The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods:

41 Comments

1. Tiny house: My wife and I overcame the extremely high cost of living in So Cal by clearing out her grandmother’s tool shed and remodeling it into living space. It was 12×40 and was adjacent to an outdoor bathroom in the back of a garage which made it work. It made a great bedroom/sitting area with a large closet and we lived there 3 years, which I’m sure provided a boost in our long term financial stability. This was also my first construction experience which paid off later. OBTW before I met my wife, I lived in the attic of our church while in the NAVY. Creative/small spaces work particularly well when you are young. Over time small spaces get smaller… and then there is the storage issue. “Radical Personal Finance” podcast has many interesting discussions regarding “Radical” housing/living ideas and their financial implications.

   1. However, at the tiny house reported cost of $250 per square foot (200 sf for $50K) , this is the unit cost of a luxury house. In my area of the country a very nice energy efficient brick home can be built for $85 per square foot. So for the same overall cost you could get 3 times the space. Tiny homes are a ripoff at the quoted price unless you can build them yourself…not to mention the intense claustrophobia, LOL.

      1. Maybe the cost of Miniaturization and Transportability

2. Hopefully, burglars don’t frequent the Family Handyman website. ;o)

   1. You made a good comment, John Lee Pettimore. But, most criminals >can’t read. … While we work for a living, the criminals stay rent-free in the ‘joint’ ~ talking about future crime possibilities.

      Also, ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’ ~ can be a problem too.
      1. In my town, lives a female relative of a man growing ‘medical marijuana’ a day’s journey away. … She gossiped about her relative growing ‘medical marijuana’ ~ and how the ‘buds’ were ready for harvest. …
      Acquaintances of her friends were criminals. The criminals took their guns and drove ~all day~ to reach the ‘buds’ and steal the plants. … The criminals eventually were arrested afterwards, because the criminals were >extremely brutal during the robbery. [Thugs will be thugs. Otherwise, it might have become another unsolved crime.]

      Criminals will also be extreme brutal in their search for valuables hidden around the house, too.

      2. I actually know the grandchildren of this family. = The Grandfather hid some real Gold Coins (American money) in an old clock, [As the Family Handyman says, ‘Not worth stealing’] … The husband did NOT tell the Better-Half about the Gold Coins.
      The Better-Half got tired of looking at the cheap clock, and gave the clock to a charity like the Goodwill, while the husband was at work. = The clock was >never recovered by the family.

      The husband accepted responsibility for the loss. The Better-Half forgave her husband for keeping secrets from her. = They honored the promises made to each other and to God. ~ “Until death do us part.”

3. JWR comment please. How do these looney liberals expect to “buy back” things they never sold us. so legally words are important. I will never sell back some thing i never sold to someone.

   I know buy back sounds better then confiscate.. words are important and the looney left loves to manipulate them

4. Re. Sniper Kill World Records
   This newest competition is testimony to fallen nations.

   The human targets (whoever they actually were) used did not harm one Canadian person on Canadian soil. Does that not bother anyone? It used to.

   1. Puh-leeze. It certainly doesn’t bother me. Any dead Jihadi is a good Jihadi.

      Do you not understand that these people are a threat to you and your way of life? “Does that not bother anyone?” Are you serious?

      1. Canada’s overrun with muslims these days and their political will is as two-faced as that of the US. I put his comment in the troll basket. I agree, I putting down a rabid animal from 2 miles away is a feat worthy of admiration. The days of being able to pretend that what happens in other countries is not a threat to another country, no matter how distant, are over.

         1. BinWY, not so fast. The issue at hand is a Canadian sniper on the soil of a foreign sovereign nation, not on Canadian soil where he belongs. Who gave him the right to kill anyone on foreign soil? Did his ‘trophy’ actually harm him or his family back on Canadian soil? Simple questions, eh?

      2. Survivormann99, please explain who gave Canadian (or American) snipers the right to kill any persons on soil of another nation.

         1. Montana Guy…
            Feel free to live your life in solitude and peace surrounded by beautiful countryside in one of the best places in the United States or for that matter… North America. The reason why? Because brave men and women go in harms way so that you can. Fight them there or fight them here, your choice. [Some unkind words deleted by the Editor.]
            If that bothers you, you can leave anytime. You are not a prisoner here, and on your way out. please leave a donation at the 911 Memorial or The Horse Soldier Monument across the park.

