Latest Posts

Gratuitous Gun Pic – Marlin 60 (.22LR)

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

There’s only one word to describe the Marlin 60 — more of which have been sold worldwide than any other .22 rifle, ever — and that word is FUN. Fifteen rounds of .22 in the tube, a backyard full of old tin cans… I know, that’s so old-school these days, but remember whose website this is. But don’t take my word for it.

Reader Brad_In_IL (who suggested this GGP) writes of his Model 60:

Before moving from the frying pan to the fire (MA –> IL) I bought my ’60 from my fave LGS.  I paid something like $70 for it from the used rack.  I can’t speak to the history of my particular rifle, other than it was built in 1990. When I bought it, the condition was “barely out of the box” almost new.
Like so many other firearms, my ’60 is much more accurate than me.  Still, the gun is hoot to shoot, more fun than a barrel of monkeys, etc. Spinners are among my favorite targets because immediate feedback.  My ’60 tends to like higher velocity .22lr fodder, though CCI Standard also functions well.  One ammo in particular which the rifle does not like is Federal Auto Match target grade. My Browning Buckmark also does not like the Federal, so I’ve quit buying it. Different owners may have different experiences. 
Cleaning is straight forward, with one small but important caveat.  Upon reassembly after cleaning, it is VERY easy to bend the recoil spring.  Ask me how I know.  That said, I ordered a couple extra and ALWAYS keep one in the range bag. 
There’s a whole crowd of people who talk smack about tube-fed rifles. Personally, I don’t mind ’em.  One accessory item I do recommend for anyone with a tube fed 22 rifle is the Spee-D-Loader.  I bought the Spee-D-15 which holds 15 rounds of .22lr in each of its eight tubes for a total of 120 rounds. Best accessory I’ve ever bought for this rifle, hands down. Here’s the link to Spee-D-Loader products.
So there you have it.  This is my rifle. There are many others like it, but this one is MINE.
One point to make, for those who might not already know it: .22 rifles are funny beasts in that they will “prefer” some ammo over others; even if two otherwise-identical rifles have consecutive serial numbers, Rifle #1 may shoot Brand X better than Brand Y while Rifle #2 will shoot all X-rings all day with Brand Y. I don’t know why this is, but it’s happened to me and to others more times than I can count, so there it is.
So while Reader Brad’s Model 60 hates Federal Automag, your Model 60 might love it to death. Experimentation, my friends, is the key… lots and lots of lovely experimentation. Now stop reading this stuff and take your .22 rifle and a few hundred rounds for an outing. It’s a moral imperative.

You Can’t Say That

Politics

From Sarah Vine at the Daily Mail:

QUESTION: Why is it that when a middle-aged, white politician even so much as winks at a middle-class woman these days, Westminster howls sexual harassment; and yet, when large groups of Asian men systematically rape and torture underage girls over the course of several decades, the story barely registers a blip on the BBC news radar?

Silly rabbit; just to ask the question is rayciss. [he mansplained]

“Dear Dr. Kim”

Advice

“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

Africa

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

Men & Women

“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.