“Dear Dr. Kim”

“Dear Dr. Kim,
I recently read this article written by a relationship expert who claims that men have to do these five things in order to get some action from their ladies. Here’s the list:

  • Take away the stress
  • Stay connected
  • Surprise her
  • Give her space
  • Make her feel special

What do you think?”
— Desperate, Melbourne

Dear Desperate,

It’s a load of old bollocks. I didn’t even have to see the picture of this “relationship expert” to know it was a woman — there’s wishful thinking written all over each of those pathetic suggestions. Let me address each of them before I offer up my own tried-and-tested, guaranteed-not-to-fail suggestions that will have your lady at your complete priapic command.

  • Take away the stress — if the thought of bonking you is stressful, I’d suggest taking away all the stress by bonking someone else who isn’t stressed-out by the prospect
  • Stay connected — considering that you’re offering her the ultimate in “connectedness”, I have no idea what she means by this
  • Surprise her — yeah, and don’t you be surprised if she reacts negatively, followed by having you arrested for “spousal rape” (which is apparently some New Thing advocated by Teh Feministicals)
  • Give her space — in all likelihood, she already takes up most of the marital bed anyway; so give her even more space by getting into someone else’s bed (see above)
  • Make her feel special — if she’s refusing to have sex with you, that’s all the “special” she’s entitled to; so feel free to make someone else feel special (see above, again).

My own no-fail suggestions are quite simple, albeit costly:

  • pay to have her kitchen remodeled
  • buy her diamonds
  • buy her mother a new house (in another city — you don’t have to be stupid about this, after all)

If you’re unwilling to spend this much just for a roll in the old, familiar hay (and nobody can blame you for that), but you’re okay with spending some money just to get laid, send me a private email and I’ll send you the phone number for Madame Fifi’s House Of Carnal Delight. If you don’t want to spend any money at all to get your rocks off, you need to grow up, my son: sex is never free. Even when you’re married.
–Dr. Kim

Liberal Dreams

It looks as though my advice to Let Africa Sink has been comprehensively ignored by ultra-liberal Ex-BritPM Tony Blair (OMG, not him again), who is suggesting that Moar Foreign Aid will fix Africa’s problems. (Predictably, in the manner of socialists everywhere, if their system fails, the answer is to do it again, only harder.) This is recommended despite the history of foreign aid sent to Africa:

This time, however, the loathsome Blair seems to have acknowledged the failure of the West’s foreign aid policies (tacitly, at least), and has therefore added a new wrinkle: more foreign aid, plus… recolonization. Details of this lunacy can be found here — and fair warning, it is a long, long read. However, it’s worth the hassle, because in explaining Blair’s case for aid plus recolonization, the article contains a massive number of graphs and charts which outline, in extraordinary detail, just how badly and how comprehensively the African continent has managed to fuck things up. Sample (from many such), which shows what actually happens to most foreign aid:

Blair’s answer, which is wonderful, can be summarized as follows:

  • We Shall Run Your Governments
  • We Shall Run Your Infrastructure
  • We Shall Run Your Economies
  • We Shall Run Your Education and Health
  • We Shall Colonize You by Bringing You Here

(The last, by the way, has already been liberal governments’ policy for decades.)

Given liberal / socialist Western governments’ own track records in running government, infrastructure, the economy, education and health, a sensible African would run from both Blair’s suggestions and their existing predicament. (But that assumes that anyone’s sensible over there, which is a stretch.)

The most breathtaking hypothesis put forward in the article comes right at the end.

“What if Africa really is a continent inhabited by those to whom natural selection has bequeathed a different behavioral heritage than the rest of the planet?”

For the mealy-mouthed phrase “bequeathed different behavioral heritage“, substitute the more realistic “rendered incapable of self-government“.

I’d suggest that Blair read Kipling’s trenchant and disillusioned poem, The White Man’s Burden, which says quite plainly that regardless of all the West’s good intentions and efforts, the Third World will nevertheless sink into the pit. But no doubt, Blair was taught that Kipling was an eeeevil imperialist and should therefore be ignored.

So, to sum up our opposing positions:

The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world [and we have to help them].” — Tony Blair

It’s their own fucking fault. Let Africa sink.” — Kim du Toit

Feel free to disagree with me. But I have history on my side.

Many, many thanks to Reader Jason R, who got this ball rolling by sending me the link to the Those Who Can See article.

Connecting The Dots

“If I were a young man in today’s world I wouldn’t have the first clue what was required of me.”

