Saturday Open Thread: How To Decapitate Your Enemy For Fun & Propaganda
All of this Leviathan-expansion and collaboration of late has raised the question:
Has anybody really thought through what it would take to sever your opponent's head efficiently for subsequent propaganda purposes?
A couple of chaps over coffee this afternoon were riffing on a variation on this theme.
Keep the comments on target, please; while it is true that a big honking chainsaw will do the job, let's focus for now on:
1) Hand tools, and
2) Best (i.e., effective and memorable) ways to repurpose the asset once removed from its former owner.
Other than that, be creative.
You might also to light up this vid as you cogitate:
posted by Concerned American | 12:32 AM
32 Comments:
Decapitation: Ask any Mexican - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65H3YG20100618
When you say 'hand tools' it is hard to know if this is a literary device which alludes to devices proper for the task, or if you really mean hand tools per se.
If the former - in my youth I studied Iaido and after cutting a number of wet, thickly rolled tatami, my deep conviction is that nothing compares to a decent katana; a wakizashi may suffice in a pinch, but if one masters the 'draw stroke' used with the katana, the slice will be smooth, clean and rapid.
Whatever one's motivation, the job should be done in this way. The way that the subhuman raghead tangoes do it, hacking and sawing with short, dull blades and leaving ragged flesh and chipped bone, is merely further example of their utter incompetence in all things; allah hugh fubar.
Uses would be restricted to decorating a pole as an example or warning to fellow 'ruling class' thugs and other communist vermin.
Of importance, though, is considering the effects - mental, spiritual, emotional and psychological - on the beheader. Due to the arterial pressure within the body, there is no way that I know of to remove a head without a modest geyser of blood. If the only reason for taking the head is as a trophy, then may I suggest just taking an ear. They already come with a hole, suitable for installing on a cord.
A question that would affect the method chosen would be whether the actual procedure or only the detached head were to be used for propaganda purposes. If someone wanted to video record the removal procedure for later dissemination, for example, a different technique might be called for than if the head were simply delivered to a local media outlet on ice.
My initial thought is that videoing the procedure might be counterproductive. Some things have more power if left to the imagination. I'm not married to this view, it's just my first take on the subject.
Given that only the detached head was used rather than a recording of the removal, I think the procedure should leave as tidy a result as possible. Perhaps the subject should already be deceased before removal.
I look forward to other comments on this subject.
There are so many jokes here that I won't even start. But personally, I think the best and quickest way to separate one's head from his neck would be with piano wire, attached on one end to something like a nice solid wall and on the other to something like the trailer hitch on a pick-up truck. One loop around the neck, with about 3' of slack, rev 'er up and pop the clutch. I doubt the driver would even feel the slight tension before the wire snapped.
Just my $.02. Guillotines would be better, but who has the hardware?
OH, I forgot...hang them from the trees in your front yard like pinatas. MAybe string some aptio lights through them.
Barring the use of a weapon designed more for that purpose i.e. Sword, Axe.
I'd say a hatchet to get through the spine and a good sharp knife for the muscle and skin.
Of course I keep a nice sharp sword nearby at all times so it's a moot point for me :)
What to do with afterwards?
I guess depends on the meesage. Mail it, toss it through a window, or just put it on a post.
If it aint broke, don't fix it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
Oh come on, the usage of trophy heads is well-established.
It is a head-on-a-stick "pour encourager les autres" until it has been de-fleshed by carrion creatures. (Wall mounted spikes flanking the entrance to your compound are reserved for favoured enemies - see HBO's "Rome" TV series.)
Once de-fleshed, it becomes either a handy skull drinking cup, or one of the skulls in the pile of skulls that your throne rests on. Again, this depends on the status of the skull's previous owner, with skulls not having an interesting history relegated to pile of skulls use.
What's to argue about?
"Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper said Tuesday that he is still waiting for records showing that the human heads seized at Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field, last week were legally obtained and being transported for a lawful purpose."
So people generally are guilty (of something,anything) until they can prove innocence? Interesting concept, repugnant to the notion that the the government has the burden of proof before they can intercede in anyone's affairs. This is the new "guilty until you can prove yourself innocent" policy that tyranny embraces.
Anon 6/19 2:05 here...
