Home

Details

It's inevitable that when you're in the process of pointing out that the state is stealing something or someone for the "greater good," for social purposes, that some soiboi leftist cog will bleat, "That isn't socialism."

I like how "real socialism" is whatever they want it to mean at a given moment, so they can tell you you "Don't know what socialism is."

Venezuela--it was real socialism, until it failed, which was somehow capitalism sneaking in there.

Sweden--is real socialism, despite having multibillion dollar corporations. But wait, we'll come back to that.
 
The American welfare state--Someone actually told me that, "It's not socialism. It's just taking resources from those who have them and distributing them to those who need them."  Which is LITERALLY THE FUCKING DEFINITION of socialism. But it's not real socialism. Except they want it to be universal for everyone.  

Roads--socialism, even though they date from the Palace Economy of the Bronze Age and had as their primary purpose (when government built), enabling taxation to bring assets TO THE PALACE. There were also privately built roads in Celtic nations, thus disproving the myth that only governments can build roads. And this is 4000 years ago. But that's not convenient to the narrative that only governments can build roads, roads are socialist, but somehow "right wing" governments are also socialist in this regard, despite not being socialist.
 
National Socialism--actually capitalism, even though the government nationalized half the corporations, set up socialized medicine and transport, and fixed most prices. Oh, and outright confiscated land, and outlawed "Speculation." It was "Right wing socialism." That's sort of like "male pregnancy" or "libertarian socialism" or "Fictional reality." All of which are things leftards believe are real. After all, these are people who still believe legions of Russians are monitoring Fecesbook and blogs to downvote their comments, and that somewhere Donald Trump really has a Russian birth certificate, because Russia magically has something he needs or wants.
 
Fun Fact:  99% of liberals have zero fucking clue what a "right wing" actually is, and even think America is "right wing," to the point that "The democrats would be center-right in Europe, not left wing."  This is based on the mutiple mistaken notions that: anyone should give a shit what Europe or anywhere else in the Third World thinks about politics--remember that we told them to fuck off a couple of hundred years ago, and my family personally told them to fuck off in 1978 when we moved here. And that: The Euro peon baseline is relevant and unbiased. HINT: it's not. Almost all of those nations have Marx's cock 12" down their throat and up their ass, you'd have to be Howard Zinn or Joseph Stalin to actually cross their line to the left.  Also, that's one hell of an accomplishment given that Marx had a 2" dick on a good day.

But wait!  Let's go back to Sweden, a western democracy with a large capitalist sector--it's "real socialism" when the "liberal" thinks they've accomplished something the US hasn't (They actually haven't), but switches to "not real socialism" when they claim "Real socialism has never been tried." It's Schroedinger's Socialism!
 
I could parody this with, "You don't know what drugs are," and "pot isn't a real drug," and "everyone uses drugs, so drugs are good" (including meth and carfentanyl). Except I've actually heard that bullshit from leftists.
 
What was my point here?  Oh, right--most leftists are hypocritical shitheads, and you should always throw them from the helicopter.

Ironically, the ACTUAL hardcore socialists (Trotskyites and such) actually have a grasp of capitalism and see it as a useful tool. Which is why most of the left hates them, too.
 
So whenever one of them opens their facial anus, pre-empt the debate by first informing them that THEY don't know what real socialism is, and then the undisputable fact (they'll try anyway) that real capitalism has never been tried.

Oh, yes--and get them a helicopter ride. Because whatever Pinochet was, he wasn't really right wing. Though you could use an autogyro, since it's not a real helicopter.

Details

There's a an Op-Ed, or maybe a Pre-Op-Ed at the WaPoo about how to address people who refuse to use the gender norms human languages have had literally forever.

I think I was 13 the first time I was called "ma'am" on the phone. I didn't bother correcting the business because I understood as a young male youth my voice could be mistaken. It didn't break my emotional well-being, and I lived through the experience.

The entire article is drivel, and...well, here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/please-stop-making-jokes-about-gender-pronouns-when-people-tell-you-theirs/2019/12/11/

First of all, fuck you, I'll make any fucking jokes I like about any fucking thing I want, any time I fucking feel like it. Don't like it? Fuck off.

In a serious note, I will address you as you present. If you're at an historical re-enactment wearing 10th Century Norse female garb, I'll assume you are "miss," "damen," "my lady," or "ma'am," accordingly.  If for some reason you want to dress and present as a female, but not be called one...then you need deeper therapy.

If I am not sure (and this applies to status, rank, sex presentation, class, etc), and it's relevant, I may ask, "How should I address you?"

And then we will get on with our lives.

If you have to start with, "My pronouns are she and hers," I'm going to tell you, Our pronoun is "The Shitlord," and We are only addressed in the third person. Also, you will have to do it in this language I just made up that changes every week. Or in my native Gaelic. Or you can just fuck off.

What you don't get to do is dictate how other people talk.  Here's a relevant excerpt:

The backlash was instantaneous. By the end of the night, Cuomo had apologized on Twitter, noting his sorrow as ΓÇ£an ally of the LGBTQ communityΓÇ¥ ΓÇö but still not managing to state his pronouns. And I wondered, not for the first time: Why canΓÇÖt cisgender people be semi-normal about this?

~~~

Why does he have to play your game and "State his pronouns"?

Why do you display the bigotry of accusing him and us of being abnormal? "Cisgender" is an external, false euphemism you have assigned to NORMAL PEOPLE, identified as the 99.995% of the population who are male or female (whether or not they accept that is another issue). One can be straight, gay, bi, asexual. One is male, female, or has a chromosome or physiological mismatch (rare). Those latter are the only non-"cis" people. Claiming you're with them actually denigrates them.

Why do you assign us the identity "cisgender" over OUR protests, but expect us to kowtow to your preferences?

This is the fascism of a minority culture, full of hatred, intolerance, and refusal to accept the norms of the majority.

The first big step toward terrorism.

And anyone who doesn't believe it borders on terrorism is invited to "misgender" some high-profile freak on TWITter and wait for the screaming backlash and attempts to dox you.

There was even wailing about someone being called "it," except there IS a high profile freak of some sort who has publicly stated their pronoun is "it."  

You see how this game is played?  Worthless failures who can't get attention any other way are demanding that everyone address them in a clever, unique fashion known only to them, changing at whim, with no set rules.  There was also another article that people who DO use these terms are "patronizing."

So, no, Kat, you're a fucking freak, and an obnoxious one, and you need to grow the fuck up and grow some balls, or boobs, or something, or else take some tequila and sleeping-pill therapy. You not only have issues, you have entire subscriptions that make Publisher's Clearinghouse look sedate. But they are not my subscriptions and I'm not buying any.

Details

Our story so far:

Virginia's legislature got taken over by the Dems since the GOP failed to run quite a few candidates, and due to some gerrymandering and population density issues that are apparently only a problem when they work against the Dems.

As often happens, when one party gets a significant majority, they want to go all-in on achieving their dreams of molding society to their image.

The Dems proposed some very heinous gun control, without any pretense of care about the Constitution either federal or state, morality, or reality.

A whole bunch of counties and towns pre-emptively declared themselves "Sanctuaries," which is apparently A-OK if you're refusing to arrest, jail, and deport illegal alien child rapists, but "treason" if you're refusing to steal people's property under color of law. At least according to the Dems.

So, one US Rep Donald McEachin (D-Deep State)(that's sarcasm, okay?) has proposed having the governor "Nationalize the National Guard" to deal with the problem. (Give him credit. At least he didn't threaten to use nukes, like a certain former presidential candidate. OTOH, if VA actually had nukes, he might have.)

Let me explain this:

The governor can't "nationalize" the National Guard. He can call them to state active duty.

Per Posse Commitatus, they can't engage in law enforcement on Federal orders anyway.  On state orders, yes, but, keep reading.

It would also still require a search warrant for every single domicile if they could.

Other than a handful of MPs, none have training for this process. Even if you squint hard at qualifications and add a few others, the actual number of troops qualified to do this is a few HUNDRED at most. The entire VA Army National Guard is about 7500, mostly support.

The National Guard does not keep ammo on hand in any relevant quantities.  A small amount for training is it.

Per US Constitution and federal law, the governor CANNOT arm the NATIONAL Guard with federally owned weapons and ammo. He'd have to provide that. 

Nor can he arm them without consent of the feds anyway.  There are reasons for this. This is one of those reasons. It is not a bona fide emergency that does not permit of delay.

And the threat to do so is LITERALLY WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.  Congrats, jerkwad! You've actually threatened to have the military repress people, and you're surprised that they're going to oppose you? EVERYONE should be opposing you. It's outrageous of itself, and outrageous precedent if allowed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there should be politicians hanging from lampposts over this.

Our society started to fail when we stopped tarring and feathering.

But if despite all that, you make the attempt:

First, if they haven't already (US Army NORTHCOM hasn't said anything), I guarantee the Adjutant General and his staff will ask National Guard Bureau for an opinion on any orders, and likely DoD proper, as well as their own legal staff, for opinions on exactly what the orders mean, and their scope and limits.  Because with a dual state/federal mission, every one of those officers is putting their career on the line in such an instance.  The wrong use or misuse of any federal money or equipment is court martial offense.  Low end enlisted can "just follow orders" for the most part, but leadership is expected to know or ask.

On State Active Duty, the troops get paid the same to sit at the armory eating catered meals (because federal funds can't be used and armories don't have huge pantries), and wait for specific orders, or to draw up "plans," as they would to drive around in Hummers looking mean. Which is all they could do because of all the above.

So what will happen is a bunch will call in sick, or "out of state," or "employer really needs me."  Volunteers will be few (and not too bright to want to get into the Boogaloo).  If you try to issue orders, state level orders don't carry the obligations or penalties of the UCMJ, and the reality that the Guard is part time means they do in fact have a lot of leeway on how fast they report, and what you can actually do if they don't (HINT: very little).

Once they get there, They can't be issued federal weapons or ammo. And of course, if the supply sergeant, armorer, and a couple of others aren't present, the Arms Room can't even be opened. Unless the CO personally wants to issue the order and unlock it. (He doesn't want to do this.  The Feds would end his career.)

I suspect the Adjutant General and his staff have already had a lengthy discussion with their own lawyers, the National Guard Bureau, and any relevant active duty installations regarding what equipment they can use. The Feds certainly don't want dragged into this, and while the Guard can use equipment for an "emergency" with compensation afterward, enforcing a badly thought out and contested law almost certainly doesn't meet the standard. So any activated Guardsmen may not even be able to use body armor, web gear, or vehicles.  And there are probably zero officers willing to risk their Federal commission over a State matter.

And then they make "plans" and wait for "guidance," because no one is putting their name on the dotted line without someone they can point a finger at. They'll be playing phone games, posting memes on Farcebook and TWITter, and generally kicking back and enjoying their SAD pay, which is usually tax exempt at the state level.  I haven't looked up what that rate is for VA, but it's probably better than $100/day. (EDIT: Very generously, it's the same as active duty pay. Far better than the $75/day flate rate IL paid us for the 1993 flood.)

If it gets that far, they then drive around and look mean, as I noted, because they literally can't go door to door without police leading the way with a warrant.

If you try to make them do so, most are going to refuse. Good. Because the last time some states took this direction, they got put down hard. This isn't an earthquake, a foreign attack, or even an out of control football riot. You're asking to use military force to attack US citizens for code violations.  You thought using SWAT for warrant service was bad? (It is.)

If by some freak of circumstances you get some small number to do so, people are going to die. Given how many veterans are among the population, and there's an entire network of retired special operators and CIA types in that area, the mayhem might even be BIBLICAL. You know:  Earthquakes, volcanoes!  The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Yeah, I mean it might be a bunch of young, naive Guardsmen who die in three way crossfires by tired old vets who've spent a lot of time in Asia.

I spent 19 of my 25 service years in the Guard. I don't want to see EITHER side of this.

This is why more and more counties are deciding to be "sanctuary" and totally sit this one out. Good for them.

If you're willing to use military force and murder people over ownership of anything, we're back to tar, feather, and lampposts.

Frankly, since McEachin is theoretically a lawyer, he should already know this.  That he doesn't, or couldn't take 10 seconds with Google to find it, speaks poorly of his intellect. I wonder how much actual legal work he did before running for public office.

There were also some idiots on our side railing against the Virginia Adjutant General not "refusing," but merely noting he has no orders and legally has no opinion.  Hey, geniouses (sic)! He can't comment on orders he has not received about events that have not taken place or been ordered.  The complete non-response was the only legal thing he could do.

WHAT VA RESIDENTS NEED TO DO NOW:  Watch for "Compromise."  It's standard for the Dems to demand the confiscation of all firearms, and then "Settle" for any number of smaller intrusions--"Assault weapon" bans, "universal" background checks, purchase limits, etc.  Don't fall for any rhetoric about how a lesser proposal is "Reasonable." None of it is reasonable, and this is a good opportunity for a peaceful resistance to an outrageous movement.

WHAT EVERYONE ELSE NEEDS TO DO NOW:  Keep calm. Spread the word.  Agitate against such outrages. Buy more guns.  Buy them legally. Buy them privately if you can.  Buy more, more, and yet more. There's always the risk we'll reach the point where America tips over. But that's a chance we'll have to take.

Because if it's impossible for the government to seize 300 million weapons (the lowball estimate), it's way more than four times as impossible for them to seize 1.2 billion.

BTW, if you are not familiar with my work, this recent anthology is actually quite relevant to staging a resistance/rebellion, is a National Bestseller, and has excellent reviews. https://amzn.to/2ZO0Og0 

Details
I remember when Usama bin Laden (his preferred spelling) was Man of the Year, and they had to remind people the criterion was "generates most news," not an endorsement. That Hitler had once been their Man of the Year, for example.
 
This year, the most news was either:
 
The Hong Kong protestors, or
 
President Donald J. Trump, since the fucking Demorrhoids in and out of the media literally cannot shut the fuck up about him for 10 seconds, and obviously crave the dopamine response from reading his laser-pointer tweets every morning, and all day long.
 
But they are such morally corrupt, intellectual dishonest cocksuckers, they refuse to acknowledge their own deranged creepy stalker obsession. So they went with the retarded meat puppet with Soros' hand up her ass, wailing about "Climate catastrophe" that her dropout brain can barely spell, and about how her dreams and childhood have been stolen to the point where she has to sail around the world in a multimillion dollar "sailboat" using diesel engines and expensive artificial, carbon-dense material for its construction.
 
So if you had any delusion that Time was anything other than cat shitbox liner, this should disabuse you of it.
  1. "Design Mom" Gabrielle Blair Lacks The Warmth And Depth To Be A Cunt
  2. So About That Alabama Police Department

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home