Tour of Duty: Stories and Provocation (41 page)

Rorke’s Drift was the British Empire’s equivalent of the Alamo, except the defenders won. Balls the size of melons, stiff upper lips, Martini-Henry rifles, and yards of bayonet. This is a rifle with a point blank range exceeded by the length of barrel and steel. And what steel! It doesn’t matter if you get caught reloading (The Martini-Henry is a falling block single shot. Victorian British men only needed one shot), because you have a bayonet long enough to skewer a goat, an Arab, a couple of onions and a chicken. Bring it on.

3 Webley Revolvers

The Webley .455, nicknamed the Wobbly, was the British service sidearm for a long time. It’s certainly not concealable, but why would you? This is a weapon you’re proud to show a thug, and if you run out of bullets, you can always proceed to brain him with the thing. It breaks open, takes 6 large cartridges, and many have their cylinders shaved to take .45 ACP in moon clips.

It’s manly no matter how you look at it. There’s no shame in being put down by a Webley. Better men than you have been given a .455 dirt nap.

“How did he die?”

“.455 Webley through the skull.”

“Damn, that sucks. Manly way to die, though.”

No one would say that about James Bond’s .32.

2 M1 Garand

I don’t like the Garand. It has a legion of flaws. However, for its time, it was state of the art, and that time did coincide with WWII. A great many Nazi and Jap bastards learned to fear the Garand, with good reason. The WWII American forces were definitely manly, so their rifles were also, by definition. It fires a slightly downloaded .30-06, and was the arm of a great many MoH winners and millions of unsung heroes. In its time, General George S. Patton described it as, “The finest battle implement ever devised.”

You can still buy Garands from the U.S. Government, delivered directly to your door, in order to exercise your rights and duties as a member of the militia. Contact the Civilian Marksmanship Program at odcmp.com All real men and women should do this.

It gains additional points from Clint Eastwood’s use in Gran Torino, which of course you have seen. Just remember: Chuck Norris stays off Clint Eastwood’s lawn.

1 Browning 1919A4

There’s not much manlier than a belt-fed weapon. A great many Browning .30s are available converted to semi-auto, or a man skilled with tools can build his own sideplate and have one completely legal, paperwork free and cheaper. This monster weighs thirty-one pounds, and is a “rifle.” Of course, it’s legal to have a crank . . .

You can also drop in conversions for 7.62 NATO and 8mm Mauser. The Brits had a .303 variant, and there’s a custom 7.62X54R variant, also. The Israelis, bless them, make a metal link that fits 8mm, .30-06 and 7.62. You can also use old cloth belts. Best of all, it’s Commiefornia legal, the Sniveling Wussbags not having found a way to define it as an “assault weapon,” which is funnier than hell when it’s one of the few weapons that might legitimately be called so.

Being able to shoot $25 worth of ammo in six seconds means you are not afraid to waste a little ammo . . . or the next zombie outbreak or post-hurricane riot. It’s a serious investment in time, money, equipment and training, but it marks you as
the
neighborhood man, the one to seek protection from when mutant zombies, aliens or greeners invade.

The Mosin Nagant

The Official Rifle
of The Hall of Manly Excellence!

The Mosin Nagant is truly a manly piece of hardware. Let’s discuss why.

1: First, the Poison Maggot is a time proven design. Dating from 1891, all the bugs have been worked out. This assumes there were any bugs in the first place, which there were not. No one would dare to be less than optimal for the Tsars and Commissars.

2: It’s very simple and robust. There are very few things that can go wrong with the Noisy Nagger. There isn’t even a bolt release — the trigger serves as that. The springs are heavy gauge, the mechanism basic steel, and the stock a solid piece of wood. Remember that the Russkies and the Commies figured that the bayonet was as important as the bullet. This means:

3: Versatility. One can argue the benefits of the spear versus the club. Guess what? The Russian Gun-Club is both! And it shoots bullets! Why compromise when you can have all three?

4: Physical fitness. The Rosined Nag is heavy. No real man would complain about this. In fact, he boasts of it. One has to be fit to carry it, and fit to aim it without shaking like a coward. Not to worry. The recoil will reseat that loose shoulder and save you the medical bills.

