Fucking Morons

Headline:

Black Friday fever spreads across the world: Carnage breaks out in stores as shoppers clamber over each other to get a bargain

Response (from Reader Old Texan):

“If you get up early and go out to spend money you don’t have, on crap
you don’t need, just because it is marked down oh so low, you’re an idiot.”

This bullshit started in the United States because the Friday after Thanksgiving supposedly marks the beginning of the Christmas* shopping season.  Now even countries who don’t celebrate Thanksgiving (i.e. every country not the United States) are in thrall to this hysteria.  What a bloody shambles.


*and yes, it’s Christmas, not the fucking “holidays”.

Stupidity

Sometimes I fear for us all.  In an otherwise-interesting article on the world’s “vanishing countries” which talks about how China’s population growth is slowing, we also see examples of foolishness such as this:

China is relaxing its one-child policy — but it may be too late. In addition to lacking workers, a fifth of China’s homes are empty, reported Bloomberg news — more than 50 million apartments and houses have no inhabitants.
Fertile countries have a far brighter future. They are a good place to invest your money, said Hans Rosling, a Swedish professor and demographic “prophet” who died in February.
“You will find an emerging China in Africa,” he told the BBC in a final interview. “Go there to invest if you want to earn money, if you want to have nice pensions when you retire, place part of your capital there because there you will see fast growth.”

Clearly, Rosling never set foot on the African continent, where there’s never been a shortage of workers, only a shortage of honest government.  Allow me to revise his statement for you:

“Go invest in African countries if you want to lose money, if you want to have no pensions when you retire, and place part of your capital there if you want to see fast growth in African politicians’ bank accounts and not in yours, and to see no tangible results from your investment.”

That’s the reality of investing in Africa.

It reminds me of that old, withering observation:  “Your suggestion is so stupid, so devoid of commonsense and logic that it could only have been made by an academic or intellectual.”  (Note that the latter two are not synonymous.)

And these are the people who are regarded as the intelligent ones, who advise governments and tell us how to run our lives.

Hyperbole — Or Is It?

So having taken back the U.S. House, the Socialists are starting to feel their oats:

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”
Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

And when he got some blowback, the little turd went full Stalin:

It is a recurring fantasy of socialists that they can disarm Americans without too much difficulty.  Of course, we know that’s not true, and if the FedGov were ever to try it, the cost would be prohibitive (in so many ways).  And for the record, let’s forget all about nukes.  That’s just a wet dream on the part of socialists like Swalwell;  they want to wish the problem away with a wave of a magic wand — it’s a recurring fantasy of theirs for just about every issue — and “nukes” is just a shorthand.

Where this socialist scumbag and his ilk are dangerous is this bullshit talk of “common ground”.  Let me make this clear:  between gun owners and gun confiscators, there is no common ground.  It’s the same with the “commonsense gun control legislation” that they bat around:  there’s no such thing.  Every single piece of legislation suggested by gun controllers has one, and only one goal in mind:  the eventual disarming of the American people.  They can protest all they want, but we know the truth of the matter, which is that all gun control legislation is incremental, because they know that sweeping gun control (confiscation and disarmament) just ain’t gonna happen, dreams of the Swalwell types notwithstanding.

It is quite possible that gun confiscation might have some small success — e.g. in Swalwell’s own district (see below), where the incidence of legal gun ownership is probably quite low and the Democrat Socialist-majority voting population might even support the idea of giving up whatever guns they have.  (And I know what you’re thinking:  nuking the 15th district, and especially with the concomitant fallout, would actually solve quite a few problems, but let’s not go there.)

Also, Swalwell might have at his behest the loathsome assholes of the California State Police, who were so notably efficient in disarming households in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina floods.  So yeah:  it’s quite feasible that confiscation could work there.

In North Texas, not so much.  In the first place, the would-be confiscators would have to overcome Texas political sentiment about guns — good luck with that — and according to our last county sheriff, the confiscating force would first have to go through his deputies to get to our guns.  And I’m sure that north Texas isn’t alone in this attitude, not just in Texas but all over the U.S.

We don’t have to worry about gun confiscation, the wet dreams of pissants like Swalwell notwithstanding.  What we have to worry about is, as I said above, all the “reasonable” gun control legislation such as, for example, legislation that would limit the type of gun you can own, or equally bad, limits on things like the amount or types of ammunition you can own, or whether you have to register with government as a “gun owner” before being able to buy it.  (Don’t laugh;  that’s the situation that faces  Californian gun owners right now.)

Did I already mention that today is National Ammo Day?

Let me offer a little additional advice:  if you don’t already own a semi-automatic rifle (and we all know what I mean by that), you might want to improve your gun collection by buying an AK-47, AR-15/20 type, SAR-58 or HK-91 (to name but some options) — and buy it today (along with a “sufficiency” of ammo for the rifle, of course).  Send me an email if you want some more details.

Bed-Breaking Antics

Apparently this couple were engaged in sex when the bed broke, violently catapulting the woman onto the floor and causing her to break her back.

