Mike's Home Page

Let's look here:

 

Ooooh, the "Scarce" OSS "drop knife," dropped to rebels to fight with!

First, every kitchen has knives that aren't obviously weapons the enemy might get upset about, so why would you drop them crappy daggers? (NOTE: It also wouldn't matter if they were "Sterile and unmarked," because enemy action is enemy action.  Having "US" on the blades wouldn't change anything. These aren't marked, because they were never made under a military contract.)

Second, every workshop can make its own crappy daggers, so why would you drop them crappy daggers?

Third, if they already have ball bats and, you know, guns, why would you drop them crappy daggers?

Fourth, since there were discussions of dropping guns, why would you waste resources dropping crappy daggers?

Fifth, some sellers reference these being "dropped by the OSS in the Philippines."  Virtually every adult male in the PI has several variations of bolo and machete, so why would you waste resources dropping crappy daggers?

Sixth, it takes 10 seconds with Google to determine MacArthur refused to let the OSS operate in the PI, so how would they have dropped them crappy daggers?

Seventh, in no nation the OSS was purported to operate do we find these mythical "drop knives," nor, in fact, do we find the guns they dropped, because they didn't drop any knives, and damned few guns.  By the time the Liberator pistol was made, the Free French had enough real weapons.

Eighth, a bit more research will show that these were made by Foster Bros, from old Trapdoor bayonets, and sold cheap to servicemen, and their families who shipped them overseas, if by chance the serviceman didn't have a decent hunting knife, because crappy daggers were thought to be of use, but rarely were.

You will find some "experts" confidently stating these were "OSS Drop Knives," in order to sound authoritative, but none have ever produced a purchase order, an op plan, any evidence of any kind, or any extant examples from the areas in question.

So, when you see any dealer confidently talking about "OSS Drop Knives" or "Drop Bears" or "Drop Playing Cards," you can assume he's either incompetent or dishonest, and not buy anything from them.

 

 

