Monthly Archives: May 2011

by Alex Fidel

Honest- adj., free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. See also Gary Johnson:

Catchy campaign slogan, eh? (Photo credit: Nick Fidel)

Libertopia: Get Some.

Via:

Prohibition… goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.

Here:

Karl Marx kept a female slave from the time she was 8 years old, eventually using her not only as a servant but as his mistress, never acknowledging his child with her or paying her at all. She waited on him hand and foot while he explained to the world that profit is the stolen surplus value of the laborer.

That’s pretty good, though not dispositive on the merits of Marx’s philosophy turned disastrous 20th century experiments. But say you meet someone at a bar speaking of Marx’s virtues, and you bust out the above two sentences in deadpan retort. Result? The floor, bully pulpit, and soapbox is yours. Sweep the leg.

Marx’s socio-political and economic philosophy is morally bankrupt because it relies on inherently coercive and previously failed principles that fundamentally assume government can or should collectivize and control individuals by directing and prescribing their actions, always to benefit controlling political interests. Fuck that bullshit. In the 20th century a large, diverse, and diligent number of Communist states directed the killing of hundreds of millions of their own citizens while denying individual freedom to every living citizen save for each country’s Nomenklutura, the Titans of Mt. Hypocrisy.

If you missed my new “F*ck the Police” posts, it’s basically my natural reaction to the fact that the Indiana and SCOTUS judiciaries have their heads so far up their stare decisis asses that they can’t read the Fourth Amendment. Here’s two good reads on the matter: One, and Two. Read them both.

Finally, The US Got Bin Laden But Missed the Nuremberg Trial of Jihadism. The author makes excellent points, although he does not address the extent to which a trial (even a military tribunal, which I believe is appropriate for terrorists) might injure current nad future intelligence operations, etc.

The American people deserved to see justice served on the man who had ordered thousands of their family members, loved ones, friends, colleagues and countrymen killed. A special military tribunal with highly-trained prosecutors and skilled lawyers could have been formed and an accurate account given of the military operation that brought Bin Laden face-to-face with the people whose lives he had shattered. The wounded might have found closure and healing as they witnessed Bin Laden receiving the justice he deserved. More importantly, the charges against him would have been read and immortalized forever as a reminder to future generations of Americans.

The prosecution would have recited Bin Laden’s crimes and cited the speeches he gave declaring war on the US and inciting genocide against American citizens. The texts of his speeches should have been set beside Nazi fascism and calls for extermination of the Jews. The prosecution’s case would have comprised the first part of historical justice. Then Bin Laden’s response would come in which he would repeat his fustigations against America, the Europeans, infidels, apostate Muslims and the rest of the Planet. His defense would have been vital in exposing and identifying, once and for all, the ideological root of terrorism and the foundation upon which al Qaeda and others like them, have based their war on the international community. His references to Jihadi dogma would have carried no weight in court, but at least his political doctrine would have been exposed. Last, the court would have responded in accordance with US legal principles, and Bin Laden would have met his fate under law, incontrovertibly and with clarity.

To hell with you Don Hartman Sr:

According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12^th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Contrast that with the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Such a beautiful sentence. It more properly articulates civil liberty than anything else I’ve read. And Ron Hartman – a state police chief – could give a damn about it. Fortunately, not all Indiana cops are complete statist pricks. This one must be an Oath Keeper:

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

I don’t even know what to say.

Via Reason, Marine Survives Two Tours in Iraq, SWAT Kills Him. Read the whole thing. It’s appalling.

Police have a monopoly on the legal use of force, and their word alone may often suffice to deprive members of the American community of their life (see above), liberty, and property. Therefore police should be held to a high standard of conduct. Unfortunately, police are not held to such a standard, and worse, routinely fail the pitifully low standard of conduct required of them. Radley Balko’s personal site the Agitator does a great job covering police misconduct and outrageous abuse of authority. Here’s an all too common story:

Anyway, I have been seeing story after story about this and the splash seems to be getting bigger by the day.

In San Diego, ten police officers are currently accused of serious misconduct in unrelated cases that include allegations of rape, stalking, drunk driving, domestic abuse, and sexual assault.

In response, the chief of police has made public apologies and set up a confidential hotline.   Of course, everyone is acting all surprised that these activities were taking place within police ranks.  How could  this have gone on undetected?  Well this little tidbit might provide a clue:

Shortly after Bill Lansdowne became police chief in 2003 he quietly disbanded an anticorruption unit assigned with proactively investigating the kind of criminal allegations that have recently stained the department’s public image.