            1. This is comment isn’t just for Rucksack Rob, but for anyone who replied to Montana guy’s question with personal attacks while avoiding his question…

               Can all of you just not answer his question? If not, why reply at all?

            2. Muddykid, Suvivorman99, BinWY and Rucksack Bob, there are 4 of you piling on. Yet NOT one of you can answer my question. Who gave Canadian (or American) snipers the right to kill any persons on soil of another nation?

            3. Montana Guy, I am not piling on. I am supporting you by pointing out that no one has answered your question and they rather jumped to emotional arguments that look as a personal attack. (JWR, nice approach to editing comments rather than entire deletion)

               To answer your question, however….The War on Terror is the most simple and direct answer for now.

            4. MuddyKid is correct, should have ignored his question, but that can of worms has been opened…
               I wold have replied sooner but was interrupted by a long day of work.

               First off, in the several years that I’ve been responding to comments and questions on this, my first choice for blog sites, along with several others, I’ve never been censured or edited, so what I wrote (and I don’t quite remember exactly what I did write…) must have been unkind enough to justify being edited by JWR and for that, I apologize.

               Next, to try to answer Montana Guy’s question with civility and a few facts… he asked (and I paraphrase) “What gives Canada (or any countries soldiers, I’m assuming) the right to go to a sovereign country and kill their soldier(s) who supposedly did nothing to this Canadian?”
               Let me first say that I have never read the Qur’an nor am I any type of Islam or Qur’an scholar and I’ve only referenced it a few times in 02-03 while deployed in Afghanistan, so as to be able to confer and ask questions with my interpreter during friendly conversation(s).
               With that said, in the Qur’an it clearly states (several times) that Allah directly ordered, through Muhammad (the messenger), Jihad against all non believers, I believe this was sometime around the 8th century, (I could be and probably am, wrong on this exact timeline).
               Fast forward to the early 1970’s; Sheikh bin Humaid, the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia at the time, a very powerful political AND religious position stated during his official interpretation of Islamic rules and laws to be followed, while at the same time enforcing the age old Jihad by stating “Peace with Pagens, Jews, and Christians is not an option as long they resist Muslims rule”.
               And then over the next few decades we have acts of terrorism against the west to include, but not limited to, Lebanon Marine Barracks in 1983, The Twin Towers in 1993, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, US Embassy in Kenya in 1998 and of course The Twin Towers (again) on Sep 11, 2001. Between just these five attacks there were more than 4000 Americans AND western allies killed by Jihadist. Shortly after 9-11, Usama bin Laden (re)declared Jihad on the west. (The same as declaring war).

               We (the United States to include coalition allies) responded in kind, which is where we are today, and that, to answer your question is what gives (the west) the right to kill enemy combatants. (whether that is up close or from 2 miles away.)

               You may not like or approve of fighting an undeclared war but that is something to bring up with your congress critters and senators.

               In closing, I’d like to complete my reference from the other day from George Orwell:

               “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

               (above references are from wikipedia, Gatestone Institute, Islam Religion.com, simple interact.com and the united west.com)

         2. Montana Guy, … Wikipedia has an article about ~ Just War Theory. The people in Nations consider their actions to be part of the Natural Law, for Right or Wrong.
            Societies decide when something is right or wrong for the group, their understanding of moral actions come into play. = It’s NOT simply ‘Might Makes Right’ or the Law of the Jungle.
            [International Law has been devised by Nation-States]
            ****************************************

            ~>Individuals make similar decisions about Natural Law, when they leave their own property and venture throughout a society. … People have a ~moral obligation to intervene on someone else’s property, when certain activities threaten and endanger other people.

            What many people in >our country would condemn and outlaw, people in other countries would accept as part of the moral norms.
            Such examples could be: … A man disciplining his wife with a stick, or killing female family members in what is considered an Honor Killing. A woman brings dishonor to the family, = The restoration of Family Honor requires death.