Old, archived, posted here for your amusement. Started out as a discussion of Zer0 the Fuckup's notions of health insurance management.

~~~~


If only there were some way to offer more, cheaper options....

How to Make Health Insurance Less Expensive: Stop Requiring More Expensive Plans
For those still scratching their heads, trying to figure out how to produce a health insurance market where premiums are less expensive, it turns out
REASON.COM
LikeLike · · Share
D. R. Zinn, Justin Chamberlin, Sean Naylor and 34 others like this.
3 shares

George Avery I made that argument on a PBS show filmed by WNIT in 2009.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Mark Wandrey First thing they did is outlaw the catastrophic only coverage that I used to have for years. Even when I had to work 2 jobs to make ends meet, I could still afford that policy. They're just helping the shit out of poor people, aren't they?
8 hrs · Unlike · 12

Mark Wandrey They 'progressives and gimme-dats' have turned 'insurance' into a benefit. We're fucked.
8 hrs · Like · 4

Michael Z. Williamson Mark Wandrey: that plan was inadequate and racist, and if you were enlightened you'd know that.
8 hrs · Like · 12

George Avery Adding in guaranteed issue and community rating (so the underwriters can't judge risk and set rates based on it) also drives up costs.
8 hrs · Like · 4

Mark Wandrey I know. I'm going to go get a sex change now.

Where do i go for race reassignment? I'm tired of being an oppressor.
8 hrs · Like · 1

George Avery I got attacked by some biddy retired from IU when I gave a talk on the problems and logical fallacies of the ACA in 2011 at the Indiana Public Health Association Meeting - and even though she agreed I was probably right
8 hrs · Like

Mike Walther Yep, first thing Obamacare did was make the most affordable health insurance plans illegal. Only a moron would conclude that this would actually make health insurance plans "more affordable."
8 hrs · Like · 5

George Avery But if you like your plan, you can keep it. Right?
8 hrs · Like · 5

Eric A. Carr I used to have insurance from my employer tailor-made for me. Now I have to have women's healthcare coverage and pediatric coverage (including dental and eye care). I have to pay extra for dental and eye care for myself. And I'm single with no child...See More
8 hrs · Unlike · 10

George Avery That wasn't the point - it was about control. That has been the subtheme in the healthcare reformers since the 1920s. Whatever benefits they claimed at the time, they always claimed that it was necessary to have "experts" controlling the decision so that everyone got the "right" coverage/care/etc.
7 hrs · Unlike · 8

Brian S Anderson Eh, you're all racists, clinging to your guns and religion!
7 hrs · Like · 2

Kevin J. Coolidge Hey, an even better idea is make health care affordable, and then I'd just pay out of pocket for the 3 times I've been to the doctor.
7 hrs · Like · 1

George Avery This really gets me going - I did my PhD in Health Services Research and Policy at Minnesota (one of the few islands of non-Leftist thought on the issue, ironically). I am amazed at how many supposed health economists completely toss what we know about...See More
7 hrs · Like · 3

George Avery For office visits, you can often get a lower rate for paying cash than insurance companies negotiate - it is worth it to the practice to avoid the administrative headaches of dealing with a health plan. Probably not a coincidence that the sharp rise in...See More
7 hrs · Like · 3

Wick Deer But the free market was working so well pre-ACA.
7 hrs · Like

Kurt Schneider For a very unusual definition of 'free'...
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Mark Wandrey And it's working so much better now.
7 hrs · Like · 3

Mark Wandrey When one wing of your house is on fire, tossing a Molotov in another room and declaring the problem fixed is a uniquely progressive solution.
7 hrs · Like · 7

Mark Wandrey The ACA was designed to fix things so well that a single payer would look like an improvement. Congrats, Wickie, you're crowd has got it down pat.
7 hrs · Like · 5

George Avery We haven't had a reasonably free healthcare market since before 1965. In the 1950s, the federal government started requiring restrictions on the supply of care under guaranteed issue rules (bought with funds for upgrading hospitals). Medicare and Medic...See More
7 hrs · Like · 4

Deborah S Franklin Tobacco surcharge goes into effect in 2015. No, I don't smoke, but being forced to take a blood test to prove I'm not lying, makes my blood pressure rise. Surely that's not healthy? And what gets me are people who are okay with that but are livid over an employment or welfare piss test! How is one humiliating and degrading and the other not?
6 hrs · Like · 2

Kevin Trainor Jr. Eric A. Carr, why can't you just shut up and enjoy your free birth control pills and pap smears?
5 hrs · Like · 4

Robert Ries What 'free market'? The one that forbade insurance being sold across state lines?
4 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow I like my marketplace healthcare. I used to pay $250 a month for a really crappy plan. You old guys pay for what we want, and us younger people will burden the wars, bailouts, insane tax cuts for corporations, we will also take your social security, and call it even
3 hrs · Like

George Avery The sad thing is, you young people get screwed the worst by Obamacare. You are the lowest risk portion of the population, and end up under community rating being charged much higher premiums than you would if your premiums were fully risk adjusted. We ...See More
2 hrs · Like · 1

Autumn Crow Yeah? I pay $50 a month for a pretty great plan that has a $700 maximum out of pocket deductible. I used to pay $250 a month for a $1000 minimum deductible, and was denied coverage several times due to pre-existing conditions. How is that worse? I have two jobs and I'm a nursing student with a pile of student debt. Seriously.
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow And risk? I had meningitis last year. I have tmd. My sister has high blood pressure. I know a lot of young people with health problems, most likely due to people dumping crap into our food due to lax regulations.
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow Raise taxes on the abominably wealthy. Actually make companies that have businesses here pay taxes here. You old guys let that happen.
2 hrs · Like

George Avery Food contamination illnesses, ironically, are most common in "healthy" organic food. "Organic" means "fertilized with manure," thus "contaminated with fecal bacteria."
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow I didn't say organic. Don't fabricate arguments. I'm speaking of red dye 40, and many neurotoxins sprayed onto food. Also, preservatives.
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow Hydrogenated fats. MSG.
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow And there's a special thing you do to food.... You wash it
2 hrs · Like

George Avery What? Roundup? Breaks down into the most common amino acid and phosphate on contact with chlorine. Rinse with tap water. Sevin (most common cholineesterase inhibitor pesticide) has a half-life of days and is easily removed by rinsing, as opposed to old...See More
2 hrs · Like · 1

Mark Wandrey George, the young always get screwed the most in socialist schemes. Well, the old too, but they have less to lose (according to libprogs).
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow I think that arguing that we are better than we used to be is a foolish argument. I disagree with it because we have different diseases of the mind and body that are far more alien than E. coli or salmonella. We could be a lot better if we made adjustm...See More
2 hrs · Edited · Like

Autumn Crow Yes, the young were screwed into interstates, active duty military with healthcare and gi bill, federal aid for students, Medicaid/Medicare... You were so screwed, you shouldn't even bother with any of these things. Don't drive on my roads, don't use my police, don't call my ems.
2 hrs · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Autumn Crow: It's cute that you think companies pay taxes. I just move that into the "Expense" column, and charge it to the customer, plus bookkeeping costs and markup. _YOU_ pay 100% of corporate taxes, just in the most passive-aggressive fashion possible.

And 100% of Bill Gates' wealth would last the USG less than a day.

As to his income, he earns under a million $ a year. The rest is held in a trust which he directs. You'll never touch it, and if you try, he can host it in a more reasonable nation (which on this matter, is actually most, even "progressive" Europe doesn't punish corporations the way the US does).

"Your" roads, that you want others to pay for. How cute. How about MY roads, and you stop driving on them until you pay your fair share?
2 hrs · Like · 4

Gerald Blackwell There is a *much* cheaper option, and given that this is me talkin', everybody here knows what it is...
2 hrs · Like

Michael Z. Williamson I'll bet you're anti-GMO, too. So I'm going to invoke a biologist and a doctor of neurology. Jessica Schlenker and Tedd SpeakertoLabanimals Roberts, the target is yours.
2 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Z. Williamson But I do look forward to the full implementation of 0care into the system the Dutch use, where the young are NOT given any exemptions and pay the same as the old guys. That first $12,000 bill for the year will really bring tears of joy to their eyes. That is joy, right?
2 hrs · Like · 1

Autumn Crow I majored in neuroscience at USC. I'm not as knowledgeable as them, surely, but that doesn't mean they're right.

And I never said corporations pay taxes. I say they don't. Walmart? GE? Soon to be Walgreens... I know a bit about the tax loophole that involves manipulated reporting practices from one country to another in the same business. I don't know how you got that impression. And I don't care what sort of writer you are, I'm not intimidated by condescension. It's the internet. No one cares.
2 hrs · Like

Bill Seward Maybe that "free market" thing could help bring the price down. We ought to try it some time. <Steve Martin>Nah!!</Steve Martin>
2 hrs · Like

Ted Nelson Well, shucks, can we release the Corrieakan yet?

Heck, call LTC Kratman, and end things for sure.
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow And I do pay taxes, in the form of sales tax. I am also very very young, and I highly doubt you were contributing much when you were 21.
2 hrs · Like

Autumn Crow It doesn't really matter how we disagree and bicker. It doesn't matter for very long what your generation thinks. Mine is violent, self-serving, vengeful, desensitized, and quite angry. Yours will be in diapers, too old to drive, too feeble to pull a trigger, when mine decides yours is irrelevant.
1 hr · Like

Gerald Blackwell Bill, are you talking about a market free from manipulation and coercion???

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
1 hr · Like · 1

Bill Seward Gerald, I can dream. It's still a free country for certain values of free.
1 hr · Like · 1

Robert Ries Ms. Crow, your bigotry, stereotyping and ignorance (most markedly of basic economics) are noted.

It is also noted that you have run out of refutations and devolved to insults. That equals concession in the realm of debate.
1 hr · Like

Robert Ries As for violent, you are talking to a bunch of people who own many firearms (understatement), train regularly, many have significant military training and the great majority of us have made violence a recreational hobby, in a multitude of forms.

We haven't even STARTED to BEGIN to be 'violent'. But your Grand Theft Auto generation is welcome to try to start the fun and games. Bring it.
1 hr · Edited · Like

Eric Denison Autumn Crow: know what you're going to have when your "violent, self-serving, vengeful, desensitized, and quite angry" bunch gains control of anything? A dysfunctional shit-hole (e.g. the "Mad Max" universe and modern-day Iraq under ISIS)
1 hr · Like

Autumn Crow Yes. That is why we are angry. Very good. And?
1 hr · Like

Robert Ries So, you are angry at your own incompetence?

Oy vey.....
1 hr · Like

Tedd SpeakertoLabanimals Roberts Oy indeed, not even going to try.
32 mins · Like · 1

Buddy Ellis Wal-Mart was one of the top paying corporations as far as tax, somewhere around 30 percent, which they happily passed down to you. Oh and that was behind Exxon (go #1!) , who also 'pay no taxes'.
29 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Oh please Autumn, get over yourself. You are the worst of the younger generation. How old are you? In your early 20's I take it?

Violent? Ha, you don't know violent. You little idiots may know how to take a shit on cop cars, loiter and put up tents in parks, or set stuff on fire, but you don't know shit about violence. You idiots can't work together.

You idiots will be cannon fodder and nothing more.

It won't be someone like you that is leading, though you may be his play toy, until he gets bored with you and gives you to his men.

No, it is idiots like you that are going to lead us to that path. You love you some big government and you will just keep pushing and pushing until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
28 mins · Like · 2

Autumn Crow With an annual revenue of over 420 billion, I think that 30 billion is sizeably reduced when you factor in subsidies, what they're not providing for their employees which tax payers are making up for, squashing of local economies, and countless other loopholes I'm sure they find. 4 billion is a lot, but me paying $5,000 to the government on two jobs and a full time college education? That's my rent for 10 months. That's all the gas I use in over a year. It isn't quite equal.
20 mins · Like

Buddy Ellis Are you too dense to understand that a tax on corporations is little more than a regressive tax that is handed back down the chain to the customer? And that it hurts 'people working two jobs' to make ends meet more than anyone? Really.
14 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Whine, whine, whine. All you types ever do is whine and cry and bitch and moan.

Boo hoo, the evil corporations are doing something evil. We have to get government to stop them! Get government to change something so that something else will be better!

The same tired bullshit, spewed over and over again.

Tax the rich! They don't pay a fair share! Tax corporations more! That will fix everything! Raise the minimum wage! Free healthcare for everyone!

The government is a magic fairy that will fix everything!

I welcome the collapse. I will laugh and dance with joy as all the whiny little assholes are gobbled up. I will dance with joy as they turn on one another because they have no trust relationship there.
14 mins · Like · 2

Autumn Crow I love efficient government, and overweight, Caucasian males in their 40s, 50s, and 60s who can't think of any other better insult than "slut" are simply pathetic.
13 mins · Like

Autumn Crow Yes. Because trickle down economics worked very well under the Bush Administration.
13 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II 32 here darling and I don't see where anyone said slut, so don't put words in anyone's mouth.
13 mins · Like · 2

Michael Z. Williamson Efficient government. There's an oxymoron. Please point to one.

However, I do think epithets are uncalled for and unuseful. Including fat-shaming, ageism, and racist terms.
12 mins · Like · 2

Autumn Crow I think calling me a plaything insinuates slut.
12 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II No Autumn. Read for context. Understand what the words and sentences mean. Not what you think they mean, what they actually mean.
11 mins · Like

Autumn Crow I didn't include anyone in their 70s or older. I enjoy voters who remember FDR differently than Fox News.
11 mins · Like

Autumn Crow Plenty of governments are efficient. Not perfect, but that's a lot to ask for. How is bailing out the people and jailing the bankers at all not efficient? Providing healthcare and maternity leave? Yes, I think a good and efficient government, small in size, wide in reach, would be a good thing.
9 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Oh no y'all. She is pulling out all the stops here. Let's hear how FDR was this awesome President that did wonders for the country. How he got us out of the Great Depression(when actually his programs helped to lengthen it) or how those Japanese-Americans totally deserved to be locked up in camps, have their property and homes confiscated. Or how about Social Security? That was just a brilliant idea there! I love having a portion of my paycheck stolen from me on some vague promise that I may see it when I reach retirement age.
9 mins · Like · 2

Michael Z. Williamson When I was 21 I was serving on active duty, earning about 1/4 what the private sector would pay for my skillset. I'm also an immigrant from the utopiae of Canada and the UK. May I suggest you do what I did, find a country you like, and move there?

Oh, voters who remember FDR for stealing their bullion, attempting to pack the Court with extra justices, putting 110,000 Asians in concentration camps, eugenics and racism? (Refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens, which even Hitler did).

THAT FDR?
9 mins · Like · 3

Michael Z. Williamson Well, let's be fair, Joseph Capdepon II. They weren't all Japanese.

All those Asians looked alike to him.
8 mins · Like · 1

Buddy Ellis I'd wonder what you consider 'fair'. 50% 70? 90? At which point have you stolen enough money from others for your 'efficient government?'
7 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Well yeah. They totally deserved it though. FDR was doing the *right* thing.
7 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Larry Correia knows a bit about FDR, being he researched him for his Grimnoir series. I'm sure he probably has wonderful things to say about him.
6 mins · Like

Autumn Crow I live here. I'm not going anywhere, I didn't offer to move. YOU may move, I you like. I don't care. I reiterate, a citizen in diapers is a citizen that can't very well argue.

FDR did do the right things. And profiling is a real thing. Notice all the people in your mindset. The average FOX news viewer. Baby boomer. Caucasian. Overweight. It's not rude if it's a statistic.
5 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Autumn Crow: Let's try basic arithmetic once again:

Tax is a cost to a business. I just move that into the "Expense" column, and charge it to the customer, plus bookkeeping costs and markup. _YOU_ pay 100% of corporate taxes, just in the most passive-aggressive fashion possible.

