Paedophiles in Parliament II

Is it an accident that so many of the UK’s parliamentary pedophiles were instrumental in helping the UK surrender its sovereignty to the EU? I would tend to doubt it.

As Prince Andrew becomes the latest figure to be named in an establishment paedophile scandal, the British nation has woken up today to face, yet again, the uncomfortable possibility that they are governed by an elite political and media establishment that has, for at least the past 50 years, engaged in, covered up, and ignored institutionalised paedophilia.

I spent the month of November in the United States, whilst there the UK Home Office’s “Independent Investigation” into historical child abuse in Westminster hit new levels of absurdity when the SECOND appointed head of the investigation resigned due to links to those implicated in a paedophile ring….

Having come across much of this information as a Parliamentary intern in 2005, where it was described to me as “just what goes on here”, I  cannot believe that anyone with a long-term political career in Britain has not only not heard the rumours, but has come across or witnessed enough consistent information to believe they merit investigation.

Members of Parliament past and present would therefore fall into three categories: those who participated in child abuse, those who directly assisted in covering it up, and those who were aware of the issue but decided to do nothing. Indeed Lord Tebbit, Margaret Thatcher’s former Cabinet Minister and confidante, has bravely stated that both he and Thatcher were aware of a problem, which now implicates many of their close colleagues, but that there was a feeling at the time that investigating or exposing them would destroy the British Establishment, and that it was more important to protect it.

There may have been a time when I, and perhaps a large proportion of the British public, felt that the value of protecting the institutions and traditions of the British Establishment outweighed the necessity for justice for the victims of these crimes, but when current members of the Establishment issue their “strenuous denials” and still dismiss the possibility that such a thing could have possibly occurred, it seems they may be really operating either in the panic of self preservation, or in the assumption that there are simply still matters we don’t talk about for the “greater good”.

It’s also very hard to argue that there is any reason, let alone value, to protect the legitimacy and popular perception of the “British Establishment” now that the establishment doesn’t have much power any more after having ceded most of its important decision-making functions to bureaucrats in Brussels and NATO generals.

“Simon Danczuk MP, who has previously chaired meetings in Parliament on
the investigation has stated that he feels that the Prime Minister has
been “intentionally dismissive” of the issue, and that the investigation is being purposely “delayed and sabotaged” by the government.”

I suspect that the deeper the investigations go, the more it will become obvious that the pedophilia of British politicians has been the way in which their political loyalties have been directed. If UKIP throws its growing weight behind the investigations, they could well topple the evil British establishment on the wave of popular outrage and revulsion.

Finally, a good game

The difference between watching games between two teams who should be in the playoffs – Dallas and Detroit – and teams who shouldn’t be – pretty much the other six teams – was glaringly apparent yesterday. I think the playoffs worked best when there were three divisions and one wild card team; just as there are more teams than there are NFL-caliber quarterbacks, there are more teams in the playoffs than there are playoff-caliber teams.

But as long as there are four divisions (which works well for other reasons), it would be better if there was only one wild card team and one first-round bye. I have no regard for the “best teams” argument, because the only “best teams” that matter are already guaranteed entry. If you’re only the third-best team in your four-team division, you shouldn’t be in the playoffs. If you’re only the third-best of the non-division winners, you shouldn’t be in the playoffs.

The Eagles, who lost to the Seahawks, Cowboys, and Redskins before beating the Giants to close out the season, weren’t going to do anything that Carolina won’t do, which is to say lose to the Seahawks next weekend.

As for last night’s game, it was good to see Tony Romo finally get the playoff monkey off his back. The controversial call shouldn’t have been made in the first place, because a) it was offensive pass interference when Pettigrew grabbed Hitchens’s facemask, b) the contact was minimal, and most importantly, c) it was a completely uncatchable ball. Stafford literally hit Hitchens in the back right in the numbers; there was absolutely no way the receiver had any sort of play on the ball. Furtheremore, there is no “face-guarding” rule in the NFL, or, for that matter, in NCAA football; it is only deemed pass interference in high school football, specifically National Federation of State High School Associations rule 7-5-10: “Any player hinders an opponent’s vision without making an
attempt to catch, intercept or bat the ball, even though no contact was
made.”

