Posts
All Comments
In response to the clip going around with the African lady saying 'WHAT WHITE CULTURE!?!'
— The McMullan (@TheMcMullan) September 15, 2026
Because I can explain it in more detail than anyone else... here are the main things that create western civilisation.
The principle, the law of nature that is an adaptation to and what…
Read the whole thing.
"I keep trying to get the message through to the White House that if the current Iranian leadership is too hardline to negotiate in good faith, then keep killing them until more pliable leadership emerges."
This is almost exactly what General Curtis LeMay said, (actually combining two quotes,) "War is killing and if you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."
Devon Eriksen says:
If you don't own a rifle, your opinion is mostly irrelevant.
Everything humans do to interact and work together is a proxy for force.
Force is base-level communication, because it requires no common language or concepts, and it definitively settles every dispute. Problem with it is, it's risky, expensive, and mostly not very enjoyable.
So we developed proxies for it. First language, then persuasion, deception, negotiation, money, blackmail, fake news, advertising, psychology, etc, etc, it's all a proxy for the underlying asset... force.
So if you have no weapon, then your opinion is only relevant when it influences those who do, whether directly or through second and higher order effects.
This places you at a considerable disadvantage, not only because those who can wield force directly can cut through the abstractions and wield that force directly, but also because the threat, stated or implied, of doing so carries weight and can change how others wield those higher-level abstractions.
This is why Jordan Peterson is wrong.
Free speech, when available, can be used to defend many things, but when it is under threat, it cannot be used to defend itself.
The right to bear arms, however, can be used to defend the right to bear arms.
And that is the difference.
If you need a further example, look at what is happening in Britain. The masters do not want their slaves expressing certain opinions, and they are imprisoning them for doing so.
Their real plan of attack, for course, has little to do with the people being imprisoned. They only have the resources to do that to a tiny fraction of the population.
The real plan is heads on spikes. It's using the fear of being one of those people to shut everyone up. Everyone but them.
But ask yourself... if you were British, or French, or Canadian, or Australian (or perhaps you actually are), instead of having the outrageous good fortune to be American, what the hell would you do?
How would you use the right of free speech to defend the right of free speech? If you say this is wrong, they'll find an excuse to call it hate speech and lock you up.
And you consented to this, you morons. A few crazies shot a vanishingly small percentage of kids, and instead of locking up the crazies, like any sensible population, you let them take away your only capacity to resist them.
You cheered for it.
You begged for it.
You brag about it.
You try to snap back at us with it, saying that at least .00000000001% of your schoolchildren (in the ghetto) aren't being shot (by other feral teens in the ghetto), as third-world barbarians hack your little girls to death with machetes and rape your teenage daughters and your own government won't lift a finger to stop it, because they hate you and they want it to happen.
You don't want to admit that the primary civil right, the right on which all the others is based, is the right to be armed.
Because if you did, you would have to face three horrifying truths:
1. You've been wrong all this time, and the very thing you were smuggest about was your biggest mistake.
2. You are in a shit situation, because you now have to figure out how to bring down a government that hates you, can use force on you any time they want, and you can't stop them.
3. America, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic are the only free countries on Earth. Everywhere else is a police state.
Americans have always known that ultimately, no matter who you are, now matter where you are, no one is coming to save you. You must possess the means to save yourself, or at least to fight back, to make yourself expensive and dangerous to kill, so you can save the next guy.
This is the reason, the real reason, why Americans love guns.
We let you pretend it was because we were fat stupid belligerent rednecks who like power fantasies, because that lie seemed to make you happy, and it's not nice to take away the comforting delusions of toddlers and crazy people.
But now that delusion is hurting you, and, contemptuous as you have been of us, you are fellow human beings, fellow civilized humans beings, and we don't want to see you die, so we have to tell you the truth.
We love guns because they are not only the tool of liberty, they are symbol of our value, not as tools or slaves of regime, but as independent, free human beings of inherent worth.
In America, when I walk past a police officer on the street, he has a badge and a gun. But I have a gun, too. Right there under my shirt. And [mine] works just like his.
And that changes everything. Because now I am not the only one dependent on the rule of law. He is dependent upon the rule of law, too. Because if the rule of law is the only thing that prevents him from killing me under color of authority, then the rule of law is the only thing that prevents me from killing him in the act of resistance.
