You’re Offended? Go Fuck Yourself.
Mar 27, 201812:39AM
Category: Politics
Posted by: Michael Z. Williamson
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, a religious, 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.
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, a religious, 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.
former President Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who once intoned, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” because “it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”
| .257 Roberts | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||||||
| Type | Rifle | |||||||||||||||
| Place of origin | United States | |||||||||||||||
| Production history | ||||||||||||||||
| Designer | Ned Roberts | |||||||||||||||
| Designed | 1920s | |||||||||||||||
| Manufacturer | Remington Arms | |||||||||||||||
| Produced | 1934-Present | |||||||||||||||
| Variants | .257 Roberts (+P), .257 Roberts Ackley Improved | |||||||||||||||
| Specifications | ||||||||||||||||
| Parent case | 7×57mm Mauser | |||||||||||||||
| Case type | rimless bottlenecked | |||||||||||||||
| Bullet diameter | .257 in (6.5 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Neck diameter | .290 in (7.4 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Shoulder diameter | .430 in (10.9 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Base diameter | .472 in (12.0 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Rim diameter | .473 in (12.0 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Case length | 2.233 in (56.7 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Overall length | 2.775 in (70.5 mm) | |||||||||||||||
| Rifling twist | 1-10″ | |||||||||||||||
| Primer type | large rifle | |||||||||||||||
| Ballistic performance | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| Test barrel length: 24 Source(s): Accurate Powders [1] |
||||||||||||||||
The .257 Roberts also known as .257 Bob [2] is a medium-powered .25 calibercartridge. It has been described as the best compromise between the low recoil and flat trajectory of smaller calibers such as the .22 and 6mm, and the strong energy but not the strong recoil of larger popular hunting calibers, such as the 7mm family and the popular .30-06.[3]
Contents
[hide]
History[edit]
Many cartridge designers in the 1920s were creating various .25 caliber cartridges. Because of its size, the 7×57mm Mauser case was a common choice, having near the ideal volume capacity for the “quarter-bore” (called this because the .25 caliber is one quarter of an inch) using powders available at that time. Ned Roberts is usually credited with being the designer for this cartridge idea. Eventually in 1934 Remington Arms chose to introduce their own commercial version of such a cartridge, and although it wasn’t the exact dimensions of the wildcat made by Roberts, they called it the .257 Roberts.[4]
From its introduction until the appearance of more popular 6 mm cartridges such as .243 Winchester and 6mm Remington, it was a very popular general purpose cartridge.[5] Today, although overshadowed by other cartridges, it lives on with bolt-action rifles being available from some major manufacturers.
Conversion of war-souvenir Japanese Arisaka rifles[edit]
Japanese Type 38 Arisaka rifles brought to the United States as wartime souvenirswere sometimes converted by rechambering to utilize more readily available .257 Roberts cartridge cases because commercially produced 6.5×50mm Arisakacartridges were scarce prior to distribution by Norma Projektilfabrik A/S. The neck of the Roberts case would be slightly enlarged to accept handloaded 6.5 mm bullets. The modified Roberts cases are sometimes known as 6.5×.257 Roberts, although the case headstamp may still indicate .257 Roberts.[6] Neither unmodified .257 Roberts ammunition nor the original 6.5×50mm Arisaka ammunition are suitable for firing in rechambered Arisaka rifles.[7]
Performance[edit]
 |
This section does not cite any sources. (August 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
With light bullets the .257 produces little recoil and has a flat trajectory suitable for varmint hunting. With heavier bullets it is capable of taking all but the largest North American game animals. The original factory load for this is very similar to the .250-3000 Savage.
Improved cartridges[edit]
Remington introduced the commercial version of this popular wildcat as a low-pressure round. At the time there were many older actions available of questionable strength. With a modern action and handloading, this cartridge is capable of markedly improved performance.[4]
One of the common improvements is called the .257 Roberts(+P) which has a SAAMI maximum pressure limit of 58,000 PSI compared to the 54,000 PSI listed for the standard .257 Roberts.[8]
P.O. Ackley said that the .257 Roberts Ackley Improved was probably the most useful all-around cartridge.[9] The Ackley Improved was a typical change of a steeper shoulder coupled with blown-out sides for more of a straight cartridge, providing greater powder capacity.
Comparison[edit]
| cartridge | Bullet Weight | Muzzle Velocity (ft/sec) | Muzzle Energy (ft·lbf) |
|---|---|---|---|
| .250-3000 Savage [10] | 100 | 2911* | 1882* |
| .257 Roberts [1] | 100 | 3020 | 2025 |
| .257 Roberts (+P) [1] | 100 | 3090 | 2120 |
| .257 Roberts Ackley Improved [11] | 100 | 3226 | 2311 |
| .25 WSSM [1] | 100 | 3313 | 2438 |
| .25-06 Remington [1] | 100 | 3324 | 2454 |
| .257 Weatherby Magnum [1] | 100 | 3512** | 2739** |
| 6.5×55mm [12] | 100 | 3183 | 2250 |
Using a 24″ barrel except:
* using a 22" barrel.
** using a 26" barrel.
That wood on it is such a sight to behold!
This is what I call a classic horse pistol / club. In that It sent out one hard hitting round. Then you just reverse your grip and then you had a pretty good club while in a Cavalry melee. Especially with that brass cap on the grip!
(Note the swivel on the ram rod, so you did not lose it while on horseback)
Target shooting has been around for over 100 years. In its earliest forms, enthusiasts stuffed glass balls with feathers and then waited as their friends tossed them in the air to be blown apart mid-flight.
Since then, it has evolved from a leisurely day of hunting practice to a highly competitive international sport. Unfortunately, the feather-filled balls are a thing of the past. Now, clay pigeons are the preferred target.
Resembling a pigeon about as much as a cat resembles a TV, clay pigeons look more like thick little Frisbees than real birds. But that disc-like shape allows them to glide through the air quickly and consistently.
If it’s your first time on the range, make sure to wear proper eye and ear protection, and take time to get familiar with the gun and its safety features before you load a round.
Finally, before your first clay pigeon is thrown, figure out which of your eyes is dominant. Once you’re shooting, you’ll keep one eye closed while aiming.
To determine your dominant eye, extend your arm and point, covering a distant object with the tip of your finger while keeping both eyes open.
Keeping your finger over the object, close your left eye. If your finger continues to obscure the object, you are right-eye dominant. Otherwise, use your left eye to aim.
| October 6, 2016
For most folks in the developed world, getting a drink of safe, clean, palatable drinking water is as easy as turning on the tap.
Outside of the comfortable amenities of home, however, attaining potable water can get more complicated and require more effort.
Maybe you went backpacking with all the proper gear and simply didn’t allot the correct amount of water for the trip. Or you’re traveling in an undeveloped country and have been warned not to drink from the tap. Perhaps the SHTF and you’re trapped in a city without a clean water source (or less apocalyptically, you’re simply living in a town whose water source has been temporarily contaminated).
How would you procure clean drinking water in these circumstances?
The right methodology might be different for all these scenarios, as it depends on where you are, your budget, how long you need your filtering materials to last, etc.
The options for filtering and purifying water are in fact numerous, and unfortunately, some of the terminology related to them is also confusing, and not necessarily standardized (especially on the web).
So below I provide a crash course on water filtration and purification for camping, survival, and travel. I break down the consequences of drinking untreated water, the proper terminology to understand when researching and shopping filtration and purification methods, and the pros and cons of the methods themselves. Finally, I offer a short guide to best methods to use in various scenarios.
The Risk and Consequences of Drinking Contaminated Water
There are a number of bacteria and parasites that can be ingested and lead to illness through the drinking of untreated water.
How do these diseases get into water sources? In both the wild and in populated areas with poor sanitation practices, it’s often carried by humans and animals (and their waste) who hunt, live, bathe, defecate, and even die or get their remains thrown in lakes and rivers.
In the wilderness of the U.S., a primary waterborne illness is called giardiasis. It’s a protozoan parasite that can cause extreme cramping, and worst of all in any outdoors scenario, violent diarrhea.