And the chief has no plans to bring it back.  However,  among other remedies, he does plan to increase ethics training for offiers because, you know, how else are cops going to know that stalking, rape, and drunk driving are wrong?

Reminds me of a story a friend in Hawai’i told me about the police involved in Operation Green Harvest, which was the code name for Hawai’i’s federally funded war on marijuana. After confiscating tens of thousands of mature marijuana plants the police would bring the plants to the Kona hospital’s incinerator (where my friend worked for a time in the late 90s) to burn them. As part of his job duties my friend had to assist the cops burn the marijuana plants, and reported getting high as fuck in the process. After a number of days spent burning marijuana plants, and noticing that none of the plants ever had harvestable buds, my friend asked the police officers what happened to all of the plants’ buds. The officer’s response (delivered with a wry laugh)? “Brah, no one burns money.”

Mind you, they burned tens of thousands of plants a day. Operation Green Harvest’s plant confiscation statistics are off the charts – 772,401 plants in 1998 alone. Or they’re greatly embellished to continue the flow of the federal gravy train that the war on drugs is for local and state public officials, particularly police / swat, prison interests, and their enabling politicians. Some of the cops were taking the buds, or tipping off (at a price) the growers so they could harvest before the raid. That’s just how it works, and it probably can’t be fixed. If anything the problem seems worse every day. All we can do is make government and its police as small and decentralized as possible.

We should also strive to create new political entities at sea called Seasteads where individuals can innovate new political systems to serve humanity far better than current governments do today. Governments profoundly affect every aspect of our lives, and improving them would unlock enormous human potential.

Jonah Goldberg makes a salient point about French douche / philosopher Bernard Henri Levy’s (click that link for a thorough run down as to Levy’s douche credentials) remarks concerning IMF boss / alleged rapist Strauss-Kahn:

Meanwhile, while Bernard-Henri is scandalized that a mere chambermaid can get a “great” man like Strauss-Kahn in trouble with the law merely by credibly accusing him of sexual assault, I am proud to live in a country where a housekeeper can get a world leader pulled off a plane bound for Paris. If something like that couldn’t happen in France, then shame on France and shame on Levy for thinking otherwise.

Via Wiki. Excellent reading:

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”^[1] or “market anarchism”^[2] or “free market anarchism”^[3] or “private-property anarchism”^[4]) is a libertarian^[5][6] and individualist anarchist^[7] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term.^[8][9] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.^[10] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.^[11] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.^[12]

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and “state capitalism” is the difference between “peaceful, voluntary exchange” and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.^[13] “Capitalism,” as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.^[14] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms^[15], and vice versa.

Via:

Woodrow Wilson’s fatuous claim about the European war of 1914-18 — sarcastically annexed by Adam Hochschild for the title of this moving and important book — was an object of satire and contempt even as it was being uttered. “A peace to end peace,” commented Sir Alfred Milner, that powerhouse of the British war cabinet, as he surveyed the terms of the Versailles treaty that supposedly brought the combat to a close. Increasingly, modern historians have come to regard that bleak November “armistice” as a mere truce in a long, terrible conflict that almost sent civilization into total eclipse and that did not really terminate until the peaceful and democratic reunification of Germany after November 1989. Even that might be an optimistic reading: the post-1918 frontiers of the former Ottoman Empire (one of the four great thrones that did not outlast the “First” World War) are still a suppurating source of violence and embitterment.

Via.

Lawrence Reed on his facebook page:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” — Margaret Thatcher. I would add that the BIGGEST problem with socialism is that it necessarily rests upon force, arrogance and deception. Which is to say, it’s fundamentally immoral.

Links via GoodShit, Twitter, and my own Internet reconnaissance.

Leonardo da Vinci galllery.

Lost at sea for 51 days, or what almost happened to me the time my outboard motor affixed to my inflatable boat failed me several miles out to sea in the Moloka’i channel.

Navy Seals are gnarly:

Master Chief didn’t tell us about his experiences in Vietnam. We would have to find out about them from others. Master Chief had served with SEAL Team One, Delta Platoon, 2nd Squad. His squad thought they knew about Hon Tai, a large island in Nha Trang Bay. From a distance, the island looked like a big rock sitting in the ocean for birds to take a crap on. Then two Vietcong, tired of fighting and being away from family, defected from the island and told U.S. intelligence about the camp full of VC they left behind.