If you cannot grasp this basic fact, you probably won't enjoy debating here, with people with far more expertise in just about everything than you.
5 mins · Like · 2

Autumn Crow I'm so sorry to tell you this, but tagging people I don't know won't really matter. It's the internet. No one cares.
5 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson "FDR did do the right things. And profiling is a real thing."

So, you support putting people in concentration camps based on their race, and continue with the ageism and fat shaming. Please continue. It's fascinating to hear a "liberal" be "tolerant."
4 mins · Like · 1

Autumn Crow I never claimed to be liberal. That's a foolish thought.
3 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Obviously. You're a textbook fascist.
3 mins · Like · 3

Joseph Capdepon II Autumn, you may be surprised at this, but a vast majority of the people commenting here, probably don't watch Fox News, or any major news channel at that for their news.

You keep making assumptions and one should never make assumptions.
3 mins · Like

Buddy Ellis Why don't you get back to the facts and answer my question instead if trying to acting like a 4th header calling people fatso?
3 mins · Like

Autumn Crow Profiling is usually very accurate.
3 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Well, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it must be a duck.
3 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Indeed. And my profile of you is "bigoted, ignorant troll."
3 mins · Like · 3

Autumn Crow I never said fatso. I said overweight. Those are two things and the former is derogatory.
3 mins · Like

Autumn Crow Mine of you is conceited and irrelevant. I guess it would be even.
2 mins · Like

Autumn Crow Except I will be irrelevant after you. I will have time to make your old age just miserable enough
1 min · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Ha ha ha. Now that is funny.
1 min · Like

Michael Z. Williamson So, of the 110,000 Asians FDR put into concentration camps, including George Takei, what percentage would you say were a threat to the US? Please cite your numbers.
1 min · Like

Michael Z. Williamson And obviously, you support the profiling used for Guantanamo, right, Autumn Crow? Or is it only okay when liberals do it? Oh, wait--0bama has yet to close it.
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II And it looks like he will be sending the military back into Iraq as well.
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II When is Code Pink going to start protesting at the White House?
Just now · Like

Autumn Crow I think it was not only his decision. Just like I don't blame George Bush for Iraq. I also think it was precautionary and people were afraid and didn't know what to do. I also think people need to get over it. Shit happens. It sucks. Move on. Great leaders sometimes do shitty things. It happens.
Just now · Like

Buddy Ellis Mike she ain't got no numbers, just a rude, tiresome manner about herself
Just now · Like

Autumn Crow Oh, no, I support Guantanamo.
Just now · Like


Autumn Crow You don't have any numbers. I provided numbers. You did not. I had to go looking for the numbers you provided.
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II What great leader would that be?
Just now · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Well, at least you're an honest fascist. It'll be fascinating when you're the one in the camp, though.
Just now · Like · 1

Brian Smith For those that think we need more government to control powerful corporations, who do you think is going to have more influence over that government? Those big and powerful corporations, or you sitting at home posting snarky memes on facebook (also one of those big evil corporations).
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Autumn, do you know what a useful idiot is?
2 mins · Like · 1

Autumn Crow This is my night off. I shall do as I please. And no offense, but no one with actual credentials boasts about them on Facebook.
2 mins · Like

Philip S. Bolger I love this thread and everything about it.
2 mins · Like

Autumn Crow I assume your nickname in high school?
2 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Isn't she just precious? I can't pay for entertainment like this.
1 min · Like · 3

Michael Z. Williamson If you think you can make my life miserable, you arrogate a lot of competence to yourself. I've shit scarier things than you even without the amoebic dysentery I picked up in Iraq.
Just now · Like


Buddy Ellis No, you said they paid no taxes. I said they were in the top ten. Your statement was patently incorrect, abs so you moved the posts and said they didn't pay enough. To which I tried 'how much is enough.' To which you started making more crap up. You're just precious.
2 mins · Like

Philip S. Bolger It's like the universe realized we needed one simple example of everything wrong with the modern left, and lo and behold, a spectacular, shining paragon of such was delivered to the wall of MZW...
2 mins · Like 1

Joseph Capdepon II "I'm not a Progressives/Leftist/Liberal, even though I parrot their talking points about everything!"
1 min · Like · 1

 

Colin Rierson I'd just like to point out that it isn't just the old farts like Mike who think her line of thought is retarded. Now I'm going back to drinking.
6 mins · Like

Autumn Crow That's quite enough ball-busting. Goodnight, gentleman
4 mins · Like

Philip S. Bolger Please, come back any time.
3 mins · Like · 1

Buddy Ellis "mom, they called me a retard!!"
3 mins · Like · 1

Benjamin Blatt That...that was ball busting? Admit it, you're really a 12 year old Redditor, aren't you?
2 mins · Like · 1

Autumn Crow Yes
2 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Haha. Oh, she sure told us. We're old (Except I can still pass the PT tests for all four branches as an 18 year old), fat (except I'm about 190 at 6' and can bench her with one arm), stupid (except of course for those of us with advanced degrees and successful careers)(Oh, right, no one with any credibility EVER IDs themself on Facebook) (In her universe, I doubt there are any), and we've been properly put in our place.

I think I'm going to open a bottle of $120 Scotch and console myself. Then I shall retreat to the back room and beat the black gentleman of color I keep to assuage my white privilege.

My balls, they ache so much.

Delightful. This will make an awesome blog post with the screen cap.

Benjamin Blatt Of course not. People with credibility maintain honest, emotional, and even-handed Tumblrs
6 mins · Like

Buddy Ellis I think you need another pair of parents in there. I only had to read it once.
6 mins · Like

Autumn Crow I never said stupid. For a writer, you don't read closely.
5 mins · Like

Autumn Crow You can be wrong and smart.
5 mins · Like

Autumn Crow Which, you are.
4 mins · Like

Autumn Crow And I highly doubt you could maintain PT for the Marines. I require proof. Your word- not good enough, and no one likes a braggart. Except other braggarts.
4 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson I thought you were leaving. Honesty a problem for you, too?

BTW, looks like your muscle tone is a bit slack. Not getting enough exercise, are we? And I could read from the reflections off your skin. You're whiter than I am and I'm from Scotland.
3 mins · Like · 1

Autumn Crow And fat is a noun. Overweight is an adjective. I continuously press this.
3 mins · Like

Michael Z. Williamson I don't believe I have to prove anything to you. It's the internet. However, google is your friend, and there are plenty of veterans on this wall who've met or served with me.
2 mins · Like · 2

Michael Z. Williamson Overweight still fits the category of "fat shaming." Though looking at your photos, you have little room to talk.
1 min · Like

Michael Z. Williamson And fat can most certainly be an adjective. Is there any subject you do know at an elementary level?
1 min · Like

Autumn Crow I am half Israeli and half native American. My skin color doesn't pose a problem. I don't get enough exercise. I was shot in the chest when I was 17, and I had meningitis last year. I don't have a problem with this.
1 min · Like

Autumn Crow Fat is used incorrectly as an adjective.
Just now · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Ah, a war hero now. And a minority times two. Wait, aren't Jews considered white and privileged now?
Just now · Like

Autumn Crow Apparently not. You seem to enjoy arguing with me.
Just now · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Awesome. I shall certainly consult with you on my next writing contract. I'm sure the editors will approve of your contributions.
Just now · Like

Buddy Ellis Fat. adjective
1.
(of a person or animal) having a large amount of excess flesh.
Just now · Like

Autumn Crow Hahaa you're becoming very nasty it's just the internet.
Just now · Like

Buddy Ellis Try again.
Just now · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Yes, I totally suck. It's the white gene.
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Wait, people are arguing with you because you claim to be Israeli?
Just now · Like

Benjamin Blatt Fun fact: Autumn's express ageism could bar her from nursing licensure, if anyone cares to screen cap this. Normally I wouldn't give a shit, but Autumn's repeated attempts at fat shaming are annoying.
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Now people are being mean!

Check your privilege you whitey mchaters!

 

Autumn Crow I don't really go by the dictionary that included selfie and twerk. I prefer the medical definition. I don't know why you're so hung up about it. Butthurt, apparently it's real.
1 min · Like

Autumn Crow Go ahead find me
Just now · Like

Michael Z. Williamson Well, except for the fact that we don't use the medical dictionary for colloquial or legal definitions. Or social ones.

Find you? You REALLY don't want to make that challenge on this wall. Andrew, want to play?
Just now · Like


Autumn Crow Hahahaaaa
2 mins · Like

Autumn Crow I kind of do. I kind of don't. I don't think you're bluffing. But I'm interested.
2 mins · Like

Buddy Ellis You're the one who insisted, twice, that fat was only used correctly as a noun. I mean the changing the subject, ad hom, it might work for you in your college debate class but it don't fly in the real world, so practice up buttercup.
1 min · Like

Michael Z. Williamson If he's awake and interested. I'm actually editing in between comments, so I'm not losing any productive time.

Hmm.."Efficient government," profiling, racism, ageism, fat shaming, ableism. We may have an actual Nazi here. You don't see them in public often.

But I don't know if you're interesting enough to bother with once I wake up. DragonCon approaches and I have presentations to prepare for.
Just now · Like



Jim Bellmore This is hilarious! Michael Z. Williamson - are you bringing her to Dragon Con?
6 mins · Like

Andrew Kirch I don't have time to find her, can't she just go give herself a shower?
4 mins · Like

Joseph Capdepon II She also claims to be half Israeli, half Native American, but she looks like she would burst into flame if the sun hit her.
4 mins · Like

Andrew Kirch right if she's jewish and fascist she can give herself a shower, why does this require my intervention? She's a self-solving problem.
2 mins · Like

Buddy Ellis Lookie lookie, she's deleting her stuff lol I think you scared her.
1 min · Like · 1

Benjamin Blatt I don't think she understands the concept of "the internet is forever."
1 min · Like · 1

Jered Van Tuyl The internet is forever.
Just now · Like

Joseph Capdepon II Ha ha ha ha. Oh, now that is funny.
Just now · Like

 

Michael Z. Williamson Wow. That actually meets the definition of "Stupid cunt."
Just now · Like · 1

Jim Bellmore OH! She is adorable!
Just now · Like


Benjamin Blatt She's gone, but not before I figured out the state she'll probably license in and the names of some of her instructors. Because lawyer-fu.
Just now · Like

Michael Z. Williamson And she's unfriended me now. That was retarded.
Just now · Like

Buddy Ellis I ain't ever seen one get that skeered before. You win the internet (for today)
Just now · Like

"Autumn Aubrey Crow" -

Her troll profile was full of friend from the Texas LEO community and nurses and nursing students from the local Amarillo community college, one of whom was also friend s with her real profile. Idjit.

 

a dozen variations as FB profiles, now gone


https://www.facebook.com/autumn.crow.52/

https://twitter.com/AutumnAubreyCro

Autumn Aubrey Crow (AutumnAubreyCro) on Twitter
twitter.com

But her hair color is totally different. No one could ever find her.
http://profileengine.com/people/98917115/autumn.aubrey.crow Estimated IQ: 107 according to the IQ Test app

The Internet Is Forever

 

Apparently, Fecesbook is defending Nazis now. Sieg Heil, Facebook!  You Nazi cocksuckers!

www.Mewe.com is probably the only safe platform out there.

 

Here's the scenario.  You're running an event, and on TWITter or Fecesbook, someone calls out a guest and states, "I wouldn't feel safe with this person at the con!"

You must immediately ban this person from the convention.

No, not the guest. The person making the public scene.

Here's why:

This person is arrogating a lot of significance to themselves. The statement assumes that the guest in question either knows this person or will seek them out, and has time allotted for the purpose of interacting with them, any desire to do so, and such interaction must be negative. All of which are almost certainly utterly false assumptions.

For myself, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how the complainant feels. Their statement alone makes it clear that interacting with such a person is of utterly no interest or consequence to me. I can find much better people to interact with. Actually, let me rephrase that: I can find PEOPLE to interact with.

In fact, they're almost certainly well aware they're perfectly safe, and attempting to drive political opposition into the shadows.

Well, no one ever accused Nazis of honesty.

Furthermore, they've passively-aggressively created an interaction where none existed.

They have, in fact, created an interaction with the guest, and an interaction with you, in a public scene.  Imagine if they walked up to you (or the guest) at the con, and shouted, "STOP HARASSING ME!"

You must assume their intent is to lay groundwork to CREATE a scene they can attempt to blame the guest, or you, for.

In reality, no professional should feel safe with such a person at a convention, and since the professional is the draw, not the nobody, the nobody should be immediately banned for the safety of the guest, the staff, and the other attendees.

Because, if you actually have a legitimate issue with someone, here's how it is handled, speaking from experience.

Most conventions ask their guests in surveys, privately, "Is there anyone you don't want to be on a panel with?"

I have a very short list of people who I simply can't get along with. If the convention wants to put them on a panel, I can do a different one. No harm, no foul.

There was one time when I did have a legitimate legal issue with another person (long resolved, it was merely administrative).  What I did was contact the event PRIVATELY, inform them of the issue, and tell them, "This person is not to approach my booth, and I will not approach theirs.  I do not anticipate trouble, but if they enter my booth I will shout for security at once as a safety measure for us both."

In one case, I actually was harassed by an individual whose stated purpose in showing up at the con was to harass certain "conservatives," me among them, even though I am not conservative. I went quietly to Con Ops, explained the issue, and the individual was informed not to approach me or my family again.

In no case did I whine like a worthless fucking attention whore to the world, pointing a finger like a body snatcher and shrieking like an angry toddler.

As we've seen at least three times now, knuckling under to this type of crybully is like trying to appease a toddler or terrorist.  Once you give in once, you have delegated veto power to them and the TWITter dogpile.

At which point, the reasonable (non-public) response may become public itself, thus giving you...instant controversy.

Your only rational, immediate response to avoid "controversy" is just to ban the person making the public scene. They've already told you by this action that they intend to cause trouble for at least one of your guests and that guest's followers.

"I wouldn't feel safe with this person at the con!"
"We're sorry you feel that way.  Here's a full refund.* We hope to see you at a future event."

Then stop responding. You'll only give attention to an attention whore.

Having seen this happen to guests at least three times, any future guest invitations I accept will involve a signed cancellation clause and a cash penalty for doing so, because once a guest has made arrangements for your event, they can't schedule something else, and you're eating up their writing/art/production time. They are there for YOUR benefit, not you for theirs. In my case, I currently have three novels, a collection, an anthology, all contracted, another novel offer, three on spec, an article request, three short stories and a lengthy stack of products to test and review, and an entire summer of professional bookings. I have a not-quite four year old and a teenager. Don't waste my time then roll over for some worthless whiner.

 I encourage all other pros to implement the same policy. My attorney has a sample you can use.

*Assuming they've even reserved space or intended to, rather than just harassing your convention for "justice," as happened at least twice.

The guests are professionals. It's time the conventions started acting the same way.

ADDENDUM: I was contacted this morning (May 16, 2018 ) by a convention who is proactively taking this step. Of course, they're the type of convention for whom this would never be an issue. Which is why they're confident taking it.

I Have A Better Idea...
May 09, 201811:59AM

Category: Politics

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/if-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-what-happens-to-pot-sniffing-dogs/article_6d67b6d3-cc27-5053-ba8c-eb641611c28b.html?utm_content=bufferfc6d6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC#tracking-source=home-top-story 

 
 
If Illinois legalizes marijuana for recreational use, law enforcement officials fear job losses for hundreds of officers — specifically, the four-legged kind. 
~~~
 
