Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 27 March 2018

TRIGGER WARNING: the below post contains frank discussion of liberalism and statism that survivors of leftist regimes may find troubling.

 

Some years back, there was a huge push to amend the Constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag.  It's an emotional issue for many.

My objection to such an amendment is the terrifying concept of using the Constitution to control people, not government.  The first such experiment was Prohibition, and we're still paying for that monumental fuckup, initiated, btw, by the progressives of the time to save "women and children." They never learn, because they are incapable of learning.

Several well-intentioned idiots whined that "before doing so, one should first get permission from a veteran who has fought for the flag and an immigrant who has sought refuge under it."  My response was, "Hi, I'm an immigrant and a veteran. If you want to be the kind of sad, pathetic pussy who burns a flag to annoy people, go right ahead. You have my consent and contempt." Apparently, that wasn't what these people wanted to hear.  They argued with me or ignored me.  None of them, though, doxxed me, attacked my email or Facebook, threatened to hack me, ruin my business, or otherwise. They were inferior, but civil.

My further response was that if they did pass such an amendment, or even a law, or even continued to push the matter, I'd be honor bound to find a unit's battle flag for sale, buy it, set it on fire, and piss out the flames, just to anger them and make them recognize that freedom of expression MUST NOT be stifled.

Conservatives seem to mostly have accepted this fact.

Liberals are incapable of accepting any fact.

First, we need to define the term "liberal." The modern American "liberal" is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.

The modern American "liberal" is a statist cocksucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent.  They claim to be "tolerant," but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don't have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party.  They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.

Strong words?  These are the people who will riot and shut down a campus to avoid even the presence of a gay man they disagree with.  It wouldn't be a problem if they simply refused to attend, and thereby maintained their ignorance (a valued liberal trait).  No, the very existence of a speaker who they've never actually heard, but have been told by their collective will say things they disagree with, is unacceptable.

This behavior is not "liberal."  It's just like when the USSR claimed to be a "Democratic republic."

Oh, right--liberals were fairly fucking masturbating over how "classy" the sister of Korean Dictator Lil Kim looked next to Vice President Mike Pence. This is a psycho bitch who sends gays, missionaries, dissenters and even liberals to be tortured to death. She's a fucking rock star to liberals.

Beyond that, they'll define anyone who dissents from their agenda as a Nazi, and of course, it's perfectly okay to try to kill "nazis" with blunt objects, firearms and other weapons, for the crime of being a "nazi," and "due process is racist."  There's simply no way to reason with such an entity.

I know some of you are going to say, "But liberals are pussies, so who cares what they think?"

Well, you're correct, liberals are pussies. And of course, we mean it in a non-sexual context, but there are virtually no liberals who are aware of the different definitions of pussy.

However, in another context, a whole bundle of liberals is very hard to break. En masse, they make noise, harass employers and businesses, and do their best to ruin the lives of anyone who isn't a liberal pussy.

But, you must never give in to them.  There's no appeasement, no "compromise." If you appease them once, they'll just come back, emboldened, bleating for more.  There's no "Compromise" because they don't offer anything. They just want you to give them something, like some bum who pretends to be homeless and waiflike, but if you watch and see, he'll drive off in a reasonably average car at the end of the begging shift. (Seriously, most of them do. I have photos.)

The only response you should give to a liberal about anything is, "Fuck off, pussy."  Now, I'm in the blessed position of being able to do that without retaliation. People who have a boss to answer to often get fired just because the boss hopes the shouting will go away if he appeases the mob.  But, that just means the mob now dictates his hiring and firing choices. They'll keep coming back for more.  It's an orgy of self-righteous cowardice.

That's part of why liberals hate the self-employed. It's much harder for them to have any effect on me that I'd notice. Oh, sure, they can threaten to boycott my books, but that's based on three false threats--A) that liberals can read for content 2: that they'd comprehend my stuff if they read it, and c] that they have ever paid to read anything of mine in the first place. Threatening to continue not to pay me isn't a viable threat, and the more offensive I am to liberals, the better my sales are among normal people.

This, by the way, is the point where the liberals are emailing my publisher in outrage, demanding that they muzzle my "offensive" statements.  Fortunately, unlike many other authors, I'm published by man.  Well, actually Toni is female, and a minority single mother of a disabled child.  However, she espouses every virtue of manliness we wish our leaders and fellows had, and she'll simply tell them that my opinions are mine, don't reflect at all on a publisher that publishes stories for content, not politics, and publishes far left writers like Eric Flint and Elizabeth Moon as well.