Under the cover of darkness, Master Chief Knepper’s squad of seven SEALs arrived by boat. Not even the moon shone. His squad free-climbed a 350-foot cliff. After reaching the top, they lowered themselves into the VC camp. The seven-man squad split into two fire teams, taking off their boots and going barefoot to search for a VIP to snatch. Going barefoot didn’t leave behind telltale American boot prints in the dirt. It also made it easier to detect booby traps, and bare feet were easier to pull out of mud than boots. In the camp, though, the VC surprised the SEALs. A grenade landed at Lieutenant (j.g.) Bob Kerrey’s feet. It exploded, slamming him into the rocks and destroying the lower half of his leg. Lieutenant Kerrey managed to radio the other fire team. When the team arrived, they caught the VC in a deadly crossfire. Four VC tried to escape, but the SEALs mowed them down. Three VC stayed to fight, and the SEALs cut them down, too.

A hospital corpsman SEAL lost his eye. One of the SEALs put a tourniquet on Kerrey’s leg.

The SEAL squad snatched several VIPs, along with three large bags of documents (including a list of VC in the city), weapons, and other equipment. Lieutenant Kerrey continued to lead Master Chief Knepper and the others in their squad until they were evacuated. The intel received from the documents and VIPs gave critical information to the allied forces in Vietnam. Lieutenant Kerrey received the Medal of Honor and would go on to become Nebraska’s governor and senator. Our mentors were among the best in the business.

Color pictures of Russia circa the Ford Model T.

Via the temps at Instapundit, Harvard Law School asked Alec Baldwin to deliver a commencement address, while Nebraska Law School invited Justice Clarence Thomas. By contrast – and I think this is awesome – at my brother’s graduation from Montana State University the University bestowed an honorary doctorate of engineering on its keynote speaker, Timothy Barnard, a college dropout turned wildly successful construction magnate and philanthropist. Also worth noting is that Mr. Barnard’s speech was mercifully short and tremendously insightful. His most salient remark was “No one but yourself can define success.” True.

Finally here’s Jack Hunter aka the Southern Avenger laying down wood on Rick Santorum (douche):

Thursday morning I arrived at the San Diego International Airport to fly to Montana for my brother’s college graduation. Approaching the TSA security checkpoint I noticed the following sign:

Yeah. My first thoughts were that the “no jokes” directive is potentially an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and failing that, is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and overbreadth.

Approaching the screening area  I noticed the TSA had cordoned off the metal detector entirely and was directing every passenger (as opposed to “randomly selected passengers“) to the nude photo booth. When the TSA agent (a woman) directed me to the nude photo booth I said: “No, I’m not doing that.” She sneered: “So you’re opting out?” With much disgust she informed me the grope-down would “take a while.” I replied: “If you’re going to search me without even reasonable suspicion of criminality much less the probable cause the Fourth Amendment requires you’re going to have to earn it. No jokes.”

Ten plus minutes elapsed before a TSA agent appeared to escort me to the groping area. To his credit he was very nice, professional, and understanding of the steam pouring out of my ears. The grope down took a couple of minutes, and for all of the fanfare (stand here, hands there, explanations about everything) the TSA agent didn’t even bother to put his hands within six inches of my genitals – he just went through the motions.

The absurdity of the TSA’s bullshit is particularly clear when TSA agents just go through the motions instead of committing the full Napolitano. (Please attribute all future uses of “[the] full Napolitano” to DuelingBarstools. Thanks!) If facially unconstitutional security procedures are so fucking important then at least complete the grope down.

Emphasis added. Final note: While in the TSA line at the Bozeman airport this morning a remarkably friendly TSA agent struck up a conversation with the fellow in front of me. Turning to me the TSA agent greeted me with a beaming smile. I replied: “Forgive me if I don’t shake hands.”

And no, I don’t excuse TSA agents’ actions because they’re “just doing their jobs.” The Oath Keepers’ have a really good point that needs to be extended to the TSA:

In the police context, some have the mistaken idea that you’re always to enforce the law—leave it up to the politicians, lawyers, and judges to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong after the fact. That’s not what the Founders intended, and that’s not what the Constitution calls for. So the point of Oath Keepers is to remind the military and law enforcement that they are supposed to be thinking about the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, and they need to be thinking about the lawfulness of the orders they’re given.