When the officials call pass interference on a player who hasn’t turned around, they do so because he has crashed into a receiver who is coming back for a high ball, to distinguish them from defenders who crash into a receiver when they themselves are going for a high ball. That was not the case in the play being discussed, for the obvious reason that Stafford threw the ball into the Dallas linebacker’s back. Recall the NFL’s pass interference rules: Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to: (c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

ESPN’s Todd Archer asked Pete Morelli (who is admittedly not a very good ref: see the NFC Championship Game 2009) about the call turned non-call:

Todd Archer: Can you talk about the decision to overturn the call and why you overturned the call?
Pete Morelli: The back judge threw his flag for defensive pass
interference. We got other information from another official from a
different angle that thought the contact was minimal and didn’t warrant
pass interference. He thought it was face-guarding.
Archer: Which official?
Morelli: The head linesman.
Archer: What did you see?
Morelli: It’s not my responsibility. I’m a hundred miles away.
Archer: Face-guarding is not a foul?
Morelli: Face-guarding is not a foul. It is a penalty in college but not in professional football.
Archer: What is the process you go through after you announce the call? Should you have waited before you announced the call?
Morelli: Probably, yes. The information came and then the officials got
together a little bit later, after it was given to me, the first
information. It would have probably been smoother if we got together.

He did the right thing. It’s better to get it right and look like a fool or a fix than allow a bad call to stand when he knows better. As for the decision not to flag Dez Bryant for coming onto the field without his helmet in protest of the call, I think it was a correct no-call. We want to see the refs let minor things go in the playoffs (that’s why Suh was permitted to play when his suspension would never have been overturned in the regular season), and no one wants to see a playoff game settled by an off-the-field foul by an excited player in an overheated moment that harmed no one. I wish more NFL games this year had been refereed in the style Dallas-Detroit was; I simply do not understand those fans who seem to enjoy a blizzard of yellow flags and seeing every third play called back.

If the Lions fans want to blame anyone, they should blame Jim Caldwell for failing to go for it on 4th-and-1. The football gods obviously did not like that, as they promptly punished the Lions with a 10-yard shanked punt. Caldwell played to avoid losing throughout the second half; switching to a four-man rush and abandoning the blitz took the pressure off Romo, who made Detroit pay for it.

And besides, those petty flags would have caused us to miss the redemption of Dallas’s rookie defensive end, whose utter stupidity in not falling down to seal the game once he’d recovered the fumble was made up for by creating and recovering another fumble to win the game. In the end, with two minutes left and two timeouts, Stafford only managed to produce two fumbles. Game over. The better team won.

NFL Playoffs: Wildcard round

I felt rather sorry for the Cardinals. I have no doubt they would have won with even a journeyman starter, but it’s a little tough to generate offense with a 4th-stringer. As for the Steelers, it’s obviously time for Polamalu to retire. I don’t know why the media is always down on Flacco; he may not be Manning, Brady, or Rodgers, but you can obviously win a Super Bowl with him.

The Bengals are similarly overmatched. They’re playing hard, but I can’t see them coming back against the Colts. The only game I’m even all that interested in is Detroit-Dallas. I can’t help but notice that no one is clamoring for an expanded playoffs considering how bad the first-round matchups have been this year.

As for the Super Bowl, New England beating Seattle as the last hurrah of Brady and Belichick is my prediction.

The shills of anti-GamerGate

The media never bothers to look close enough at the situation to observe that a considerable amount of the objectionable behavior of #GamerGate is actually the work of anti-GamerGate shills trying to make #GamerGate look bad:

Leader ID 036072 01/02/15 No. 170287

So guy how many trannys have we helped drive to commit suicide? I think we should really focus on Brianna Wu. She is the head of the anti gamer cobra. She offs herself and the rest of the freaks will follow suit. 

A few hours later….

Leader ID 036072 01/02/15 No. 170532
>>170287

I can’t do this anymore.

I’m making myself sick with the comments I’m making in this thread. I honestly feel sick to my stomach. Transexuals don’t deserve to be bullied. Anyone who might have followed this tread please don’t do anything.

I just want you guys to stop harassing my friend Zoe and my friends at ghazi. I figured helping you guys look bad would help stop you. Please just stop bothering my friends and I truly apologize for the awful things i said about trans people. Can someone tell me how to delete this thread?

Remember, for rabbits, it is always about the appearance rather than the substance, and victory is synonymous with positive PR. Of course, it’s usually not hard to spot these provocateurs, since they are too solipsistic to effectively emulate their opponent’s patterns of thought and speech.