The deterrents exist on both sides, and we all have to play nice. And mostly, we do. Because those deterrents make sure we really, really want to.
They're not playing nice any more on your side of the big blue wobbly thing. They have guns. All you have is a mouth and a keyboard.
How that working out for you?
An armed society is a polite society. That's not just a saying. That's not just fiction.
And Terry Pratchett was dead wrong. It doesn't just last until "some twerp drinks out of the wrong mug or picks up someone else's change by mistake and five minutes later you're picking noses out of the beer nuts."
Only a person from a disarmed society, who has never lived in a armed one, could have been so profoundly, pig-headedly, disastrously delusional.
If you haven't trained with guns, owned guns, carried guns, you have no idea what they're like, or what you would do if you had one, or what everyone would do in a bar where everyone had one.
Because the answer, the real answer, to "[what everyone does] in a pub where everyone goes armed" is "not get their goohuloog heads kicked in by the police for speaking out against their masters".
"When you study history you realize people have been this stupid for thousands of years."
—Old Vaquero Saying
Taken from Bob Boze's site.
"Mathematically speaking, if you send enough rounds in one direction, eventually one of them is going to hit something."
- S. G. O'Malley
"If you look at my characters, you will find me. No matter what kind of character you create or assume, a little of yourself must remain there."
-Jack Kirby
I've only made characters for role playing games and some amateur science fiction, but it's true. You put yourself in your creations and there's always a little reflection that someone might spot.
"I meant what it said. If I could have said it any differently, I would have."
- Stanley Kubrick
That was Mr Kubrick's response to being asked what he was trying to say with Barry Lyndon.
With that answer in mind, you have to assume that gibbering like a mad man was what Mr Kubrick mostly intended to say with a couple of his films.
Harvey is out doing her running around and she sends:
"The fuckin' protesters. No kings protest. They are everywhere and oh my God they are stupid!"
Can't say I disagree.
"I would argue that if you want to kill commies, you should join the communist party and if/when the communist come to power... crank up your murder boner to 17.
NO ONE kills more communists than other communists..."
It's true.
Billy Dee Williams has been on something of a roll with posts like this.
Yup, that's a blue check.
I had no idea.
I hope he forgives the Dancing Monkey tag that applies to all actors here.
Update: Too good to be true.
The thing he DID say was part of a much larger statement that deserves to be presented in context, because context stripping is the main way totalitarians make our side seem like fascists to the uneducated and low-information folks.
"So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.
"The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.
"Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.
"So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
"So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?"-- C. Kirk
"I bet there isn't going to be anyone burning cars and looting stores, before burning them down, because of the Charlie Kirk murder."
M. Harris.
"As [Gamemaster], I am in fact an eldritch god of fate and chaos who may, at any time of my choosing, look down and say "THIS ONE PLEASES ME.""
--R Orbeck
Summoned, I come.
In Valen's name, I take the place that has been prepared for me.
I am Grey.
I stand between the candle and the star.
We are Grey.
We stand between the darkness and the light.
Taken in its entirety from Task And Purpose:
Normally, Thanksgiving is synonymous with food, family, friends, and giving thanks. For @TheEconomist, Thanksgiving apparently means taking a turkey-sized dump on disabled veterans. The other day I had the unfortunate opportunity to read an unattributed article on The Economist titled, “American veterans now receive absurdly generous benefits” and it left me with a lot of thoughts. (You can read it for yourself here: https://econ.st/3D0Nk87, just be ready to sign up for a subscription.)
The piece on The Economist has no author and reads like it was poorly run through ChatGPT. And the title of the piece is insultingly stupid. The definition of absurd is “wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.” I’d challenge the anonymous cowards at The Economist to illuminate us on which parts of veterans’ healthcare and benefits are inappropriate, illogical, or wildly unreasonable?
I am a disabled veteran. I had my right leg blown to pieces on September 4, 2006, in Fallujah, Iraq. Since that time, I have had to walk with an above the knee prosthetic and I have not had an easy day physically for as long as I can remember. Hey, The Economist, which portion of my healthcare or benefits are wildly unreasonable?
Service to our country can be an incredibly uplifting and positive experience for many who wore the uniform, but that service can also involve hazards. Some disabled veterans struggle physically or mentally with the effects of their service. Bullet wounds, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Post Traumatic Stress, and other effects of a service can sometimes cause chronic issues for veterans, and providing care and benefits for those issues is certainly not inappropriate or illogical.