            When different cultures live in the same country, the use of force is used to establish societal morals and norms. [It’s not simply Might Makes Right. ~ It’s their understanding of morals and Natural Law. … The might makes right is part of prevailing in Justice.]
            War between nations is similar to conflict between individuals.

            As an observation about life: ~Everyone believes in Rules. ‘When someone says, ‘There are NO rules!’ = That’s a rule right there. …. Sometimes people don’t care what happens to other people. ~ But, they still care about themselves and their own ‘stuff.’

            1. Wikipedia is never a valid source to use to support any sort of rational argument.

               A nation is a shared culture, a state is a government entity that is defined by borders. Consider researching how and when a nation was formed. If you do so, you may learn that the rest of your argument as you have written here is misinformed. Let me know if you’d like some recommendation on books.

            2. GGHD, why did you dodge the question? Again, who gave Canadian (or American) snipers the right to kill any persons on soil of another nation?

            3. MuddyKid ~ The argument should be about Natural Law, and not sources. Wikipedia has the sources. Wikipedia is easy to read, which makes it a ~good source for many things. It’s Wikipedia’s political agenda that is dangerous. [Natural Law is part of a course about Western Civilization. Though, the concept is within other cultures.

               Legal definition about Natural Law: “Natural Law =

               “The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

               Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved. There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

               Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture. Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today.

               Divine Natural Law
               Proponents of divine natural law contend that law must be made to conform to the commands they believe were laid down or inspired by God, or some other deity, who governs according to principles of compassion, truth, and justice. These naturalists assert that the legitimacy of any enacted human law must be measured by its consonance with divine principles of right and wrong. Such principles can be found in various Scriptures, church doctrine, papal decrees, and the decisions of ecclesiastical courts and councils. Human laws that are inconsistent with divine principles of morality, naturalists maintain, are invalid and should neither be enforced nor obeyed. St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian and philosopher from the thirteenth century, was a leading exponent of divine natural law.

               According to Judeo-Christian belief and the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, were delivered to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. These ten laws represent one example of divine natural law. The Bible and Torah are thought by many to be other sources of divine natural law because their authors are said to have been inspired by a divine spirit. Some Christians point to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which was applied by the ecclesiastical courts of Europe during the Middle Ages, as another source of divine natural law.”
               From Legal-Dictionary ~ Free online. The entire article is worth reading.

               [Plus, Muddykid = The USA is a Nation >already. I don’t think my argument is misinformed. The USA acts as Nation through the democratic process.
               +Many people react to ‘News they don’t like, by trying to kill the messenger. ~ Wikipedia has an article about ‘Shooting the messenger’ There are primary sources, if you don’t trust Wikipedia;
               Ancient Greek plays; Shakespeare; Sigmund Freud and modern usage of the phrase by a plethora of people. The Internet can be the source for a Library of Books about Natural Law and Western Civilization.]

               Montanaguy. ~ The USA and Canada are acting as a Nation. The men are in each country’s Military. … In the USA and in many other places, ultimate authority comes from a God in Heaven. = That was the point of my entire argument.
               For other more secular people, the source of authority has to be “Might Makes Right.” ~> ‘Eat, Drink, and be Merry ~ as long as it’s approved by the Secular Nanny-State.

            4. GGHD, seeing how none of us were around to understand all the politics that went in to defining natural law, we are left with only sources. A single source, and or one internet website that anyone can edit, is not a valid source, or enough of a source to reach a conclusion.

               Your discussion of religion is interesting, too. Much of what you have written was derived from the Protestant Reformation, and the large scales wars that took place as a result. A primary point of those wars was who is the authority of information…The Catholic Church, or governments (also to include monarchs during this era)

               It is also unclear to me where you are talking about ancient Greeks, Shakespeare and Freud and how this information connects to your other talking points. Are you aware that Freud’s research has been proven to be useless? My comments toward you are not intended as a debate, but rather to suggestion on ways to consider different perspectives as to strengthen your survival interests.

            5. Muddykid, ~stay with Survivalblog for ~excellent advice about preparing for the vicissitudes of life. It isn’t always a SHIF crisis.

               There are two overriding ideas in my last comment.

               1. Natural Law is an ancient idea found in the writings of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers.
               In my comment, the article mentions St Thomas Aquinas (A biggie literally in Catholic Theology).
               ‘Natural Law’ is still part of the USA culture. Justice Clarence Thomas has used the phrase.

