Dept. Of Righteous Shootings, International Division

Nobody needs an assault rifle, right?  Well, somebody did:

An Afghan girl has shot dead two Taliban fighters and wounded several more after they dragged her parents from their home and killed them for supporting the government.
Insurgents in the central province of Ghor stormed the home of teenager Qamar Gul last week looking for her father, the village chief, before shooting her parents.
Gul then emerged from the house with her family’s AK-47 and opened fire, killing the two Taliban fighters who gunned down her mother and father and injuring several others.

Here’s the thing:  as lawlessness increases and mob rule overwhelms policing, the greater the need for ordinary citizens to be armed against the mob.  We saw it in St. Louis with those two liberal lawyers protecting their home, and now we have another, more tragic example of the need for self-defense.

I know, I know:  what happened in Afghanistan could never happen here, right?  Then someone explain to my why “doxing” someone (publishing their personal details like their residential address) isn’t such a threat in this country.  We’ve already had examples of a howling mob appearing outside conservatives’ homes;  now add a little mob hysteria and some weaponry — a Molotov cocktail, perhaps, or a gun — and it’s easy to see how tragedy could so easily take place.

Always be prepared, in every sense of the word.  Even though he had a gun, the Afghan chief wasn’t mentally prepared for the day when the mob descended on his home, and died as a result.  That his teenage daughter had to respond just adds to the tragedy.

Alternative

This was never sent, but it damn well should have been.

Oxford Rebukes Black Activists

The letter (below) is a response from Oxford University to black students attending as Rhodes Scholars who demand the university removes the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes.  Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University, was on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 on precisely the same topic.  The Daily Telegraph headline yesterday was “Oxford will not rewrite history”.

Lord Patten commented: “Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice.”

Dear Scrotty Students,

Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students — a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.

This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime — but then we don’t have to.  Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago.  Autres temps, autres moeurs.  If you don’t understand what this means — and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case — then we really think you should ask yourself the question:  “Why am I at Oxford?”

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university.  Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century.  We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond.  Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks.  We’re a big deal.  And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are.  Oxford is their alma mater — their dear mother — and they respect and revere her accordingly.

And what were your ancestors doing in that period?  Living in mud huts, mainly.  Sure, we’ll concede you the short-lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe.  But let’s be brutally honest here.  The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.

You’ll probably say that’s “racist”.  But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.”  Perhaps the rules are different at other universities.  In fact, we know things are different at other universities.  We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale:  the “safe spaces”;  the black lives matter;  the creeping cultural relativism;  the stifling political correctness;  what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”.  At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering.  The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns.  (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships).  We are well used to seeing undergraduates — or, in your case, postgraduates — making idiots of themselves.  Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it.  You may be black — “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it — but we are colour blind.  We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations.  We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed.  We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.

That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say:  “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa.  What a clever chap you are!”  No.  We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate.  That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition, you see:  you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic — otherwise your idea is worthless.

This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”.  Well even if it is — which we dispute — so bloody what?  Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here.  And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop?  As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful — Edward II and Charles I — that their subjects had them killed.  The college opposite — Christ Church — was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives.  Thomas Jefferson kept slaves:  does that invalidate the US Constitution?  Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India:  was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?

Actually, we’ll go further than that.  Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous.  We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and the Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria.  You are murdering history.

And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your “rhodesmustfall” campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”.  One of you — Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh — is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”;  another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!”

Great.  That’s just what Oxford University needs.  Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy.  Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.

And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university.

Understand us and understand this clearly:  you have everything to learn from us;  we have nothing to learn from you.

Yours,

Oriel College, Oxford

Like I said:  it should have been sent.  But because Oxford is now staffed by a bunch of timorous cowards and/or people who actually believe that these ingrates have a point, I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn’t even written by a current member of the faculty.  If it was, I can absolutely guarantee that the heroic scribe would now be looking for employment elsewhere, and not finding any.

Sic semper infirmissima cum turba iratus est.  I think the faculty will understand this — and they’d better, because their antagonists understand it only too well.

Explanation

Via Knuckledragger, I read with interest Herschel Smith’s take on the current ammo shortage:

We’ve actually learned something else besides the effect of political climate. First time gun buyers are purchasing primarily pistols.  In order to use them, they need ammunition.  Apparently, manufacturers are retooling to supply that ammunition.
So hunters needing 7mm magnum, 6.5 Creedmoor, .308 and 30-06 should go ahead and try to scrounge up those rounds now.  They won’t be available for long.  That also goes for AR-10 operators.

Peter Grant has similar thoughts.

