Sunday, September 29, 2019


Our world is awash in "environmentalists". We were all treated to the creepy and tragic Greta Thunberg screeching into a microphone, scolding adults for failing to properly respond to the imaginary threat of global cooling global warming climate change. Of course she is only doing this in the developed world. I wonder what the response would be to a 16 year old white girl screaming at the adults in Pakistan or the Congo?

Besides being easily manipulated dimwits, what most "environmentalists" (please assume the quotation marks on future uses of that word) have in common is that they don't actually spend any time in or know much about the environment. They live in large cities or in suburban enclaves. They would be lost in the woods and in a crisis would die of starvation or by being eaten by one of the animals they only know from Disney movies. Caring about the environment is something they signal about on social media and perhaps via a couple of bumper stickers. Try to explain to one of them why it is healthy to occasionally clear cut some forest and their signal gets scrambled because they have no idea what forest management looks like, and can't figure out why there are all of those devastating fires in California. They have never walked from a mature pine stand into a regrowing area of young trees and seen the difference because they never go outside.

The people who really know and care about the environment are not who you think they are. The average American who met my wife wouldn't think she knows anything about the environment. She isn't clamoring about "climate change" or wringing her hands about plastic straws in the sea. On the other hand she went to forestry camp in high school four years in a row and can identify a ton of flora and fauna from trees to insects to waterfowl. She knows a lot about how to properly manage forests and wildlife. In other words she understand the environment as a real thing, not as some esoteric concept.

The greatest conservationists in our country are people who hunt and fish because they actually spend time in the wilderness and understand how nature works. They also have a vested interest in the environment because they want to keep hunting and fishing and you need a healthy environment for that to happen. Conservationists, like avid hunter John Audubon, seek to conserve nature.

Environmentalists? Well they are like watermelons. Green on the outside but red on the inside.

Sadly we can't slice Greenpeace members open to see
if this is actually true.
Most garden variety liberals who fancy themselves environmentalists because they own a Patagonia fleece jacket aren't actual Communists and most of them are too historically illiterate to even place Communism in world history or realize that the Commies killed far more people than the Nazis. But the people who are pushing this nonsense absolutely are. The same is true of the civil rights movement and feminism and pretty much every leftist social movement in the last century.

What all of those various "progressive" movements have in common is that once you get beyond the surface you find that a) the same cast of characters is behind it; b) their goals usually have little to do with the stated goals for public consumption and c) the target is always moving so nothing is ever fixed. It has been half a century since the Civil Rights act. We had a half-black President. Black people as a whole face no tangible oppression and in fact are coddled with things like hiring preferences and affirmative action in education. But to listen to "civil rights" activists, things are worse now than they were during the 19th century.

There are three kinds of people in the "environmental" movement, and these are the same groups in every "progressive" movement.

1) The rank-and-file sheep

The average do-gooder liberal or even the conservative that has been guilted into thinking that they are destroying the environment and that they have to "raise awareness" by putting a bumper sticker on their car and sending money to "environmental" organizations.

2) The elite grifters

This is the Al Gore type, the Hollywood elites who fly emission spewing jets from luxury mansion to luxury mansion and attend incredibly lavish events decrying middle class Americans for being wasteful. They are the environmental movement equivalent of race-hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, people who rely on never solving any problem because it would mean they would need to get a real job.

3) The puppet-masters

Behind the scenes are the George Soros-types, international globalist financiers of Marxism. When you start to see these people pulling the levers, you understand that "environmentalism" is just another face of the amorphous but very real international Marxist movement. The faces and names change, civil rights, feminism, refugee relief, LBGTQ rights; but the ultimate goal is the same: replacing the Western model of liberal democracy and individual rights with a Communist system.

This explains why you end up seeing "single issue" groups on the Left always talking about various other issues that they claim "intersect" with their issues. These issues all intersect because they all have a common tactic, undermining Western civilization. Whether it is replacing Western people with third world people who will be easier to control or devastating the engines of Western economic success or trying to destroy and subvert the family, the methods are different but the goal is always the same even if those carrying it out are unaware of it.

This op-ed from the L.A. Times is a great example of what I am talking about: Opinion: Why the youth climate strike has to take on racial justice (HT: The Zman). Here is the snippet at the end:

Responding to the climate crisis requires collective action on a massive scale, and the most potent political impediment to collective action comes from racial division, often intentionally stoked by right-wing plutocrats. That’s why mobilizing Americans on climate-change policy also requires countering racial division and seeking economic benefits that are broadly shared.

When the young people striking for climate action demand action on racism and unrestrained capitalism, it’s because they understand that all of these issues are inseparable. Unless we tackle them together, they will defeat us over and over, until it’s all over.

People on the "conservative right" see each issue as an independent topic to be addressed individually. Let's talk about prison reform on it's own and weigh the relative merits of the topic. For people on the Left, these are all interconnected issues that overlap ("intersect") and all have a common goal of a world devoid of white people and operating under Marxism. Notice this line from the op-ed: "seeking economic benefits that are broadly shared". That is the central theme that we keep coming back to and it is what the Left so often calls a "dog-whistle". I am all for economic benefits that are broadly shared, in the sense of people having lots of opportunity to improve themselves and get better paying jobs, but what they are talking about is income redistribution at the end of a gun.

Be sure to understand the difference between conservationists and "environmentalists". People who are seeking to conserve natural resources because they enjoy the outdoors and want a clean environment to enjoy for themselves and their posterity, people who often are hunters and fisherman, bird watchers and the like, usually have a clue what they are talking about. People who are "environementalists" by and large have no experience in the outdoors and are blissfully unaware that they are just tools being manipulated by the international Communist movement. I'll take seriously what an ecologist from Pheasants Forever has to say but the same cannot be said for anyone who talks with a straight face about "climate change".

For an good intro on what utter B.S. most "climate change" doomsayers are pushing, see: The Global Warming Memo They Don’t Want You To See (Okay, I wrote it.)

Saturday, September 28, 2019

An Instructive Day

I spent a good chunk of today at a local farm that focuses on sustainable, responsible animal agriculture. I won't name them to keep them from being attacked, they had no idea I was there, didn't invite me and I was just driving other people anyway.

This farm had a little fair today to thank their customers and introduce people who were interested in sustainable farming and ethically sourced foods to their products. The people who came were concerned about things like sustainability and ethical animal husbandry. By noon they were reporting over 1000 people had shown up. It was a sea of white people, with a handful of black people and a couple of Asians.

We are told that white people and majority white nations have to "do more" to fight "climate change". We have to stop using plastic straws because they get in the ocean even though the vast majority of plastic trash in the oceans comes from Africa and Asia. We have to suffer little twerps screaming at us about the climate as if we are not doing enough. We are the only ones who have to gut our economies to fight a problem that is mostly occurring overseas.

The truth is that no one else is doing anything about environmental issues and really no one else cares apart from white people. We put our little recycling bins by the curb and endlessly add new "environmental" regulations to employers in this country, which only encourages them to move overseas where the governments don't care about little things like environmental regulations, child labor laws or worker rights.

Instead of showing some appreciation for the efforts we put in, we get harangued by hustlers like Al Gore and screeched at by autistic teens. Why is that?

Answer in upcoming post.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

We Have All Said Dumb Stuff...

...but not many of us have said that the Federal government shooting a crowd of unarmed people and killing four of them is a solid reason to disarm all civilians so that only the same government that killed the students at Kent State is allowed to have guns. What an asshat.

The Importance Of Cooperation

As early as 1000 A.D., Europeans were starting to explore the New World of North America. Pretty incredible when you think about how technologically backwards they were by our standards and yet explorers managed to find their way across the ocean. It is around 3000 nautical miles from London to Boston across the open water and the north Atlantic is not known for gentle seas. Who knows how many would be explorers died on the way. By 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, there were probably somewhere between 8-10 million and 100 million Indians living in North America. Over the next 100 years there were a number of failed colonies but eventually with the founding of Jamestown in what is now Virginia the settlement and conquest of North America began in earnest.

