What We Face

As we conservatives gird up to face what would destroy us and our beloved country, consider this article a warning.

Under a prevalent view that has emerged from universities in recent years, a wrong opinion is seen as tantamount to a thrown punch or even an indication of a willingness to genocide—which invites the idea that an offended party who throws a real punch (or worse) is simply acting in self-defense. This idea has become so pervasive and is so taken-for-granted at this point that even workaday journalists now pay homage to this academic conceit in their work.

Who defines what constitutes a “wrong” opinion?  (Hint: it isn’t you.)  Read the whole disgusting thing.

And as a wise man once said:

“Of course, the game the Left has always played is to use violence as a pretext to impose their preferred policies. We’ve had waves of left-wing violence since the Obama administration, all intended to elicit a response. Those responses are used to justify what amounts to political terrorism.”.

Feel free to see what people think, here.

Damn, and I was only at the range a couple days ago, practicing with a sniper rifle.

Well, if you’ll excuse me… that 1911 isn’t going to shoot itself.  Maybe it’s also time for a little AK practice, too.

Gloves Off

So here’s a cute little thing on Twatter:

What amuses me is that the people who post shit like this are not going to be the ones throwing bricks.

Okay.  So if you’re going to resort to hurling dangerous-if-not-lethal objects at us, then you’ll have no problem with us using dangerous-if-not-lethal bullets against you?

I repeat, for the umpteenth time:  are you Leftist lunatics absolutely sure  you want to start down this road?

Changing The Rules

We’ve all seen it:  Lefties, anarchists, so-called “liberals” and so on assaulting conservatives, whether on the streets, in restaurants, in gyms, whatever.

The toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days, with the nation’s most respected newspapers publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees, while a journalist found himself under physical attack from the so-called anti-fascist group Antifa, which has stepped up its violent activities since Trump’s election.
The justification for denying public accommodation came from the Washington Post in an op-ed by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wilkinson became famous in June of last year, when she refused to serve White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and and told Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant. Wilkinson’s staff then followed the Sanders group in protest as they tried to find another place to eat.
Wilkinson later told the press she ejected Sanders because the Trump administration is “inhumane and unethical” and because the Red Hen “has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.”

Really?

“If you’re an unsavory individual,” Wilkinson concluded, “we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you.” Better to stay home than risk the spittle. (In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president’s son.)

Sounds like the stakes are getting a little more serious — especially when the so-called “law enforcement” agencies are looking the other way.

But the real enablers here are the politicians and journalists who’ve championed Antifa, such as the CNN presenter Chris Cuomo, as well as the Portland authorities who have consistently turned a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the group. Indeed, Andy himself was assaulted by an Antifa activist at his gym last month and the Portland Police took no action. And he was punched in the stomach while covering an Antifa May Day protest in Portland while a police officer stood by and did nothing.

And here’s the real take:

Antifa fighters beat up and milkshaked Ngo, apparently because he was there and he was not on their side.

So “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” ?  O-o-o-okay.  Powerline puts it this way:

Liberals act as though they are spoiling for a civil war, or at least a slow-motion approximation thereof. Is that really what they want? Fighting in the streets? And, evidently, the restaurants? Do they have reason to think they would fare well if they actually got what they claim to want?

Just remember, assholes, when some Pantifa Pussy gets a .357 Mag bullet in the face for tossing a concrete-laced milkshake at someone — you started this bullshit, not us.

Escalation can come from both sides, after all.

Are We There Yet?

From Stephen Green:

Now we have this bit of non-thinking from studious non-thinker Alexandria Occasional-Cortex.
• NYC was going to give Amazon a three-billion dollar tax break; i.e., not collect that much in taxes from Amazon’s new NYC HQ2.
• Now that Amazon has cancelled HQ2, AOC believes that NYC can spend that money they never collected, from a business which isn’t coming to NYC, on NYC’s favorite progressive causes.

As BidnessMan said:  

And please note the date on his post… so much more stupid has flowed since then.

Solutions

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

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

[pauses to let the applause die down]

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

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

And we have this as evidence:

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

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

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

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

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