               2. Shooting the Messenger is something that occurs now days too. It’s a phrase that’s still used. Whatever someone thinks of Freudian Psychology, doesn’t affect the how people attack the >messenger, because they don’t want to hear contrary opinions.

               Alinsky ~ Rules for Radicals is still applied by >radicals today.

               “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
               “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
               “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

               Are variations of the idea of ‘Shooting the Messenger’ because you don’t like the message.
               Now days, it’s the politics of personal destruction. We do NOT have the politics of Ideas, all the time.
               ************
               Stay with SurvivalBlog for the ~practical preparedness advice. It’s >good.
               *************************

               + >I should try to ignore the comments, that I do NOT agree with, because of their Philosophy or Theology.
               “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”

         3. I would think that soldier’s authorization (“right”) came from the Canadian government – elected by the Canadian people – to pursue and eliminate known threats to Canada before they arrive in North America. There is usually an abundance of certainty when a sniper makes a shot that he is eliminating a real threat, not some random goatherd. Those snipers are not heartless murderers bent on spreading an ideology of hatred and abuse, they are real people, far from their families, doing a job and trying to make difficult decisions in a nearly incomprehensible situation.
            If Montana Guy wants to argue the morality of us being at war, I would probably agree that we missed opportunities to never need to go there. But we are, so we should be there with the goal of achieving the mission successfully.

            1. BinWY, here is where you and I (and the other 3 guys) were indoctrinated from childhood.

               Canadian subjects (and American citizens) do NOT have the right to step on soil of another nation and kill ANYONE. So how can we give government a right that we do not have? One can not give something away that one does not have.

               BinWY, thanks for communicating with me. If you or anyone has $6 (Amazon) and 2 hours please read ‘War is a Racket’, by Smedley Butler. He was US Marine Corps major general, the highest ranking and the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

5. Regarding the “Tiny House” movement, one large inspiration for the movement is that the homes are often on wheels and treated as camper, not permanent dwellings and as such aren’t subject to many of the zoning and permitting rules that a structure on a foundation would be. I’m seeing this a lot when people are using them for second, or vacation homes. In my instance it was easier than building a permitted cabin at my BOL.
   Being stick built they are better insulated than a camper, a consideration where my BOL is as it can get down to -20 F in the winter. It’s basically the cabin I wanted, on wheels. A bit more narrow and a bit longer than it would have been on a foundation but with a few more square feet. Woodstove and/or a large Mr Buddy heater keep it warm when needed.

6. My buy back price $100K per rifle. Then I can go and buy my own island!

7. That debate made it very clear that when they take control, they intend to step up gun confiscation until we are fully disarmed. I believe that they will attempt to restrict ammunition first, then go after all guns using a pattern until the dictatorship to come are the only ones armed.
   Read and watch the documentaries on the formations of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China. You will probably not be shocked to see that the foundations have already been laid and in place for decades. Now,they are no longer content to move slowly. You can almost make a checklist to track their moves.

8. The Tree of Liberty thirsts, and sadly the blood of those police/military who “just follow orders” to follow their masters orders to prosecute all who “fail to comply” with draconian, anti Constitutional laws…..Will be in their hands.

9. Montana Guy
   Are you really that naive about muslims in general and ISIS in particular? Read the koran cover to cover then tell me you still have a problem with the Canadian sniper team. If I could authorize the extermination of this mental disease that masquerades as a religion I would do it and face the God of Abraham with a clear conscience! BTW I use my name not some internet moniker. I am neither afraid nor ashamed of my beliefs or actions!

   1. Have you read the Koran cover to cover?

      1. Yes I have. Twice as a matter of fact. Once while waiting for my team to be called in support of the hostage rescue attempt in 79 and again while waiting for Bush I to release the the dogs of war during gulf war I. As Gen Patton said “ I read your book you SOB. A Russian General once said you have to understand your enemy to defeat him. Been there done that!

         1. Great reply! I appreciate it.

10. $50,000 for a 200 plus square foot tiny house? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! You can buy a heck of a travel trailer with all the modern conveniences for less money and have cash in hand left over. Or you could build a really nice cabin that will appreciate in value over time.