Today it is estimated that there are only around 2.5 million American Indians left in the U.S. plus maybe another couple of million people like Elizabeth Warren who claim some partial Indian heritage in addition to around a million Indians in Canada.

Over the course of less than 300 years, culminating with Wounded Knee, the Europeans settlers spread from a few starving colonies clinging to the East coast to conquering the entire 3,500,000 square miles of the United States. In the process the American Indian population was very nearly eradicated. It isn't an uncommon story nor is it some uniquely American "crime" or "genocide". The history of human beings has been stronger people conquering, enslaving and killing weaker people. This has been true ever since there were people in the first place. What is unusual is that only white people are made to feel guilty about it.

When the English founded Jamestown, there were as many as 15-20,000 Powhatan Indians in the area. If they had made a concerted effort, they could have easily wiped out the English settlers. Contra the accepted narrative of the Noble Savage, the American Indians were often vicious people who tortured their enemies to death. Wiping out an entire settlement, especially of strange and alien white people, wouldn't have been an issue at all and they were in regular conflict with the colonists, even as some colonists and escaped slaves apparently joined them. By the time they got serious, it was too late.

So what happened?

First, the Indians realized the extent of the threat too late. You can't blame them totally for this. How could Indians even begin to comprehend just how many Europeans there were? There were perhaps 90 million people in Europe in 1600. All the Indians saw at first were a few settlements and traders. They had no way of knowing that soon millions of Europeans would arrive with superior technology and organization.

Second, the Indians never could unify themselves to face the threat. A force of 50,000 Indians could have swept the east coast of every white settler but they were too busy fighting with each other and being fractured, sometimes even making common cause with the whites to carry out wars against other Indians. They didn't figure out their common enemy until, again, it was too late.

Tribe by tribe the Indians were vanquished and their descendants today are a sad, small minority in North America beset by social ills worse than the worst inner-city areas, living on the handouts from their conquerors. They are a defeated and conquered people in large part because they failed to cooperate.

I wrote yesterday about the importance of learning lessons from the past to avoid repeating them in the future, Will We Learn Our Lesson?. What can we learn from the Indians?

First, we need to recognize the threat. The people flooding across our border don't see America as the land of opportunity. At best they see it as a piggy bank to be looted but at worst, and in increasing numbers, they see the U.S. and especially the southwest, as conquered territory. They are right. The U.S. did conquer and expel the Mexicans from the Southwest. The descendants of those conquered now seek to retake this land, a modern day "Reconquista". This is not a contemporary version of the mass immigration from Europe, this is an invasion that seeks to replace heritage Americans, many the descendants of those who tamed and settled North America.

Second, we must realize that our common threat is greater than our internal squabbles. So many of us spend most of our time stabbing each other in the back and arguing about the minutiae of the proper philosophical underpinnings of our ideal society that we don't even see what is going on. There are plenty of people who are advocates for my people that I disagree with or even find somewhat distasteful but better someone I share 95% of things in common with than someone who wants to destroy my people and tear down my civilization. We can have the deep philosophical discussions later but right now if we don't start to band together, in real life and not just on social media, we are going to be destroyed one by one just like the individual Indian tribes. The international Marxist movements are working in concert to destroy us and replace us with more pliable people amenable to Marxism. Antifa can rally a thousand unemployed losers in black with minimal notice. The women's march drew tens of thousands of angry, spurned box wine slurping cat ladies. Right now we can't get a small conference together without being swamped with violent dolts in black while the cops look the other way. There are many tens of millions of us, and yet today we are fragmented, disorganized, squabbling among ourselves and worst of all terrified to stand up for ourselves out of fear of getting into trouble.

The Indians were a weaker civilization that lost to a numerically, intellectually and technologically superior civilization. We are on the verge of repeating their mistakes and being overrun by people who have yet to form a stable society. When we are defeated, they won't let us have self-governing reservations. We will go into boxcars and be eradicated. That is not hysteria or hyperbole.

The time is growing short for us to organize and cooperate if we want to avoid repeating the mistakes of the American Indian. If we fall, no history book will speak longingly of us because there won't be any books.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Pay Attention

While you are working or doing whatever it is you do during the day, trying to mind your own business and live your life, loathsome and oleaginous Gringotts goblin Representative Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman is holding a hearing today at 10 AM with the subtle title: Protecting America from Assault Weapons. You can be pretty certain that the "witnesses and experts" called will uniformly tell the committee what the Democrats (and a lot of Republicans) want to hear: that "assault weapons" are super scary even though they are rarely used in gun crimes and they should be banned along with "high capacity" magazines. You could have a pretty decent drinking game if you take a shot every time someone says "mass shooting", "weapon of war" or "fully automatic semi-automatic assault rifle weapon". Take two shots for anyone claiming "no one wants to take your guns". As a side note, if you are drinking at 10 AM you should get help.

While you are doing your thing, these people are tirelessly working every waking hour to take away your rights, disarm you and create a new society ruled by them.

The House Judiciary Committee will be live streaming the kabuki theater "hearing" at 10 AM and you can watch it here. It would be shame if freedom loving Americans were to flood the chat in support of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and in opposition to the attempted disarming of the American people.

Monday, September 23, 2019

Will We Learn Our Lesson?

It is a foregone conclusion to many people, myself included, that we are going over the waterfall. Right now we are clinging on the edge and Trump was a conveniently placed branch we could grab to keep from tumbling over. As of today we are barely strong enough to hold on but nowhere near strong enough to pull ourselves back, especially since so many of our people are blissfully ignorant of the danger and not only are not helping to pull us back but are instead paddling furiously toward the cliff.

There isn't a political solution unless it involves a peaceful dissolution, my preferred path forward, and that seems very unlikely as the people we want to separate from, the semi-intelligent ones anyway, realize they need us as tax cattle. We won't vote our way out of this and for every American who is red-pilled, 1000 illegals cross the southern border. There is a critical mass of "immigrants" that are going to be turning 18 over the next decade and they have been radicalized and politically mobilized and weaponized as a dagger at the heart of heritage America.

When my forebearers came to this land from Ireland and Poland, they were not taught to hate everything this nation stood for nor to hate the people who formed this country. America was the "land of opportunity" where anyone could work hard and make a great life for their family, and their children would have a better life than they did. They were grateful and optimistic about the future. Life wasn't perfect or easy and they faced many very real challenges and barriers but they overcame and became a part of America.

Now America is a land of "oppression" and "racism". The people that built this country were racists and committed "genocide" and the only significant thing they are remembered for is that some of them owned slaves. New immigrants don't want to become a part of the American experiment, they want to undo, tear down and replace what it means to be American. In other words they want to destroy everything that made America a place they wanted to come to in the first place and turn it into the sort of place they were fleeing from. But they don't care and this is important:

For new "immigrants", their tribal identity and grievances are far more important to them than opportunity.

This is true for most non-heritage populations in America. Trump is endlessly yammering about how low black unemployment is, as if that is going to cause blacks to vote for him but they won't. They won't because to them the fact that they think Trump is somehow "racist" is more critical than whether they have a better job and a better future thanks to his policies. Racial tribal solidarity is their most important motivator. Why else would middle class, devout Christian, blacks vote almost unanimously for Barack Obama? His stance on abortion and "gay marriage", his disastrous economic policies, none of that mattered to them because all they saw was a black man running against a white man. They weren't voting for a Democrat, they weren't voting for Obamacare. They voted race.

What this means is that we are headed for Something Bad™.

It can be said that on most topics I am pretty black-pilled, just generally deeply pessimistic. That doesn't mean I don't have any hope for the future. I read some people on the "prepper" spectrum who seem to plan on just keeping alive for as long as possible and that is the sum total of their plan. I am not interested in survival for the sake of survival. Obviously I need to stay alive but I also recognize that my life may be sacrificed for the sake of my posterity and my people.