I don't see the problem. Dogs like sunshine and balls.  They'll find things to do.
~~~
 
opponents say they worry about cannabis acting as a gateway to other, harder drugs for some users, noting that federal law prohibits marijuana use and classifies it as a schedule 1 drug, the same category as heroin and LSD.
~~~
 
Riiight.  Just like a plastic stock is a "machine gun." a muffler is a "firearm" and a show horse trailer is a "Commercial vehicle."  Here's your first problem: You're fucking retarded and think government definitions are real.
 
And of course, the sheriff's $22 million "foundation" won't suffer at all, right? It's not as if he's getting a salary and huge tax breaks for his efforts.
~~~
 
Because many K-9s are trained not to be social so their work won’t be affected, Larner said a number of dogs would likely have to be euthanized.
~~~
 
Wait, are we talking the dogs or the cops?  Because I'm totally cool with euthanizing narcs who can't socialize with normal people and don't have other useful skills that don't involve harassing and abusing people.
~~~
 
Other law enforcement groups, including the Illinois Sheriffs' Association and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, also are opposed to legalization efforts. 
~~~
 
Yes, all that lovely payoff money, and "Asset forfeiture" from stealing property and never filing charges. That's the headiest drug of all, isn't it? And you'll even threaten to kill dogs over it.


A large problem facing the SF community, and many others today, is the mere existence of Twitter and Fecesbook.  The problem specifically is that people believe these are real, and matter.

I have noticed since my first SF publication Freehold https://amzn.to/2Fz5XNi that conservatives who don't like something tend to just ignore it and go away, though they may argue at length on some matters.

Modern American liberals (As opposed to real liberals), however, don't stop there. It's not enough to argue.  Anyone who disagrees with their rightthink must be destroyed. It shows in the book reviews.  CONSERVATIVE: "This had a bit too much sex for my taste and I don't think it's a workable society long term."  LIBERAL: "This guy is a monster who wants to exterminate the homeless for his utopia!"

I'm argumentative online.  I have argued vociferously FOR same sex marriage, FOR gays being able to serve in the military, FOR legalization of pot, AGAINST pot as "medicine," AGAINST male genital butchery, FOR free speech and expression of faith, AGAINST any form of gun control, FOR reproductive choice.  I've explained, at length, how reproduction works, how sex and gender disorders work, how firearms work, in attempts to educate people.

