What is Martial Cultism?
It is the belief that your particular skill, machine, tool or system is better, even if evidence exists to the contrary.
We see snippets of this constantly in gun magazines, self-defense magazines and on-line bulletin boards.
ad infinitum, ad nauseum
KEADS posted a snippet of this on Facebook the other day. Seems a student was lauding his Kimber to the exclusion of all others (?) I asked if this was pre or post MIM parts? ;-P
Reminiscent of the pre-64 Winchester Rifle discussions of my youth.
Or a high school discussion I had with a learned friend regarding European Medieval Swords versus Japanese Swords. Or as he put it, The Cult of The Japanese Sword.
Recently both the U.S. Military and the FBI have endorsed converting to 9mm hollow points (from .40 S&W and .45 ACP), as the newer 9mm showed better stopping power. then the wider, heavier ammunition.
It appears as though a new cult has formed.
Frankly, I’d like to see the data. If it’s inanimate, like gelatin, I’m not certain of their conclusion.
I had a conversation the other day with (you guessed his name) Bob! (of PI, gun store and recent amputation fame! – he’s doing fine btw…) (pictured below)
I was taken aback. He’d always been an old-school, Cooper-educated type, like me. I asked him what changed his mind.
He said recent findings have shown 9mm (in modern self-defense designs) have performed better than 45 ACP!
Almost concurrent with this conversation, I had THIS come across my desk (a Twilight Zone moment, to be sure!):
(in part) A military lawyer who made a presentation during the Industry Day noted that the United States is not a signatory to the Hague Conventions which outlawed the use of “dum-dum” and expanding bullets more than a century ago. It is the military’s position that the shift to jacketed hollowpoint (JHP) ammunition, which more efficiently transfers energy to the target and which presents much less of a risk of over-penetration, is more humane and less of a risk to innocent civilians downrange in modern combat where there are often no clear front lines. (…)
I strongly suspect that the Army has already taken a long and hard look at the data produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation when they recently investigated switching handgun calibers, an investigation that led the agency to abandon the .40 S&W in favor of the 9mm. The FBI discovered that 9mm outperforms both .40 S&W and .45 ACP when using premium hollowpoints, while having less perceived recoil and much greater ammunition capacity.
We are no longer using 60 cal. musket balls. Have the new findings by the FBI and U.S. Military discounted the previous century’s research, now that the ammunition has been more scientifically designed? Or do the basic laws of physics still apply – frontal area, mass, velocity and center-mass hits?
So, what do WE think, dear readers?
h/t B. Hall, Doc, Midway, Wiki
Liberal journalist or asshat?
You probably already knew that, but he provides further proof.
Geraldo mocked Vaughn’s contention that the Founding Fathers hedged in the right to bear arms so we could resist tyranny not only outside our borders, but also within.
Yeah, all those things the founders of this country, and the citizens, said: they mean nothing. Right.
Geraldo later denied that guns are used by law-abiding citizens to stop crimes. He asked fellow host Eric Bolling, “When was the last time you heard of a civilian stopping a crime with a gun?” And when Bolling said, “It happens thousands of times per day,” Geraldo responded by saying, “That’s a legend. You’re watching too much True Detective.”
A friggin’ idiot to whom facts mean nothing when they conflict with what he wants to be true.
I go back and forth with regard to Mr. Rivera. There’s the story he graduated law school as Jerry Rivers, then decided to access his Latino heritage to find work. His landmark broadcast of the Zapruder film on national television was indeed!
And the less-than-landmark opening of Al Capone’s vault…
But the above is simply not even journalism or debate.
I’ve written before in these pages with regard to so-called ‘hate crimes’. I feel essentially, that the motivation behind a grisly torture and murder are really unimportant.
Torture is torture, and murder is murder.
The reasons in the criminal’s mind are largely unimportant. The person still suffered and is still dead.
Getting inside a criminal’s head may be a good exercise for criminologists, but is a waste of time and money for legislatures.
And is the beginning of the thought police – political correctness run rampant.
“You are not allowed to hate somebody – that’s against the law!”
Wyoming just passed a hate crime law, pointing the finger 15 years later at the killer of Matthew Shepard. It has been widely reported that he was killed because he was gay.
Turned out, he was selling sex for drugs.
This doesn’t mean he deserved to be tortured and killed. Prosecuted maybe.
What was in the mind of his killer? Was he thinking about Jesus, or his last Big Mac?
I DON’T CARE
Certainly LGBT persons need to be treated with repect.
And most folks don’t deserve to be tortured and killed. Even if they are small-time criminals.
I’m old enough to remember the Watts riots in L.A., Detroit. Rodney King? And a multitude of others. And something has always bothered me:
WHY do these folks feel the need to violently destroy THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS to make a point?
In days of yore, I participated in protests. I remember one at the State Capitol, wherein we stood in the Summer heat (all 250 or so of us) to protest The Clinton so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban’, and our own State legislature considering similar legislation. This was in the 90’s – the temperature was around 100°.
And not one of us engaged in violence, criminal looting or destruction. We had been advised not to come armed, and we didn’t. We carried signs (and American flags), signed petitions, talked amongst ourselves and drank lots of water. And listened politely to speakers like Sheriff Mack. And watched media trucks circle us deciding whether or not we were worth a spot on the 10 o’clock news.
Apparently we weren’t.
Here’s one opinion as to why they foul their own nests:
The borderline-Jacobins at Slate, who believe spanking is child abuse, and personal responsibility is out of fashion, try to explain looting away as a social phenomenon: “Why would anyone burn down the only CVS in their neighborhood?”
The reason, I think, is likely the same reason that poor black Americans in cities across the country burned “their own” neighborhoods in the late 1960s:
They did not experience those places as their own. Then, like now, police brutality was a precipitating cause of the violence, but it was the long-term experience of the indignities of the ghetto that gave shape to the riots. Then, like now, commentators compared the rioters to animals who had run wild and needed discipline. Rioting, to these bystanders, was not proper political protest but the criminal actions of poor people who merely wanted to grab what they could for free. This narrative, which I heard throughout my childhood growing up in Baltimore in the 1980s, put the blame not on the depredations of the ghetto, but on the character of its residents. It completely misapprehends the political economy of our poorest neighborhoods.
In other words: they riot because society has ignored them. Not only is that a specious argument, but it also highlights the fact that Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1968. So which party is responsible for ignoring the downtrodden social class?
Told another way, Abraham Miller at National Review wrote:More @ Red State
Rodrigo Kazuo and Meg Perret found their classroom environment at Berkeley hostile, even when their professor was lecturing on Karl Marx (!), because the Western canon is exclusively composed of works by dead, white, European males, not a single person of color or transgendered individual makes the cut.
Because a majority of founders of Western thought were gay, Black women…
BTW, have you noticed more ‘persons of color’, homosexual, transgendered or perhaps gender-confused folks in your favorite television shows of movies?
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
I remember my Father (who had some bigotry issues) railing against the infusion of Black folks in 60’s and 70’s TV in much the same way. He said it was much the same in the 40’s and 50’s with Jewish people. They went from being 3% of the population, to a significant minority of those in entertainment media. (He, of course, forgot that the only work many Jewish folks could get was in the entertainment field!)
And it was much the same with Black folks. 13% of the population, but represented numerically larger in the entertainment media in the 70’s.
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
My questions are these: Does the actor bring quality to the role, or further the plot? Or were they just added because of political correctness?
And now we have this infusion of gay/transgender etc. folks. Some are quite entertaining, but in my humble opinion, some are just over-the-top. And included for shock effect and/or political correctness.
Which does a disservice both to them in their sexuality or color, and to the audience by their inclusion for political reasons.
Stepin’ Fetchit meet Myra Breckenridge.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some folks I find clever, and entertaining, regardless of ethnicity or bent. Others are just plain annoying. I won’t give you specifics – you probably have your own.
A couple generations ago, Black people were largely invisible, or stereotyped, and gays (etc.) were just flamboyant characters. No mention was made of their sexuality.
But now it seems we’re out of the box, for certain.
There’s a popular cable series about polygamy.
What’s next, pedophilia and bestiality?
Where do we go from here?
We should be inclusive of different cultures and sexuality. As long as it reflects percentages and social mores.
Of course, I’m a libertarian. (Until mandated) I can always change the channel.
Via my friend Borepatch:
I find it very hard to argue with this:
Leftism has not won these arguments, the Left has simply punished those who argue on the other side: and when I say ‘The Left’ I mean particularly Leftist intellectuals in the mass media, public administration, the education system, and bureaucracies generally.
What can be concluded?
Our society is far more corrupt than people realize – why wouldn’t it be? What’s to stop it? But just how corrupt it is impossible to know, even approximately, since any ‘evidence’ consists of lies built upon lies.
Our society is far less smart than people realize, because good arguments are punished and demonized so bad arguments (or no arguments at all, but merely faked moral outrage/ scapegoat hatred) wins vital arguments by default.
In sum, we live in a world ruled by dumb liars.
Asa I oft respond to another wise Internet blogger ( e.g. Rev. Paul)…
I’m a big believer in giving credit where credit is due. And blame. AND RESPONSIBILITY.
Much of the media likes to pin the badge of how evil the Koch Brothers are, because they support conservative causes. Funny how they rarely look at George Soros and his tentacles with anything more than a passing glance.
90 Miles From Tyranny recently posted a list of those organizations funded by Mr. Soros and his minions. A smattering off the list:
As with so many progressive-based organizations, they may have been started as independent of politics, with good intentions, but later co-opted by the progressive movement. Others were poisoned from the beginning.
You should really visit 90 Miles From Tyranny and see the whole, long list.
Then go back to poo-poohing the Koch brothers.
I enjoy a good political discussion. Or even a debate. Unfortunately, in today’s climate, they often regress into name-calling, accusations and loud pronouncement as akin to grade school’s “Oh YEAH? Yeah!”
Why does this happen? Back as early as the 80’s, political enemies would do the “Oh Yeah” thing across the aisle, then adjourn to the neighborhood bar to share a beverage or two, and tell each other how great and principled each one was.
It’s become a sharper exchange, now. One where one might be reviewing the dark bar parking lot for the presence of ‘friends’ as well as enemies!
The reason? People no longer seem to subscribe to agreeing to disagree, because whatever the political cause, it’s become their RELIGION.
Want to annoy a Roman Catholic? Tell him he’s a papist, and that the Pope IS indeed fallible. A Republican? That he’s a shill for corporate lobbyists, and therefore has no soul. A Democrat? That most any policy foisted upon this nation by the current President is extra-Constitutional and illegal, and he deserves to be impeached, convicted and imprisoned.
Their response will undoubtedly be you don’t like him because he’s Black, and you are therefore racist. And that makes any argument you present invalid.
And that will p*** you off!
No more are there rational, reasoned exchanges back and forth regarding policies. Now it’s all name-calling and telling people what they believe is B.S.
It indeed may be, but that is not a way to discuss and argue.
THAT should be everyone’s mantra.
Five weeks ago, Campus Reform went to Harvard and asked the students if ISIS or the U.S. poses a bigger threat to world peace. The answers that were given were entertaining enough to create a viral video that has since received about half a million hits.
In addition, the video received air time on Fox News.
Somewhat skeptical of the video, a few students at Harvard decided to go around and ask their fellow classmates some questions of their own. The questions focused on ISIS and the Pledge of Allegiance.
When one student was asked if ISIS or the U.S. posed a bigger threat to world peace. He said:
“I guess I’ll have to say America. I think ISIS as a group… I believe as Ben Affleck said, could fit into a baseball stadium, so they don’t have the potential to put countries into war as America would.”
Also, the response to being asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which anyone applying for U.S. citizenship must to be able to recite, was even more concerning…
Disgusting. And shameful.
To disagree with a political philosophy is an American Right, a tradition. But, to do so in complete ignorance is SHAMEFUL. Of course, look what we see every day on the ‘news’, the Internet.
Of course, sometimes there it’s an agenda.
I was surprised to hear people must apply for citizenship, anymore. I thought it was just granted – like a fief.
h/t Facebook, IJReview