An empty chamber is not safer. In fact, it can increase danger for the unskilled shooter. Sympathetic hand tightening during slide manipulation often pulls the trigger unintentionally and one is far more likely to have an accidental discharge. An empty chamber is not “almost just as fast.” In practice, it is slower: you must rack the slide with one hand while under extreme stress, which adds a complicated manipulation step and valuable time to your draw stroke. That extra movement also increases the chance of error. Under pressure, many shooters short-stroke the slide or fail to fully seat it, resulting in a malfunction instead of a functioning firearm. The second or two it takes to chamber a round is better spent acquiring a sight picture when speed means life or death. A well-trained shooter who carries loaded can simply draw and fire without any additional steps. If you lack the skill or confidence to carry a modern handgun with a round in the chamber, you should seriously reconsider whether you should be carrying at all. Suicide bombers Confronting a suspected suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest is one of the most dangerous and unlikely scenarios an armed citizen could face. In such a rare situation, there is a need for immediate, total incapacitation to prevent the bomber from triggering the device. This is an absolute last-resort, edge-case tactic. To kill a suspected or actual suicide bomber, often wearing a suicide vest, head shots are the only reliable way to kill before they can detonate the device. Officers and soldiers are taught to target the brainstem, the "point where the spinal cord connects to the brain," also called the medulla oblongata for immediate, total incapacitation when facing a confirmed or suspected suicide vest bomber. They do not shoot center-of-mass because it may not stop the threat fast enough if the bomber has a dead-man switch or can reflexively detonate and might inadvertently cause a detonation. A into the brainstem prevents any voluntary movement or spinal reflex that could detonate the device as the bomber's last act. It is often described in training as the “lights off switch” or the no-reflex shot, because destroying it severs all motor control signals to the body. The person collapses limp with no twitching or ability to trigger a switch. Only a precise brainstem hit shuts down all voluntary control and somatic reflexes. The specific aimpoint is between the eyes and nose (the tip of the nose is a recommended aiming point), ear canal (from the side), or about one inch below the base of the skull (from behind). The one caveat is if they have a dead-man’s switch where pressure being released causes the device to detonate, meaning that if they hand relaxes after they die, it is triggered. If you have no safe option to escape and reasonably believe the bomber is about to detonate, the only viable defensive action may be to engage with rapid, accurate fire while moving to cover, prioritizing head shots if possible. However, recognize that even multiple hits may not fully neutralize the threat before detonation, and the blast radius of a typical vest can be lethal at 30–50 yards or more. For the average citizen openly carrying a handgun or rifle, attempting this level of precision under extreme stress is extraordinarily difficult and statistically improbable. Most civilians lack the training, marksmanship, and stress inoculation required for consistent brainstem hits on a moving target. In the vast majority of cases, the best response remains avoidance, rapid evacuation of the area and seeking hard cover. Conclusion Don’t let discomfort, social pressure, or unfounded fear prevent you from using a perfectly valid and effective method of self-defense when the situation calls for it. Open carry isn’t required for normal daily life if you prefer to conceal, but when threats genuinely escalate, it can give you tools and speed that concealment cannot. Make the decision based on facts, training, and the actual risk, not on myths or what others might think. If you train seriously and live in a state where open carry is legal, make open carry part of your elevated-threat plan. It is not required every day, and it does not turn you into a superhero. But in the kind of sudden, widespread terrorist rampage open carry is a pragmatic force multiplier. The discomfort and myths that deter many people today become irrelevant when the stakes shift from reputation to survival. If engagement becomes necessary, open carry gives you the best tools to do so effectively. Will the War With Iran Result in the Rise of the Antichrist? Don Shift's Theory of the End Times3/18/2026
 For my non-Christian followers, this probably isn’t your lane, and you’re free to skip it. For everyone else, this is my personal framework built on scripture, credible intellectual sources, and years of scholarship on the topic of how the end times could unfold and how current events, particularly involving Iran and the Middle East, might fit into that picture.
This is my framework for how biblical end-times prophecy might unfold; specifically how the Antichrist will be a Muslim and a basic overview of my understanding of the how the end times might unfold. It’s not a prediction, but an attempt to explain my worldview in context of scripture, historical patterns, and current events. I think we may be at a point in history where the conditions described in biblical prophecy could plausibly align: Israel exists again as a nation, regional normalization efforts like the Abraham Accords are underway, global economic and demographic pressures are building, World War III with China is in the offing, and rapidly advancing technology is reshaping how societies function (especially surveillance systems, AI, and how damaging smartphones and social media are to human relationships). Taken together, these factors create a kind of convergence that, at least in theory, makes an end-times scenario easier to imagine than in many previous periods. I do believe for multiple reasons we may be facing a Tower of Babel type moment where radical divine intervention is required to save humanity from a terrible fate. The good news is that this culminates in the return of Jesus. Theory One interpretation of end times prophecy (eschatology) I believe makes sense is that the Antichrist will be Muslim. According to this theory, the Antichrist emerges from a Middle Eastern or Islamic political environment rather than from Europe (revised Roman Empire). A popular belief is that the Antichrist comes from a progressive, Western empire (like the EU) or an evil perversion of the Catholic church. Biblical prophecy also repeatedly focuses on nations immediately surrounding Israel. In that view, the “Beast” empire arises from the same geographic arena as the ancient powers that historically ruled over Israel: Assyria, Babylon, and later empires centered in the eastern Mediterranean. Several prophetic passages even describe the Antichrist using titles connected to the Assyrian world, implying an origin in those same regions. Because much of that territory overlaps with the modern Islamic world, some interpreters see the possibility that the final empire could arise from a political or religious revival within that broader Middle Eastern sphere. Daniel’s visions describe four successive empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Many interpreters assume that because the final empire appears to revive in some form, it must be a restored Roman Empire centered in Europe. Some expect the Antichrist to emerge from a revived Roman empire, western in character. However, another line of interpretation focuses less on Rome’s original capital and more on the geography where the Roman imperial system actually continued the longest. After the western empire collapsed, the eastern half of Rome survived for nearly a thousand years as the Byzantine Empire, ruling the eastern Mediterranean, Anatolia, the Levant, and parts of North Africa; all Muslim lands today. When Constantinople fell in 1453, that same imperial core passed into the hands of the Ottoman Turks, whose Islamic caliphate once ruled much of the former Byzantine and biblical world. In that sense, the fourth empire will be an Islamic one, based on the old Byzantine and Ottoman domains. In that sense, the final form of the fourth empire could emerge from that same regional sphere, with a revived Middle Eastern confederation or caliphate representing the empire described in Daniel. Another interesting twist is from Islamic eschatology itself. It describes Islam’s final leader, the Mahdi, who establishes a global Islamic rule centered around the Middle East and who fights against Israel and the infidels. When the Islamic prophecies are compared against Christian ones, their Mahdi and his assistant, Isa (the Muslim Jesus), almost fit to a T the roles of the Antichrist and False Prophet as described in the Bible. Daniel’s weeks In Daniel 9, the “seventy weeks” prophecy describes a period of seventy sets of seven “weeks” of years (490 years) decreed for Israel and Jerusalem, beginning with the command to rebuild Jerusalem and culminating in the coming of the Messiah and the resolution of sin. Most futurist interpretations hold that the first sixty-nine weeks were fulfilled historically, while the final or seventieth week remains a future seven-year period associated with the covenant, the rise of the Antichrist, and the events often called the Tribulation. Many interpreters believe that when Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God’s prophetic timetable for Israel paused while the Gospel spread to the wider world. The gap between the 69th and 70th weeks is understood as an interval in which the prophetic clock concerning Israel is temporarily suspended until the events leading to the end times begin. The end times start with this prophetic final “week” coming out of a period of instability across the Middle East. The region is divided among several competing powers—i.e. Turkey, Iran, Arab states, and others (Middle Eastern countries occupying much of the territory historically ruled by the four earlier empires)—while Israel remains politically isolated and surrounded by tension. Conflicts, proxy wars, and economic strain create pressure for a major regional realignment. Out of this environment, a new political coalition begins to form among states that share an interest in stabilizing the region and limiting further war. Israel enters into a major regional agreement with this coalition (the covenant described in Daniel 9:27), likely involving security guarantees and political normalization with surrounding states. The agreement creates the appearance of peace and stability in the Middle East, even while tensions and conflicts continue elsewhere in the world. In prophetic interpretation, this covenant begins Daniel’s final seven-year period. The same coalition that produces peace could eventually become the system from which the Antichrist rises. Israel entering this peace treaty represents Israel placing its security in a political arrangement rather than in God, echoing the warning in Isaiah about a “covenant with death.” Although modern nation-state of Israel is largely secular, this is treated as a symbolic spiritual representation. The mainstream belief is that this peace treaty corresponds to the covenant described in Daniel 9, which begins the final seven-year period often called Daniel’s seventieth week: that period commonly associated with the Great Tribulation (technically the second half) described in the book of Revelation. The early years of the agreement (first 3 ½ years) look like diplomacy amid regional instability, but midway through the covenant is broken and this mysterious, dominant, successful, ascendant leader is unquestionably revealed as the Antichrist. During the first half of the seven years, the coalition functions as a political system with several powerful leaders. Several leaders or “kings” are described