The idea that Brianna Wu is the head of anything was sufficient to expose this shill even before her confession. No doubt AC will be amused by the evidence of a rabbit accidentally overstimulating her own amygdala.

Notice how the rabbit apologizes for her violation of warren dogma, but not for the deceit she practiced upon everyone. Rabbits feel literally no shame about lying, nor do they feel any obligation to tell the truth. Never, ever forget that.

How civilizations fall

John C. Wright explains the process of civilization decline, and in doing so demonstrates how far along the West has traveled down that dark path:

The first thing that can start the dissolution of civilization, and place our foot on the long, blood-soaked, sad path toward that aboriginal tribe that has forgotten how to make needles or sew, is the treason of the clerks.

One the king is convinced (or in these more degenerate and democratic times, the parliaments and congresscreatures who have kingly duties but no sense of a higher power to whom they are obligated) that he has authority to overrule the laws of civilization, perhaps to make the pathway clear to the alleged utopia that the priests said surely will arise once anarchy is unleashed, then the legitimacy of his state is gone, and he is merely a raving beast like a mad man-eating lion.

The first thing the lion eats is the sense of honor that keeps his fighting men in check. His fighting men includes what in the modern day is both the military and the police. The police are made more and more militaristic; they are cast as the enemy of the people; and the military is degenerated from its ancient precepts of honor and courage, and instead becomes sensitive and friendly to womenfolk or sodomites.

Now, to be clear, in a modern bureaucratic state, any one who has the power to enforce the law and harass the people is, for all practical purposes, a policeman, a soldier, a fighting man of the king. We would call these bureaucrats, everyone from the tax man to the clerk on a planning and zoning board enforcing an irrational eco-nutbag regulation.

The sense of honor needed to keep soldiers and civil servants in check evaporates as the lawlessness of the anarchic King spreads down the wall to the next row, and the soldiers, police, and civil servants become young lions, red in tooth and claw.

Once the fighting men are corrupted, next oldest support of civilization vanishes: the burghers, the townsmen, the bourgeoisie, the merchants, the shopkeeper and tradesman, and middle class. Their corruption is far easier and far quicker, because trade and possession depends on a faith in objective law and evenhanded enforcement of contracts, not to mention the soundness of coin or currency. The middle class can be taxed out of existence, as they were in ancient Rome, which collapsed the Western Empire in one generation, and kept the Eastern Empire in a state of servitude and poverty for the remainder of its millennium.

The merchants who turn to the King to make a sweetheart deal create crony capitalism, which is also, more correctly, called fascism. The industries, such as are left, become organs of the state and are protected by increasingly one-sided and nakedly unfair taxations and regulations.

The important point to note is that the treason of the merchants undermines the unspoken social contract which allows trade and manufacture, or even guilds and small shops, to exist: that is, namely, the unspoken social contract provides that spoken contracts shall be upheld, and trade be fair and free. This idea is laughed into nonexistence, and the merchants are no longer merchants, but become jackals slinking and slouching in the shadows of the lions consuming the people, greedy for scraps.

But no civilization of this is possible without the brotherhood of family and clan. And that is not possible without marriage and an institution of paternity.

So the final course of stones to go is the social contract, the bargain, between fathers and mothers, between male and female. The deal is that, in return for the bearing the burden of bearing children, the womanfolk will be protected and cherished. When the barbarians attack, the women and children go first to the stronghold, and the men man the walls; the iceberg strikes, the women and children go into the lifeboats, and the men go to death in the icy water. In return, the women preserve and reproduce the race.

To defend civilization, it is necessary for men and women to take the risks that modern society places upon us. Yes, there is risk of divorce. Yes, there is risk of missing out on something, whatever that something might be. But in the end, if even those who are civilizationists give in to the temptations and whispered promises of safety offered by modern society, civilization will fall.

It will most likely fall anyhow. But the important thing is to provide, like the monks of an earlier civilizational decline, a means of preserving that which will permit civilization to rise again.

The risk is worth it, because there is more to life than maximizing your number of sexual encounters and your bank account. So take the risk. Marry. Have children. Teach them right from wrong. And raise up a new generation that is not only civilized, but capable of defending the remnants of civilization.