Some good comments, especially from Slobyskya Ratchakokov. Decapitation would be messy and could be traumatic to an inexperienced person, so it might be prudent to make sure the subject is deceased first and even hang and drain the body before the procedure.
As for what to do with the head afterwards, the propaganda possibilities are broad. A "press conference" by the head (via an offscreen recording extorted from the deceased before his demise) detailing the reason for his unfortunate end could be circulated. After that the head could be dissected and various parts shipped to other miscreants: the ears to domestic spymasters, the eyes to antiConstitutional police agencies, the tongue to corrupt prosecutors, and so on. I believe this would have an even more chilling effect than simply having the whole head show up on somebody's doorstep.
Way to emulate Vlad the Impaler and Nero: don't use violence to directly stop an actual threat use violence to terrorize people into complying with your will.
Sick.
I know what I'll be doing if I see anyone chopping off heads for dramatic effect.
Ya just keep twisting it till it pops off. Bare hands always presents a greater sense of accomplishment and personalizes it in a very special way.
Crosscut saw. Dull the teeth on a curb to lengthen the time of the cutting procedure.
Then place on pike, hang from tree, throw through newscast window, mount on spike place unit on top of stop sign. The persons crime should define how the head is used.
I'd just impale the low life.
Just going to put this out there, but this sort of thing hasn't done anything to endear the enemies we fight abroad to anyone. Take the Chechens for example, It's awful hard to get people to "take their side" when even a very quick search of the net will bring up videos of them decapitating/mutilating Russians. This sort of thing tends to motivate people to fight harder rather than to give in.
To lessen the psychological impact of spraying blood on the newbie or the weak willed, I recommend cutting one jugular first as this allows the heart to de-sanguinate the body while delaying the onset of full death. After the thrashing/bleeding stops, a 5-6" wide, minimum .25" thick instrument of sufficient shock resistance does nicely for 'topping off'. There's a jackhammer bit of that type that fits the aforementioned requirements just fine, & IIRC there's also a gardening tool of similar description that also may be robust enough to do the job. All that's necessary after that is the proper striker for the cutter & I recommend a 5 lb sledge/something of similar weight & compactness, but a concrete/stone paver'll do okay in a pinch. Use the flat side of the striker on the end of the cutter as it's less likely to miss & hit the hand or skip & fly into someone else/into the bush. Place the edge 3-4 finger widths above where the neck meets the shoulders (you can feel a bony point there, that's the place to measure from) & whack the top of the cutter hard enough to make a reasonably smooth cut thru the neck into the ground/tabletop/stump/tree trunk/whatever. If done right, one blow should be enough, but the important thing is to get thru the neck bone/cartilage as they're the things that're most likely to give you trouble. Once you've passed them, any reasonably sharp implement can be used to cut the head away from the neck muscles/tendons & the noggin's free of the body w/ enough neck left for display use. Swords/kukris/E tools require some skill to accomplish the desired result, & so the above items are offered as a relatively simple means to get the job done.
On a personal note, my heritage has headhunters on both sides who preferred to use a large blade, but technological improvements & the realities of guerrilla ops necessitate an update of one's approach.
Cassandra (of Troy)
Slobyskya Rotchakokov,
Carrying a sword in a guerrilla war context IMO isn't practical. You'll have enough to haul that'll hang up on things w/o including an item that's almost designed to do so. If you have to have a long blade to take heads & have the skill to use it properly, I suggest either a W.W. 2 Japanese, a W.W. 2 Garand, W.W. 1 Springfield/Enfield, or a W.W. 1/2 SMLE long blade bayonet as they've been proven tough enough to do what's needed & aren't too much of a good thing. They're also quite handy for other things as well, & since they're designed for military use they can be mounted on most gear w/o too much trouble & aren't, so far, all that hard to get. You might want to have someone who knows what to do re-shape the front from the Western style 'bellied' edge to a katana/wakizashi one for toughness & ease of sharpening.
Regarding ears as tally keepers, thumbs seem to me to be better as they're readily identifiable as what they are after curing & don't generally decompose if treated properly, i.e., by 'jerking' or salting, & resemble dried figs. Also, if one uses pruning shears & cuts just below the main joint, retention isn't usually a problem.
