Friday, 20 January 2017

Operation Linebacker III

Gents, remember LTC Kratman's column from January 2nd, in which he exhorted us to start saturation-bombing as many libtard websites as possible with that wonderful AYBABTU meme at the start of the God-Emperor's term as President?

Well, fellow shitlords, D-Day is upon us. Time to earn our daily bread.

Call it whatever you want- my original term for it was going to be "Operation Harpoon", but now I'm going to call it "Operation Linebacker III", in homage to the two carpet-bombing campaigns that the Nixon Administration launched in 1972.

My choice of name is highly deliberate. The original Linebacker operations were brutal, but they were also highly effective at degrading and destroying the North Vietnamese infrastructure. More importantly, they broke the DRV's will to fight to the extent that its leaders in Hanoi realised that they had to come back to the negotiating table.

Today's campaign serves a similar purpose. The goal is to do exactly what the memelords of #Gamergate did to the lying games media: break their will to fight, demoralise them, crush their spirits.

They're already well on the way to those outcomes. The defeat that they suffered with the election of the God-Emperor was, to their delicate and fragile psyches, absolutely devastating.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it- and knowing you lot of bloodthirsty loonies, you jolly well will- is to visit every left-wing news site, blog, media aggregator, and slime-pit that you can, and leave in the comments section at least one of the following images:

You have your orders. We march to war for the God-Emperor. We are his Angels of Death. And we shall know no fear!

And now, for some appropriate marching songs to help us get into the right frame of mind- appropriately book-ended by two IRON MAIDEN classics:

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

Taking the ladies to school

I came across a rather interesting "new" YouTube channel (which actually isn't very new at all) called Blonde in the Belly of the Beast today, starring a Millennial blonde woman who basically espouses sensible red-pill points of view. Some of my readers might be inclined to agree with me when I say that she's kind of a butterface, but on balance, I think she's a reasonably fetching young lady.

I have to admit, I'm impressed- most Millennial women are annoying as hell, but the pretty blonde right-wing ones are good fun to watch.

The best thing about Ms. Blonde there is the fact that she spends quite a bit of time telling women of her own age and social milieu to "woman up". This advice is rarely given these days and seldom listened to by its intended recipients, but it is valuable nonetheless.

Her views on a number of subjects are refreshingly candid indeed. Consider:

Living Among Liberals

The Truth About Feminism

Self-Help for Beta Males

Self-Help for Annoying Millennial Women

The Reality of the Black Undertow

How to Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Yeah, Modern Art Blows

It must be said, her delivery has improved over time as she has gotten more comfortable in front of the camera and written, edited, and produced her own scripts. You can see the progression in quality from her first to her latest videos. I am indeed impressed with her eloquence and ability to craft both a message and a product that people are willing to pay to support.

Women like her are evidence that not every girl in our generation is a lost cause. There are, in fact, some who are capable of being convinced through reason, evidence, and experience that most of what they were taught about how to be a woman in modern society is complete nonsense.

It is not, however, easy to find them.

I suspect that this will change over the next few years, though. Consider: during the Reagan Era, we saw a massive resurgence in masculine ideas and tropes- there is a reason why the Eighties move stereotype exists, after all- because there was a man in the Oval Office who actually acted the part. He was strong, confident, charismatic, optimistic, and a natural leader.

Compared to the limp-wristed nancy-boy that he had replaced, President Reagan's Administration must have seemed like a real breath of fresh air. (I can only speculate about this, I'm not old enough to remember what he was like as POTUS- perhaps some of my older readers can enlighten us.)

The next eight years were filled with a revival of the American spirit- and of the masculine values and virtues which drove it. I have a good feeling that the reign of the God-Emperor will provide us with something similar.

And that is very good news indeed for both the men and the women of the West.

The catastrophic state of Western civilisation didn't happen by accident. It happened because weak men came to power and engendered further weakness throughout the societies that they led.

In times of prosperity and abundance, weakness is a luxury that can be afforded- at first. But the decadence and sloth brought on by weakness inevitably leads to hardship and calamity.

Weakness has been the watchword of the West for the better part of thirty years. For the first time in an entire generation, weakness is now no longer fashionable or desirable- and both men and women will respond to that fact.

Will this mean instant improvements to the dating market? Of course not. If you live in or near any of the big American cities, especially- God help you- Manhattan (or, as I call it, Gomorrah-on-the-Hudson), then it will take years before those rabbit-warrens are forced to change their ways, even slightly.

But I do believe that we can look forward to at least some positive developments in the dating scene, where beta males no longer act quite so beta, and bitchy American women become just a bit more pleasant and feminine in the process.

