Fertilizer WMDs and arms bans 

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!


Fertilizer WMDs and arms bans


In the early 1990s the manufacture of a large truck bomb (500-2000 kg) was a challenging and quite difficult venture, but was in fact an achievable task for the cleverest and most motivated individuals among us who had taken the required precautions not to be blacklisted with the system protector intelligence agency.


Times are changing and the possibilities which were available to us during the time of Mr. Timothy McVeigh are no longer present. The US/EUSSR cultural Marxist hegemony has adapted so we must continuously adapt. The EU has since the 1990s made the manufacture of explosives considerably harder. They have achieved this by regulating and banning substances and compounds required for creating explosives. To illustrate; since the 1990s, the EU has banned hundreds of fertilizers, insecticides and other widely available chemicals and they have neutralized many substances by instructing the producers to add neutralizing chemical agents making hundreds of compounds inert. Furthermore, they have created a system very similar to that of the former Soviet Union, using retail desk clerks as intelligence agents.


Many of the bomb-making guides available through the internet are now quite useless as most of the chemicals required in these guides are very hard or even impossible to acquire for most people. 20 years ago you could easily just walk into grocery stores, garden centers and apothecaries and just buy most of these materials over the desk. It was possible to acquire materials to make 70-100 different types of explosives, while the number is now reduced to 10-20 types of explosives. It is now quite difficult to buy ammonium nitrate (AN) fertilizer for civilians in many countries. And in the countries where AN is still sold, they have regulated the distribution limiting it to 600 kg bags. So be prepared with a solid cover story when you decide to buy a bag. In addition; ammonium nitrate fertilizer is in the process of being replaced with Urea fertilizer, which requires a purification process (to urea nitrate) before use and the end product has a much more unstable chemical composition. Urea nitrate decomposes rapidly and usually within 30 days which requires the operator to plan accordingly.


There are of course alternative sources for the production of AN. You may create it from simple household products or buy ice packs. This is appropriate when creating smaller bombs >50 kg. I’m sure they will soon replace AN based icepacks with a different inert compound as well. But there are still many opportunities and there will always be a few methods available to create effective explosives. As for conventional arms, gun laws will continue to be restricted to a degree where it will be quite difficult to acquire fire arms the legal way.



“The Party” demands: The people must be disarmed!


The EUSSR and especially the Western European countries are now deliberately implementing measures to prevent the European peoples from defending themselves through pre-emptive strikes against our multiculturalist dictatorships. Unfortunately for them, Europeans were born with a free will and with creativity beyond comparison. So I say to them; If they take away our AN-fertilizer, we will use AN from Ice packs! IF they take away our ice packs; we will hi-jack propane trucks and use them as secondary explosive charges! If they take away our propane trucks; we will fight them with conventional weapons! If they ban the sale of weapons; we will smuggle in AK-47s from the Balkans and the Middle East!


They cannot prevent us, the European conservatives from eventually seizing political and military power. We will succeed even if we have to create our very own improvised guns.



A tyrant dictatorship is characterized first and foremost by its efforts to disarm the people.



The multiculturalist EUSSR regimes efforts to disarm its own peoples come with a very high price. As the regime loses its confidence in those they swore to serve, the people will lose its confidence in the regime. Mistrust breeds mistrust which directly influences loyalty, unity and productivity. The Western European regimes continuous campaign to disarm its people will result in a climate where it will be easier for the Revolutionary Conservative Movements to continue consolidation. Because people will simply not accept that the multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe continue these disarmament policies.


So we say; instead of justifying the chemical and arms bans by blaming our brave revolutionary conservative martyrs for their pre-emptive strikes, you should look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why we are defending ourselves in the first place. If you feel a need to disarm your people you should instead change your ways. If you refuse to change your ways then you must expect to be destroyed.



New chemical- and arms-bans means new opportunities


Conservatives must never blame fellow revolutionary conservatives for the arms bans. All conservatives should instead welcome the new opportunities presented with such a ban. In a country where it was possible to legally buy semi-automatic rifles, there was simply little or no market for illegal assault rifles. The ban of semi-automatic rifles will result in the establishment of a black market for such items. This newly established market will even include full-auto rifles and even grenades and rocket launchers. The EUSSR will never be able to eliminate this black market as they are controlled by the criminal drug organisations. And as we know; both drugs and guns are widely available from Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East. The EUSSR will never succeed to defeat the drug/arms smugglers because Europe simply has too many bordering countries with lacking security. So, what we, the revolutionary conservatives, initially see as crippling weapons bans can and will in fact result in an even more attractive arms market than the previous one.

Obtaining and using WMD’s against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites


A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of individuals and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings).


The term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, explosive and chemical weapons. However, nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.


Efforts must be made to employ precision WMD’s when fighting the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe, especially explosive weapons (barack-buster type’s fertiliser bombs). Other types of WMD’s (Biological/Chemical) must be considered as a realistic option as well. Efforts must be made to obtain any of the following WMD’s:



Biological weapons


Biological warfare (BW) is the use of pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, other disease-causing agents, or the toxins produced by them as biological weapons (or bio-weapons).


