Not long ago I saw an article that amused me. It was a bunch of eggheads puzzling over the mystery of how humans were able to domesticate dogs. I had to laugh. Clearly none of those guys had ever domesticated a wild animal. Any mammal that lives in social groups, and some birds, domesticate easily. Don’t hit them with a stick and give them food. I dare you to try and get rid of them after that. I have rescued and raised cottontails, raccoon, and red squirrel. I know people who have had pet flying squirrels, grey squirrels, foxes, and I once dated a girl who raised a whitetail doe. The damned thing lived in the house and slept in the bed with her every night. Don’t ask.
Anyway, the real question is not how did we domesticate dogs, but why. My wife jokes that we did not domesticate dogs, they domesticated us–or as she says dogmesticated. I think it is closer to enslavement. Hold on while I check my grocery list. I think they need more chews and treats, maybe even a bag of food that runs around $50….
I’m back. The answer, of course, is simple. Having a pack of wolves hanging around your paleolithic camp at night is a good idea when you live in a world where all manner of beast and man are trying to eat you. It is nearly impossible to sneak up on a camp of sleeping people without sounding the alarm by waking the wolves. They were the original burglar alarm. In that world, people didn’t move around all that much. Wander outside your tribe’s territory and you were likely going to be put on a spit. Contemporary primitive cultures live within strict boundaries. Many people I have met in the more backward parts of the world live out their whole lives never traveling more than a few miles from the spot where they were born. I once tried to explain to a Bolivian who wanted to know where I was from by telling him how long it would take to get there by canoe. “Two years that way,” and I pointed north. That made sense to him.
Beyond the pale. Ever wonder what that means or where it came from? Europeans didn’t have the extinct Eurasian wolf to domesticate, so they would build a fence around their village that was bristling with sharpened sticks or thorns. That was called the pale. Try to get past it and you were likely to be impaled. It was often whitewashed, which is why we use the word ‘pale’ to describe a color. At night, if someone got inside the pale, their silhouette could be seen more easily against the white background. The expression ‘beyond the pale’ refers to going outside the safe zone or going too far.
I am saying that there was never a golden age of gamboling about the fields and dales. Throughout all of human history, people lived within strict boundaries. Go outside those boundaries and some dude named Trog was going to bring your nutsack home to his wife so that she could tan it and make a little purse out of it. Travel has always been restricted. In fact, I would contend that people have more freedom of movement today than at any time in history.
I have heard people blame travel restriction on the rise of nation states and the modern idea of borders. Human history is mostly a chronicle of ethnic or cultural groups invading their neighbors. Travel restrictions were always there; nation states arose from the need for greater security. Borders were not drawn arbitrarily. They mark the edges of cultural territories. Restricting who may or may not cross those borders was and is a matter of life or death.
The open borders advocates around here have gotten me on the fence once or twice, but looking at contemporary events around the world got my feet back on the ground. I agree that freedom of movement is an inalienable right. One has freedom of movement so long as they do not trespass. If one believes in self-ownership, that every person’s mind, body, and conscience are their own property and no one else’s, then by logical extension they must accept that the fruit of one’s labor is their own property also. I decide who is welcome to set foot on my property and who is restricted from doing so. If a group of like minded people own property collectively, then they decide who may or may not set foot on it. I have no problem with the principle or practice of a nation preventing trespass so long as they do not restrict movement out of those borders or prevent one of the collective owners from re-entering.
There are other factors at play besides security, of course–the welfare state being the largest of those. Ideology is a concern of mine, as well. I am not a multiculturist. All cultures are not equal and the spectrum is quite wide. Flooding our country with people who do not accept the principle of inalienable rights or private ownership is worse than a bad idea. There are many individuals despite being from inferior cultures that would be a great credit to our country, and we should allow them in, even encourage them. Allowing just anyone based solely on their culture or ethnicity on the other hand is…unwise. A merit based system really is the only sensible policy in my mind.
I know this is one of the more contentious subjects around here, so y’all have at it. I’ll make popcorn.
I like Dogs, also RACIST!
Nice article Suthen
Dog? How is it cooked?
/lacist
I hate to admit that i actually ate that stuff – when in Rome and all that – and it was not bad despite the hangover about eating Rover.
I mean… you *know* we’re going to ask…
Pan’s threesome. Satyr’s have to come from somewhere.
Sort of like sheep in Wales? Don’t ask?
Cachu bant ti cachu mes.
Dat ass, dem titties, and does legs.
Punchline to an old joke “No Deer! Ass too high, run too fast!”
That’s terrible. You should be hung.
Q: What’s the difference between beer nuts and deer nuts?
A: Beer nuts are $1.49, deer nuts are under a buck.
Sadly, my first read of that scanned as “Deez Nuts”
There is so much evidence to dispute this, from genetics, to anthropological finds (Buddhist statutes in Ireland, Roman coins in China, etc.) to historical linguistics (Lithuania is a far trek from the Indus Valley, no?), to just plain old history (Did you think the Conquistadors bothered to get Aztec visas? What do you think colonialism was but going wherever the hell you want?). I’m sorry Suthen, but your claim is “not even wrong”.
Now, I happen to believe the appeal to nature is a fallacy, so a debate about the relative freedom of historic migration is neither here nor there when it comes to immigration policy now, but let’s get our facts straight.
I have read this anthropology book where people in 20000 BC traveled from what is now France to what is Ukraine having lots of sex on the way. They were all tall white blond and gorgeous.
I wouldn’t classify Conan the Barbarian as an “anthropology” book, Pie.
I am not sure if this is a joke or you actually think I am talking about Conan
Clan of the Cave Bear was actually a good book. The follow-ons were Harlequin Romance Porn.
Accurate, and hilarious!
Go with joke.
In Suthen’s defense I don’t know that the conquistadores are a counter argument to his thesis that people defended their turf and were at risk when they left home. Obviously Trog can’t take your nutsack if you bring all your buddies along and kill him first.
Or, within the context of the article, they were Trog to the peoples they met.
Yeah, the conquistadors aren’t exactly the example I’d use for advocating open borders immigration. That’s more a counter-example.
“a debate about the relative freedom of historic migration is neither here nor there when it comes to immigration policy now,”
It isn’t. It’s a counterargument to the claim that for most of human history people stayed within their neat little boundaries.
+ a whole shitload of people runnin’ over the Roman Empire
+1 Denisovan bang-fest.
or even + 80 million Hakka Chinese. They’ve been at it so long that they had to create a special name for those “crazy bastards who’ve traveled everywhere since 200 BC”.
Not a very good one. “Most” surely means more than very few.
plain old history (Did you think the Conquistadors bothered to get Aztec visas? What do you think colonialism was but going wherever the hell you want?).
I think its fair to say that Suthen was talking about peaceful, permitted travel, not invasions.
genetics,
A fair amount of genetic mixing was probably rape by invaders. Or, just invaders settling in and banging the locals. Either way, some (significant?) fraction of genetic mixing was not the result of peaceful, permitted travel.
to anthropological finds (Buddhist statutes in Ireland, Roman coins in China, etc.)