We don't know how this will shake out but I am supremely confident that in the end my people will survive and rebuild. We navigated the globe, explored every wildness and jungle, created the most stable societies in human history, sent men into space and landed them on the moon, invented pretty much every significant human achievement for the last thousand years. What is more, we survived the Dark Ages, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, and two World Wars. We will survive this latest self-inflicted calamity. When properly aroused, no one can stand against us and while it is true that we have suppressed this for a long time, the blood that flowed through the veins of young men who stood in landing craft and jumped out of planes at Normandy beach, still flows in our veins today.

The question I have, and one I probably won't live to see the answer to, is whether those who come after us will learn from our mistakes. Some mistakes have been serious but not by themselves fatal. Allowing what should have been a very limited Federal government to take over our lives, getting endlessly involved in foreign wars in spite of the warnings to avoid this, our obsession with "free trade", etc. have all been huge mistakes and damaging but they were not the biggest and likely the fatal error.

The biggest mistake is our misguided altruism. For over a century we have tolerated the importation of people who hate us and we have allowed to dwell among us. For most of human history it was understood that people who hate you don't really have a reason to be given free run of your nation. When the words " the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" were written, they were written about Europeans. Even with a common heritage as Europeans, it took a very long time for different European ethnic groups to shake off the low level animus we held toward one another. The Irish, Polish and Italians who came here had to overcome general distrust and disdain and that took a number of generations. Even in my lifetime, I recall as a young person thinking of Italians as "wops", Irish as "micks" and Polish as "polaks", even as someone who was half polak and half mick. In the 20th century, largely insulated from the devastation of the two World Wars, we opened our land to people from alien and often incompatible cultures. Soon we found ourselves making room for mestizos from Central and South America, Asians from East Asia and from India and Pakistan, Jews from Europe and even more Africans.

To varying degrees these groups have acclimated to America and benefited from living in America while never really assimilating into America. This is not surprising as all of them lack the critical commonalities that unite heritage American groups. Our story is not their story and never will be, nor do they want it adopt that story or become players in it. Our story is coming to a land settled by Europeans into a nation formed by and formed for Europeans. The people who created this nation and settled it for most of our history were at least culturally Christian. Not "Judeo-Christian", that is a modern invention that is seeks to conflate two incompatible and historically hostile religious traditions. Rather they were of Protestant stock or Roman Catholic background, with some Anabaptist groups like the Mennonites and Amish for good measure. Sure there were groups like the Quakers as well but from a cultural standpoint there was a lot of common ground on issues of morality.

The newer migrants to America lack the common heritage prior generations enjoyed. They are of different races and ethnicity, different religions and have very different cultural backgrounds. What is more, they view the people already in America, what I call heritage Americans, with varying degrees of suspicion and even outright hostility. I can't say I blame them, they have been inundated with racialist propaganda from the time they set foot in my country. Should I find myself in Tanzania or Bangladesh, I am sure their alien customs and culture would cause me a great deal of discomfort as well.

After the dust settles and the fires burn out, we will have to rebuild. Hopefully we will learn our lesson and allow people to live among their own family, tribe and posterity instead of trying to force people from incompatible cultures to live with and thereby compete with one another. The formula:

Diversity plus proximity equals conflict

Holds true everywhere it has been tested.

Making mistakes is bad but human. Repeating the same mistakes over is inexcusable. Let's hope that the people who survive learn and don't repeat these mistakes.

Friday, September 20, 2019

Things Are Getting Worse

Few people can hold a candle to me when it comes to being cynical but sometimes even I am startled by how depraved this nation is becoming. It can be easy to forget if you live where I do but the internet brings this collapsing world right into our homes. Yesterday was one of those days, and two stories you should be aware of came to my attention.

First, from Colin Flaherty:

If you don't want to watch, but you should, the gist of the video is a tragic story compounded by a healthy dose of insanity. A 15 year old white girl dates a 15 year old black boy. They break up and he starts to stalk her, finally deciding one day to break into her house and murder her. She was a beloved student at her school and a cheerleader, so a few months after her death the cheer squad was going to do a memorial tribute in her memory. Oops, the school lawyers said they can't because then they would have to allow a tribute for all of the students involved. In other words, it wouldn't be fair unless the let the imprisoned black boy that (allegedly) murdered her to be honored as well. The school board refused to let grieving students honor their murdered classmate because it might be seen as taking sides. She was murdered. Can't show any favoritism though.

Second, something so stomach churning I can hardly even imagine it is true.

2 Chicago gangbangers executed 9-year-old in revenge killing against his father's rival gang: prosecutors

Two reputed Chicago gang members allegedly executed a 9-year-old boy in broad daylight because they sought revenge on the child’s father’s rival gang, which they blamed for gunning down family members, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Tyshawn Lee, 9, was in his school uniform when three men approached him in the South Side of Chicago in November 2015, prosecutors said during opening statements.

Prosecutors said Corey Morgan and Kevin Edwards kept watch while Dwight Doty lured the fourth grader into an alleyway. They said he promised him a juice box.

Doty then took out a .40-caliber handgun and shot Lee, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Margaret Hillmann said.

They lured him with a juice box and then executed him in an alley. A 9 year old little boy.

A lot of us grew up and still enjoy shooting for sport and for practice. I can load a handgun, chamber a round and shoot it without giving it a second thought but I cannot fathom a situation where I would load a handgun and take it with me with the intent of murdering a 9 year old because I was upset with the kids father about something that happened. Shooting someone who was breaking into my home and threatening my family would be incredibly difficult, even though it was completely justified. Shooting a little boy for any reason, much less to get back at his dad? Meanwhile....

The two gangs have been locked in an escalating gang war that could be responsible for up to 15 shootings dating back to 2011, authorities said. Months after the child’s execution, his father allegedly sought revenge by shooting three people, including Morgan’s girlfriend, outside a gas station. He is being held without bail.

Clearly this little boy's dad realized the futility of a constant cycle of murder and retaliation. Which little kid or woman or random passerby will be shot as retaliation for this shooting which was a retaliation for a prior shooting which was a retaliation for yet another shooting, stretching back at least to 2015.

What exactly are our "leaders" doing about this sort of violence? Will red-flag laws stop this? Expanded background checks? Banning "assault weapons"? No? So maybe the motivation is not what we are being told.

It is getting crazy out there.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

They Want You Dead

If you have been living under a rock or are one of the many Fudds who think that if you give up your AR the Left will leave you alone, allow me to remind you that the Left hates you, wants you dead and has feverish dreams of loading white families into boxcars. Case in point, Paul Krugman who is an "economist" that is very nearly the perfect contra-indicator. Doing the exact opposite of what he advises is the most sound investment strategy ever devised. He is the economist equivalent of a weatherman who predicts 2 feet of snow in Phoenix every day in July. He also hates white people....

According to Mr. Krugman, "The real craziness comes from rural white Americans".

I am a white guy living in rural America. My neighbors are also all white. One neighbor is a brick mason. Another is a carpenter. Another is a farmer. Two more within view of my house are a concrete mason and a logger respectively. A couple are retired. None of them are crazy as far as I know and all of them I know are the people who make this country function. We wouldn't be able to keep the lights on, the water flowing, the store shelves stocked, if it weren't for rural white Americans.

On the other hand, Krugman is a Jewish "economist" from New York City. We already have plenty of those, even one is actually more than we need. He could drop off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't have any impact on our lives. I can't see in his bio where he has ever had an actual, productive job. He is paid to talk about, predict and make recommendations about the economy having never contributed to or meaningfully participated in the economy. He writes nonsense and goes on TV to spew partisan nonsense dressed up as serious academic work. Nothing he has ever done in his life has had a positive impact on this country. He is worse than useless, he is actively working at odds with what has made America the sort of place his parents fled to in 1922.

It is also pretty safe to assume that Krugman doesn't know any actual rural white Americans, has never spent any time among us and doesn't know a damn thing about us. He is probably scared of us and finds us revolting. He clearly hates us and wishes we would just die off. His bigotry toward rural white Americans is worse than almost anything you see from "white nationalists" on social media.