5: Economical. The Soviet Man Cannon is dirt cheap—$100-$200 in 2009 prices. You can typically buy ten to twenty of them for the price of a modern rifle, and the ammo is about half the price, and has been in production for more than a century. One sacrifices rate of fire and accuracy, but that’s offset by the fact that an entire platoon of your friends now have guns. Besides, your friends are men, so every shot counts, right? Who needs rate of fire? And any real man can hit through force of testosterone, without bothering with sights. Just imagine your enemy is a toilet, unzip and pull the trigger . . . so to speak. Flush him straight into a grave or outhouse. Or both.

6: General manliness. The Tula Jackhammer has no prissy “ergonomics” or “delicate triggers” or other crap. It is a brutally simple tool. If you can’t pull the trigger, then do some more grip exercises, you pansy. Don’t like the recoil? Get a recoil pad, chew a handful of Vicodin, and see your doctor for some testosterone shots. The length of pull is too short? Wear a stout Russian overcoat and stop whining. And some earplugs, since you probably don’t want to hear the rest of the Commie Chiropractor community laughing at you.

7: History. You may wind up with a Russian or a Finn rifle built on a Russian or French receiver, a Czech, Chinese, Polish, Hungarian or even one of the rare American made models, from the Russo Japanese War, WWI, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, the Winter War, the Continuation War, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan... the Baltic Flamethrower has traveled the world. Be sure to check the date on the tang under the stock—it may be an antique made before 1899, which means it’s a rifle, but not legally a firearm in most English speaking nations. This just makes politicians go into a tizzy.

You may hear complaints that as a non-American weapon, or worse, the weapon of our former enemies, no American should own one. But that’s just a misunderstanding of the situation. The fact is, Ronald Reagan, one of our manliest presidents (after such other greats as Teddy Roosevelt), stomped the Soviet Empire into the dust with the tool of capitalism, and we are now selling that empire off on the internet for ten cents on the dollar. A Musty Nugget is not only a manly weapon, it’s a political statement.

If you can only afford one rifle, this is the one to have. If you can afford several, this should be one of them.

Men, raise a glass of vodka to Sergei Mosin and Leon Nagant, men for their time, and ours!

On Reparations Generally, For The Descendents Of People Long Departed

A lot of people don’t realize I’m an immigrant, and even more don’t really grasp that there is bigotry against immigrants, not to mention all kinds of bureaucratic issues if you work for the government or military. I’ve been told that, “Immigrants shouldn’t be trusted in the military” and “Immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to own property” and quite a few other things. I’ve had a roommate in the military mock my queen to my face, with no traces of humor involved. I then had someone else tell me, “You’re American now, so you’re not allowed to complain.”

Relatively minor, to be sure, but I am aware of prejudice and bigotry firsthand.

There is some validity to being an American before all else. I even hurl my own barbs at the UK. I also don’t play the victim card. I’ve been poor to the point of homelessness in life, and I don’t believe it’s any group’s fault, nor that anyone owes me anything because of it. This is probably a good thing, because some of my ancestors really took a beating.

Dear United Nations:

I note with approval that there’s a bill before the U.S. Congress to compensate African Americans for their mistreatment in the past. However, I was talking to a Russian Jewish friend of mine, and it occurred to me that her ancestors were slaves to Nubian Africans. Should she not be compensated also?

The Jews were also repressed by the Romans, forerunners of the modern Italians. But the Romans were subjugated by the Celts in 390 BC. The Romans returned the favor, and then oppressed Christians as well, before becoming Christians themselves and forcibly converting the Pagan Celts. Later Christianized Celts were oppressed by other Christianized Romans, and the two combined, which is where we come to the African issue. However, certain Africans enslaved other Africans, so perhaps the Central African Republic should be footing part of the bill.