Trade, which over longish distances involved permission of some kind from locals after suitable payment, is probably the big exception here. But, the number of people who actually travelled more than a day’s walk to trade is probably statistically negligible. Don’t know, though.
to historical linguistics (Lithuania is a far trek from the Indus Valley, no?),
How did Lithuania acquire Indus Valley linguistics?
Wasn’t proto-indoeuropean a spawn of the north black sea area or the Cacuses? I’m pretty sure it got introduced to india as much as to europe. The mechanism, be it migration or as a trade tongue is another matter.
That raises another question:
As I read Suthen, he is talking about travel by individuals or small groups. Migrations tend to be much larger and over a longer time period (and are marked at least sometimes, by violence).
Your migration can feel a lot like invasion of my turf. I’m thinking here of the various migrations by misc. Germanic tribes during the Roman Empire. They were frequently triggered by migration/invasions of their turf, and by the time they got to Roman territory my impression is that some (many?) were pretty much invasions spearheaded by military forces.
From what I understand, the Roman/Germanic invasions were bidirectional hostilities.
I am by no means a scholar of the Roman Empire. I doubt that large-scale migrations of any speed could happen in a hunter-gatherer or agrarian society peacefully, though, due simply to the shortage of local resources to support the new arrivals without depriving the locals.
Again, this is debated among historians as well, partially because we inherited a lot of dumb shit from the 19th century. It would be fair to say that some were peaceful, as the Romans didn’t care if people occupied frontier wilderness, in often viewed it as an economic opportunity, and some were violent. Complicating the fact is that the Romans themselves were fond of displacing entire nations as punishment for rebellion (e.g., the Judeans).
That’s where genetics comes in.
Not if you’re only using your tongue.
*narrows gaze*
If you are interested in historical (and pre historical) linguistics, I strongly recommend The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. The author’s theory is that proto indo european language arose in the Russian steppes and was spread along with the horse culture.
I couldn’t put that book down. But my taste in books is probably not typical.
It’s probably more accurate to say that Sanskrit retained Lithuanian linguistics. Lithuanian is the closest living language to proto Indo-European, retaining a large amount of archaic features. While the two languages aren’t mutually intelligible, most Lithuanians can muddle their way through transliterated Sanskrit texts.
Lithuanian is extremely close to Sanskrit. That’s how 19th century linguistics were able to stumble across the whole Indo-European thing.
Now if y’all could just make up your minds about where Magyar came from.
My theory is the 4th moon of the 2nd planet of Sirius B.
Is Magyar related to Etruscan?
Without being an expert in Hungarian, I have to say I’m agnostic about the origins of Magyar. We may find that a lot of the words of unknown origin in Magyar are loans from the Tyrsenian language family, but I cautiously hold with the orthodox view that Magyar is Finno-Ugric in origin.
As long as you’re not one of those degenerates that thinks Magyar is a Turkish language.
Dunno where they came form but they should go back there / nationalist Romanian
I saw this….and Pie did not disappoint.
Again, this is a Hobbesian assumption that can only imagine the Genghis Kahns of the world. I submit that for every Genghis, there is also a Yamada Nagamasa, who settled with 300 of his fellow Christian ronin samurai in 17th Century Siam. The results of which, in part, is that the krabi used in Thai martial arts is a direct descendant of the katana.
The great unknown, I think, is how much genetic mixing was the result of peaceful travel, and how much was the result of something more aggressive. I don’t know, but I tend to believe that peaceful travel of long distances was engaged in by a small fraction of the population until quite recently (historically speaking), even in the Roman Empire (which allowed travel over vast swathes by its citizens/subjects).
Alexander the Great, for example, did quite a lot to spread the Hellenic gene pool eastward. However, that genetic mixing was not the result of peaceful interaction.
One of the confounding issues here is time span – there is a difference between a population sort of drifting in dribs and drabs over centuries that are numerically insignificant over short time periods, and one that arrives in a big chunk in a short period of time.
And yes, I think history is a guide to policy. Phenomenon not related to peaceful travel and settlement should not be a justification for immigration policy. Policies based on ahistorical beliefs about human society and nature are unlikely to last long, or end well. See, also, New Soviet Man.
The hard part is disentangling local conditions from human nature. Could early man go anywhere he wanted? Sure, because there wasn’t anyone else there. Could agrarian man do the same? Generally, no, because there was somebody there and too many newcomers in too short a time would hit local resource constraints very quickly. Would industrial man hit the same resource constraints – maybe, eventually. Those are the conditions that change over time. The underlying wiring of pack territorial animals does not. Its a tangle with no easy or obvious answer.
That’s what I’m saying. The Hobbesian “war of all against all” view of history is as ahistorical as Rousseau’s noble savage.
And while we do have our hard-wired cognitive biases, we also have the tools to correct for them, which is our pre-frontal cortex and reason.
The Hobbesian “war of all against all” view of history is as ahistorical as Rousseau’s noble savage.
I would not disagree. History and people are more complicated than that.
we do have our hard-wired cognitive biases, we also have the tools to correct for them, which is our pre-frontal cortex and reason.
Within certain definite limits. History is littered with the corpses of utopias that tried to correct or disregard hard-wired behaviors with intellectually conceived societies. You get too far out of line with that wiring, your society will fail, no matter how rationally your society is organized. I fear this is the road the EU is headed down. See, also, trying to rule too much with a corrupt/distant aristocracy.
“I am saying that there was never a golden age of gamboling about the fields and dales. Throughout all of human history, people lived within strict boundaries.”
Whereas I wouldn’t call it a “golden age”. During prehistory humans traveled great distances. Running into some dude named Trog wasn’t much of an issue when most of the world was unpopulated. Regardless, it’s irrelevant to immigration policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowcroft_Rockshelter
Interesting place to visit.
As noted by several post-ers, it does depend on time frames, etc. But, there is pretty good evidence that one of the reason English promoters were able to get relatively large numbers of people to travel to the New World was because of relatively large-scale internal migration in the 17th & 18th centuries.
Ugh. I am late. Exceptions, not the rule.
This is the subject that occasionally makes me think I’m more a conservative than a libertarian. (Of course as soon as I think this, I decide against it because I refuse to mind what you all do in your bedrooms, even with white tail…) I refuse to accept that wannabe communists’ right to migrate trumps my right to remain free. If you are coming here from a socialist or Islamist paradise because life in paradise has become a bit too ‘interesting’ for your taste I welcome you IFF you have learned that the socialist/Islamist part is why it got ‘interesting’. If you blame colionialism/christianity/enlightenment thought/men/whypipo/capitalism etc. and want to improve my country with your Socialist or Theocratic ideals you can go right back home.
What most Arizonans/Texans think about Californians.
My libertarian leanings tell me that one can not have open immigration in a welfare state. It is a recipe for not just disaster, but self-immolation. Of course, the nanny-staters that feel they can basically hide behind the semblance of a democratic system if the vast majority of a country’s citizens are people on the dole, love that idea and the perpetual power they see for themselves…
Democracy (or a constitutional republic with democratic elements) goes down the toilet as soon as the government veers into redistribution of income that is not a remediation for fraud or force. When politicians can literally purchase votes by promising welfare, the whole system devolves into “gimme gimme gimme” not just with individuals who want free money but also corporations who want special protections and handouts. It’s just human nature.