Note: I am NOT arguing that American women will somehow magically transform themselves into demure, happy, low-drama Stepford Wives. You would have to be hallucinating to argue this; the damage wrought by fifty years of feminism simply runs far too deep. I am arguing that we should see at least some small improvements in their overall demeanour and "dateability" in the near future.

If nothing else, we should see a few more such "awakened" women popping up over the next few years. And about damned time, too.

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

The shitlord and the Cold Whore files

You just know that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Donald John Trump are both laughing their arses off at the patently ridiculous Buzzfeed "dossier" that was released a few days ago. They are having a very good giggle at the expense of the entire legacy media- and who can blame them? In fact, I'd say that the rest of us bloody well ought to join in:
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday brushed aside accusations in a recent discredited report that President-elect Donald Trump had once cavorted with prostitutes in Moscow. While doing so, however, he managed to plug the local sex trade. 
Trump is “a grown man,” Putin said, according to Bloomberg News, “and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world … I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.
Given what we know of Russian women and their often staggering beauty, I'd say old Tsar Vlad there is onto something.

More to the point- that sound that you hear is the lovely, awe-inspiring sound of a thousand SJWs suddenly crying out in terror, and being just as suddenly silenced. It is the sound of world peace, of the promise of a better future, of blue skies and green fields, and of gorgeous Russian girls lining up to show us all just how great life can be when the men are masculine, the women are feminine, and everything just makes sense once again.

In fact, in that spirit, in our never-ending quest for greater mutual understanding between East and West, let us take a moment to appreciate the great beauty of the Russian empire that good old Vladimir Vladimirovich so rightly touted.

Alina Boyko:
A photo posted by boyko🍒alina (@boykoalina) on

Viktoria Bogatir:
A photo posted by @viktoriabogatir on

Tanya Mityushina (again, because- well, do I really have to explain?):

Alina Akilova:

Yana Yatskovskaya:

Y'know, boys, there are times when this whole "posting crazy shit on teh internetz for teh lulz" thing is very, very good fun.

Monday, 16 January 2017

War and Culture, Pt. 2: The shooting starts when the talking stops

This is the second post in what will probably be at most a three-part series, the original intent of which was to provide a very pessimistic civilian's views on several questions that I have been trying to explore for some time now.

The first post looked at the intersection between war and faith, and asked the question: why is it that Western civilisation, which up until about the middle of the 20th Century had a really rather spectacular record when going to war against other civilisations going back at least 400 years, even ones just as advanced as it was and is, keeps losing pretty much every war that it fights?

This second post follows on from that by noting the following: faith that your own point of view is superior is indeed vital to winning a war- but what happens when you run into another point of view that is equally convinced that it is right, and is more willing to defend or express itself with force of arms?

The answer to that one is of course quite obvious in a general sense: the more aggressive, violent, militant ideology beats the other one like an unwanted stepchild. Nothing new about that, it's basic common sense. (Which of course brings to mind another truism- that common sense is in fact anything but common.)

When we're looking outward, at the longstanding war between Islam and Christianity, that answer suits the question perfectly. Dar al Islam is a highly aggressive, expansionistic ideology driven by an absolutist conviction that the triumph of Islam over Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and everything else, is ordained by Allah. Although that ideology is riven by internal differences and contradictions, and is every bit as factionalised as any globally prevalent ideology must be, it is still relatively monolithic compared to its competitor faiths and forms of government. Its rivals are politically weak (though not necessarily militarily so, at least not yet), squabbling, and fractured.

There is no point in holding "dialogue" with the Islamic world. You cannot negotiate for your life and freedom with an enemy that wants you dead or enslaved; the best you can do is bargain for time, so that your end comes in 20 years instead of 5. And that's about it.

But if we look inward instead, strictly at what is happening throughout the Western world right now, the answer to that question becomes a bit less trite and hits a lot closer to home.

For what we are seeing today is the clear and increasing separation, within the borders of sovereign nations, of populations into two very broad camps- and each one hates the other's guts.

If you were to look at the electoral map of the United States in 2016 by county, not by state, you would see, well, this:

And if you look at the racial composition of the United States of America, you will see this*:

The "United States of America" is in fact nothing of the sort, and has for the past twenty years or so slowly been transforming itself into (at least) two countries.

This has happened once before in America's history, of course- and the scars created by the War Between the States have still not healed. That war started because the North and the South had drifted apart at a very fundamental level. Economically, politically, and culturally, the North fundamentally different from the South, and both sides knew it.