As a tactical weapon, the main military problem with a BW attack is that it would take days to be effective.



Biological agents


Biological warfare is the deliberate use of disease and natural poisons to incapacitate humans. It employs pathogens as weapons. Pathogens are the micro-organism, whether bacterial, viral or protozoic, that causes disease. There are four kinds of biological warfare agents: bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae and fungi. Biological weapons are distinguished by being living organisms, that reproduce within their host victims, who then become contagious with a deadly, if weakening, multiplier effect. Toxins in contrast do not reproduce in the victim and need only the briefest of incubation periods; they kill within a few hours.



Anti-personnel BW


Ideal characteristics of biological weapons targeting humans are high infectivity, high potency, non-availability of vaccines, and delivery as an aerosol.


The biological agents used in biological weapons can often be manufactured quickly and easily. The primary difficulty is not the production of the biological agent but delivery in an effective form to a vulnerable target.


For example, anthrax is considered an effective agent for several reasons. First, it forms hardy spores, perfect for dispersal aerosols. Second, pneumonic (lung) infections of anthrax usually do not cause secondary infections in other people. Thus, the effect of the agent is usually confined to the target. A pneumonic anthrax infection starts with ordinary "cold" symptoms and quickly becomes lethal, with a fatality rate that is 90% or higher. Finally, friendly personnel can be protected with suitable antibiotics.


A mass attack using anthrax would require the creation of aerosol particles of 1.5 to 5 micrometres. Too large and the aerosol would be filtered out by the respiratory system. Too small and the aerosol would be inhaled and exhaled. Also, at this size, nonconductive powders tend to clump and cling because of electrostatic charges. This hinders dispersion. So the material must be treated to insulate and discharge the charges. The aerosol must be delivered so that rain and sun does not rot it, and yet the human lung can be infected. There are other technological difficulties as well.


It is important to note that all of the classical and modern biological weapons organisms are animal diseases, the only exception being smallpox.


In the case of anthrax, it is likely that by 24 - 36 hours after an attack, some small percentage of individuals (those with compromised immune system or who had received a large dose of the organism due to proximity to the release point) will become ill with classical symptoms and signs. Once an individual becomes symptomatic, it has a moderately high mortality effect.





Anthrax is an acute disease caused by Bacillus anthracis. It affects both humans and animals and most forms of the disease are highly lethal. There are effective vaccines against anthrax, and some forms of the disease respond well to antibiotic treatment.


Like many other members of the genus Bacillus, Bacillus anthracis can form dormant spores that are able to survive in harsh conditions for extremely long periods of time, even decades or centuries. Such spores can be found on all continents, even Antarctica. When spores are inhaled, ingested, or come into contact with a skin lesion on a host they may reactivate and multiply rapidly.

Anthrax commonly infects wild and domesticated herbivorous mammals which ingest or inhale the spores while browsing—in fact, ingestion is thought to be the most common route by which herbivores contract anthrax. Carnivores living in the same environment may become infected by consuming infected animals. Diseased animals can spread anthrax to humans, either by direct contact (e.g. inoculation of infected blood to broken skin) or consumption of diseased animals' flesh.


Anthrax spores can be produced in a test tube or in a controlled environment and used as a biological weapon. Anthrax does not spread directly from one infected animal or person to another, but spores can be transported by clothing or shoes and the body of an animal that died of anthrax can also be a source of anthrax spores.



Obtaining anthrax


Anthrax spores can lay dormant for centuries and is almost impossible to destroy. As such, cleanup of anthrax-contaminated areas is considered problematic.


It takes up to three days of burning to completely destroy all spores in a large carcass. The most common approach is therefore to bury carcasses deeply enough to prevent resurfacing of spores. However, this requires much manpower and expensive tools. Some wildlife workers have experimented with covering fresh anthrax carcasses with shadecloth and heavy objects. This prevents some scavengers from opening the carcasses.


Millions of anthrax sites around the world


The main reason why anthrax is so easily obtainable is that the spores can lay dormant for centuries underground without being destroyed. There have been thousands of animal outbreaks on all continents and it has been used in weaponised form to kill hundreds of thousands of people during several wars (including WW1, WW2). Every buried individual or animal infected with anthrax is to be considered an anthrax source. You only need one single spore to grow several kilograms.


It shouldn’t be too hard to either buy anthrax on the black market or locate an anthrax contaminated area/burial site on one of the continents around the world due to the fact that there are millions of them (all containing dormant spores).


Its first modern incidence (as a biological weapon) occurred when Scandinavian "freedom fighters" (the rebel groups) supplied by the German General Staff used anthrax with unknown results against the Imperial Russian Army in Finland in 1916. In 1942, a British bio-weapons trial severely contaminated Gruinard Island in Scotland with anthrax spores of the Vollum-14578 strain, making it a no-go area until it was allegedly decontaminated in 1990.