I'll freely argue with anyone, though on occasion someone is either so stupid or obnoxious I unfriend or block them. This happens to conservatives as well as liberals, atheists as well as Christians.  I don't dislike people for their demographics. I dislike them for their stupidity.

Some conservatives will note that, "He's an asshole and I had to unfollow him."  Fair enough. Some liberals have said the same.

But, we come to the Modern American Liberals.  Those are a special case.

This first came to a head two years ago at a convention I regularly attended for about 20 years. Said convention shrunk year by year and completely failed last year, in a surprise to no one rational.

I received an IM on Fecesbook from one of the people peripherally involved in it and her on-and-off-husband who I was barely aware existed.  They "Had some concerns" and "wanted to reach out to me" to clarify things.

I hate "reaching out."  Say what you need to say.

Shortly it became clear it was concern trolling that I'd be offended by the "liberal" nature of the convention.

After all, I was "pretty conservative" (I am not in the slightest, and I'm constantly amazed at the binary POV of "liberals." Either you're liberal or you're conservative, and you have to be liberal ENOUGH in the right ways.)

The concerns were:

They were going to have a gender neutral bathroom, and that might offend me.

They were going to have a "safe space."

They didn't want me getting "political" at my table.

Some people might be wearing their "Solidarity pins."

In order:  I spent 25 years in the military, much of it in the field or on convoys. Bathrooms don't bother me.  At that moment, I'd just come back from Europe. Belgium public restrooms typically have male stalls on one side, across from urinals, sinks as a divider, and female stalls. So a man can be standing there taking a leak while a woman is washing her hands next to him.  In parts of the Netherlands, they have public urinals with a partial screen about 2' wide, in the middle of the plaza.

Bathrooms don't bother me.

As far as a safe space, if someone has a safe space, that's up to them.  I generally find the notion silly when there are cars, hotel rooms, bathrooms, bars, etc, but if the convention has designated such a space there's likely no reason for me to bother with it.

This person was obviously aware, or should have been, that I don't get political at my table, except in regarding specifics of my books, or if I'm asked a specific question. In which case, I remember I'm in public and exercise appropriate manners, as my "conservative" parents taught me growing up in the UK.

It doesn't matter to me if someone wears a diaper pin on their clothes, through their septum, or their ear. Through their eyeball would probably make me twitch, but if it's consensual, it's not my problem.

I made all the above as succinctly clear as that, and noted, "I do expect the same courtesy. I don't wish people to harass me at my table over some false perception of where I stand."

Well, I was told, "But you do have to allow that. These people are hurting. They've been hurt so badly. They're afraid."

Were I to reasonably point out that I've disliked pretty much every president and every politician of my lifetime, and that there's been contentious elections before, so anyone bleating like this is a worthless fucking pussy, I'd have no doubt been banned at once.

But notice the double standard. YOU can't bring politics into it (even though I never have), but THEY have every right to and I must sit there and take it.

This bizarre fear of Trump bothers me.  There have yet to be any death camps, and won't be, because he's not a Nazi or a Democrat, who ran the only concentration camps in US history.

SCOTUS has supported most of Trump's actions, though I hope to god they strike down a couple of his well-intentioned but insanely dangerous gaffes.  Especially as the next president will probably be a "liberal" Nazi and will be all in on exploiting them.

Now, I don't actually talk about politics on convention panels, unless they are relevant to a specific universe or presentation. And then, I'm smart enough to realize CONTEXT matters.  Monarchy can be desirable vs anarchy.  Slavery can be preferable to starvation. (I don't endorse slavery or monarchy. I'm referencing them IN CONTEXT to certain stories.  I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but then, modern American liberals aren't really capable of grasping "what if?" Everything can only be taken as a statement of belief in reference to RIGHT NOW.)

In fact, I've had some very enjoyable panels about SF world building and political structure with my friend Eric Flint, an actual Communist. I find actual Communists to be far more rational, reasonable, and NICE than modern American liberals.

The person seemed reassured over their bizarre concern that I would for some reason do something I've never done before.

NOW FOR THE PUNCHLINE:

A: They had one restroom marked "Gender neutral," and pretty much no one I saw fit any criteria that would necessitate them needing it.  I used it when I was in that area of the hotel because, you know, it's a bathroom, and biological entities need one now and then.

2) The so-claimed "Safe space" was actually designated a QUIET ROOM with couches, and requests to not talk to anyone present. Now, since I have a wife and a good friend who suffer crippling migraines several times a week, a QUIET ROOM actually seems like a really good idea to me. I'd encourage conventions to have one if they have space. And nix the fluorescent lights.

c} No one wore any diaper pins.

IV. No one brought up the election for any reason.  It wasn't relevant, and like me, most people wanted to avoid the issue.

So, these two "Social Justice" wankers attempted to create an issue where none existed, failed miserably, and have apparently held a grudge about it since (based on their sidewise glances and comments at other conventions).  They WANTED a political convention, and DIDN'T GET IT.

In a surprise to no one with a brain, this convention started sliding when that crowd took over, and disbanded this year. I expect another event they run will end this year, too.

"Get woke," go broke.  No one attends for your politics, not even the people who agree with you.  They show up to have fun and get away from busybody assholes.

~~
I and several other writers have recently been harassed by professional victims and virtue signalers.

It starts with some concern troll post to some forum or convention or otherwise by someone who very frequently fits the demographic of socially awkward, marginally employed, perpetually aspiring as an artist with no success and borderline homeless. 

You know exactly what they're going to say:

"I wouldn't feel safe at a convention with this person as a guest."

Now, at the risk of offending this person's feelings, they're arrogating a lot of significance to themselves. The statement assumes that I either know this person or will seek them out, and have time allotted for the purpose of interacting with them, any desire to do so, and such interaction must be negative.  All of which are utterly false assumptions. Which is why I take the risk of offending their feelings here, because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how they feel.  Their statement alone makes it clear to me that interacting with such a person is of utterly no interest or consequence to me.  I can find much better people to interact with.

Or...are they well aware they're perfectly safe, and attempting to drive opposition into the shadows?

Well, no one ever accused Nazis of honesty.

They're failures at life, and are jealous because some of us are not.  They could forgive that if we were the type of fellow traveler who'd vote to give them a chunk of someone else's pie, but since our attitude is, "Get your own damned pie," we must be scourged.

Now, the recent fallout.

I'm not posting a link to the OP because I'm not in the business of giving free publicity to Nazis. And the person IS a Nazi.

Let's define how this person is a Nazi, because the Nazis are going to scream, and continue to insist they're not actually Nazis, anyone they disagree with is the Nazi!

I have to do this because most of them actually don't know who the Nazis are. I had a recent conversation with a "liberal" friend and referenced the National Socialists and was asked, "What do National Socialists have to do with it?"

With Nazis?  Oh, sweetie, they have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Nazis support NATIONAL SOCIALIST policies including health care, increased governmental support for perceived victim classes, from the pockets of the perceived privileged classes ("Bankers." "Jews." "White Males." "The Rich." "Big Pharma.")  As an aside--when a "liberal" talks about "Bankers" and "The 1%" and "Zionists," he means "all Jews." Five minutes of conversation will prove it.

Nazis support this being implemented with a strong central authority, using violence "liberally."

Nazis support a scapegoat class. Everyone remembers the original Nazis hated Jews...but they also hated Gypsies, "antisocial women," trade unionists, Communists...

So, here is the relevant statement from the Nazi, who does endorse all kinds of social and economic central planning, and here's the scapegoat:

"If we make gun ownership illegal for PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and the government comes to take your guns, what will you do?"

If, hypothetically, we make a SUBCLASS OF PEOPLE WITH LESSER RIGHTS THAN THE REST, and COME TO STEAL THEIR PROPERTY WITH NO COMPENSATION, AT GUNPOINT, what will you do?

"You people."

What are you going to do when we pass a law to come after you people.

We people who are law abiding, but have a different philosophy.

Now, it doesn't matter if he meant gun owners, union members, Jews, Muslims, gays, bankers, anarchists, Jay Leno fans or Communists.

What are you going to do when we pass a law to come after you people with armed force?

He specifically wants laws against one group of people. No equal protection under law.  This "tolerant" "liberal" wants to create a new underclass, like the slaves, or "Indians not counted," or the Jews, or "dissidents against the state."

I told him exactly what that hypothetical would lead to.

Now, he stated a hypothetical.  I stated a hypothetical with the word "If."

"if."That's a very important. word. 

"IF you come on my property, I will have you removed you by force."

"IF you harass my children, I will seek legal protection."

"IF you come after THOSE PEOPLE, you will be met with violent resistance."

None of those are threats.

But, because I dared say that I would confront the Nazi the same way we confronted the previous Nazis--with violence, the Nazis insist I made a "Threat."  I dared offer hypothetical resistance to the utopia they crave, that will not tolerate my independent existence.