Cassandra (of Troy)
Halcyon,
Re: "I know what I'll be doing if I see anyone chopping off heads for dramatic effect."
So you manifestly disagree w/ & vehemently oppose the "100 heads" 'doctrine' promoted over @ another well known resistance blog? Great! Then within, oh, 1-2 days you'll be informing those over there who approve of that practice of your revulsion @ such a tactic & your intent to render 'battlefield justice' on those you catch committing such an 'atrocity', right? And don't 'forget' to tell them what a bunch of sick bastards they are for even suggesting such a thing. Good luck, but be aware that doing so might get you get 86d!
Cassandra (of Troy)
Anonymous @ June 20/10:40 AM,
Good point, but in the scenario of fighting against an openly bloody handed oppressor such as is posited here/elsewhere, use of such a tactic would be limited to Quislings, Imperium functionaries, & those troops who engage in atrocities themselves. In a socio-economic collapse scenario like that envisioned by others, use of this tactic would make the point to neo-barbarians that such an end would be their fate if they try to take what isn't theirs. While the practice may be revolting to many, it does however cause many to reflect & go elsewhere to 'play' & for those who won't be deterred by the prospect of becoming an adornment, such a sight won't matter. The opponent's actions & the vicissitudes of combat determine the response, & the best thing that can be hoped for is that one won't be forced to fight in the first place. But should one indeed be forced to fight, my belief is that one should do so w/ all of the savagery & ruthlessness one can muster while still remembering that said brutality is a tactic & NOT the entire point of the exercise. A hard thing to do, true, but it can be done if one has the internal discipline & mental toughness, & an added benefit of such a mindset is that there tend to be fewer post-combat psychological traumas.
Combat isn't for the tender hearted, & dissuading monsters who have no restraints on their appetites isn't for the ethical purist/moral romantic, & the sooner one deals w/ that ugly fact & answers Connery's question to Costner the better off one will be should the time come to step up & get busy.
Cassandra (of Troy)
Cassandra,
"What doth it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"
Being 86'd by men is better than 86'ing God, and subsequently being 86'd by God.
I have seen war first hand. Once violence begins, the endstate is anything but certain. What is kind of odd, is that the savagery seems to have limits(with africa and the middle east as exceptions), UNTIL one side or another does something beyond those limits. Then the other side retaliates and a vicious cycle of violence begins that ultimately leaves BOTH sides the losers. I have seen this first hand. If it comes right down to it, if we intend to come out the victors in this scenario, it would be in our best interest to avoid these kinds of activities. Consider this: This stuff is sure to get us unwanted international attention, and in so doing rather than simply having to deal with "domestic" opposition, we find ourselves going against all of NATO, or worse the civilized world. Also, all of the guerillas mentioned in posts from the last few weeks were not conducting themselves like this, and as such had some element of popular support. You can say what you want, but I have seen first hand, this kind of brutallity will only make the whole situation worse. I will never participate in any activity of this kind, and will disinvolve myself from anyone who does. I can already guess what someone will say now, "You don't have the balls/guts/stomach for real war." To that I say this, when you have seen ANY war first hand and not on TV, you will see my point of veiw.
PS: In the future I think it would be far more productive to put technical or tactical information on this page rather than stuff that is so far in the realm of the extreme that you risk scaring off potential "friendlies" to the cause. This puts us on the same level as Somalis, or Rwandans, and delegitimizes our point of veiw.
What if the opposition places the women and children of resistance fighters in concentration camps a la the Boer War Brits?
What if foreign mercenaries are used so as to permit non-ROE punitive attacks against resistance areas?
What if poison gas and/or biologicals are used against freedom fighters and/or their supporters?
What if Lon Horiuchi is brought back from his full pension and .gov healthcare package for one last go-round?
Do you really think the bought-and-paid-for global media syndicates will report such actions taken by the USG?
Respectfully,
Vicki Weaver
Halcyon,
Re: Gaining the world/losing the soul
Show where in my comments such would result.
Re: Being 86d by men
Have you done as I requested in my original post & if not, why? Given the apparent strength of your conviction on the topic, it would seem that you'd jump @ the chance to strike a moral blow against that particular practice being championed over there.
Re: 86ing God
Show where I did what you claim.
Re: Being 86d by God
See first response.