I wish there were something kind of separation of economy and state written into the Constitution… But then again, constitutions don’t really have anything enforcing them except culture.
There was always travel and trade, whether by army or not. But there is plenty of archaeological evidence of people in the past travelling a bit from their birth place. So I do not think it was as strict as that. It depends on the time and the place.
For example
The Amesbury Archer is an early Bronze Age man whose grave was discovered during excavations at the site of a new housing development (grid reference SU16324043[1]) in Amesbury near Stonehenge. The grave was uncovered in May 2002, and the man is believed to date from about 2300 BC. He is nicknamed “the Archer” because of the many arrowheads that were among the artefacts buried with him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer
Research using oxygen isotope analysis in the Archer’s tooth enamel has suggested that he may have originated from an alpine region of central Europe
Even their analysis indicated he was a skilled immigant who likely went somewhere he could make more from plying his trade than alongside where he learned it.
Though my first question is – how many of those arrowheads were buried with him because they were stuck inside the corpse? (the linked article doesn’t give sufficient information to rule that out)
that doe not mean travel was restricted. It just means absent a welfare state you traveled only when you had the skill not to starve more in your new placel. And you started shit you got killed. T His may mostly lend credence to the view that under libertarianism immigration will sort itself out. This does not mean massive amounts of people moving in. quite the contrary
This is a strong argument against training as a lawyer… I wish I had thought more on this some years ago. Moving out of State for me means, preparing for and then passing a new bar, moving out of the country means finding an entirely new career path.
That, and the whole thing of being hated everywhere you go?
We feed on it.
*huffs fumes of hatred*
Pie, I remember seeing a statistic that claimed even today, in our modern world, 7 out of 10 people globally, would never leave their place of birth. And that number is skewed obviously by the fact that in more modern societies it happens with far more frequency than in what we would call our third world shitholes (which also happen to be the places where exceedingly the vast majority of the world’s people seem to live in). As someone that moved by the age of 6 weeks spent my younger years moving everywhere and anywhere, that statistic stuck with me.
Now if I could only get myself motivated to leave “The People’s Republic of Connecticut” soonish, it will be a good thing..
Until WW1, that statistic was true of about 80-90% of Britons, with the exception of during the height of the Industrial Revolution.
But there is plenty of archaeological evidence of people in the past travelling a bit from their birth place.
What is fascinating to me is the instances of tribes that moved a very long distance in a very short time and then decided “hey, this spot’s perfect” and stayed in the same place for thousands of years. I was reading the other day about some Australian aboriginal tribe that migrated in from SE Asia in a few hundred years and then stayed in the same spot on the Australian continent for 8,000 years, and I was thinking, how does that switch go? A civilization going from intensely mobile to intensely sedentary is quite a transition.
Maybe fleeing a stronger, warring tribe? Although I guess that wouldn’t account for your specific example of them taking a few hundred years. Flight for safety would be much quicker, I would assume.
Famine or some other kind of natural disaster is a powerful incentive for the least nomadic tribes to relocate toute de suite.
I have heard people blame travel restriction on the rise of nation states and the modern idea of borders. – this is partially false. There was oftentimes some restriction on things like trade, mostly for tax purposes. We have lots of history about how this and that ruler gave privileges for some traders or other. But people did travel without passports more, I would assume. They may have ran the risk of murder more. But that is more about incentives thank borders.
reminded me of this
The ‘narrow track’ was an infamous smugglers’ route used to avoid taxation in ancient Assyria. In this video, Curator Mathilde Touillon-Ricci deciphers some 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablets used by businesspeople to talk trade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQIBf7eeXG8
I have no problem with the principle or practice of a nation preventing trespass ….
Ummm, what if you don’t want anything to do with the shitheels who claim to run the nation, set the rules, and in the doing and setting, rob you for that privilege?
I’ll go along with the idea of ‘nation’ when every person within it has a legitimate and direct say in how it is run. 535 bought and paid for shitstains reporting to their financiers, or at best, to ‘voters’ who only know what Fox and MSNBC tell them, does not a representative nation make.
I agree with you, Sir Suthen, that ‘we’, as in the idea of ‘we’, should be able to determine who gets to become part of that ‘we’. Those mechanisms as they exist today in America, are arbitrary, capricious, expensive, and enforced by mewling cabbages in uniform.
My bitch with the “we” thing, is that in a nation of hundreds of millions there is no “we”. The We’s in Celeryville want more migrant workers/immigrants, some We’s along the border don’t. It’s the same with the Nation as a house analogy, the nation is not the same as one dude or family deciding who lives with them.
“We” is always who bitches the loudest, Hype.
You know this.
‘We’ are also always the worst authoritarians.
I believe the new currency is ‘victim points’?
‘We’ are whomever has the most victim points.
:.’We’ are all a black female paraplegic trangender named Dave.
Dave? DAVE????
Named M’fu!me
Dave got bullied by all the other paraplegic trannies for not having a properly fucked up name; and therefore wins!
Good write-up, Suthen. We have too many large groups of people from foreign
climes,shitholes that move here en masse, and setup shop and proceed to continue the same practices and ideas that made their home nations shitholes only they do it here. They don’t assimilate, they don’t want to assimilate, and much of the left doesn’t want them to do so. Those aren’t really immigrants, they are invaders. The idea that libertarianism requires allowing in savages and barbarians who not only don’t share our values of individual liberty, but can’t even understand them, is ludicrous. It’s one thing to accept small numbers of people who can assimilate, because their choice is assimilate, go hungry, or go home. But it is quite another to bring in invaders and then make them protected classes so the lefty commies scumbags can attain power.Unlimited migration for all people that engage in an agreement that disqualifies themselves from accepting public assistance of any form, swearing an oath observe and agree to the sanctity of property rights, as well as perpetual disqualification from participation in suffrage. Immediate “one strike” deportation for all convictions for harmful crimes against body and propertie.
Yup. I would be for open borders if migrants were told they would not be allowed to suck on the government’s tits. In fact, I might want to start an exchange program where we trade for that sort of people and send back our local born government tit sucking douches.
Those aren’t really immigrants, they are invaders.
My rough and ready definition is that immigrants want to fit in with your culture. Invaders want you to fit in (submit?) to theirs.
I would stipulate that “fit in” basically entails a spectrum of anywhere from “want to be left the fuck alone in self-determined ethnic ghetto à la the Amish” all the way up to full blown assimilation.
I think so. Depending, of course, on the local culture. Americans are pretty tolerant, relatively, of eccentrics who don’t bother their neighbors. Other cultures are more insistent that you become fully assimilated, chop-chop.
Except for those filthy Irish.
There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures…and the Dutch
What about those that want to be left alone? Despite some of the colonists having conniptions about the horrors of potentially having to speak German instead of English, I have a hard time viewing the Amish as invaders.
