Sep 302023
 

Is it proper to shoot a stranger who follows you around at close distance, behaves menacingly and has his buddies film you? This jury said “yes.” My main question: “Why did this even go to trial?”

Jury acquits man of main charge in Virginia mall shooting of YouTube prankster

This is a good precedent. Pranksters suck. They *pretend* to be an immanent threat, then when faced with physical force, claim “It’s just a prank, bro!” Naw. Acting like a threat makes you a valid target for responding to you as if you are a threat. Maybe instead of trying to terrify people for clicks, you do something productive.

Sadly, the victim was convicted of some firearms charge, which doesn’t make sense given that the jury recognized that this was a self defense situation. Never forget: even in the most obvious self defense situation, where everything is as clear as can be… we’re operating in a  system of anarcho-tyranny where the government *wants* you to live in fear of actual criminals. Defend yourself, your stuff, your friends or family, the government will do what it can to drop an anvil on you. Because you defending yourself offends the powers that be somehow.

Here’s one of the videos of the incident filmed by one of the villains co-conspirators:

 Posted by at 11:52 pm
Sep 282023
 

Astute blog readers will have noticed a slight dip in blogging activity of late. Why is this?

1: Some personal/family/veterinary issues.

2: Twitter, now that it’s no longer controlled by whackaloons, has become a more useful platform, and has taken a lot of the load.

3: I now have cyanotype blueprints regularly, commercially available. Check them out HERE.

4: Annnnd… I have a contract for Book Five, and I’ve been working on that. Book Five is similar in concept to “US Supersonic Bomber Projects Volumes 1 and 2;” it’s a stand-alone volume, but will, if it sells well, result in Book Six.

So, been a little busy.

 Posted by at 5:28 am
Sep 242023
 

Pennsylvania State Police trooper charged with strangulation, official oppression

According to a criminal complaint, Davis obtained an involuntary commitment under the Mental Health Procedure Act for a woman with whom he had a relationship.

There. Right there. That’s enough to go “Hold up, wait a minute, something ain’t right.” But even better, he found her out in the wild, tackled her and rolled her around on the rocks. Weird enough, but he’s substantially larger than her. In the video she *seems* reasonable enough under the circumstances. Of course the video starts with the action already in progress; perhaps she was going bugnuts prior to this. But what seems to be an ex boyfriend cop hunting down a woman out with another man, is a story that doesn’t sit right from the get-go

Some of the comentariat are complaining that the cameraman – possibly the new boyfriend – isn’t physically intervening. I get the impulse to do so… but I also understand that documenting the event is in all likelihood the best approach. Are you going to fight off the cop? Maybe, but then *other* cops will come hunt you down. Assuming the first guy doesn’t plug you or arrest you. Stand back, film, and see justice done in the end. Not as manly, not as satisfying… but a lot smarter.

Note that states that have laws against “high capacity” magazines and “assault” rifles typically have set-asides for off duty cops.

 Posted by at 8:34 pm
Sep 232023
 

Still needs to go to the USSC, but it’s another step in the right direction:

US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines

California’s ban on standard capacity magazines was struck down not on some technicality, but because it’s blazingly unconstitutional.

Ruling here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6082773/149/duncan-v-becerra/

 

Woe to the victim who runs out of ammunition before armed attackers do. The police will mark the ground with chalk, count the number of shell casings, and file the report.

 Posted by at 10:17 am
Sep 162023
 

Again.

The Dating Pool Dropouts

Yet another article about how young men are simply giving up on ever meeting anybody. The article isn’t *wrong,* it simply provides no solutions. Which… is kinda understandable. Nobody really knows how to solve this other than to destroy, outlaw, ban, erase social media and online dating and the ability for people to search *far* afield for their matches.

“That was his first date in three years. He says he once went six months without getting a single match on a dating app, even though he pays $30 in monthly fees between OkCupid, Bumble, and Hinge. If you count high school, when he went to the movies with a classmate, Jammall says he’s been on a total of three dates his entire life.

“And now, driving home from his date, it hit him like a ton of bricks: Why do I even do this at all? “

This sort of description is bad news for society, and it’s only getting worse.