corresponding to the multi-ruler system in Daniel and Revelation. Initially these rulers operate collectively, trying to impose order on the region. However, internal rivalries and regional conflicts begin to reshape the balance of power within it. Daniel’s vision of the “little horn” (Antichrist) rising among other rulers is often interpreted as a political leader who begins within the coalition but gradually surpasses the others through diplomacy, military success, or crisis leadership. As disputes arise, possibly conflicts between northern and southern regions, the emerging Antichrist gains influence by resolving crises and consolidating authority. He is successful in all he does and no one can stand against him. Some rival rulers are defeated or marginalized, and others effectively transfer their power to him in order to maintain the stability of the system. By the end of this period, he has become the dominant military and political figure within the revived empire. The midpoint of the seven-year period marks point where this special leader breaks the covenant with Israel and asserts open authority in the process. In Daniel’s prophecy this moment is associated with the stopping of temple sacrifices and the act often called the “abomination of desolation.” At that point the political coalition transforms into the authoritarian empire described in Revelation, and the ruler is formally and unequivocally revealed as the Antichrist. The treaty The future seven-year covenant described by Daniel involving Israel could emerge from a multinational coalition seeking stability after a devastating conflict. We are now seeing a major war with Iran. Historically, big wars often lead to sweeping peace agreements. In this scenario, Israel, Arab states, and regional powers could move toward a comprehensive deal far beyond just peace with Iran. This treaty would promise to resolve:
In the aftermath, Israel, the Arab states, Turkey, and outside powers move toward a comprehensive settlement to prevent another catastrophe. The result is a broad regional agreement that includes Palestinian statehood, normalization between Israel and its neighbors, and major economic and security cooperation, structured as a fixed-term seven-year framework to allow phased implementation and review. A war that severely weakens or destroys Iran’s military could make a large regional peace agreement possible because Iran has long been the central destabilizing rival in the Middle East power system, shaping alliances and proxy wars across the region. With Iran out of the picture, many Arab governments and Israel would have far fewer strategic obstacles to open cooperation and normalization. This would help prevent another potentially catastrophic regional war. A future pan-Middle East treaty could build on precedents like the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. Several Gulf states already view Israel as a de-facto partner. Economically and strategically, a regional system linking Israel, the Gulf states, and potentially Saudi Arabia would make sense. A normalized corridor linking Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf creates a continuous economic zone from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. Palestinian statehood and normalization are not the “peace,” they are the political lubricant that lowers transaction costs for Israel and its neighbors to sign. If Palestinian statehood is settled as part of a regional deal, the Arab–Israeli conflict essentially ends as the centerpiece of Middle Eastern politics. Saudi Arabia would probably formalize relations once Palestinian statehood provides political cover. Syria and Lebanon would no longer have to worry about Iran interfering in their politics and supporting its proxy Hezbollah. With the crux of the main obstacles resolved—Palestine and Iranian interference—the surrounding Muslim nations may see this as the time to bury the hatchet with their Jewish neighbors. Under the assumption that everyone truly wants closure, even the religious issue around the Temple Mount could be resolved through some kind of negotiated arrangement. One theoretical model would be a shared or divided sacred precinct where Islamic and Jewish holy sites coexist under a joint religious and international administration. The current Islamic structures remain protected while a Jewish temple or shrine is constructed within an agreed boundary that preserves Muslim access and sovereignty claims. This new coalition system forms (the “Beast”) to prevent further escalation and to lock in a new political map. In the Middle East that would likely involve several pillars of power: Israel, the Arab bloc led by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, Turkey as the strongest conventional military state in the region, and the US and Europe. Europe in particular would benefit from no worries about the oil supply and easier trade with Asia (no Houthi shipping attacks). The treaty itself therefore may not initially be signed with a single charismatic ruler, i.e. the Antichrist. It could be a regional framework signed by multiple governments or blocs as we have already seen in some forms. At that stage the system might look like a peace architecture rather than an empire. However, spiritual forces are at work and regional instability follows. Conflict between regional blocs (“the kings of the north and south”) could become the catalyst that elevates the Antichrist through consolidation. If the treaty system starts to fracture due to competing ambitions, a figure who can restore order or impose a settlement suddenly becomes indispensable. When the system reaches a crisis point, he could claim emergency authority to enforce the covenant and stabilize the region. This is the moment when the system transitions from cooperative to coercive. Revelation speaks of many rules “giving their power and authority to the Beast.” A fully revealed Antichrist doesn’t have to sign the peace treaty with Isreal on day one. The key point is that Daniel’s language does not explicitly say the covenant is signed with “the Antichrist” as a clearly recognized world ruler. Daniel 9:27 simply says that “he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week,” and the identity of the “he” is inferred from the surrounding context. The “he” emerges out of the same political system described in Daniel’s beast imagery rather than appearing beforehand as an already dominant emperor. Daniel’s visions describe a confederation of rulers emerging from the final empire (Daniel 7). Among these rulers a “little horn” rises and gradually becomes more influential than the others. Revelation later describes the same structure as ten kings who eventually give authority to the Beast. That implies a political system where multiple rulers exist first and only later transfer their power to one dominant figure. In other words, the Beast system precedes the Beast’s absolute authority. Under that reading the first half of the seven years would indeed look like political or military-victory consolidation. In that framework, the treaty belongs to the Beast system rather than to the fully revealed Beast personally. Timeline After the war with Iran is resolved, the resulting destabilization or political shifts that convinces Israel, Arab states, Turkey, and outside powers that a new regional security system is necessary. Diplomacy quickly pivots toward a comprehensive settlement. A few years later, a multinational regional agreement is signed for a fixed term of seven years. Israel enters the covenant with a coalition of states rather than a single ruler. The Great Tribulation of seven years begins. During the first half of the seven years the agreement appears successful. Trade expands, infrastructure is built, and regional security cooperation deepens but at the same time fractures begin to appear between the different regional powers. During this phase the future Antichrist rises politically within the coalition. He is known as a stabilizer and mediator who keeps rival states cooperating. Then a crisis/crises threatens to collapse the fragile peace. A rising leader steps in to manage the conflict and accumulates extraordinary authority in the process. He becomes more aggressive. Daniel 7 describes him speaking arrogantly and subduing other rulers. Both Daniel 8 and 11 describe him as militarily powerful (and perhaps supernaturally lucky): “will succeed in whatever he does” and “He will be successful until the time of wrath.” Both passages contribute to the prophetic picture that this ruler initially appears extraordinarily successful politically and militarily, prospering and consolidating power before his ultimate downfall. At roughly three and a half years the system undergoes a sudden transformation. The Antichrist asserts direct authority over the Middle East (or more). The covenant that created the peace is violated. At this moment the ruler’s character becomes unmistakable. His consolidation of the framework that created peace turns into a regime of utter domination. While there may be reasonable uncertainty and doubt about the Antichrist’s identity, now it is clearly revealed by both prophetic confirmation and behavior. The midpoint of the seven years becomes the decisive turning point. Daniel 9 says the covenant is broken halfway through the period and sacrifices (within the third Jewish temple) cease. Daniel 11 describes the ruler desecrating the sanctuary and exalting himself above every god; this is the “abomination that causes desolation.” Revelation parallels this moment with the Beast receiving full authority, the establishment of the global worship system enforced by the False Prophet, and the beginning of the intense persecution of believers. In short, he becomes an absolute naked tyrant, openly persecutes Jews and Christians, and faces the wrath of God. The final three and a half years correspond to what Jesus called the Great Tribulation. Daniel describes the ruler waging war against the saints for “a time, times, and half a time,” while Revelation describes forty-two months of Beast authority. During this same period Revelation unfolds the trumpet and bowl judgments, which intensify the global crisis while the Beast maintains political and military dominance…at least for a time. The exact timing of the judgements is debated and difficult to pinpoint. Many interpreters place the seal judgments near the beginning, corresponding to a world that remains unstable (war, famine, disease). Later, after the covenant is broken, the scale of the judgements increase. The final stage of the period is typically linked with the bowl judgments, which are seen as rapid and severe judgments near the end of the tribulation; the literal wrath of God being poured out. At the end of the seven years, Jesus returns as both the Jewish Messiah, who they bittersweet-fully recognize this time, and as the reigning God. Jesus then literally slaughters all those who oppose him and rose up against Israel, often portrayed as the Battle of Armageddon (named after the valley where the armies gather to destroy Jerusalem), and imprisons the Antichrist, the False Prophet, and the devil himself while he reigns over a thousand years of peace. Disclaimers The important limitation is that prophecy describes patterns and sequences, not modern political timelines. A war could catalyze diplomacy, but the exact actors, institutions, and timing would depend on many unpredictable factors. Avoiding date-setting means treating the scenario as a way the biblical narrative could plausibly unfold rather than as a forecast tied to current events. The end times could happen in a few years, a few decades, or hundreds of years from now: people have been predicting them based on current events since shortly after Jesus was resurrected. Christians should be careful about setting specific dates for prophetic events. Jesus himself said that no one knows the exact day or hour of his return, and history has shown the danger of trying to