Wednesday, 26 October 2016

That puckering feeling in the rectum...

That's the feeling that the Hilldebeast is undoubtedly experiencing right now- because the polls, which have been all over the place during this election cycle, are now tightening, and that spells very big trouble for the Rottenmuncher:
Donald Trump holds a narrow two-point lead over Hillary Clinton in battleground Florida, as the two camps fight over a state that both are calling a big prize. 
Trump leads Clinton by 45 to 43 in the latest Bloomberg News poll in a race where third party candidates are included. 
In a hypothetical two-way match up between the two main contenders, Trump's lead falls to just one point, 46 to 45 per cent. 
Among critical independent voters, Trump is holding a narrow lead of 43 to 41 per cent.
It's not just Florida. It's becoming a national phenomenon:
Polls are tightening in the presidential race with less than two weeks to go before Election Day. 
Some new surveys show Democrat Hillary Clinton’s national polling edge narrowing and Republican Donald Trump performing more strongly in the swing state of Florida. 
Trump still faces a steep uphill climb, and the Electoral College map is extremely challenging for him. But the movement in the poll numbers gives his campaign hope after perhaps the worst phase of his campaign. 
A new Bloomberg poll in Florida gave Trump a 2-point edge on Wednesday. In the RealClearPolitics (RCP) polling average in the Sunshine State, Clinton’s edge has been eroded from 4 percentage points on Oct. 21 to 1.6 points now. 
In the RCP national average, Clinton’s lead has softened from 7.1 points on Oct. 17 to 5.1 points now. 
If the polls froze in their current position, Clinton would win the White House comfortably. But the fluidity is causing even some Democrats to warn against complacency. 
“I think we have to wait and see where we are a week from now,” said one Democratic strategist who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “But races aren’t over 13 days out. Races are over on Election Day.”
Let's not get our hopes up just yet. There is still a very real likelihood that The Bitch will be sworn in as President of the United States of America next January- at which point, it's game over. Stick a fork in America, the country is done.

And let's be real about one thing. President Trump is not going to save the country. I may call him the God-Emperor, but that nickname is half-ironic because, in the Warhammer 40K universe, the God-Emperor of Mankind saw his glorious dream for his race shattered by the climactic battle against evil incarnate.

(Sometimes reality imitates fiction, and not the other way around.)

But the signs are in Mr. Trump's favour. I, for one, am very much hoping that I can go to my aunt's place for Thanksgiving this year- she lives in a ridiculously deep-blue county and is herself the flightiest of airheaded liberals- to find everyone else in a deep funk about the fact that The Bitch lost.

That would be an epic moment. I would get through my list of thanks- I know I'm going to be the only one at the table who will thank the Lord of Creation, and that's even with supposed Christians sitting there- and then, right at the end, I'll be able to say:
And I'm thankful for one more thing. I thank God for the fact that I can say these words- which at one point I thought I would never, ever be able to say in public: thank You, Lord, for PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump!!!
I would be lucky to walk out of there without being pelted with food- at minimum. (Actually, at a table of effete liberals, I'd probably be the only one who has ever formed an actual fist, so I would likely be fine. Not to mention that I am always armed with some form of weapon.)

But it would be totally worth it.

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

War and culture, Pt. 1: Why the West keeps losing

A long time ago, in a township far, far away- which is to say, probably sometime around early 2009 or thereabouts, in what I'm guessing was probably a semi-remote part of Virginia- a certain retired ex-Army Ranger and infantry battalion commander sat down to write a certain novel that eventually became Book 12 of John Ringo's Legacy of the Aldenata series.

That book was, of course, The Tuloriad. Quite aside from being a really rather good work of science fiction- it made my top-5 list of fiction books that I read in 2015- it also does a very good job of making a serious philosophical point.

And the basic point that this certain retired Lieutenant Colonel- who was, and judging by his recent writing, still is, in his own words, deeply interested in the "militantly and violently aggressive anti-communism market"- wanted to make in writing that book was pretty simple: don't bring a knife to a gunfight, especially a gunfight that involves defending your culture, your faith, and your very way of life.

Now obviously, I have no right whatsoever to speak for LTC Tom Kratman- for many reasons, including and not limited to the fact that he actually reads what I write from time to time. (And not just the posts involving girls with titanic tits either.)

Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the essential point that LTC Kratman was trying to make in that book was this: there are certain things about our way of life that are worth fighting for, worth dying for, and if you're going to die for something, then it damned well helps to believe in the values that caused you to take a stand in the first place.

This is advice that is well worth bearing in mind these days, as what is left of Western culture slides ever deeper and faster into the abyss.

My friends, the simple fact is that the West is dying.

Its people have ceased to breed. Its greatest cities are being flooded with hordes of immigrants, legal and illegal. Entire neighbourhoods of London and New York and Paris are no longer recognisable as being distinctly "English" or "American" or "French"; the people who inhabit these locales speak every language on Earth except for the one known as the mother tongue of their host nation. The most glorious ancient cathedrals of nations that were once proudly Christian are empty; I have personally seen, not far from where I live, a former church building now being used as a mosque.

The Men of the West no longer have the will to fight for their civilisation. They have forgotten all the good that it brought to them. They have failed to learn the lessons of the recent past.

Whether we like it or not, it is distinctly possible that you and I will live to see the final destruction of Western civilisation as we know it today.

The reasons behind the decline and fall of Western civilisation are many and varied. To paraphrase that rather good line from Isaac Asimov's first Foundation novel, somewhere in the past fifty years, historians will draw a line and say, "this marks the Fall of the West". They will argue about the causes at great length, and first one point of view and then another will hold sway, just as has been the case throughout the history of, well, history.

Some will argue that it was the very success of Western civilisation that caused its destruction. Others will state that the West allowed itself to be given a lethal dose of an extraordinarily virulent and rapidly mutating virus called cultural Marxism. Still others will argue that specific historical forces that follow relatively predictable patterns and cycles were at play. And yet more will argue that the Men of the West destroyed themselves the moment that they were stupid enough to permit the barbarians of the world to invade them under the guise of peace and in the name of sharing out the prosperity.

