Combat Frame Data: AZC-105A Dragonfly

AZC-105A Dragonfly
AZC-105 Dragonfly

Technical Data

Model number: AZC-105A
Code name: Grand Dolph - Close Air Support Variant
Nickname: Dragonfly
Classification: mass production, transforming close air support combat frame
Manufacturer: Zeklov-Astraea
Operator: Systems Overterrestrial Coalition
First deployment: CY 40
Crew: 1 pilot in cockpit in chest
Height: 19.2 meters, 21.5 meters with nosecone 
Weight: Dry weight 65 metric tons, full weight 104 metric tons
Armor type: titanium alloy/palladium glass/ceramic composite
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 1906 KW
Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 4x 32,000 kg, 4x 21,750 kg; top speed 2605 kph; maneuvering thrusters: 23, 180° turn time 0.88 seconds; legs: top ground speed 194 kph
Sensors: VISOR (Visible & Infrared Scanning Optical Receptor) mounted in head
Fixed armaments: Plasma sword, power rated at 0.47 MW, stored in recharge rack on back, hand-carried in use; x6 cruise missile launcher, shoulder-mounted; x21 pocket missile pod, mounted on arms; x2 hypersonic nuclear missile launcher, leg-mounted
Hand armaments: Grand Dolph machine rifle, loads 70mm graphene-coated tungsten rounds, magazine-fed, 100 rounds per mag, or belt-fed, 1000 round capacity

Fighter configuration

AZC-105A Fighter Configuration

Length: 17.2 meters, wingspan 17.0 meters
Weight: 104 metric tons
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 1906 KW
Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 4x 32,000 kg, 4x 21,750 kg, 2x 15,500kg; top speed 3020 kph; maneuvering thrusters: 25
Sensors: VISOR (Visible & Infrared Scanning Optical Receptor) forward-mounted
Fixed armaments: 70mm autocannon, mounted under nose; x6 cruise missile launcher; x21 pocket missile pod; x2 hypersonic nuclear missile launcher - all missiles mounted under wings

General Notes

Zeklov Astraea built the AZC-104 Grand Dolph as the answer to hard-to-kill limited run CFs. The Dragonfly line was their answer to hard-to-kill ground targets and spaceships. The AZC-105A specifically addressed the former.

At first glance, the Dragonfly appeared to be a Grand Dolph packing an alternate weapons loadout. More than one HALO and Wehrbund Bavaria pilot would make that fatal mistake.

The AZC-105 was the first mass-production combat frame to feature a transformation system. Similarly to the XCD-102 Emancipator, the Dragonfly Close Air Support type could shift into a high-speed fighter configuration. The graphene-tungsten bullet-firing autocannon retained from its Grand Dolph roots and the vast arsenal of missiles--including nuclear warheads--it carried made the Dragonfly a nightmare for elite CF pilots and ground forces alike.

Featuring a smart interlocking design, the AZC-105A's missile pods could detach to save weight or for use as handheld missile launchers in CF mode.

Hats off to our fifth CY 40 Second Coming Build-a-Mech backer! To see more awesome reader-designed mechs in action, read Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40!

Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40 - Brian Niemeier


Everyone Already Home Schools


... so why pay the state to propagandize your kids for an additional seven hours a day?

Author and educator David V. Stewart lodges this objection--among many others--to our schools' pointless habit of assigning children homework.
I think that the benefits to homework are pretty much nil, and it's nothing but negative consequences. But it is a thing which has been so heavily ingrained into the American academic experience, people can't think of not having homework. Parents can't think of their kids not having homework. If their kids don't have homework, then maybe the teacher's not doing enough. Teachers can't think of notgiving kids homework because, "What if somebody judges me negatively for not giving homework?" And of course students don't want homework, but I don't need to say any more about them. 
Well, I think homework is something that is for the birds. I don't think that teachers should give it, and let me give you a couple of reasons why.
So first of all, built into every homework assignment is the claim that the school day is not long enough. There's been some some legislation introduced recently, in couple states I think, to lengthen the school day to like eight or ten hours. And people find this abhorrent. They're like, "No, you can't make kids go to school for ten hours!" 
We already make them go to school for ten hours. They just go to school with the teacher for like seven and a half hours and then with their parents for two hours. So yes, parents of public school kids, you are still engaging in homeschooling because you have to teach them how to do their homework when they come home.
Meanwhile, homeschooling parents finish their kids' entire school day in the time it takes parents of public and private school kids to help them with their homework. Yet homeschooled students have long outperformed their Prussian model counterparts.