    1. Yep, ummm…. ditto. 50k?!? Get stuffed! Thats ridiculous!

    2. M-ray, a very good and smart comment. … The Travel Trailer would be better built too, and suitable for highway travel. +It might be possible to buy a high quality used Travel Trailer and a new big Truck with the $50,000. … Of course there wouldn’t be any left over money.
       ……. Unfortunately, with a typical truck and trailer set-up, it would be a ‘sort of’ grey man approach to travel.
       …. With an oddball trailer, there would be advantages with attracting attention, from just able everyone. [Including the oddballs that want to tell you about their adventures, and ~>peer into your trailer.] … Some people like to travel to meet new and ‘interesting’ people.

11. @ Montana Guy…… It bothers me. Why go to some other continent to take out an enemy when we have plenty of them being supported by our government at home.

    1. @CuzMike, I agree with you. Individual Americans have certain individual rights on our own soil. Self-defense is clearly one of them. They have the right (actually the DUTY) to personally protect their loved ones from ANYONE intending to harm them.

       The point I was making is that individual Americans have JURISDICTION on US soil, but NOT on soil of another nation. It is impossible for us pass any right to the US government that we do not have.

12. I have a 600 sq ft house, with a 700 sq ft Shop on 1/3rd of an acre, bought for 30k, put 10k into it, still way below that tiny house and with land and the best part is… I am in the redoubt!!

13. I’ve read al the comments concerning the Canadian sniper team and their remarkable shot. Nice shooting.

    The US government has a long history of fighting wars just for the glory of fighting war. Here is the way I see it:

    The revolutionary war was a just war for the revolutionaries and an unjust war for England.

    The War of 1812 was a just war for the US and an unjust war for England.

    The war for Texas independence was a just war for the Texians (I spelled it the way I meant it) and an unjust war for Mexico.

    The later war with Mexico was a just war for the US and an unjust war for Mexico.

    The War for Southern Independence was a just war for the south. The war of Northern Aggression was an unjust war for the north. That would be our uncivil Civil War.

    The Indian Wars were largely very unjust. If the US had just managed to honor it’s treaties with the Indian nations, warfare could mostly have been avoided.

    The Spanish American War was unjust for the US to fight, being build upon the lie of the sinking of the battleship Maine. The government knew it was a lie from the beginning.
    The following Philippine war was unjust, since we won an unjust war to gain control of the Philippines in the first place.

    Our part of World War One was unjust. We were never attacked by Germany. Many cite the sinking of the Lusitania for the US entry into the war. However the Lusitania was a British flagged ship and the German government warned the American people and the US government that the ship was a just target as it was carrying munitions for the British. If we needed to go to war with anyone, it was the British, and only the British. They were threatening our shipping. We were a neutral country in this war and should have stayed that way. Oh, by the way, it wasn’t a world war until we entered the war and our entry set up Germany for the rise of Adolf Hitler.

    World War Two was also an unjust war for us. FDR and his military and foreign police teams followed Lincoln’s chosen path to war, turn friends into enemies, set them up to initiate an otherwise unnecessary attack, then declare war. He needed a war with Japan to get Hitler to declare war on the US. It worked. You should read the actual history of this fiasco sometime, the real history is horrendous. Try reading Pat Buchanan’s book: Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. A real education.

    Literally every war we have been engaged in since WW2 has been insane, immoral, unjust, UNDECLARED, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We didn’t stop the spread of Communism, or haven’t you paid attention the the virtually all of the Democrat party and all to many in the Republican party (that would be the neoconservatives). Then again it was never about communism, it was about fortune and glory. Fortune for the MICC (military industrial, congressional complex), and glory for the promoters of the American empire. Ask any neocon, ask John Bolton or Mike Pompeo or Mitt Romney, it’s our turn to be the global empire. A thousand year American Reich!

14. Very good Charles. Couldn’t agree more.
    I’d like to suggest another book by America’s most decorated Marine also. General Smedley Butler’s book ‘War Is A Racket.’

15. Sorry Montana guy. I replied to Charles K. before I read through all of the comments. I see you already referenced Smedley Butler.

Comments are closed.