Eventually, those differences caused the two sides to stop talking to each other completely. And that is when the worst and bloodiest war that Americans have ever fought, came to pass- because the South eventually realised that its issues with the North could no longer be solved through dialogue, and had to be settled using blood, fire, and steel.

What I am seeing brewing right now indicates that the probability of another rupture, of even greater magnitude, is now large enough to start taking seriously. And this time, the side that is most likely to cause the shooting to start is going to be on the losing side.

The Coastal Elites

One the one side, we have what has come to be called "The Establishment", a term that used to be used with a fair amount of reverence and is now pretty much a four-letter word.

This is a group that is characterised by a rigid commonality of thought ideology. The people within it believe in, as articles of faith, the key tenets of globalisation, multiculturalism, free trade, free movement of labour, tighter political union between historical enemies, and that secular liberal democracy is the highest and finest form of government ever achieved by human intelligence.

These people are defined by an almost complete disdain for bedrock values like patriotism and duty, which they regard as gauche and provincial in the extreme. They pay a great deal of attention- though most of it is lip service- to notions like "social justice" and "equality", but in reality exist primarily to perpetuate, well, themselves and their standards of living.

For all of their high-minded rhetoric about how much they want to help the less fortunate, they show a suspicious aversion to actually, y'know, helping in concrete ways. They rarely have such strength in their convictions as to put their lives and physical safety on the line to defend them.

They think largely the same way, too. They all go to the same schools and private academies and universities, they all belong to more or less the same clubs and societies, and they largely live in the same neighbourhoods- many of which are safely locked away from the great unwashed masses that they presume to rule over by electric gates, iron fences, and security guards.

They are, in fact, the "intellectuals yet idiots" of this world.

The Great Unwashed Rest

As the first map from above shows, the "Establishment" is basically concentrated in the northeast, starting in New England and stretching on down through the American coastline, through Florida, on through the Texan and Arizonan border counties, and then on into loony-lefty California and the other Left Coast states.

This is news to precisely nobody, of course, but it illustrates nicely the nature of the division of the United States. Urban versus suburban and rural. Coastal versus heartland. Cosmopolitan versus small-town. Atomised and secular versus familial and religious. The list of polar opposites that describe "them" versus "us" goes on, and on, and on.

The problem for the coastal elites is that they think that they are the real America, because they have never had to listen to or talk with anyone who thinks differently from them. Yet the real America is not in the big cities and fashionably wealthy (and almost always lily-white) suburbs. It is to be found in the American heartland of small towns, back roads, sleepy little villages, and decaying Rust Belt factories.

That America is not nearly as densely populated as its urban counterpart, which is why Donald Trump won the electoral college with a 30-state victory but lost the popular vote by 2.5 million votes. America, like most Western societies, is heavily urbanised, so the majority of its people live in the big cities and towns.

And that is why the heartland of the country is usually forgotten- because the people who are supposed to make decisions on their behalf, at least at the Federal level, are almost completely divorced from the reality of the people who sent them to the Capitol to defend their rights.

The end result is that the country is not-so-quietly tearing itself in two- and neither side is interested in talking to the other.

It's Always Been Two Countries

It is tempting to argue that this sundering of America into two (or more) separate nations- at least one of which will likely be overwhelmingly white, made up of creators and inventors and workers, and more-or-less productive types- is something to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, this country has pretty much always been split along ideological lines- going all the way back to the Founding itself.

On the one side, we have always had the small-government libertarian types. Back in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they were the Southern Democrats. They were primarily advocates of an agrarian-focused, decentralised, minimalist, small-government philosophy that generally left people the hell alone to get on with their own business.

On the other side, we have also always had the mercantilists, the industrialists, the big-government centralists. They believed that a strong central government was absolutely required to prevent the new nation from being overwhelmed by its competitors and sinking into irrelevance or slavery under a foreign power.

That ideological difference has persisted, in various forms and espoused by various parties, all the way through to the modern day. That is of course well known. Eventually, the divide became so deep and so bitter that it resulted in the War Between the States, which Northerners rather oxymoronically refer to as the Civil War, and Southerners somewhat more accurately refer to as the War of Northern Aggression.

That divide was eventually papered over, at least somewhat, by the North's crushing victory over the South. To this day, the South still hasn't fully recovered from that defeat and the years of the Reconstruction Era that followed- and the wounds and scars inflicted by that defeat still linger on.

But- and here is the key difference between then and now- even throughout those times of bitterest division and discord, the two sides were able to talk to each other, right up until the time for talking was over and there was nothing left to do but start shooting.

And that is precisely what America has now lost.

You will not find finer exemplars of the two spirits of America than Presidents Adams and Jefferson. One believed completely in a strong central government; the other believed equally completely in a weak one. The two argued, often contentiously and always with eloquence and conviction, in favour of their respective positions.

Yet the two of them were also closer than brothers. Their respect for each other transcended their political differences and united them in their love for their new country, and their desire to see it succeed. Not for nothing have they been called "Founding Brothers".

This is what America has lost today. The two sides of the debate no longer talk to each other. They talk past each other.

I do not necessarily claim this to be a bad thing, by the way. The reality is that the Right understands full well how the Left thinks by now. But the Left has absolutely no bloody CLUE how and why we think the way we do.

Our positions- particularly those of the alt-Right- are rooted in evidence, fact, and a cold-blooded appreciation of the realities of the human condition. Our predictive models are better than theirs because ours actually work, and because we modify the assumptions going into them when they don't work. Our ability to adapt, react, and overcome is far greater than theirs because our thought process is predicated on the fundamental axiom that Man is Flawed, Fallen, and broken, and cannot be redeemed by his fellow Man no matter how hard we try; as such, we don't get hung up on stupid shit that doesn't work.

Their mental model is outdated and deeply flawed. Their predictive skills are woefully inadequate for the new realities that they face. They are having the devil's own time adapting to the new world- a world that they never expected would exist in the first place.

I've seen this in my own family; when Donald Trump was elected, my parents and especially my sister simply could not fathom how on Earth such a disaster could have befallen the world- but because I had been paying attention to things that they hadn't been, and because I was capable of looking far beyond my own experiences at the realities on the ground, I had predicted a Trump victory since late May and was not particularly surprised when he actually did win.

And since then, as I had also predicted, he has proven to be a far more sensible President(-elect) than his campaign rhetoric had led people to believe.

But the fact remains that the two sides of the country are no longer talking to each other. And that is extraordinarily bad news- for one side, not the other.

As you see from the map above, the Left Coast elites are concentrated in specific bastions and surrounded on just about all sides by the very people that they so despise- and yet depend upon to supply all of their basic necessities in life.

I'm no military strategist, but even I can figure out that it's generally a very stupid idea to piss all over your own supply lines when surrounded by potentially hostile forces. Yet that is exactly what the Left has proceeded to do by throwing a truly epic shit-fit ever since the election of the God-Emperor.

The outcome of this increasing divide is almost surely going to be war, once again. The talking has long since stopped; I'm pretty much just waiting for the real shooting to start. The question that every American then must ask himself is, "which side do I choose?"

If you believe in what a predominantly white, productive, small-government America once stood for, then the answer is obvious: it's that sea of red out there in "flyover country" that has been treated like a cross between fungus and vomit for the better part of a quarter century by the very people who now demand that the will of those same folk be overturned by force.

*Hat tip to LTC Tom Kratman, who found that map and used it for his EveryJoe column from a while back- from whence I duly pinched the same.

Sunday, 15 January 2017

It's not science-fiction anymore

In the sci-fi anthology Riding the Red Horse, Vol. 1, the very first story in that set was a work by Eric S. Raymond called "Sucker Punch", in which Mr. Raymond provided an idea of what future naval and air warfare would look like the day that high-intensity lasers were introduced to the battlefield. Basically, the highly impressive but hugely expensive Carrier Battle Groups that every major sea-going power loves to show off, would be rendered completely obsolete in a single day.

In fact, manned air combat craft would overnight be turned into three hundred million dollar piles of flying scrap.

British soldiers, ships and warplanes could be going into battle armed with Star Wars-style lasers. 
The Ministry of Defence has signed a £30million contract for a prototype weapon from a consortium called UK Dragonfire. 
It will fire high-energy bursts of light capable of destroying rockets, ships and missiles in the blink of an eye. 
Defence chiefs also want the system, which is expected to have a range of about a mile and a quarter, to be able to take down drones. 
It is currently under development, with researchers aiming to find out if ‘directed energy’ technology could benefit the armed forces. 
If successful, the programme could come into service in the Army and Navy by the mid-2020s, and then fitted to future generations of fighter jets by the 2030s. 
One of the major advantages laser weapons have over traditional systems is that the munition is potentially unlimited – the system needs only a power source. 
It also operates at the speed of light so the time from when a operative presses ‘fire’ to the weapon hitting its target is more or less instantaneous. 
Peter Cooper, from the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, said the project ‘draws on innovative research into high-power lasers’. 
He added that this could ‘provide a more effective response to the emerging threats that could be faced by UK Armed Forces’. 
The laser will ‘target and defeat aerial threats’ in three ways. It could bring down an aircraft by burning a hole in it, destroy its capabilities by overloading its sensors with light, or blind aircrew.
As was also pointed out in the same anthology, it is a basic truism of warfare that cheap and effective always beats out expensive and over-engineered. In this case, a relatively simple but very powerful laser, costing maybe a few hundred grand per unit, is going to be the death knell for all of the super-duper whiz-bang stealth jets that anyone- American, Russian, Chinese, whatever- is ever going to come up with.

Stealth technology sounds really cool on paper. Essentially, you use shaping and radar-absorbent materials to reflect, refract, and diffuse radar waves away from and around an aircraft, so that its radar cross-section appears to be the size of, oh, a bumblebee- or even smaller.

Back in the day when the F-117 Nighthawk stealth "fighter" was being tested (it was actually a bomber, not a fighter), the testers stuck steel ball bearings of ever-decreasing size on the nose of the thing and then zapped it with radar waves. The F-117's cross-section handily beat every single ball-bearing tested against it- including one that was just one-eighth of an inch across.

The stealth jets that have come along since then, such as the F-35 and especially the F-22, are even more stealthy (supposedly) than the venerable old F-117. The Russians are developing a fifth-generation fighter called the Sukhoi PAK-FA that aims to be able to go toe-to-toe with an F-22. The Chinese are doing much the same with their future combat aircraft.

And all of them are spending money on precisely the wrong technology.

The major problem with stealth is that it is more of a marketing exercise than a realistic offensive technology. Don't get me wrong, it absolutely does work- when used under exactly the right circumstances. It worked brilliantly against the Iraqis in the first Gulf War, because the Iraqis were using then-contemporary Soviet-built radar systems as part of their C&C network. Those radar arrays were tuned to the kinds of high-frequency bands that American stealth bombers were specifically designed to beat; hence, they were able to slip in undetected and land those laser-guided bombs that they dropped on the Iraqi command bunkers to such devastating effect.

But modern stealth technology is not, by and large, designed to defeat older radar systems that use lower frequency radar waves.

And that is precisely why the Serbs, during the 1999 Kosovo War, were able to shoot down an F-117. They were using older, "obsolete" long-wavelength Soviet-era radar systems, which had a much easier time detecting the "stealthy" jet despite its design and its radar-absorbent coatings. When they combined that with knowledge of the local F-117 squadron's takeoff, landing, and attack patterns, shooting down the Nighthawk turned out to be a lot easier than the airheads in the US military command thought.

Now, imagine what will happen when America decides to get all up in Russia's grill, or China's, and sends in a squadron of F-22s, or a couple of B-2 bombers, to make a point. All that the Russians and Chinese have to do is dust off a couple of those old "obsolete" long-wavelength radar arrays- which they've been developing and refining over the last twenty years for precisely such a scenario- and they'll get a general idea in an awfully big hurry of exactly what is heading their way.

And then imagine what will happen when you pair a radar array that can spot American stealth aircraft coming with blood in their eyes, with a giant big-ass Death Star-style laser beam that can boil the eyes in the pilots' skulls and blast holes through the fuselages.

Yeah. You've got a catastrophic, and colossally expensive, military defeat just waiting to happen.

A single B-2 bomber costs the United States, on the hoof, over $2 BILLION. That's with a "B". A single F-22 fighter costs... well, I'm not sure if anyone actually knows what the true unit cost is, but the last time I checked, it's somewhere on the order of $600 MILLION. And a single F-35 costs something on the order of over $200 million by now.

These aren't exactly cheap toys. And now they are about to be rendered completely and totally obsolete- along with all of multi-billion-dollar carrier battle groups.

The face of warfare is changing, fast. It won't be very long before laser weapons like these are no longer just the realm of fevered speculation on the part of eight-year-old boys drawing in the margins of maths textbooks because they're bored out of their gourds in class. Very soon, laser weaponry like this WILL hit the battlefield. It WILL fall into the hands of America's enemies- I'm thinking specifically of the RIFs in both the Sandbox and the Rockpile, and Lord only knows how many other locations besides.

And then it won't be long before America's military suffers one costly loss after another to cheap, simple, highly effective weaponry that will blunt America's much-vaunted technological edge in a very big hurry.

The time for such expensive, over-engineered, overly complicated toys is long done. The time to return to a simpler, more direct, and far more lethal philosophy of warfighting is long overdue. Let us hope that America's new leadership is up to the challenge of refocusing this country's vast military machine toward the challenges of future warfare against non-trinitarian opponents, instead of trying to fight the Cold War all over again.

If they don't, it is distinctly possible that America will once again send dozens or hundreds of brave young men off to their deaths in overly complicated steel-and-carbon-fibre death traps without any hope of victory.

Friday, 13 January 2017

Friday T&A: Page 3 Girls Edition

Somewhere in the middle of the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean is a wet, damp, dark, moss-covered, miserably gloomy, perpetually cloudy large hunk of rock called "Britain". Its people are drunken and morose. The food there ranges anywhere from merely offensively boring to inedibly so. Their idea of "beer" involves amber-coloured warm flat liquid with bits of soil floating around on the top which they call "ale"*.

All told, Britain is generally not a terribly appealing place at first glance.

But the Brits do have one rather pleasant tradition that almost makes up for the rest of their deficiencies.

You see, several of the mass-market newspapers have a special page dedicated solely to... how does one put this delicately... gratuitous displays of the lovely naked lady lumps of young, nubile women who clearly struck gold in the genetic lottery.

There, I'm sure that was PC enough.

These pictures of some of the top Page 3 girls in Britain's long and glorious history of epic boobies, on the other hand, are not PC.

They're trashy, they can be truly stupid (see: Katie Price), they can and do make appalling life choices (see: Jodie Marsh), and they are usually not the sorts of girls that you bring home to mum (see: Katie Price, again).

But you have to admit, they've got plenty going for them otherwise. Especially in the front-and-centre department.

Enjoy, lads. Time to go drink some winter ale.

Danni Wells:

Sophie Howard:

Michelle Marsh:

Britain's favourite hot mess, Jordan:

Helen Flanagan:

Keely Hazell:

And now for the best of the lot- the one, the only, Lucy Pinder:

You know what? It's Friday, I'm in a pretty good mood, and it is Lucy Pinder we're talking about. Y'all deserve one more. In fact, let's make it a twofer:

Considering what I've seen of British girls, and how poorly they compare with ladies from, say, Eastern Europe, it's astonishing what kind of talent you'll find floating around there in the North Sea.

*In fairness, the Brits consider the frozen horse-piss that you Americans call "beer" to be an offence to God's Law. I have to admit, I'm thoroughly inclined to agree with them on that subject.

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

Bitch gets bitchslapped

The God-Emperor Ascendant just gave the world an absolute masterclass in how to handle the legacy news media:


Of course, we know that The Donald knows how to handle the media. He has proven it over and over again. What he has shown us, though, indicates that he will be far less tolerant of their stupidity and nonsense than, say, George W. Bush, the last Demoblican Republicrat President from the Stupid Wing of the One Party of Big Government to occupy the White House.

And that is a very good thing indeed.

The problem with President Bush's handling of the media was that, basically, he never fought back. I may not have particularly liked President Bush- he was one of the most progressive (read: bad) Presidents this country has ever had. But I respected him. I believe that he was a fundamentally good and decent man trying to do what he thought was the right thing in a bad and indecent time. Most of the time, he failed, because his worldview gave him a mental model that did not accurately reflect reality.

Of course, because he was a straight white and supposedly conservative male, he was Public Enemy #1 as far as the fake news media went. And they went after him with a level of viciousness and venom that, in hindsight, was quite astonishing.

President Bush made the same fatal mistake that all cuckservatives make: he tried to be honourable and play nice. He thought that his enemies would play by the same rules that he did. And he was completely, totally, hopelessly wrong.

He did not realise that he was not dealing with regular progressives. As noxious and odious as their ideology is, most progressives are still, by and large, fairly decent people. They may be utterly deluded and incapable of seeing reality for what it is- they have a highly defective mental model, by definition. But they mean well (which is about the best thing that can be said about them).

In fact, he was dealing with social justice warriors. And back when he was President, there did not exist a straightforward, well-written, concise, and easily understood taxonomy of social justice warriors. (We do have one now, and it is essential reading.)

SJWs are not bound by the same rules of honourable combat that we are- or rather, that we used to be. They will use whatever methods they deem necessary to achieve their objectives- no matter how foul, immoral, disgusting, or evil. They are very good at it; their tactics are terrifyingly effective and extremely destructive when used to its maximum effect.

The "SJW Swarm" depends on overwhelming numbers, speed, intimidation, and the highly precise targeting of vulnerable points. There are times when I think that some of these SJW hate-mobs could have given the old Sturmtruppen of the Wehrmacht a few key lessons on the subject of double-envelopment manoeuvres.

But they pretty much have only one tactic- and its effectiveness relies solely on the sheer terror that it inspires in its target.

The moment that they run into a hardened target without the usual vulnerabilities, who is willing and able and ready to fight back, they immediately run out of ideas.

And as Trump-Muad'dib has repeatedly and ably demonstrated during his campaign and ever since he won the election, the SJWs of the fake-news media cannot handle it when their targets decide to fight back.

The Donald is doing rather more than just fighting back, in fact. He is winning- and winning big. He is taking the fight directly to his enemies- and they are now running in disarray, unable to fight back. It's glorious to watch.

After thirty long and terrible years, America once again FINALLY has a President Badass in charge, who knows exactly how to fight a war against Enemies Foreign And Domestic.

Godspeed, President Trump. The next few years are going to be EPIC.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017


A few video game fans who also happen to be master metalsmiths decided to entertain a hugely popular fan request and managed to create an actual working Warhammer 40K CHAINSWORD:

Holy shit. That is BADASS.

I have the highest respect for people who work with their hands to craft things like that chainsword. It takes years of practice at the highest level to become a master craftsman- and in that video we got to see several such men expressing their craft to the utmost level to create something astonishing.

Now if only we could go find some Chaos Marines or Orks to use it on...

Monday, 9 January 2017


Chaps, remember how, back in late November, there was a really rather fetching young woman who promised to blow any man who voted "No" in Italy's constitutional reform referendum? Which then won in a landslide and forced Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to resign?

Turns out, she's a woman of her word:
An Italian actress who promised to perform a sex act on everyone who voted no in her country's referendum has completed the first date of her tour. 
Paola Saulino, 27, told fans that she was a 'woman of [her] word' after announcing tour dates in 10 Italian cities in December. 
She posted a photograph of herself on Instagram on Saturday, along with the caption: 'First step of #pompatour is gone! A little bit tired [but] everthing is okay.' 
The actress and glamour model added: 'This year is started in a best way as possible.' 
Ms Saulino, whose Instagram page features a number of suggestive shots, has flown from her home in Los Angeles to begin the first leg of her Pompa Tour. 'Pompa' is an Italian slang word for oral sex. 
She initially made the promise to perform a sex act on everyone who voted no in Italy's referendum on November 23, before announcing tour dates in December. 
Ms Saulino said she would be visiting Rome, Florence, Bologna, Verona, Milan, Turin, Naples, Bari, Lecce and Palermo this month for the first leg of her tour, urging people to fill in a booking form if they had voted No.
Before I write anything else, let me just point out one thing for the record:

This lady IS NOT wife material.

Yes, I realise this should be blindingly obvious, but I have no doubt that there is some chap out there who would be willing to put a ring on it just because she could suck-start a leaf-blower. Poor bastard is going to find himself divorced in an awfully big hurry. Never turn a ho into a housewife- especially if her N-count is in the triple digits.

Any woman who would happily give dozens or hundreds of men blow-jobs for votes is going to be terrific girlfriend material, to be sure (at least for a little while). But no more than that.

That aside, I really must commend Ms. Saulino on keeping her word. I don't think much of her beyond that, obviously, but I do find it hilarious that we of the new Right have so much more to offer, in every way, than our opponents do.

After all, it used to be that men in the sixties and seventies would take up radical leftist politics because, well, all the hot women were there. Nowadays, though, look at the difference between women on the Left and women on the Right:

Can I just ask, though- why is Michelle Malkin considered hot? It's just my personal opinion but I don't see anything much there.

At any rate, the true test of Ms. Saulino's commitment to her promise is, as LTC Kratman pointed out back in December, whether she will keep it if a woman shows up to claim her, uh, prize for voting "No".

In which case:


Friday, 6 January 2017

Not watching that, then

The folks in charge of the films division over at Disney are evidently running out of ideas, because now they've gone and made the upcoming live-action remake of their animated classic Beauty and the Beast into a love-letter to feminists:
“Beauty and the Beast” might be a tale as old as time, but that doesn’t mean its gender politics have to be in the dark ages. 
Details are slowly trickling out about Disney’s upcoming live-action remake of the classic love story, and we’re happy to hear that there’s a feminist twist in store for Emma Watson’s Belle. [Uh... you might be, bub, but the rest of us are not interested.]
“In the animated movie, it’s her father who is the inventor, and we actually co-opted that for Belle,” Watson told Entertainment Weekly in a recent interview. “I was like, ‘Well, there was never very much information or detail at the beginning of the story as to why Belle didn’t fit in, other than she liked books. Also, what is she doing with her time?’ So, we created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead. So, yeah, we made Belle an inventor.

There are still young girls who are not able to go to school because of cultural restrictions. Children are being married off at a young age. This inhibits their opportunities to a better life and future. 
In addition, the Beauty and the Beast actress is not far off from her role in the movie. In the movie, Belle is a vibrant young woman full of strength and passion. She lies in a conforming society and she strives to be more than that. This is why Belle is a different take on Disney‘s usual reputation of having its female characters as a damsel in distress. 
Much like Watson, her character loves to read and has goals and aspirations. This Beauty is known for her bravery, intelligence and independence. And this can scream feminism. Something that Vanity Fair even points out. 
Moreover, even Emma Watson makes it a point to evolve the character with a fresher feminist twist. Aside from the original back story, Watson adds more depth. In addition, she makes sure that her character is not just into books but also invention.
Question: does being a feminist require one to undergo a lobotomisation of the part of the brain that deals with facts, logic, and evidence?

Notice anything in that list? Like, say, how virtually EVERY SINGLE NAME is male?

Notice how it's very, very short?

That would be because just about anything of any serious note has been invented or discovered by men.

The few notable female exceptions are just that- truly exceptional. The name of Marie Curie, one of the greatest scientists ever, springs to mind. But, again, that is because Madame Curie was totally devoted to scientific analysis and exploration- and was assisted in no small part by her husband, Pierre Curie, who gets far less credit than he should for his discovery, with his wife, of radiation phenomena.

So that's the whole "amazingly talented female inventor" thing dispatched, then. Making Belle an "inventor" in the new movie is about as realistic, and approximately as palatable, as yours truly singing soprano in a dress.

(If you're about to hurl, don't worry, I find the idea even more horrifying than you do.)

Now, how about we deal with the fact that Emma Watson is playing the part of Belle?

I was recently watching one of the earlier Harry Potter movies again with my family- the second one, I think, the one that involved the giant-ass snake at the end. It's not all that bad as a movie, I suppose, but one thing in it makes my teeth stand on edge these days: Emma Watson's character, Hermione Granger.

She is quite simply insufferable.

And apparently, Miss Hermione there is not far off from what Ms. Watson is like in real life.

Now, when I noted how irritating Hermione was on film, my sister, who I am truly sad to say calls herself a feminist, retorted that "she's basically a female version of you, y'know". And she's actually right about that. As a child I was extremely precocious and quite annoyingly keen to demonstrate my knowledge of... well, anything to anybody who cared to listen.

However, smart-alecky young boys have one highly effective corrective mechanism that girls don't: if we run our mouths too hard, we get bullied for it. Sometimes mercilessly- as I was.

I'm guessing that the even more precocious Ms. Watson probably didn't have enough people telling her that her precious-snowflake opinions are not actually that interesting to most others when she was young. That would explain why she thinks that she needs to inject more feminism into Disney's already highly feminised take on a traditional fairy tale.

This movie is going to be one of the clearest demonstrations ever recorded of the Third Law of Social Justice: SJWs always double-down.

The animated Beauty and the Beast was successful because Belle's intellectual appetites did not get in the way of her feminity. She was bright and a voracious reader, to be sure- but she was also pretty, pleasant, warm, and caring. That film showed that a good woman can bring joy to a man's life, and can change him from a self-centred egotistical jackass into a good and decent human being.

That is right, correct, and completely in line with observable reality.

The new film is going to insist on taking a not particularly attractive (in my personal opinion) actress who is clearly a feminist and borderline SJW, and letting her force her own feminist agenda down the throats of movie-goers. They are going to force us to believe that a woman can be an inventor with her own career, in mediaeval France- where women were generally not literate unless they were part of the nobility- and is, at the same time, so beautiful and wonderful and warm and caring that she can transform a terrifying beast into a loving man.

Yeah, right.

For the record, I am not against strong female protagonists in films. I am a big fan of the Underworld film series, for instance- and not just because Kate Beckinsale looks like... well, this in skintight leather and latex:

I like the series because there is a real story in there along with all of the action and shit blowing up and vampire versus werewolf battles. I like the series because Selene's powers and abilities are explained. When she initially takes on far stronger opponents, she gets her ass kicked; then she drinks some ancient superblood and becomes far stronger and ends up winning her fights, albeit with difficulty.

She is not, in other words, a Mary Sue.

The new Belle, by contrast, looks to be every bit as much of a Mary Sue as Rey was from STAR WARS VII: A Lost Hope.

Put this new Beauty and the Beast film in the do-not-watch bin. Everything I'm seeing tells me it's going to be terrible.