I think a small community that wants to be left alone and that is willing to leave outsiders alone, that isn’t seeking political power over the larger culture, and that doesn’t demand the larger culture adapt to them instead of vice versa does fit in with American culture. The Amish are possibly the only example I can think of where that applies though. They don’t seem to want government benefits or special privileges (except for paying taxes, but hell, I want that privilege too). Their sub-culture is alien, but it is compatible. I can’t really think of many other such groups.
Totally OT: our mechanizations in the province you call Syria are bearing fruit. My bosses are trying to create the conventional war equivalent of Wrestlemania. It was tricky because the Hat and the Hair seemed obstinate to the idea so we went and skin-suited John Bolton (which I felt was about 30 years overdue). Anyways suck it mammals! No go forth and entertain Your Future Reptilian Overlords!
*looks at thermometer, decides not to worry about Mr Lizard
Sigh…I’ve said this before. The Mark VI advanced foreign species incursion armor (you would know them as skin suits) come equipped with a micro reactor and CLIMATE CONTROL…however we despise snow in general so you’re probably ok
Hey, I’m looking a for skinsuit of this variety for, uh…, research purposes.
Slightly used is ok.
When I’m thinking Skin Suited, I’m thinking ScarJo.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uf6R-EcZNQ
Not Buffalo Bill doing his dance with something tucked?
To all of the people who are concerned with allowing migration from countries where respect for the individual is something less than popular –
I agree ….. but it seems to me that this doctrine implies, insofar that we want to maintain a state of relative freedom, that we need to do something about the domestic authoritarians who are born and bred here. It seems to me that the most anti-freedom elements in American society are white people who were born and bred here, and subscribe to ideologies promulgated by other white people in Germany and Russia in the 19th century.
So …. if we are going to encourage migration from those who want to work hard, respect individual freedom, and make this place better, we must set the example of respecting radical individualism, and do everything we can to undermine the domestic authoritarians.
I keep hoping that California, New jersey, Illinois, etc. will get so mad at Trump that they secede. Then we can have a 1 year musical chairs game of migrate to the America you like and everyone can be happy (until next year when the parts that outlawed GMOs, fertilizers, pesticides, internal combustion, meat, and rationality all starve)
Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize.
Not until we get this wall technology sorted out.
Oh, we can build a wall that can’t be gotten past (leaving aside tunnelling). We just aren’t willing to do so. The piles of corpses at its base would perhaps be going a tad too far.
The piles of corpses and racks of skulls add to the deterrance factor.
The numbers don’t bear that out. Immigrants and non-whites like socialism more than American whites.
Citation required.
As an aside, people are fundamentally territorial pack animals. The fact that we are wired to be territorial is the root of property rights. The fact that we are pack animals is the root of ethnic/racial/etc. discrimination. These are not artificial social constructs, IMO. They are part of who we are.
The development of advanced societies is the channelling and harnessing of these innate impulses. Property rights are a mechanism for reducing and resolving disputes over who owns what. The pack dynamic is harnessed to create loyalty to something larger than the family or clan. More recently, anti-discrimination has been adopted to try to reduce the adverse affects of the pack dynamic.
And even more recently, it has been converted into a weapon of the pack dynamic against enemy tribes.
Fair point. Identity politics is just pack/tribalism re-skinned for the modern age.
A great many things are not artificial social constructs. Because if they were not, where the fuck did they come from? Did the fairy fucking godmother come done to give us social constructs? It is clear that a good port of social constructs have their origin in biology, environment, necessity. not all, off course, humans having capacity to more or less think means some things developed independently of those things . But many did not. there were always natural constraints.
The “social construct” gripe from postmodernist Marxist lefties really puzzles me.
Things like private property and gender roles exist because they were (and still are) necessary for survival. They are features of humankind that have helped us become a successful species.
GET OFF MY LAWN!
Again, this is not true. If human history was nothing more than Hobbesian dog eat dog then why is freedom of movement enshrined in Article 42 of the Magna Carta? I mean, those were the “Dark” Ages, no? The nation state evolved as a reaction to multicultural, multilinguistic, and multireligious imperial realms (e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Empire). Certain individuals in Europe resented being ruled over by monarchs who probably lived far away and had never visited their part of the realm, who didn’t even speak their language, and probably followed a different religion. The nation-state was an attempt to establish local rule, the theory being that if the ruler was of the same people as his subjects, he would be more responsive to their needs. This was concurrent with both a rise of interest in the Classical republicanism of Rome and the development of Romantic Nationalism, which viewed an ethnic nation as an organic collective whole, with its own needs.
To be honest, I can’t think of an ideology more alien to America than Romantic Nationalism. The USA was founded in the heart of the Enlightenment, in which individual rights, reason, and republicanism were paramount. America was always seen as an idea, not an ethnicity. Indeed, in a letter of thanks to George Washington, the Jewish community of Newport, R.I. wrote:
to which Washington wrote back:
As can be seen in Washington’s reply, it was his intention that the characteristic he was looking for in new Americans was good citizenship and loyalty. Nothing about their “merit” (i.e., some arbitrary measurement of their potential to “contribute” to the economy), nothing about speaking ye olde English, etc..
That having been said, I believe you, me, and Washington agree that we want new Americans to believe in the founding principles of our country. However, the question remains as to how to identify and encourage those traits. I am uncomfortable with any policy that doesn’t treat potential citizens as individuals. Collective, a priori judgements based on country of origin or other factors seem to betray the very ideals we wish to protect.
In short, it is mistake to think of America as a nation-state. America is the last bastion of civic republicanism. I agree with Jonah Goldberg that we ape our European brethren to our peril.
I hadn’t read the Newport dialogue before. That’s beautiful.
Indeed.
What politician today can write something like that? It’s just such a stark contrast to assclown Obama’s grandiose and blustery yet empty language.
The nation state evolved as a reaction to multicultural, multilinguistic, and multireligious imperial realms (e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Empire). Certain individuals in Europe resented being ruled over by monarchs who probably lived far away and had never visited their part of the realm, who didn’t even speak their language, and probably followed a different religion.
I think nationalism was primarily a reaction to ineffectual/unsatisfactory rulers. Sometimes they were distant empires that were ineffectual because the empire was too big, and unsatisfactory because they were insufficiently local (Austria-Hungary). Sometimes they were unsatisfactory because they were corrupt/isolated monarchs/aristocracies (France, perhaps England). And sometimes nationalism was more or less imposed by new rulers who were sweeping aside too-small, too-weak local rulers (Germany, Italy).
I find it interesting that trying to rule too much with a corrupt/isolated aristocracy may be the current affliction that the US is suffering from.
I think nationalism was primarily a reaction to ineffectual/unsatisfactory rulers – i think the average peasant did not care that much. It was mostly local elites wanting themselves not to be ruled by other elites.
May?
I would say, “is”!
So now what do we do when all we can get is ineffectual/unsatisfactory rulers?
French revolution time?
“I am uncomfortable with any policy that doesn’t treat potential citizens as individuals[…]In short, it is mistake to think of America as a nation-state. America is the last bastion of civic republicanism. I agree with Jonah Goldberg that we ape our European brethren to our peril.”