For consideration 2014

And the fun is about to begin again! Here are my Hugo-eligible works published in 2014:

NOVEL 

QUANTUM MORTIS: A Mind Programmed, Castalia House (with Jean & Jeff Sutton)

SHORT STORY

“The Logfile”, The Altar of Hate, Castalia House
“A Reliable Source”, Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House
“Tell it to the Dead”, Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House (with Steve Rzasa)

BEST RELATED WORK

“What is Pink SF/F”, June 12, 2014, Vox Popoli

If you want to get in on the action, you can join Sasquan 2015 here. I tend to suspect $40 for two years of voting rights will provide even more entertainment bang for your buck than it did last year. Also, note that you can buy two memberships, so long as the second one is marked “Guest of X”.

Less guns, more crime

So much for the notion of the USA being unusually violent due to its guns and legal carry laws:

With a murder rate many times higher than the US, Russian legislators approved the carry of guns for self-defense. The new law was announced on November 18.

The International Business Times reports that prior to this change “Russians were only allowed to own firearms for hunting or target practice.” Because of this, there are only “13 million” privately owned firearms in Russia compared to approximately 310 million the US. On the other hand, “there were 21,603 murders in Russia” in 2009 compared with just over 13,600 in the US, “which has a population almost twice as large [as Russia].”

In other words, in the past few years fewer guns equaled more murder in Russia while more guns equaled fewer murders in the US.

Under the new law, Russians can acquire a license to carry a firearm for self-defense. The license has to be “renewed every five years” and applicants must “undergo background checks and take a safety course.”

The law allows licensed Russians to carry a variety of different guns.

No wonder the gun control lobby is trying to rebrand as “gun safety”. Their arguments are failing on an international level.

Is John Scalzi a malignant narcissist?

As if being a self-confessed rapist who associates with men accused of sexually battering women wasn’t enough of an indication, reading Michael Trust’s fascinating work on malignant narcissists tends to indicate that there is something seriously off about John Scalzi. Consider these various points from the book:

Competitive/Relative Inferiority

Narcissists are weirdly competitive and strangely envious over seemingly insignificant details, from how the salary they earn compares to other’s, to the respectability of the shampoo they use, compared to the shampoos that others use. It is a shielding mechanism, designed to protect their ego, and their amygdala, from confronting their own insecurity.

You can sometimes spot this trait in a narcissist, by how they will try to verbally downplay their competitiveness in realms where they can’t compete, as a way of creating a false reality where they don’t care about their competitive inferiority. If your narcissist, out of the blue says, “Other people are obsessed with how much money they earn, but I really don’t care about things like that,” then you know they were just obsessing over exactly that subject. They are trying to establish a verbalized reality where their not caring, will allow their brain to relax over their abject failure in that regard.

McRapey on weightlifting (or practically any other subject, for that matter. To take all his various protestations about not caring at face value, you’d have to assume he was a Stoic of an emotional flatness to put the Romans to shame.)

Last week, as part of my general “try to lose weight and get a little healthier because you’re middle-aged now and you don’t want to die” thing, I started going to the local YMCA to use its weight room and indoor track, with my daughter as my workout partner. She’s been on the powerlifting team at her school for the last three years, so she’s knowledgeable about the weights in a way I am not, and is thus a good person with whom to work out. At the end of our first session, I tweeted the following:

    Let it be known that my daughter can lift more than I do. Because she’s on her school’s weightlifting team, and also because she’s awesome.

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) June 30, 2014

This naturally aroused the derision of the hooting pack of status-anxious dudebros who let me live rent-free in their brains, prompting a predictable slew of tweets and blog posts about how this is further proof of my girly-man status, hardly a man at all, dude do you even lift, and so on.  I am delighted in all the ways that they are the best, and also, better than me.


Diminution of Stature/Humiliation

The narcissist needs to feel as if they have power, so as to pacify their insecure amygdala. It is only when everyone around them reflexively supplicates, that the narcissist can let their amygdala relax. For this reason, narcissists often build a perception of themselves as superiors, and they demand that others treat them this way. 

McRapey on running for SFWA President for the fourth time 

I have decided to step forward once more (last, last very last time I swear)
as a candidate for President, a position to which I was first elected
in 2010. I had originally intended to step down at the end of this term,
but on reflection decided there were still some things I wanted to
accomplish in the role, and it made sense to try them over the course of
an additional year. Whether I get that year will be up to SFWA members,
of course; they may be tired of me and my management style. In which
case I hope they elect someone else, rather than, say, stabbing me
Caesar-style at the Nebula Awards. Please, SFWA members: No stabbing.
That’s pointy and hurts.

Insist on Arguable Untruths

Narcissists who do this will insist on an untruth, especially one which would impede the attainment of a goal important to the group, and then they will refuse to acknowledge the falsity of the untruth. I fully believe narcissists who practice this technique do it knowingly. They know that what they are asserting is false, they enjoy seeing you upset over the fact that they are so unable to accept logic, and they refuse to give in purposely, to watch you grow increasingly agitated and frustrated. To these narcissists, truth is immaterial, the group’s goals are meaningless, and your upset emotional state is blissfully amusing. As a result they have one goal – to see your frustrated.

McRapey on the lack of women writing hard science fiction

I have a degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago
(specializing in the philosophy of language), and therefore have ample
training in rhetoric, so I doubt that rhetorical deficiencies on this
end are the issue. I read your column Vox, and I grasped your
obvious rhetorical device. It doesn’t impress me. As continually stated,
your rhetorical device is obviously bad: Poorly stated, poorly
supported, and rheorically incoherent. To restate: Your thesis is wrong
and you lack the rhetorical skills to present your thesis in a coherent
fashion. Your latter-day attempt to brush off your sexist and ignorant
statement as sarcasm is baldly transparent as backtracking; even if it
were true, it shows that your use of such devices is appallingly clumsy.
Again one wonders how you got your columnist gig, or, alternately, if
anyone bothers to edit you, as you so clearly need.

Being a Central Information Hub

Two things narcissists try to do to irritate is to invade privacy, and control and guide the flow of all information. This is probably due to some deep perception that their entire self-worth is defined by the group’s beliefs and perceptions (ie, it’s acceptance of their false reality), combined with an assumption (erroneously assuming that everyone else thinks like them), that everyone else’s self-worth is as well. Thus, to a narcissist, control the information flow, and you control everyone’s self-assessments of their own self-worth. To the narcissist, that information is pure power over not just everyone, but in the narcissist’s mind, the very (false) reality that everyone inhabits.

1. McRapey on all controversial subjects of the last 10 years

Comments off on this

2. McRapey on all people who might disagree with him


You are blocked from following @scalzi and viewing @scalzi’s Tweets.
  
Out-grouping

When interacting socially, narcissists are snakes in the grass. One of their major objectives when dealing with those they dislike is to alienate their targets from any social group to which they belong. They do this because they themselves require social validation to support the false reality that they construct to shield their amygdala from stimulation. As long as the group accepts the narcissist and their false reality, the narcissist can cling to the belief that they are somehow normal, or even superior. It is this social validation which serves as a crucial psychological crutch, shielding them from the pain that would result from an honest self-assessment of what they are. Projecting this psychology on others, the narcissist will assume that group-affiliation is just as vitally important to you. As a result, they will seek to disrupt your group affiliations as a way to both, try to disrupt the group-validation of the false reality they assume you have, and preserve this vital psychological crutch for themselves.


McRapey on August 14, 2013, after I announced my expulsion from SFWA


For No Particular Reason At All, This Song Seems Strangely Appropriate Today…. On an entirely unrelated note, today I renewed my SFWA membership. Seems I forgot to do it earlier. Oh, well, an easily corrected oversight, and it was. 


Privacy Invasion

The narcissist will intrude into their private spaces, and then feign ignorance of why they should care that he is there.

McRapey

Ask McRapey about this one. He knows what he did. This was the bizarre behavior that made it evident Scalzi’s behavior isn’t merely that of a normal self-centered individual, but more akin to that of the malignant narcissists described in the book. One would do well to keep these things in mind before one too quickly accept McRapey’s retroactive claims concerning his “satirical” practices at face value.

I’d add one more red flag in addition to those mentioned in the book. It’s what I would call a “probing” style of communication. Everything is two steps forward and one step back; if resistance is met, then it’s all only a joke, ha ha ha, and the individual retreats. If not, the breakthrough is quickly reinforced and a new narrative is established. It’s basically a deceptive tactic used to control the narrative while concealing the narcissist’s objectives. The joke about not wanting to be stabbed at the Nebula Awards is a good example of that; what is the point of the joke in the first place given that it’s not even remotely funny. It is to keep things lighthearted and distract from the fact that the narcissist is dead serious about seeking what he perceives to be power again.