This thought, from Sarah Vine at the Daily Mail, gave me food for thought, as did this article, via the same newspaper:

While most societies promote heterosexuality as the ‘norm’, a leading researcher at Cornell University has found most of us get aroused by both genders.
The paper brings into question strict definitions of sexuality, and posits that instead of categories we should see it as a spectrum.
Lead author Ritch C Savin-Williams, a psychologist specializing in gender studies, warns we still struggle with the concept of bisexuality – particularly when it comes to men.

Please read both articles before continuing, as it may make what I’m about to say more understandable. I’ll wait.

While I am justifiably suspicious of almost every study conducted by psychologists, this latter one has set off a warning bell in my brain — because I think he might have something there, just not in the way he’s thinking. Bear with me while I go through my hypothesis.

As with all research, what’s important is to have a benchmark and sadly, this particular study wasn’t conducted, say, fifty years ago — because I am convinced that what we’re seeing now, with all this “gender confusion” stuff is the result of decades’ worth of the feminizing of men (which I refer to as “pussification”) by women.

To put it bluntly, I don’t think that most men operated on a sexuality “spectrum” fifty years ago. Yes, I acknowledge that homo- and bisexuality among men is hardly new — hell, those aberrations have probably been around since we formed as humans — but I suspect that the incidences of same (and the blurring of the sexuality differences) have increased in recent years as women have, with great success, attempted to turn men into something more like women.

And we know about this because there have been many instances of brush-back against this activity — Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche (a humorous take) and The Pussification Of The Western Male (somewhat less humorous) being the first ones that spring to my my mind —  but works like that are a symptom of a deeper malaise.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that men today are a lot different species, for example, from when the boys of Easy Company were battling Nazis.

So let’s get back to Sarah Vine’s thought, and her article.

76 per cent of all suicides in the UK are male.
Fewer boys than girls now make it to university, and the gap is widening.
The overwhelming majority of people sleeping on our streets (88 per cent) are male.
95 per cent of our prison population is male.

The percentages are statistically no different in the United States. But with the possible exception of the university statistic (in the U.K., women were once barred from attending university at all), the most telling fact of modern Western society is this one:

Sperm counts in men from America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand have dropped by more than 50 percent in less than 40 years… and the rate of decline is not slowing.

People have been looking to science for answers, but I don’t think that’s where the answer lies. I think the answer is in our male psyche; when boys and young men are being told, ceaselessly, that their basic nature and instincts are wrong (“toxic masculinity”) and that they should behave more like girls, I think their physiology is responding by making them so.

If you think I’m wrong on this, allow me to point out that there are no such falling sperm counts being recorded in non-Western societies such as in Africa or South America, where men are not being feminized.

I know, I know: correlation and causation are not the same thing. But amidst all the naysaying that may spring from my hypothesis, let me quote Sarah Vine one more time:

If equality for women can be achieved only at the cost of damaged men, it’s not worth having.

If only today’s radical feminists thought the same way — but they’re too busy obsessing about “patriarchal micro-aggressions” or similar crap.

Here’s another straw in the wind: ever wonder why more and more Scandinavian women are taking up with male “refugees” instead of their gentler, nicer Danish / Swedish / Norwegian men? I think it’s because deep in the reptilian segment of their brains, the primal female instinct is telling them that they have a better change of getting pregnant with “manly” men than with their pussified cohorts.

As I said earlier, this is just my hypothesis: this situation is simply a series of random dots floating out there in our modern Western society, but I think they are connected. Feel free to debate the point with me in Comments.



Over at Shooting Times, John Chapman has all this to say:

Modularity is both a blessing and a curse, and the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), also known as the AR-15, has it in spades. The plethora of rails, flashlights, lasers, optics, grips, pressure switches, flare launchers, vertical grips, muzzle brakes, flash hiders, hand stops and accessory mounts designed and produced for the AR-15 is simply mind-boggling—and has turned the MSR into a Lite Bright for bad ideas. The good news is the millions of dollars and man-hours spent in the pursuit of the MSR accessory market have produced some truly inspired designs, which have increased the platform’s effectiveness as a military, law enforcement, defensive and recreational tool.

He then goes on to outline all the accessorizing options, from the basic rifle:

…to a kitted-out version:

All this is well and good, and it’s a good article; but I have to tell you, something is nagging at me about it — and I think it happens right there in the first paragraph.