That, as any thinking person has deduced, makes them terrifyingly dangerous. That's the cop pounding you in the face shouting, "Stop assaulting me!"  That's the crazy ex calling at 3 AM and screaming, "Stop harassing me!" That's the stormtroopers knocking on your door and breaking your knees while screaming, "Stop wasting national resources with your dissident actions!"

And, as with the previous Nazis, they not only believe they're in the right, they believe any action they take is without criticism, and only "dissidents" and the like would dare speak against it.

Ask yourself: After they've come after people like you using armed force, what's to stop them coming after people like them once the precedent is established? Then people like those others.

He probably also believes the cops are violent, racist thugs who unfairly target black people. So he wants to give them more power to go after another group as well.  With sanction.

I was very clear, on purpose. IF that were to happen, the response should be the same as it should have been as soon as the Nazis arose in Germany. Scorched earth. Kill every fucking one of them, and yes, their families, because that is what they plan to do to you.

In the meantime, before they achieve their masturbation fantasy of having legal sanction to kill you, they're willing to doxx, swat and otherwise harm or kill "people like me." But they can't understand why I'd be "violent"? (HINT: I haven't actually been violent.)

Hmm.  I can't imagine why anyone would want a gun, can you?

Fortunately, at present it's still low key. How low key? How many of this Nazi's followers actually did anything I could see?

6.  Out of 50,000. (CORRECTION: It turns out the Nazi has a quarter million followers, most of whom identify as "liberal" and are totally tolerant as long as you agree with them. They're all in on using violence to control groups they don't like.  IOW: Nazis. That's a lot of organized hate in one forum.)

(This assumes most of them aren't trolling for laughs or aren't Chinese bots looking for clients, as is true with several other famous liberal fora.)

None of the six were capable of communicating a coherent thought.

Three of them made homophobic statements to me.

Seriously, if you want me to believe you actually support equality, attacking someone by accusing them of being gay--drawing a direct parallel between dislike and homosexuality--pretty much proves you're the fucking homophobe. Yet, "Tolerant" "liberals" do this all the time.  By which I conclude that most liberals are homophobes (like the Nazis).

One of them hilariously claimed that "Gun control has been so watered down it's not effective," as if it was ever effective, and as if it's watered down. He was unable to provide a cite to support this claim, and when I countered with the list of major national gun control laws that have been in existence longer than he's been alive, he claimed I was "cherry picking." I may post that conversation later. It was facepalmingly stupid.

One of them announced, "One star reviews are in order!" and went to Amazon to give 1 star reviews to four of my books.  She's never read the books. In fact, according to her Amazon reviews, she's never READ a book. She gave two word reviews such as "Author sucks," which aren't actually reviews, and of course, were done in bad faith (typical of liberals and Nazis, but I repeat myself). To be fair, her positive reviews were comments such as "so cute," so clearly, intellect is not her strong suit.

At least one of those reviews has already been removed under Amazon's TOS for being abusive.  The rest will follow.

One of them went to a forum for convention runners to try to get me banned from this "threat" that I made nowhere near a convention. Big surprise--the two concern trolls from the local convention were on there concern trolling.

Which is about what I expected from Nazis. Competence, reading comprehension, context. These are not things Nazis understand.

I am not afraid to call a Nazi a Nazi.  They're welcome to prove they're not. So far, they're right on 110% goosestepping.

Yes, I really did copy my lawyer and local police chief--who's been forewarned that some liberal Nazi piece of shit may try to doxx or SWAT me, as they have done to other law abiding people they disagree with.

Had I an in-person contact at FBI, I'd have contacted them, too. However, it's been several days and they've said nothing.  So, if they were called, they either ignored the issue (as they did the shooter in Florida, but liberals would rather blame the uninvolved NRA than the involved government, because Daddy is never wrong! But I digress), or, having people able to read for content, looked at it and said, "So, some internet asshole called out an internet Nazi. Fine."  Or, it was never reported because the Nazi just wanted attention he could wave like a red flag to his Nazi followers to froth them up.

And that's the fascinating part--not a single one of them I've seen said, "Specifying one group to single out legally is wrong."  But they all said, "Challenging such Nazism is VIOLENCE!" even though I've done nothing but type words.

These ARE the same people who riot, burn things, beat people with blunt instruments and murder them passive-aggressively via SWATting for holding different opinions.  But they claim WE're violent.

Once again, you will see that exact behavior by the Nazis in Germany.

This isn't the first "liberal" Nazi I've had a run in with.

They have stalked and harassed me. I have allowed them to post on my wall within certain limits, and anyone crossing that line--regardless of political leanings--is blocked. I couldn't even tell you their names. I have far better things to do than harass people I disagree with that vehemently.  If there's no reasonable discussion possible, go elsewhere. That is what mature adults do.

But, they've http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=369 stalked and gotten me banned for years old comments, harassed my child, in another case stalked my teen daughter, and are actively attempting to get me banned from conventions and other work because they don't like what I have to say.

But they feel perfectly justified in their low-level violence against me and others.

By the way, it's an ongoing amusement to hear someone insist, "I've never heard of you." Again, this arrogates to them a lot of relevance they don't have.  Them not having heard of me has zero impact.

This is often followed with, "But I've never read anything of yours and never will."

I'm perfectly cool with this. This type of person is incapable of comprehending my writing. I know this because if they attempt to, they leave reviews claiming I'm trying to write a "utopia," which I have never claimed and never attempted. Because they don't like it, it must be my utopia. This is 163% wrong.

Further, they are incapable of reading for content. They won't and don't read what I wrote. They read what they want me to have written so they can be offended by it and shriek in their echo chambers.

I do not write for modern American liberals because they're too shallow, bigoted and stupid to comprehend or appreciate the work, and authors who attempt to write for that crowd tend to be broke. I enjoy my expensive steak dinners, exotic gun collection, fine Scotches and spoiling my youngest daughter with toys. Therefore, I write for people who wish to be entertained and can comprehend a message without being beaten over the head with it. http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=422 Modern American liberals can't grasp a message even then.

But let me be perfectly clear:

IF the Nazis pass a law that enables them to come after PEOPLE LIKE ME, or THOSE PEOPLE, or PEOPLE LIKE YOU, with not even pretense that everyone is equal under the law, I will kill as many of them as I can.

Now we wait for the Nazis to show up in comments so we can recognize them.

ADDENDUM: A couple of the threads insist "Williamson says he wants to murder all liberals."

No. I have never said anything like that in seriousness.  I do jest about being elected World Dictator, which is obviously a joke. I suspect these idiots would take "A Modest Proposal" seriously, if they knew what it was or who Jonathan Swift was.

I said I would kill certain individuals if they acted in a certain way that violates the Constitution, in a violent fashion.  In other words, reactively and in self defense.

However, if these "liberals" believe ALL liberals would endorse laws treating one group as a lower class, and sanctioned violence against that group as a collective assumption...once again, we've found the fucking Nazis.

"If you want to play with guns, join the military or police."

First, this statement is ableist in the extreme.  Not everyone can meet the standards the police or military require. So if you're saying it, you are not the slightest bit "liberal." You are a bigot.

Second, you're also ignorant.  Police typically qualify with a sidearm once or twice a year.  The goal is for them NOT to be shooting people. Police are supposed to be filing incident reports, investigating crime, resolving conflicts.  The goal isn't to have them show up and shoot people. Since that's obviously where your brain went, once again, you are not "liberal." You are a fascist who wants a police state.

Third, most of the military similarly qualifies with weapons once a year, and sometimes less in the Navy and Air Force.  There just isn't that much close combat aboard ship or aircraft. Security and military police personnel, engineers and some support elements train more often, but certainly not with any even monthly schedule. Nor, for that matter, do Combat Arms branches fire more than a few times a year. With the exception of a handful of very elite units that you cannot possibly qualify for, "playing with guns" is not a thing in the military. Also, the purpose of the armed elements is to kill people in combat. If you are endorsing this you're not "liberal." You're imperialistic.

So that's three reasons we should maintain private weapons.  Because if you bigoted fascist imperialists get your way, we're going to need to stop you.

You're Offended? Go Fuck Yourself.
Mar 27, 201812:39AM

Category: Politics

TRIGGER WARNING: the below post contains frank discussion of liberalism and statism that survivors of leftist regimes may find troubling.

 

Some years back, there was a huge push to amend the Constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag.  It's an emotional issue for many.

My objection to such an amendment is the terrifying concept of using the Constitution to control people, not government.  The first such experiment was Prohibition, and we're still paying for that monumental fuckup, initiated, btw, by the progressives of the time to save "women and children." They never learn, because they are incapable of learning.

Several well-intentioned idiots whined that "before doing so, one should first get permission from a veteran who has fought for the flag and an immigrant who has sought refuge under it."  My response was, "Hi, I'm an immigrant and a veteran. If you want to be the kind of sad, pathetic pussy who burns a flag to annoy people, go right ahead. You have my consent and contempt." Apparently, that wasn't what these people wanted to hear.  They argued with me or ignored me.  None of them, though, doxxed me, attacked my email or Facebook, threatened to hack me, ruin my business, or otherwise. They were inferior, but civil.