How to Deal with Narcissists is a remarkable book. And it’s astonishing how well it describes the behavior of certain trolls known to infest these parts, as well as explain the reasons for that behavior. My completely unprofessional opinion is that John Scalzi is not a full-blown malignant narcissist, but merely has some observable tendencies in that regard and is rather less psychologically normal than most of his fans and his critics would tend to believe. These tendencies are most clearly seen in his habitual dishonesty and complete inability to admit the truth even when caught out publicly in a lie.

Continental warming

Temperatures continue to rise in Europe:

[T]he relentless stream of migrants to Europe — propelled by the war in
Syria and turmoil across the Middle East and the Horn of Africa — has
combined with economic troubles and rising fear of Islamic radicalism to
fuel a backlash against immigrants, directed most viciously at Muslims.

The
simmering resentments and suspicions have driven debates across Europe
about tighter controls on immigration. Worries about immigration have
helped buoy right-wing parties in Britain, Denmark, France and Hungary.
German officials recorded more than 70 attacks against mosques from 2012
to 2014, including an arson, and the police in Britain have recorded an
increase in hate crimes against Muslims. There are few places where the
turn against immigrants is more surprising than Sweden, where a solid
core of citizens still supports the 65-year-old open door policy toward
immigrants facing hardship that has long earned international respect
for the country….

Opposition
to the rising numbers is growing. The far-right, anti-immigrant Sweden
Democrats had their best showing ever — nearly 13 percent of votes — in
elections in September. The
entry of the Sweden Democrats to parliament in 2010 had already opened
the door for a previously unthinkable discussion about turning back the
country’s policy of taking in foreigners on humanitarian grounds and
granting them access to the country’s generous welfare system.

Adrian
Groglopo, a professor of social science at the University of
Gothenburg, has studied discrimination in Sweden over the past decade.
He said that Sweden has long been a racially segregated country where
many immigrants live in ghettos and struggle to find jobs, but that the
success of the Sweden Democrats has made racism more socially
acceptable.

By the time the current generation of young people take power, “racism” (or as it is more properly described, nationalism) will not only be socially acceptable, it will be legally mandated. Merkel and her merry band of multiculturalists are on their way out, and once the nationalists gain power everywhere from Greece to Germany, from Serbia to Sweden, the tides will reverse in a manner that will surprise nearly everyone who knows nothing of history and its cycles.

Note this growing movement in Germany, which has already surpassed the peak popularity of the Tea Party: One German in eight would join an anti-Muslim march if a rapidly-growing
protest movement organized one in their home towns, according to an
opinion poll published on Thursday.

Immigration in small numbers by those who fully integrate in every way, including language and religion, is beneficial to a nation. But that is very different than mass migration, which is not merely detrimental to a nation, it is materially worse than war. And multi-ethnic societies always collapse, usually in violence.

Gun control by any other name

Would still stink of totalitarianism. Don’t fall for the rebranding of gun control as “gun safety”:

The gun control movement, blocked in Congress and facing mounting losses in federal elections, is tweaking its name, refining its goals and using the same-sex marriage movement as a model to take the fight to voters on the state level.

After a victory in November on a Washington State ballot measure that will require broader background checks on gun buyers, groups that promote gun regulations have turned away from Washington and the political races that have been largely futile. Instead, they are turning their attention — and their growing wallets — to other states that allow ballot measures.

An initiative seeking stricter background checks for certain purchasers has already qualified for the 2016 ballot in Nevada, where such a law was passed last year by the Legislature then vetoed by the governor. Advocates of gun safety — the term many now use instead of “gun control” — are seeking lines on ballots in Arizona, Maine and Oregon as well.

It’s always pure deceitful rhetoric with the fucking rabbits. Always. The fact that they’ve been roundly defeated for two decades just means that they’ll rebrand, lie, and try again.

And observe that giving their inch only encourages them to immediately go after the mile.

In Washington, those who pushed the ballot measure through say they will begin a campaign to get the State Legislature to pass measures to keep guns from those with mental illnesses, children and people with a record of domestic violence.

Never give them an inch. Never compromise. Never moderate. And always punch back twice as hard.