
(This article posted at a time close to the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, Greenwich Mean Time.)
We will remember them.

(This article posted at a time close to the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, Greenwich Mean Time.)
We will remember them.
If this one doesn’t make your blood boil, we can’t be friends.
An 11-year-old boy in Michigan did something most adults would hesitate to do. He saw a classmate pull out a loaded gun in a school bathroom, and instead of freezing in fear, he lunged, disarmed the student, and prevented what could have been another tragic headline.


Nazzo fast, Guido.
The Lansing School District announced that the child will face “disciplinary action” for his bravery. Why? Because the district’s beloved “zero tolerance” policy doesn’t distinguish between a kid wielding a gun and a kid taking it away to save lives. Bureaucrats love to tell us they’re “keeping schools safe.” But in reality, they’ve created a system where blind adherence to rules matters more than actual safety.

And the philosophy behind this bastardy is quite simple:
The message to this boy, and to every other student paying attention, is clear: Don’t be brave, don’t take risks, don’t step in to help. Just sit down, stay quiet, and hope someone else will save you. That’s the lesson public schools are drilling into kids: obedience over courage, paperwork over principle.
My personal opinion is that the school administration — every single member who voted for this expulsion — should be stripped naked and flogged in the school gym, in front of the entire school.
I don’t just want pain, I want humiliation for these bastards as punishment for trying to turn our kids into quivering cowards — into Europeans, if you will — and even worse, punishing heroism instead of rewarding it.
Feel free to suggest your own ideas in Comments. Be as creative as you want.
So apparently there’s a Good Guy With A Gun involved in the taking down of our loony stabber in Traverse City MI — not that you’d ever read or hear about it in the Messed-Up Media, of course.
Here’s Our Hero, and that’s the situation he found himself in.