Once more I’m left to wonder if this is an unintended consequence of various social and technological phenomena… or if it was intended from the get-go. Who benefits from the men of Western nations giving up on marriage, families, satisfaction, happiness? Certainly not Western nations. Perhaps certain sectors of those nations, looking to remake them into something else; perhaps enemy nations playing a long game, hoping to cause population collapse and demoralization in the West. And just maybe, as always, alien invaders looking to depopulate the more effective nations prior to invasion and conquest. Shrug.

 

 

 Posted by at 11:35 pm
Sep 092023
 

Lots of people think we’re on the cusp of ditching fossil fuels in favor of an all-electric “renewable” and “green” world.  There are of course a vast number of problems with this… when they say “all electric” they almost never mean “all nuclear,” but instead want to pave over the fields with a million acres of solar panels and fill the seas with whale-confounding wind turbines. But there are issues beyond just what method will produce the volts and amps. For instance… all the batteries will need to be filled with metals dug out of the Earth; electric motors and a billion miles of power lines will need to be processed from all the copper we can scrape up. And the problem seems to be that at current resource extraction (i.e. mining) rates, we’re nowhere near able to deliver those materials.

So it seems we have a few options:

1) Turn Earth into a giant open pit. To hell with the environment… we need to save the environment!

2) Go all-electric… and just tell people to suck it up, they’ll learn to live with less. 15-minute cities will seem like the wildest dream of raving libertarians. Personal vehicles? Gone. Traveling any sort of distance at all? Prohibitively expensive to simply prohibited. Air conditioning? A myth from the Old Ones.

3) Asteroid mining. Everything we might need is available a million times over floating out in space; the effort to retrieve it will open spaceflight to mankind in a way never before dreamed, spreading civilization and terrestrial biology to the furthest regions of the solar system.

Which will it be?

Challenges and Bottlenecks for the  Green Transition

 

 Posted by at 10:03 pm
Aug 312023
 

Before there was the Budweiser Disaster, there was Gillette. Back in 2019 they released one of the worst ads in history… a company whose primary market was men used an ad to tell men that they were evil for being men. This, unshockingly, did not result in an increase in sales. It did do some damage to the brand and to their stock price, but nothing like what happened to Bud; perhaps this indicates a shift in the culture, with sane people beginning to realize their power to boycott.

I thought the ad was simply bad planning married to bad marketing. But then, I don’t spend my time trying to analyze propaganda techniques (perhaps if I did, I’d have better sales). However, this feller seems to have a channel devoted to such things, so, perhaps somewhat delayed, he went through the ad almost frame by frame. He came up with some interesting discoveries and conclusions, both about what was done and what was done wrong.

 Posted by at 8:16 pm
Aug 252023
 

J. Robert Oppenheimer is justly famed for his role in developing the A-bomb. He is considered to be something of a martyr for what happened later… during the “Red Scare” he was stripped of his security clearance. But was it actually wrong to do so? Was his interest in the Communist Party some minor childish dalliance from his earlier years… or was it more serious? The recent movie, and most modern depictions, portray him in a positive light.

But he *was* a Communist. What’s worse, there’s good evidence – lots of it from the actual Soviets –  that he actively worked for them. He apparently slipped them heaps of data to help their bomb program, and then once the Soviets had the bomb, he worked to sabotage the American bomb program.

It’s probably well past time that Oppenheimer be re-examined. And if it’s finally concluded that he was a traitor, which there’s good evidence that he was, his name needs to be appropriately blackened as any Communists should be. We tear down statues of people who supported slavery 250 years ago; we tear down statues of people who supported the CSA for *whatever* reason 160 years ago; we would tear down statues of anyone who supported the Nazis 80 years ago. We should tear down statues and monuments and hagiographies of anyone who supported Communists a hundred years ago, fifty years ago or today.

Hollywood Rewrites History Again: What the Oppenheimer Deification Movie Didn’t Tell You

Communism is every bit as bad as Fascism, and arguably worse; Communists *today* are universally terrible people because they have a century of blood-soaked failure that they *choose* to ignore. Communists, their supporters and their wishy-washy Socialist wannabes need to be called out for the monsters and morons that they are. And that includes historical figures.

 Posted by at 2:00 pm