How is it possible to argue that immigration is beneficial to a society when the mere presence of immigrants involves rendering that society’s laws moot?
Child brides as young as 14 are being reunited with their older, migrant husbands in Denmark after authorities decided that upholding Danish law breached their “human rights”. The legal minimum age for marriage is 18 in the Nordic nation, yet the exemptions are being made for migrants because separating the couples is said to violate the right to family life guaranteed in the European convention on human rights.
There are 27 migrants under 18 who were known to be married Denmark, and among the influx arriving in the past year were two 14-year-old girls, wed to 24 and 28-year-old men. One 14-year-old was expecting a baby. The age of consent in Denmark is 15 for the rest of the population, and those found guilty of sexual acts with minors are liable for 8 years in jail.
One simply cannot take ANY of the Left’s claims seriously anymore. The leftists strain at gnats and swallow mammoths. They are not fit for Western civilization.
Nick Cole, who has no small amount of experience with Hollywood celebrities as an actor on shows like Scrubs and The West Wing, explains why you shouldn’t listen to them.
Most celebrities, especially the actors, are literally professional liars. And when you begin to look at their lifestyle, from the unrealistic wealth you and I will never see, to the amount of divorces, drug and alcohol problems and lawsuits they accumulate, they’re not actually savory people. Not even really nice people in fact, unless they’re making videos about how they’re donating to some charity. They are literally bragging on social media about what a giver they are conveniently timed around some theatrical release for their next filth laden flop you shouldn’t actually be watching with your kids.
(Wow what a coincidence! That drug addict rageaholic actor Everyman who parties with the House of Saud and Russian hookers and whose wife fears for her and her kid’s life, shows up at the cancer ward to pretend to be something he’s actually not). And what makes it occasionally creepier than it really is, happens during elections when a celebrity team of Social Avengers gets together to push a flailing political candidate known for her legendary amounts of corruption, avarice, greed and general failings as a human being in order to tell you the other guy is literally Hitler. Disregarding the fact that Hitler was Hitler because he killed millions of people.
Celebrities are lying scum.
I have to admit, I don’t pay celebrities any mind whatsoever, on the sound principle that I don’t listen to anything that anyone with an IQ less than half of mine says. I can honestly say that I am more inclined to pay heed to the opinion of my wife’s Ridgeback than I am to any opinion expressed by a Hollywood celebrity.
Celebrities are, by and large, a collection of shallow, low-IQ little people who spend their lives playing make-believe and pretending to be things that they are not. It’s nice that they can make a living that way, but one would do better to seek guidance by consulting the opinions of cosplayers.
Whatever are we going to do about this army of Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police who are occupied with memory-holing history?
Last week, you could still find on Wikipedia two of Ms. Machado’s more recent misadventures:
In 2005, Machado was engaged to baseball star Bobby Abreu. During their engagement she was on the Spanish reality show ‘La Granja’ where she was filmed on camera having sex with another member of the show. Shortly after the video surfaced Abreu ended their engagement.
On June 25, 2008, Machado gave birth to her daughter, Dinorah Valentina. She issued a statement that the father of Dinorah was her best friend Mexican businessman Rafael Hernandez Linares after Mexican news sources, quoting the Attorney General, reported that the father was Gerardo Álvarez Vázquez, a drug lord.
But mentions of these imbroglios have since been memory holed on Wikipedia. Editors have offered bizarre excuses for deleting the most interesting information about Hillary’s heroine, such as that the diva is not a “public figure,” an assertion that would surely wound the actress more deeply than allegations that she’s a gangster’s moll.
That points out an answer to one of the more obvious questions about the plausibility of Orwell’s 1984: How can they afford that? Is it really fiscally feasible even for a totalitarian government to employ an army of salaried Winston Smiths to alter history?
Yet it’s naive to imagine that a government would have to pay people to do this kind of thing. In the current year, we now know that plenty of people would join the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police for free.
How very unfortunate. Now, thanks to Wikipedia’s ever-efficient thought police, no one will ever know the truth about Ms Machado. It’s not as if there is anything we can do about it, right?