The Pagan Norse oppressed the Slavs, predecessors of the Russians, which brings us back to my Russian Jewish friend. On the other hand, the Germans have subjugated the Balts and Danes and Norwegians, as did the Russians, who also hurt the Finns and the Andronovan steppe people of Central Asia. Sweden claimed Finland and Norway for some length of time, and there were atrocities in Germany during the Thirty Years War by them, the Germans, the Austrians, the Scots, the English, the French and the Spanish. Then there were Norse-descended Norman French (coming back to England), who oppressed Jutes, Angles and Saxons from the German region who were in England to repress the Romano-Celts, and became English, but whose descendants were oppressed themselves under Henry II, and during the Hundred Years War by France or England, depending on whose land claims one believes. The later English oppressed the Irish, and Scots, who were Irish who earlier moved across the sea and displaced the Picts, who themselves oppressed the Celts and the Irish, as did the Phoenicians, which brings us back to the Greeks.

The French and Germans, besides the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WWII, went at it over the African-exploiting Belgians a few times, and made their own incursions into Africa and the Far East, as did Portugal. Portugal and Spain maltreated large numbers of American people, except for those oppressed by the English, French, Russians, Old Norse and each other. On the other hand, the early Celtiberians were themselves subjugated by the Romans, so they can’t entirely bear the blame. Spain also subjugated the Netherlands during the Thirty Years, War mentioned previously. On yet another hand, Spain was invaded by the black Moors, who also enslaved many white African Berbers. The Barbary pirates made raids on Cornwall. The Sudan has slaves to this day. This would mean that black Africans have their own debts to pay.

The Muslims also oppressed the Jews, as did the Persians, so it seems that the Middle East and Africa are liable once again. But then there’s the way Israel and the Palestinians treat each other. There’s the native Kurds, who play both sides against each other, and subjugate the local people north of them. Those from the former Soviet Southern Border states were oppressed by the Russians and the Turks, who have had go rounds with the Greeks, who also oppressed the Semitic peoples. And yet, those same Southern Asians made inroads into China and Tibet. And China is now
in
Tibet, which puts me in an uncomfortable position, China being the last bulwark of the Marxist socialist utopia. And China has oppressed also Southeast Asia, Korea, Mongolia, which also oppressed them, and has been oppressed by Japan, who also mistreated the Pacific Islanders and its own Ainu people, as well as the Inuit and Alaskans and Americans in WWII, who were at that time good for fighting Nazism, but bad for nuking Japan. Then the U.S. again oppressed Southeast Asians and Pacific people and Inuit.

The English usurped power in India, who has had incursions into Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan (as did the Russians), and there were various operations against the Bengalis, the Thais and Cambodians, and on into the Indian Ocean nations as far as Madagascar, which is African, at least currently, despite having Indonesian and Indian language groups. African nations under the British also had Indian slave laborers.

I tried thinking about the Balkans, but it made my head hurt, what with them killing Nazis, helping Nazis, killing Italians who oppressed them previously who had themselves been oppressed by Alexander of Macedonia, who also oppressed Africans. Also, the Huns went through there from Central Asia, and the Muslims came north. Then, the Christians went through there during the Crusades. The Vatican should likely be treated as a direct descendant of Rome, and charged separately from Italy itself, which includes the descendants of the Etruscans. The Etruscan-descended Italians have a separate claim against Rome, I would guess. Also during WWI, the British Royal Family, the Saxe-Coburgs, were actually German but changed their name to “Windsor” to sound more British. This deception should not go unnoticed.

Back to Germanic peoples, there were the Dutch in South Africa, oppressing the Zulu and Bantu, who themselves oppressed the Bushmen and Hottentots, who harassed the Pygmy cultures. The Indonesians and Australian Aborigines and were shoved aside by the Dutch and English, however, those Dutch and “English” (including many Irish), were themselves prisoners of their own regimes and in dire straits.

This brings me to my question: I’m an immigrant to the U.S. from Canada, who before that came from Britain, where my mother is Anglican English of German and Celtic extraction, my father Norse-descended Presbyterian Scottish possibly with some Spanish ancestry from after the wreck of the Armada, and my stepmother an Irish Catholic. My wife is English and Austro-Hungarian in origin, with some Macedonian, and one eighth Cherokee. Which of us owes money to the other and why?

—
Michael Z. Williamson