Cassandra (of Troy)
Anonymous @ June 21/5:23 AM,
To expand upon 'Vicki Weaver''s point, what makes you think that in the event of a full tilt revolt against a govt gone bad said govt won't request assistance from anyone it thinks will help crush what most assuredly will be termed 'domestic terrorists' @ least, & likely 'right-wing militia terrorists'? And 'her' point about govt 'managing' the content & thus the viewpoint about said revolt is very salient & an example is that many if not most people believe that McVeigh & his brother-in-law were the ONLY ones involved in the Murrah bldg's destruction. Also note that the atrocities committed by the Red Guards, the Viet Minh/Cong/NVA, the Pathet Lao, the ANC, ZANU/ZAPU, & the Russians in Afghanistan don't seem to have generated any effective opprobrium from the vaunted intl 'community' to date. Ask the American 'Indian' about the effect intl 'outrage' has had on the representation of their struggle against U.S. govts past & present. VERY few gave or give a damn about Leonard Peltier, Russell Means, & the AIM, & as such they & their org are effectively a dead issue. And as far as Rwanda & Somalia goes, the people who clucked their tongues @ the slaughter are the same ones who now cover it over w/ talk of cease fires, 'reconciliation', aid, & 'a brighter future for all'. You also omitted mention of who'd likely assist a rebellion against a govt the citizens consider to be tyrannical. I sure can't think of any that would since doing so may just 'put ideas' in the heads of their own restive populations & spark a revolt against certain govtl policies @ home. IMO, 'special treatment' is reserved for those who've either ordered atrocities or done them themselves, w/ the inclusion of 'political'/'intelligence' personnel & Quislings. As Colonel Strelnikov said in Red Dawn: "One of the things I hate about war is the hypocrisy it breeds". So do I, most emphatically.
In a planetary socio-economic collapse/'Road Warrior' scenario, the practice you & Halcyon deplore (& worse, like the 'butterfly') may have to be used to keep the nuts & exploiters @ bay. Nasty, dirty work, but work that'll likely be necessary in such a situation & those who may have to do it shouldn't, IMO, be castigated for rendering that service & not having emotional problems about it afterward. Toughness doesn't mean that one is sociopathic, unless you're saying that those who reclaimed Europe from the Muslims & defeated the Nazis & Imperial Japanese were/are bloodthirsty maniacs because they didn't 'feel the pain' of their opponents enough. I sure don't think they were/are, but then I'm rather 'old fashioned' about some things.
Cassandra (of Troy)
'Vicki Weaver',
Oh come on, you don't REALLY believe that OUR beloved govt would ACTUALLY do things like THAT, do you? Why, it's UNpatriotic & downright WRONG to think such things! Gad, 'woman', should a rebellion by 'average' Americans (a.k.a. "THOSE, 'people'" to our 'bettahs') against the govt of the U.S. & its Leftist acolytes occur, it's utter MADNESS (not to mention bad manners) to assume that the govtl side wouldn't STRICTLY adhere to The Laws Of War as well as to the Marquis of Queensbury rules & the Hoyle handbook. You need to lay off that crazy 'right-wing' militia stuff on the Web, 'Vicki', & get w/ the RESPONSIBLE folks who KNOW that those who'd oppose a genuine popular uprising are basically decent & honorable & thus will observe the aforementioned restraints on THEIR conduct even when it appears that they'll lose BIG time. They just HAVE to, 'Vicki', & so they naturally will, okay?
Cassandra (of Troy)
I follow you about the various communist backed insurgencies in modern times, but you overlook some important facts:
1) No one is/was making any REAL money from those places at the time of those insurgencies or had some underlying interest that would cause them to intervene. Hence the lack of international interest. That is not the case in our nation today. China is making money hand-over-fist from us. They stand alot to lose if things don't turn out in their favor. And they are not the only ones. In contrast the Bosnia/Kosovo issue got all kinds of military attention. The reason: Underlying interest in security there because it's right in the back yard of a large chunk of the major powers in the western world, as well a the old "eastern bloc"
2)All of places involved in those insurgencies were extremely violent to begin with.
3)2 major factors in our Founding Fathers defeating the British were A)They had support of the non-combatant colonists
B)They got outside help from France.