Now that BRINGS THE LIGHTNING is out in all four formats, hardcover, paperback, ebook, and audiobook, and is available on Kindle Unlimited as well, it seems a propitious time to link to this excellent interview of author Peter Grant by Scott Cole of Castalia House. The level of knowledge that Grant has about the weapons of the period, and the amount of research he puts into his books, are truly astounding. – VD
Scott Cole: How did you decide to base your first Western novel on Walt’s demobilization, journey home, and quest to find a new life in a changed world?
Peter Grant: A lot of this was personal experience. I’ve been in military service, and experienced demobilization, a journey home, and having to start all over again. I knew that hundreds of thousands have had to do the same thing after almost every war in history. I researched the stories of both Union and Confederate veterans, and found they shared similar experiences. Also, the corruption, attacks on returning Confederates by both official and ‘unofficial’ enemies such as bushwhackers, etc. are all documented in books and narratives of the period. It was a logical step to make this the beginning of my novel.
Q. Is Walt’s character based on historical figures or is he your Western alter-ego?
Walt is entirely based on historical figures. Some were Southern veterans who became first guerrillas, then outlaws, such as the James gang. Others are based on veterans from both the North and the South who wrote about their experiences of coming home after the war, then heading west to make a fresh start. I have no alter ego in the book at all.
Q. You mentioned that you fired many of the weapons mentioned in the book. Were these updated versions of the original models or part of private collections that survived the years?
These were original weapons that had survived the wars in Southern Africa. I’ve fired original versions of Colt’s 1861 Army and 1873 revolvers, Winchester Model 1873 and 1886 rifles, and the Winchester Model 1887 lever-action shotgun. All were in private collections.
Q. Walt does a good job in explaining the advantages and disadvantages of various firearms in the book. Then again, he had a lot of them. If you had to choose only one pistol and one long rifle to equip yourself with in that time what would you choose and why? Would you make different choices if you were equipping yourself for the African bush?
Good question. If I were in Walt’s shoes, I’d have gone with the choices he made, for the same reasons: the Remington revolver and the Henry rifle. Both were suitable for the plains. I’d have liked a heavier rifle as well, to handle buffalo on the plains and bear, etc. in the mountains, but if I was limited to one rifle, the Henry would be it, because it would be so much more useful in combat to have its rapid rate of fire and large magazine capacity.
If I were to pick one of each for Africa, during the period when it was still wild and filled with very dangerous animals, the revolver would be the same, but the rifle would unquestionably have to be a much more powerful weapon. Don’t forget, African dangerous game is much larger and more powerful than those in North America. I’d pick a European big-caliber rifle, probably (in the days of blackpowder propellant) an eight-gauge or even a four-gauge muzzle-loading weapon. That would have obvious limitations in its speed of reloading, etc., but it would have the power to take down the largest African animals, unlike any American rifle of the period. If dangerous animals were less of a factor, I might consider a repeating rifle; but all of the cartridges during the period in which this novel is set (mid to late 1860’s) weren’t very efficient or powerful. If we were in the 1870’s, I’d take the Winchester 1876 rifle with its .45-75 cartridge, or, a bit later, the Winchester 1886 in .45-70. By the 1890’s I’d take a European bolt-action repeater with a smokeless round; the British Lee-Metford, the German Mauser, etc.
Q. Why were the cartridges so weak and inefficient in the mid to late 1860’s? Cost savings by manufacturers or just the technology at the time?
The cartridges were weak for two reasons.
The technology to produce metal cartridges was brand-new and in its infancy. Extruded brass was unknown; cartridges had to be formed from a sheet of the metal, with consequent weaknesses at the seams. This meant that if a powerful propellant load was used, it risked rupturing the case; so all early cartridges were relatively lightly loaded. For example, the Henry rifle (and its immediate successor, the Winchester Model of 1866) used a powder charge of only 25 to 28 grains, less than many handguns of the day. The Winchester 1873 used 40 grains – an improvement, but not greatly. It took until the 1870’s for more powerful cartridges such as the .50-70 and the later, more efficient .45-70 (and their larger, longer cousins) to be developed.