Now good for him, in that he restrained himself from ventilating the nutcase. (I’m not quite sure what’s going on with that hold on the gun, mind you, but whatever.)
Apparently, he told the loony to drop the knife “several times” before the asshole saw the light of reason and dropped the knife
I have to say that if I were in his situation, standing what looks like three or four feet away from the nutcase, I’m not sure that I would have acted the same.
He’s standing very much in range of a stabbing lunge, and as we all know, that’s way too close for comfort.
I may or may not have issued a “Drop the fucking knife!” order, but I sure as hell would have popped three into his chest after the first refusal to do so. Standing close to a nutcase holding a bloodstained knife, with the screams of his victims echoing all over the place…
Like I said, the man showed admirable restraint. Others might not have.
Oh, and semper fi, Marine.
It’s been just over fifty years since Margaret Thatcher became BritPM, and ever since then the Left has been acting like rabid dogs towards her — once in power, doing what was necessary to reverse the tide of socialism that had essentially held Britain in its grasp since the post-WWII Attlee Labour Government and had led Britain right up to the edge of the abyss; once out of power (stabbed in the back by the British Conservative Party’s equivalent of the RINO cabal in the U.S.), continuing to stab her over and over again; and upon her death, vilifying her, spitting on her grave, rejoicing at her passing, and in general acting like the animals we all know they are and have always been.
So it’s been really good to see someone redressing the imbalance — in this case the brilliant publication TCW (The Conservative Woman) — in three fine articles, all written by Paul Horgan. If you haven’t already seen them, go there now.
Fifty Years On: Margaret Thatcher is still demonised by the left
If a lie is repeated long enough, it will become accepted by the less intellectually-endowed sections of the populace. We see this in the denial of the Holocaust. Some really awful people with a sick agenda know that their twisted beliefs are destroyed by accepting the truth of historic facts. So to further their immoral thinking, they will deny these events ever happened and were faked as part of some global conspiracy. The vindictively superstitious portions of our population will prefer the lie, especially after its repetition.
…
Here in the UK we are experiencing a similar phenomenon over the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, which started 40 years ago last month. Rather than a conspiracy to lie over this, numerous people who are separately working towards the same goal realise that it is vital that they distort the Thatcher years. Those vulnerable to their propaganda are people too young to have lived through them, or to have lived through the years prior to Mrs Thatcher’s premiership when this country was known as the ‘Sick Man of Europe’ whose government ran out of money and could not borrow any more from its usual creditors.
Fifty Years On: The big lies about Mrs Thatcher
There are two main lies. The first is that Mrs Thatcher destroyed the ‘post-war consensus’. The second is that her policies devastated communities, particularly in the North of England. Both are false. Here I discuss the first lie.
…
All Margaret Thatcher did was to take action based on the objective reality of the situation which was that a state-shackled economy needed liberation from the chaos that was causing the country to be ungovernable amidst accelerating economic collapse. All that is happening now is that the people who could not oppose her then are rewriting history now to brainwash anyone born after 1990.
Here I deal with the accusation that Thatcher’s policies devastated communities, when corporatist governance and incompetent planning were actually to blame.
The reform of the economy forms part of the second lie, accusing Thatcher of this devastation, particularly of those who depended on employment by state-run businesses. In fact, these communities were already devastated, and had been for years. The corporatist post-war consensus model was based on centralised economic planning, epitomised by the saying ‘the man from Whitehall knows best’. There had been calls for more central planning from the 1930s onwards by political and economic commentators and the planning started in earnest with the return of the Attlee government in 1945. It is therefore reasonable to believe that by the 1970s, whatever condition these state-dependent communities were in was as a direct consequence of state planning. However, it is clear that the planning did not include the contingency that these planned businesses on which the communities apparently utterly depended might not be able to sell to customers at a price the customers were willing to pay.
There was also the issue of the strikes, where customers, faced with unreliable supply, would take their business elsewhere. Working in an uneconomic coal-mine or loss-making steelworks was still hazardous and unpleasant, perhaps made more so by the lack of funds necessary to improve conditions, since all the money had to come from an increasingly-burdened taxpayer. The poor working men in these state businesses in this case were being subsidised to take part in a pointless, monotonous, and dangerous kind of work-based theme park, all according to a central plan made in Whitehall. It was a failure of state planning not to cater properly for change and innovation, but then all socialistic planning has that fault at its heart.
Fifty Years On: Mrs Thatcher was polarising, not divisive
THE third big lie about Margaret Thatcher’s term in office is that she was a ‘divisive’ figure. This lie really started to be propagated in 2013 when it became the main narrative of the BBC and elsewhere after the Iron Lady died. What these media outlets probably meant was not ‘divisive’ but ‘polarising’. Margaret Thatcher presented a stark choice between consensus socialism and reformist capitalism. The voters chose the latter in decisive numbers in four General Elections. Despite unemployment, inflation and the miners’ strike, Britain still kept voting Conservative, keeping the party in power for a record-breaking 18 years.
…
If Margaret Thatcher had been divisive, the response of her opponents would surely have been to form a ‘popular front’, where differences amongst themselves would be forgotten in an anti-Conservative electoral alliance. In fact the precise reverse happened.
The excerpts above do not really do the articles justice; they are there merely to whet your appetite.
Why did I do this? Why talk about some long-dead British politician? Just to remind everyone that Shakespeare was right: “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
In Margaret Thatcher’s case, the good — the truth of the matter — is that she almost single-handedly saved Britain from ruin. The “evil” is in fact how the Left has demonized her, and that evil does indeed live after her.
Anything produced by Jordan Peterson is worth watching. His interview of Tommy Robinson, the bête noire of British politics is very much more than that.
As Cathy Gyngell says of Robinson:
It also made me think of the many far more sullied characters on our political stage who have got away with it, and never been subjected to the across-the-board branding, silencing and curtailment of freedom he has been treated to. No epithet has stuck more effectively than those words thug, racist and far right have to him. You have to look quite far to find someone to whom you mention his name who doesn’t judge him so, who doesn’t assume he is the hooligan the press have told us he is, who doesn’t call him an idiot or simply display the distaste they feel for him on their faces. But ask those with these attitudes what they actually know about him and whether they have any idea of his story, and what his ‘beef’ is actually about they go quiet. They have no idea. Their judgement, as was mine in the past, is an unthinking one – based purely and simply on how the MSM cast him, and the fact he is actually working-class (unlike the elite politicians like Starmer so desperate to claim this background). This is a ‘tarring’ that is so universally accepted that anyone defending him in any way also risks being so tarred and outcast.
Of course no one ever sees him interviewed by the mainstream UK press or broadcasters: he is never allowed to defend himself, let alone be asked to tell his story. So there is nothing and no one to challenge the official Tommy characterisation as a law-breaker, inciter, thug or crook. Any out-of-context ‘angry monologue’ clips that people may have seen confirm their prejudice. It’s only when you hear his whole 20-year story that you start to understand it and empathise and are horrified by the cover-up. And understand his anger. There is such a thing as righteous indignation, and that without doubt is what Tommy feels.
The more the elite authorities want to suppress him, the more people like me want to know more about him.
And this was before the recent riots in the U.K.
This interview is quite possibly the most important insight into how the news is being shaped that I’ve ever seen. Ignore that it’s primarily about a “racist” attack that took place in Britishland, because it concerns all of the news we’re being fed.
And by the way, if you start to feel the burn of anger when Robinson describes the fate of the hapless family, then you may begin to understand the background to the Stockport riots.
Longtime Readers will remember that many years ago, I attended Boomershoot with the Son&Heir, and took the 2-day training course delivered by Gene Econ and two kids from the unit he was training, Adam Plumendore and Walter Gaya. As a result of that meeting, we (I plus my Readers) kind of “adopted” Adam and Walt, and when they told me they needed some gear (scopes and rangefinders) for their upcoming deployment, we raised the money and bought them the gear. (As I recall, it took about three days to raise the $25,000-odd, because as I’ve said before, I have the best Readers on the Internet,)
Anyway, the kids went off to Iraq. Two months later we heard that Adam had been killed by an IED, and Walt had been badly wounded in a different engagement.
I told you all that so I could tell you this. Walt and Adam’s CO at the time was Col. Erik Kurilla, a man of incredible bravery and outstanding leadership. He himself was wounded in Iraq (shot three times in the legs when ambushed by some assholes in, I think Mosul).
It will therefore come as no surprise to anyone when I tell you that Colonel Erik Kurilla is now General (4-star) Erik Kurilla. You can learn all about him here. It makes for some interesting reading. Just the other units he’s since commanded makes me quite awestruck, but I bet he left them better than how he found them. He’s that kind of man.
I had a chance to chat with him once, some time after Adam was killed, and when by way of introduction I told him how I’d met Adam and Walt, and about the gear we’d contributed, his immediate response was “Oh, I know all about you, Kim, and your group, and how you helped us.”
He was not then, and I doubt very much whether he would ever be one of those remote, office-bound types who doesn’t take care of his men. With men like him in the Army, there may still be some hope for our future.
I feel extraordinarily privileged to have known him, even as slight as that acquaintance may have been.