All of these things are actually true to greater or lesser degrees, depending on your point of view. But none of these arguments, or any similar arguments, can address the reason as to why the West is simply folding up without (so far) much by way of a fight.

The reason is simple: the Men of the West have ceased to believe that they have anything left to fight for.

And that will get them killed.

We are up against enemies of a kind that the Western world has not seen or fought against for over three hundred years, such has been the utter dominance and supremacy of the Western ways of both war and peace.

It has been said before, correctly, that civilisations are destroyed from within long before they are ever conquered from without. The Anglosphere's internal enemies are, of course, the cultural Marxists, the progressives, and the suicidally stupid "social justice" types. Its external enemies are primarily worshippers of the Mohammedan heresy of Christianity that we know as Islam.

If it were not for the presence of Western civilisation to provide a common enemy, these two forces would normally be busily and happily invested in attempting to destroy each other.

Godless progressives see the ambiguous, amorphous goal of "social justice", whatever that means in any given context, as their ultimate objective, and brook no opposition to enforcing a rigid uniformity of thought and action.

Islamists seek the totally unambiguous and absolutely straightforward establishment of a monolithic theocratic state in which even the possibility of questioning the purpose of their "god" is met with instant and brutal retaliation.

Both enemies seek different ends that look startlingly similar, at least at a superficial level. But they achieve those ends in largely identical fashion.

They start by identifying a civilisation that has, essentially, run out of serious problems to solve- as the West has. In Western civilisation, most of the problems that have plagued Mankind since the dawn of history have largely disappeared. Poverty, disease, war, famine, and even death have all been mostly conquered within the West, such has been the transformative power of the West's hard-won prosperity.

They exaggerate or invent injustices that exist in the host society, reaching outward to convert, then inward to destroy. Once they have achieved a significant enough critical mass of new converts, they begin enforcing their ideology through the power of the State, which is the first target for their subversive activities.

They achieve this by exploiting the very results of the successes that have made their hosts great. The Western world has been the pinnacle of civilisation for well over three hundred years- no other way of life has come even close in the centuries before or since the Enlightenment in attaining material prosperity, security, or freedom. The result of this success has inevitably been complacency, laxity, and sloth.

After all, if you live in a society where even the poorest 20% of the population possesses material wealth that rivals the richest 20% in many of the world's less successful cultures, you might be forgiven for thinking that life really cannot get any better, and that there really is not any point in trying to maintain and enhance the ancient virtues and traditions that got your culture to where it is.

And that, unfortunately, is where the West is today. Its people have lost faith and reason at precisely the moment when it is needed the most. There is a deep crisis of confidence within America and its European allies, a sense that the values and traditions that created the West are no longer relevant or are dying out.

Which brings us back to the reason why the West simply is not capable of winning against its current enemies, both foreign and domestic.

SJWs, for all of their vileness, at least believe in something- however ridiculous, irrational, and unrealistic. Try talking to a radical feminist or a "transgender rights activist" and you'll quickly realise that you're dealing with an ideologue, a man (or woman- though honestly with these crazies it's hard to tell the sexes apart) who cannot be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with into a different point of view.

You're dealing with someone who just wants to watch the world burn.

The same is true, even more so, of Islamists. They believe in a cause far greater than themselves. They believe that an eternal reward awaits them for their sacrifices on this Earth. And they will not tolerate any opposition to their beliefs.

Against belief like that, the increasingly godless, hedonistic, consumerist West simply will not stand a chance.

Without belief in something worth fighting for, and without men and women willing to fight and die to protect those values and traditions that gave birth to the greatest, freest, most advanced nations the world has ever known, the West will die, and all of the great good that it has done will die with it.

Monday, 24 October 2016

Guess the ethnicity, Philly Cheese Steak Edition

So it turns out that a young white girl, among others, was beaten up by a "flash mob" of assailants in Philadelphia.

OK, well, tragic as that is, why is that news? After all, this seems to be happening every other day in America's most "diverse" cities.

Well, read through the article and see what it says about the attackers- or, to be more precise, what it DOES NOT say:
Four teenagers have been arrested after a series of flash mob style attacks around Temple University campus in which students were beaten by gangs of juveniles. 
Police said that in a spate of attacks on Friday night, students were surrounded, then punched, kicked, robbed and in some cases knocked to the ground by groups of teens. 
Groups of between 20 and 100 young people roved the university campus in northern Philadelphia for nearly two hours from 8pm and picked on people at random. 
Six students were injured and a university police officer who was knocked to the ground. A police horse was punched in the face by a 15-year-old boy. 
In a separate incident a young woman was held down and stomped repeatedly before employees from a nearby pizza place intervened, her father said. 
Another junior posted pictures of her black eye. She says the attackers punched her in the face as she walked back to her apartment with her boyfriend. 
Temple spokesman Ray Betzner told television station NBC 10 that the mobs of teenagers played a 'cat-and-mouse game' with police. 
Joe Lauletta wrote on Facebook on Saturday that that his daughter Christina Lauletta was a victim of one of the groups. 
His post, in which he claims she was held down and kicked and stomped until every part of her body was bruised, has been shared 4,000 times. 
He wrote: 'I find out that her and her 2 male friends where badly beaten by a group of 30-40 black teenagers on their way home from the Temple football game. 
'This happened after they got off the subway at Broad and Cecil B Moore. These sick animals held her down and kicked and stomped on her repeatedly. 
'Thank god, the people from the pizza place intervened. They arrested 2 people at the scene.' 
'I have not let Christina out of my sight, she is resting. Every part of her body is badly bruised, it makes me cry just thinking about it. No broken bones. 
'If you have children at Temple, tell them to be careful. Please keep Christina Lauletta in your thoughts.' 
Two people face aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy and robbery charges over the attack, reported. 
In a different incident that led to an arrest, a boy threw a Temple officer to the ground.

The 15-year-old boy has been charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest, according to 
In another incident, police said a 15-year-old boy punched a police horse twice in the face as mounted officers were trying to break up a crowd at a street corner. 
Authorities have charged him with assaulting a police service animal, reported. 
In all, 50 juveniles were taken into custody.
Well now. Ain't that interesting. Multiple paragraphs describing the incidents that occurred in Philly, yet not one word given about the identities or the ethnicities of the attackers. I wonder why that is...

Does anybody remember the Duke University lacrosse rape scandal from about ten years back? Remember how, within about ten minutes of the story breaking, we had a pretty good idea that all of the supposed perpetrators of what was apparently a truly horrific crime were privileged white university frat boys?

And remember how the mainstream (((media))) constantly threw the race card in people's faces when covering this story, right up to and including the day on which the boys involved were completely exonerated in court?

How very interesting that, in this case, not a whisper is to be heard about the race and nature of the attackers. Could this be perhaps because Philadelphia is 44.1% black?

Ah. Perhaps we are on to something here. After all, as Colin Flaherty has documented in not one but two books by this point, cities with large black populations are the most likely to play host to episodes of racial violence- inflicted by blacks, upon everyone else.

The basic rule of the mainstream (((media))) these days is simple: they lie. They serve no interest but their own. They are not interested in reporting facts anymore, if they ever were. They are not concerned with telling you what you need to know; they only care that you believe what they tell you to, like an obedient little consuming economic animal.

If you ever question their narrative, if you ever step out of line and attempt to see beyond the painted veil, they will do their utmost to destroy you.

The problem is, of course, that they won't be able to hide the truth for much longer. The nice thing about the truth is that it eventually wins out in the end- because it is true and therefore needs no other reason or support for its existence, while lies require ever greater lies in order to sustain themselves.

Sooner or later, the truth will out about exactly who the suspects were behind these assaults. And sooner, rather than later, white America is going to discover that it has precious little in common with, and much to fear from, black America.

Hold on to your hats and your guns and ammo, folks. When that day comes, it's going to be a wild ride- and a deeply unpleasant one at that.

Sunday, 23 October 2016

Please shoot the Bieber-clone in the face

LastRedoubt pointed me toward the trailer for the next John Wick film, and I have to say, it looks BADASS:

I didn't get around to watching the first John Wick until, I think, April this year. This was despite the fact that reader Carey had emphatically told me how good it was back in March- LAST year.

In my defence, I can be somewhat dense sometimes and I have (admittedly) terrible taste in movies.

Hey, I didn't say it was a good defence.

Anyway, so I finally sat my ass down and watched John Wick. I was hooked within the first ten minutes.

I did not think that Keanu Reeves had that kind of acting depth to him. I've always thought of him as this sort of emotionless robot who can only speak in one tone of voice and is best suited to either big-budget action films like The Matrix (I do not consider the "sequels" to be worthy of mentioning by name), or more offbeat comedies like The Replacements.

Don't get me wrong, he's actually a great actor. It just doesn't seem like he would be given his CV.

And then I watched John Wick. Hoo boy, was I ever wrong.

This new film looks like it's going to take all of the best stuff from the first movie and then crank the speakers all the way up to 11. Which is great. But the thing I like the most, potentially, about this new movie is the fact that one of the main antagonists appears to look an AWFUL lot like Justin Bieber.

Given the pattern established by the previous film, and looking at what happens in the trailer, it would appear that he, too, will get shot in the face by our anti-hero.

To which I say: do we REALLY have to wait through TWO HOURS OF MOVIE to see that happen?!?!?

How your dog REALLY sees you

So I was watching a comedy special starring Iliza Schlesinger the other day, who turns out to be a very funny young lady. Some of her stuff is a bit hit-or-miss, but other parts of her routines are side-splitting. The special in question was, I think, War Paint on Netflix- or something else that sounds exactly like the title of a great RUSH song.

Anyway, this "young" lady (she's actually a couple of years older than me, which means she ain't no spring chicken) had a moment in her routine where she dragged her dog out onto the stage and held her up, hugged close to her chest, about four feet off the ground, in order to create her own Sarah McLachlan-esque SPCA commercial.

The skit itself was funny enough, I suppose, but what really knocked me over was the expression on the dog's face.

You will not recreate this look on a human no matter how hard you try. The specific look was something that combined pants-wetting terror with the kind of face you make when your mother starts trying to use hipster vernacular in order to make herself sound... er... what's the modern phrase... "hip to the jive", I guess??? (Don't look at me, I have no idea how a hipster speaks. Mostly because, when a hipster opens his mouth, my first instinct is to punch him, hard.)

It was a look that said, "Put me down THIS INSTANT you stupid vapid blonde woman, or I swear before Dog Almighty that I will shit all over your pants."

It turns out, of course, that this is exactly what a dog thinks when you're doing something as galactically stupid as lifting up said pooch into an airborne hug:

And if you're really interested in learning how your dog thinks, see more of this sort of thing at Text From Dog.

Friday, 21 October 2016

The unsurprising return of apartheid

It is a basic law of nature that, if you insist on persecuting a minority, stealing from them, mistreating them, and chasing them out of your country through intimidation and brutality and outright murder, then that minority will react to preserve its culture and identity and way of life.

It doesn't matter where you look in human history. This has almost always been the case; it's difficult to think of a single race or tribe that simply rolled over and accepted its inevitable destruction.

Whether you look at the conquest of the American West and the often savage resistance of the American aborigines, the wars waged by the Norse pagans against their eventual Christian conquerors, the last stand of the samurai at Shiroyama, the ferocious fight that the Zulus and the Boers put up against the British, or any of the countless other examples you can think of, the fundamental human instinct for survival has always and everywhere dictated that a tribe will fight for its survival to the very end.

Evidently, though, this is complete news to the mainstream (((media))), at least as far as white people are concerned:
A sprawling 'whites-only' settlement dubbed 'Project Eden' is being set up on the edge of the South African desert by 'pioneers' who claim they are the victims of 'apartheid in reverse'. 
The controversial community will house up to 30,000 residents and is modelled on the 'Orania' enclave where Afrikaaners live apart from black people and even have their own currency. 
Jacqui Gradwell, leader of the chilling new area under construction [er... what's "chilling" about it?] cites 'the murder of 88,000 white people' since the first free vote of 1994 as evidence of 'a genocide against our people'. 
A return to the old way – when whites and non-white South Africans lived apart - 'is the only way to preserve our culture', he insists. 
'It is not a racist project, it is based on fact. We have the right to that.' 
The married father-of-six, whose beard is styled on those worn by his early settler ancestors, claims to receive 'multiple' calls every day from white 'pioneers' seeking refuge from South Africa's political volatility, endemic corruption and high rates of violent crime. 
He is convinced that the current level of violence will soon bring the 'Rainbow Nation' to the brink of civil war. 
In an unnerving example of how deep racial divisions remain in South Africa more than two decades after the end of apartheid, Gradwell is unapologetic that the qualification to be part of Die Eden Projek – the Eden Project in Afrikaans – is based on race. 
'They must be white because all the murders and all the violence in this country is perpetrated by black people,' the 55-year-old farmer says firmly without apology. 
'They must also be Christians and we intend to stick to that principle, we want to bring safety back to our own people.'
Right, lads, say it with me. All together now: "DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR".

Interestingly, I don't find anything even slightly objectionable about the idea of setting up a whites-only enclave in Africa. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Why? After all, I am not white. I am not American. I am not even a Westerner by birth. Yet I live in a majority-white nation (for now, anyway), live peaceably with my white neighbours and coworkers, and have adopted many of their customs and mannerisms as my own. My experience with white people has been almost universally positive, aside from certain harsh exceptions from during my time in Australia.

Yet I have absolutely no problem with the idea of whites wanting to live apart from blacks, when they are the minority instead of the other way around. And that is because white and black cultures are fundamentally very different and deeply incompatible.

The reality of white civilisation, as I have pointed out before, is that whites have generally created culture, order, stability, peace, and prosperity pretty much wherever they have gone. The reality of black "civilisation" is anarchy, violence, brutality, and civic dysfunction.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take a drive from the, very white, suburbs of Detroit into the, very black, inner city. You will experience the extreme shock of going from a prosperous and flourishing community largely made up of happy and stable individuals, to what looks like the aftermath of a direct strike by a fusion bomb.

Or just visit inner Chicago- mind that you bring body armour with you, though, it's called "Chiraq" for a reason.

Or visit Camden, NJ. Or Newark, NJ. Or large parts of the Bronx. Or...

Well, you get the idea.

The author of the Daily Mail article- who is very clearly and evidently female- has an extremely hard time understanding that white people are just like any other tribe. And tribes respond to external threats by banding together and fighting for survival.

What she further fails to understand is that the very system of oppression and separation that she condemns- which we know as apartheid- was a similar survival mechanism.

She would do well to read Ilana Mercer's superb book, Into the Cannibal's Pot. Mrs. Mercer makes no apologies whatsoever for the excesses of apartheid, which has rightly and repeatedly been castigated for its oppression of blacks and its treatment of the majority-black population as somewhat less than human in many ways. Yet, as she points out in that book, apartheid was about the clearest expression of xenophobia as a survival instinct as you will ever see.

The Boers of South Africa who created the regime of apartheid were not fools. They were pragmatists. They knew that whites in sub-Saharan Africa were a distinct minority. They knew that, in order to survive in a plainly highly hostile environment, they needed a system of government that made a very clear distinction between whites and blacks. And that is precisely what they implemented.

You can call it racist- which it was. You can call it bigoted- which it often was. You can argue that its enforcement was extremely heavy-handed- which, at times, it was. And you can argue that there was little moral backing for it other than the usual doctrine of "might makes right", since the whites had a monopoly on force that they used to keep blacks down.

What you cannot argue, not anymore, is that blacks would not do even worse to whites if given the opportunity- because that is precisely what they have done in Zimbabwe and, increasingly, in South Africa itself.

South African whites comprise less than 10% of the entire population. Blacks form about 80% of the population. The mathematics are coldly determinate. Given that blacks have, on average, far higher time preferences than whites and have demonstrated a markedly lower willingness to build out the institutions and social capital needed to create functioning, orderly, and stable societies, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that the only rational reaction from the white minority was to segregate themselves away from "the others" who were not part of their tribe.

Now we are simply witnessing the exact same thing, happening in reverse. Instead of the white ruling class taking steps to ensure the survival of its tribe, we are seeing the white persecuted class doing what is necessary to preserve its own posterity for itself and its descendants.

I note parenthetically that apartheid is far from the worst evil that has ever afflicted the dark continent. The last time I checked, the Rwandan Genocide was something that blacks inflicted among and between themselves, which incidentally put paid rather thoroughly to the ridiculous myth of black solidarity. Blacks are just as tribal as anyone else- don't ever be fooled into thinking otherwise.

There is nothing objectionable or remarkable about "Project Eden", contrary to whatever the politically correct right-on editors of the Daily Mail would like to believe. It is the natural state of humans to gravitate toward those who are most like them and to protect those who are part of their "tribe".

The lesson for the rest of us is clear. Identify your tribe- and do it quickly. Understand that your "tribe" will be the group for whom you would willingly fight for- even perhaps die for, if necessary. Realise that sooner or later, it will be you and yours against the rest of the world. And don't ever let any halfwit graduate from a "journalism school" to the left of Lenin tell you that you are wrong for doing what is natural and correct.

Friday T&A: Random hot Asian girl edition

No idea who they are. Couldn't care less when they're this hot.

Brought to you by

Thursday, 20 October 2016


Tom Cruise might be completely batshit insane. But damn the man can act.

I mean, OK, fine, we'd have to throw Top Gun out as a mulligan, I suppose- it's the gayest non-gay movie ever made, it's ridiculous beyond words, and the acting in it is... well, the less said about that, the better.

Still, his CV is quite spectacular. The Last Samurai remains one of my favourite period-piece dramas ever, and Edge of Tomorrow was criminally underrated, while the first Jack Reacher was one of the few films where Tom Cruise was able to show that, for all that he is an ultra-extroverted alpha male, he can in fact play highly introverted Sigmas with consummate ease.

On top of all of that acting talent, though, he also evidently has a terrifically funny sense of humour. Witness what happens when he acts out his own film career in under 7 minutes:

It's a real shame that he's still madder than a honey badger with a firecracker up its arse, though.

How crazy is Tom Cruise- or should I say, Tom Crooze? This crazy:

The Green Hills of Earth by Robert A. Heinlein

This poem is contained in one of Mr. Heinlein's best short stories, "The Green Hills of Earth", which I remember reading when I was, like, 16 years old- and which has remained vivid in my memory ever since. It's a superb story by a true grandmaster of science fiction, and one of the best parts of that story was the poem it contained that gave that work its name.

Let the sweet fresh breezes heal me
As they rove around the girth
Of our lovely mother planet
Of the cool, green hills of Earth.

We rot in the moulds of Venus,
We retch at her tainted breath.
Foul are her flooded jungles,
Crawling with unclean death.

[ --- the harsh bright soil of Luna ---
--- Saturn's rainbow rings ---
--- the frozen night of Titan --- ]

We've tried each spinning space mote
And reckoned its true worth:
Take us back again to the homes of men
On the cool, green hills of Earth.

The arching sky is calling
Spacemen back to their trade.
And the lights below us fade.

Out ride the sons of Terra,
Far drives the thundering jet,
Up leaps a race of Earthmen,
Out, far, and onward yet ---

We pray for one last landing
On the globe that gave us birth;
Let us rest our eyes on the friendly skies
And the cool, green hills of Earth.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016


There is a certain crazy dingbat who goes by the name of "Madonna"- you may have heard of her, especially if you grew up during the 1980s- who racked up a fair few pop hits back in her day. One or two of them are actually kind of fun to listen to, if you're in a mood to drive a drumstick through at least one of your eardrums.

Also, back when she was considered by most teenage boys to be really hot, she looked like, well, this:

Not exactly a disaster, all told. Personally I never really saw what the fuss was all about, but then by the time I got around to puberty, Madonna was about 40, so that's not really surprising.

Nowadays, however, Madonna looks a bit more like... erm... this:

Now, I'm a metalhead. Normally I could not care less what some jumped-up popstar has-been, who is clearly about twenty years past her "best-by" date, looks like or does. The only female musical personalities I care about can actually sing- see e.g. Charlotte Wessels or Floor Jansen.

Recently, however, Madonna came to my attention thanks to her comments while introducing fellow old, fat, ugly blonde girl Amy Schumer in New York City last night- those of you with weak constitutions might want to swallow a Dramamine or three before reading the rest, by the way:
Pop star Madonna got raunchy while introducing comedian Amy Schumer at a performance in New York City Tuesday night, promising the crowd sexual favors in exchange for their support of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 
“If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob. OK?” the 58-year-old Rebel Heart singer told an audience at New York’s Madison Square Garden Tuesday night. “I’m really good. I’m not a douche, and I’m not a tool. I take my time, I have a lot of eye contact, and I do swallow.” [SAYS WHO, lady?!?! Your ex-husband?! He's your ex, remember?!!!]
Oh hell, there goes my lunch. I knew I shouldn't have read this just after eating Mexican food...

So let's get this straight: a crazy, used-up old hag wants to suck-start your engine in order to get you to vote for another crazy, used-up, seriously evil old hag who wants to take all of your money and cut off your balls.

Does anyone else see anything seriously messed up in that proposition?

I don't know how you lot feel about voting for the Hilldebeast- probably similar to the way I do, I suspect- but I'm not sure there is a woman alive who could convince me to vote for the Rottenmuncher, no matter how many sexual favours she were to trade.

I don't care if I got home tonight and found that somehow Lauren Bacall back in her prime had been magically transported into my bed and was lying there naked as a baby- if she were to say to me, "I'm going to stay looking like this for the rest of your life and I'm yours to command, for as long as you live- but ONLY if you vote for Hillary Clinton", I'd have to boot her out on her (perfectly formed) arse.

(I'm not saying I'd like having to do that, mind you. Fortunately I would be spared the pain that such a decision would cause, since I am not allowed to vote in American elections.)

That is how unpalatable the Hilldebeast is as a candidate for President. She is quite simply the most venal, corrupt, mendacious, duplicitous, and downright dangerous person- never mind distinguishing between man or woman- that has run for the office of the Presidency in recent memory.

In fact, the only thing that should terrify you more than the idea of another "President Clinton" is the idea of letting a certain aging pop star anywhere near your junk with those teeth of hers.

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

A gentleman should always choose his gloves carefully...

Here's an interesting question that doesn't have an immediately obvious answer:

What allows you to punch harder- wearing 14oz boxing gloves, wearing 4oz MMA gloves, or not wearing any gloves at all (i.e. bare-knuckles brawling)?

Most people would likely respond that wearing boxing gloves allows you to deliver much harder and heavier punches, because the gloves themselves are actually pretty heavy. You try pounding on a heavy bag for 20 minutes with those gloves on, and you'll quickly discover just how heavy your hands will feel, and how much your shoulders will hurt, within just a few rounds.

But in fact, it turns out that smashing your bare fists into somebody's face will deliver far more damage than just wearing gloves:

This seems counter-intuitive, but it actually does make sense if you think about it.

As the video points out, there is quite a lot of padding available to a boxing glove, which significantly blunts the amount of force delivered from a single punch despite the additional mass involved.

Furthermore, since force is a function of mass and acceleration- if any of you remember your high-school physics- and given that the human body does not spontaneously gain additional strength the moment you add a little under a kilogram of weight to your body, you can't really accelerate your hand any faster once you put on gloves. So the additional mass gets cancelled out by the somewhat slower acceleration.

The result is that the amount of force delivered in a punch with a heavy boxing glove declines significantly.

On top of that, you have the fact that the surface area making contact is much larger. With bare knuckles and with MMA gloves, the surface area that makes contact with the target is fairly small; if you hit someone with just your closed fist, you're really making most of the contact with the two big knuckles of your fist. (Note: DON'T punch to hit with the two small knuckles. You'll break your hand.)

But with boxing gloves, you have a fairly large surface area making (very satisfyingly meaty) contact with someone's physog. And that blunts some of the trauma quite a bit; the force of impact is dissipated over a larger surface area, which means you do somewhat less damage with a glove than you do with a bare fist.

This, however, raises another interesting point: when you actually have to punch someone, you are far better off dialing down your strike a little if your hitting with a bare fist.

The reason for this is that the very things that weaken your punching power when wearing boxing gloves, also protect your hands.

The padding in the glove is not just for the benefit of the guy getting smacked. It's also for your hand. The goal of a good boxing glove should be to protect your knuckles, fine bones in your hand, and wrist when striking.

With bare knuckles, though, you have no such protection. And as such, you have to be very careful when hitting someone. You have to ensure that your wrist is locked, that your two big knuckles make contact, and that you strike correctly and with full range of motion.

This actually isn't easy to do, and most inexperienced brawlers who just throw wild punches will often find that they'll fracture or even outright break their hands when they throw the first punch in a street fight.

The result of this is that people tend to throw much harder punches when wearing boxing gloves than they do when fighting bare-knuckles.

This is also why, as a muay thai fighter and teacher once told me, you will find that boxers absorb tremendous damage to their heads.

If you've ever tried punching someone in the face, you'll quickly realise that jawbones are more likely to break fingers than the other way around, particularly if you throw your punches spastically and metacarpus-first. But if you're wearing gloves when you do this, the penalty for throwing a bad strike is nowhere near as great as when you're not wearing any form of hand protection.

The result is that, when wearing gloves, you can really pound the crap out of someone's face in a way that you can't do when fighting with bare fists.

This, incidentally, is part of the reason why modern cage- and ring-fighting arts require the adoption of different stances than bare-knuckle brawling. If you go look up pictures of old-school Irish bare-knuckle street fighters, for instance, you'll find that they started off in very odd-looking stances, standing much taller and straighter and with their hands held much lower and with the palms basically facing upwards.

That was because most brawlers knew- or found out very much the hard way- that attempting to knock a guy the hell out with a single punch to the face is actually not easy with bare fists and often results in severely broken hands.

Modern muay thai and MMA stances, by contrast, are much more square and hunched over a bit, with hands held much higher and palms facing forwards or down. This is because, once you put on gloves, punching someone's face becomes a much more tractable and palatable idea. As such, in order to maximise protection and minimise damage, your hands have to be held up a bit higher to protect against straights, crosses, and hooks that previously would have gone to the body and arms.

As my teacher told me at the time, that is why muay thai fighters have much shorter careers than boxers do. Muay thai fighters absorb truly ridiculous amounts of punishment over their entire bodies, so by the time they retire- typically around the age of 28 or so- they can't move properly. They can think just fine, but they can't move; their bodies are just too stiff from all of the damage and scar tissue and other fun stuff.

Boxers, on the other hand, often have longer careers- it's not uncommon to find championship boxers fighting over the age of 35- but they absorb absurd numbers of headshots. Their hands are heavily wrapped (as are those of muay thai fighters and MMA fighters, of course), but then they are clad in big boxing gloves designed to further reduce the blunt-force trauma delivered by any single punch.

The result is that muay thai fighters can think, but can't move- while championship boxers can move, but can't think. Or so said my teacher, and I have little trouble believing it.

So, the next time you feel like beating the tar out of some douchenozzle that richly deserves it, remember: don't be a fool, wrap your tool(s). Which is to say, find yourself some hemp rope, wrap your fists up so that you don't break anything important, and then go take care of business.

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Friday T&A: Visit Thailand edition

Okay, first things first, before some smartass points it out: I know it's Saturday, I was busy last night attending a (really rather awesome) metal concert. First knucklehead to point out the blindingly obvious gets slapped upside the head, Agent Gibbs-style.

Right, now that we've gotten the formalities out of the way- let the weekend partying begin.

The lady in question goes by the name of Gavintra Photijak, and is someone that almost nobody in the Western world has ever heard of. But she is without question one of the most beautiful Asian women alive- even without the photoshopping.

Imagine waking up next to something like that every morning.

Oh, and one other thing- ladies, in the extremely unlikely event that any of you are actually looking at this post, and have gotten down this far, remember: DON'T CUT YOUR DAMN HAIR!!!!!

Friday, 14 October 2016

We're gonna have to ditch the umlauts...

Did you ever wonder what our favourite metal songs would sound like without all of that lovely distortion that gives really great heavy metal its eardrum-raping sound?


Oh. Well, then, don't wonder no longer:

Bloody hell. That makes SLAYER sound like Herman and the Monkees...

By the way, that incredibly weak and thin guitar sound does, in fact, work for certain bands. If you listen to pretty much every single IRON MAIDEN album ever, you'll notice very quickly that whether they have two guitar players or three, the sum total of the guitar sound always seems as though the band is making do with a country band's gear.

Another particularly egregious offender in this regard is actually HELLOWEEN, with the album Better Than Raw. On certain tracks, such as "Hey Lord" and "Time", the guitar sound was remarkably thin- especially when you compare it with later albums like The Dark Ride and 7 Sinners.

But that doesn't mean that these are bad albums. In fact, IRON MAIDEN's signature guitar sound is part of what makes the band so great. That thin guitar sound allows for a much heavier rhythm section, which is why the band's sound has never really been successfully replicated- it works beautifully for them, and only for them.

Nonetheless, I'm going to need some REAL metal to restore my testosterone levels after listening to that. To wit:

Ahhh... much better.

The Ages of Reclamation

As you may have heard, Project Big Fork has now gone from a secret spec-ops project launched by the Supreme Dark Lord, Voxemort the Malevolent, to Phase One of its existence. It is now a fully functioning, viable, and usable replacement for the SJW-converged shitfest that you and I know as "Wikipedia".

We call this new platform "Infogalactic".

The idea behind Infogalactic is the same as Wikipedia's- to be the world's biggest free online encyclopaedia. The key difference between the two is that Infogalactic was deliberately setup from the start to be immune to the kinds of SJW-influenced biases and convergence that have done so much to wreck its progenitor.

The project is still in its early stages, however. And it's clearly suffering from many of the shortcomings of Wikipedia itself. If you were to go to and search for an article, you would find the lag time involved in the search to be unacceptably long- I've experimented with searches in Infogalactic in three different browsers on three separate operating systems, and the load time has been extreme in every single case.

As it happens, this is to be expected. It turns out that the database infrastructure that Wikipedia is using is astonishingly archaic, as the creators of Infogalactic discovered when they began the process of forking the application and its processes in the first place. I can't go into all of the details (partly because I don't have the expertise or knowledge to do so), but the result is that Wikipedia's entire setup is apparently held together using Band-Aids and screwdrivers and lots of duct tape.

I am confident, however, given the quality of the people behind the project and working on improving Infogalactic, that the deficiencies in the current front-end will be greatly reduced or even eliminated over the coming months.

By the way, I'm pretty confident that at least one of the people actually working behind the scenes on Infogalactic's infrastructure is actually a reader of my work. To him, and the others like him, I say: thank you. You have done us all a tremendous service by helping us put freedom back on the offensive.

I happen to have more than a passing interest in this project, of course. Back when Lord Voxemort decided to start up Project Big Fork, I kicked in some cash for the initial round of funding requests to get things off the ground. And when the second round of funding requests went out, I chipped in a bit more.

That's right- I am one of the Original Galaxians. I just need to get my hands on the shirt. I couldn't really say anything about it since the project was top-secret, but now that it's launched, I can mouth off about it all I want.

I have to say, I'm damned proud of how much has been accomplished in so little time. We are getting close to having a true alternative to Wikipedia that is genuinely robust and powerful, immune to SJW entryism (I hope), and designed around solid principles of objectivity and the rational search for truth. It's roughly 80% functional and viable and will become more so as the days go by.

If you can spare a few dollars, either as a one-off donation or on a monthly basis, please consider donating to the project so that Infogalactic can continue to grow and build on its current platform.

Since I would never ask my readers to do what I am not prepared to do myself, be assured that I am asking this of you after I have already personally contributed money to the cause, and will plan to donate more in the near future.

Never forget, my friends, that we are at war. The SJWs and cultural Marxists who have done so much to destroy the West from within are now facing real opposition, and it's scaring the living shit out of them. They have no idea how to respond.

Wikipedia is being supplanted by Infogalactic. Twitter is being destroyed by Gab. Facebook will likely be next. As for Google- well, their products still do more good than harm, at least for now, but their turn is coming. (Yes, I am well aware that Blogger is a Google-owned platform. Like I said, they're still more good than evil. FOR NOW.)

Brothers, sisters, we are going to win this war. We're already well on our way. It won't be easy, it won't be done without a terrible cost- but then, nothing truly worth doing is ever easy or cheap.

Spread the word. Use Infogalactic. Help develop the Android and iOS apps for it. Build upon the present successes until we have not only matched Wikipedia's functionality, we have surpassed it and created a true Planetary Information Core.

The Reclamation has already begun. And they are hopeless to stop it.

Thursday, 13 October 2016

The most insane kind of stupid

As the news (((media))) fights the rise of the God-Emperor with every possible method at their disposal, the really important news of our afflicted age seems to be going unnoticed. Namely, the news that the Russkies are preparing for the very real possibility of an actual shooting war with the United States of America's armed forces:
The only remaining logical steps left for the US in Syria is to accept Russia’s terms or leave. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that the Neocons, who run the White House, Congress and the US corporate media, are “rational” at all. This is why the Russians employed so many delaying tactics and why they have acted with such utmost caution: they are dealing with professional incompetent ideologues who simply do not play by the unwritten but clear rules of civilized international relations. This is what makes the current crisis so much worse than even the Cuban Missile Crisis: one superpower has clearly gone insane. 
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII over Aleppo? 
Maybe, maybe not. But what if we rephrase that question and ask: 
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII to maintain their status as the “world’s indispensable nation”, the “leader of the free world”, the “city on the hill” and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense? 
Here I would submit that yes, they potentially are. 
After all, the Neocons are correct when they sense that if Russia gets away with openly defying and defeating the USA in Syria, nobody will take the AngloZionists very seriously any more. 
How do you think the Neocons think when they see the President of the Philippines publicly calling Obama a “son of a whore” and then tells the EU to go and “f*ck itself”? 
Of course, the Neocons can still find some solace in the abject subservience of the European political elites, but still – they know that the writing is on the wall and that their Empire is rapidly crumbling, not only in Syria, the Ukraine or Asia, but even inside the US. The biggest danger here is that the Neocons might try to rally the nation around the flag, either by staging yet another false flag or by triggering a real international crisis. 
At this point in time all we can do is wait and hope that there is enough resistance inside the US government to prevent a US attack on Syria before the next Administration comes in. And while I am no supporter of Trump, I would agree that Hillary and her evil cabal of russophobic Neocons is so bad that Trump does give me some hope, at least in comparison to Hillary.
If the globalist lunatics in charge of this country are truly stupid enough to tip America headfirst into an actual war with the Russians, then may God have mercy on us all.

Of course, it may be noted that history has often proven the maxim that whom God would destroy, He first drives mad.

Thing is, though, that when it comes to actually preparing for the possibility of war between two out of the world's five major powers- one of which is, even today, perhaps the single superpower left on Earth- only one of them is taking the threat seriously and acting accordingly. No prizes for guessing which one, of course- it's the one that ISN'T led by a cabal of gurning globalist crazies intent on seeing how far they can take their Great Game before they actually have to cash in their chips.

I am not a military man (obviously). I don't pretend to have any great insights about military tactics and strategy, or about global geopolitics. But I do know a little something about history, and what I know tells me that, if America goes to war with Russia over the quite idiotic interventions of both powers in the Middle East, America will almost certainly lose.

Three things motivate that statement, which most neocons would scoff at. As they themselves are so fond of saying, America's military is the greatest and most powerful in the world- surely it will not have a problem taking on and defeating a third-rate military power which could never match America's technological advantages even at the height of the Soviet Union's power!

I'm not nearly so sanguine about America's prospects.

The first reason for my scepticism has to do with the way that Russia has transformed herself under President, or Prime Minister- ah, what the hell, let's just call him what he is, Tsar- Vladimir Putin. The Russia of today is NOT the Russia of the Cold War, and for some reason, none of the chickenhawks who advise President Odoofuss or former Secretary of State Rottenmuncher seem to understand this.

(Speaking of those same chickenhawks- in my mind I tend to use a slightly different 12-letter word that starts with "chicken" when describing them. I'll leave you to decide whether that is appropriate.)

Russia today is a serious regional power with serious military capabilities. The days in which Russian Kilo-class submarines rusted in their docks at Murmansk and Kaliningrad, or were sold off by a desperately cash-strapped government to the Iranians and Libyans, are long done. Today's Russian army, navy, and air force might not have the overwhelming numbers and firepower that they did back in the bad old days of the Soviet Union, but they're nothing to sneeze at either.

Today the Russians have a clear command-and-control structure that shows that its military has learned the hard and painful lessons of Soviet-era and later failures that manifested themselves most plainly in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Today's Russian military is modern, technologically advanced, and fully capable of going toe-to-toe with just about anyone else.

Which brings me to my second point of deep pessimism about America's prospects. As far as I can tell, for the last forty years, the American doctrine of "deep-strike" has been preeminent among "mainstream" military thinkers that dominate America's strategic planning for war. The basic idea is that, against any large and organised state-led military like China's or Russia's, America's massive advantages in stealth technology can be used to send stealth fighters and bombers deep behind enemy lines to take out critical command-and-control centres with near-total surprise. This renders the enemy blind and deaf, allowing ground units to encircle and outmanoeuvre their foes with ease and limited casualties.

The evidence in support of this theory of war is, and has always been, Operation Desert Storm. There is actually good reason for this. Back then, when the F-117 Nighthawk stealth "fighter" (it's actually a tactical bomber) was a highly regarded but as yet untested piece of (very awesome looking) kit, stealth planes were used to penetrate deep into Iraqi airspace around Baghdad to deliver highly precise surgical strikes directly to the Iraqi military's critical communications and supply points.

This doesn't sound that impressive, until you realise that Baghdad at the time had perhaps the most extensive and terrifying air defences of ANY city anywhere in the world.

Make no mistake, "deep strike" works and it is frighteningly effective against a technologically inferior opponent.

The problem is that the Russians are anything but technologically inferior.

The big issue with stealth technology has always been that most of it is a massive marketing exercise. Don't get me wrong, the mathematics and technology behind "stealth" warfare is actually really cool, and it does work. Thing is, though, it only works against enemy radar systems that it was actually designed to defeat.

In the modern battlefield, those radar systems typically scan in the VHF and UHF ranges, with extremely high frequencies and very short wavelengths. These sorts of radar systems are very effective at painting a very precise picture of what is coming at you- if you can see it.

However, older radar systems that scan in much lower frequency ranges, with much longer wavelengths- such as, say, the radar systems that the RAF used with such devastating effect against the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain- will have little problem picking up so-called "stealth" aircraft like the F-117, the B-2, and the F-22.

Long-wave radar arrays are typically much less precise in terms of telling you exactly what is heading your way. But they can tell you that something is coming at you. And when combined with modern radar interpretation and cleanup algorithms, it is possible (as far as I know) to get a reasonably accurate picture of who and what is sending death and devastation at you.

In other words- America's perceived advantages in stealth don't really exist. Which means that, if America's leadership is actually so catastrophically stupid as to get this country into a hot war with Russia, its single greatest advantage on the battlefield is gone.

The third, and most terrible, problem with going to war against Russia has to do with leadership. Simply put- the Russians have it, and the Americans don't.

For the past 8 years, under Odumbass and his lickspittle clique of toadies, the American military has been growing increasingly more effete, fat, and useless. No longer is its primary function to be the best at breaking things and killing people- that might hurt people's feelings. No, today the military is the focus of some of the biggest and craziest social engineering experiments the country has ever seen.

Nowadays it is used as a petri dish to test out every single bizarrely stupid idea that comes into fashion. Gays and lesbians serving openly? Sure, why not. Self-mutilating, mentally ill "transsexuals" too? What the hell, let's do it. Women in combat roles? Yep, bring 'em on! Making male soldiers and sailors wear high heels and pregnancy bellies to get an idea of what women go through? Hey, it's all in the name of "understanding"! Impossibly stupid finger-wagging lectures about sexual harassment, rape culture, and other feminist brainwashing? Well it's not like soldiers have anything, y'know, important to do! Lowering standards so that just about anyone can qualify to be a rifleman or tanker or engineer? It's all for the greater good, don't you see!

The kind of military that is forced to indulge in these insane perversions of reason and logic is not a military designed to win wars. It is a military designed as the plaything of overgrown children who are too cruel and coddled to understand that they are playing games with people's lives.

Russia's military, as far as I am aware, does not suffer from most if any of these afflictions. It has been transformed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the desperate 20 years that followed it, into a highly effective, highly motivated fighting force. And the government of Russia is led by a man who is the next best thing Russia has to one of its historical god-emperors, who knows what it means to command and who is not afraid or ashamed to use force in the interests of his country.

In the final analysis, if America goes to war with Russia, she won't just lose- she will be defeated so badly that the humiliation will be remembered in the very bones of the people of the once-United States of America for generations afterwards. The very scary problem in this specific case is not that America is going to lose this war- the case can be, and has been, very persuasively made that America has not actually won a real war since WWII.

No, the really scary part is that we now have two powers armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and only one of them is actually thinking straight. And this time, it's the Russians.

Whenever someone mentions war with Russia, I am reminded of what Fred Reed wrote on the subject not too long ago:
A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, REALLY stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk. 
Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia? 
A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here? 
The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm. 
Fighting Russia, with the current American military and leadership being what it is, has got to be the damned dumbest idea I've ever heard. And I work for a bank- where idiotic ideas abound on a daily basis.

The worst part of all of this is that war with Russia is absolutely the LAST thing that a sane American government should want. Russia, for all of its many faults, still has far more in common with the West than she does with our enemies. In fact, Russia has suffered far more from the predations of Islam than the West has over the last fifty years. They are a natural ally against the scourge of Islam; what kind of idiot would want to antagonise such a valuable potential friend?

Oh. Right.
Put another way- do you really want to screw with a country where they don't just keep and bear arms- they keep and arm freakin' BEARS?!?!?