Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Notable quotes

I’ve seen some of the D-Right guys here and there disparaging Thomas Sowell as—well, not quite a cuck, maybe, but definitely one of the useless Conservative Old Guard. I dunno, I’ve always liked the guy myself, and still do. He’s sharp as they come, and definitely has a way with words. To wit:

21. “It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political left amount to.”

20. “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. People with careers as ethnic leaders usually tell their followers what they want to hear.”

19. “‘We are a nation of immigrants,’ we are constantly reminded. We are also a nation of people with ten fingers and ten toes. Does that mean that anyone who has ten fingers and ten toes should be welcomed and given American citizenship?”

18. “It is amazing how many people think that the government’s role is to give them what they want by overriding what other people want.”

Hawkins has collected thirty of ’em for this article, my own favorite being this one:

15. “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.”

They’re all damned good, although the Tweet that leads things off is kinda depressing. Here’s another short piece, noting his retirement a couple years ago, which includes a link to an archive of his excellent work. Long may you wave, Dr Sowell, and happy belated birthday to you.

Share

Dead letter

It’s broken. We can argue about the reasons why, perhaps; my own belief is that the fault lies not in the document but in our own failure to uphold its promise. Either way, the fact remains: it’s broken.

Wickard .v. Filburn was a raw theft of that power from the states by the Federal Government. It should have been met with the immediate refusal by the States to acquiesce, if necessary backed by the Governors calling up their National Guard contingencies as there never was and still does not exist today jurisdiction in the Supreme Court on the matter. The substance of this case was that Filburn was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The entire cycle of life of said wheat was contained within the boundaries of one state. The Government claimed that because he grew it he wouldn’t have to buy as much wheat on the market, that wheat was traded both nationally and internationally in the marketplace and thus his lack of need to make a purchase through his entirely intrastate actions meant it had jurisdiction. In short the Supreme Court claimed that there was no limit on any act of the Federal government, ever, since any action or inaction by a citizen always results in some change in one’s economic activity. The mere act of taking a crap leads to “interstate commerce” under this standard and thus the Federal Government can regulate where, how and when you may do so or even tax same; you might buy toilet paper, if you use water to flush or wash your hands you might cause your local government to consume chlorine shipped across a state line to sanitize said water, etc.

The Court ripped up the entire Constitution with this decision — and thus far, since 1942, for more than 75 years, it has gotten away with it.

Then there are decisions where the litigants lied before the court. Miller, the seminal empowering decision for federal gun control, was one such instance. Not only was Miller unrepresented (he was broke and nobody showed up to argue his side of the case) but the US Government directly lied to the court both orally and in written form about the lack of military application of the weapon Miller was arrested for possessing (a short-barrel shotgun), claiming it had no legitimate military or militia purpose despite having previously purchased a weapon of almost-exactly the same design, form and function by the thousands for use in trench warfare during WWI.

Roe .v. Wade was also a deliberate lie. The claim was that Roe was raped. We know this was a lie because Roe later disclosed same. While that was not the foundation of the decision it clearly played into the sentiment on the court and it was not a mistake it was a lie.

Perjury is supposed to be one of the highest offenses in any civilized nation because in every single case it perverts justice, yet in neither of those cases was any subsequent notice given to same nor were the judgments vacated. Congress could address this but has refused to even discuss it. There are dozens of similar instances and in exactly zero of those events has a litigant ever faced justice for having done so nor has any Supreme Court decision been summarily tossed on that basis even when the lie is later admitted by the litigants or facutally proved, as was the case in both Roe and Miller.

We have a framework for not only our government but for changing how it works. The problem is that you can no longer find it in the many linear feet of law and regulation directly contrary to the limits on power in the Constitution and nobody — utterly nobody — will do a damn thing about it.

No, a “Convention of States” will not address this.

Why not?

Because the highest law in the land already addresses all of it and said law is routinely and outrageously ignored without one scintilla of consequence attaching to any government agency or employee who does so — ever — even when they perjure themselves while under oath.

There is utterly no reason to believe, until and unless that highest law of the land is enforced, which will only happen when the people demand it be enforced, that any such event will mean anything as whatever such a “Convention” produces will also be ignored unless it is backed up with a credible threat of force.

Why do we need a “Convention” to enforce what already exists?

Lots more emphasis throughout, which I didn’t transcribe more of because…well, there’s a LOT of it, okay? Denninger tends to do that, and I ain’t saying he’s wrong to, mind. Probably best just to click on over and read all of it.

Share

The toughest question of all

The only one that matters, when you get right down to it.

As Capitol Hill Republicans attempt for — what, the eighth? ninth? — time in the past two decades to jam through an amnesty that their voters have explicitly, loudly and repeatedly said they do not want, it’s worth asking a question that is rarely raised:

Does the United States — population 320 million and rising — need more people? If so, why?

And if so, why these particular people? Why illiterate, primitive Muslims who loathe Western Civ and consider its “decadence” an abomination before their warped “god”? Why unskilled, impoverished Mexican peasants with nothing useful to offer our society, possessing a demonstrated willingness to violate our immigration laws in order to come here and soak up resources, contributing nothing useful to our country?

Has any American ever spent a single moment of his or her day thinking, “Gee, I wish we had more drug mules, low-level cartel dupes, MS 13 killers, unemployable low-IQ indigents who don’t speak English and refuse to learn it, and sundry rapists, thieves, alcoholics, ISIS terrorists, murderers, welfare cheats, and surly unassimilables to liven up the place”? Other than among libtards pushing a barely-concealed political agenda and bought-and-paid-for CoC Republicans—for whom the “wretched refuse” are useful props and cheap labor respectively—where is the demand for such people?

To most ears, the question sounds blasphemous, which illustrates the rottenness of our immigration debate. Actually, “debate” is far too generous. One side has made sure that there is no debate. Good people want more immigration, and bad people object or raise questions. An inherently political issue has been effectively rendered religious, with the righteous on one side, sinners on the other.

Just as they always do, on this and every issue.

So again: Why do we need more people? For the extra traffic congestion? More crowded classrooms? Longer emergency room and Transportation Security Administration lines? Higher greenhouse-gas emissions?

We know how more immigration benefits big business and the Democratic Party. No one has yet convincingly explained how it benefits the American people as a whole. That’s the foremost consideration that should drive our immigration debate, and that’s what should determine our immigration policy.

And in a country with a sane and self-respecting population, it would. Surprising that this was published in the God Damned WaPo. I didn’t bother with the comments, I must admit; I’m pretty sure I already know what they’re like. New category, too: Immivasion. Shoulda done it a long time ago, I guess.

Share

Do the math

You ain’t getting ’em, gun-grabbers.

The foregoing math on the roughly 20 million semi-auto rifles is not the full extent of the problem for the gun grabbers. Additionally, there are at least 50 million centerfire handguns that would be suitable for resistance warfare. (And another 3 million being made or imported each year.) There are also perhaps 40 million scoped centerfire deer rifles in private hands. The vast majority of those have no traceable paper trail. Fully capable of 500+ yard engagement, these rifles could be employed to out-range the tyrants and their minions.