David's highly insightful video is well worth watching, especially for any parent who still has kids in the public school system.

The real reason that social engineers and their willing tools like Kamala Harris want to lengthen the school day to ten hours has nothing to do with academics. They want even more unfettered access to your children so that intellectually and spiritually, they may become their children.


Strauss-Howe Revisited


Owing to the sizable number of new readers who probably aren't up to speed on the updated generational theory popularized on this blog, I thought this post would make a helpful refresher.

If you frequent social media and dissident blogs, it's hard to escape the phenomenon of people getting woke to generational differences. Much is made of Strauss-Howe generational theory. Some claim they can predict where the country's heading based on the age of the people in charge cross-referenced with the general cultural mood when those leaders came of age.

Some folks take Strauss-Howe to an extreme, as if it were some kind of generational astrology. For my money, the most significant fruit of generational wokeness has been an increased awareness not of where we're going, but of how we got to the point we're at now.

What was the culture like when your dad was coming of age? How much was college tuition when he went for his BA? What was the state of the economy when he applied for his first real job? The rising tendency of people to ask these questions is important because the memory hole is a central feature of the Left's ideology. When your worldview is based on the airy fantasy of progress, it pays to discourage people from thinking about the past, lest unflattering comparisons be made.

Another key windfall of our enhanced generational awareness has been the rediscovery of previously forgotten generations. For some reason nobody talks about, the mass media have a decades-long habit of tagging certain cohorts with ready-made labels, popularizing the term, and suddenly shoving it down the memory hole. Remember the MTV Generation? Sometimes previously unknown generational divisions are identified, as in the case of Generation Jones.

One such discarded generational label is Generation Y. Bear with me as I go into some depth on the subject, because it's the cohort I belong to, so it's the only one I can speak on authoritatively in detail.

"Generation Y" was to go-to label for the children of younger Baby Boomers and the younger siblings of older Gen Xers. I remember hearing the term frequently until the latter half of the 90s, when some Madison Avenue type came up with the buzzword "Millennial". Both tags existed side-by-side for a while, with Millennials understood as the children of older Xers and the younger siblings of Ys.

Then one day, the term "Generation Y" was stricken from the public record. The decision to sunset that label is especially odd considering that everybody calls the generation following the Millennials Gen Z. Then again, we live in a post-literate culture.

The label is gone, but the people it used to describe are still around. Media types don't know what to do with members of the former Gen Y, so they get lumped in with either Gen X or the Millennials depending on that day's coin toss results. The incoherence of this makeshift solution is obvious when you apply a modicum of scrutiny. There are millions of people born between 1979 and 1989 who are nothing like Xers or Millennials.

These differences come to the fore when you consider each generation's besetting vices. Everyone who takes an interest in generational trends knows the stereotypes. The Greats are diligent but emotionally distant. Boomers are inveterate narcissists. Xers are cynical to the point of paralysis. Millennials are developmentally stunted snowflakes.

For those members of Gen Y who are enjoying a chuckle right now, you're not getting off the hook. If my generation can be said to have a general vice, it has to be that we're collectively naive, approaching the point of obliviousness.

There's an explanation for everything. In Gen Y's case, we grew up largely unaware of what was going on because our elders subjected us to a ubiquitous and extended gaslighting campaign. Our childhoods mostly happened in the 80s, which were the eye of a cultural storm that started in the 60s and is now rending Western civilization stone from stone.

Generation Y came up in an era that still had something like a functioning economy. In terms of race relations, America was as close to colorblind as we've ever gotten and are ever likely to get. If you were in second grade ca. 1988, you didn't think anything of hanging out with the black kid in your group. He wasn't a POC or even necessarily an African-American. He was just Mike.

Millennials never had that experience of minorities. They were indoctrinated with intersectional race theory, which didn't really come in until Gen Y had left grade school. On the flip side of the coin, older Gen Xers remember the urban crime waves and riots of the 70s, even if they're politically on the Left.

While not as spoiled as Millennials, Ys were members of the first generation born after wages froze and mothers were universally ripped from their children to join the workforce. As a result, GenY's parents embraced the practice of bribing their kids to make up for not spending time with them. These payoffs usually came in the form of toys, and it's hard to complain because the best toys ever made were produced in the 80s.

That's not bragging. The mind-blowing quality and variety of playthings that Ys were constantly plied with goes a long way toward explaining why we've been wandering down the primrose path ever since. Getting a new NES cart or going to Chuck E. Cheese for no apparent reason really did make every day feel like Christmas. Gen Y got started on the hedonic treadmill early.

Last but not least, the internet had none of the accessibility or utility for countering the official narrative that it has today. You had your parents' and teachers' word, textbooks, and TV, and that was it. Everything was fine and would continue to be fine.

Surrounding a generation of kids with a false picture of the world produced a whole cohort of sheltered adolescents. We honestly thought things were OK and would keep being OK in perpetuity. The warning signs were hidden from us, ostensibly for our own good.

It's no wonder why Gen X turned out so cynical. They had the personal context to see that the relative peace and prosperity was fleeting, and that the 80s were a small island in an angry sea. They had the advantage of setting out into the real world while Gen Y was still in school, and they got intimately acquainted with reality.

In contrast, I liken the typical Gen Y experience of growing up in America to the harrowing experience of Michael Douglas' character in 1997's The Game. To Gen Y, America's decline felt as sudden as going to bed in a mansion in a gated community patrolled by armed guards and waking up in the trash-filled gutter of a third world shit hole. The transition has been disorienting to say the least, but like Gen X icon Tyler Durden before us, we're slowly realizing what's happened. And we're getting really pissed.


If Conservatives Fought

Crusader LARP

It should be no surprise that we had to wait for the perverts who run Hollywood to implode--while they kept abusing women and children the whole time--when conservative leaders have made it clear that they have no intention of challenging Leftist cultural dominance. The only thing conservatives want to conserve is the cultural Marxist status quo.

Some of you are still in denial or a bleary state of Netflix and football-induced hypnosis, so to drive the point home, I've prepared a little thought experiment. For your consideration, here's what it would look like if conservatives fought to preserve our culture as hard as the Left fights to destroy it.

Republicans would hit Hollywood in the wallet.
Lighting Cigar with $100 Bill

When Democrats are in control of the levers of power, they have no qualms about weaponizing the IRS against their political enemies. This is the most effective tactic on the list. As John Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

And as Glenn Reynolds points out, Hollywood has a specific and easily exploitable weakness in this regard.
The first such proposal would be to restore the 20 percent excise tax on motion picture theater gross revenues that existed between the end of World War II and its repeal in the mid-1950s. The campaign to end the excise tax had studio executives and movie stars talking like Art Laffer, as they noted that high taxes reduced business income, hurt investment and cost jobs.
The movie excise tax was imposed in response to the high deficits after World War Two. Deficits are high again, and there's already historical precedent. Of course, to keep up with technology, the tax should now apply to DVDs, downloadable movies, pay-per-view and the like. But in these financially perilous times, why should movie stars and studio moguls, with their yachts, swimming pools and private jets, not at least shoulder the burden they carried back in Harry Truman's day -- when, to be honest, movies were better anyway.
For extra fun, they could show pictures of David Geffen's yacht and John Travolta's personal Boeing 707 on the Senate floor. You want to tax fat cats? I gotcher "fat cats" right here! Repeal the Hollywood Tax Cuts!
Repealing Hollywood's outdated 20% tax break should be a no-brainer for Republicans (but I repeat myself).

Conservative businessmen would take over the studios.
If the film industry's debauchery isn't sufficient motivation for conservatives to act, Hollywood's nosediving profits definitely should be. After all, conservatives might not care about art, but they're downright fanatical about money, right?

Not when it comes to money plays that involve risking their reputations with the lefty arts crowd. Roger L. Simon notes that conservative investors now have a once in a lifetime chance to buy out the whole film industry in one fell swoop. But they won't.
If conservative investors had any courage, this would be the time to make a hostile takeover of the movie business.  Unfortunately, they don’t.  I know this from bitter personal experience. Wealthy conservatives are delighted to support the Philharmonic, but when it comes to popular culture they turn away, as if afraid to get their hands dirty.
That this is a huge mistake should be obvious.  They have abandoned the culture -- and our children -- to the creepiest people imaginable.  What is going on in Hollywood is far from being just about Harvey. It’s approaching a pandemic. So many previously silent assaulted or raped women are coming out of the woodwork, it seems like a long-belated remake of “Cheaper by the Dozen.” No one knows who will be next or if it will stop at Harvey.
It won't stop at Harvey, and the self-styled moral conservatives who could have stopped it will incur a share of the blame.

Conservative officials would lock up the offenders.
Behind Bars

If officials at the highest levels of law enforcement were serious about protecting our children (how often have we been told to "please think of" them when our betters want to further erode our liberty?), they'd leave no stone unturned in the hunt for the perpetrators of Hollywood's systemic abuse culture. Unfortunately, law enforcement's track record in this regard features a string of Roman Polanskis and Woody Allens.

Conservative patrons would support like-minded artists.
Michelangelo and Pope Julius II

The SJWs defacing pop culture have it made. Lacking appreciable artistic talent, they only need to check the right political and identity boxes to receive plush sinecures in Hollywood, the comic book industry, and traditional publishing.

Making a living in the arts has always been difficult. It's become diabolically so since the conservatives--or at least political neutrals--who used to run the film and publishing industries gave away the farm to cultural Marxists.

Make no mistake. The expulsion of non-Leftist content creators from these industries is the result of a concerted and deliberate effort to squeeze thought criminals out of pop culture. The Left has been allowed to carry out their purge unopposed for so long that the process is all but complete.

The most obvious answer to this problem on the part of wealthy conservatives who complain about the corruption of popular entertainment would be to fund non-Leftist art projects themselves. But again, as Roger Simon mentioned above, conservative donors will gladly support the converged arts but not projects that might upset the Leftists they strive to impress.

If conservatives were as serious about saving the culture as they claim, then wealthy conservatives would fund non-Leftist films, TV series, comic books, novels, video games, and other popular media projects--regardless of whether they turned a profit. Converged companies like Tor Books and Marvel Comics are perfectly willing to take major losses in the service of their crusade to destroy Western culture. Wealthy conservatives' "What's in it for me?" and "I got mine" mantras betray the fact that they don't really believe in the value of Western civilization.

To the struggling non-Leftist creators out there who just wanted to make art and be left alone: No one is coming to help you. We're on our own since, unlike the cultural Marxists working night and day to drive us from the market, our self-professed supporters in business and government are lying about having our back.

It's up to us to help each other sharpen our skills, strengthen our brands, and build audiences. The #PulpRev and the Superversive literary movements are good examples of fledgling mutual support networks of allied artists.

With or without support, continuing to create original, entertaining content is indispensable to salvaging something of Western culture.

I wouldn't ask anyone to do what I'm not willing to do myself. That's one reason why I've been creating fun, lecture-free stories for the past couple of years. If you're starving for unique, thrilling, apolitical science fiction, give my award-winning Soul Cycle novels a shot.

The Soul Cycle - Brian Niemeier


Marching From Victory to Victory

Groyper Friend

The Groyper War against the shills in Conservative Inc. continues to buck the trajectory set by previous internet revolts. Like its predecessors, it started organically as a cri de coeur by frustrated youth who've caught on to the fact that organizations which ought to serve their interests are instead treating them like cattle. Unlike Sad Puppies, GamerGate, ComicsGate, etc., the groypers have beaten the odds and landed a knockout punch against their adversaries.

Now They're Talking About It

Contra the kept men of mainstream Conservative news, Don Jr. was not the Groypers' target. Nicholas J. Fuentes, the public face of the movement, repeatedly voiced support for the President's son. The groypers' main objective at UCLA--as it has been since the beginning--was establishment gatekeeper Charlie Kirk.

For those who are unaware of Kirk, he's the big donor errand boy the Conservative end of the Swamp installed to run their campus recruiting scam TPUSA. In that capacity Kirk thumps his chest about supporting Trump, even though as late as 2016 he was saying stuff like this.

astonishing Charlie Kirk

The fact that Conservative Inc. thought they could put a dullard like Kirk in charge of their campus outreach and get away with it highlights how out of touch they are. Much of the credit for the groypers' success is probably due to their opponents' incompetence.

That's not to deny the groypers their laurels for choosing their enemies wisely. From the beginning Fuentes urged his followers to focus their fire on Kirk, knowing that he's the weak link. That strategy has paid off spectacularly, not only humiliating Kirk but setting him up to make a disastrous series of unforced errors.

Kirk actually made the right opening move by initially dismissing Fuentes and the groypers as trolls there to sow mischief at his events. That was the correct response, and we wouldn't be talking about him now if he'd stuck to his guns.

Instead, Kirk let the groypers' uncomfortable questions get under his skin. Shouting down clean-cut young go-getters at a free speech event is a bad look any day. Calling Christian Trump supporters names for asking legitimate policy questions of an organization that claims to represent them drew unflattering comparisons between Kirk and the Left.

By silencing kids who came to his Q&A with tough but fair questions respectfully asked, Kirk stepped right into a classic Xanatos Gambit. He's left himself with only bad choices.

  • Continuing to evade groyper questions outs him as a fraud to more and more people.
  • Answering those questions blows the lid off Conservative Inc.'s anti-American agenda.
  • Rigging the Q&A by profiling attendees and stacking the deck with plants betrays weakness.
  • Cancelling the Q&A calls down all of the negative consequences above, in addition to ceding control of his events to the groypers for all the world to see.
Over the past month, Kirk and his featured TPUSA speakers have tried everything except for giving straight answers to the groypers' questions. They even cooked up some new gaffes by having a comedian deliver a tedious half-hour filibuster, getting a sitting Congressman to endorse infringing free speech, failing the Witch Test, and rewriting a 45-minute speech into a personal attack on Nick Fuentes.

And of course, Kirk topped his shame sundae by taking option 4.

Can't ask questions

Following TPUSA's established pattern of continuing to dig after they've hit the septic tank, Don Jr.'s doxy derided the assembled Christian conservatives for exercising chastity as befits their state in life.

The result? The groypers have gone from being dismissed as insignificant trolls to:

WaPo Number One

There's no getting around it. Fuentes has confounded the armchair pundits who discounted him as a clout hound and led the groypers to a significant culture war breakthrough. It does appear he's finally cracked the cipher that's bedeviled dissident movements these past five years.

And it's not for lack of fierce opposition. TPUSA, Conservative Inc. mouthpieces, the mainstream media, and even Antifa joined forces to break the groyper offensive.

The groypers found themselves targeted by news blackouts, doxxing attempts, and smear campaigns--any one of which easily could have sent them the way of the Tea Party. Yet the attacks rolled right off them like water off a frog's back.

Here's my analysis of how the groypers succeeded where everyone else failed.

  1. A clearly defined positive ethos: Too many past movements have simply been lists of grievances. The groypers are unambiguously Christian American patriots.
  2. Strong undisputed leadership: In sharp contrast to the "no leaders" directive that quickly splintered GamerGate into anti-SJW vs. Ethics Only camps, Nick Fuentes has claimed the title of Groyper Supreme Leader. He has a small cadre of generals who advise him on strategy, but ultimately Nick directs the Groyper War through his America First show and social media.
  3. Real-world impact: This was a major coup for the groypers. Nobody before them figured out how to take their internet mojo into meatspace without the whole affair degenerating into a clown funeral. Their success probably stems from the next point ...
  4. Wise choice of targets: Whereas other dissident groups tried to fight the Left's fortified positions head on, the groypers chose to attack a softer target--the Left's housebroken Conservatives. 

This last move was brilliant because it takes two to control the Overton Window. For fifty years, the Left's game has been to keep pushing the allowable limits of public discourse ever leftward while employing Conservative gatekeepers to offer token resistance. The Gunga Din Cons always give in, and the result is a ratchet effect which moves the culture gradually yet inexorably to the Left.

Now the groypers are successfully exposing Conservative Inc.'s scam. TPUSA--a major arm of that scam--was just publicly discredited in front of the President's son. They'll almost certainly be replaced with a new "patriotic pro-Trump" campus group, as Kirk's bumblers replaced YAF, but no matter. Since Kirk plunged Conservative Inc. into Fuentes' no-win scenario, the groypers need only stay the course to similarly destroy each new bowtie-wearing neck of the hydra.

The endgame would be replacing Conservative Inc. shills with genuine Christian nationalists typified by the groypers.

Imagine if instead of engaging in kabuki theater with retrograde versions of themselves from 2004, the Left had to contend with opponents who unflinchingly demanded an end to immigration, the overturning of Roe v Wade, and the outlawing of no-fault divorce.

We can dare to dream, thanks to a plague of cozy frogs.