Via Patri Freidman, the socio-economic and political entrepreneur driving the Seasteading Institute, here is Bryan Caplan laying down intellectual wood. Excerpt below:

The Case for People

There came to me the memory of reading a eulogy delivered by a Jewish chaplain over the dead on the battlefield at Iwo Jima, saying something like, “How many who would have been a Mozart or a Michelangelo or an Einstein have we buried here?” And then I thought, Have I gone crazy? What business do I have trying to help arrange it that fewer human beings will be born, each one of whom might be a Mozart or a Michelangelo or an Einstein—or simply a joy to his or her family and community, and a person who will enjoy life?

—Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2

The case against population is simple: Assume a fixed pie of wealth, and do the math. If every person gets an equal slice, more people imply smaller slices. The flaw in this argument is that people are producers as well as consumers. More sophisticated critics of population appeal to the diminishing marginal product of labor. As long as doubling the number of producers less than doubles total production, more people imply smaller slices.[6]

These anti-population arguments have strong intuitive appeal. But they face an awkward fact: During the last two centuries, both population and prosperity exploded. Maybe the world just enjoyed incredibly good luck, but it makes you wonder: Could rising population be a cause of rising prosperity?

Yes. Economists’ central discovery about economic growth is that new ideas are more important than labor or capital.[7] The main reason we’re richer than we used to be is that we know more than we used to know. We know how one man can grow food for hundreds. We know how to build flying machines. We know how to build iPhones. Best of all: Once one person discovers a new idea, billions can cheaply adopt it.

Once you recognize the power of ideas, the value of population comes into focus.[8] People—especially smart, creative people—are the source of new ideas. Imagine deleting half the names in your music collection—or half the visionaries in the computer industry. Think how much poorer the world would be. But population doesn’t merely increase the supply of new ideas. It increases the demand as well. Suppose an idea is worth $1 per person, but takes a decade to develop. On an island with a hundred inhabitants, the idea would remain undiscovered; inventors are better off picking coconuts. But in a world with seven billion customers, inventors scramble to bring the new idea to market.

Government, worldwide, is principally an impediment to both freedom and prosperity. And improving government is really tough. Ask the Tea Party. The GOP horse they backed to cut government’s fiscal throat by cuts in the hundreds of billions proposed a budget that actually cuts less a couple hundred million.

Listen to the following lecture by Patri Friedman and get on board with developing Seasteads to house entirely new polities which will directly compete with governments.

Gene Fama:

Marxism relies on the myth that in a free-market, greedy capitalists would wield the arbitrary power currently wielded by greedy government.

This is true. Next, a few tweets from the inimitable Iowahawkblog:

(1) My unauthorized biography of Donald Trump: “There Will Be Hell Toupee.”

(2) #TSAMottos Keeping America Safe From Randomly Selected Americans

(3) Today I proudly join with the formerly antiwar moralists of the Left to salute our President on an extralegal assassination well done.

Here’s an Iowahawk gem from 2009 (I believe) – the Roast of Barack Obama: (Shecky Ahmadinejad is the host)

Okay, let’s get this show on the road. Our first roaster comes from England, where she’s the star of a long running one-woman show at the Buckingham Palace Dinner Theater. Ladies and Martyrs, you know her, you hate her, please welcome the Queen of Spleen, Liz Windsor!

(band breaks into God Save the Queen, applause)

Liz Windsor

Thanks for that swell intro, Shecky. By the way, I know how much you love our infidel nuclear technology, but we’ve got another 1940’s invention you should really check out. It’s called deodorant.

(rimshot)

Listen folks, I know you came here expecting me to start hurling some tasteless insults at Barack Obama. But, seriously, I just can’t bring myself to do it. Barack is almost like another son to me.

(audience: awwwww)

Yeah, another jug eared idiot with a hard-on for horsefaced women. Barack was in London a couple weeks ago and rang me up, asked if he could drop by for tea. So he comes in, and I’m thinking, whoa — those Yanks have really stepped up their space program, he’s brought along a real live Klingon. Turns out it was his wife.

(rimshot)

Yep. Then, oh Jesus, in she starts with all the hugging. And I’m like, fer chrissake, somebody hand Lieutenant Worf a planet Earth protocol guide. Then Barack pops off and says, “hey Your Majesty, I brought a gift.” Okay, I’m thinking, car company? Banking system? National Park? Then I open the box. It’s an iPod. A fucking iPod. Preloaded with Barack’s easy listening speech hits.

(stares at Obama amid nervous laughter)

Yeah, way to cement that special relationship, dumbfuck. Jesus Christ, was Wal Mart sold out of Sham Wows? Oh yeah, that iPod is going in the vault with the crown jewels. Right next to that sack of DVDs you bought for Gordy Brown.

Gordon Brown

Now see here, Your Majesty! I thought that was quite thoughtful gesture, and…

Liz Windsor

Oh, shut the fuck up, Gordy. I don’t come to your job and slap Obama’s dick out of your mouth. Listen folks, my time’s up, and this tiara is chafing like a sonuvabitch. Time for me to lie back and think of England. Don’t forget to tip your waitress!…

It’s super funny, read the whole thing. Can’t believe I didn’t see it sooner.

Though this news is dated (2009) it nevertheless deserves your attention. In 2009 President Obama awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Anthony T. Kaho’ohanohano for extreme valor in the Korean War. Here’s why: (spoiler alert: he’s a badass)

As a private first class, Anthony Kahoohanohano was with the Company H, 2nd Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division, during the Korean War. He was in charge a machine-gun squad in the vicinity of Chup’a-ri, Korea, on Sept. 1, 1951.

On that day, he ordered members of his squad to take up more secure positions to provide cover as American forces were withdrawing. He stayed behind and fought the enemy himself, even after suffering a shoulder wound. After his ammunition was gone, he fought in hand-to-hand combat until he was killed.

His stand inspired his comrades, who launched a counterattack to repulse the enemy.

Kahoohanohano joins Barney F. Hajiro [a certified badass as well, he of 442nd lore] of Puunene and the late Kaoru Moto of Spreckelsville as Medal of Honor recipients from Maui. The only living Medal of Honor recipients from Hawaii are Hajiro and U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye. Nineteen Medal of Honor recipients were born in Hawaii.

To that I humbly add that the name Kaho’ohanohano is particularly befitting a Medal of Honor recipient. Hanohano (link is to an online Hawaiian dictionary) means proud, stately, or of distinction. (A major difference between ‘olelo hawai’i and English is that Hawaiian words have broad, fluid meanings for which context and general (Hawaiian) knowledge provides the critical distinction necessary to understand what the hell anyone is saying.) The “ho’o” preceding hanohano is a verb marker transitioning hanohano from an adjective into an active verb. Thus, Ho’ohanohano means to make proud, to (actively) make something or someone magnificent and stately. “Ka” is an article (similar to el / la in Espanol), which when preceding an inoa (name) attributes the succeeding action or quality to the individual name bearer.

Raise your glass to PFC Kaho’ohanohano – the one who conducts himself with distinction. Because the Medal of Honor is distinction indeed. RIP.

Via TheSmallestMinority (that’d be the individual):

Today is the third annual Victims of Communism Day, a day to remember the people murdered by their own governments in their quest to achieve a “worker’s paradise” where everyone is equal, where “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities” is the beautiful dream lie.  R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, has calculated that the total number of victims of Communism – that is, the domestic victims of their own governments – in the USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cambodia is 98.4 million people.  For all Communist governments during the 20^th Century, he puts the estimate at approximately 110 million.  And this wasn’t in warfare against other nations, this was what these governments did to their own people – “breaking eggs” to make their utopian omlette.

Six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, and another six million people the Nazis decided were “undesirable” went with them.  “Never again” is the motto of the modern Jew, and many others just as dedicated.  But “again and again and again” seems to be the rebuke of history.

The Communists are hardly alone in these crimes.  Rummel estimates that the total number of people murdered by their own governments during the 20^th Century is on the close order of 262 million, but the single biggest chunk of that truly frightening number is directly due to one pernicious idea:  That we can make people better.

I’d go a bit further and say the root of the horror show that is Communism (and Socialism) is the fatal conceit that any one or group of planners can or should collectivize and control individuals by directing and proscribing their actions.

Here’s a gif of Lyoto Machida’s Goodnight Irene crane kick at UFC 129. This is about as close to Danielsan / Mr. Miyagi as we’re likely to ever see. Gifs via Cagepotato.

Here’s another view:

Updated: More GIF goodness from UFC 129. First, Pablo Garza’s flying triangle submission.

Last but not least, John Makdessi’s spinning backfist KTFO: