Latest Posts

Solutions

Hunting

The late (and much-missed) Col. Jeff Cooper once said this about violence:

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’  I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does.  I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”

[pauses to let the applause die down]

So when you set yourself up as a “saboteur” — of a perfectly-legal institution, mind you — and part of your modus operandi  is violence, do not be surprised if violence is visited on you in turn.  Such as in this instance:

Hunt saboteurs claim they were attacked after one suffered a bloody eye as violence broke out between supporters and placard-wielding protesters during traditional Boxing Day hunts around the country.
Riders with packs of hounds – following scent trails laid in advance to comply with the 2004 Hunting Act forbidding the hunting of foxes with hounds – set out under cloudy skies this morning in order to maintain the tradition.
But scenes of chaos erupted in Elham, Kent, as a saboteur was hospitalised after allegedly being thrown in front of a passing car ‘that deliberately swerved’ before being punched and kicked by a group of hunt supporters.
A hunt saboteur posted an image of his bloodied eye after allegedly being ambushed by ‘two or more men’, according to the Hunt Saboteurs Association.
A spokesperson for the group said: ‘A group of drunken hunt supporters attacked the saboteurs and their vehicle as they tried to leave’.
And the group claimed a 19-year-old female demonstrator was allegedly punched in the face by a hunt supporter in Tenterden, while a band that had turned up to play reportedly had their equipment damaged.

And we have this as evidence:

But let’s make sure that we don’t just see pics of the loonies.  Here are a couple of the hunt supporters:

And for my Murkin Readers unfamiliar with the ancient custom, let’s make one thing perfectly clear about all this protesting:  it has nothing  to do with protecting foxes, although that’s the pretense.

It has everything  to do with with abolishing an activity largely enjoyed by the upper- and upper-middle classes — in other words, it’s a class  issue.

The very fact that hunting was originally banned by a Labour government headed by the loathsome Tony Blair is sufficient proof thereof.

And all I can say to the hunt supporters is:  keep up the good work of thrashing the “sabos” at every opportunity.

Defending The Indefensible

Crime

This was written in 2014.  I sincerely doubt whether it could be published today without an outbreak of total mass hysteria.

Which is why I’m posting the link, as well as a representative sample:

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.
Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

And then there’s this:

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.
My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

As so many have said before of this attitude:  “You can take the African out of Africa, but…”  I prefer to think of it as “Africa Wins Again;  Just Not In Africa.”

Read the whole thing.  The observations made by the writer are based on years and years of experience, and are not his opinion.

Afterthought:  Just so we’re clear about the whole thing:  this attitude isn’t confined to Blacks (see here);  it just seems to be more prevalent.

Me Too

Freaks & Loonies

From the Knuckledragger:

Wow.  Only one load of .45 ACP from the Chip McCormick PowerMag in my 1911.  (Can’t see it taking more than one round each;  hell, the muzzle flash alone  would probably drop half of them.)  And assuming that I’d qualify as a “Nazi” to them, of course.

They’re going to have to do a lot  better than that…

We’re All Individuals!

Essays

This line comes from Chris DeGroot, and I nearly made it a QOTD, but I think it actually deserves more discussion.

“Over time, any nation in which personal autonomy is taken for granted as the highest good must become deficient in social cohesion.”

And that’s where the Enlightenment falls apart.  In their rush to overcome the oppressive social environment such as under royalty or an official State church (not to mention religious excesses such as the Inquisition), the Founding Fathers, Enlightened all, created a system with ironclad rights (which they called “natural”) which were guaranteed to the individual and protected by the Constitution.

I have no idea what John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would have thought of a society with many nebulous and self-identified genders about which nobody dare breathe an ugly or even judgmental word (despite that “freedom of speech” thing).  Let’s not even talk about the demonization of White men or the “reverse” racism enshrined in racial-preference laws.  If they’d had that situation back then, Washington may well have called out the militia to enforce a series of mass floggings… ummmm…

Sorry, I went away to warm and wonderful place there for a moment.

The point is that intelligent people (such as, say, the Founding Fathers) have always known that the concept of individual rights stood at the very top of an extremely slippery slope, but I suppose that the aforementioned probably counted on the common sense of the people and their elected officials not to take society to a place where a White woman wearing a caftan on a hot summer’s day could be decried as “cultural appropriation”, and punished  (by censure from university authorities, for example, or by socially-acceptable ostracization).

So much for that idea.

DeGroot’s statement is perfectly true, of course, so at a time when we as a nation are hopelessly divided into a multiplicity of self-interested groups of increasingly-freakish people — not to mention nigh-monolithic groups such as “Blacks”, “progressives” or “LGBTOSTFU” — it seems an impossible task to call for such exotica as “national unity” (what a fucking joke) or make pleas that sound like “Can’t we all just get along?”

No, we can’t, ever;  not when The Other has been institutionally demonized by the Perpetually Aggrieved.

Well-meaning people may think that there must be a way for us to come together and put aside our differences, but that’s never going to happen.  As long as the most trivial differences between us have been magnified into chasms separating us into “Nazis” and “racists” (to name but two), such harmony is absolutely impossible.

I wish there was a workable, lasting solution, but there isn’t.  Even the mass floggings alluded to above aren’t possible, otherwise the Left would have started them already — on us — for being the Nazi / racist / evil / Trumpians / whatever we are (according to their  standards, of course).

The only thing that does cause so splintered a nation to unify is a calamity (e.g. a hurricane’s devastation) or a palpable evil perpetrated by a hostile entity (e.g. 9/11).  Because of the sheer size of the United States, natural calamity is generally localized and is not a “national” event.  And even the actions of a hostile entity have an increasingly-abbreviated shelf life nowadays, so I see no “unity” in our collective future.  Hell, I don’t even see comity appearing anytime soon.

But then, I’m The Enemy.