Throughout the wilds of the world, other waterborne diseases include dysentery, cholera, and various other worms, viruses, and bacterial infections. The most common symptoms that arise from these illnesses are similar to giardiasis in that they’re largely intestinal issues. When you’re perhaps already dehydrated in a survival scenario or even just from backpacking for a few days straight, diarrhea will exacerbate the problem, and even put your life at risk.
Far better to treat any water you drink from the wild or from questionable sources rather than risk a debilitating illness. The only exception is if your life truly depends on getting hydrated. In that case, absolutely drink untreated water. As is often said in wilderness survival circles, doctors can treat giardiasis, but they can’t treat dead.
Does All Water Need to Be Treated?
In the wild, rainwater you’ve collected in clean containers is generally safe, as is snow that you’ve melted. Water in the wilderness is also almost always safe if you’ve collected it via transpiration or a still (if the plant itself isn’t poisonous, of course). If you collect the water by any other means, though — from a stream or lake (flowing water is better than stagnant, but still not foolproof), dew, etc. — it should be filtered and/or purified; you never know what might be lurking in the ground or upstream from your collection spot.
Read more about how to safely find and collect water in the wilderness.
In urban areas, rainwater may not be safe to drink, as it traveled through polluted air. And if you’re traveling in a developing country where the safety of the tap/well water is questionable, you’ll want to stick to drinking bottled water (not always an option in rural areas), or consistently purify your water.
Purification vs Filtration
When it comes to finding and drinking water, the first thing you need to know is the difference between filtration and purification. They are not synonyms.
Water filtration is the elimination of debris, and some bacteria, by way of some type of cloth or mesh net — a sieve — through which the water flows.
Water purification is a chemical or UV process of rendering bacteria and other harmful agents inoperative. The chemicals (or heat) in these purification methods essentially deactivate the bad stuff, making it safe for consumption.
Sometimes water needs both of those processes; sometimes it only needs one. Knowing the difference, though, can truly save your life. If you’re backpacking in Africa and think you only need a filter, you could end up with a deadly disease in your system. So let’s get a little more into the differences between the two.
Water Filtration
Using a water filter, especially a commercially tested one (versus just the DIY backwoods variety), can indeed eliminate some bacteria. But not all. Filters can take care of protozoa and bacteria, but they can’t get rid of any viruses present in the water — those are simply too small for the mesh to catch.
Generally, for backpacking and survival purposes, water in the U.S. and Canada is rated as safe for filtration-only methods and devices; this is especially true for mountainous areas. When folks get sick while backpacking or camping and blame it on the water, it’s often found to actually be sanitation-related (not washing hands, not disposing of waste properly or far enough from campsite, etc.).
Filtering water also ensures the best flavor. Your H2O will taste natural and will be immediately drinkable, whereas some purification methods either alter the taste and/or take up to a few hours to make the water safe.
The bottom line is that filters work to rid the water of impurities — including dirt as well as microscopic bacteria — but aren’t completely effective in making the water safe to drink. If it’s all you have, you’ll likely be okay, but know that negative consequences are still possible.
Water Purification
Water purification makes H2O safe to drink by deactivating all harmful pathogens, including viruses. Purification doesn’t eliminate contaminants though. Dirty water that’s been purified is still dirty water, and probably needs filtering (that should happen first, actually).
Purification happens primarily through boiling, chemical agents, or UV light. It’s especially important when traveling outside first world countries, where viral infections are more common.
Let’s now take a look at the various filtration/purification methods out there.
Methods
Below you’ll find the most common methods for water filtration and purification in the wild, including some pros and cons of each.
DIY Filters
In general, you only want to use DIY filters when no other option is available. You certainly don’t want to go camping and only plan on using rocks, sand, and dirt to filter your water. These are for survival purposes only. If at all possible, it’s recommended that you still purify water (by either boiling or adding tablets/chemicals) after filtering it with these methods.
I’ve listed them from most effective at top, to least effective at bottom.
Wood and Tubing.
While this diagram includes a clamp, in wilderness survival scenarios, you’re not likely to have that available. Wood and tubing (or other materials) will do the trick.
The best DIY water filtration system out there is one made from a small piece of wood and tubing. In fact, if you use sapwood (the soft outer layers of a tree) or a small, green branch, you can actually eliminate 99% of bacteria (but still not viruses). To make this filter, cut a small piece of sapwood (a couple inches long by an inch or so wide), and wrap it tightly with some sort of plastic tubing if available. You’re going to be using the branch as a filter, pouring water onto one end, and letting it drip out the other into a container, so the tubing functions to ensure that untreated water isn’t running down the side and into your receptacle. Improvise other wrapping devices if you don’t have plastic tubing — cordage, t-shirt/cloth, the plastic from a water bottle, etc. Then slowly pour small amounts of water onto the end of the branch and let it filter out the other end. Beware that this is a slow method, but you’ll be able to produce up to 4 liters of filtered drinking water per day, which is more than enough for even a couple people.
Rock/Sand Layer Cake. The classic wilderness DIY filtration method is to layer various materials in a hollow log or bag, and let water drip down from the top, through the layers, out through a small hole in the bottom, and into a clean container.
From FM 21-76, the Army’s survival manual.
If these items are in a bag, or perhaps a tarp or piece of cloth, ensure the bottom is tied off, but has a small hole for water to drip through. Start by putting in a layer of finer materials like sand, cloth, small pebbles, etc. Then add some larger rocks and bits of charcoal (if you made a fire). Then, start over with another fine layer, and coarse layer atop that. It will look like a layer cake when you’re finished. This will eliminate impurities in the water, and some larger bacteria, but certainly not all of them.
Shirt/Cloth. Filtering water through a piece of cloth alone will eliminate debris and dirt, but not much else. Still, it’s effective if that’s what you’re trying to do and if you can purify it afterwards.
Container. If nothing else, place muddy/dirty water into a container and let it stand for 12 hours or so. In most cases, the dirt and other sediment will fall to the bottom, and the clear water will remain on top. This obviously does absolutely nothing to get rid of harmful pathogens, but at least makes the water palatable.
Commercial Filters
Survival Straws. Survival straws, LifeStraw being the most recognizable, have burst onto the market in the last 5 years or so. The idea is that you can drink water right through the straw (or water bottle with straw attached) and it’ll be safe because of the various filters contained within. The majority of straws on the market can eliminate bacteria and protozoa, but not viruses. They generally have no purifying element. Most do, however, have a carbon filter, which will eliminate off tastes and odors. Just be sure to check the specs, based on your needs, before purchasing. Don’t, for instance, bring one to Africa, assuming you can just drink safely from the rivers. Not a good idea.
Straws can be expensive, but the cost per liter of filtered water remains very low (most are good for up to 700-1,000 liters) compared to chemical treatments.
Pump/Gravity Filter. The name here is misleading, as many of these commercial filters also act to purify the water. Many utilize a ceramic filter to eliminate larger pathogens, as well as silver to destroy viruses. These pump filters operate quickly, filtering and purifying up to a quart per minute, but require a power source (either your arm, or in some cases, a battery).
Gravity filters operate more like IV bags; they’re slower, but require no batteries or human operation. With any commercial pump or other filter, again just check the specs. If it mentions a purifying element, you’re good to go for any situation. If not, just know it won’t eliminate all risk.
These commercial filters are often bigger and bulkier than other options, so will take up more space in a backpack or survival kit. While they can be an expensive up-front purchase, they’ll last a very long time.
Boiling
Boiling water is the standard backwoods purification treatment for water. According to the EPA, one minute of a rolling boil will kill all of the bad stuff, including viruses. (If at high altitude — above 5,000 feet — increase the time to 3 minutes.) Any metal or glass container will do, but if you don’t have that available, you can heat rocks in a fire and place them into your receptacle.
One downside of boiling your water is that it obviously requires a fire and therefore fuel, which in some cases isn’t possible (although it’s more possible if you read our article on how to start a fire without matches). It also leads to evaporation and the loss of some water volume, which should be taken into account in situations where every drop may be precious.
Chemical (Iodine/Chlorine/Bleach)
There are two popular chemical methods for treating water that utilize drops or tablets to disinfect and get rid of the bad stuff: iodine and chlorine. Bleach is a third option for chemical purification, generally in more urban environs since it’s usually just found in the home versus being carried as a wilderness survival item.
Iodine. Use a 2% tincture, and apply 5 drops per quart of water. If the water is cloudy, add 10 drops. Let sit for 30 minutes before drinking. Iodine comes in a small, very portable bottle, and also has other uses like treating cuts and warts. This is definitely an item to have in your emergency kit or bug-out bag.
Iodine will lead to an off taste, and isn’t safe for pregnant women or those with shellfish allergies. Children are also often averse to iodine because of the taste; know that ahead of time if backpacking or camping. Iodine is generally the cheaper of the chemical methods, and works quicker.
There are also specialized iodine tablets you can buy that are made for the sake of outdoors folks.
Chlorine. Generally comes in the form of tablets, which you just drop into a liter of water, and let the chemicals do their work. After about 4 hours, your water will be safe to drink and free of all harmful pathogens.
Chlorine’s cons are that it has a longer waiting period, and is a little more expensive per use than other methods. On the pro side, most of chlorine dissipates in that 4-hour timeframe, meaning the water’s taste isn’t as affected. It also has a longer shelf life.
Bleach. In urban emergency scenarios, bleach can be used to purify water. Most bleaches use a form of liquid chlorine called sodium hypochlorite. As just mentioned above, chlorine is a water purification agent, so it makes sense that bleach could be used.
Household varieties will generally contain 5-8% sodium hypochlorite — be sure to check the label before using, and if it’s higher than that don’t use it. Using a dropper, add 2 drops per quart, and let stand 30 minutes before drinking.
UV/Solar
SODIS. Solar water disinfection (SODIS) relies on the power of the sun to make your water safe. Believe it or not, if you have a clear water bottle, you can simply leave it in direct sunlight for ~12 hours (24-48 on cloudy days), and celestial UV rays will kill most (not all) bacteria and microorganisms. Some experts say to leave water exposed for a full day no matter what, just to be extra safe. It all depends on your need. Since this particular UV method doesn’t necessarily kill all bacteria/viruses, it’s best used for survival purposes only, or in areas known to have safe(ish) water.
UV Devices. There are various devices out there which create UV light artificially to get rid of bacteria and even viruses. Some are hand-cranked while others are battery-operated. Keep in mind these are not filtration devices, so larger particles or debris in the water will not be eliminated, and some of those larger particles can hide pathogens in them. For this reason, it’s best to filter the water first when using the UV method. As with pumps and filters, these devices are larger/heavier than some other options.
Bottom Line: What’s the Best Method for Various Scenarios?
For hiking/backpacking in first world countries: As noted above, groundwater in places like the U.S. and Canada is almost assuredly free of viruses. Because of this, commercial filtration systems, even those that don’t necessarily purify (like survival straws), will almost always do the trick just fine. Your chances of catching a virus in these environments is very small.
Filters can be larger and heavier than other methods though, so chemical treatments will also work, and are especially popular for folks who are backpacking or doing long through-hikes (like the Appalachian Trail).
For hiking/backpacking/traveling internationally: When traveling outside of first-world areas, you always want to purify, in addition to filtering (if needed). This means tablets, UV devices, or filters that include a purifying element.
For your bug-out/survival bags: In a bug-out or urban survival scenario, Creek Stewart, our resident survival expert, recommends having both a filter and purification tablets, while keeping boiling as an option when time and fuel allows for it.
For wilderness survival scenarios: For whatever reason, you’re stranded in the wilderness, need to consume water to stay hydrated, and don’t have commercial filtering or purification options available. If you have enough water and fuel at your disposal, you first option should be boiling. If you can’t spare the evaporation or can’t get a fire going, create a wood/tubing filter. And if you can’t do that, a layered filter of natural materials will be your best bet to ward off illness.
Always remember, filtering simply improves palatability and removes impurities, while purifying ensures that what you’re drinking is free of harmful disease.
Finally, as already mentioned but bears repeating, it’s always best to drink untreated water rather than to die in the wilderness!