I agree with this. I’ll also say that freedom of movement is an absolute right thus implying that a borderless world is an ideal; perhaps even an attainable ideal at some point in the future. The current situation in Sweden, the UK and other Western European countries does confirm however, at least at this point in history, eliminating borders and allowing unlimited freedom of movement does not produce good results as a practical matter.
There seems to be a priority to securing individual rights; think of it as a hierarchy of needs or some such thing. If one is serious about preserving basic rights within an existing population, wholesale importation of “alien cultures” or whatever you want to call them seems to be demonstrably destructive of those rights (as demonstrated by the current situation in Europe). Does the freedom of movement of an external tribe trump existing property rights, liberty, defense etc. of another tribe? It’s a tricky question but I’ll likely say no, again just looking at practical results.
Ideals have a tendency to collide with reality, and as much as I’d like to say that the USA could/should be open to anyone and everyone it does seem rather suicidal. I’m still a supporter of very open immigration, however, provided people come in with Washington’s qualities of good citizenship and loyalty and, I’d add, a good understanding of natural rights.
As a nation, we’re not committed to our natural rights. Quite a few of us are downright hostile to them, including the vast majority of our ruling class.
For what it’s worth, I think we’re beyond the point of no return. The downward slope only gets steeper from here.
I disagree. What I see is a potemkin village built upon the ridge line of the legacy media and manned by a thin smear of true believers. We are not past the point of no return, and the batshit of recent years is actually arresting the decline by turning off the undecided middle.
Wake me when they end the War on Drugs or the War on Terror, or balance the budget.
There are two battlegrounds, and you’re looking at the wrong one to predict the future.
“As a nation, we’re not committed to our natural rights”
Agreed. Physician heal thyself.
I would say the problem here is equivocation. Tribes do not have a right of movement, individual members of a “tribe” do. Tribes do not have property rights, liberty, defense, etc., individual members of a tribe do.
I would also argue that many of Europe’s problems stem not from freedom of movement, but not enforcing other laws once miscreants arrive. If someone arrives and they begin raping everything in sight, you lock them up, deport them, or kill them. Wringing your hands and forelock-tugging to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t do anyone good.
“If someone arrives and they begin raping everything in sight, you lock them up, deport them, or kill them”
Works for me. The Far Left (who now control most of Europe and most Western cultural institutions) have decided that values synonymous with Enlightenment-era Western culture (natural rights, personal liberty, etc.) are racist, unjustly hegemonic and must be destroyed. Therefore, holding any outsider to account who either does not understand or does not respect those standards is bigoted and invalid. This just opens the door to Far Right ultra-nationalism as the pendulum swings back. So we have the worst of both worlds emerging in Europe. Citizens of the US would do well to use what’s happening there as a cautionary tale and rededicate ourselves to respect of those Enlightenment values; it’s the only thing that’s set the US apart all these years.
I’ll also say that freedom of movement is an absolute right thus implying that a borderless world is an ideal; perhaps even an attainable ideal at some point in the future.
I’m afraid an absolute right to go anywhere you want any time you want for any purpose you want is going run head-on into our territorial pack wiring.
I suspect that the “absolute” right is still subsidiary to private property rights, and raises real questions about freedom of association.
I agree that there is no absolute right to movement. The better way to view it is that it is part of “pursuit of happiness”. You have a right to pursue your happiness, but your happiness is not guaranteed. Movement is restricted by opportunity. However, the government should neither restrict nor subsidize that opportunity.
However, the government should neither restrict nor subsidize that opportunity.
If local shopowners decide not to trade with immigrants, presumably the government should not require them to?
Put another way, if discrimination arises more or less organically, and is not enshrined/enforced by the government, that’s more of a lack of opportunity than something that needs to be eradicated?
I suspect this approach would be more of brake on the speed of immigration than an impenetrable barrier. And I think its the speed and volume of immigration (which can feed unwillingness to assimilate) that has some people concerned.
Right. I remember my grandmother telling me that when she accompanied my grandfather to Oklahoma before he was shipped out for D-Day, she couldn’t find any place to stay because no hotel would do business with Jews. Fortunately, she found a Jewish family who were willing to take her in. This discrimination is what led to the Catskills.
Unfortunately, it’s a Catch-22, in that when communities form their own economies and find their niche industries, the majority starts whining about how they are “clannish”.
(((We’re))) a special case; y’know because of the whole reptilian humanoid skin-suit, taking over the world thing.
Nothing about their “merit” (i.e., some arbitrary measurement of their potential to “contribute” to the economy), nothing about speaking ye olde English, etc..
Curiously, though, the letter and the response were both written in English. And premised on classical republican liberalism.
That’s sort of where I kind of have a problem with this argument. I’m certainly in favor of a liberalized immigration policy. I also think it’s reasonable to expect that those immigrating to the U.S. have some particular interest in becoming Americans. Part of that is accepting our civic creed. But, I’d suggest that part of that is also adapting to America’s culture, institutions, traditions, and, yes, language. It’s not the responsibility of individuals in our society to adapt to those who have immigrated here.
And I think therein lies the problem. If you have a system of governmentally enforced egalitarianism, you’re inevitably going to get to just that expectation. Why, the question gets asked, should they have to assimilate just because they’re from a different culture? Their cultural misfit puts them at a disadvantage. So, why shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the “culturally privileged” to accommodate them? Now, I’ll concede, this is more a consequence of the enforced egalitarianism more than the immigration itself. But, I don’t see that enforced egalitarianism ending any time soon.
Except this isn’t really the case at all.
Prior to to the mid 1600’s “the nation state” was pretty much defined as the area that a king was able to enforce his rule over. The state and the nation themselves had no meaning outside of the embodiment of the king. Then in the places where actual nation states did begin to emerge were England, America, and France. Much of the world had begun to establish themselves as nation states far before any of the large multicultural empires began to fail and break up in the first half of the 20th century.
Basically the first nation states grew out of Nobles rejecting the divine right of kings argument and looking towards a consent of the governed justification for ruling
Dude, that ain’t a fence, it’s just some rocks.
That picture isn’t the fence, his fence is actually made of wolves.
I’ve never had a wolf fence, but once I had the wolf t-shirt from Walmart. The one with 2 wolves. You can wear that to pick up Walmart chicks, works every time. Sometimes you even get a girl with teeth.
You really need to upgrade:
Three Wolf Moon Short Sleeve Tee
Fuck wolf t-shirts. If you wanna be a real man, get a mountain lion t-shirt.
Pfft. That’s no better. Anyone can buy a shirt with something printed on it.
The only impressive achievement is wearing the hide of a beast you slew with your own hands.
Preferably a grizzly bear shirt with rhino boots and a great white shark’s teeth necklace. Who needs pants when you’re that tough?
We know who doesn’t actually click the links now, don’t we?
The attributes of someone who happens to be wearing an articule of clothing are not bestowed upon said clothing. The misconception that they do is how you get posers.
Would you be impressed if I made a loin cloth from 6 gerbils?
are they alive?