While the AI assisted “journalists” at The Economist boldly chose not to put their name on this piece, they did attribute a quote to another non-expert in veteran benefits, Mark Duggan from Stanford University. Mark foolishly stated about VA Disability and Compensation, “Once you qualify you have an incentive not to get better.” An incentive not to get better?!?!? Hey Mark, any clue how I can get my right leg back? I’d gladly give back the money I’ve received so I can get up out of bed without the assistance of a wheelchair or a prosthetic.
The meandering poorly structured article in The Economist highlighted a lot of increased numbers and statistics, many of these figures quoted began back in 2001. It highlighted the increased number of veterans with high disability ratings beginning to increase in 2001. However, nowhere in the article does it state what else began back in 2001. These dopes conveniently left out the Global War on Terror that began in 2001 lasted for TWENTY YEARS! A full 20 years of the same all-volunteer force serving over and over, and over again in the same toxic hellholes fighting the same brutal terrorists. Gee, I wonder why today’s veterans are presenting with more chronic ailments than generations that came before us.
Ivy League elitists like Mark Duggan and the pretentious wankers at the Economist clearly didn’t bother to do much research on veteran disability or bother to speak to one of the millions of disabled veterans like me. We would have told these arrogant snobs that certain injuries and illnesses are with us for life, and no disability rating is worth the difficulties that come with some of the aftereffects of service.
The real cherry on top of this turd sundae was the lazy suggestion (possibly lifted from the fools at the @washingtonpost Editorial Board) that VA should means test veterans before receiving benefits. As in, if you make enough money after service, you won’t be taken care of for the costs of war. If The Economist had bothered to attribute a name to this drivel, I would ask that idiot, “how would you means test my inability to teach my son to ride a bike?” It’s a pretty routine joy that most parents get the privilege of taking part in. However, my prosthetic leg doesn’t really function in a way that allows normal bike riding. So that is a simple joy I won’t get. How exactly do buffoons like Mark Duggan and the dollar store journalists at The Economist suggest factoring in that loss?
The last paragraph of this loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, “Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far.” — TOO FAR?!?!? Holy hell, this sounds like it was written by a jealous also-ran who every veteran has probably met. The guy or girl who “totally would’ve joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if they got in my face”. Losers…
In the future, if any major publication wants to embarrass themselves by anonymously taking shots at disabled veterans, I’d like to offer my services. I can start by helping you research this subject to learn about the actual effects of service-connected injuries and illness. I can also connect you with other disabled veterans so you can hear first-hand accounts of some of the difficulties veterans face. I could even help google image search pictures of actual veterans, instead of the stock photo of firefighters The Economist used at the top of its trash piece on veterans. Then finally, if you are still intent on disparaging disabled veterans, I can assist you in removing your head from your ass…free of charge.
Patrick Murray, national legislative service director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars office in Washington, D.C.
I can't find a lot (or anything) to disagree with here. Spending on veterans is among the first things DC nukes when they go towards balancing budgets.
I was there when Clinton was spending the peace dividend and noticing that a homeless people got better care from a for-profit hospital than a veteran got from the supposed-to-be-dedicated-to-them hospital.
I cannot help but wonder if there'd been proper care and therapy for my legs if I would be spared the constant pain from neuropathy.
I'm sure that FuzzyGeff and Technomad can relate stories about how bad I was hurting and what a charming fellow it made me.
But too many people think that because veterans will stoically suffer that we SHOULD.
I won't even get into the weeds of talking about how the same people talking about cutting off support for veterans are the same assholes that tie the military's hands and prolong conflicts and assure there be no victory, lasting or fleeting.
h/t Bustedknuckles
Except the original poem isn't Saxons at all. It's The English.
OG poem by Rudyard Kipling:
The Beginnings
It was not part of their blood,It came to them very lateWith long arrears to make good,When the English began to hate.They were not easily moved,They were icy willing to waitTill every count should be proved,Ere the English began to hate.Their voices were even and low,Their eyes were level and straight.There was neither sign nor show,When the English began to hate.It was not preached to the crowd,It was not taught by the State.No man spoke it aloud,When the English began to hate.It was not suddenly bred,It will not swiftly abate,Through the chill years ahead,When Time shall count from the dateThat the English began to hate.
FuzzyGeff points out, "A vote for Trump at least guarantees a vote for someone who was found competent to stand trial."