I have to admit, I was unaware of any ammo shortage myself, mostly because I only buy ammo in small amounts to “top up the tank”, so to speak.  The Chinkvirus has stopped me going to the range as often as was my wont, so I haven’t bought ammo in about four months.  So I’ll just ride it out for a while, although I might need to get some ammo for a gun I don’t have anymore (see: canoeing accident on the Brazos/Colorado river, passim ).

I hate to sound like a broken record on this, and I know that most of my Readers are not only similarly stocked but are a few cases of ammo ahead of me.

But folks, jeez:  you don’t need to get hit upside the head with that two-by-four more than once, right?  Buy ammo.  Buy lots of ammo, as much as you can afford, buy more than you think you’ll need.

Can’t Argue Much

The Street Pharmacist (excellent nick) thinks that the cops have brought a lot of the current shit on themselves:

The police have had a real image problem for years.  It is no surprise that when the crap hits the fan, many people are willing to watch them fry.  What is happening right now is a direct result of the mindset that police have had- the US-versus-THEM, “thin blue line” horseshit that they have been following.  Now they are paying for it, and the law abiding citizens will, too.  You have lost the support of much of the public, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Read it all, because the details are quite shocking.

I’m kinda with him, although my real ire is directed at the badge-carrying assholes who shoot innocent people at 4am when executing [sic]  a no-knock warrant at the wrong address.  And I’m doubly pissed when the prosecutor or whoever shrugs and says in effect, “Boys will be boys” and in the end the only bad thing that happens is to the victim and his family.

Compared to that, glad-handing a speeding ticket or two is small potatoes — although the consequences of refusing to glad-hand can be horrible.

I have many friends in law enforcement, and I know that a goodly number of my Readers are either serving- or retired LEOs.  Since arriving in the country in the mid-1980s, I’ve had nothing but good experiences with cops, even when I was busted (twice, in 35 years) for speeding or for some admin screwup (e.g. expired license) on my part.  So 90% of the time, I’m going to be on the side of the blue because I respect what they do.

But the converse of that is when they fuck up, they need to ‘fess up, take the lumps, and to hell with the blue wall of silence.  If that doesn’t happen, my attitude will do a 180 faster than thought.

I’ve written about the militarization of the police for years now, and the way the public is referred to as “civilians” (hint:  don’t do it).  That “us vs. them” attitude is understandable — the definition of police work is coming into daily contact with scumbags and scrotes — but it’s still wrong.

Once again, it’s also understandable that the aforesaid criminals will hate cops.  Where the cops have screwed up is turning the law-abiding citizens’ opinions of them away from respect to dislike.  (In Britain, even the law-abiding refer to the cops as “rozzers” or “The Filth”, and we’re starting to turn in the same direction.)

Quote Of The Day

From the Z-man:

“[E]galitarianism inevitably flips the natural order on its head, elevating the bottom over all else.  The ideological enforcers in the human resource department are no different from the ideological enforcers in communism.  These people are not selected for their skill, but their stupidity.  They are too stupid to contemplate what they are doing.  Instead, they puff out their chests and stiffen their backs for having memorized the latest party fads.”

Next time you have any  dealings with some self-important H.R. flunky, feel free to use the parts of the above which are appropriate, because it’s absolutely true.  Totalitarianism doesn’t run on evil, but on the stupidity of its apparatchiks.

News Roundup

…with 0nly occasional links because, really, some things are just not worth getting into any deeper[Extreme Puke Alert]


and in other news, journalists and Democrat politicians sometimes lie.  And speaking of which:


backed up by none other than:

I’d suggest that someone Epsteins this foul Stalinist bitch, but unfortunately, it’s unlikely that the Praetorian Guard will turn on this Caesar.


me neither.  If Texas couldn’t turn purple with Skateboard Jesus  Butt-Boy Beto, it ain’t gonna happen this time.


or 200,000 or 100 million.  Pick a number (except zero), and Fuckhead Fauci will accept it.


yeah, all those guns lying around just got up all by themselves and started shooting at random people in the streets.  Another fucking Marxist (see above) who needs “special treatment” (see:  Pinochet).
And to add a gasoline hose to the fire:


…and therefore:


I would remind everyone that this Castroist lickspittle was elected to office not just once but twice by Noo Yawkers.

But enough politics.  Let’s talk about health, and the lying liars who claim to know what’s best for us.


and eating too little red meat makes you look like a vegan.  Checkmate.


except that last week, we were told that a glass of red wine with dinner “could”  prolong life.

I know what all the above makes me feel like:

Glasses are for amateurs.