If I were to say that all of the craziness and problems in this country are linked to people like Krugman, in other words urban Jews, I would get labelled an "antisemite" and probably get in all sorts of social media trouble. Krugman can declare that the real craziness in America is all coming from people like me and no one bats an eye.

Then one day, for no reason at all.....

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

80 Years Ago Today

Here is an anniversary you won't see noted by the mainstream press. 80 years ago this day, on September 17, 1939 the Soviet Union invaded Poland. The Third Reich had invaded Poland earlier on the first of September. After defeating the Poles, the Nazis and the Soviets divided up Poland between them. While the Allies declared war on Germany almost immediately following the invasion, they did not declare war on the Soviets in response to their invasion of Poland from the East. After the U.S. entered the war in 1941 and the Soviets stopped the Germans at Stalingrad, the Soviets pushed West and eventually overran Germany from the East. With "victory" declared, the people of Poland along with the rest of Eastern Europe were imprisoned for decades behind the Iron Curtain. Those countries are still recovering from the economic devastation.

In our eagerness to defeat a perceived monster in Hitler, we made common cause with a far worse villain in Joseph Stalin. Stalin has few peers for his sheer brutality, only Mao can compete in terms of body count. Had the U.S. not been in the European theater in such massive numbers, it is certain Stalin would not have stopped at Berlin but rather would have charged across Western Europe. But hey, we got Hitler and with Europe devastated, America ruled the world so we knocked up a ton of our ladies and created the Baby Boomers who would go on to sell their birthright for less than a mess of pottage.

Every misdeed of the Third Reich, real, exaggerated and imagined, is recounted in excruciating detail but the Soviet Union gets little attention today despite it being a far worse regime than the Nazis. When you wonder why that might be, start to look at who decides what movies and news and books we consume.

World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam. They never ended, we just changed the names and one side forgot it was still in a war.

That Is Kinda The Point

Back in the day, liberals liked to pretend that they had the monopoly on being intelligent and educated. They were the political movement of "science and reason", unlike those knuckle-dragging conservatives always banging on about creationism, denying "climate science" and hating the gays.

Fast forward to today. The Left today is a religious cult, worshiping female genitalia and killing babies as a sacrament, demanding people believe you can change genders on a whim. The believe in Russian warlocks casting spells on voters and a clearly deranged woman claiming Brett Kavanaugh touched her boobie when they were drunk in high school. They claim race is only a social construct on the one hand but demand that we believe that only white people carry a genetic predisposition to be mean to the coloreds.

For people who claim to be the smart ones, they are incredibly dumb.

Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to American history. Exhibit A is an essay from a little weasel of a liberal, Matt Ford, who writes for The New Republic and looks exactly like what you would expect:

Anyway, Matt is spending a lot of time on the fainting couch these days because it turns out that owners of firearms in America are not only not going to turn those weapons in, they are quite willing to use lethal force to defend their 2nd Amendment rights. Look at the hysterics on display in his story: Conservatives: We’ll Spill Blood to Keep Our Guns

Last month, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke proposed a modest solution to the relentless tide of mass shootings: a mandatory buyback program for every AR-15 in the country. The View co-host Meghan McCain responded with a dire warning. “The AR-15 is by far the most popular gun in America, by far,” she told her fellow panelists. “I was just in the middle of nowhere Wyoming, if you’re talking about taking people’s guns from them, there’s going to be a lot of violence.”

Tucker Carlson echoed McCain’s blood-soaked sentiment on his Tuesday night broadcast. “So, this is—what you are calling for is civil war,” he said. “What you are calling for is an incitement to violence. It’s something I wouldn’t want to live here when that happened, would you? I’m serious.” Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative columnist, also warned of tragedy. “I know people who keep AR-15’s buried because they’re afraid one day the government might come for them,” he wrote on Twitter. “I know others who are stockpiling them. It is not a stretch to say there’d be violence if the [government] tried to confiscate them.”

“There would be violence” neatly elides what’s actually being claimed: Some gun-rights activists would murder government officials who try to enforce a duly passed law. This isn’t an extreme viewpoint among such gun enthusiasts. If anything, it’s one of their central tenets.

Uh, yeah. You know you are in for a treat when Matt describes Robert Francis O'Rourke's threat to "buy back" every AR-15 in the country as "a modest solution to the relentless tide of mass shootings". I'll point out once more for fun that rifles are very rarely used in homicides. In 2017 more people were killed with blunt objects like hammers (467) than with all rifles combined (403). The truth of mass shootings, which I assume Matt knows and is simply lying about, is that around 75% of them are carried out by black men and mostly with handguns. Over 50% of all homicides in this country are committed by black men and a significant chunk of the rest are carried out by mestizos. White men, far from being the greatest threat, are statistically wildly underrepresented per capita in all murder and gun crimes. That doesn't stop "Beto" and others from scapegoating white men, the NRA and "assault rifles" which are overwhelmingly owned by law-abiding white guys.

But Matt is undeterred by mere facts. Along with praising "antifa" for fighting "fascism", adopting the Boomer-speak tendency to conflate fascism with "everything I don't like", and expressing outrage that Ted Cruz would describe a group that is regularly engaged in political violence as domestic terrorists, Matt intentionally misrepresents what the people he quoted are saying. Many conservatives are correctly saying that trying to confiscate firearms even if you pretend it is a "voluntary mandatory buy-back" would be met with lethal force but Matt charges headlong into some creepy fantasy about conservatives stalking and assassinating people. It might come to that but that is not what is being talked about. The widely disseminated tweet from a Texas state representative in response to Robert Francis was passed off as a threat of violence but again it was simply a gun owner saying he will not comply with a confiscation plan.

The best part is the end where Matt gets the vapors about the idea of "murdering" civil servants.

It’s debatable whether even the most stringent gun-control measures would prevent mass shootings, and it’s doubtful that those measures would survive the Roberts Court’s scrutiny. But time and time again, these proposals reveal a troubling window into the mindset of the gun-rights activists who oppose them. That, in turn, only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger. If the main reason you need an AR-15 is to murder civil servants and elected officials, you shouldn’t have it in the first place.

Uh, what do you think that whole disagreement in North America in the late 18th century was all about?

Our nation was founded on shooing civil servants trying to confiscate firearms.

The whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment is to shoot "civil servants" who try to take our guns. It wasn't about hunting or even home security. The men who wrote the Constitution and especially the 2nd Amendment were less than a decade removed from a violent revolution that was kicked off by civil servants attempting to seize firearms from citizens. Do they not teach this in school anymore? Does Matt not have access to Wikipedia?

People don't own AR/AK rifles to use for hunting, although you can. Not to defend your home from burglars, while they will of course work, there are plenty of better options. They own them because they are the best option for a civilian to arm themselves in the event "civil servants" decide to come to your home to seize your property. The Revolutionary War militias didn't arm themselves with spears and clubs, they had the best weapons they could get their hands on. Americans today should do the same.

You won't find many serious people talking about assassinating political figures but you will see lots of pretty mild-mannered people who say the same thing: if the government tries to confiscate my guns, it will lead to bloodshed. The Clinton-era "assault weapons ban" didn't try to take anything existing way, it just prevented the sale of scary looking guns, but you still could buy 30 round mags if they were already in the country. Telling someone that a legal product that is protected by the 2nd Amendment is going to be taken by force? Well that is going to have a predictable and visceral reaction. It did in April of 1775 and it the same will be true in 2019. Don't believe me? Eff around and find out.

Sunday, September 15, 2019

A Lesson About Red Flag Laws And Confiscation

There was a news story last week that contains an important lesson about "red flag laws" and threats of firearms confiscation. The story wasn't about RFLs but it still should be noted for what it reveals.

Gamer sentenced to 15 months in federal prison in deadly 'swatting' case

An Ohio gamer who recruited a prankster to make a fake emergency call, known as “swatting,” that led to the fatal shooting of a Kansas man by police was sentenced to 15 months in prison on Friday, prosecutors announced.
The case originated with a $1.50 bet between Viner and "Call of Duty: WWII" opponent Shane Gaskill of Wichita, Kan. Gaskill refused to pay up, and police said Viner asked Tyler Barriss, 26, to “swat” Gaskill. Barriss called the police in Kansas from his home in Los Angeles to give a false report of a fake shooting and kidnapping at a Wichita address assumed to be Gaskill's.

Gaskill and his family previously lived at that address but were evicted in 2016. A SWAT team showed up at the house, which at this point belonged to 28-year-old Andrew Finch. The officers believed they were dealing with a man who had shot his own father and was holding family members hostage. An officer shot and killed Finch, and his family members have sued the Wichita police. Police said they believed Finch had been reaching for a gun as he lowered his hand near his waistband. The local district attorney declined to charge the officer.

On the surface this is a story about a gamer being stupid and his stupidity having lethal consequences. A couple of gamers got into a squabble over $1.50 and a third party called in a fake police report to a home where one of the gamers used to live. Cops showed up to the house, the owner came out and the cops shot him.

So what does this have to do with RFLs and confiscation? What happened in this case is that cops went into a situation believing there was an armed man in the house. Understandably they were on a very heightened alert level, as would anyone. In a situation like this, they are more likely to interpret a movement to be something threatening, like reaching for a gun. I don't know if the guy that was shot, Andrew Finch, was reaching for a gun or even had a gun. Based on the lack of reporting about it, I assume he didn't. He allegedly heard a noise as the cops were getting into position, opened the front door and in the confusion was shot by an officer. In an interesting twist, Andrew Finch was shot with an AR-15, which we aren't supposed to be allowed to own because they can be misused but cops apparently can misuse with impunity.

When cops encounter someone they are pretty certain is armed, it changes the dynamic. They are scared, understandably, and they are on a heightened alert and (I assume since I am not a cop) more ready to pull the trigger. No one wants to wait a second too long to open fire because that can mean you don't go home that night. If the gamers had called in a domestic dispute, the cops would have shown up and been ready for trouble but when you say there is someone armed who has already killed someone, their "shoot/don't shoot" meter is already pegged on the "shoot" setting. Showing up when someone is armed means the odds of that person getting shot by the cops goes way up. We've had the cops show up at our place when our horses or cattle were loose (which used to happen at an embarrassingly frequent rate ­čś│) and it is usually just a very casual "Your horses are by the road" conversation. The same sheriff showing up because there is a report of someone menacing passing motorists with a rifle? Not so casual.

That brings us to RFLs and confiscation. When the cops show up to seize someone's guns, there is already the problem of them knowing for sure that the person has guns. In an RFL situation, especially assuming the person being flagged is unaware of the proceedings, the assumption is also that the person involved is mentally unstable. And armed. So that doesn't sound like a recipe for someone getting shot or anything. If I was a cop being ordered to go knock on the door of someone who is having their guns seized because they are a dangerously unstable person, you can bet I am ready for trouble. Any false move can mean a dead gun owner.

The same is true for confiscation. "Beto" Robert Francis "Hell Yeah" O'Rourke notwithstanding, gun owners are not going to turn in their firearms. The response to "buy backs" in places like Australia and New Zealand have been tepid and those countries don't have the same gun ownership culture that we do. A mandatory "buy back" here is going to be largely met with a middle finger and non-compliance which leaves the government in a predicament. There are two options:

A) Ignore the tens of millions of non-compliant gun owners and only arrest them for non-compliance when you bust them for something else.

B) Conduct house to house raids using a list from background checks, which is going to lead to dead civilians and dead cops.

There are people on the Left who love the idea of the second option. They hate armed citizens and they hate cops, so seeing us kill each other will give them their jollies. Perhaps seeing a dozen dead civilians will encourage the rest to give up their guns out of fear. The Left loves intimidation through terror. Either way, option B means sending armed and body-armored cops to homes where the resident is assumed to have a rifle likely loaded with full metal jacket rounds that can punch through a lot of body armor and helmets. Just like the cops showing up at the "swatting" incident, they are ready for and expecting trouble and not coincidentally when the cops show up expecting trouble, they usually find it.

Cops already have a tough job so intentionally putting them in situations where they are more likely to use lethal force or get themselves shot is not going to reduce gun violence, it is going to increase it. What is more, as everyone already knows, taking semi-auto rifles out of the hands of law abiding citizens isn't going to reduce gun violence anyway. Gun violence, specifically homicide, is largely carried out by a small segment of the population already involved in criminal activity and involves handguns that are typically purchased illegally outside of the legal process.

It is just a matter of time before "swatting" or misusing "red flag" laws is turned into a tool by the Left to assassinate by cop or simply intimidate political malcontents into silence. The cops already have their hands full with dealing with real criminals. Increasing the number of situations where the likelihood of lethal force is much higher obviously is counter-productive. Don't be fooled into thinking these laws will help, they only serve one purpose: disarming the American people.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

A Commie By Any Other Name.....

....still goes out the door of the chopper.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the liberal democracies of the West assumed we had won. There was talk of the end of history, that the world was now safe for freedom and democracy and we were on an unstoppable path toward ever-increasing prosperity and liberty. Yeah, it seems kind of funny now but no one is laughing.

Communists are a lot like cockroaches. They scatter when you turn on the lights. You can spray them with poison and they keep going. You can even toss them out of choppers and they still keep replicating themselves.

We are supposed to be terrified of all of the Nazis running around but there haven't been a significant number of Nazis since the 1940s. On the other hand, the far more lethal Communists are alive and well and running our media and "education" system. At a recent "Democratic Socialists" meeting we all got a chuckle at the freak show audience getting triggered by people whispering and causing him to experience sensory overload and a different guy losing his shit because someone using the term "guys" to address the audience. Behold the mighty social justice warriors who are going to kick off the revolution! What a lot of people missed was the moderator referring to these crackpots as "Comrade". They know who they are.

A recent post at the Epoch Times, DSA Conference Builds Closer Ties to International Communist Movement, exposes the speakers at a recent DSA conference that were representing far-left and openly Communist organizations overseas. While the Right is deeply fractured in the U.S. and endlessly squabbling and purity spiraling, the Left is allying itself not just in the U.S. but with world wide Marxism. I am not concerned about the purple-haired gender fluid freaks in the Democratic Socialist rank-and-file but if they start importing hardened Communist rebels, either as "refugees" or under the guise of UN "peacekeepers", that is a different story. Communists in the third world have been fighting and killing for a long time, they are not going to collapse into a puddle on the floor if someone misgenders them. They'll probably just gut you with a butter knife.

Communism didn't go away when the Berlin Wall fell, it just morphed and hijacked Western movements, from the "civil rights" movement and feminism to environmentalism and immigrant "rights". The commies play the long game better than we do and they are winning. We are flooded with "immigrants" that come from violent nations that are well versed in revolutions and pretty soon they won't need the limp-wristed white Democratic Socialists.

Whatever your issues with other dissident right groups might be, just remember that the alternative is facing MS-13 thugs and Shining Path guerrillas. There already aren't that many of us and we are going to need all of the help we can get. Ten thousand DR types united are pretty powerful, ten thousand of us all living in our own bunker will be easy meat.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that the other side in a civil conflict will be pushovers. There are hundreds of thousands of hardened, violent people already in our nation who would love nothing more than to shoot some middle-class Americans and every single day more and more cross into our country. Meanwhile our indigenous non-white population is radicalized with anti-white propaganda while enjoying the last vestiges of a society they didn't build. When spicy time comes, don't think it will be 19 year old Gender Studies majors that you will be facing. Be prepared for people who know what they are doing and have no qualms about doing it.

Friday, September 13, 2019

Meth-head Toddler "Beto" Is Coming For Your ARs

Well not Robert Francis O'Rourke personally. He couldn't take lunch money from a 1st grade girl but he sure plans on sending actual men to try to take your AR/AK if you don't allow him to "buy back" a gun the government never owned and do so with your own money.

The whole buy back thing is such a farce. If you are riding your bike and some hooligan stops you, points a gun at you and takes your wallet; opens your wallet and takes all of your money; and finally gives you some of your own money back and tells you he is "buying" your bike "back", that is pretty much the same thing as a "assault weapons buy-back", just a fancy term for stealing your property in return for some of your own money they previously stole from you via taxes. But everyone with an ounce of sense already realizes two things:

One, it isn't a buyback when it is mandatory. It is an unlawful taking and a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Second, the tens of millions of owners of AR/Ak platform tactical rifles aren't going to turn them in.

That isn't dissuading crazy arms O'Rourke.

This seems like a serious candidate for President

Since there is no legitimate reason to vote for "Beto" and the only reason he is in the debates at this point is that the media thinks he is a Spanish speaking JFK, he has to say increasingly wacky stuff to get attention. Last night at the debate he declared that "Hell yes, we're gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47." Again, "Beto" isn't coming for anything, but as President he seems to be saying that he is happy to send law enforcement officers, who I suspect have real criminals to chase, to kick down the doors of non-compliant owners of AR/AK rifles. Gee, I am sure it is a great idea to inflame emotions on all sides and then think that cops are going to cheerfully kick in doors to take weapons from regular citizens that typically are loaded with full metal jacket rounds that can punch through a lot of types of body armor. What a genius plan, sort of like expecting that a fixed wall on your border with Germany will stop them from, you know, just going around it. "Beto" didn't waste any time monetizing his threats of tyranny, you can buy a t-shirt with his statement on it and wear it in public so everyone knows you are a dumbass.

Needless to say, a lot of people didn't take kindly to Bobby Frank O'Rourke threatening to send SWAT teams into our homes to take our property. One Texas state representative, Briscoe Cain, let "Beto" know that such an attempt will not be responded to with tea and crumpets. Of course "Beto", after threatening tens of millions of Americans with having their doors kicked in by armed men, shrieked like a little girl and charged for the fainting couch.

The tweet was deleted but Briscoe got himself a new follower on Twitter.

Beto is a clown that no serious person takes seriously but in a way he is like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (she seems to have lost some of the spotlight lately). AOC's entire purpose right now is to be the real-life equivalent of a video game "tank", in other words to be able to absorb lots of incoming fire. Beto serves a purpose for Democrats by saying crazy stuff to allow other, more serious Democrats to say slightly less crazy stuff and seem almost reasonable by comparison. Every Democrat contender would love to have a total ban on most firearms but they know that right now doing so is incredibly problematic and confiscation is far more so. You start kicking down doors and people are going to get killed, both gun owners and cops alike, and if a few gun owners get killed by cops in these raids, it is going to get ugly. The Oklahoma City bombing, if you believe the official story, was done in large part as retaliation for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Those two events happened before the internet was widespread and involved some people easily dismissed as fruitcakes and religious fanatics. If some accountant gets shot in his suburban home in a no-knock raid or even worse a little kid gets hit by stray fire from an overzealous SWAT shooter? It will be all over the internet in minutes. The fuse is already very short for many, many people and I think the vast majority of county sheriffs are not going to start sending their deputies into homes to get shot at or to shoot homeowners.

Robert Francis O'Rourke's statement last night was childish and risible but it is a solid reminder of what I said yesterday: If nothing else, Trump bought us some time but the window to purchase firearms, ammo and accessories is closing quickly and once it closes, it won't reopen short of a civil war.

Make sure your household budget reflects this.

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Trump Buying Time

As I have stated before, Trump is completely untrustworthy when it comes to firearms and the 2nd Amendment. As a billionaire, he will always be able to provide armed security for himself, his family and his properties. If his family wants to go trophy hunting in Africa or shoot trap at a private club, they will always be able to. Being wealthy means gun laws don't matter, which is why 145 top corporate executives came out recently demanding the Senate "do something" about gun violence, or at least the relatively rare gun violence that gets so much news coverage rather than the generic black on black gun violence that occurs on a daily basis.

However Trump does have a certain utility. I am in the camp that says that Trump will be the last Republican President, win or lose in 2020. The demographic shift cannot be overcome without altering the basic, although rarely followed, framework of what it means to be a Republican to the point that it no longer even pretends to be "conservative".

What this means is that gun control is going to only get worse. For a while gun control has been radioactive for Democrats who still relied on working class whites to win national elections but as 2016 and the political scene since has shown, the Left doesn't care about working class whites and is content to build a coalition based on the super wealthy oligarchs, liberal white apparatchiks and the growing number of non-white voters who have ingested a lifetime of racial resentment. That means....

Worst case scenario, there is another high profile, and not at all a false flag, "mass shooting" involving a white guy and an AR-15. Trump does the dumb thing and enacts some B.S. knee jerk response that pisses off his base who doesn't show up in 2020 and he loses to Elizabeth Warren, dragging the Congress down with him. Warren goes on the warpath and starts enacting executive orders to ban and confiscate guns.

Best case scenario, the Dems nominate crazy Joe Biden who continues to implode into early stage dementia and maybe as a bonus gets handsy with a teenager on camera. Trump wins re-election and helps Republicans hold the Senate and retake the House. The total ban and confiscation train gets delayed for a few years.

Most likely scenario, Trump loses a close election, the House stays fairly static and the GOP holds the Senate by a razor thin margin. Milder gun control measures start to pass the House immediately and the cowardly GOP in the Senate passes them, probably with some transparently bogus assurances of getting something in return, promises that never materialize. By 2024 Democrats take permanent control of both houses of Congress and a perpetual hold on the Oval Office. They add seats to the Supreme Court to create a liberal super-majority that will rubber stamp gun control measures.

Under any scenario not involving mass bloodshed, open revolt and civil war, it would be safe to assume that by the middle of the 2020s it will be impossible to buy most commonly sold firearms, ammunition will be likewise difficult to obtain and illegal to import and ship, "high capacity" magazines will be outlawed as will private sales of firearms. Red flag laws will be universal at the Federal level, leaving the few remaining gun owners at the mercy of the small number of "mental health" workers who themselves are the least mentally stable subset of America. The big package carriers (UPS/USPS/FedEx) will stop shipping firearms even for licensed FFLs, making it almost impossible to run a gun store. Companies manufacturing and selling firearms components that can be assembled into a working firearm will get shut down. As firearm sales dwindle away, companies making accessories will die out. What is Magpul going to make when you can't get new AR-15s to accessorize and you can't sell 30 round PMAGs?

Get the picture yet?

I'll spell it out. What I am saying is that whatever you have in the way of firearms and ammunition, components and accessories, when you ring in the New Year on December 31, 2024, is all you are ever going to have.

Right now a lot of people are worried but we are also living in what I have described as the Golden Age of Gun Buying. I can go online and find just about any legal firearm available in America from multiple sources who will sell me a gun and ship it, often for free, to a FFL ten minutes from my house. I can get ammunition by the hundreds or thousands of rounds, shipped direct to my door and I can browse the very best deal at will including some of the same calibers that Wal-Mart has decided to stop carrying for less than $.20/round which is cheaper than Wal-Mart anyway and doesn't require the degrading trip to one of their stores. You can get reliable magazines, likewise dirt cheap, delivered. Any accessory you can imagine, same thing. Because it is so easy and relatively inexpensive to get whatever you want, far too many people spend gobs of money pimping out their tactical rifles instead of stocking up on more practical items. Sure you can get a nice M-1 Garand for $1300 or you can get an AR-15, a dozen 30 round mags and 5000 rounds of ammo. Which is more practical?

The reason we are in this Golden Age is that Trump won in 2020 instead of Hillary. If she had won, there would already be a ton of restrictions in place and executive orders being contested in the courts, courts which would look very different. If Hillary had won, two of the existing justices would be far, far Left instead of moderately conservative (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh). Ruth Bader Ginsburg would probably have retired and been replaced by Barack Obama or a 30 year old transgender freak. Trump's win has turned out to be terribly disappointing in many ways but in one very specific way it has been an incredible gift.

It is a very precious and finite gift: time. Maybe a year and a half, maybe five more years. Or perhaps less.

Many of us seem to be taking advantage. Not me of course, as guns are evil and naughty and cause acne. But a lot of other people. Here is the latest background check chart from the NSSF.

Background checks trended way up in August over last year but look at that chart for a pattern and what you see is that on average every month in America there are a million background checks performed, and most successful background checks represent a new firearm being purchased by a private citizen. Even in the relatively slow sales of the Trump administration that works out to north of 20 million new guns in private hands in the last two years. I expect that to only ramp up, especially if it looks like Trump is going to lose in 2020. So people are paying attention. I hope those 20 million new guns represent 20 million new gun owners instead of a few people buying a couple of guns a month but either way it has to scare our would-be commissars.

You have only so much time left. I would even suggest that while you can always get canned and freeze-dried foods, your window for firearms and ammo is rapidly closing.

Your household budget should reflect this reality.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

September 11th

A child born on September 11th, 2001 would be 18 years old today and a legal adult. A newborn on that fateful day can now vote and enlist in the military. That is hard to believe

Meanwhile the "war" in Afghanistan drags on and on. Trump to his credit is sort of, in his stumbling and clumsy way, trying to get us out of that endless mess but he is opposed and constrained on all sides by his bloodthirsty neocon advisers. People like barely closeted Lindsey Graham and my own Congressman Jim Banks oppose any and all efforts to even reduce the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. It is obvious that we are never going to "win" in Afghanistan and when we do eventually leave the Taliban will take over again. All that we accomplish by staying there is more lives lost in vain, more money wasted and a few military contractors getting a little bit wealthier. Whatever the real reasons for going there in the first place are mostly forgotten, now we stay because we don't want anyone to think we "lost" a conflict where there is no possibility of winning.

Like many events, September 11th is one where time and distance have not eliminated the sting but they also seem to have increased for many people the questions. While I am not a "conspiracy theory" guy in general, especially since that is now considered a precursor to "domestic terrorism", I find that 18 years after the events of that day that I believe the official narrative less than ever, and my confidence that we know what really happened diminishes with each passing year. We are supposed to tear up and talk about unity on 9/11 but that isn't working for me and many others. Not anymore. Our government that we long suspected is not acting in our best interests has been shown since 2016 to be in open revolt against the constraints the law places on it and is unapologetic in its hostility to the American people. Today, I not only am beginning to believe that the government is capable of pulling off something nefarious like 9/11, I am reluctantly coming to the place where I think much of the government would enthusiastically support doing something like what "conspiracy" types accuse them of. Do I think there are a sufficient number of Deep State operatives that are as insane as psychopath John Bolton to the point they would kill thousands of Americans to launch some wars?


America on September 11th, 2019 is a very different place from 9/11/01. Gone is any pretense of "unity". The fractures that were already appearing under the imbecilic W. Bush widened dramatically under The Great Divider Obama and have split completely asunder over the last three years. Gone too is the black and white dichotomy, the "you are either with us or with the terrorists". More people are starting to suspect that a lot of this "war on terror" is really the U.S. being manipulated into fighting the wars of another nation, our "Greatest Ally and Truest Friend In The Whole Wide World™", Israel, a nation that is such a great pal that we not only give them tens of billions of dollars in "aid", we also spend untold billions more and spill American blood to keep her safe. But to be fair, we also get nothing in return for our friendship. With friends like that...

9/11 remains the defining moment of the 21st century. So far. The new century and millennium kicked off with a mass killing that led to the endless wars in the Middle East we currently are dealing with. With the nation distracted by the "War On Terror" and sportsball and trannies, our people are being replaced, our borders have been overrun for decades and the United States stands at the precipice of civil war.

Whatever the real story of 9/11 turns out to be, and we will likely never know, the losers in the aftermath are the descendants of the people who created a new nation out of a hostile wilderness and who then sat by mutely while that glorious nation descended into chaos and ruin. That will be the true legacy of September 11th.

Saturday, September 7, 2019

More From The World Of Professional Care-Givers

How is this for a headline:

Delaware daycare worker, 19, charged with murder of baby girl

You can find lots of videos of daycare workers losing their temper and striking children. That is not what happened here.

The Delaware State Police announced Friday that Dejoynay Ferguson has been charged with Murder 1st Degree. She was committed to the Dolores J. Baylor Women's Correctional Institution on $1-million cash bail.

If you Google "cold blooded inhuman soul-less killer", this is the first image result. She was charged with Murder in the 1st degree because of how this went down. More from the story....

According to police documents, video from inside the daycare show Ferguson grabbing the 4-month-old girl from the floor, and putting her on a changing table.

Ferguson is seen putting on latex gloves and then allegedly covering the infant's mouth and nose for more than three minutes.

Police said the child became motionless and unresponsive before Ferguson removes her hands.

Ferguson then placed the child back into a crib, according to police.

After approximately 20 minutes, police said Ferguson told the owner of the daycare that the baby was unresponsive and 911 was called.

She was clearly thinking this through. She put on gloves so she wouldn't leave prints on the baby. She smothered her which I assume doesn't leave a mark. She held her hands over the baby's mouth and nose for longer than three minutes. If you have the stomach for it, try putting your hands on a dolls mouth and nose and time yourself to see how long three minutes is, then imagine that instead of a doll it was a tiny, living baby. She put the baby in a crib so it would look like the baby died of natural causes. Then she waited for 20 minutes before notifying the owner, I assume to make sure the baby was really dead. They said she killed the baby because she wouldn't stop crying, as 4 month old babies sometimes will not, but this has the markings of something she planned out ahead of time.

The coldness exhibited here is frankly something a normal human can't even imagine. We have had 8 kids that used to be small babies that sometimes you couldn't console. It is frustrating but this wasn't even her kid. The parent would be by later to pick her up, or you could go home for the day or just quit your job but to smother a 4 month old to death allegedly because it wouldn't stop crying? I wonder what the ladies in the Dolores J. Baylor Women's Correctional Institution will think of a 19 year old that murdered a 4 month old? I am sure they will have a warm welcome for her.

Is that new iPhone or a pair of newer cars in the garage worth it?

Daycare workers are not family. They are paid to care for strange children in difficult circumstances. You can never expect the same care to come from a stranger that you would get from family. Sure, actual family members sometimes do terrible things to their own relations but that is the exception. How often do we hear about step-parents and boyfriends doing terrible things to step-children? Those "step-children" are not their kids and never will be. Just this week I read stories about a 13 year old girl in Australia who was molested by her step-father for years. A five year old little boy in London beaten to death by his mom's boyfriend because the little boy lost his shoe. Just a short drive from me a step-mother strangled a ten year old girl to death. Of course there are lots of kids with loving step-parents or even live-in boyfriend/girlfriend situations. The point is that family is instinctively going to care for family better than non-family. A step-mom didn't hold a newborn moments after giving birth, an experience that creates a lifelong bond between mother and child.

I post stuff like this to remind people of the importance and irreplaceable nature of family.

If your plan is to jazzercise and hot yoga your way into perpetual health and think that will save you, think again. All it takes is one unexpected catastrophic health crisis and you can become dependent on care from others, either family or strangers. You can't replace family when it comes to care-giving. Having all the right aesthetics and just the right philosophy isn't going to mean a hill of beans without a family to care for and be cared for. Our fight is for the future, but without children and families what is the point? I don't do what I do for me, I do it for my kids and grandkids. If there isn't a next generation to build a better world for, what is the point?

Friday, September 6, 2019

What Makes Wal-Mart Different

After the announcement by Wal-Mart that it would stop carrying certain types of ammunition and that it would ask in a non-confrontational manner that customers refrain from open-carrying firearms in their stores, a number of other retailers did the same. In the eyes of corporate America it is a pretty safe virtue signal. There really aren't that many people who open-carry, at least not around here probably due in large part to so many people having concealed carry permits. I don't own a gun cuz they are yucky and evil and I certainly don't carry one but if I did I would probably prefer to quietly carry concealed for no other reason than to avoid having the cops confuse me with a shooter or having some genius try to grab my gun from the holster. If I owned a gun that is. 

The Wal-Mart announcement is drawing a lot of fire (pun intended) in part because Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world and one that traditionally catered to rural and suburban Americans, the kind of people most likely to be gun rights supporters. Wal-Mart made a decision that is aimed at placating the sort of people who don't shop at their stores anyway. That is bad enough but a lot of retailers are doing the same thing. What is really bad is that Wal-Mart CEO Doug McMillon decided to make a political statement as well as announcing a business decision. From the Wal-Mart corporate website on September 3rd, 2019 (emphasis in red mine): 

Finally, we encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger. We do not sell military-style rifles, and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness. 

That is where Wal-Mart crossed a line.

Wal-Mart stores, unlike social media platforms which are now de facto public spaces, are completely privately owned (we can argue about the tax incentives and impact on communities later). They are physical spaces on privately owned land. I can buy anything I can get at Wal-Mart somewhere else. I might pay more but then again I might not but what goes on in a Wal-Mart store doesn't impact me unless I choose to let it impact me.

But advocating for a ban on "assault weapons"? That impacts me whether I shop in your stores or not. That impacts other companies and the livelihood of their workers whether they shop in your stores or not. It makes a lawful product suddenly unlawful because they are scary looking and in spite of a lack of any evidence that the "assault weapons" ban did anything to reduce crime, especially since rifles of any sort of very rarely used in crime. It crossed the line from a private business decision to a political decision and that is a whole different creature. Someone could never purchase so much as a gallon of milk from Wal-Mart but regardless have their liberty infringed because the CEO and board of directors of Wal-Mart want to make a political statement coldly calculated to appeal to suburban housewives and maybe keep the hounds away from their stores that are trying to unionize their workers.

Wal-Mart can make whatever rules they want in their own stores but when they cross into advocacy of issues that are not directly related to their business, that is a different matter. I don't often shop at Wal-Mart, their customers are often icky and their staff makes fast-food places look good. I won't shop there at all going forward. My Sam's Club membership is pretty handy but next year when my rewards balance is available, I will use it to get a Costco membership. Maybe Costco is just as bad but I haven't heard their CEO advocating for disarming law-abiding citizens. 

Wal-Mart started out as a little thrift store where Sam Walton sold goods he bought for low prices and it grew into a global goliath. I wonder what he would think of his organization today? I am just one guy but back in the day Sam Walton understood that their business relies on their customers and thanks to Doug McMillon sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, Wal-Mart lost one this week. Maybe someone should show Doug this quote:

There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.

Sam Walton

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Boogaloo getting closer

Tim Pool has the story of the FBI starting to (finally) pay attention to antifa as a armed and hostile movement.

As they have previously spent all of their time and effort chasing "right wing extremists", it is a refreshing change that they are starting to recognize the much greater organized threat of antifa and other radical Left groups.

Antifa is getting bolder because they stay in their lane. They only operate when they outnumber their opponents by a wide margin. They stay in their urban enclaves where the police and government will support them or at least turn a blind eye. This is making them increasingly willing to be more open about their intent as well as taking outright actions. That has caught the eye of the Feds.

Sooner or later they are going to get bold enough to try something in a place where they are not on secure footing and that is going to go sideways for them. Or they are going to kill someone minding their own business and trigger a reprisal. Either way, the Boogaloo-mobile is warming up.

Is Bernie Sanders Sort Of Right?

Most of Democrat presidential contenders held a "climate change" town hall hosted by totally impartial and not at all partisan CNN last night. The goal was to see who could be the most over the top on the issue. I didn't watch as I would rather have crushed glass rubbed into my eyeballs but Commisar Bernie Sanders was asked a very difficult and complex question that deserves more thought. Here is his response to a question about "climate change" and "reproductive rights".

Just as a side note, the woman speaking is named Martha Readyoff, a teacher from New Milford, Connecticut. Just look at her again:

I can only imagine what being in her classroom is like. She looks like a nightmare for any non-homo white male students in her class, she looks and sounds like the very embodiment of the radical angry cat lady feminist that worships aborting babies while "teaching" children, spending most of her time daydreaming about opening a fresh can of cat food for her 17 cats in her single bedroom apartment. Take a good look, this is the face of modern liberal eugenics.

Of course this being a "town  hall" and having limited time, Sanders just gave a boilerplate response complete with the "wammen have a right to murder their babies" before making a 30 second response. The question is an important one and deserves a serious discussion.

I have shown this graph before and I am sure I will again. This is what Steve Sailer calls the world's most important graph.

Obviously the problem is not white people having too many kids (or creating too much garbage or pollution for that matter). The most pressing demographic problem that will impact the natural world over the next 50-75 years is the rapidly increasing population in the 3rd world, most notably Africa. This is also the major environmental concern for the world, an exploding population of people who coincidentally don't share the Western concern for the environment. On the path we are on, there are three possible scenarios for Africa and the rest of the developing world.

Scenario One: As Western nations drown in debt they will eventually no longer be able to provide aid to Africa and peacekeeping forces. When that happens there will be a humanitarian cataclysm like the world hasn't seen for hundreds of years. Starvation, disease, war and genocide on an unprecedented scale on a continent with a couple billion people. All the stars singing "We are the world" won't stop it. The death toll will be in the hundreds of millions and it will all happen live for the rest of the world to watch in real-time.

Scenario Two: Like above but guilt stricken Western nations open the floodgate to "refugees" and The Camp of the Saints comes to life. Europe and the U.S. can't handle the flood. Already in Europe in many places the "refugees" that are supposed to fill the jobs left open thanks to Europeans not having children are unemployed at rates of up to 80%. The Western social safety net systems don't work when the number of beneficiaries wildly outpaces the number of contributors. Net result, the same thing happens as in Scenario One, just slightly delayed and now the African apocalypse takes the Western world down with it.

Scenario Three: The West starts to have serious conversations about our responsibility in the exploding population of Africa. Africa's population isn't reaching a sustainable equilibrium because we are subsidizing bad behavior and a suicidal population trajectory. In essence we are enabling their population to grow to dangerous and unsustainable levels out of a misplaced altruism. Again, I am completely opposed to abortion under any circumstances. I can't see murdering a child in the womb as a moral alternative. However, there are lots of other ways to reduce fertility via incentives and contraception. Would I be opposed to putting oral contraceptives in food aid we send to Africa? No. No I would not be opposed to that.

Unfortunately we can't have serious conversations about this because, as with everything, it becomes a racial and cultural issue. We can only scold and hector white people about the environment. Only white people have autistic teenagers sail from one of their nations to another one to repeat the "climate change" talking points they have been trained to say. Even though most of the plastic pollution comes from Asia, we are told we should be guilty about using plastic straws. Really, there is only one culture that cares about the environment and it is Western whites. People in Africa, India, Haiti, South America, most of Asia, don't give a crap. Only we do. Ironically we are told we can't breed for the sake of the planet while people from cultures that cheerfully pollute like crazy have enormous families, and not only are we not allowed to say anything, we are required to subsidize these huge populations and then provide them shelter in our own nations when they wreck the ones they live in. Pointing this out is responded to by screeching about colonialism and white supremacy. Better blacks in Africa starve by the tens of millions than white people point out the obvious.

The question asked by the creepy cat lady teacher was an important one but unfortunately the "solutions" she and Bernie would agree on won't do anything to solve the problem. Africa cannot continue to overpopulate itself and swamp the world. Africans already can't self-manage their own countries, there is nothing to indicate they will be any more successful in other nations.

This issue of third world overpopulation is going to come to a head at some point and hectoring white people about it isn't solving anything. At some point we will have to have a serious conversation about it. The alternative is watching mass starvation on social media.