Speaking of Eric Flint, he's one of the rare, real liberals, or in fact, actually a Communist.  However, he's astute enough to realize capitalism generates wealth, and pushes for that wealth to be shared.  He and I can have a reasonable discussion, and I have more in common with him than I do with any proclaimed modern day "liberal." I also highly recommend his books. See how that works? Rational adults can disagree, be friends, and support benefit to each other. Modern so-called "liberals" froth at the mouth at this concept. There can be no real compromise with liberals.  They're like some primitive pagan cult.  Either you accept every word as fact, or you must scourge yourself, beg forgiveness, and abase yourself so they deign to withdraw the charge of lesser outlawry and once again allow you entrance to the clique.

Which is why I'm here.  I will keep escalating my contempt of those tantrum-throwing little shits until they eventually grow out of it, go away, or die from lack of attention.  I have to wonder where an entire generation of parents were.  One of my kids took several years to break of the habit, and the three year old is learning now that tantrum = nothing. It will never, ever get you what you want.  Somehow, we have an entire generation of pussies who have never learned this.

If your circumstances don't permit (For example, a friend who is a newspaper editor), you may simply have to keep quiet about the matter. That's fine, and I hold nothing against you for discretion. But, you must never give a liberal what they want through manipulation, threat or tantrum. Once you do, they will only come back for more. Kipling warned us of Danegeld, and it's Danegeld through whining, not force, but the outcome is the same.

Right now, the liberals are pointing at this essay on screen, and virtue-signaling to each other in howls and catchphrases that I'm a racist, a Nazi, unclean, need to check my privilege, etc.  Now, these are ad hominem from pussies, so there' s no reason to address them.  But, it gives me a warm feeling to remind them how wrong they are at everything.  So, let's run down the list:

Racist:  Ah, the default shriek of the pussified-American.  Actually, all of my kids have some Native American blood, and my wife is more "of color" than the last president, regardless of her skin tone--Choctaw, Cherokee, black, Irish and German, and it wasn't long ago that "Irish" wasn't "white." She's reservation born, white-trash ranch raised, possessed of two STEM degrees, and earns a healthy salary working as a female in STEM, and can actually tell you all about the actual racism, sexism and everything else in society.  I didn't marry her either because she's a minority, or because she looks "white."  I married her because she's fucking awesome and I wanted dibs before someone else realized it.

Now, my ancestry is all "white," but to think that means no history of repression means you have to think that English and Scots, English and Irish, English and Welsh always get along, and that Scandis, Brits and Germans are all identical and never had issues. My Viking ancestors raped and pillaged the coast of Scotland where I'm from, then those English bastards came up and destroyed our language, culture, wealth, property and history.

Well, that was 150 years ago, and I got over it. And yes, there's still trouble now. My English mother and Scottish father got quite a bit of flak about marrying. Because while skin color matters in America, in parts of Europe (including the UK, but God help you if you call a Brit a European in a pub), it's not color, it's background or even surname. That whole Hatfield-McCoy thing you're fascinated with? That's pretty much the entire HISTORY of the British Isles, son.

And as I always like to say, I don't hate anyone based on their demographics. I find it much more satisfying to talk to them for two minutes and hate them as an individual.

Nazi: You know, that would greatly disappoint my maternal grandparents, who hosted Jewish children in the 1930s and 1940s, and helped crack Enigma, and flew in the Battle of Britain and Italian Campaign.  I would never do anything to disappoint Ernest Frederick Stephens and Dorothy Maidlow. It would also disappoint George Williamson and his brother Jock Williamson, who fought with the Gordon Highlanders.  I suspect Phyllis Jane Henderson wouldn't approve either.

Nor, being factual here, do I support any kind of socialism, national or otherwise. If I did, I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. POINT: Liberal pussies don't even know what a "Nazi" is, other than "something that makes me cry."

Check my privilege: Oh, I do, and it's fucking awesome.  Nature blessed me with an outrageously high IQ, perfect vision and hearing, aristocratically handsome looks, good health and fitness, and a larger than average penis. I enjoy the company of amazing women of intellect, presence and appearance. I have good friends.  I have an upper class income and lifestyle now, though that was not true for most of my life.

However, that came from two sources: Genetics, and hard work.  The former I have no control over, and hating me for it IS racist.  Well, eugenicist. Some sort of -ist. I'm not sure the virtue-signalers even know how to categorize that one, because they're all concerned with how pathetic a piece of shit someone can be, rather than how awesome they can be. As to the hard work, I'm in a field where no one can see my skin color, and such a claim is based on the assumption that everyone is racist. What's at work here is confirmation bias. Almost all liberals are racist, so they assume by default that everyone is.  A recent example of this fact is all the bleating from liberals that "if we arm teachers, they'll snap and shoot black kids." What they mean by this is, "I'm an unstable racist and if I had a gun I'd shoot black people, so I assume everyone would."

So, no, I'm not racist or a Nazi. That would make me a liberal.

I think that's enough words wasted on liberals. so let's move on to a second example.

MUSLIMS.

There are a billion Muslims in the world, and it's true that the overwhelming majority are peaceful. Those poor people are stuck in the middle between the violent nutjobs and those fighting the violent nutjobs. Nor do they have an obligation to apologize for the nutjobs, anymore than gun owners should apologize for mass shooters, responsible drinkers for drunk drivers, or Canadians for Justin Bieber.

Liberals, though, do need to apologize for the acts of other liberals, because there is no such thing as an innocent liberal. They're pretty much all on board with Kim, Stalin and Hitler, and most come out and extol those behaviors. But I digress.

However, the violent nutjob arm of Islam are worse than liberals, because they're actually competent, and do kill innocent people over...disagreements of belief.  In other words, liberals would actually be terrorists if they weren't worthless pieces of shit. And we'll need to stomp them out of existence before they become a relevant threat.  But I digress again.

Now, there are two responses to violent Muslim nutjobs.  The first response is of course to be violent right back, but more effectively. This is a sound strategy, and it works.  It is also expensive, time consuming, and not 100% effective.

The other prong is persuasive, and it takes two approaches.

First, is for honest Muslims to keep preaching peace.  A noted imam in Bangladesh spoke just last week, at a very beautiful mosque, http://vitti.com.bd/project/masjid-ut-taqwa/#ad-image-847 about the proper meaning of Jihad.  He notes that the response to angry speech is persuasive, measured speech.  The response to ignorant speech is louder, informed speech.  Armed jihad can only be undertaken on a national scale, and only to ease the suffering of the oppressed. Individual armed jihad has no place in Islamic theology. Dissension, jihad of opinion, jihad of speech, jihad of personal improvement.... those are permitted, not armed jihad. This is a fine man of character, and I pre-emptively apologize to him and my Muslim friends that I must take the other arm of persuasion, and fight the violence with contempt. 

Whenever some nutjob commits an act of violence on behalf of Allah or The Prophet Muhammad, I double down with condescension, that Muhammad considered the drinking of medical piss to be healthy https://islamqa.info/en/83423.  Then I offer to meet them with their weapon of choice and one of my AR-15s, and we can see just how potent this "Allah" is. Although, if mere words from mere mortals can distress him so much, he's probably a pussy himself.

At this point, decent Muslims are rolling their eyes, and a couple of friends are pleading, "Mike, Mike, please don't be so disrespectful. You know we will never harm you and wish you only the best."

This is true. They do. But my message is not for them. It is for the violent nutjobs, to assure them their violence cannot silence speech, even ugly speech.

Unlike liberals, Muslims actually believe in something, so can be reasoned with. Most are very reasonable, some few will have to be reasoned with contemptuously or with violence.

The liberals, however, insist I'm a "Racist" for these statements.  They've never been able to explain which "race" a billion Muslims are, or which "race" the Catholics would be in contrast.  They double down that I have "racialized" Muslims, and that I'm somehow worse than the terrorists who blow kids up.

So, my current jihad is to continue to remind terrorist scum that they can't silence decent people--Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Pagan, areligious, or otherwise, with bombs. And to remind liberals that they're pathetic pussies who can't silence the voices of decent people, aren't even effective terrorists, but that if they attempt to become so, we will have to kill them.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 26 March 2018

I really shouldn't have to smartsplain to people that the opinions 16 year olds hold about anything don't really matter.  That should be axiomatic. My three year old is very unhappy her shipping box house got cut up for packing material.  She has strong opinions about this.  Those opinions aren't relevant.  She'll get over it.

In fact, most opinions don't matter, and I can offer an historical example.

Right after WWII, the US Army conducted a scientific study of combat engagements--ours, allies, enemy, every firefight and battle they could get data on, all the casualty reports, everything.

The conclusion was that 90% of combat engagements were under 100 meters, and 98% were under 300 meters.  The recommendation came down for a lighter, more effective bullet that would accomplish this, saving resources and enabling more ammo load.

The officers of the Infantry Board refused to accept this fact. They'd been in combat.  And who are you going to trust? Some guy in a lab, or the man who had been in combat?

And the answer is: The guy in the lab, who has time to be objective, not the guy scrambling around in the weeds, who isn't actually sure if he hit anything and what happened after.

Eventually, science prevailed, and at this point, pretty much every military in the world has gone (and some already had) from a 7-8mm bullet to a 5-6mm bullet. Us, Europe, ANZAC, Russia, China, everyone.

The US adopted the M-16 variant of the AR-15 starting in 1963 (yes, the AR-15 is probably older than you), and is still using an evolved variant.  Meanwhile, there are troops who've never used anything else insisting "wood is stronger than plastic" (Wrong) and that "we need a 'full power cartridge' capable of killing a man at 2000 yards." By which they mean a .30 caliber cartridge, without any scale to explain why that is magically "full power."  Nor with any support to the claim that it was even possible to see an enemy at 2000 yards, much less get him to hold still long enough to be hit, using a rifle that was sight limited to a 460 yard range anyway.

Moving to gun control on that note, we see false statements such as "military style weapons" (Pretty much every weapon in existence is based on a military development) and "high capacity clips," by which they mean "It's a standard capacity magazine but I don't like it even though I know nothing about it." And even bizarre, completely fabricated terms like "The shoulder thing that goes up" and "automatic bump stock."

And back to the earlier point. Gun control's only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)

So then the bleat is, "Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an "Agenda"(Because obviously, there's zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?

Well, that's easy.  It doesn't matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren't even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building.  That's like saying. "I wasn't in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!"

No, not really. Science matters.  Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.

Those two narcissistic twits from Florida, one of whom admitted to being part of a group who bullied the shooter mercilessly, are utterly irrelevant on the subject of firearms.

And only a complete idiot even bothers to acknowledge they exist, much less waste any time listening to them.

If this offends you, you're obviously a complete idiot.  

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 24 March 2018

I want you, for just a moment, to forget guns exist.  I want you to look at a product as just a product. 

Let's say the head of the Food and Drug Administration* said, "Alcohol affects the brain exactly the same way as cocaine.  Therefore, we are declaring alcohol to be a narcotic.  Narcotics are illegal, therefore, all alcohol and all equipment to produce alcohol are contraband and must be destroyed immediately.  No compensation will be paid because narcotics are illegal."

Let's note: 

1) The definition is blatantly false.

2) The definition contradicts long standing legal definitions.

3) No legislative process exists. This is a fiat declaration by a bureaucrat.

4) Failure to compensate for a legal product taken for public use ("Safety") violates the 5th Amendment requiring fair compensation.

5) Most importantly, this opens the floodgates for ANY bureaucrat to declare ANYTHING illegal.

Remember those handful of conservatives who've said, "Declare Islam not a religion but a political movement and terror front"?

If a bureaucrat has the authority to state that AND ENFORCE IT, there is no Republic. Literally any cabinet head, or possibly lower, can declare outlawry, steal property, seize anything, without even the pretense that an existing law was broken. Law will be whatever they say it is, any day of the week. Any religion can be illegal or mandatory. Anything can be contraband or mandatory. The rule of law simply fails to exist. If this doesn't terrify you, I guess you can go now. Good luck. There's nothing I can do when they quite literally do come to put you in those camps you fear, which just became a solid reality.

~~~

Now, moving back to the relevance of this thought experiment. You're probably very gleeful over the AG's ban on "bump stocks."  

You were probably unaware of bumpfire/slidefire stocks until they were used in the Vegas shooting. In fact, though, they've been in existence since 2006, approved by BATFE as "not a firearm." This was reviewed in 2010 under the 0bama administration, and confirmed that they were "not a firearm." You probably like and supported 0bama, and he found no reason to try to restrict bumpfire stocks.

You've probably heard a lot of hysteria about them, and have no idea how one actually works, or, more accurately, how a person operates it, since it doesn't do anything by itself.

The definition Sessions is using is completely false and inaccurate. It's literally as inaccurate as saying "Alcohol is a narcotic." The definition given is that it "Harnesses the recoil energy of the weapon to function." Which is provably false. Put a firearm equipped with a bumpfire stock on a bench, pull the trigger, it will fire a single shot only. One. Then it will do nothing.

The second claim is that, just like a machine gun, it allows firing multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.  This is also provably false.  Again: Place it on a bench, pull the trigger, it fires one shot.  The trigger must be released before it can shoot again.

This cannot possibly be defined as a "machine gun" that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger.  Yet, that is what Sessions has done, via a false statement--a lie.

The manufacture of machine guns has been illegal since 1986. Real ones command a high price. The finding of the Firearm Technology Branch was not only that these devices were not machine guns, but that in fact, they are not even firearms.

Sessions has falsely declared it to be a machine gun, and therefore contraband ex post facto, with absolutely no compensation for the "contraband," in complete contradiction to the experts' findings.

ATFE estimates the device and related industry are worth $200 million, which is tiny in business terms. However, every owner, seller, maker has money invested that is being stolen from them. No due process.  No legislative process.

Look above again. This decision is precedent for ANY Cabinet head to declare anything...or anyone, illegal, and subject to theft or imprisonment with no process.

If you want to work on legislation that bans these devices, with an accurate description, and a justification, I will certainly fight it all the way to SCOTUS under the 2nd Amendment. That is why we have a legislature and courts.  But if you support bureaucratic fiat, you are signing your own eventual death warrant, and there's nothing I can do to help you. I wish I were being dramatic, but I am not.

* And consider this. It's now becoming illegal to treat yourself for diarrhea: 
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/891968 

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 22 March 2018

Not mine, but I don't want to see it go away.

http://www.skeptician.com/skeptician/skeptician.nsf/archive/20030305-1039+PM?OpenDocument&count=-1



Today, Le Monde released this year's list of French Favorites Awards. The annual list highlights the preferences and tastes of the world's most stylist culture.

This years choices were:

General Awards
Favorite Dance: Goose Step
Favorite Oppressor: Germany
Favorite Color: Yellow
Favorite Garment: Turncoat
Favorite Footwear: Flip-Flops
Favorite Headwear: Jackboots
Favorite Animal: Weasel
tied
Chicken
Favorite Beverage: Whine
Favorite Breakfast Food: Waffles
tied
Milktoast
Favorite Pet: Pussy Cat
Favorite Illegal Oil Trading Partner: Iraq
Favorite Liberator: United States
Favorite Rebuilder of Nation After Being Decimated in Two World Wars: United States
Favorite Nation to Protect Entire Continent Against Josef Stalin and Nikita Kruschev: United States
Favorite Nation to Call On When We Screw the Pooch in Southeast Asia: United States
Favorite 225-Year-Old Ally to Completely Dick Over for Short Term Political Gain at the Expense of World Peace: United States
Favorite Flavor: Chunky Surrender Monkey
tied
The Bitter Taste of Humiliating Defeat
Favorite Day to Surrender: June 22, 1940
Favorite Time of Day to Surrender: Morning
Favorite Place to Surrender: Rethondes
Favorite Surrender Outfit: Pierre Cardin (turtleneck, slacks, sport coat)
Favorite Car to Drive to Surrender Location: Citroen C3
Favorite Pen to Sign Surrender Treaty: Montblanc Noblesse Oblige (blue ink)
Favorite Meal After Signing Surrender Treaty: Humble Pie
Favorite Activity After Surrendering: Call United States for Help
Special Music Awards
Favorite Cheap Trick Song: Surrender
Favorite Cede Song: Surrender
Favorite Chemical Brothers Song: Surrender
Favorite Dave Lubben Song: Surrender
Favorite Debby Boone Song: Surrender
Favorite Diana Ross Song: Surrender
Favorite Elvis Presley Song: Surrender
Favorite Greg Buchanan Song: Surrender
Favorite Heikki Silvennoinen Song: Sweet Surrender
Favorite James Johnson Song: Surrender
Favorite Joe Strock Song: Surrender
Favorite John Lomacang Song: Surrender
Favorite Jonathan Butler Song: Surrender
Favorite Joshua Song: Surrender
Favorite Joshua's Trumpet Song: Surrender
Favorite Kut Klose Song: Surrender
Favorite Lisa & Anthony Testa Song: Surrender
Favorite MK featuring Alana Song: Surrender
Favorite Michel Colombier Song: Surrender
Favorite Roma Song: Surrender On Demand
Favorite Rosie Gaines Song: I Surrender
Favorite Sarah Brightman Song: Surrender
Favorite Sarah McLachlan Song: Sweet Surrender
Favorite Seek Song: Surrender
Favorite Single Gun Theory Song: Surrender
Favorite Surrender To The Air Song: Surrender to The Air
Favorite Sydney Mohede Song: Surrender
Favorite Tracy Lyons Song: Surrender
Favorite Twice Song: Time to surrender
Favorite Vineyard UK Song: Surrender
Favorite Working Week Song: Surrender