Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 16 December 2019

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

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 15 December 2019

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

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 11 December 2019

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 26 November 2019

As I told her, I have 35 years professional experience with weapons, 25 of it in the military. I don't need pussyplained to.

Let's unpack some of her Shitter bullshit here (assuming she doesn't dump the post from the well-deserved ratio she's getting).

https://mobile.twitter.com/designmom/status/1198580238533439488?

"There are far better ways to protect your family than a gun. Get a life insurance policy."

Do you even understand how life insurance works, bitchtard? You have to fucking DIE. The whole point of self defense is NOT TO DIE.

"Yes, an intruder shot my husband and raped us all, but hey, I got $100K, so there's that. It almost paid for the funeral, the medical treatment, the therapy, the replacement door and jewelry, and my wheelchair and ramp."

"I know you truly believe that you'll need to defend your family at gunpoint. You need to let that go. Statistically it's just not going to happen. I know it's boring, but if you want to protect your family, things like seatbelts, fire alarms, and life insurance are your best bet."

I have those, too.  And I HAVE defended my family at gunpoint, so fuck your "Statistics." Which you must have shit out of your fat, liberal mom ass.  But even if that were true, you'd be making the case that GUNS AREN'T A PROBLEM as far as crime.  Are you retarded? Or just a fucking moron?

The reality is, you're probably going to die of heart disease or diabetes, or just old age and natural causes. I know it's not as cool-sounding as an armed-standoff, but it's still true.

Well, actually, statistically I'm not going to die of any of those, because I carefully chose ancestors with superior genetics. Well, old age, yes. Everyone dies of that if nothing else.  And there's nothing "cool" about an armed standoff, speaking from experience.

I'm probably not going to die in a house fire either. Even though that's really cool-sounding, I guess.  I still have extinguishers.  Which you didn't mention. Just "alarms."  Typical fat liberal bitch expects a man to come rescue her. (Conservative and libertarian women don't seem to have this problem.  My wife is pretty handy with a shotgun and pistol, as several predators who went after livestock can no longer attest).

If the topic of protecting your family comes up, a gun extremist will immediately imagine an armed intruder who has come to murder. That's not going to happen. It's rare enough that it's not something people need to worry about or make decisions based on.

You repeat it, hoping it will catch on.  But if so, then why does it matter if people have guns? You've just stated they're not going to be used for murder.  So what's the problem?

Other than the fact you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, about anything. Including about being a mom. (I was a single parent for several years, have been the primary parent for 22 years, and the solo parent for lots of time the other parent was professionally absent.  I'm a better mom than you, too.)

Also, at least 50% of households have firearms.  If that's "Extremist" to you, you need to take a long, hard, look in a mirror.

If the topic of protecting your family comes up among people who actually interact and care for children each day, they think of things like using car seats, preventing hormones and dangerous chemicals in food, child-proofing the cleaning supplies, and schoolyard bullying.

I actually interact and care for children, and apparently a lot more than you, who's too busy lecturing the internet.  The "Dangerous chemicals in food" suggests you're a GMOtard, which means you're ignorant of yet another subject, and a racist (Which we already knew from your pollyanning that home invasion doesn't happen. You have to be white privileged as fuck to hold that belief).

Hundreds and hundreds of you have explained to me that a life insurance policy won't protect against an armed intruder. I never said it would. The thing you don't understand: There isn't going to be an armed intruder. That's just your paranoia.

Hundreds and hundreds of people are smarter than you, you ignorant cockholster.

There were 2.5 million burglaries in 2017, per DoJ.

A gun in the home is FAR more likely to kill or maim a household member than it is to protect them. Enjoy your daydreams about armed stand-offs. But that's all they are. Daydreams.

That stupid claim has been debunked more often and more thoroughly than "Vaccines cause autism" (which I'm going to assume this bloviating narcissist believes also).  Repeating that one just proves you're a completely ignorant shithead in this subject.

And no one "daydreams" about armed stand-offs. Except, apparently, you.

Update: A shocking number of you are CONVINCED that armed intruders will enter your home at 2 AM. And specially at 2 AM. Is there like an NRA ad about a 2 AM break in? Some meme I missed? Don't answer. I don't actually want to know. Muting this thread now.

You don't actually want any information that will crush your racist white privilege worldview? That was obvious.

Ask any cop when the most calls for burglary are.  Do you even know what number to call for the police?  Or do you have the maid do that, too?

You are a complete fucking waste of a human being, and pretty fucking smug about your ignorance, weakness and privilege.