Look, I know we’re trying to defuse the Left’s obsession with the term “assault rifle”, but let’s be honest, ourselves: the AR-15 is not a “sporting” rifle outside perhaps the realm of 3-gun or smallbore competition. Sure, you can use it to hunt varmints (it’s mostly banned from deer hunting), and as recreation it’s super fun to pop away at the range (paper targets, metal poppers and so on). But once again, neither of these is the core purpose of the AR-15. When it comes to whacking critters, you can do a lot better with a heavy-barreled bolt-action rifle like this Cooper Arms beauty (in .223 Rem, even):

…and when it comes to semi-auto plinking, nothing beats a Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 60 — even with the low-low-low prices one currently finds .223 ammo selling for.

Most damning of all is that Chapman’s suggestions for accessorizing the AR-15 are geared pretty much towards one end only: self-defense / whacking goblins.

Now some of my Readers may suggest that goblin-whacking is a sport — I, for one, think it should be an Olympic event — but almost by definition it cannot be, simply because the occurrence isn’t predictable. You can’t say of a Saturday morning, “My ol’ buddy Cletus and I are going to sit inside his house tonight and whack a few goblins when they try to break in.” Not only is this most likely going to be a waste of time (except maybe on Chicago’s South Side, L.A.’s Compton and most of Baltimore), but some damn prosecutor is doubtless going to start flinging words like “entrapment” and “premeditation” all over the place (because these flunkeys have no sense of humor).

I don’t think that we should attempt to put the AR-15 round peg into a sporting-rifle square hole. In non-military/non-police (i.e. our) hands, the AR-15 is first and foremost a weapon of self-defense — and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. I don’t care about the gun-confiscators’ whining about “military” rifles, as though this is a disqualifier for civilian use (it isn’t). I don’t even care that these dickheads find the appearance of an AR-15 to be “frightening” or “threatening”; after all, my Constitutional freedoms are not dependent on how they make others feel.

I just think that we gun owners shouldn’t be ashamed of what the AR-15 is and what it represents. You can call it an assault rifle, or a military weapon or whatever scare term the hoplophobes come up with next. But calling the AR a sporting rifle is akin to calling a switchblade a Boy Scout knife.

Sure, a Scout could use this Omerta “Sons of Italy” cutie for whittling and cutting ropes (if the modern-day Scouts even allow such things anymore [5,000-word rant deleted] ) but that’s not what a switchblade is, really. We all know what it is, and that’s my point.

I’m heartily sick of pussyfooting around with our language and terminology, trying to soften the impact of words to protect the feelings of the timorous, or to disguise the harsh realities of life. Things are what they are: the AR-15 and the AK-47 are assault rifles; Ruger 10/22s and Marlin 60s are plinkers; Savage 110s and CZ 550s are hunting rifles, and that’s it. You can use all the above rifles interchangeably between self-defense, hunting or plinking, with varying degrees of success / cost, but that’s just a lovely side-benefit.

In similar vein, the Colt 1911 Government pistol can be used in IPSC or IDPA competitions; but its original purpose was to kill bad guys (which it did and continues to do very well), and I don’t want to have to justify owning my 1911 by saying it’s a “sporting” handgun — not when I’m carrying it loaded with massive jacketed hollowpoints, it ain’t.

Gah. All this whining by the Left about the scawwwy AR-15 “weapon of mass destruction” is having a bad effect on me.

I don’t own a poodleshooter AR-15 because I already have an AK-47, thank you. But as the wailing from gun-fearing wussies intensifies, I might very well end up owning one soon. Because fuck ’em.

And if I do, it will all be Chuck Schumer’s fault. (How’s that for an example of Lefty-style blame deflection?)

Terrorists And Their Organizations

To paraphrase one of our DFW morning drive-time radio hosts, every time a Democrat politician opens his mouth, there’s a 99% chance of asshole.

Such is the case with CTGov Dannell Malloy, who suggests that the NRA has become a terrorist organization. How so?

“They act, quite frankly, in some cases as a terrorist organization. You want to make safer guns? We will boycott your company. That’s who they are. That’s what they do.”

I guess this liberal tool has forgotten how the Left has called for boycotts of companies and their products who endorse or support activities that the Left finds repugnant. [list of 2,000 such instances omitted]  So this is what passes for “terrorism” in this idiot’s mind?

But that’s not the main point of this post. This is.

So, Governor Asshole of Connecticut: I’m a member of the NRA. Am I a terrorist, by your definition? 

Fuck you. When I was in the Army, we were fighting terrorists — real terrorists who planted landmines on country roads and massacred whole villages —  long before it became cool to do so. Hell, we were doing that while you were still a glint in your Daddy’s drunken eye, you little pissant. So again, fuck you; and fuck your facile little clever-dick sound-bites.

We now return to our regular programming. Oh wait: this is our regular programming.

Carry on.