During the 1860’s, the centerfire primer had not yet been invented; all early cartridges were rimfire, like modern .22LR, or pinfire. This meant that ignition was less reliable. It also meant that the bases of the cartridges were less strong, as their rims had to be hollow to accommodate the priming compound and/or the pin. It took until the 1870’s for central primers to be developed (most notably the Berdan and Boxer priming systems). That, in turn, allowed for solid rims that were stronger.
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday denied reports that she once suggested taking out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with a drone strike.
“I don’t know anything about what [WikiLeaks] is talking about, and I don’t recall any joke,” the Democratic nominee told reporters Tuesday. “It would have been a joke if it had been said, but I don’t recall that.”
WikiLeaks tweeted a screen grab Sunday evening from a report alleging that Clinton once asked in 2010 during a State Department briefing, “Can’t we just drone this guy?” She supposedly asked this when she served as secretary of state.
I would think that a presidential candidate threatening lethal drone strikes in London, and against a foreign embassy, no less, would be concerning. But arguably even more concerning is the possibility that said presidential candidate genuinely can’t remember having done so because she has brain damage.
Castalia House is very happy to be able to announce that BRINGS THE LIGHTNING, a Western by Peter Grant, is now available in audiobook. Narrated by Bob Allen, the audiobook is 7 hours and 56 minutes long.
When the Civil War ends, where can a former Confederate soldier go to escape the long memories of neighbors who supported the winning side? Where can Johnny Reb go when he can’t go home? He can go out west, where the land is hard, where there is danger on every side, and where no one cares for whom you fought – only how well you can do it.
Walt Ames, a former cavalryman with the First Virginia, is headed west with little more than a rifle, a revolver, and a pocket full of looted Yankee gold. But in his way stand bushwhackers, bluecoats, con men, and the ever-restless Indians. And perhaps most dangerous of all, even more dangerous than the cruel and unforgiving land, is the temptation of the woman whose face he can’t forget.
The WHITE ghettos that blight South Africa: 20 years after the fall of apartheid, how it is now white people who live in squalid camps. There are 42,000 white South Africans living in poverty, a figure which has grown in last 20 years. Munsieville is a squatter camp west of Johannesburg which is home to 300 of them, many of them kids. Under apartheid white South Africans lorded it over blacks and ‘coloureds’ but now there is equality….
“I was mostly affected by the amount of children I saw, living in squalor. It saddens me to think they might never leave this level of poverty and will remain living in this situation for the rest of their lives. The children reminds me of any white kids I’ve met, even kids in affluent suburbs, playing outside spending their days in the sun. They don’t seem to understand they are poor, or are ignorant to what life is like outside Munsieville.”
Someone with the propitious name of “Del Cid” sent me this today:
I am voting for Donald Trump this November 48, 2016.
Whether any of the innumerable slings and arrows directed at Trump’s person and politics recently have any basis in fact or not, in the end it matters quite little to me. This election, I am not so much voting for the individual as I am voting for what he inherently represents.
As so many wrongly assume, just because I vote for Trump does not necessarily require that I admire every aspect of him personally. Nor does it mean I condone every action he has committed, decision he has made, policy he has endorsed, or word he has spoken. As common sense as this may sound to some, it has tripped up enough people I have spoken to lately that sadly I feel I must make this clarification.
So why am I voting for Donald Trump?
In part I am voting for Trump because the only viable alternative, Hillary Clinton, is far worse than Trump on almost every conceivable level. At the very least, I will vote strategically for Trump in order to deny Hillary the Presidency and to prevent the catastrophe that such a result would undoubtedly bring upon our nation and possibly even the rest of the world.
However, ultimately I will vote for Trump because no matter the specifics of what actions he may take or what stances he may adopt as President, the one thing he is guaranteed to do is shake the Establishment currently embedded in our nation’s government to its very core. Given his track record so far as only just a Presidential nominee, one has to admit this to be true, just as one must equally admit that our government has fallen into a dangerous rut and must be shaken out of it.
Hillary could never do that, she is too much a part of said Establishment to bring any meaningful, productive change no matter how flowery and polished her scripts and talking points are. Best case scenario, Hillary as President would only carry on the current status quo and our government, and nation, will continue to devolve into chaos and eventual self-destruction.
In contrast, Trump as President will likely result in one of two situations:
He breaks the mold adhered to by almost every newly made President for the last several generations and actually acts on his campaign promises; thus making some much needed positive changes to our government and our national/international policies. True, no one is perfect and he may and probably will make some bad decisions or changes to be sure. But overall, his Presidency will be a net positive and with his help our nation will thrive and flourish and begin to find its way back to the right track.
He makes some truly terrible changes, declares himself God-Emperor of America, and drives us all to hell in a handcart. If this is the path his presidency takes, then he will undoubtedly gather so much hatred and opposition from enough of us true blooded Americans that We the People will finally be galvanized into performing our full civic duty and actually do something ourselves to fix our nation and “Make America Great Again.”
Obviously possibility 1 is best case scenario, and 2 is worst case scenario. Call me a flaming optimist, but I feel that possibility 1” is the most likely outcome. As with all relatively sane individuals, I generally prefer orderly, intellectual revolutions to chaotic, violent ones. However, history has repeatedly and unfailingly demonstrated that if the former is so continuously and brutally repressed, the latter will occur eventually.
Either way, change must happen. Change will happen. Real and fundamental change.
Which of our two candidates this election season are more suited to acting as a catalyst for positive change, short or long term? The old bureaucrat so highly experienced in the game of political corruption that even her scandals have scandals? The woman so inextricably tied to the rot at the core of our political machinery that she is the veritable posterchild (postergranny?) of all things wrong with our government today? Or the loud, brash, polarizing man who drives the chattel of PC media elites, SJW thought police, cuckservatives, et all before him like so many helpless leaves before the hurricane? The one candidate who has already begun the breaking of the Present World Order without even yet having stepped foot in the White House?
I look at it all like this: It is a cold, hard fact that you will never in your life be given the choice of a Presidential candidate who will completely satisfy all of your moral and political standards. Yet at the same time neither you nor your nation can afford for you to stand by, shun your civic duty, and remove yourself from the decision for the purpose of virtue signaling your moral superiority. Other than arguably making you look good, what real good does this accomplish for the world? You must choose the best you can out of what options you have been given, and make the most you can out of the reality with which you are faced.
I have studied my options carefully this election season. Given the choices reality has set out before me, I can only conscientiously fulfill my civic duty as an American citizen by choosing Donald Trump for my next President.
Russia is apparently taking the banging of the war drums seriously:
As relations between Russia and the US disintegrate as a result of the escalating proxy war in Syria, which today culminated with Putin halting a Plutonium cleanup effort with the US, shortly before the US State Department announced it would end negotiations with Russia over Syria, tomorrow an unprecedented 40 million Russian citizens, as well as 200,000 specialists from “emergency rescue divisions” and 50,000 units of equipment are set to take part in a four day-long civil defense, emergency evacuation and disaster preparedness drill, the Russian Ministry for Civil Defense reported on its website.
According to the ministry, an all-Russian civil defense drill involving federal and regional executive authorities and local governments dubbed “Organization of civil defense during large natural and man-caused disasters in the Russian Federation” will start tomorrow morning in all constituent territories of Russia and last until October 7. While the ministry does not specify what kind of “man-caused disaster” it envisions, it would have to be a substantial one for 40 million Russians to take part in the emergency preparedness drill. Furthermore, be reading the guidelines of the drill, we can get a rather good idea of just what it is that Russia is “preparing” for.
The website adds that “the main goal of the drill is to practice organization of management during civil defense events and emergency and fire management, to check preparedness of management bodies and forces of civil defense on all levels to respond to natural and man-made disasters and to take civil defense measures.” Oleg Manuilov, director of the Civil Defence Ministry explained that the exercise will be a test of how the population would respond to a “disaster” under an “emergency” situation.
Americans, meanwhile, are fretting over whether or not Kim Kardashian is going to need therapy or not after her recent trip to Paris.