predict precise timelines. At the same time, scripture also encourages believers to remain watchful and attentive to the signs of the times. In the parable of the fig tree, Jesus taught that while the exact moment cannot be known, people can recognize the season when certain signs begin to appear. For nearly two thousand years the church has lived with the expectation that Christ’s return could come at any time. Because of that, thoughtful speculation about how biblical prophecy might unfold is not necessarily misguided, as long as it remains humble and avoids claiming certainty about specific dates. The purpose of discussing these possibilities is not to predict the future with precision, but to remain spiritually alert and aware of the patterns the Bible describes. Many predictions about the end times and return of Jesus have been made over the centuries so it would be foolish to obsess over them. Prophecy is meant to encourage watchfulness, not anxiety or endless calculation. Christians are called to live faithfully in the present rather than becoming consumed with trying to predict the future. Christians also need to be careful that they do not drift into hostility toward Jews or antisemitism. One does not have to agree with every policy of the state of Israel to recognize that the Jewish people occupy a unique place in the biblical story which centers God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Yes, God himself calls them a stubborn people and gets annoyed with them and their repeated betrayals, but he remains faithful to his promise as his grace remains faithful to the struggling sinner. As the tribulation narrative describes rising global hostility toward Israel, hatred of Jews will intensify and become part of the broader Satanic rebellion against God. That creates a real danger that some who claim to be Christians could be swept into that hostility. Political skepticism about any government can be a normal part of foreign policy discussion, but Christians should be careful not to let those debates harden into hatred toward the Jewish people themselves, especially if the end times really do begin. A note about the rapture: For those who don’t know, the rapture is when Jesus calls Christians to heaven and both the dead and living are “caught up” to heaven. Christians have long debated the timing of the rapture, and the Bible does not give a universally agreed-upon timeline. In the popular Left Behind (pre-trib) style interpretation, believers are removed from the earth before the tribulation begins, leaving the world to face the events of Revelation without them. This theory does not assume a pre-tribulation removal of believers before the events of the tribulation begin. The rapture has traditionally been understood to occur later, meaning that Christians may live through part or even most of the tribulation period. At the same time, many who hold this position believe that while Christians may experience persecution and hardship during this period (or they may supernaturally be protected), they are ultimately spared from God’s final wrath in the sense of eternal judgment. The exact timing of the rapture does not change the basic point that Christians should expect to see significant prophetic events unfold. Because Scripture has been interpreted both ways, many people treat the timing as an open question rather than a doctrinal certainty. Either way, you aren’t going to Hell, and if you see a seven year peace treaty being proposed with Muslim countries and Israel, pay attention because prophecy might be fulfilled. Finally, I’m deeply indebted to the work of Joel Richardson, author of The Islamic Antichrist and Mideast Beast, as well as Walid Shoebat and G. H. Lang for formation of this theory.  There are only about three movies about the Rhodesian Bush War, all seen indirectly, and this is one of them. “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” is adapted from the eponymous memoir by Alexandra Fuller, who grew up in Rhodesia during the Bush War and it’s best approached on those terms. This is not a war movie in any conventional sense. It is a childhood memoir put on screen, one shaped by trauma, set against the background drop of the Bush War. The war is present, but rarely centered, instead preferring to explore (quite frankly) Fuller’s fucked up childhood in the midst of the war. From a cinematic auteur’s perspective, it is very well done film. This is a film about feral Rhodesian children. Having read the book, it’s hard to argue the film exaggerates. If anything, it restrains itself. While the adaptation necessarily smooths some edges for narrative clarity, it still goes to very dark places well beyond the war itself. The film makes no pretense of being a historical. Time is compressed and events are rearranged, as they were in the book—itself non-linear. On screen, the war functions as atmosphere and pressure and it works. The use of a child’s perspective is effective in conveying fear, confusion, and the menace of war and racial conflict. The mother is portrayed as aggressively, almost fanatically Rhodesian. That portrayal is not inconsistent with history. It recalls Kipling’s observation in “The Female of the Species,” and the film is perceptive in showing how women are the most ardent believers in ideology. Both the mother’s and father’s performances avoid caricature. Several scenes are genuinely immersive in that period of Rhodesia. The venerable FN FAL got plenty of screentime, though it didn’t play a starring or even supporting role. Unfortunately, there was no gunplay. Anyone expecting combat scenes will be disappointed. This is not that movie. The depiction of rural security measures is one of the film’s quieter strengths. It’s like still photos from the ‘70s have come alive. The convoy system on high-risk roads is shown well, including BSAP gun trucks escorting civilian traffic along mine-cleared routes. The appearance of period-correct Mazda B-series pickups, actually used by BSAP reservists, is a small detail that lands well. The reservists themselves are shown as men of widely varying ages, which accurately reflects the degree of white mobilization at the time. The father’s call-ups and the mother’s volunteer work as a BSAP “B girl” on the radios are treated as routine rather than heroic. The film also touches on the “Bright Lights” guards left to protect farms while able-bodied men were deployed elsewhere. These older or unfit men existed largely as deterrence, and the film captures both the intention and the quiet absurdity of the system. Many Rhodesians at the time, asked: why strip farms of their defenders only to send replacements who could not fight? The film did not explore this. One of the more effective sequences shows the aftermath of a farmhouse break-in (by terrorists) in which the black housemaid is brutally attacked for her loyalty to the family and left for dead. The father clearing the house and calling for help on the Agric-Alert radio is tense, but handled without melodrama. It’s matter-of-fact, which makes it more disturbing and realistic. The radio call was a nice touch. It was very interesting to see the coverage of the election regarding Bishop Abel Muzorewa (the moderate candidate) and Mugabe. After Mugabe’s victory, they show African squatters and the conflict this brought with the farmers, though squatting and land seizures didn’t become the major issue Zimbabwe is famous for until later. What it captures well is the pervasive tension between Africans and whites, and the ambiguity of loyalty on the farms. The bond between servants and the children they raise sits uneasily alongside adult skepticism and quiet support for the terrorists. When Jacob, the cook, warns that “the hills are watching,” the line works on both a literal and symbolic level. Whether as fighters or informers, the war was always closer than it appears. Taken on its own terms, “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” succeeds. It’s a good movie that captures your attention and if you want to introduce the wife to the Rhodesian Bush War, she’ll probably like it too. If you want the much better perspective on Rhodesian rural life and the war, Fuller’s book is worth the read to humanize the history.  Buy Lessons From the Rhodesian Bush War
I am not optimistic that the Insurrection Act would be a good idea or would work.
The Insurrection Act probably won’t work out the way Trump wants it to. Sure, it will enable regular troops to defend federal agents and even enforce the law (an insurrection is one of the few times actual troops can do this, thanks to the Posse Comitatus Act). But martial law isn’t a panacea. For one, the left will freak out and see this as Trump declaring war on them, to which they will respond in kind. I would not be surprised to see actual terrorism begin in response. This won’t be going toe-to-toe against the troops necessarily, but asymmetric attacks in the form of assassinations, sabotage, and targeting civilians. Federal targets will probably be hit outside of the insurrection zones. When the feds crack down in one area under the Insurrection Act, the leftists will just move to a new area, forcing the feds to invoke the Act again wherever. First Minnesota, then Albuquerque, etc. If pressure relents in one area, the activity will spike again there. Prosecutions in the civilian court system will be problematic. Leftist judges and left-leaning juries in sympathetic areas might acquit the legions of insurrectionists and traitors being arrested. This will create a huge problem as the arrests are then catch-and-release without any real teeth unless habeas corpus is suspended. Congress then might very well override the President’s order or fail to pass a bill allowing or expanding it. Courts will almost certainly limit or nullify the suspension. With the court system still in operation, Trump cannot setup military tribunals and would have a hard time arguing that it is impossible to administer justice simply because leftist or a wishy-washy judiciary is refusing to properly try “political prisoners” (and “political prisoner” is exactly how the left will frame it). Being unable to try, convict, or even just intern insurrectionists and terrorists will hinder the effectiveness of the Act, perhaps even making a mockery out of it. Appeals will probably ravage any military orders implemented under martial law, such as curfews, banning of assemblies, etc. Thus any extraordinary regulations possible under martial law won’t have much real effect. This will leave the Act and the troops as basically muscle. They can provide overwatch, engage in firefights, do crowd and riot control, and make arrests, but they won’t be much more effective than flooding the area with more cops. All it will do is make the situation look like a military occupation (which it is) without teeth, playing into the left’s hands. Troops will be exposed to violence and I seriously doubt if Trump has the political capitol or the stomach to cross the Rubicon and order the insurrection violently suppressed as it should be. I also do not think that Trump and the DOJ is in a position to start en-masse arresting the billionaires, NGOs, and politicians funding and fueling these things. Where are the sedition charges against Tim Walz? What are the odds of him being convicted on those charges? Would even treasonous individuals who will eventually kill federal agents or troops be convicted and executed without a military tribunal? Frankly, things should be allowed to get so bad that the public and Congress is begging for the Insurrection Act, giving Trump the power to do whatever is necessary to restore order. So there appears to be a sizeable portion of Twitter users that feel that China could not mount a significant attack on the United States. First, while it’s true China could not mount a Maduro-style raid using helicopters, stealth aircraft, and amphibious assault groups on CONUS, they certainly could engage in major kinetic and cyber attacks.
Most of the people refuting this idea do it based on ignorant jingoism, not evidence. “AMERICA IS SO GREAT, A BUNCH OF SLIT-EYED CHINKS COULD NEVER ATTACK US. ‘MERICA!” China has spent two decades probing US networks, mapping infrastructure, and quietly demonstrating access. Those intrusions are not speculative, they’ve been documented. Cyber operations require, only patience and scale, both of which China has in abundance. Remember that the reason Space Force was developed was in-part to counter Chinese cyberwarfare units like PLA Unit 61486 and Volt Typhoon. America is so smugly confident in its own safety that serious hardening of utility infrastructure is routinely deferred or ignored. The assumption that distance or American Competence™ makes a successful attack unlikely has bred complacency. Much of the US grid still runs on legacy systems while being treated as a strategic afterthought. One example is the example is the 2021 Oldsmar, FL, water treatment incident. An attacker remotely accessed the water plant’s control system and attempted to raise the sodium hydroxide level in the drinking water 100x, which could have caused chemical burns or undrinkable, at best. The idiots running this system allowed remote access (work-from-home, anyone?) and passwords were unchanged, among other things. Luckily someone noticed when they saw their mouse cursor moving all by itself. Just because we live on the other side of the ocean and have 12 aircraft carriers and China is known for selling shitty products at Walmart doesn’t mean that they aren’t sophisticated to attack our infrastructure. Much of the US utility grid remains poorly secured and dependent on legacy control systems never designed for cyberwarfare. A coordinated cyber campaign doesn’t need to black out the entire country to have strategic effect. The disruption caused by power, communications, or utility outages would be enough to delay the response and recovery. It’s been documented that China has shown interest in water utilities serving military bases: why? Cuz not having running water makes life hard on the troops/sailors preparing to deploy. Cyber attacks on power, communications, ports, and logistics nodes offer strategic leverage too. Even temporary outages complicate mobilization, slow command-and-control, and force political leaders to spend attention inward rather than outward. Instead of using the normal infrastructure, they’re busy using inferior systems like water buffalos, generators, or HF radio. Couple this with a few infiltrated commando raids engaging US military troops at their bases with some shipping container drone or cruise missile attacks. The US expects to be immune in CONUS, the rear-of-the-rear, and instead of focusing totally on a response, like we did in WWII, we’d have to fight, defend, and recover back home instead of just overseas. The objection that it would be irrational (“Hell buddy, we’d just do it back to them and worse!) misses that this actually has happened before. Yamamoto warned the Japanese Navy establishment that they could not win a war with the US and that the Pearl Harbor strategy relied on everything going perfectly. They attacked anyway and they hoped that shock, confusion, and early advantage might force a political settlement. China is well-known for their delusion hubris that they are better than everyone else and can’t fail; it is entirely in their character to do something this stupid. If you ask an honest FBI agent, probably the largest national security threat is Chinese intelligence operations. Utility intrusions, easy telecom and infrastructure access, plus the history if hacking and penetration, are not speculative, but openly acknowledged. Legal travel, illegal entry, dual-use professionals, and long-term residents all provide cover for sabotage and intelligence work without requiring Hollywood-style infiltration. China ROUTINELY takes advantage of this and it would be easy for them, even with Trump in office, to get actual commandos and saboteurs into the country. The strategic logic is pretty straightforward; attacking the population dates back, in recent times, to the strategic city bombing campaigns of World War II. Fear and uncertainty at home weaken resolve and complicate decision-making because the public (in theory) is afraid and will pressure their politicians to end/avoid the war. A population dealing with rolling blackouts, disrupted internet, or compromised water systems is harder to rally and harder to coordinate. In the current political climate, there would certainly be attempts to rally the Left against the war effort. “Oh no, I can’t stream Netflix; we have to stop this horrible war!” As far as mutually-assured destruction (we’ll do it back to you, but worse), yes, we can, but China also has probably taken this possibility more seriously than we have. China is also probably willing to make serious sacrifices to win that the American people aren’t. “Make peace so my boy in the Marines (he just joined up for the uniform and benefits and so I can put a bumper sticker on my car) doesn’t die and I can go back to watching NASCAR!”, but I digress. What does it matter if we can wreck China, after they’ve wrecked us? If your neighbor burns down your house, burning down his house still leaves you homeless, and if he’s crazy/stupid enough to do it in the first place, he’s going to assume that you can’t/won’t burn down his house or he will be so glad he got yours first that he doesn’t care what happens to his home. So in conclusion, not only can China actually attack the US’s grid and kinetically too, they probably will as war strategy. They believe in a total war concept and winning by any means necessary. There are no rules to them and they’ve been planning for this kind of thing for ages. The reason they haven’t done it yet is because it doesn’t serve them to just attack us out of nowhere with no other real strategic advantage. Taking our money and stealing our ideas/secrets is too profitable to them, at least until it means that trading their plundering of us might give them Taiwan or whatever.  The goal of this exercise is to determine who, in a crisis (disaster, war, domestic conflict), in your neighborhood could be a potential threat or ally. The methods used will be ordinary observation, communication, and public-domain resources. While not foolproof, at least you will have basic friend/foe identification predictors, as well as a profile, of those who live around you.
Sources You don’t have to use expensive people search subscription services. A lot is available online for free if you know how to use your Google-fu. You can use open-source (or subscription-free) services. Services are myriad; but at the cheap end just search names and addresses. Cross-reference them with popular social media like Facebook. Much more information can be had easily for low fees, depending on the service. Recording Create a map of your neighborhood. You can use pins on Google Earth, draw a complex map, or a simple map with a legend. A simple map, with street names, house/parcel numbers, and names with perhaps a few extra quick-reference symbols would probably be most helpful. Detailed information is then cross-referenced off a spreadsheet listed by street and then address. A digital map might have just a pop-up with the relevant file (though you should have paper files in case of EMP or something). Obtain the name of the property owner. Generally this will be the homeowner, but you will need to conduct additional research if the property is in a trust or some sort of company. This step will not only tell you who probably lives there, but if the home is a rental or not. For instance, the GPS/mapping software I use for off-roading also has property registration details for nearly all parcels, which tells me who owns a given house. Once you have a name of the owner/resident, search the Internet for them starting with the name + the town/city. You might use more specific tools like Facebook or “people search” sites to dig up more info. Do they have a criminal record or are they litigious? Most county courts have a website where you can search cases for past criminal charges or civil cases. Note their job as well, paying attention to those with critical skills. Note details such as who lives in the home. Are they a family with young kids? Elderly people? List the number of residents, ages, and names if possible. Attempt to determine their job, if any, the politics, and any religious affiliation (if any). If the home is a rental, see if it is titled to an individual, a small landlord’s LLC, or a large corporate property ownership group. Individual and small landlord companies are slightly more likely to have better tenants than large, faceless companies. Someone who lived in that house or might live there again, or has to manage the tenants themselves are more likely to choose better tenants. Better tenants mean better people and less potential problems. Visual indicators like lot of cars parked outside a home may indicate many residents in a multi-family residence or a lower-income household. You can generally judge by the car; cheap car not in great condition (unwashed, unrepaired damage) probably indicates a poorer person. On the other hand, some cultures will have nice or expensive looking cars but live in a run-down home. Is the house an Airbnb? If it is, you probably already know the potential downsides. Long term, an Airbnb may play host to squatters, either the traditional type or refugees who maybe stayed there at one time. Prepare for a LOT of people who are interested in that house, especially if it’s in a desirable bug-out location like the woods. Bad actors may be aware that the place isn’t habituated. Conflicts may erupt between renters/squatters and the owner who might be bugging out there.
Incidents How your neighbors live and what goes on at their home is probably one of the largest behavioral cues on how they will react in extremis. What houses have the police over a lot? Do they have loud parties or fights? These are indicators of people who are disrespectful of others and potentially combative. Homes with frequent EMS calls are a potential weak-link; the people there may have medical issues that could result in an empty house. This means one less defender, the loss of a special skill, or simply an undefended home that is a vector for intrusion or squatters. Which homes frequently get deliveries? It is just packages (UPS/FedEx) and Amazon, or do they regularly order grocery deliveries or DoorDash? Food deliveries could indicate someone has a scant pantry. People who don’t stock up on food or cook for themselves will rapidly be in a bad situation of grocery stores and restaurants go down. Affiliation Who are the cops who live in your neighborhood? Look for take-home cars or police cars parked in the driveway or out front at lunchtime. Military affiliation: with the demise of DOD window stickers, it’s a bit harder to tell who’s “in” and who isn’t, but there are signs. Look for people coming and going in uniform. Though it’s more likely to identify veterans, look for military-themed license plates, disabled veteran plates, and branch motivational (“moto”) stickers like the USMC eagle, globe, and anchor. One guy I saw has a license plate frame that basically says “active duty Coast Guard.” Since I did my area study, I know he’s not just a fan of the HH-65 helicopter but most likely a crew member of the Los Angeles area helicopter squadron. Active-duty servicemembers may be absent in a time of crisis, or they may be assets at home. Potentially, they could be targets for violence in a low-intensity conflict. Can you determine if this person is in a sensitive position, such as a drone pilot or a special forces officer? Note homes with American flags flying; they’re probably at least ideologically similar to you, if not potential allies. On the other side, look for foreign flags (i.e. Mexican flags), pride flags, or those dumb “In this house…” signs; these are likely risks if not enemies. Political yard signs should be tracked as an indicator of the residents’ politics; research candidates you aren’t familiar with as someone may be more comfortable putting out a sign for a lesser political office than easily advertise with Trump/Harris. Ethnicity Why is race/ethnicity important—after all, aren’t we all equal? In virtually every civil or domestic conflict across history, racial, ethnic, and cultural distinctions have formed the basis for violence. In fact, some of the most basic divisions of humans are along racial, then ethnic (nationality), and finally religious/cultural lines. Different groups are preyed upon primarily because they are different. The general ethnic makeup of an area can only be done at the larger-scale using things like the racial dot map, which will tell you if you live in a predominately single-ethnicity, or multi-ethnic, area. It will show you enclaves of relatively homogenous single ethnicities, but this gets us into more of an area study. Why is race important? Racial heterogeneity has always been a recipe for a disaster in a crisis. Irish Catholics vs. Protestants, Serbs vs. Croats, black residents vs. white police. In a serious enough emergency, everything goes racial. People separated into different nations, ethnic groups, and self-segregated long ago for a reason. It is only prosperity and law and order that prevents (mostly) racial conflicts from cropping up. Even if you have prosperous, respectful black neighbors, this is no guarantee that they do not have lower-class relatives that might come to stay with them and create problems. Illegal aliens may cause problems like violence or revolt during immigration crackdowns. They may also have brought attachments to foreign organized crime like drug cartels or Tren de Aragua. Immigrants may not share your culture. A relative complained about a group of recent Hispanic immigrants having loud parties in her neighborhood. Her boyfriend, who grew up in the third world, said “No one back home would ever think to complain or call the police. Huge, loud parties until dawn are so commonplace over there.” Of course, being upper class himself he understands the complaint but was pointing out that third worlders are accustomed to a certain degree of bad behavior and squalor. They do not place the same emphasis on property value, orderliness, or the boring quietude of the suburbs. Third worlders of any stripe are a risk precisely because they do not appreciate to the same degree of what makes western life so enjoyable. Coming from abysmal standards, literally anything is better. Note religious affiliation or suspected religious affiliation if you can, although this is not a big indicator outside of certain areas. Utahns might want to note their non-LDS neighbors or anyone might be interested in knowing that Muslims live next door. Do they celebrate Christmas, for instance? Age What are the ages of your neighbors? Older people have probably been in the are for a while, are relatively financially stable, but may die soon or in a crisis, leading to turnover of the home. Younger people may be outsiders, but probably longer-term residents. Do adult kids live at home? Do middle-aged parents have children that might return home and change the dynamic or bring problems with them? Special risks Certain places will be high-risk, like the residence of motorcycle gang members, drug houses (either “trap” or flop houses), and overcrowded, illegal alien rental “clown houses.” Section 8 has seen low-income individuals with violent tendencies and disrespect for suburban norms moved into middle-class communities. These Section 8 tenants often bring with them crime and other problems to areas that didn’t see them before. How about apartment or condo complexes that get taken over by a certain ethnicity and then devolve into a gang-infested hellhole? Sure, we’ve heard of bad neighborhoods but we forget about high rise housing projects like Cabrini Green that were utterly dysfunctional and gang-controlled. Maybe you’ve seen the images of an apartment complex taken over by an armed Central American gang. This will only get worse as immigration increases and law enforcement pulls back. Poverty and crime go hand in hand. There are many “low income” projects going in that cater to or attract illegal aliens or immigrants. With them, they bring gangs and violence. While these communities may seem self-contained like the walled city of Kowloon, they often spill over into neighboring areas. A complex of 250 units may house 1,000 people—more if third-world living situations take hold despite zoning. In desperate times, these places will spill over into surrounding neighborhoods. Here is an example I posted on Twitter: this is an "affordable community" specifically for farmworkers, which means simply by demographic realities it discriminates in favor of Hispanic. This complex is a 19 acre, 360 apartment ghetto with a population of probably 1,000 people right in the heart of a middle-class bedroom community of mainly mid/upper-middle class income white people. The residents must be farmworkers (basically 100% Hispanic in California) who make near-poverty wages. The majority of these people are extremely poor, often recent immigrants from Latin America, and likely not citizens or even legal. They do not reflect the economic or cultural background of the community at large and this is essentially a colony of “others” who will not easily homogenize with the rest of the city. Personal factors Financially imprudent: if they’re broke and hungry, they’re more likely to be desperate and take chances that someone who isn’t destitute won’t take. Undisciplined people who live carelessly are more probably the kind who will blame others for their problems, engage in risky behavior to survive, or make poor choices for both themselves and the neighborhood. These types may be a higher risk for engaging in theft, robbery, prostitution, or other illicit activities to survive. Addiction: Alcoholics, drug addicts, and those dependent on prescription medication (especially psych meds) may do dangerous things to feed their addition or because of their condition. They should be regarded as unreliable and unpredictable. Mental illness: Persons who are mentally ill should be regarded as potentially unstable and dangerous. A paranoid schizophrenic may be obvious, but persons with less disabling disorders could might not be an imminent danger, but they could degenerate without medication to a disagreeable or disruptive person. Imagine a bipolar neighbor who is ordinarily normal when medicated, but without their prescription they have dangerous mood swings. Example: when manic, it’s “Maple Street stole our water, let’s burn them out!” and when depressive “This is miserable, I can’t take it anymore. I’m gonna kill myself, my family, and maybe the neighbors too.” This might even extend to a generally disagreeable “Karen type” who when off-meds engages in petty squabbles that destabilize neighborhood amity. Homeless Map homeless people in your area. They are of course transient so this is not a permanent map, although some areas are conducive to homeless encampments like open spaces. You might wish to create maps that you can track over time to analyze for patterns of homeless camp sightings. Be sure to track RVs and people living in cars; the latter may be harder to spot. For car campers, track them by vehicle description and license plate. A car that although it moves around, but is seen occupied by a person all hours of the day, likely indicates a homeless person. Additional indicators include a car filled with personal items, windows that are often completely blacked out (for sleeping), cooking in or near the vehicle, and often signs of someone relieving themselves near the vehicle. Tracking by specific vehicle/plate allows you to monitor movement of individual homeless persons, not just generally. Making a list Make note of individuals who post on local social media, such as Facebook and NextDoor. You are looking for inflammatory political rhetoric that implies that they would engage in, sanction, or condone political, ethnic, or religious violence. Not a mere difference in political opinion, but the kind who viciously gloat over the death or harm to those on the opposite side of them. For example, someone who posts with glee that X person or politician was or nearly was assassinated or celebrates or calls for harm.
Persons who openly gloat in political or like violence are likely to support it, even indirectly. In a civil conflict, actions alone cannot be used as predictors of risk. Statements made in this regard may imply an attitude and system of beliefs that are sympathetic to social terror and tyranny. As for the Left/Right divide, the Left tends to see extrajudicial/extralegal harm as an appropriate tool, whereas the Right sees it as a last resort. The Left is more likely to openly relish in their opponents coming to harm while the Right tends not to, or tempers the normal human adversarial reaction in ways leftists do not. St. George-ism is a new brotherhood concept for men who draw strength from the hard examples of saints, warriors, exemplary men, and martyrs who stood their ground; not from soft, sentimental feminized religion, but from the kind of faith that fights proverbial dragons and refuses to make peace with evil.  St. George-ism is a banner for men, uncompromising, militant in spirit but not in cruelty, who refuse to make peace with evil. It is the call to be warriors in spirit, defenders of the faith, destroyers of dragons, and men who stand for truth and justice when others bow. St. George-ism is a men’s religious movement and philosophy rooted in the Christian tradition. It celebrates courage, sacrifice, loyalty, and the refusal to make peace with evil. Our exemplars are men like St. George, St. Paul, St. Maurice, St. Crispin, and others. Men remembered not as supernatural patrons, but as real men who stood firm in faith and character. We honor their feast days, fly the Cross of St. George, and gather in brotherhood to tell their stories and live their maxims. Our movement does not require church membership or perfect piety; it asks only that men respect the inheritance of Christian morality, strive toward virtue, and fight against personal vice and evil. Imperfection is expected, but struggle is demanded. At its heart, St. George-ism is a banner of unity and inspiration, a fraternity of men who choose service over self-indulgence, conviction over compromise, and the courage to stand even when it costs everything. MembershipIt is a brotherhood of principle, not denomination; a way to carry the Cross of St. George as a living symbol of resistance to evil and inspiration to men. Think of it as a lodge or fraternity, but rooted in Christian tradition: a fellowship where holidays and feast days are not empty dates on a calendar, but occasions to remember what it means to be a man of faith and conviction. Rough or polished, soldier or civilian, believer or seeker; if you honor these principles, you are welcome under the Cross. Denominational matters We welcome all men who respect the Christian legacy of moral order and courage. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox brothers, and even men of no church who recognize the worth of Christian morality are invited. What unites us is not dogma but the refusal to bow to vice, cowardice, and nihilism. Our bond is the sword and the cross: the conviction that manhood requires sacrifice, loyalty, and the will to confront evil. This movement is rooted in the Christian tradition, but it is not closed to those outside the faith. We believe that the ideals of courage, sacrifice, loyalty, and the refusal to make peace with evil speak to all men, regardless of creed. You may not kneel at the altar, but if you respect the inheritance of Christian morality and the strength it has given our culture, there is a place for you here. Our examples are men who stood firm in the face of vice and tyranny; their spirit can inspire anyone who believes that manhood is service, not self-indulgence, and that truth is worth fighting for. Yet we do not hide our conviction: the fullest strength comes in Christ. If you are not a Christian, we welcome you, but we also encourage you to become one. We require no oaths, no new creed, and no departure from your church or tradition. It asks only that you look to the examples of the saints and Christian men of history as models of courage, sacrifice, and fidelity; men worth imitating, even in their flaws. Morality, Sin, and Struggle This movement is not a monastery. It is a brotherhood for men who live in the world. We may be rough, flawed men who wrestle with sin and vice every day. You may swear, drink, chase women, or fall short of being the “good Christian example” that some expect (though you shouldn’t be). What matters here is not a spotless image, but a true heart: the will to stand against evil, the courage to fight for what is right, and the humility to know that we are all sinners in need of grace. Those we honor were not plaster statues but living men, with tempers, scars, and sins of their own. If you fall, stand up again. If you fail, do not make peace with failure. The measure of a man is not perfection, but perseverance. We adhere to traditional Christian morality, not as a straitjacket but as the highest path for mankind. We recognize it as the standard by which men flourish. Yet we also acknowledge that no man is perfect. Each of us falls short and each of us struggles with sin. Our aim is not to live as hypocrites pretending to be spotless, but as honest men fighting the battle within. A moral life is the ideal, and to put away vice is the goal, but we do not measure a man only by his failings. The true sacrifice is often found in the struggle itself: in resisting sin, in rising again after a fall, in refusing to make peace with weakness. It is better to be a man who struggles against evil within himself than one who embraces it with ease. The pernicious ever-presence of sin and temptation will not leave us, and though men may try and fail, none will achieve sinless perfection. Yet this does not make sin acceptable, nor something to be cherished. Sin is to be cast off and left behind, even if imperfectly. What matters is the direction of the heart. The man who fights his impulses, even if he falls, is already engaged in repentance because he has turned toward God. The saint is not the man without sin, but the man who knows what sin is, refuses to make peace with it, and struggles against it until the end. Better the man who fights his sin than the man who makes peace with it. A righteous man is not one without sin, but one who will not surrender to it. The true mark of a man is to rise again after he falls. On Saints This is a men’s philosophy rooted in Christian virtue and warrior discipline, with saints (and other men) as exemplars rather than intercessors. In other words, Saint George isn’t your patron in heaven, he’s your model on earth. We do not believe in the veneration of saints as supernatural, but respect their sacrifices and achievements as men, taking them as examples of manhood, service and faith. This order holds to the power of legend. We do not venerate saints as supernatural beings, but we honor their stories as banners to rally under. A legend is not about whether a knight killed a dragon once, rather, it is about the truth that a man must stand against evil, even when the world calls it hopeless. Legends distill courage, loyalty, sacrifice, and perseverance into images that move the heart. They give men role models larger than life yet rooted in reality: George with his lance, Maurice with his legion, Paul on the road to Damascus, Crispin at Agincourt. Even the lighter tales such as Swithun’s rain and Arnold’s beer, remind us that joy and humor belong beside valor. Legend makes virtue memorable. It turns duty into story, story into inspiration, and inspiration into action. This is why we keep them, tell them, and pass them on. Saint GeorgeSt. George was a Roman cavalry officer who chose loyalty to Christ over loyalty to Caesar and was martyred in the persecutions of Diocletian, circa 303. His legend as the dragon-slayer endures as a symbol of Christian courage: the man who does not bargain with evil but destroys it. For our movement, he is our patron and archetype: the warrior saint whose lance becomes the standard of faith, manhood, and resistance to vice, faithful even unto death. His legend as the dragon-slayer (a much later creation, not fact) is the heart of our banner: the dragon is the world’s sin, vice, and corruption that men face in their own time and place. Where the Archangel Michael casts Satan down in heaven and wrestles with demonic principalities, George shows that a man of flesh and blood can face evil on earth and overcome it. He is the model of courage without compromise, the proof that holiness is not only angelic but human, and the reminder that the fight belongs to us as men. When the emperor demanded universal sacrifice to the pagan gods, George openly confessed Christ, gave away his wealth to the poor, and refused to renounce his faith. For this, he was imprisoned and finally beheaded at Nicomedia around 303; in many hagiographies after being brutally tortured for days. His martyrdom is among the best-attested of the early soldier-saints, remembered across East and West. George is the patron saint of England, soldiers and warriors, and of farmers and shepherds. Saint Michael the ArchangelMichael the Archangel is honored in our order as the symbol of the heavenly warrior, the captain of God’s hosts, the one who cast down the dragon Satan in heaven. He is the pattern, but not the exemplar. Unlike the human saints, Michael is not a man who knew temptation, weakness, or death. He cannot serve as a model of human manhood, only as a banner of divine victory. For that reason, we respect him as the heavenly archetype of Christian militancy, but our focus remains on men of flesh and blood who lived, fought, and died in faith. Those who wish may keep his feast on September 29 (Michaelmas), but his veneration is not required. Michael is the symbol above us; St. George and the other saints are the examples beside us. Other saintsSt. Maurice (3rd century). Commander of the Theban Legion, who was martyred with his men for refusing to worship Roman gods. He is a patron saint of soldiers. He is symbolic of discipline and loyalty to God over empire. St. Swithun, the Rain-Bringer. Patron of the dry season, he is the man who reminds us that God provides refreshment to the faithful who endure. To us, he stands for perseverance, patience, and the certainty that no drought lasts forever. But he also is the saint who shows up in The Simpsons. His mention in popular culture is a reminder not to take ourselves too seriously. Even as we fight figurative dragons and endure dry seasons, a Christian man can laugh, smile, and stay lighthearted. That way Swithun stands for both perseverance and humor. He’s the man who says, “Yes, life is hard, but rain will come,” and in the meantime, don’t forget to laugh. St. Paul, the Converted Zealot. Once a bloodthirsty accuser against Christ’s followers, he later was a tireless evangelist for them. His letters and missions to the Roman (gentile) world brought salvation vicariously to probably more men than any other. He is proof that a man’s fiercest passions, once turned, can save the world and that God can redeem the heart of any man. St. Arnold of Soissons. Sometimes called St. Arnold of Oudenaarde, he was a former soldier turned abbot and bishop. He famously told people to “drink beer, not water” during a plague, since boiled, fermented beer was safer. For us, he is the saint of fellowship and temperance: proof that God blesses simple joys, and that men need not renounce all pleasure to live faithfully. Beer can be a symbol of camaraderie, gratitude, and moderation through a shared drink that can strengthen bonds without enslaving the soul. St. Joseph, Father of Jesus. Not a soldier, but the archetype of fatherhood. Chosen as the earthly father of Jesus, he accepted his duty faithfully without grumbling. He obeyed the angel’s command to take Mary as his wife, to flee into Egypt, and to return when it was safe. He worked with his hands, provided for his family, and lived in humility, without seeking recognition. Joseph is the model of quiet authority and steadfast manhood. He reminds us that not every battle is fought with a sword; some are fought by standing guard over one’s household, by remaining faithful when unseen, by sacrificing comfort for the sake of others. If George is the warrior and Maurice the commander, Joseph is the father: the man whose strength lies in protection, endurance, and faithfulness in the ordinary. Literature We hold that poetry, like legend, is a vessel for truth. A sermon may teach, but a poem or song can be carried in the heart. Kipling’s lines like those in “Recessional”, Shakespeare’s Henry V St. Crispin’s Day Speech, or the old ballads of saints and kings; these endure because they distill what prose cannot. Poetry is not decoration; it is memory made sharp. It gives us words that march, words that can be spoken aloud at a feast or remembered in solitude. Men may struggle under stress, but they can remember a line, and that line will remind them who they are. Verse, song, and legend are not empty tradition but sparks that kindle conviction. They turn ideals into banners and banners into brotherhood. Scripture is revelation, God’s word and commands. Legend and poetry are memory, man’s stories and verses that carry truths and inspiration into men’s hearts. We do not seek to replace scripture with legend, but celebrate both as appropriate to their own purposes. God speaks in scripture and men remember their deeds, hopes, and fears through story, song, and verse. PracticesAs a member of this order, you aren’t bound by oaths or rituals. You’re invited into a tradition. Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Brotherhood. Men are encouraged to meet regularly, whether weekly, monthly, on holidays, or as life allows. This could be over beer, at a lodge hall, or in someone’s backyard. The point is fellowship, not formality. We are primarily a men’s fraternal order, so while families and women are encouraged to share our beliefs, gatherings should be limited to men, in order that we may open ourselves more freely to each other without fear of judgment or imputation of weakness. Remembrance of Saints and Men as Models. Members reflect on what each exemplar represents, i.e. George’s courage, Maurice’s loyalty, and Paul’s conversion. Reflection can be quiet, personal, or shared in conversation. This is a time for scripture, poetry, songs, and stories. Deeds, Not Perfection. Men strive to live out the maxims: standing firm, refusing peace with evil, persevering through failure. Crudeness, rough edges, and imperfection are not disqualifiers. The heart and will matter more than polish. Men should encourage each other to be better men, better fathers, and to share burdens in hard times. Optional Devotion. Christians may add prayer, scripture, or worship as their own tradition dictates, but none is required for participation. For others, the moral and cultural inheritance of Christendom is the common ground. ObservancesWe hold that poetry, like legend, is a vessel for truth. A sermon may teach, but a poem or song can be carried in the heart. Kipling’s lines like those in “Recessional”, Shakespeare’s Henry V St. Crispin’s Day Speech, or the old ballads of saints and kings; these endure because they distill what prose cannot. Poetry is not decoration; it is memory made sharp. It gives us words that march, words that can be spoken aloud at a feast or remembered in solitude. Men may struggle under stress, but they can remember a line, and that line will remind them who they are. Verse, song, and legend are not empty tradition but sparks that kindle conviction. They turn ideals into banners and banners into brotherhood. Scripture is revelation, God’s word and commands. Legend and poetry are memory, man’s stories and verses that carry truths and inspiration into men’s hearts. We do not seek to replace scripture with legend, but celebrate both as appropriate to their own purposes. God speaks in scripture and men remember their deeds, hopes, and fears through story, song, and verse. Charter of St. George-ism Article I, Purpose
St. George-ism is a religious and fraternal movement dedicated to promoting manhood, moral integrity, and spiritual resilience through the examples of historic Christian saints and martyrs. We affirm that these saints—like St. George, St. Paul, St. Maurice, St. Crispin and other men—lived with courage, sacrifice, and fidelity, and serve as enduring models for men in every age. Article II, Principles
As a religious fellowship, St. George-ism claims the right to gather, to display the Cross of St. George as a religious symbol, to mark feast days, and to order its life according to the principles of faith and conscience.  Though it may come as a surprise, Rhodesia did not have a militia in the traditional sense. A militia is typically a body of non-professional soldiers who mobilize in times of need, often composed of veterans or trained civilians. In the American context, people tend to think of either the unorganized militia—male citizens of military age—or irregular, private groups engaged in guerrilla-style warfare. Organized militias, by contrast, are sanctioned by the government to varying degrees and may function as de facto military forces, such as state militias or the National Guard. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the militia was a legal and civic obligation: all able-bodied men were required to defend the realm. One of the main purposes of a militia is to train the citizenry in warfare and keep them ready for action when the time came. These men were mustered periodically for training and inspection (hence “a well-regulated militia”) and could be integrated into a national army during wartime. Englishmen were expected to understand basic tactics, maintain discipline, and be proficient with arms. Various laws compelled militiamen to own weapons and train with them, particularly during the age of the legendary English longbowmen. While Rhodesia didn’t have a militia in name, it certainly upheld a militia-like tradition of arms. The country was settled in the 1890s by pioneers moving north from South Africa, including Boers who brought with them the commando system, a true militia in form and function, forged during the Anglo-Boer Wars. This system of armed, locally organized citizen-soldiers remained a well-known and influential model throughout the 20th century. At the same time, imperial settlers fought native African resistance using colonial volunteer forces and defensive units, reinforcing the idea that every man might be called upon to bear arms. The concept of the citizen-soldier was as ingrained in the Rhodesian mindset as it was in the American one. By the 1960s, the original pioneers were mostly gone, but their martial legacy remained. Many white Rhodesians were veterans of World War II, and following the war, a wave of British servicemen, encouraged by the UK government to emigrate due to a postwar job shortage, settled in Rhodesia. National Service was also in place, meaning that most able-bodied white men had undergone conscription and received at least basic military training and experience. It’s also important to remember that Rhodesia, for much of its history, was a frontier society. Even into the Bush War era, large parts of the country remained wild and unsettled. Like the American West, it was a land marked by occasional clashes with native populations, dangerous wildlife, and abundant hunting opportunities. A strong firearms culture, remarkably similar to that of the United States, has long existed in Southern Africa and persists to this day. By the time the Bush War broke out, Rhodesians were, by necessity and tradition, a martial people. In short, while Rhodesia lacked a formal militia, its people were steeped in a tradition of armed self-reliance and citizen-soldiering. They were culturally and practically prepared for military service. So when the Bush War erupted, the country didn’t need to build a militia from scratch. The people were already primed for duty, and many transitioned seamlessly into the army, police, and various reserve and auxiliary forces that would become the backbone of Rhodesia’s war effort. Everyone is Already ServingRhodesia’s militia-like units were all government sanctioned and fully incorporated into the Security Forces system. That did not mean that neighbors couldn’t run to the sound of the guns from a nearby farm, as they quite frequently did; rather, the civilians were not organized into private defense groups as the government saw to that. Even guards for camps, farms, and potential sabotage targets were organized under the Security Forces’ aegis. Most Rhodesian men who could fight were seeing service in some capacity or another. If one wasn’t an active-duty servicemember, they were quite probably a reservist with either the police or the army. If one wasn’t serving, you were probably too old, too unhealthy, or found a way to weasel out of one’s obligation. Rhodesia’s army was structured in a tiered system that balanced a small core of professional soldiers with a much larger body of reservists. At the top were the regular units—full-time, professional troops such as the Rhodesian Light Infantry (RLI). Supporting them were the reservists, made up of conscripted white men who had completed national service and were required to serve in periodic call-ups. They formed the bulk of the infantry within battalions like the Rhodesia Regiment, often rotating through six-week deployments in the field. Below them were older or less fit men assigned to support roles such as local defense units or static security posts. After completing 18 months to two years of compulsory national service (depending on the era) white men were placed into the reserve system and remained there for many years. They were expected to report for training and active duty in regular intervals, often serving six-week stints multiple times per year. This rotational system allowed Rhodesia to keep its farms, businesses, and industries running while still fighting a counter-insurgency across a vast and difficult landscape (although businesses still struggled). PATUBeing in Africa, the Rhodesian government understood colonial realities. In the early 1960s, when Rhodesian authorities began to recognize the growing threat posed by African nationalist movements and guerrilla infiltration, particularly after events like the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya and early incursions from Zambia and Mozambique. Police reservists were seen in this light not just as a way to supplement normal police duties, but to respond to a potential insurgency. In fact, in the early stages of guerilla warfare, the police insisted responding to terrorist attacks was their job, not that of the Army, as it was seen as a criminal matter. It became clear that traditional policing methods were inadequate for tracking and engaging armed insurgents in difficult terrain. The idea emerged to create small, highly mobile units that could operate in the bush, fast, light, and intimately familiar with rural conditions. These were essentially a rapid-reaction force (RRF) that could operate in paramilitary fashion against the terrorists. What eventually emerged was PATU: the Police Anti-Terrorist Unit of the British South Africa Police (BSAP). PATU was composed largely of white reservists and regular police officers, many of whom had bushcraft experience as farmers or hunters. Training emphasized fieldcraft, small-unit tactics, and cooperation with other forces like the army and Special Branch. They were designed for quick reaction, ambushes, and follow-up operations in response to terrorist activity. In the same way an ad hoc group of neighbors might form their own semi-organized militia to respond to rural attacks, this group did so as part of the official police organization. At first, PATU’s responsibilities focused on manning police stations, running roadblocks, motorized patrols, and radio watch, but as the war intensified, the unit took on a more infantry-like role: laying ambushes, responding to attacks, and conducting combat reconnaissance. Light, fast-moving, and reliant on individual initiative, PATU could operate on its own or alongside military formations such as the RLI and Selous Scouts. Each district had its own PATU team, divided into small sticks that reported to the nearest police station. These sticks were drawn from the local community, ensuring that the men knew the terrain and the people they were tasked to protect. This service counted toward fulfilling their national service reserve requirement. The ranks were filled by reservists and men between 38 and 60 who were automatically conscripted into the unit. In addition, those who served included many younger men exempted from army duty due to their civilian occupations, police regulars, former national servicemen, and a significant number of farmers. PATU operated as a rapid-reaction force (and better in this role than patrolling), with local “reaction sticks” ready to respond swiftly to farm attacks, ambushes, and similar incidents. Thanks to their organization at the community level, these men could often assemble and deploy within an hour of a call-out. When a farm was hit or terrorists were sighted, PATU would rally to pursue and engage the guerrillas, or to reinforce and counter-attack as needed. The problem, of course, was timing; by the time help arrived, the attackers who had “revved” a farm were usually long gone. In addition to being called up as an RRF for farm attacks or terrorist sightings, the sticks would be posted on ambushes or patrols. These assignments did cause problems. Sometimes a PATU assignment would take a farmer away from his property, as he was being deployed to a more distant area or on a long patrol. This meant that another farmer on his call-up or a hired guard would have to look after the property. For all of this, PATU had strength in its local roots. Because PATU sticks were heavily manned by local farmers, bushcraft and local knowledge were strong assets. The guerrillas referred to them as “the old men who can shoot straight,” a nod to both their accuracy and their determination. In combat, these men often proved highly effective. Local knowledge and the ability to respond on short notice was invaluable. A typical PATU call-up often began with a radio message or phone call to a rural police station reporting suspicious activity like a sighting of armed men, unexplained tracks, or shots heard near a homestead. Once the report came in, the men would grab their pre-packed kit bags, weapons (usually FN FALs or G3s), webbing, and radio equipment, then assemble at a designated point. The mission would usually be to conduct a hasty follow-up on tracks, locate the enemy, or establish an ambush. It was fast, informal, and often dangerously underinformed, being more about rapid reaction than careful planning. The entire process from call-out to deployment could take as little as 30-60 minutes in the better-organized areas. Members often pursued the enemy aggressively and integrated effectively with police Support Units and army troops during combat operations. Many of the farmers who filled PATU’s ranks were eager to counterattack, driven by the knowledge that their own families were among the prime targets of terrorist violence. Was PATU a militia? The unit blurred the lines between policing, military action, and civilian participation in the war. PATU allowed the state to mobilize armed rural manpower without the full cost or bureaucracy of standing army units. PATU represented a hybrid model: not quite police, not quite army, but a locally recruited force with official backing, tasked with fighting a war on their own turf. SFAsNear the end of the war, the Security Forces Auxiliary (SFA), also known as Pfumo reVanhu for “spear of the people”, was raised. These were essentially formations of black Africans recruited at from the guerilla pool to keep them out of the insurgency and repurpose their numbers for counter-insurgency. Many early SFA recruits were former guerrillas who had defected from ZANLA or ZIPRA; the unemployed from cities and towns were incorporated as well. By giving these individuals a legitimate, government-aligned alternative, the Rhodesian authorities hoped to deprive the insurgency of manpower while turning former insurgents and potential sympathizers into allies. Essentially, the SFAs were designed to absorb disaffected guerrillas into a controlled, government-friendly militia structure, preventing them from rejoining insurgent ranks or falling into lawlessness. The SFAs’ primary function was territorial denial: preventing guerrilla re-infiltration, cutting insurgent supply routes, and denying insurgents easy access to villagers, food, and recruits. After conventional security forces cleared insurgent-held territory, these local militias were intended to hold the ground, thereby preventing guerrillas from controlling the area. The SFAs failed because the program was initiated far too late in the war (1978) and the poorly disciplined troops acted little better than the terrorists. The idea to subvert the terrorists by moving those who might join them into a friendly militia was a good one, but like many of the Rhodesian COIN operations, it was executed badly. The various groups were tribal, clashed with one another, and often failed to engage with the terrorists out of solidarity with them. ConclusionSo no, Rhodesia did not have a militia, but that wasn’t due to oversight or neglect, it was because the state deliberately and effectively preempted the need for one. By the time the war “hotted up,” the country already had a deep pool of armed, self-reliant farmers, hunters, outdoorsmen, and veterans, many of whom were experienced with firearms and bushcraft even if they hadn’t seen formal military service. Rather than allow this population to form informal or potentially undisciplined militias, the government created structured pathways for citizen involvement through formal institutions. PATU in particular filled the exact niche that militias often occupy in asymmetric wars: small, locally recruited teams that could respond rapidly to insurgent threats in their own backyards. Unlike irregular militias, PATU operated with proper training, police authority, and close coordination with the military. It was fast, local, armed, and aggressive, everything a militia is meant to be, but legally sanctioned and professionally guided. These formations allowed civilians to contribute directly to the war effort under proper command, discipline, and rules of engagement. The government didn’t merely tolerate armed civilians; it organized, trained, and deployed them with purpose. In doing so, Rhodesia avoided the chaos and potential abuse that can come with unofficial militias while still harnessing the full value of its armed citizenry. It was a state-backed militia system in all but name. Lessons From the Rhodesian Bush War: A Study in Survival, Rural Defense, and Collapse  Rhodesia fought a brutal guerrilla war for over a decade—cut off from the world, outnumbered, and under siege. It was a war of ambushes, farm attacks, propaganda, and betrayal. And while Rhodesia lost, the survival lessons it offers are more relevant than ever. What can prepared citizens learn from a war that was lost?  How did average Rhodesians survive the Bush War under constant threat of ambush, sabotage, and assassination? What can Americans take from it if they fear a civil conflict coming to their homes? American preppers should stop romanticizing survival and start understanding it. Don’t Be Predictable Rhodesians learned early on that routine was a death sentence. Farmers were ambushed at gates because they always parked in the same spot to open them. Others died because they always drove the same route at the same time. Break habits. Vary your routes, times, and behaviors. Be deliberately unpredictable. Rotate gate entries. Back into your driveway sometimes. Leave through the back gate now and then. If they know where you’ll be, they don’t need to be smart, they just need to be patient. Perimeter Awareness Is Everything Bush war farmers patrolled their fence lines. Not just for property upkeep, but to look for cut wires, buried mines, or signs of human passage. You must do the same. Walk your land. Check for disturbed earth, fresh footprints, broken branches, or tripwires. Dogs Are Your First Alarm System Nearly every Rhodesian farmer had dogs, and not yappy little ankle biters either. Big, alert, loyal dogs were often the difference between life and death. Dogs can sense human movement, detect strangers, and raise hell faster than you can fumble for a flashlight. Train them, keep them healthy, and alert. Dogs were often poisoned before attacks, so don’t leave their food unattended. Night Security Is More Important Than Daytime Attacks came mostly at night. The heat of the day gave way to the cold of fear after sundown. Farmers blacked out windows, turned off lights, and slept in shifts. If you’re rural, treat night as enemy time. Keep one person on watch. Don’t light up your house like a Christmas tree. Lights are beacons in the dark so keep it dark. Gun Readiness Was Constant Weapons were loaded and within reach at all times. If you had to run to your safe or grab a magazine, you were already behind. Rhodesians carried while on the tractor, around the house, and pointed them out the car window. You don’t need a fantasy arsenal, just make sure your tools are ready, reachable, and reliable. Train with them. Vehicles Were Lifelines and Death Traps Farmers knew vehicles could be ambushed or mined. So they drove fast through chokepoints, never stopped on the road, and checked underneath their vehicles before starting them. In some cases, they mounted rifle racks or installed makeshift armor. Don’t linger in your vehicle when parked. Don’t drive the same route twice. Community Was Survival Isolated farms didn’t make it. The ones who lasted were those who shared radio callsigns, formed quick-reaction teams, and checked in multiple times a day. Rhodesians used “Agric-Alert” radios to warn each other of attacks in progress. If your community can’t pull together in a crisis, you’ll be picked off one by one. Practice local drills and communications. Have a Communication Plan No one survived alone. Radios were lifelines. Codewords mattered. If your local group can’t talk when phones go down, you’ve already lost. Set up VHF or CB nets. Practice voice discipline. Keep it simple. The police and army didn’t roll without coordination, and neither should you. Don’t Trust Every Smile Some black farm workers were loyal and some were spies. That’s the hard truth. Some warned their bosses about attacks. Others handed over house keys to terrorists. Rhodesians didn’t talk freely around staff. They didn’t advertise security plans. They kept their guard up. You don’t need to be paranoid, just cautious. Assume everyone’s being pressured—because they probably are. Use Terrain to Your Advantage Farms with clear fields of fire fared better than those nestled in thick bush. Rhodesians cut back vegetation, built berms, cleared dead ground near the house, and created hardened zones. Even modest earthworks or fencing can shape the fight. Don’t let them get close without exposing themselves. Build your house like you might have to fight from it. A Safe Room Isn't Paranoia Many homes had reinforced bathrooms or root cellars where the family could retreat. Some doubled as comms centers or panic rooms. You don’t need a vault door. Just a space with a hard barrier between you and gunfire, with a radio, first-aid kit, flashlight, and rifle. Practice getting to it fast. Signs of Trouble Were Easy to Miss Until They Weren’t A dog going quiet. A worker acting nervous. A snapped twig where no one should be. Farmers who paid attention to these subtle lived longer. Train your family to pick up on odd behavior as this was often the only warning signs. The faster you react, the more control you retain. Stay ready even when things feel normal. Work Out a Reaction Plan When the alarm went up, whether from a dog bark, a gunshot, or a radio call, Rhodesians didn’t fumble. They got their asses into gear. You need SOPs. Who grabs what? Who checks on the kids? Where do you rally? When do you call for help? Write it down. Drill it. Sleep with your boots near the bed. Understand That War Comes to the Innocent Many Rhodesians couldn’t believe they’d be targeted. Some didn’t believe it after they were. Civilians were murdered, not because they fought, but because they might. Don’t assume being neutral, kind, or harmless will save you. In civil war, neutrality is a myth. You’re either a target, or you’re a problem to be eliminated. These lessons weren’t drawn from a theory but rather they were bought in blood. When the rule of law collapses, there are no more “good neighborhoods.”  Lessons From the Rhodesian Bush War is not a conventional history—it’s a focused, hard-edged study of what happens when a nation is cut off, surrounded, and forced to fight a war with limited men, limited resources, and no margin for error. Rhodesia’s bitter bush war offers more than military lessons; it’s a case study in rural defense, community survival, and the slow-motion unraveling of a society under siege.
Written with the clarity and grit demanded by today’s preparedness-minded readers, this book explores the tactics, gear, and lived experiences of Rhodesian security forces and civilians alike. It examines how farmers defended themselves, how the military adapted to asymmetric counterinsurgency warfare, and how a small country held out for over a decade against overwhelming political and numerical odds before being undone not by defeat in the field, but by international betrayal and internal exhaustion. Whether you’re a survivalist looking for lessons in real-world collapse to prepare for SHTF, a student of irregular/guerilla warfare, or simply curious about one of the most misunderstood conflicts of the 20th century, this book will challenge your assumptions and deepen your understanding. The fight may have been lost, but the lessons remain. Rhodesians never die. |
Author Don ShiftDon Shift is a veteran of the Ventura County Sheriff's Office and avid fan of post-apocalyptic literature and film who has pushed a black and white for a mile or two. He is a student of disasters, history, and current events. Archives
March 2026
Categories
All
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The best scanner for people who want trunking capabilities but don't have a masters in radio programming. https://amzn.to/3OUtPAE
MSR Guardian-the best water purifier that can filter out most viruses.
https://amzn.to/3pkKepc
Streamlight Siege: a surprisingly good, rugged lantern. https://amzn.to/3XmrMsK
Analog radiation dosimeter. https://amzn.to/3r5kTzS
https://amzn.to/3qXL5MW
https://amzn.to/3CL8m7E
|
RSS Feed