Cultivating anthrax


Theoretically, anthrax spores can be cultivated with minimal special equipment and less than a first-year collegiate microbiological education, but in practice the procedure is difficult and dangerous. To make large amounts of an aerosol form of anthrax suitable for biological warfare requires extensive practical knowledge, training, and highly advanced equipment.


Even with a good lab (isolation chamber and harvest equipment) and a few staff workers it might take a year to come up with a product of superb quality. The spores in the Daschle letter were 1.5 to 3 micrometres across, many times smaller than the finest known grade of anthrax produced by either the U.S. or Soviet bio-weapons programs. An electron microscope, costs approximately a hundred thousand USD + which is needed to verify that the target spore size have been consistently achieved. However, less than superb quality anthrax is much easier to cultivate and is still very potent.


Concentrated anthrax spores were used for bio-terrorism in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, delivered by mailing postal letters containing the spores. Only a few grams of material were used in these attacks and in August 2008 the US Department of Justice announced they believed that Dr. Bruce Ivins, a senior bio-defence researcher, was responsible.


Bruce Ivins was a right wing, Christian, cultural conservative who allegedly sent several anonymous letters to members of the US Congress and the media causing five fatalities and injuring dozens of others.



Anthrax vaccine


Anyone with ambitions to grow an anthrax strain should first attain immunity through the use of a vaccine combined with a full protective suit w. gas mask or using an isolation chamber with integrated protective gloves. A proper vaccine is approximately 93% effective in preventing infection.


The trade name is BioThrax, although it is commonly called Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA). It is administered in a six-dose primary series at 0,2,4 weeks and 6,12,18 months; annual booster injections are required thereafter to maintain immunity.



See also:


2001 anthrax attacks

Gruinard Island - site of British bio-weapons trials in 1942

Sverdlovsk Anthrax leak

Unit 731


Chemical warfare


Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons to kill, injure, or incapacitate an enemy.


Chemicals that are toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or that may be used to manufacture such chemicals, are divided into three groups according to their purpose and treatment:


Examples include nerve agents, ricin, lewisite and mustard gas.



Easily obtainable chemical agents include:


Uragan D2 (manufactured for killing bugs). Three kilogram is enough to kill as many as 40 000 people. The product is currently only produced by one Austrian company but it is easily obtainable. The “acid gas” vaporises as soon as the hermetically sealed containers are opened. Extremely small doses of this chemical is needed to kill a person.



Nuclear weapons


Small nuclear devices will prove more or less impossible to obtain until perhaps in Phase 2 or 3 (2030-2070). Much will depend on how close the European cultural conservative forces are to seizing control of a British or French nuclear storage facility or if we manage to negotiate with the Russians, Indians or Israelis. Using nuclear weapons would normally inflict too many civilian casualties and it is therefore hard to imagine how nuclear weapons could benefit our cause. The only alternative would be if the devices were small enough to limit its direct and indirect impact to one or possibly two city blocks. Even then, the radiation would have catastrophic results for the environment. However, cleaning up the fallout of a very small charge (0,05-0,1 kt yield) would cost the multiculturalist regime(s) tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of Euros which could result in an earlier collapse (perhaps by even 1-2 decades). An earlier collapse could prevent hundreds of thousands of Europeans from dying depending on the severity of the ongoing civil war or the impending Phase 2 or 3 (a war where 70% of the population are Muslims are obviously much more dramatic than a war where only 40% are Muslims etc.). The Lebanon war is a good reference point. Imagine the following scenario:


The patriotic pan-European resistance movement gain access to 24 small nuclear weapons (0,05-0,1 kt charge). We threaten to detonate the charges in a specific European capital (major government buildings only, with minimal civilian casualties) unless the Multicultural establishment capitulate and transfers all military and political mandates to a tribunal lead by Cultural Conservatives. Obviously, each country operates independently so it will be a country by country effort starting with France, the UK or Germany (France is the natural choice due to the advancement of the Islamisation. They will refuse the first time because they assume we will not be willing to detonate. They will however most likely capitulate when we threaten to detonate the second charge.


A strike of this magnitude would not only break the budget. It would jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. Even the smallest nuclear detonation would therefore inflict massive ideological, psychological and economical damage on the target Multicultural regime and is likely to result in full surrender and collapse of the system.


The pragmatical approach to this scenario is for Western European and Russian nationalists to come together. A blueprint and prospect for a future European Federation (under Christian cultural conservative leadership) might end up being the needed catalyst to achieve this goal. Many high level Russian politicians, military leaders and a majority of Russians are likely to be interested in this prospect.


The conclusion is; the threat and willingness to use small nuclear devices can end the European civil war faster and thus save up to hundreds of thousands of lives. However, it will prove more or less impossible to obtain in Phase 1. A well organised resistance group with military contacts will however be able to raid either a UK or French cache/facility during phase 2. This operation alone might end the civil war sooner than we anticipated with us as the victors.




Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-04-07; просмотров: 406; Нарушение авторского права страницы; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - (0.075 с.)