If we turn to savagery, we will get neither outside help, or support from the population. If you study guerilla war in any detail, you will see having those two things is absolutely nessicery to win. Let's go down the list and you will see my point:
NVA/VC-Had outside help from China, and the USSR, among others, and had at least limited local support.
Afghani Mujahadeen-Had outside help from the US and allies, and the majority of local support.
Various African groups-Had outside help from communist nations and their African neighbors(in some cases even western help), and limited local support(or at least indifference).
Communist guerillas in the Malay emergency- Had at least limited outside help from communist nations, and had little to no local support. As a side note, they also used extreme savagery during their campaign. And they were defeated.
Irish Republican Army-Had limited outside help, and significant local support.
I could go on and on, but I think you see where I'm going here. In our society, if we intend to get any support at all, we have to legitimize the cause by taking the moral high ground. Extreme savagery, will drive the population right into the hands of the enemy. I'm not saying they won't commit attrocities. But if we do the same we will be seen as no better than they are by the people we would need to support us, and we WILL fail. And if our enemies take a heavy handed approach, and we do not, they will drive the population to support us. That is exactly what has happened time and time again in various guerilla conflicts, like the ones mentioned above. I think we all can agree that the end does not always justify the means it took to get there. That is one of our gripes with the current state of things. Lastly, consider this,the Founders did not resort to savagery. If we intend to prevail like they did, we should not either.
I will also add 2 things here. Our opponents will have foreigh help. They will have to. So why should we inflame the rest of the world to side with them? Our perspective enemies have a HUGE propaganda machine. They will exploit the kind of savagery that is being discussed here, and any concievable gain from those acts will be far overshadowed by the political victory it would give our opponents.
And also, all it will take is a few small elements commiting attrocities to villify the whole movement, which as I stated above, would have dire consequences.
Oh, come on, people!
Although beheading people may be either exciting or disgusting to each of us, for whatever reason, you have to admit:
THAT SONG ROCKS! Inspiring as hell.
I love the sound of bagpipes in the morning. Sounds like victory!
I think that Pete, Mike, Alvie, Jennifer, and all the other Threepers ought to permanently link that video on each of their sites.
Oh, and a katana or even a machete?
Nah, even though I own both, I'd be hard pressed to whack someone's head off in half a second. Of course, if they shoot my dog, all bets are off.
Pushing someone into "berserker mode" can produce nasty results.
Back to my point, that song kicks ass. I guess it might be illegal to remake it with pictures of Gov't atrocities alternated with pics of
certain people, or I'd do it... :D
OK, the WV is "rearmoid". I don't think I need ta say any more...
Actually, this is a better version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCrnF844_ww&a=63qOA_NECU8&playnext_from=ML
I just gotta toss this in.
Many, many years ago, a friend gifted me with a mid grade bowie knife. I carried it in my car for a long time.
When working as night security at a construction site, a driver road-killed a deer on the edge of my duty station.
All I had was this big bowie knife to field dress the deer so I could hide it in my trunk.
When I took the head off of that deer with the bowie knife, it was beautiful. Single strike, clean cut. Right off.
From that day on, I've know if I needed to take off a head, what blade I wanted to use.
"Re: Gaining the world/losing the soul
Show where in my comments such would result."
Gaining any temporal victory by the gravely immoral means of terrorism (using terror as a means of coercing others to do your will) will result in the loss of souls.
"Have you done as I requested in my original post & if not, why? Given the apparent strength of your conviction on the topic, it would seem that you'd jump @ the chance to strike a moral blow against that particular practice being championed over there."
I have no idea what site you're talking about. I try to avoid frequenting sites that advocate violence intended not as a means of directly stopping an unjust action, but advocate violence as a means of terrorizing opponents. Like Nero lining the streets of Rome with Christians as a warning to anyone who wanted to be a Christian. Or Vlad the Impaler sticking people on stakes as a warning to others. Those are barbaric and immoral practices. The people on this site didn't always embrace those ideals of savages. It seems you've antecedently embraced that type of tactic.
My human life is not worth protecting at the cost of my human dignity. If the only way to protect my life is to resort to those bestial tactics, I would rather die, and perhaps I will. But I will die as a decent human being. There are worse things than death. Just because I can preserve my earthly existence by using certain means does not mean I should.
"Re: 86ing God
Show where I did what you claim."
Where you advocated cutting off heads as a means of instilling terror. Where you embraced the ethical fallacy and moral slaughterhouse that is consequentialism.
Halcyon,
Re: Losing souls
Then using your criteria, combat itself is a soul killer as the whole point of it is "coercing others to do your will", & decent, God fearing people will refuse to participate in it & go to their deaths.
Re: 100 Heads
Google 100 Heads & you should be able to discern which site I referred to, but I'm reasonably sure you already know which one I mean & don't want to admit it which is odd since I recall your posting comments there from time to time.
Re: Nero & Vlad Tepes
Never advocated killing people for their religion as Nero did, & Vlad Tepes AFAIK used impalement primarily against the invading Turks. And I didn't advocate use of that tactic either.
Re: Barbaric & immoral practices
And how would you classify the destruction of entire swaths of countryside & the mass firebombing of civilian targets?
Re: Life, dignity, & decency
Using that criteria, you consider God to be immoral for commanding Joshua to commit genocide in Canaan & consider Joshua to be indecent & bestial for obeying that command & especially for the mass murder of nearly everyone in Jericho, right? And no, I'm not comparing myself to God or Joshua nor am I claiming to be in any way commanded by God to do whatever, so don't bother trying to imply such.
Re: Beheading to instill terror
Then you condemn David not only for his beheading of Goliath, but also for standing on Goliath's body & showing the Philistines the head as a means of instilling terror, right? And as above, I'm not claiming to be David nor am I claiming to be girded by God, so don't bother trying to imply such.
Cassandra (of Troy)
"Re: Losing souls
Then using your criteria, combat itself is a soul killer as the whole point of it is "coercing others to do your will."
Killing someone in order to stop his aggression does not coerce his will. One's will might be contradicted in being killed, but it is certainly not coerced.
"Re: 100 Heads
Google 100 Heads & you should be able to discern which site I referred to, but I'm reasonably sure you already know which one I mean & don't want to admit it which is odd since I recall your posting comments there from time to time."
Accuse me of lying, all you like. I still have no idea what site you're talking about. Google "100 heads" and see what you get.
"Re: Nero & Vlad Tepes
Never advocated killing people for their religion as Nero did, & Vlad Tepes AFAIK used impalement primarily against the invading Turks. And I didn't advocate use of that tactic either."
You advocate terrorism. Terrorism is the common thread. Not religion, not crucifixion, and not impalement.
"Re: Barbaric & immoral practices
And how would you classify the destruction of entire swaths of countryside & the mass firebombing of civilian targets?"
Terrorism. Barbaric and immoral. Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill were terrorists, along with Hitler.
"Re: Life, dignity, & decency
Using that criteria, you consider God to be immoral for commanding Joshua to commit genocide in Canaan & consider Joshua to be indecent & bestial for obeying that command & especially for the mass murder of nearly everyone in Jericho, right? And no, I'm not comparing myself to God or Joshua nor am I claiming to be in any way commanded by God to do whatever, so don't bother trying to imply such."
When you're God, you can decide what happens to the creatures you have created.
I'm not intellectually dishonest. I wouldn't imply that you think you are commanded by God. The fact remains, however, that you're not being commanded by God, the Author of Life.
"Re: Beheading to instill terror
Then you condemn David not only for his beheading of Goliath, but also for standing on Goliath's body & showing the Philistines the head as a means of instilling terror, right?"
A question: is everything done in the Bible good, because it's in the Bible? Was it good for the man in Judges 19 to deliver his wife to be raped to death? Was Samson to be praised for committing suicide? Was it good for Noah to get hammered on wine? Did David not sin when he had Bathsheba's husband slaughtered?
David showed the head to the Philistines in a war of herem to show everyone that their leader was dead, nothing more. The Philistines' lives were already forefeit, according to God. David wasn't trying to coerce them into doing anything. It's the equivalent of taking photos of Che Guevera to showing the world, including his disciples, that he'd bitten the dust. Were the post-mortem photos of Guevara and Hussein intended to "terrorize?" No. They were just to show the world they were, in fact, dead, so if people had any particular allegiance to them, they knew they could give it up.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home