My further response was that if they did pass such an amendment, or even a law, or even continued to push the matter, I'd be honor bound to find a unit's battle flag for sale, buy it, set it on fire, and piss out the flames, just to anger them and make them recognize that freedom of expression MUST NOT be stifled.

Conservatives seem to mostly have accepted this fact.

Liberals are incapable of accepting any fact.

First, we need to define the term "liberal." The modern American "liberal" is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.

The modern American "liberal" is a statist cocksucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent.  They claim to be "tolerant," but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don't have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party.  They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.

Strong words?  These are the people who will riot and shut down a campus to avoid even the presence of a gay man they disagree with.  It wouldn't be a problem if they simply refused to attend, and thereby maintained their ignorance (a valued liberal trait).  No, the very existence of a speaker who they've never actually heard, but have been told by their collective will say things they disagree with, is unacceptable.

This behavior is not "liberal."  It's just like when the USSR claimed to be a "Democratic republic."

Oh, right--liberals were fairly fucking masturbating over how "classy" the sister of Korean Dictator Lil Kim looked next to Vice President Mike Pence. This is a psycho bitch who sends gays, missionaries, dissenters and even liberals to be tortured to death. She's a fucking rock star to liberals.

Beyond that, they'll define anyone who dissents from their agenda as a Nazi, and of course, it's perfectly okay to try to kill "nazis" with blunt objects, firearms and other weapons, for the crime of being a "nazi," and "due process is racist."  There's simply no way to reason with such an entity.

I know some of you are going to say, "But liberals are faggots, so who cares what they think?"

Well, you're correct, liberals are faggots. And of course, we mean it in a non-sexual context, but there are virtually no liberals who are aware of the different definitions of faggot.

However, in another context, a whole bundle of liberals is also a faggot, and very hard to break. En masse, they make noise, harass employers and businesses, and do their best to ruin the lives of anyone who isn't a liberal faggot.

But, you must never give in to the faggotry.  There's no appeasement, no "compromise." If you appease them once, they'll just come back, emboldened, bleating for more.  There's no "Compromise" because they don't offer anything. They just want you to give them something, like some bum who pretends to be homeless and waiflike, but if you watch and see, he'll drive off in a reasonably average car at the end of the begging shift. (Seriously, most of them do. I have photos.)

The only response you should give to a liberal about anything is, "Fuck off, pussy."  Now, I'm in the blessed position of being able to do that without retaliation. People who have a boss to answer to often get fired just because the boss hopes the shouting will go away if he appeases the mob.  But, that just means the mob now dictates his hiring and firing choices. They'll keep coming back for more.  It's an orgy of self-righteous faggotry.

That's part of why liberals hate the self-employed. It's much harder for them to have any effect on me that I'd notice. Oh, sure, they can threaten to boycott my books, but that's based on three false threats--A) that liberals can read for content 2: that they'd comprehend my stuff if they read it, and c] that they have ever paid to read anything of mine in the first place. Threatening to continue not to pay me isn't a viable threat, and the more offensive I am to liberals, the better my sales are among normal people.

This, by the way, is the point where the liberals are emailing my publisher in outrage, demanding that they muzzle my "offensive" statements.  Fortunately, unlike many other authors, I'm published by man.  Well, actually Toni is female, and a minority single mother of a disabled child.  However, she espouses every virtue of manliness we wish our leaders and fellows had, and she'll simply tell them that my opinions are mine, don't reflect at all on a publisher that publishes stories for content, not politics, and publishes far left writers like Eric Flint and Elizabeth Moon as well.

Speaking of Eric Flint, he's one of the rare, real liberals, or in fact, actually a Communist.  However, he's astute enough to realize capitalism generates wealth, and pushes for that wealth to be shared.  He and I can have a reasonable discussion, and I have more in common with him than I do with any proclaimed modern day "liberal." I also highly recommend his books. See how that works? Rational adults can disagree, be friends, and support benefit to each other. Modern so-called "liberals" froth at the mouth at this concept. There can be no real compromise with liberals.  They're like some primitive pagan cult.  Either you accept every word as fact, or you must scourge yourself, beg forgiveness, and abase yourself so they deign to withdraw the charge of lesser outlawry and once again allow you entrance to the clique.

Which is why I'm here.  I will keep escalating my contempt of those tantrum-throwing little shits until they eventually grow out of it, go away, or die from lack of attention.  I have to wonder where an entire generation of parents were.  One of my kids took several years to break of the habit, and the three year old is learning now that tantrum = nothing. It will never, ever get you what you want.  Somehow, we have an entire generation of pussies who have never learned this.

If your circumstances don't permit (For example, a friend who is a newspaper editor), you may simply have to keep quiet about the matter. That's fine, and I hold nothing against you for discretion. But, you must never give a liberal what they want through manipulation, threat or tantrum. Once you do, they will only come back for more. Kipling warned us of Danegeld, and it's Danegeld through whining, not force, but the outcome is the same.

Right now, the liberals are pointing at this essay on screen, and virtue-signaling to each other in howls and catchphrases that I'm a racist, a Nazi, unclean, need to check my privilege, etc.  Now, these are ad hominem from pussies, so there' s no reason to address them.  But, it gives me a warm feeling to remind them how wrong they are at everything.  So, let's run down the list:

Racist:  Ah, the default shriek of the pussified-American.  Actually, all of my kids have some Native American blood, and my wife is more "of color" than the last president, regardless of her skin tone--Choctaw, Cherokee, black, Irish and German, and it wasn't long ago that "Irish" wasn't "white." She's reservation born, white-trash ranch raised, possessed of two STEM degrees, and earns a healthy salary working as a female in STEM, and can actually tell you all about the actual racism, sexism and everything else in society.  I didn't marry her either because she's a minority, or because she looks "white."  I married her because she's fucking awesome and I wanted dibs before someone else realized it.

Now, my ancestry is all "white," but to think that means no history of repression means you have to think that English and Scots, English and Irish, English and Welsh always get along, and that Scandis, Brits and Germans are all identical and never had issues. My Viking ancestors raped and pillaged the coast of Scotland where I'm from, then those English bastards came up and destroyed our language, culture, wealth, property and history.

Well, that was 150 years ago, and I got over it. And yes, there's still trouble now. My English mother and Scottish father got quite a bit of flak about marrying. Because while skin color matters in America, in parts of Europe (including the UK, but God help you if you call a Brit a European in a pub), it's not color, it's background or even surname. That whole Hatfield-McCoy thing you're fascinated with? That's pretty much the entire HISTORY of the British Isles, son.

And as I always like to say, I don't hate anyone based on their demographics. I find it much more satisfying to talk to them for two minutes and hate them as an individual.

Nazi: You know, that would greatly disappoint my maternal grandparents, who hosted Jewish children in the 1930s and 1940s, and helped crack Enigma, and flew in the Battle of Britain and Italian Campaign.  I would never do anything to disappoint Ernest Frederick Stephens and Dorothy Maidlow. It would also disappoint George Williamson and his brother Jock Williamson, who fought with the Gordon Highlanders.  I suspect Phyllis Jane Henderson wouldn't approve either.

Nor, being factual here, do I support any kind of socialism, national or otherwise. If I did, I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. POINT: Liberal faggots don't even know what a "Nazi" is, other than "something that makes me cry."

Check my privilege: Oh, I do, and it's fucking awesome.  Nature blessed me with an outrageously high IQ, perfect vision and hearing, aristocratically handsome looks, good health and fitness, and a larger than average penis. I enjoy the company of amazing women of intellect, presence and appearance. I have good friends.  I have an upper class income and lifestyle now, though that was not true for most of my life.

However, that came from two sources: Genetics, and hard work.  The former I have no control over, and hating me for it IS racist.  Well, eugenicist. Some sort of -ist. I'm not sure the virtue-signalers even know how to categorize that one, because they're all concerned with how pathetic a piece of shit someone can be, rather than how awesome they can be. As to the hard work, I'm in a field where no one can see my skin color, and such a claim is based on the assumption that everyone is racist. What's at work here is confirmation bias. Almost all liberals are racist, so they assume by default that everyone is.  A recent example of this fact is all the bleating from liberals that "if we arm teachers, they'll snap and shoot black kids." What they mean by this is, "I'm an unstable racist and if I had a gun I'd shoot black people, so I assume everyone would."

So, no, I'm not racist or a Nazi. That would make me a liberal.

I think that's enough words wasted on liberals. so let's move on to a second example.

MUSLIMS.

There are a billion Muslims in the world, and it's true that the overwhelming majority are peaceful. Those poor people are stuck in the middle between the violent nutjobs and those fighting the violent nutjobs. Nor do they have an obligation to apologize for the nutjobs, anymore than gun owners should apologize for mass shooters, responsible drinkers for drunk drivers, or Canadians for Justin Bieber.

Liberals, though, do need to apologize for the acts of other liberals, because there is no such thing as an innocent liberal. They're pretty much all on board with Kim, Stalin and Hitler, and most come out and extol those behaviors. But I digress.

However, the violent nutjob arm of Islam are worse than liberals, because they're actually competent, and do kill innocent people over...disagreements of belief.  In other words, liberals would actually be terrorists if they weren't worthless pieces of shit. And we'll need to stomp them out of existence before they become a relevant threat.  But I digress again.

Now, there are two responses to violent Muslim nutjobs.  The first response is of course to be violent right back, but more effectively. This is a sound strategy, and it works.  It is also expensive, time consuming, and not 100% effective.

The other prong is persuasive, and it takes two approaches.

First, is for honest Muslims to keep preaching peace.  A noted imam in Bangladesh spoke just last week, at a very beautiful mosque, http://vitti.com.bd/project/masjid-ut-taqwa/#ad-image-847 about the proper meaning of Jihad.  He notes that the response to angry speech is persuasive, measured speech.  The response to ignorant speech is louder, informed speech.  Armed jihad can only be undertaken on a national scale, and only to ease the suffering of the oppressed. Individual armed jihad has no place in Islamic theology. Dissension, jihad of opinion, jihad of speech, jihad of personal improvement.... those are permitted, not armed jihad. This is a fine man of character, and I pre-emptively apologize to him and my Muslim friends that I must take the other arm of persuasion, and fight the violence with contempt. 

Whenever some nutjob commits an act of violence on behalf of Allah or The Prophet Muhammad (May piss be upon him), I double down with condescension, that Muhammad raped children, likely pigs, possibly men, and considered the drinking of medical piss to be healthy https://islamqa.info/en/83423.  Then I offer to meet them with their weapon of choice and one of my AR-15s, and we can see just how potent this "Allah" is. Although, if mere words from mere mortals can distress him so much, he's probably a faggot himself.

At this point, decent Muslims are rolling their eyes, and a couple of friends are pleading, "Mike, Mike, please don't be so disrespectful. You know we will never harm you and wish you only the best."

This is true. They do. But my message is not for them. It is for the violent nutjobs, to assure them their violence cannot silence speech, even ugly speech.

Unlike liberals, Muslims actually believe in something, so can be reasoned with. Most are very reasonable, some few will have to be reasoned with contemptuously or with violence.

The liberals, however, insist I'm a "Racist" for these statements.  They've never been able to explain which "race" a billion Muslims are, or which "race" the Catholics would be in contrast.  They double down that I have "racialized" Muslims, and that I'm somehow worse than the terrorists who blow kids up.

So, my current jihad is to continue to remind terrorist scum that they can't silence decent people--Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Pagan, areligious, or otherwise, with bombs. And to remind liberals that they're pathetic shit who can't silence the voices of decent people, aren't even effective terrorists, but that if they attempt to become so, we will have to kill them.

I really shouldn't have to smartsplain to people that the opinions 16 year olds hold about anything don't really matter.  That should be axiomatic. My three year old is very unhappy her shipping box house got cut up for packing material.  She has strong opinions about this.  Those opinions aren't relevant.  She'll get over it.

In fact, most opinions don't matter, and I can offer an historical example.

Right after WWII, the US Army conducted a scientific study of combat engagements--ours, allies, enemy, every firefight and battle they could get data on, all the casualty reports, everything.

The conclusion was that 90% of combat engagements were under 100 meters, and 98% were under 300 meters.  The recommendation came down for a lighter, more effective bullet that would accomplish this, saving resources and enabling more ammo load.

The officers of the Infantry Board refused to accept this fact. They'd been in combat.  And who are you going to trust? Some guy in a lab, or the man who had been in combat?

And the answer is: The guy in the lab, who has time to be objective, not the guy scrambling around in the weeds, who isn't actually sure if he hit anything and what happened after.

Eventually, science prevailed, and at this point, pretty much every military in the world has gone (and some already had) from a 7-8mm bullet to a 5-6mm bullet. Us, Europe, ANZAC, Russia, China, everyone.

The US adopted the M-16 variant of the AR-15 starting in 1963 (yes, the AR-15 is probably older than you), and is still using an evolved variant.  Meanwhile, there are troops who've never used anything else insisting "wood is stronger than plastic" (Wrong) and that "we need a 'full power cartridge' capable of killing a man at 2000 yards." By which they mean a .30 caliber cartridge, without any scale to explain why that is magically "full power."  Nor with any support to the claim that it was even possible to see an enemy at 2000 yards, much less get him to hold still long enough to be hit, using a rifle that was sight limited to a 460 yard range anyway.

Moving to gun control on that note, we see false statements such as "military style weapons" (Pretty much every weapon in existence is based on a military development) and "high capacity clips," by which they mean "It's a standard capacity magazine but I don't like it even though I know nothing about it." And even bizarre, completely fabricated terms like "The shoulder thing that goes up" and "automatic bump stock."

And back to the earlier point. Gun control's only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)

So then the bleat is, "Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an "Agenda"(Because obviously, there's zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?

Well, that's easy.  It doesn't matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren't even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building.  That's like saying. "I wasn't in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!"

No, not really. Science matters.  Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.

Those two narcissistic twits from Florida, one of whom admitted to being part of a group who bullied the shooter mercilessly, are utterly irrelevant on the subject of firearms.

And only a complete idiot even bothers to acknowledge they exist, much less waste any time listening to them.

If this offends you, you're obviously a complete idiot.  

I want you, for just a moment, to forget guns exist.  I want you to look at a product as just a product. 

Let's say the head of the Food and Drug Administration* said, "Alcohol affects the brain exactly the same way as cocaine.  Therefore, we are declaring alcohol to be a narcotic.  Narcotics are illegal, therefore, all alcohol and all equipment to produce alcohol are contraband and must be destroyed immediately.  No compensation will be paid because narcotics are illegal."

Let's note: 

1) The definition is blatantly false.

2) The definition contradicts long standing legal definitions.

3) No legislative process exists. This is a fiat declaration by a bureaucrat.

4) Failure to compensate for a legal product taken for public use ("Safety") violates the 5th Amendment requiring fair compensation.

5) Most importantly, this opens the floodgates for ANY bureaucrat to declare ANYTHING illegal.

Remember those handful of conservatives who've said, "Declare Islam not a religion but a political movement and terror front"?

If a bureaucrat has the authority to state that AND ENFORCE IT, there is no Republic. Literally any cabinet head, or possibly lower, can declare outlawry, steal property, seize anything, without even the pretense that an existing law was broken. Law will be whatever they say it is, any day of the week. Any religion can be illegal or mandatory. Anything can be contraband or mandatory. The rule of law simply fails to exist. If this doesn't terrify you, I guess you can go now. Good luck. There's nothing I can do when they quite literally do come to put you in those camps you fear, which just became a solid reality.

~~~

Now, moving back to the relevance of this thought experiment. You're probably very gleeful over the AG's ban on "bump stocks."  

You were probably unaware of bumpfire/slidefire stocks until they were used in the Vegas shooting. In fact, though, they've been in existence since 2006, approved by BATFE as "not a firearm." This was reviewed in 2010 under the 0bama administration, and confirmed that they were "not a firearm." You probably like and supported 0bama, and he found no reason to try to restrict bumpfire stocks.

You've probably heard a lot of hysteria about them, and have no idea how one actually works, or, more accurately, how a person operates it, since it doesn't do anything by itself.

The definition Sessions is using is completely false and inaccurate. It's literally as inaccurate as saying "Alcohol is a narcotic." The definition given is that it "Harnesses the recoil energy of the weapon to function." Which is provably false. Put a firearm equipped with a bumpfire stock on a bench, pull the trigger, it will fire a single shot only. One. Then it will do nothing.

The second claim is that, just like a machine gun, it allows firing multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.  This is also provably false.  Again: Place it on a bench, pull the trigger, it fires one shot.  The trigger must be released before it can shoot again.

This cannot possibly be defined as a "machine gun" that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger.  Yet, that is what Sessions has done, via a false statement--a lie.

The manufacture of machine guns has been illegal since 1986. Real ones command a high price. The finding of the Firearm Technology Branch was not only that these devices were not machine guns, but that in fact, they are not even firearms.

Sessions has falsely declared it to be a machine gun, and therefore contraband ex post facto, with absolutely no compensation for the "contraband," in complete contradiction to the experts' findings.

ATFE estimates the device and related industry are worth $200 million, which is tiny in business terms. However, every owner, seller, maker has money invested that is being stolen from them. No due process.  No legislative process.

Look above again. This decision is precedent for ANY Cabinet head to declare anything...or anyone, illegal, and subject to theft or imprisonment with no process.

If you want to work on legislation that bans these devices, with an accurate description, and a justification, I will certainly fight it all the way to SCOTUS under the 2nd Amendment. That is why we have a legislature and courts.  But if you support bureaucratic fiat, you are signing your own eventual death warrant, and there's nothing I can do to help you. I wish I were being dramatic, but I am not.

* And consider this. It's now becoming illegal to treat yourself for diarrhea: 
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/891968