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?!?!?

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

The Pacific Rim of heavy metal

I had the immense pleasure of going to see SABATON play live the other night as they tour North America in support of their (awesome) new album. Now, if you've never been to see a SABATON gig, and you like their music, you need to do yourself the favour of getting your butt to whatever venue they're playing at next. You'll be in for a right treat.

The first thing you need to understand about the fans of this band is that we are insane. We love these guys. The last couple of times I've seen them play live, we were screaming ourselves hoarse long before they'd even gotten on stage, and at this latest gig, we'd starting moshing while their intro was playing.

You can just imagine what happened, therefore, when they hit the stage and launched into "Ghost Division". The place went completely and totally APESHIT.

The band themselves are always astonished at the level of support that they get when playing some of the East Coast cities. I don't think they've ever come over as a headlining act- every time I've seen them, they've been supporting someone or other, whether it be ICED EARTH (yawn) or AMON AMARTH or NIGHTWISH or TRIVIUM (*zzzzzz*). And yet they get treated like headliners every time.

But the best thing about a SABATON concert is, and has always been, the music. Yes, it's silly. Yes, it's over the top. Yes, they play more or less the same thing every single record. Yes, they are the Pacific Rim of the genre- they're either the most awesome dumb band, or the dumbest awesome band, on the entire planet.

Even so, there is something very endearing about their musical style and their sense of showmanship. And they absolutely LOVE their fans.

And we love them.

(As my kid sister said when I told her that I'd been to see SABATON play live: "I miss those buttheads".)

So if they're playing in a town near you, go see them. I promise you, it will be an experience you'll always remember.

Here is probably my favourite song of theirs- which, very sadly, they did not play at that gig:

Monday, 10 October 2016

Right, who can we offend next?

Hot on the heels of the most excellent "feminist death metal" video that he put together, Finntronaut has decided to do the world a great service and create a new video made in a similar vein about Islam.

Oh, I suppose I should provide a "spew warning" alert with this one- I remember LastRedoubt wasn't best pleased about the way that his morning coffee ended up all over his computer monitor from that feminist death metal video.

This one, though, probably involves a "vomit warning"- several of them, in fact.

See? I wasn't kidding about that.

Nonetheless, I'm damned glad that the Finntronaut went ahead with this video. Given the way that Muslims go into spontaneous ragefests the moment you criticise their so-called "prophet", he- like all of us who have taken on the "religion of peace" and tried to tell the truth about its viciousness, its degeneracy, and its history of extreme violence- is potentially putting his life on the line to do it.

On top of that, I have to say, as someone who actually likes death metal- I did say that my taste in music is unimpeachable, after all- he actually knows what he's doing. It's not quite up to the level of, say, TESTAMENT's "Throne of Thorns", but it's still pretty damn good.

Sunday, 9 October 2016

Fat-shame away, luv

Nicole Arbour, who you may or may not have come across in the past, is something of a character. She is a YouTube personality who combines the over-the-top perkiness of a cheerleader with the pneumatic looks of Malibu Barbie, topped off by a pretty effective caustic wit.

Her comedy routines are a little hit-or-miss, and being Canadian she is more than a little misinformed on the subject of rapefugees refugees, for instance, but she does have a way about her that I find pretty funny.

(Speaking of Canada... That is the country that produced Celine Dion, Justin Bieber, and Prime Minister Justin Bieber- uh, I mean, Trudeau. Do you Americans ever find yourselves wondering if you're looking to BUILD THAT DAMN WALL on the wrong border? Just sayin', chaps...)

Anyway, a little over a year ago, the hyper-pneumatic Ms. Arbour put forth a video called "Dear Fat People" and... well, the internet completely and totally lost its shit faster than Nic Cage.

Here's the video, by the way:

Now, maybe it's because I'm an asshole. (Granted.) Or maybe it's because I used to be pretty fat myself a little over 5 years ago before I discovered powerlifting and martial arts- I weighed something like 90Kg at 1.77m. (Interestingly, I weight just about the same now, but nobody in his right mind thinks I'm fat these days.) But I found absolutely nothing to be offended by in that video.

Ms. Arbour was basically just talking a lot of common sense, dressed up in acerbic yet funny hyperbole. And yet she was immediately attacked by hordes of fatasses who look (and sound) a lot like Trigglypuff's relatives.

Why? Because she dared to "fat-shame" people.

If you're scratching your head wondering how on Earth that could possibly be a "thing", don't worry, I am too.

Look, lardasses of the world, I get it. I know it's deeply unpleasant to be called fat and obese and get picked on because you're unfit and slow. I've been there. I was that stereotypical fat kid who loved to eat (I still do, actually), and who enjoyed stuffing himself with meat and carbs and cookies.

I come from a family of fat people. My paternal grandmother was a tiny woman who was severely obese for the last thirty years of her life, and eventually that extra weight was a factor in her death. Both of my parents are overweight. My sister is shorter than me but weighs more than I do, and most of her weight is fat.

I got bullied relentlessly as a kid, particularly when I was in Australia. (Which is ironic, given that fatassery over there wasn't exactly rare at the time, and has gotten significantly worse since I left 15 years ago.) When I started working, all of my rowing and dumbbell workouts didn't do a damn thing to stop the creeping advance of fat due to a sedentary lifestyle and a high-carb diet.

It was only when I discovered the iron and eating Paleo that things changed. I'm not lean, by any stretch of anybody's imagination, but I'm also not tubby.

So it is, in fact, possible for a fat bastard to become not fat- all he has to do is to put down the french fries and the jumbo-sized Coke, walk into a gym, learn how to squat properly, and eat green stuff on top of the brown stuff. Or at least, not eat as much of that stuff as he used to.

And fortunately, at least some of the tubbies watching Ms. Arbour's video actually got over seeing red (well, pink, in this particular case) and decided to get off their butts and change their lives:

You see, folks, there is absolutely nothing wrong with fat-shaming. It is a perfectly legitimate tactic to help the people that you care about in your life to improve themselves.

Sure, many of them will get pissed off at you. That's just too bad. The fact is that shame is a powerful human emotion, and like all emotions, it can be harnessed for both good and bad ends. In the case of fat or obese people who want to live happier, healthier lives, shaming them for being fat is no bad thing at all.

And Nicole Arbour, and those like her, are very much on to something when they attempt to tell the fatties of the world to take things into their own hands and become better people.