Last night I watched a video where boog bois in gun-themed Aloha shirts show off their weapon stash in a late night tv "Top X" list format -- so that you don't have to.

Observations…

#USradicals

1) If shit gets weird & they ditch the loud shirts, they'll be somewhat identifiable by their distinct choice in guns & gear. They like FNs, short AR-style carbines & pistols, & glocks. Everything uses the most common ammo types & clips.

#nsag #vnsa
2) Why those guns? Because these guys are like analytical engineer-type gamers with a serious survivalist bent in their thinking. Everything is optimized for weight & interchangeability with their own & hypothetical enemy weapons.
#inaugurationthreats
3) Basically, they're NERDS applying zombie apocalypse logic to a hypothetical civil war. They even use the word "combos" (gamer slang) when talking about which guns to include in your kit.
#domesticarmedactors #gamer
4) Other crossovers with gamer culture abound. Goofy cartoon unicorn patches, thick glasses, and pop culture tats. They're potentially violent non-state actors, but they also clearly watch Adventure Time or something.
#geek
5) Despite a political rant at the beginning of the video, their actual intentions are a puzzle. When they talk guns, everything they say is logical, concise, and scarily well thought out. When they talk politics, I don't know wtf they're hinting at because JARGON.
#boogbois
6) Lemme repeat what @jesawyer said if you're not reading the comments: a ton of their info on what guns to use is very public. They've just customized their own specific doctrine on what to use based on a scenario where they're operating as insurgents. #boogbois
7) Having a group doctrine on what guns you own means you're practicing preparedness for the scenarios envisaged by the doctrine -- in this case, civil insurgency. If they were just gun hobbyists, they'd have a mishmosh of guns based on personal prefs.

#nsag #domesticthreats
8) Honestly, looking at the boogaloos, I imagine I feel like right-wingers must when they're trying to get their heads around antifa. They're too libertarian in some ways to broadly categorize. #boogaloobois
9) For those who'd like a visual of the end result, here's a group of boogaloo bois fully kitted out. If a shootout started, most of them can reload from a dead friend or fallen LEO. Photo by Robert Kilips, Lansing State Journal.

#boogbois
10) For comparison, here's intention-telegraphing insurrectionist Ziptie Guy, who's not a boog as far as we know, wearing it better. He had more to spend than our bois in Michigan, but also unlike them, he's not here to put on a show -- he's here to work.
#boogology

More from Culture

You May Also Like

THE MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORY OF SWASTIK

The Swastik is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon. Swastik has been Sanatan Dharma’s symbol of auspiciousness – mangalya since time immemorial.


The name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक, pronounced: swastik) &denotes “conducive to wellbeing or auspicious”.
The word Swastik has a definite etymological origin in Sanskrit. It is derived from the roots su – meaning “well or auspicious” & as meaning “being”.


"सु अस्ति येन तत स्वस्तिकं"
Swastik is de symbol through which everything auspicios occurs

Scholars believe word’s origin in Vedas,known as Swasti mantra;

"🕉स्वस्ति ना इन्द्रो वृधश्रवाहा
स्वस्ति ना पूषा विश्ववेदाहा
स्वस्तिनास्तरक्ष्यो अरिश्तनेमिही
स्वस्तिनो बृहस्पतिर्दधातु"


It translates to," O famed Indra, redeem us. O Pusha, the beholder of all knowledge, redeem us. Redeem us O Garudji, of limitless speed and O Bruhaspati, redeem us".

SWASTIK’s COSMIC ORIGIN

The Swastika represents the living creation in the whole Cosmos.


Hindu astronomers divide the ecliptic circle of cosmos in 27 divisions called
https://t.co/sLeuV1R2eQ this manner a cross forms in 4 directions in the celestial sky. At centre of this cross is Dhruva(Polestar). In a line from Dhruva, the stars known as Saptarishi can be observed.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?