This being the Modern Era, she sued the manufacturer of said bed for lots of money.  Result:

[Woman] LOSES bid for £1 million damages after judge rules ‘tragic accident’ was down to ‘unusual positioning and movement’

Personally, I blame the Daily Mail newspaper for her injury.  Is it not the Mail which publishes articles such as this?

Couples stuck in a sexual rut need look no further, as a new guide breaks down the most satisfying – yet challenging – new positions to try in the bedroom.
Unveiled by the British lingerie giant Ann Summers, the top five most difficult to master moves will require dexterity on the part of both you and your partner.
According to Ann Summers its top five are the ‘most pleasurable’ positions, but it concedes they’ll take some practice.
The retailer’s resident ‘flexpert’, Charlotte, said: ‘It is important to train your body to be able to contort properly, but it will be worth it for both you and your other half.
‘However you will need to practice regularly if you want to attempt the most difficult sex positions with your perfect partner.’

They even have pictures to illustrate them — just not of actual couples, the cowards, but marionettes:

(Note that the female figure is bent over backwards in this one.  I dunno;  maybe US gymnast Nastia Liukin could do it, but not many others.)

Anyway, I think the Mail  should shoulder at least a little responsibility here;  although that said, I think that if the abovementioned judge is to believed, older women need to be a little more cautious before launching into “unusual positioning and movement”.

And under no circumstances should anyone attempt the notorious “aircraft-carrier-landing position”, which carries a severe risk of injury to those attempting it.  Don’t make me post the picture…

Half Of All White Women Are Stupid

And no, it’s not the half referred to by this silly Brit tart in The Grauniad, it’s the half of all White women who stupidly continue to vote for the Socialists.  Here’s why I think this.

I’m always told that women have a built-in need for security (created by thousands of years of conditioning for being the — physically — weaker sex).  This, we are assured, is why women continue to vote for Big Government parties such as proposed by the Socialists — that women’s social safety is guaranteed by Gummint — despite all the evidence collected over recent decades that the Big Government parties provide anything but security.

As an example, I wonder how many of the millions of women who have fled the Big-Government paradises of, say, Venezuela or Cuba would vote again for a socialist government (assuming, of course, that said government would allow them to vote against the Party).

And with such evidence clearly apparent to all, why then would any White women even consider letting the socialists (or the Socialist Party U.S.A.) become the ruling government party?

Well, the simple answer is that despite all the evidence of socialist failures, half of White women are stupid enough either to remain ignorant of, or to willfully ignore said evidence, and continue to support the party which promises that Big Brother Government will take care of all security issues.

Rush Limbaugh is of the opinion that such stupidity can only come from having attended college, which pushes the “all Marxism, all the time” agenda through the various “-Studies” courses.  Using the Grauniad bint’s own words to illustrate the point, try this one on for size:

White women’s identity places them in a curious position at the intersection of two vectors of privilege and oppression: they are granted structural power by their race, but excluded from it by their sex. In a political system where racism and sexism are both so deeply ingrained, white women must choose to be loyal to either the more powerful aspect of their identity, their race, or to the less powerful, their sex. Some Republican white women might lean into racism not only for racism’s sake, but also as a means of avoiding or denying the realities of how sexist oppression makes them vulnerable.

Anytime a writer uses a scientific word like “vector” and applies it to a social situation, there is a 99.99% chance that this application was learned at a university.  (Donegan then goes on to worshipfully quote the late (and much-discredited) ultra-feminist harpy Andrea Dworkin, which of course should disqualify her entire thesis to any rational human being, male or female.  But try this stretch:

What is wrong with white women? Why do half of them so consistently vote for Republicans, even as the Republican party morphs into a monstrously ugly organization that is increasingly indistinguishable from a hate group? The most likely answer seems to be that white women vote for Republicans for the same reason that white men do: because they are racist. Trump, with his raucous rallies and his bloviating, combative style, has offered his supporters an opportunity to savor the pleasures of being cruel. It is likely that the white women who voted for him in 2016, and who will vote for him again in 2020, find this racist sadism gratifying. It is fun for them.

If I were a rational White woman — i.e. one who doesn’t buy into any of the lies of socialism any more — I’d be steaming with rage about now at having this race-guilt bullshit applied to them.

Because that’s all Donegan’s piece is:  a transparent attempt to shame White women to stay in the socialist mindset, or if not already there, to move into it.

What’s even more risible is Donegan’s characterization of the two American political parties, viz.:

There is a battle on for the soul of America, between the peevish, racist cruelty of Trump and his supporters and a vision of inclusion, justice, and decency forwarded by an increasingly diverse coalition on the left.

Let me be as succinct as I can, here.

The “increasingly diverse coalition on the left” is not inclusive (hence the demonization of White women as racist).  Nor does this coalition favor justice (“believe the woman and ignore the evidence”).  As for decency… fucking hell, let’s ask Brett Kavanaugh, Heidi Cruz, Elaine Chao, Nikki Haley and Kirstjen Nielsen how well the Left “forwards” that  behavior.

As always with the Left, it’s all a pack of lies — all of it, without exception — and what truly gladdens me is that at least half of all White women have realized that, are not fooled, and refuse to have any truck with them.

Long may that attitude continue, and grow.  For all our sakes.