Bears>Mountain Lions.Wolves.
Mountain Lions>Wolves. Dammit.
Do you even CSS, brah?
“Many people I have met in the more backward parts of the world live out their whole lives never traveling more than a few miles from the spot where they were born.”
You mean like in Ohio?
Hey what a minute! ok your right, hangs head.
I was going to bitch as well, then I looked out my kitchen door at the hospital where I was born.
Don’t argue with an Ohio native about Ohio.
Was the first thing that came to my mind. I grew up with guys who still live in the same little town they were born in, probably never been out of that country. In fact if you were to drive by there right now, you’d likely see them sitting on their front porch with a 6 pack of Busch lite. Just waiting around with nothing to do until the unemployment runs out again. ‘Hey man, I ain’t seen you around for a long time! Yeah, I’m living in Maryland now. Maryland? Why I wouldn’t even know what direction you’d have to go in to get there!’ You can’t even make this stuff up.
My grandfather died on the same farm he was born on. Granted he was born in 1898.
Better there than in the fields of France or Belgium. Not all travel for men of that era was for vacations.
Tell me about it. My Dad, his brother and my Mom’s brothers were all in various places 1941-1945, none of it for fun.
I grew up in Ohio, and I’ve noticed that there are all kinds of interesting people who are FROM Ohio, but I rarely met them when I was in Ohio.
Here’s my biggest gripe about Ohio:
The number one hobby in Ohio is talking about the amazing places you’re going to go and all the amazing things you’re going to do when you “finally get out of Ohio“. Yet, 99 out of 100 Ohioans who indulge in this discussion never seem to go anywhere. They just stay at the same job going to the same bars giving the same boastful lectures about what an incredible life they’re going to have when they “finally leave this boring state“. I always ask these people what’s stopping them from packing up and leaving, and they never have an answer. I think most of them don’t have the gumption to leave everything they know, but they want everyone else to think that they’re a super-duper interesting person, so they just flap their gums about moving to California to become an actor or some shit.
Other than that, I enjoy living in semi-rural Ohio: low cost of living, practically non-existent crime, generally favorable job market, plenty of great outdoors to enjoy, and never having to hunt for a parking spot. And while it’s no libertarian paradise, it’s not too bad as far as “progressive” insanity goes.
“I once tried to explain to a Bolivian who wanted to know where I was from by telling him how long it would take to get there by canoe. “Two years that way,” and I pointed north. That made sense to him.”
You didn’t just tell him the Google maps on his phone will work for that? “It even works in a canoe, bro! Just go that way! Watch out for the head hunters and pirates upsteam!
“It was often whitewashed, which is why we use the word ‘pale’ to describe a color. At night, if someone got inside the pale, their silhouette could be seen more easily against the white background. The expression ‘beyond the pale’ refers to going outside the safe zone or going too far.”
Learned interesting factoid today. Good article, Suthen, I enjoyed it.
Want to learn another fact today?
factoid
noun fac·toid \ ˈfak-ˌtȯid \
Definition of factoid
1 : an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print
I’ve never heard that definition before, and apparently a lot of people use it wrong. Never bothered to look it up. Now I feel real smarter and ultra sophisticated, bigly.
The part I left off was the newer, secondary definition:
It irritates me when a word gets a new meaning just because it is used wrong, literally, all the time.
I always assumed the ‘briefly stated’ part was the correct definition by how I’ve heard it used. I typically see trivia used instead of factoid for trivial facts.
At least from my observations, definition two has far surpassed definition one as the most common usage.
However irritating it may be, if the intended recipient of a message understands the intended meaning, the word is not being misused.
Irregardless, it still bothers me.
I’m literally dying from that comment.
Have you been decimated?
*flips table*
THAT IS NOT A FUCKING WORD
Then stop using language. That is the way it works.
No shit
You know who started using it wrong?
CNN.
Not the most trusted name in news!
Although it’s a nitpick, “beyond the pale” has nothing to do with the color of the fencing. “Pale”, in the sense used in the phrase, comes from the Latin “palus”, for spike or post. It described the fence itself, regardless of the color. The word “pale” to describe a lack of color or a light hue comes from the Latin “pallidus” which means the same thing, something lacking in color. That we ended up with two words that were spelled and pronounced the same is a linguistic curiosity, not an etymology.
Like phallus?
Nah, that’s Greek.
“to blow, swell”
Kinky.
Sounds gay
“I am saying that there was never a golden age of gamboling about the fields and dales. Throughout all of human history, people lived within strict boundaries. Go outside those boundaries and some dude named Trog was going to bring your nutsack home to his wife so that she could tan it and make a little purse out of it. Travel has always been restricted. In fact, I would contend that people have more freedom of movement today than at any time in history”
Dude, that stuff is made up by the patriarchy and big greedy corporations. Back then, before capitalism ruined everything, people did just frolic around the fields with flowers in their hair, free and happy. There were no signs or private property, only love and sharing and happiness. You’ve been brainwashed by the corporations, man! *try to hear that in a hippy voice, man*
*sniff* *sniff*
Does anyone else smell patchouli oil?
*sips soy latte, feels smug and righteous*
Well you left out a couple steps:
Adam and Eve – hippie love garden
Snake goes on date with Eve, shows her apple, and other, things
Eve eats the apple, shares with cuck buddy Adam
God evicts the unhappy threesome from the garden.
Adam invents capitalism since starving in the wilderness sucks.
shows her baby’s arm holding an apple,
“I have heard people blame travel restriction on the rise of nation states and the modern idea of borders.”
It’s unreal that anyone could be that dumb. It’s like they’ve never studied history at all.
‘Hey man, here comes some dudes with spears. They look friendly enough, maybe we can just invite them in to have some tea. Ok, hey man, they don’t understand us and they look agitated. Ah, man, you’re just some sort of racist!’
Yep, travel restrictions, that’s what created borders, you bet.
I’m not an open border guy and if you have a welfare state, the idea is complete lunacy. So we have 2 choices. Merit-based admission with a path to citizenship as Suthenboy advocates. The benefits being you get relatively smart talented people who will quickly prosper, own property and hopefully assimilate.
Or, look the other way while hordes flood in illegally. These rent-seeking morons will immediately try to get welfare benefits, form ghettos and assimilate slowly if ever. Democrats will gladly admit them to their plantation and champion their coddling in return for unwavering vote loyalty.
Or marriage to a US citizen who can support you. That’s the other thing, if you marry a non-US citizen and want them to live here, you have to prove you can support them or they can already support themselves and that they will not be burden to the state. On the other hand, you can just walk right in, prove nothing, by pass all that hassle and stay forever, no prob. No contradictions there at all.
There’s gotta be a compliment to the high skills, merit-based, path for low skills people that want to do “shitty” work that is beneath what native-born parasites are willing to do. See: harvesting produce, cleaning shitters, and *gasp* miscellaneous entrepreneurial activity. In the US, we’re in a bad place where it’s easier and more lucrative to get on the dole than do menial work.
Why? You are describing a problem with the dole, not immigration.
If the dole is reformed to the point where it’s no longer this kind of a systematic perverse incentive, then entry of low-skills people should be a non-issue, no?
I would say yes, but not automatic citizenship. We already have enough native born Americans dumb enough to vote for socialism. Can we send half of California down to Mexico instead?
I know plenty of already here, immigrant professionals that would be a shoo-in with regard to the sort of merit-based entry system, who can’t stop slobbering about how the old country had better healthcare under single payer or tiered. I know more than enough that hate progressive income tax as well.
How do you resist the temptation to invite them to return?
As long as it’s the illegal part, I’m all for it.
When the job market gets that tight – a trickle, not a flood.
“If one believes in self-ownership, that every person’s mind, body, and conscience are their own property and no one else’s”
How long has it been since our government stopped believing that?
It was some time before 1776.
OT: I’m sure this is racist somehow.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/study-most-people-can-tell-if-youre-rich-from-your-face.html
I usually look for the permanent indentation around the eye socket indicative of long term monocle usage. It’s pretty much 98% definitive.
I forget who it was, Max Weber, maybe(?) who made this argument about “caste face” more than 100 years ago.
The bureaucracy guy? Seems legit.
What, you can tell how they look down on the peasants? Is there a slight upturn of the nose and a disdainful British butler sort of air?
Grey Poupon spot on the lapel
Apply it to this guy
If you just met Mark Zuckerberg on the street, would you go ‘whoa, that dud is rich, man!’. I doubt it.
I don’t know man, he does look kind of Jewish. He’s got that gold squirreled away somewhere.
There are a couple of very wealthy neighborhoods near here. I can typically tell who the really wealthy ones are. But not by their face, by the exotic cars they get out of.
“Pug-eee-ott? You-Go? Trav-ant?”
I once owned a 1979 Peugeot 504 diesel. It was definitely exotic.
Back when I was dropping off kids at daycare, school, sports stuff… I often wondered about the cars. At the time we had a Nissan and a Saab we owned outright, lived in a townhouse with a 10-year mortgage, and saved a fair amount of money each month. I know some of the people driving fancy cars were truly rich, but some were bankrupting themselves with huge mortgages and leases on their European luxury cars.
My mother had a Saab Viggen convertible (1999? 2000?) that was just a shade brighter than British Racing Green and a light golden brown leather interior.
I loved that car.
That’s a pretty desirable car. Did they still put the stupid ignition on the floor?
Where it belongs!
*spills coffee*
It was cool, but dumb. We had a Volvo 850 that had the window switches just below the cupholders. Guess how that worked out.
I recall the cup holders popping out of somewhere.
Armrest. They were in-line. I think it might have been the first model to even have cupholders. For a really long time the European car companies were too cool for cupholders.
Yep. Center console.
Wait, what? She had a Saab Viggen?!!
I think HM wins “Coolest Mom 1st Place”.
9-3, not 37.
My wife’s Saab got wrecked in a pile-up. We wanted to replace it with a 9-3 Aero – but it was not to be as GM was in the process of destroying the brand.
Jewish girls don’t cry. They Saab.
Buy now, Saab later
Well it is the Windy City
http://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/florida-woman-blames-cocaine-in-purse-on-windy-day-police-say/1106380969
I blame the patriarchy. I mean first we only had Florida men. Now we have Florida women. How did they become Florida women? THE PATRIARCHY! You know women can’t just make their own decisions because patriarchy won’t let them!
Hey, they don’t call it blow for nothing
Transgender ‘female’ weightlifter loses championship in freak accident.
He tried to lift far more than needed to win. Sounds like those balls are still a problem.
He wanted a record, got a fucked-up elbow.
Given the shenanigans to get any recognition, I call it poetic justice.
That sucks. He was my favourite actor from Mad Max Beyond Tunderdome.
Snort
Based on the picture, this was the Special Olympics?
Harsh, but I lol’d.
::Cocks ear, hears sound of thousands of TERFs LMAO’ing::
Your problem is what if I want to sell (or rent) my property to someone outside the collective?
Especially as I never signed the social contract.
Especially as I never signed the social contract.
What do you think that footprint they take from you at birth is for?
I was expecting a dog column, not one on one of the Sacred Four Controversies.
I enjoyed it, though. Thanks Suthen.
And without the presence of toxic, insecure individuals, we are able to have a discussion about it between people of differing opinions who argue in good faith!
I really enjoy the discussions, particularly on topics that I have trouble reconciling.
I agree. This has been a good one for the point-counterpoint.
There are times I just take the back seat and learn something. I wouldn’t want to open my mouth and prove I’m an idiot too often.
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE TRUE LIBERTARIAN!
BULLY!
*giggles*
*Adds SN to list*
People like you are the reason 91% of libertarians reject the label, according to CATO!
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.
I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words.
You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot.
Pomp call me. 867-5309 if you want a conversation. I will have it with you. You are such a piece of shit. Call me. Don’t be afraid, you piece of shit. Stand up. If you don’t call, you’re just afraid. Call me.
I’m Jewish. I presume you are too. Stop being afraid. Call me. Or give me your number and I will call you. I already know where you live, I’m on you. You might as well call me. You will see me. I promise. Bro.
Jenny? Is it really you?
hello brah as a Pakis/Afghanistan we hate India and Indian guys but we have to admit it that all Indians and us Pakis are far lean and shredded than white people but because of our ruined diet like soft drinks spices we all people from Asia are skinny fat but we have the best genetics here brah
I came to Australia 2 years ago and was 44kgs now 60,its because I started having good diet like white people have. And also our parents dont support bodybuilding and health all they care about is studies to all Indian Afghanistan Pakistan guys stop studies and go train hard
but that’s majority of us are losers but not all because our family think that if you dont get high marks you worthless now I got fed up with this and started fail in all subjects
You can see pro bodybuilder zack khan king khan now he is Paki And zyzz originates from Iraq
And black Africans have best genetics in world we all know but they don’t get food in Africa that’s why they are skinny And that’s true Indians guys think they are the best that’s why Paki hate them
I think you forgot to tell us that U waz kangs an’ sheit.
We wuz Mughalz
?Woah woah? there ?amigo?, you need an IQ ? of at least this ➡️? high in order to access ???? this message. K baby ???? cakes ??, ready to access ???? the ⚠️message⚠️? Okay baby ??, here comes ?? the ?s*e_c+r=et? message!
Don’t ? sEE ? the ?m?e?s?s?a?g?e? Woops ???. Looks ??? like your ?avocado? brain ? has too ⏬⏬⏬low⏬⏬⏬ of an IQ to view ??? the message?. Sorry Haney ?, looks like ?? you’re gonna be ? sucking ? these big big ?steaks? tonight! Catch ?? you later, penis-nose! ????
?????
My head hurtz…
BULLY!
When I look in at TOS these days, any article worth discussing quickly generates so much troll shit I run away holding my nose.
Today was no exceprion
You into S&M? Let me guess you like being tortured…
I was expecting a dog column, not one on one of the Sacred Four Controversies.
What is the Fourth Sacred Controversy? I can think of the first three: immigration, abortion, and pizza, but the last one escapes me.
Circumcision.
Hence deep dish made by illegal immigrants, using ground up fetuses as sauce and topped with foreskin being the ultimate libertarian meal.
Erm…
Pass..
Oh, yeah. I don’t think we’ve had one of those discussions recently (at least not when I’ve been on), so it slipped my mind.
Whoa whoa, I’m just going to cut you off right there before these tensions come to a head.
The sooner the Post (actually all print media) dies the better.
https://townhall.com/columnists/arthurschaper/2018/04/09/the-liberal-press-rebelled-against-reality-and-lost-n2469030
GM looms large.
Government employee unions come to mind.
AFSCME.
Interesting take on the subject, and I applaud you for having the stones to grab on to the third rail with both hands.
I’ve read something different about the domestication of wolves. Early humans were hunters. Like wolves, they were social animals who hunted as a cooperative group. Whether attracted to the same prey or interested in meat humans (or wolves) had, humans and wolves noticed that they were both more successful if they hunted cooperatively. Packs of these ancestral wolves gradually became tame (not domesticated) and some individuals within the packs would doubtless have spent more time with humans than with wolves. Over time, convergent evolution starts to happen; wolves and humans that can understand each other’s body language are more successful hunters.
We don’t even think about it, but dogs are as good if not better at reading human body language than many humans. There are all sorts of weird physiological things that happen when dogs and humans interact, such as decreased heart rate and increase in seratonin in both the dogs and humans. Pretty much once those ancient wolves start to hunt exclusively with humans, they’re domesticated. At that point they’re effectively dogs, not wolves. But what’s really interesting is that humans changed pretty dramatically as a result. Dogs were the first animal humans domesticated, and there’s some thought that in a sense domesticating dogs taught us how to domesticate other animals.
…wolves and humans that can understand each other’s body language are more successful hunters.
My body language must always convey an imminent visit to the treat cupboard for this particular wolf.
That dog has a serious case of puppy eyes. I’m surprised he’s not fatter, as that look probably has a high success rate of unlocking the cookie jar, so to speak.
Oh yeah. Mrs. Tundra walks him about 4 miles a day, otherwise he’d be a hippo.
He’s adorable. It’s got to be some sort of adaptation that the dog will be able to make a sucker of humans.
See, that’s clearly an animal who is the apex predator of treat-getting. Shit, I started to get up to give him a pig ear just then.
Wheras Cats on the other hand employed biological warfare to make us cater to their whims and as such they never became fully domesticated
Last weekend was KinkFest. Which I attended. I have a write-up about it, similar to Yusef Dries a Kia’s slab city report and some comments on how it provides an example of minimal government working. I think I’m going to submit it later tonight. I need to get some photos that are SFW-ish to go along with it and it’s ready.
How do you square the fact that a community that values autonomy/anarchy so much in one area (sexuality) tend, on average, to be pretty Lefty-SJW types?
MY BODY, MY CHOICE, SHITLORD.
But your wallet, my choice, too.
a community that values autonomy/anarchy so much in one area (sexuality) tend, on average, to be pretty Lefty-SJW types?
Isn’t that always the case with libertinism? Valuing your own freedom to do what you want isn’t the same thing as believing in freedom, per se. I’m sure Hitler, Stalin and Mao all valued their own liberty to do what they wanted. And libertarianism isn’t purely a matter of having no restrictions on one’s behavior. Reality, without the luxury of passing on the consequences of your action onto others, is a pretty damned stern taskmaster.
That said, I’m sure there are plenty of people who really do believe in actual freedom in those communities. I’m describing a particular set of beliefs.
Red couldn’t have said it better
“Freedom for me, bondage for thee!” I guess
That’s basically the motto of the human species.
Lefties are not known for their staunch ideological consistency. I’ve actually met Lefties who own AR-15s and hold CC permits, but they support tightening restrictions on these things for everyone else and envision themselves as being one of the select few who are “approved” by the government to exercise these rights.
That’s actually one of the things I’m pondering in the essay.
I have a Tale to tell, oh yes, still recovering……….
“ish”
no fatties
Don’t expect too many pictures then.
Sure, there are a few hardbody types in the kink scene. Most of them however are over 35 and John bait
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to possess one of our oldest, most useful tools.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/09/coming-london-knife-control/
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to possess one of our oldest, most useful tools.
I just hope nobody tells them how dangerous hands can be, or else things will get rather silly over there.
Watch closely and see how this policy is received and how crime is affected when actually implemented.
How did the UK come to a place where the mayor of London is going to require knife licenses for kitchen knives? I read through the “knife crime strategy” and came away with two conclusions: first, he’s very fond of the camera; second, when you put yourself on a policy track that pretty much ends at banning the sale of anything that could potentially be used as a weapon (the doc mentions screwdrivers, btw) without requiring some sort of licensing and registration scheme, you’re either in over your head or you’ve got another agenda.
The UK media has been very keen on putting him on the camera (and all of its residents on CCTVs) and while we might believe that US local government officials are venal, blithering idiots, they ain’t got nothin’ on the caliber of intellectuals vying for power in British local government.
The one thing these people do understand is that the only people this will affect are the law abiding ones. The “leaders” are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic until they can be re-elected. The media tamp down all but the most obvious protests. This is why they put all these cops on monitoring social media – it’s to watch for the malcontents – there’s no credible expectation that they’ll actually cut violent and property crimes.
In all fairness, the politicals are probably sensible to do so – there’s no established political “underground” to develop samzdat and organize a rebellion unless it has hashtags and follow-me links. Control the tubes, control the people.
That’s scary. It makes me worry about how far you could push people in this country without enough of them getting fed up enough to push back.
If a “boiling frog” methodology is used, pretty far. The average American isn’t as staunchly supportive of the Constitution as we might think and/or hope. All they want is a quiet life.
Too many of them are paid off by welfare benefits and other types of government handouts.
Freedom takes a backseat to free shit.
I read the article, and I think I understand why they are considering something so foolish:
More dangerous than the most iconic American city. That has to really sting their pride – it was the one metric they could legitimately look down on Americans for.
They still have their NHS. Never mind the fatal inefficiencies, mate, it’s “free”!
At least those people aren’t being shot with guns, though. Good thing they’ve got an ocean between them and Indiana, right?
OT — International gamers in SF for convention ‘shell shocked’ by ‘dangerous city’
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-crime-GDC-Game-Developers-Conference-12788774.php
Something something perverse incentive. This guy taking a dump in the gutter? Reward him!
I’m surprised. My understanding was that the Social Justice Cadres had become pretty much dominant in the gaming industry. Now, they’re upset when the world they encounter looks like the one they’ve been advocating? Maybe they should check their privilege.
“That having been said, I believe you, me, and Washington agree that we want new Americans to believe in the founding principles of our country. However, the question remains as to how to identify and encourage those traits.”
And as usual, HM hits the bullseye. I am still right about ancient freedom of movement though.
First time posting, but I lurk here a lot. Just wanted to tell y’all how much I appreciated this particular discussion. I may de-lurk every once in a while now that I’m actually registered.