Then there are the estimated 1.5 million unregistered machineguns now in the country.  Except for a 30-day amnesty in 1968 that generated only about 65,000 registrations, they have been contraband since 1934. Their number is particularly difficult to accurately estimate, since some semi-autos such as the M1 Carbine, HK91/93/94 series, and AR-15 are fairly easy to convert to selective fire. Similarly, nearly all “open bolt” semi-auto designs are easy to convert to full auto. Large numbers of conversion parts sets have been sold, with little recordkeeping. Some guns can be converted simply by removing sear springs or filing their sears. Just a trickle of unregistered full autos are seized or surrendered each year. This begs the question: If Federal officials have been unable to round up un-papered machineguns after 84 years, then how do they expect to ever confiscate semi-autos, which are 15 times more commonplace?

As evidenced by the 1990s wars in the Balkans, when times get inimical, contraband guns get pulled out of walls and put into use. We can expect to see the same, here.

Now, to get back to the simple mathematics, here are some ratios to ponder:

  • NRA members (5.2 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 63-to-1 ratio
  • Military veterans (20.4 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 249-to-1 ratio
  • Unregistered machineguns (1.5 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 18-to-1 ratio
  • Privately owned semi-auto rifles (40 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 485-to-1 ratio


The mathematics that I’ve cited don’t bode well for the gun-grabbing collectivists.

He has a lot more, and I do mean a LOT. It all adds up to total nightmare for fever-dreaming totalitarians, who really ought to find themselves better uses for their time.

(Via MisHum)

Share

What if…

Wonder if VDH’s cuckster colleagues at NRO are reading his stuff? Because I can think of at least three right off the top of my head who ought to be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary—to read this one. Twice.

There are lots of possible counterfactuals to think about had Hillary Clinton won the presidency as all the experts had predicted.

The U.S. embassy would have stayed in Tel Aviv. “Strategic patience” would likely still govern the North Korea dilemma. Fracking would be curtailed. The — rather than “our” — miners really would be put out of work. Coal certainly would not have been “beautiful.” The economy probably would be slogging along at below 2 percent GDP growth.

China would be delighted, as would Iran. But most important, there would be no collusion narrative — neither one concerning a defeated Donald Trump nor another implicating a victorious Hillary Clinton. In triumph, progressives couldn’t have cared less whether Russians supposedly had tried to help a now irrelevant Trump; and they certainly would have prevented any investigation of the winning Clinton 2016 campaign.

In sum, Hillary’s supposedly sure victory, not fear of breaking the law, prompted most of the current 2016 scandals, and her embittering defeat means they are not being addressed as scandals.

For example, why would FBI director James Comey have been so foolish as to ask for a FISA warrant request without fully informing the judge of the compromising details of the Steele–Fusion GPS dossier? Or why would Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been so reckless as to meet with Bill Clinton in a stealthy jet rendezvous on an Arizona tarmac when her department was concurrently investigating his spouse?

But those are precisely the wrong questions, given the Washington careerist mind. The right one is “Why not?” — in the context of the overwhelming likelihood that Hillary Clinton would not only be elected president but also would follow the well-known Clintonian habit of punishing both enemies and neutrals while rewarding friends, the more obsequious, the better.

It goes on from there, a perfect reminder of the bullet we dodged by electing Trump and packing Her Herness off to bitter, booze-soaked irrelevance. Hanson’s conclusion:

The Podesta brothers would still be A-list Washington operators. During a Clinton administration, Devin Nunes, who would likely still be seeking the truth behind the illegality in the 2016 campaign, might have been under FISA-ordered surveillance himself, or would have shared the deep-state fate of the jailed videomaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or might have become one of the victims of Lois Lerner’s residual henchmen at the IRS.

The coffers of the Clinton Foundation certainly would be expanding exponentially. Robert Mueller might have been brought back in now and then for his sober and judicious work in finding no wrongdoing in the Uranium One deal.

And Donald Trump? He would be mocked and ridiculed as he barked at the moon that his wires had been tapped in Trump Tower — as the truth became insanity, and insanity the truth.

You’ll surely want to read all of it, even though it means swallowing the bitter pill of clicking over to NRO to do so. As I said, certain prissy-Right types ought to be forced to.

(Via KT)

Share

The collapse that wasn’t

Culper insists on the mot juste.

I hate using the words “civil war” and “collapse”, because they’re not specific. Whenever I read the words “societal collapse” or “economic collapse”, I wonder: collapse to what level? 100% collapse? 50% collapse? (Even a 25% collapse in employment and living standards is going to cause significant problems.) One could argue that we’re witnessing a societal collapse right now — a collapse of established, normative sociopolitical behavior and attitudes. It might be more accurate and specific to say that we’ve entered into a period of societal decline, but it only goes to show just how vague the word “collapse” actually is. The collapse of the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, and we only know that because we can read the history. I wonder if those living in any given 50 year period of that collapse understood that collapse was occurring. The same can be said of civil war. Will states be fighting each other in the Second Civil War? Is the North invading the South again? Will we be battling for control over Washington D.C.? What, exactly, is meant by the term civil war?

Now, you may be thinking, Well, that’s just a semantic game. Everyone knows what a civil war is. This may work for a cursory understanding of where we’re headed, but in intelligence we deal with specifics. The commander needs to know the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the situation. You don’t prepare for a civil war, you don’t prepare for an electromagnetic pulse, you don’t prepare for economic collapse. You prepare for the effects of these events. And if we’re not deliberate with our understanding of these threats and their second- and third-order effects, then we’re not truly prepared.

Predicting the future is hard, especially when we define our terms and arrange our expectations in reference to definitions and historical conditions that no longer apply, something we humans are wont to do.

Sam is right: we’re well into the collapse of what Normals think of as our traditional cultural arrangement and organization. The social contract as Americans once knew it is long gone, and it ain’t coming back. Not when half of us are obnoxiously determined to inflict authoritarian tyranny on the half resistant to such, it ain’t. As I keep saying, there is no bridging this gap; the two positions are incompatible, irreconcilable, and not amenable to negotiation or compromise. One side must prevail, and one side must capitulate. It’s a pretty sorry pass all right, but it’s where we are.

Update! Zman puts up some interesting thoughts on civil war as social war:

Continue reading “The collapse that wasn’t”

Share

Dope, inside

More on the Broward Cowards. Much more…and worse.

I spent about 18 months in 2012, 2013 and 2014 investigating Broward and Miami-Dade school policies and how those policies transfer to law enforcement practices. My interest was initially accidental. I discovered an untold story of massive scale and consequence as a result of initial research into Trayvon Martin and his High School life.

What I stumbled upon was a Broward County law enforcement system in a state of conflict. The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent, entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes. The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein. So police officials, the very highest officials of law enforcement (Sheriff and Police Chiefs), entered into a plan.

As soon as Miami-Dade began to receive the benefits (political and financial) from the scheme, Broward County joined on. The approach in Broward was identical as the approach in Miami-Dade. It’s important to remember, this was not an arbitrary change – this was a well-planned fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of how teenagers would be treated when they engaged in criminal conduct.

The primary problem was the policy conflicted with laws; and over time the policy began to create outcomes where illegal behavior by students was essentially unchecked by law enforcement. Initially the police were excusing misdemeanor behaviors. However, it didn’t take long until felonies, even violent felonies (armed robberies, assaults and worse) were being excused. The need to continue lowering the arrests year-over-year meant that increasingly more severe unlawful behavior had to be ignored. Over time even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police.

We found out about it, when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police Chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever worsening criminal conduct. The police were in a bind.  They were encountering evidence of criminal conduct and yet they had to hide the conduct. There were examples of burglary and robbery where the police had to hide the recovered evidence in order to let the kids get away without reports.

The police would take the stolen merchandise and intentionally falsify police records to record stolen merchandise *as if* they just found it on the side of the road. They put drugs and stolen merchandise in bags, and sent it to storage rooms in the police department. Never assigning the recovery to criminal conduct. Stolen merchandise was just sitting in storage rooms gathering dust.

They couldn’t get the stuff back to the victim because that would mean the police would have to explain how they took custody of it. So they just hid it. To prove this was happening one of the officers told me where to look, and who the victim was.

At first I didn’t believe them. However, after getting information from detectives, cross referencing police reports, and looking at the “found merchandise”, I realized they were telling the truth. A massive internal investigation took place and the results were buried. Participating in the cover-up were people in the media who were connected to the entire political apparatus. The sheriff and police chief could always deny the violent acts (assaults, rapes, beatings etc.) were being ignored; that’s why the good guys in the police dept gave the evidence of the stolen merchandise. That physical evidence couldn’t be ignored and proved the scheme.

From 2012 though 2018 it only got worse. In Broward and Miami-Dade it is almost impossible for a student to get arrested. The staff within the upper levels of LEO keep track of arrests and when a certain number is reached all else is excused.

Well it didn’t take long for criminal gangs in Broward and Miami-Dade to realize the benefit of using students for their criminal activities. After all, the kids would be let go… so organized crime became easier to get away with if they enlisted high-school kids. As criminals became more adept at the timing within the offices of the officials, they timed their biggest crimes to happen after the monthly maximum arrest quota was made.

The most serious of armed robberies etc. were timed for later in the month or quarter. The really serious crimes were timed in the latter phases of the data collection periods. This way the student criminals were almost guaranteed to get away with it. Now. You can see how that entire process gets worse over time. Present corruption (the need to hide the policy) expands in direct relationship to the corruption before it.  This is where the School Police come into play.

Understanding the risk behind the scheme, it became increasingly important to put the best corrupt cops in the schools. *BEST* as in *SMARTEST*. Those SRO’s became the ones who were best at hiding the unlawful conduct. Again, over time, the most corrupt police officers within the system became the police inside the schools. These officers were those who are best skilled at identifying the political objectives and instructions.

Those “School Cops” also have special privileges.  It’s a great gig.  They get free “on campus” housing close to the schools they are assigned to etc.  They’re crooked as hell and the criminal kids how just how to play them. It’s a game. Also an open secret. A lot of it came out during an earlier *internal affairs* investigation. Unfortunately the behavior never changed because the politics never changed. It’s still going on. For years this has been happening and no-one cared. Crimes happen; students excused; victims ignored; etc. The Broward County School and Law Enforcement system is designed to flow exactly this way. It’s politics.

Only then a Parkland school shooting happened. For Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel this had to be an “oh shit” moment; but not for the reasons the media initially thought.

To adapt the old lady’s famous statement to fit this stinking, toxic shitpit of a scandal: it’s corruption all the way down. It’s also the reason we’ll never, ever give up our guns, no matter how fervently they shriek, wheedle, moan and try to deflect attention away from the real failure here.

During Wednesday’s horrible fiasco of a “Town Hall”, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel spelled it out:

What I’m asking the law makers to give police all over this country is more power.

I was sufficiently struck by the above to write it down – because it was clear even then that Sheriff Israel is an incompetent deployer of the power he already has. The scale of his department’s appalling failure in the Parkland massacre gets worse almost hourly. 

I said on Tucker’s show that the state had failed at every level – school district, county, federal. But Sheriff Israel’s performance is especially egregious. An honorable man would surely have tendered his resignation. On the other hand, sitting on stage, watching his voters jeer Dana Loesch and call her a “murderer”, the sleazy creep can be forgiven for concluding that with constituents this eager to be misdirected why not string along? Their fury should have been aimed at him – and he should have spent his hour on stage ducked behind a podium demonstrating the policy-compliant incident-long Broward County crouch.

I observed on TV that, given the situation with “refugees” in Germany and Scandinavia and so on, it was more likely that Europeans would rediscover their inclination toward self-defense than that Americans would surrender it. Any foreigners wanting to know why claims to leave it to an all-powerful state don’t resonate with half of America need look no further than Scott Israel.

Actually, it resonates with us quite powerfully—as an object lesson on the peril inextricably entwined with trading liberty for (false) security, as Progressivist would-be dictators demand.

Cry all you want, shitlibs. You aren’t getting them, not even one. That’s flat, and final. If you want them, you’re going to have to come and take them. Once more: we’re willing to die defending ourselves against you. Are you willing to die for your dreams of tyranny? Think hard—and then make your move, you whining, lying, gutless pussies. If you dare.

Our response to the phony, one-way “debate” over “gun control” has now been purified in the crucible of the Founders’ “long chain of abuses” to one very simple statement, a lone middle finger waved in defiance of the gun-grabbers: go fuck yourselves. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

Share

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Instead of set-piece clashes between large armies fielded in the old Napoleonic fashion*, Civil War v2.0 is way more likely to be fought with guerilla-style, hit-and-run tactics—quick, small-scale bloodlettings, raids, or sniper attacks followed immediately by a hasty, surreptitious retreat: the very embodiment of what is now referred to in military circles as Fourth Generation Warfare, or 4GW. Such an open-ended conflict could and very probably would drag on for a long time indeed; with resounding, decisive victory a practical near-impossibility almost by definition, such a war would end up a long, bitter, and brutal slog, ended not by victory or conquest but by sheer exhaustion.

The federal government, naturally, would attempt to intervene, but on which side and with what ultimate intent being difficult to predict. In Bracken’s Enemies trilogy, as well as Max Velocity’s excellent Patriot Dawn and many others, federal intervention in a Civil War/rebellion provides the State its justification for instituting true tyrannical oppression, taken to its practical limits, at last…which still winds up being largely ineffective except in the limited geographical areas it controls.

All of which is certainly chilling enough. This, though, might well be the most chilling observation of all:

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

The odds of civil war here, no matter how low-intensity or limited in terms of scale, inflicting chaos on other parts of the world seem to me to be pretty high. The question is whether such a looming threat, which would come to toxic fruition pretty quickly, would motivate some sort of direct intervention—necessarily involving foreign boots on American ground, of course—on the part of those other nations. Assuming any of them were even capable of any such intervention in the first place, of course, which is by no means a given. It’s safe to assume that the UN would regard the opportunity to take over and administer the US itself as heaven-sent, a dream come true—a chance to demonstrate both its might and its indispensability for all the world to see.

At first they would, anyway. They’d learn different pretty damned quick.

From an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

And if there could possibly be a reason to actually wish for another Civil War, right there it is. A pretty powerful one it is too, I must admit.

Read the rest of it. WRSA holds that it’s “More than a bit optimistic,” and recommends perusing Bracken’s several comments too, which begin with this interesting thought:

A civil war will not be intentionally started by left or right. It will be an unavoidable downstream consequence of a disruption of our modern technological infrastructure. The disruption could be triggered by many vectors, but the consequences will all be the same. Once the lights go out in a major U.S. city, even for a week, chaos will ensue, and every supermarket will be looted to bare shelves. The Genie will then be out of the bottle, and it won’t be put back in.

This, too, seems right enough to me. Matt then links to one of his several WRSA posts on the topic, starting off with this preface:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain. 

Yep. As I keep saying myself, nobody but nobody among decent, well-meaning people ought to be seriously wishing for such a thing, and I very much doubt any significant number are. But the Left, incredibly, seems absolutely determined to force this horror on us, one way or another. Unless they somehow are brought to senses they don’t appear to possess in any measure, sooner or later they will leave Americans desirous of nothing more than their right to be left alone with no choice but to defend themselves. Again I say it: Lefty should be very, very careful what he wishes for…lest he wind up getting it.

The scenario wherein a tech or infrastructure disaster sparks such a conflict is even more alarming, the more so for being the more likely case. As Matt says, once urban grocery store shelves have been stripped, people trapped in the big cities will start to get hungry, with no recourse other than dispersing en masse into the surrounding countryside to forage for food. They won’t be content to just sit back and starve. And the folks they’ll be looking to loot aren’t very likely to just sit passively back and let themselves be looted, either.

Either way, Civil War v2.0 ain’t something anybody ought to be looking forward to with anything other than dread. Then again though, as unavoidable as it’s beginning to appear, maybe Grant had the right of the whole thing after all when he said, “If we have to fight I wish we could do it all at once and then make friends.”

* Ironically, the Civil War—and most especially the new weapons used to fight it—is generally regarded as having rendered Napoleon’s tactics obsolete—or more accurately, to have revealed them as such.

Share

Ask yourselves why we hate you

Explain all you want, but they still won’t get it. They can’t afford to.

So we arrive at a new theory: the media, when it tries to involve itself in Middle American political races, always manages to make things worse for the candidate that they support. The anti-media candidate, meanwhile, gains a new gust of momentum, courtesy of the public’s downright hatred for those mobs of carpetbagging weasels trampling over their yard signs and smirking at their values. People who didn’t care about the election one way or another all of a sudden vote for the guy getting vilified by the snobby people, because they see themselves in him. Populism is an instinct. That’s why the mainstream media is the most effective weapon patriotic Americans have to destroy the mainstream media.

The people of Montana, having heard the news and heard the tape, sided with the Republican who bodyslammed the liberal reporter. The bodyslam made him more appealing to the voters. Said Bozeman’s James Baker: ”A lot of reporters get aggressive. And I guess, after the heat of a long campaign, people can lose tempers. But obviously I don’t endorse it, but I think that in some cases it’s understandable even if it isn’t forgivable.” Said Kalispell’s Vaughn Warriner: “And now the night before the election, what do they do? They bring some outsider in, barges in, causes a scene, and make Gianforte look bad, when it was his fault in the first place.”

Ben Jacobs’ MSNBC “Chris Hayes” appearance did nothing to sway the good people of Montana to his cause. The good people of Montana simply hated him so much that they elected the guy who violently threw him to the ground.

In Georgia, the Democrats spent record-breaking amounts of money to try to elect some lightweight named Jon Ossoff to Congress in a special election for Tom Price’s seat, but it backfired. A Republican named Karen Handel beat him with 51.9 percent of the vote even though she got less than 20 percent in the primary. The voters didn’t care much about her either way. They simply hated Jon Ossoff, who, it turns out, didn’t even live in the district he was running in.

This is President Donald Trump’s America, where the Fake News is on the run but too ignorant to realize it, where reporters like Dave Weigel, who post blatantly false information, finally have to apologize for it and be held accountable to the American people forced to imbibe their errors and fabrications.

So why don’t people believe the media now when they tell us that a Republican candidate is a bad person? Because we already know the media has no values.

The media is for killing babies, covering up for Clintons, starting nation-building wars in countries they’d never deign to fight in, and advertising pornographic gun violence in movies even as they fight to disarm the lawful citizenry. They undress women on their stupid reality shows and patronize women on their braindead daytime talk shows. And now, as we find, the truly bad people in the workplace aren’t the conservative Republicans they tell us to hate. The bad people are Matt Lauer. Harvey Weinstein. Democrats so high on their own moral self-satisfaction that they forget to practice any morality whatsoever. They are the ones who hurt and abuse others more vulnerable than them. They are the ones who have turned against God or whatever conception of basic human decency guides the lot of us. So their moral posturing rings false.

They thought we’d all just humbly sit back and endure their abusive disdain forever; after all, it’s what Conservative Inc Republicrats have always done. But after decades of being lectured, nagged, and insulted—scorned as ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled fools too stupid to be trusted to act in our own best interests, which they’ve always been happy to define for us—from their ivory-tower enclaves in NYC and LA, normal Americans are fed up.

And not just with the Democrat Socialist/Media combine, either; they also finally kicked Conservative Inc to the curb in favor of a cantankerous political novice finally willing to punch back twice as hard on their behalf, to borrow a phrase. After years and years of false Republicrat promises meant to obscure a total unwillingness to defend them and their values, the Normals at long last said to hell with all you, and to hell with all this and rejected business as usual in favor of long-overdue disruption of the tired old charade.

But as much justified anger as there is at both Uniparty wings, it’s perhaps the liberal Praetorian Media that inspires the deepest wrath, and rightly so. No matter which flavor of empty-suit hand-puppet occupies the Oval Office, Old Media is always right there—to prop up a Democrat Socialist with relentless propagandizing, and to keep any Republicrat placeholder keenly aware of his proper role by attacking him unceasingly, dishonestly, and hypocritically, by any means necessary. Their influence isn’t what it once was, to be sure, and continues to dwindle; their old kingmaker/gatekeeper role has been seriously undercut by an earthquake, sudden but long a-building, that they seem to have missed completely. But among the old guard politicians they still do hold some sway.

Maybe even worse for them, both in terms of their dwindling influence and the low regard Normals have for them, is that on the rare occasions when an Old Media “journalist” dares to venture out into the heartland to report on its incomprehensibly bizarre, barely-human inhabitants, the condescension fairly drips from them, and their confusion, discomfort, and wonderment at this alien landscape is palpable. The “journalists” assume that the subhuman hayseeds are so awed by their celebrity as to be blind to the contempt they feel for them, and I’m sure plenty of them are. But not all; at this point, I’d guess not even close to most. The Normals harbor a pretty deep contempt for the “journalists” too, and for far better reasons, although being polite folks they’re way more careful about letting it show.

Trump has lashed Old Media remorselessly and to great effect with the “Fake News” crop, and the Normals know he’s speaking nothing but the plain truth. Far from being alarmed or put off by it, Normals are enjoying seeing the liars called out, after having waited and wished for it for a long, long time. To compound the misery of the “journalists,” the past week’s blundering has rendered their sniveling outrage over Trump’s richly-merited scourging of them completely ludicrous:

This week alone, four big scoops were run by major news organizations — written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing — that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel’s office had subpoenaed Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. They weren’t. ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know). The New York Times ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn’t. Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.

Forget your routine bias, these were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits, and analysts, all of them feeding frenzied expectations about collusion that have now been internalized as indisputable truths by many. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask, why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes are prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn’t there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

Easy: because they AREN’T “honest mistakes.” Their “mistakes” only ever cut one way—which all by itself militates against their being “mistakes,” and certainly not “honest” ones—and of late they capitulate and issue a “correction” of sorts only after having been dragged kicking and screaming to it: burying a mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded admission of semi- or non-specific “problems” near the bottom of page C37 (for those few newspapers still able to publish that many pages), after several days of complaints from people fully aware of what they’re up to. More from Limbaugh:

Therefore what Mueller is doing is not the investigation of a crime. What Mueller is doing is pursuing an impeachment. There is no two ways about it now. I didn’t have any doubt about it last week, but this perspective on this. So this brings us back to CNN. There is no evidence. You know what else? If we’re gonna suppose that there was collusion, that the Russians hacked or whatever — and that’s all it is — let me tell you what you get when there is no evidence of Russian hackery, when there is no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in this mythical hackery.

You know what you get? You get fake news. You get Brian Ross lying in a report about General Flynn’s plea bargain. Brian Ross lied through his teeth when he said that Trump, as a candidate, made Flynn call the Russians. Reuters and Bloomberg published a false report about a subpoena for Trump’s financial dealings with a German bank. That didn’t happen. CNN lies about Donald Trump Jr. getting early notice of emails posted on WikiLeaks with the encryption key to open the file.

That didn’t happen! Donald Trump Jr. got nothing in advance of anything that was made public. And then Dave Weigel of the Washington Post posted a phony photo of the Trump rally in Pensacola on Friday before people were even let in, pictures of empty seats. Weigel wanted people to believe that nobody cared about the Trump rally (be sure to hit the link; Trump’s response busting the deceitful moron is absolutely hilarious—M). That’s what you get. You get lying, fake news when there isn’t any collusion and when there isn’t any evidence of any collusion.

I got a quick question for CNN and all the rest of you Drive-By Media types. You’re telling us these mistakes you’re making are honest. Yeah, you’re just trying so hard to be good journalists. Let me ask you: How many totally lying, erroneous, false, damaging, defamatory stories about Barack Obama ran in eight years? Hmm? How many times in your quest to be over-the-top fair and to get it right did you run defamatory stories that did damage to Barack Obama? Answer: Zero.

Which is just another little thing that gives their game away. Add in that it ain’t just one Fake News outlet making these “mistakes,” but several—ALL in the same direction, mind—and you can no longer deny that the Liberal Media is participating in our political process not as honest, at least reasonably impartial reporters of news as they claim, but as active advocates promoting one side over another. Not and be taken seriously, you can’t.

Anybody—ANYBODY—who still thinks after all this that they can rely on Establishment Media for useful information on the news of the day—presented fairly, offering coverage of all viewpoints, untainted by a concealed agenda—is nothing but a damned fool. Period fucking dot.

“Honest mistakes”? Don’t make me laugh. Those “mistakes,” and their slow, reluctant “corrections,” are all part of the larger attempt to overturn the last election, that’s all. The keg of gasoline here around which they’re waving matches all unawares, though, is the whole idea of the peaceful transfer of power. Once a source of great pride in this country, taken as a given even after a hotly contested election, it’s the bedrock of our system’s stability. But now it is being recklessly endangered, by the very fools likely to be most badly burned by the resultant conflagration.

Jesus famously said, “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Same with these feckless fucktards—they truly know not what they do. Only they’re not seeking God’s forgiveness—He in His boundless wisdom not really being directly involved and all—and the people they WILL need to beg absolution from aren’t likely to be in a forgiving mood.

I’ve reiterated my long-held belief that if there is to be a second Civil War in this country, it will be gun confiscation that sparks it. But I’m beginning to think that there’s another possibility that just might suffice as well: a successful soft coup finally achieved by the Left and its propaganda wing that removes Trump from office on one or another of these Pecksniffian pretexts of theirs. Should they somehow contrive to pull it off at last, an uprising of some sort is far from inconceivable. A vast number of normal Americans are now fully awake to the nature and intentions of the forces arrayed against them, and the final confirmation of the removal of Normals’ right to a say in how they’re governed just might be the spark that sets off an explosion.

I would guess that it would begin as nonviolent protest both in Mordor on the Potomac and all over the country, but the potential for escalation to real violence would be pretty high right from go. If Antifa/BLM/Occupy/miscellaneous other thugs of the hard Left show up to deal out some of their trademark mob beatings, with the cops again quietly ordered by Democrat-Socialist city and state officials to stand idly by and let it happen…well, there’s really no telling where it all might lead.

But one thing I’m fairly certain of is that it would signal the start of open season on “journalists,” with no bag limit. Which I would have to consider a feature, not a bug. Tar, feathers, torches, and pitchforks would end up being the most trifling of their concerns, a best-case scenario.

In light of which, although I know it amounts to whistling in a hurricane and all, I’ll repeat my sage advice to them yet again: best be careful what you wish for there, Proggies. I’ll let Schlichter lay out the bottom line:

These are the same people who constructed, out of whole cloth, the narrative that we are somehow morally obligated to give up a red state Senate seat because Gloria Allred dragged out some sad-faced woman with a story and a yearbook. Except the yearbook was tampered with – just like the Roy Moore Truthers said. No, our glorious press didn’t uncover that lie. But then, the press didn’t want to.

What about the Washington Post and its alleged “scrupulous reporting?” Turns out it’s likely that this whole thing is a Jeb!boy hit job. No shock – the corrupt establishment has been working with the corrupt press to claw back the power we relieved them of since we rejected Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. The Fredocons and liberal journalists want respect, but they deserve only contempt – and woke conservatives are delivering.

Say, who’s ahead on embarrassing corrections regarding the Russiafail fake scandal this week? WaPo? CNN? The Times? Because all we see are giant headlines about how this is the end for Trump, followed a few hours or days later by sheepish, page B-26 corrections and then hilarious tweets from Trump rubbing it in.

Mr. President, please never stop tweeting.

Seconded, with all my heart and soul. It’s not as if those fastidious Fauntleroys most distressed over the boorish unseemliness of it all were ever in his corner anyhow. Trump got to the Oval Office without heeding those dweebs; it would be an error most grievous to start paying attention to their agitated squeaking now. The payoff:

Here’s a lesson for our would-be moral instructors. See, the thing with moral authority is that you don’t get any more after you set fire to what you have. And our media/political/Hollywood elite’s moral authority is a raging inferno.

Well, now it’s time for America’s Normals to instruct you elitist jerks: We just don’t care what you say anymore.

Nope, not even a little bit. And if you devious, deluded lackwits DO somehow manage to gin up a way to get what you think you want and remove Trump from office…well, that’s when your REAL heartaches begin. For real, and for keeps.

You have been warned.

Share

So much for “moderates”

A completely brilliant piece from Daniel, wherein he perfectly crystallizes, analyzes, and explains an idea I’ve been groping around for for years now, but never could quite put my finger on.

The thing that must be understood is that moderates do not disavow radicals. Rather they bridge the gap between the radicals and the larger society, justifying their ends, and eventually their means, while pretending to disavow them. Radicals reject any dialogue. Moderates emphasize dialogue.

Moderates will verbally reject the means with which an end is pursued. Accordingly they will reject terrorism. They may even claim to reject the ends, such as an ideological dictatorship, but they will, in good fellowship, ask you to accept their premise which inevitably leads to the acceptance of both the ends and the means.

For example, moderates on the left and in Islam will ask you to accept that terrorism is caused by American foreign policy. Once you have accepted this premise, then you have partially justified terrorism and paved the way for accepting an “Arab Spring” that eliminates the consequences of American foreign policy by properly Arabizing and Islamizing the governments of the region.

Likewise, if you accept the premise that Israel’s presence in its ’67 territories is driving terrorism, then you have signed on to everything from BDS to the destruction of the Jewish State.

If you concede that crime and violence are driven by class and racial inequities, then you accept that the only way to end this “class war” is massive taxation and wealth redistribution through government intervention that addresses the root cause.

That is not the way it seems to most people. And that is why the “moderate” strategy works so well.

Once you have accepted the moderate definition of the root cause, you will inevitably be forced to accept the radical remedy. This is true across a spectrum of lower level policies. For example, accept that homosexuality is genetic and gay rights become the inevitable and inescapable outcome. That is how the root cause defines the outcome. And this is how moderates achieve radical goals.

The real threat is always the subversion of the moderates. The challenge then becomes the need to expose the false facade of the moderates. This leads to a push-pull struggle. The moderates cry that they are being unfairly victimized by hateful people. There are shouts of red-baiting and McCarthyism, profiling and bigotry. Their critics are paranoid and unhinged. The moderates even assert that there is something ugly and “Un-American” about asking them to account for their agenda.

And this is really the core argument made by the two allied subversive ideologies. It is “ugly” to expose their views, to quote them, to bring them to the surface. It is intolerant. It’s not the way that respectable people should behave. And the moderates, who pose as respectable people precisely to play on the weakness of the middle class for being respectable, understand that this is the ultimate weapon.

Respectable people do not accuse the friendly Imam on the block of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or promoting Jihadist texts. They do not accuse the cheerful teacher in the school whom everyone likes of pushing anti-American views on her students. That is not respectable behavior.

And moderates, who pretend to be respectable, excel at pushing the respectable shame button.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true. It’s ugly to discuss it. That is respectability simplified. It’s much better to talk about how much we have in common, to speak about how we can unite and make the world a better place. And the moderates have plenty of ideas in that regard. All of them involve accepting their premise of what the world’s problems are and how they can be improved by a series of proposals that would culminate with mass tyranny and murder.

Funny how it always seems to come down to that, ain’t it?

No kidding, folks, Greenfield really hit it out of the park with this one. In fact, it’s one of his best essays ever, I think. And that’s saying something.

Share

How they do it

Bogged down in pedantry and minutiae is a feature here, not a bug. In fact, it’s the whole point.

Senator Sessions will be testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee at 2:30 p.m. today. The event has not received as much fanfare as COMEY DAY did, but it will be watched by many who are hoping for a smoking gun or gotcha moment that will land President Trump and all his people in jail immediately.

We know one of the issues on which the committee will be focused will be Sessions’ two meetings with THE RUSSIANS and the mysterious, new third meeting in April of 2016. It’s important to get the facts straight before the inquisition committee meets so you are able to discern what is spin and lies and what is truth.

No it isn’t. What’s important is to realize they do nothing BUT spin and lie, and the truth is irrelevant.

Let’s talk about what the meeting with THE RUSSIANS in Senator Sessions’ office (“the second meeting”) actually means. Senator Jeff Sessions met with Ambassador Kislyak in September in his Senate office. That’s because he was a senator who sat on the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Budget, Environment and Public Works, and Judiciary Committees.

Sessions also met with the ambassador for the Ukraine prior to meeting with Kislyak; in fact, he met with 30 different ambassadors over an eight-month period.Senators regularly meet with ambassadors. Here is a picture of a meeting with Democrats Reed, McCaskill, and Landrieu and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. The media and the Democrats would have you believe Sessions’ meeting with an ambassador is out of the ordinary and exotic. It’s not; it’s part of his job.

Now I’m sure Liz thinks she’s doing important work here, unveiling the skullduggery and fraud integral to this whole manufactured circus. I’m even willing to consider the notion that maybe, in some very minor way that won’t matter one iota in two weeks’ time, she actually is.

But…well…dammit, NO. What she’s doing, in my view, is dancing to their tune. The Democrat Socialists/Deep Staters have been doing this sort of thing for years, and the Vichy GOPe has been going along with it far too willingly and far too long now for me to just assume they’re all merely stupid. We’ve seen this shitshow before, plenty of times. We all ought to know by now how it ends, and we certainly ought to know what the real motive behind this latest iteration is.

Trump ought to fire Mueller immediately—without a single word offering any explanation to anybody at all, preferably via Twitter. He ought to fire the shadowy Deep State troll who hired him, Rosenwhateverthefuck, too. He should probably instruct his employees at Justice to begin an investigation of Comey’s criminal leaks, and he also ought to see to it that Loretta Lynch is brought to justice for her collusion with the Clintons.

Yes, he can do all that. He probably doesn’t much want to, but if he intends to do any really effective draining of any swamps, he may have to. I would have probably picked the EPA or the State Department first before all this, but now Justice is looking more and more like a great place to start.

This whole “investigation” is nothing more than a sham based on a lie. It is a pretense, a fishing expedition to see if Trump’s enemies can either find, exaggerate, gin up, or stitch from whole cloth any excuse at all to either impeach Trump (extremely unlikely), hound him from office (again: unlikely), or simply tangle him up so thoroughly he can’t get anything done.

I don’t think that’s particularly likely either, since he’s been quietly beavering away and doesn’t seem much bothered by any of this nonsense so far. Seriously, consider: he’s removed us from the idiotic Paris “accords.” He’s put the Muslim nations in the Middle East on notice, in very clear terms, that they have some swamp-draining of their own to do, and they need to get to it. With a single Tweet (HORRORS!) he reduced London’s silky-smooth, too-glib, false-flag, jihad-supporting mayor to incoherent spluttering and a public endorsement of the repulsive notion that regular terrorist attacks are something big-city residents will just have to “get used to.” He’s cutting regulations like a fiend, as I mentioned the other day. A new coal mine has opened in Pennsylvania, the first one in decades.

No, he hasn’t repealed Obamacare; that’s a legislative matter, outside his proper purview, and not something he can do a whole lot about beyond advocating and lobbying hard for it—which he has done. His attempt to expand Obama’s travel restrictions on seven Muslim terror-sponsoring states has so far been stymied by politicized courts, for thoroughly specious reasons, and he needs to find a way around that, and get on with it.

But he has the entire Deep State apparatus trembling with rage and fear; he has the Democrat Socialists and their rabid, dysfunctional, America-hating constituency foaming at the mouth and revealing their true repellent nature every single day, to the disgust of real Americans who can finally see them for just what they are. He’s also exposed the Vichy GOPe collaborators for the double-dealing, fork-tongued frauds they’ve gotten away with being for so long.

With all that going on, I refuse to be distracted by a bunch of trumped-up hooraw about who Sessions did or did not talk to, when and where and what might have been said. Yes, the Russians tried to influence our elections; they’ve been doing it for decades, and they always will do it…and we do it too, all over the world. But there is absolutely no evidence at all that a single fucking vote was bought, stolen, hacked, erased, bribed into existence, or changed because of their efforts. NONE.

The whole bullshit Russia story was cooked up by Hillary and her team within a day of her humiliating defeat, to try to rationalize why she got her ass beat like a big bass drum. It has staggered on, zombie-like, because the Democrat Socialists and their constituency refuse to accept the results of the election, and will do anything at all to hang onto their illegitimate power. If there’s any election-stealing going on here, it’s them that’s doing it, right now. And they’re doing it brazenly, in broad daylight. And they’re doing it without the least apparent concern over what real Americans’ reaction might be should they somehow pull it off.

They’d better be damned careful what they wish for. Because the fact is, it isn’t just Trump they hate, and it’s not just him they’re trying to defy, disenfranchise, and dislodge. It’s US—the people who elected him to do exactly the things he’s been trying to do, whose agenda we endorsed by making him President. Ultimately, it’s our outlandish uppityness in imagining that we maybe ought to have some small say in how we’re governed that they’re trying to dispense with here.

Why, the AUDACITY!

I keep saying: it’s a coup they’re attempting here, nothing less. And while Trump is the legal target, it’s aimed at us every bit as much as him. They are violently opposed to the result of the last election; rather than accept it, they intend to overturn it.

But like I also keep saying: careful what you wish for, assholes. Because should you get it, you’ll very likely wind up getting a whole lot else shortly thereafter. And I feel extremely confident in asserting that you won’t like it nearly as much. I expect it will involve torches, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rails for riding off to a midnight splash in the Potomac. It will probably move on to ropes and lampposts shortly thereafter. I doubt heads on pikes and drawing and quartering are entirely out of the question.

This far. No farther.

Share

How to avoid getting shot by the cops

Seems simple enough to me. But then, I’m not a rioting, looting #(Only)Black(Criminal)LivesMatter thug.

Break out your pencils, gentle readers, it’s time for a pop quiz. What do Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, and Paul O’Neal have in common? Yes, they are all black men who died under controversial circumstances at the hands of the police, but you get only partial credit if your answer was limited to those facts. To get full credit, you must have included the point that they all would be alive today had they merely followed the lawful directions of the police officers who were trying to arrest or detain them.

Whatever the misdeeds of any of the police officers involved in these incidents, it remains a fact that even in those instances where the officers were charged with crimes, the officers had legal cause to detain the men who later died in the encounters. It was the decisions made by those men that set the fatal chain of events in motion. Yes, police officers are obligated to follow the law, but so is everyone else. When the police catch you dirty, the only wise choice – and the only legal one – is to put your hands up and do as you’re told. If Terence Crutcher and Keith Scott had done that, just like all the others mentioned above, instead of being martyrs to a discredited movement, they’d be unknown but alive today.

That’s about the size of it, yeah. You can whine about having to knuckle under to “fascist” cops all you like, but when the rubber meets the road, you’re gonna be a lot better off to stop when they say stop, freeze when they say freeze, and just generally do what they tell you when they tell you to do it, especially if you’re in a dicey neighborhood caught fair and square doing something you know you shouldn’t be. It might be “fair” or it mightn’t, but it’s certainly the way it is. And if you’re too stupid to know that, you just might end up getting shot. And shouldn’t be counting on a whole lot of sympathy from me when you do.

It all serves to remind me of this great and eternally relevant poster:


confused-statist-1.jpg
Or, if you like, my own version, from a post a while back. Careful what you wish for, libtards—lest you get it, both barrels, right full in the face.

Share

Surviving the riots

We all know there will be plenty of repeats of what happened here in Charlotte this week, particularly once Trump vanquishes Sick Hillary and sends the Clinton Crime Syndicate staggering off into the sunset for good. Vox posts a practical guide to escaping them intact, from Peter Grant.

You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control. Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they’ll be magnets for looters). Don’t wait until it’s too late. Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn’t materialize, rather than wait until you’re sure there’s trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.

That’s likely to be difficult once riots become established. A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading. Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control. That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties)…but it won’t help you if you’re trapped inside that perimeter. The rioters will be all around you, and you won’t be able to avoid them. That’s not a good place to be.

It sure ain’t. Vox follows up with a personal experience:

Peter is right about how easy it is to be taken by surprise, though. We were in Rome walking through the streets in a nearly empty quarter one day when we heard a dull roar. It was hard to tell what it was, or exactly from what direction it was coming. I was curious, since it could have been anything from immigrants to ultras, so my friend and I had the women and children stay back while we went to see what was going on. It kept getting louder, but there was nothing to see until we turned a corner to encounter a large mass of several hundred dark-skinned people who looked like Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. They were loudly demonstrating against deportations or the lack of work permits or something, and while it wasn’t even remotely dangerous, I won’t forget the shock of suddenly encountering such a loud and overpowering mass of humanity without much in the way of warning besides that dull roar.

And I can attest that having a handgun wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. Frankly, a belt-fed .50 caliber might not have been enough without a minefield.

God might sort ’em out eventually, but you’re not likely to be able to kill ’em all yourself.

Share

Take heart, Part the Second

It ain’t over, folks. In fact, it ain’t even started.

Presidential races tighten up toward Election Day. The same people who brought you the inevitable President Jeb Bush are now bringing you the certainty of a Clinton coronation. But the election race begins the day after Labor Day, when Americans (at least the undecided ones) get down to the serious task of choosing who they’ll support for president.

Still — the polls, the polls! The mainstream media says the polls show this race is all over — everywhere. Shut ‘er down, no point in even holding the vote. You’d think America was North Korea, where the elections find the front-runner taking in 99.9879 percent of the vote.

But, you want polls? Let’s look at actual polls. The big, scary polls showing Clinton ahead by 10 or 12 points tend to get the most attention. But as of Friday, Clinton was ahead of Trump by only 6 points in the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls. Some of the latest polls put the two neck and neck. And it’s still August.

Still, Clinton isn’t running against Trump. She’s running against Trump, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who will each be on the ballot in all or nearly all of the states. When you factor in those two (hey, wait, what about “surging” Desperation Party candidate Ewan McGonigle?—M), neither of whom have a chance of winning, Clinton is ahead of Trump by only 4.5 points.

Yes, all this drama for a 4.5-point lead in August.

Of course, there’s still cause for concern, given that’s still probably within the margin of Democrat Socialist fraud. But there’s plenty more bracing cold water thrown in the face of unreasoning panic here, of which this one is maybe my favorite:

People also seem to forget that the only debates that have occurred have been in TV studios between Trump and Clinton surrogates, or between Trump surrogates and journalists. One of the keys to Trump’s victory in the primaries was his strong performance in the debates, where he relegated Jeb Bush from a giant to a lilliputian who, each debate — as Trump pointed out — was positioned further and further to the edge of the stage. Until, of course, he was off it entirely.

Yep. As I said, there’s plenty more, and you should definitely read it…and buck up. It all becomes clear when you recognize the “Trump can’t win” crowd’s stratagem for what it is: a desperate voter-suppression manipulation perpetrated in full-throated unison by both wings of the ruling-elite Uniparty.

Share

NOT WHO WE ARE: The fruits of unfettered immigration

I mentioned a grim prediction from Vox in an update to an earlier post. This one is…uhh, grimmer? More grim?

It’s hard for the older generation to realize things are as bad as they are. Trapped in memories and increasing isolation, they have no idea what the USA has become. It’s all but impossible for the younger generation to realize what they have lost, or more precisely, of what they have been robbed.

Conservatives have betrayed America. Progressives have destroyed it. What remains is the tattered remnants of a nation that still cannot grasp that not only is it not stronger, healthier, and more powerful than ever before, but it is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its invaders. The USA is like a cancer-stricken patient whose oncologist keeps assuring him that the cancer cells are white blood cells that are strengthening his immune system.

He’s gonna get accused of all sorts of racism for the rest of it. But not by me. I don’t necessarily agree with every last word of it, but I think it’s on the beam overall. And seeing as how we had tight restrictions on immigration from 1924 to 1965 (including a ban on communists in 1952, which we’re told is COMPLETELY UNPOSSIBLE with regard to Muslims, because REASONS), I can’t for the life of me figure out how it is that we’re now at the point where we not only can’t halt it, we aren’t allowed to even discuss regulating it a bit. Because WHO WE ARE, don’tchaknow.

Well, strike that. I know EXACTLY why that is. And so do you, if you’re honest.

Share

An old, old story

And a damned good one, too.

Before Donald Trump became a celebrity, before he became The Donald, even before he was regularly pilloried in the pages of the old Spy magazine as a “short-fingered vulgarian,” New Yorkers knew his name thanks to one thing in particular. Not the in-and-out-of-bankruptcy real estate empire he inherited, or his flamboyant love life, but the Wollman Rink in Central Park. And while I think he has little chance of winning the Republican nomination (is he even a Republican?), mostly thanks to the fixed-fight aspect of the GOP nominating process under the auspices of the junior wing of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party, I do think his largely interchangeable opponents underestimate his appeal at their peril.

What’s the Wollman Rink, you ask? It’s a skating rink at the south end of Central Park that, like just about everything else in New York City, had fallen into decrepitude by the 1970s — the stinking, filthy New York City immortalized in such films as Death Wish and The French Connection. In 1980, the city announced it was closing the popular spot for renovations that were to last a couple of years; by 1986, the rink was still “under construction,” costs had soared to over $12 million, and the work that had been done was faulty; the rink had come to symbolize the futility of government at all levels. Up stepped Trump with a challenge to mayor Ed Koch: let him take over the rink and he would have the work completed in a few months and the place open to the public before the end of the year.

You know how this turns out, right? After all, it can really only turn out one way, given that it only happens every single fucking time free-market capitalism runs rings around bloated, corrupt government. Which is, y’know, every single fucking time they find themselves thrust fairly into the arena together. That’s the real story behind the story, and it is damned sure an old one; funny how we seem to be either too stubborn or too stupid to learn from it. Walsh points out another useful lesson at the end of his post, and it’s worth heeding too.

Share

Missive from the front

Can’t say it any better or more clearly than this.

Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. But my community is still alive.

Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

Nothing whatsoever to add.

(Via Col Bunny)

Share

Good advice

Glenn offers some:

Want to succeed? Don’t just protest in the public square. Go after him and his supporters personally. Think Ceaucescu. Because those are the stakes you’re playing for. This is no Velvet Revolution. If that’s not acceptable, you should probably just go home.

Which would apply to more than just the folks in the Ukraine rising up against their Marxist masters, you know.

Share

Words to live by

Herschel puts it as plainly as it can be put:

There is no compromise. There is no cooperation. There is only war between us as long as the collectivists want to enforce their will upon us. There will never be peace. That’s a promise.

Nor should there be. There is liberty, or there is…not. Herschel is talking about guns here, but as far as I’m concerned it works for everything else, too. And as he says, there is no real compromise with socialists; there is only capitulation.

Share

Wit and wisdom

Bo Diddley had it:

Bo Diddley’s Guide To Survival

Alcohol and Drugs Only drink Grand Marnier, and that’s to keep the throat from drying up in a place where there’s a lot of smoke. As for drugs: a big NO!

Food Eat anytime, anything you can get your hands on. I mean it!

Health Whenever you get to feeling weird, take Bayer aspirin. I can’t stand taking all that other bullshit.

Money Always take a lawyer with you, and then bring another lawyer to watch him.

Defense I can’t go around slapping people with my hands or else I’d go broke. So I take karate, and kick when I fight. Of course, I got plenty of guns – one real big one. But guns are for people trying to take your home, not some guy who makes you mad. I used to be a sheriff down in New Mexico for two and a half years, so I know not to pull it right away.

Cows If they wanna play, and you don’t wanna make pets out of ‘em, and you can’t eat ‘em – then get rid of ‘em!

Women If you wanna meet a nice young lady, then you try to smell your best. A girl don’t like nobody walking up in her face smelling like a goat. Then, you don’t say crap like “Hey, don’t I know you?” The first thing you ask her is: “Are you alone?” If she tells you that she’s with her boyfriend, then you see if the cat’s as big as you. If you don’t have no money, just smell right. And for God’s sake don’t be pulling on her and slapping on her. You don’t hit the girls! If you do this, you can’t miss.

Hearing Just don’t put your ears in the speakers.

The bit about cows is especially useful.

(Via Maet)

Share

Mike’s Iron Law #28

When they say “civility,” it means “if you disagree with me, shut the fuck up, you troglodytic cretin.” Same with any fork-tongued nattering about “tolerance” or “diversity.” That is all. Thank you.

Update! Mike’s Iron Law #29: the only difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed people is, tattooed people don’t care if you’re not tattooed.

Share

A question for our time, and for all time

Because the document itself is.

When was the last time you really read the Declaration of Independence? I’m not talking about skimming over it superficially, or searching for a part of it to quote. I’m asking you: when was the last time you read the Declaration of Independence in the context of the momentous statement of rebellion, resolve, hope and defiance of those brave souls committing treason, punishable by torture and death, against their King?

You probably haven’t. I haven’t.

I invite you to do so now. Stop after every sentence. Consider the personal destruction guaranteed in every syllable if they failed.

Each and every man signing this Declaration was not only risking his own life by authoring and signing it. He was singling out his wife and daughters for possible rape and murder, his sons for torture and death. His relations would become pariahs, shunned by those who swore allegiance to the crown. By signing this document each and every man was all but promising the end of his bloodline, the destruction of hishome, ostracism from his friends, and taking up the mantle of a traitor and terrorist.

Seriously. Read it.

Bob could not be righter. Read it and, as he goes on to say, think it over well and carefully. The questions such a reading will present to us are the most important we’ll ever be asked, and will admit of no easy, pat answers.

Share

Cliche response

Kathy Shaidle offers some good writing advice on avoiding cliches and well-worn aphorisms–advice that I admit I could stand to take a little more to heart myself. Or, umm, a lot. Anyways, in the course of it, she throws this in:

Some of my “favorites” made the list — like “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” As one wise fellow noted:

Plenty of good men have vigorously stood up to evil men, and lost. In the 20th century alone, there are mass graves full of principled, courageous men that fought the good fight and were murdered for doing so, while their opponents died comfortable in their own beds, achieving all their goals. Lenin died of natural causes, while the White forces were murdered en masse. Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of, and not only died a peaceful death, but had monuments and temples built to his memory for decades to come.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph” is for bad men to win. And it happens. The slogan makes it sound like if you just stand up, bam, evil loses. Reality doesn’t work like that.

Pretty danged timely and worthy of note, if you ask me.

Share

Prepping

Remember, it’s only insane, unnecessary paranoia when YOU do it.

In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.

Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.

But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano’s agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

Two fairly obvious and by no means mutually exclusive explanations: one, that they’re taking as much ammo as they can out of civilian circulation. Two…well, that one is more than just fairly obvious.

Share

Ain’t it the truth

Glenn digs up another most excellent Heinlein quote:

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

More comfortable governors and leaders, too. Hell, somebody oughta dig up Heinlein and make him President. Near as I can make out, the man never said a wrong thing. And he’d be a damned sight better than the trainwreck we have squatting in the Oval Office now.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix