Subscribe via RSS Feed

Crazy Time

[ 343 ] January 13, 2013 |

1. Montpelier, Ohio decides to arm their school custodians.

“Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn’t happen to you is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures,” Supertendent Jamie Grime told the Toledo Blade today.

Really hard to see what could go wrong here. And given that school custodians are often poorly paid and treated as expendable labor, my thoughts that nothing could go wrong are only reinforced.

2. Miss America thinks that placing armed guards outside schools might not be an awesome idea. You can only guess what the gun nuts are saying about her.

3. How crazy is the gun lobby? When you are attacking Antonin Scalia from the right, that’s pretty crazy.

Comments (343)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Stan Gable says:

    well, they will get a 2 day training course at the “Tactical Defense Institute” so I don’t see what the fuss is over.

  2. Ropty says:

    I don’t know. Once they are armed, I don’t think janitors will continue to be poorly paid and treated as expendable labor.

  3. howard says:

    i know nothing about jamie grime other than that he/she must be a complete and total idiot: that’s a remarkably stupid quote. how do people like that get to be school superintendents?

    • DrDick says:

      Frankly I am shocked that they would pick anyone with a functional IQ and a non-reactionary worldview as Miss America. I cannot remember the last time that happened (of course I pay no attention to it at all).

      • DocAmazing says:

        Vanessa Williams was no dummy, but she lasted only until those Playboy shots hit the newsstands. Her music career did pretty well.

      • Roger Ailes says:

        John Hinderaker was found dead this morning of an apparent Viagra overdose.

      • Fred Beloit says:

        Hahaha. Under the headline of Memeorandum’s aggregation of this story from the ‘National Confidential’ is the following sentence from that august body of learned journalists at the ‘National Confidential’: “Still reeling from losing the election and being ostracized from the majority of public opinion, conservatives are striking out at the newly crowned Miss America. ”

        What can this so-called sentence possibly mean? How could one be “ostracized from the majority of public opinion”? And I guess the last part of the sentence means that some conservatives are making a romantic pass at the beauty queen but are being shot down. Perhaps the ‘National Confidential’ is written in China or India for financial reasons.

    • Rob says:

      The article is just great. Basically they say they have been planning it for months but just introduced it that day. Which, if true, means they likely violated a ton of open meeting laws.

  4. Clark says:

    Why all the pussyfooting? First graders should get an easy to operate .22 revolver. By grade six they should be upgraded to a 9mm Glock. High schoolers get a choice between an AK-47 or an AR-15. Problem solved.

    • Dana Houle says:

      [Whistle on s sounds] Kids these days and all their newfangled magazines and semi-auto settings. Back when i was a kid, I dropped a deer at 30 yards with a single shot .410. [/Whistle on s sounds]

    • Lurker says:

      I understand this is satire. Actually, however, in a proper weapons training regime for children, it would go like this:
      * everyone learns, from 1st grade onward, to shoot a traditional air rifle.
      * from 3rd or maybe 5th grade onwards, you upgrade to a .22LR bolt-action or single-loading rifle.
      * from age 15, you start shooting with semiautomatics and heavier calibers
      * pistols and revolvers come only after you have mastered the long weapons. They are much harder.

      • Howlin Wolfe says:

        That would make the playground fun! Any other serious advice?

        • Lurker says:

          Actually, this is a not so far removed from reality. This mirrors the program the Finnish sports shooting association has: you can start sports shooting at age seven, with an air gun. The youngest gun powder weapon competitions are at 12 years of age. And naturally, a heavy, high caliber gun is unsuitable for children’s use. I just modified it a bit for school environment, where the training of a larger mass requires a less individualist approach.

          Of course, there is no point in teaching marksmanship to all school children.

  5. Rob says:

    Janitors tends to be one of the first positions outsourced (about even with cafeteria workers). There is no way this can go wrong.

    • Davis X. Machina says:

      Bus drivers are even more likely to be privatized than either lunch people or custodians.

      The schools they’re protecting live only in their heads, and look — suprise — just like the schools they went to, forty, fifty, sixty years ago.

      Yeah, I’m dying for ARAmark. At $9.50 an hour, no benefits, part-time.

      It’s not easy to make 11-Bravo look like a great career move, but this helps.

      • Alan in SF says:

        Arm the bus drivers!

        • Alan in SF says:

          Anyone ever see the misbegotten attempt to make the young Roy Orbison an Elvis-type film franchise — “Fastest Guitar in the West”? Awesome spectacle, but point is he had a guitar-shotgun (quite unwieldy, yet surprisingly effective) — basically he sighted down the neck and shot out of the head. I’m thinking school band here…trombones, saxophones especially. We need to not just out-gun but out-think the bad guys, no?

          • efgoldman says:

            I’m thinking school band here…trombones, saxophones especially. We need to not just out-gun but out-think the bad guys, no?

            Great idea! As a band geek first class with oakleaf clusters, I love any idea that gets all the school systems which cut back music for budget reasons, to put them back.
            Flutes work well, too. And you can use the sousaphones for mortar shells.

          • ironic irony says:

            Trombones = perfect RPGs.

  6. c u n d gulag says:

    Janitor’s as Home Room Security!

    If Newt had his way, on the question of whether to arm the students or janitors, we’d still be arming the same people – children!

    OY!

    Yeah, janitors. What a great idea!
    “Jackson, drop the mop! Didn’t someone tell you? There’s a shoot-out in Math! One of the students said Al-Gebra was the first step to Sharia Law, and starting shooting!!!”

  7. Joe says:

    When you are attacking Antonin Scalia from the right, that’s pretty crazy.

    Not really. On certain issues, Scalia is as someone named Scott on this blog says from time to time, Scalia is actually principled or unprincipled in a less conservative results sort of way.

    So, he wrote an opinion striking down a violent video game law, wrote the most libertarian opinion in Hamdi, wrote opinions supporting face-to-face confrontation even when the accuser is a child and in Heller listed a range of acceptable gun regulations.

    Which some on the right didn’t like.

    • Procopius says:

      Yeah, old Nino really used to write him some good opinions. I think he’s gone downhill since Bush vs. Gore. Maybe he feels like he’ll never equal that power trip again. Anyway, it seems like he’s gotten more right-wing and less interesting.

  8. Joe says:

    Miss NY? Well, you know, that just makes her a lost cause.

    Those earrings are a tad big.

  9. James Robertson says:

    It’s always fascinating to see how the left really feels about the lower classes. Why don’t you just openly call for the creation of a noble class and be done with it?

    • Jameson Quinn says:

      You’re right. There should be a class of Nobles, with free guns and droit de seigneur(a), consisting of LGM commenters, school principles, and people smart enough not to go to law school. Since they have guns, they will be waited on hand and foot by oppressed janitors and trolls. That’s really what he meant and what we were all thinking. Luckily, James Robertson stands against this dystopia.

      Vote James Robertson! A pancake in every pot!

    • de stijl says:

      It’s always fascinating to see how the left really feels about the lower classes.

      It’s always about projection.

    • Major Kong says:

      Careful how high you pile that straw – it’s likely to be a fire hazard.

    • Dana Houle says:

      I thought the insult to the left was we’re a bunch of commies. It’s so confusing to keep rightwing insults straight…

      • Hugo Torbet says:

        The mistake many self-identifying “liberals” make is that what they appear to want, people respectful of one another and good and safe schools, is different from what self-identifying “conservatives” want. This allows them the delusion both that they are superior and that they may presume to speak for the majority.

        Once liberals fall into this mental trap, they then become quite demanding and preachy — indeed, fascist. They want everything their way and they want it right now, and they should get what they want because they are so much smarter. This causes them to lose focus and ultimately weakens them politically. It also causes the resentment of people who don’t share all of their views, people who could help them achieve their goals.

        Go to a liberal rally on anything, such as women shaving their arm pits being symbolic of subjugation. Before they get to the speeches on the main point, you are going to hear about some guy on death row, history books in Texas schools, spotted owls, religious freedom in Zimbabwe, and a dozen other topics we all expected to agree with.

        I have many disputes with Obama. But there is one thing he has right: The so-called liberals need to focus on what they can win now, and hope to move the social needle slowly, i.e., assuming they actually wish to improve things and believe in their principles.

        If, on the other hand, their true goal is to emote and feel good about how great they all are, there really isn’t any need to focus on political reality. They can simply enjoy the gratification they get from griping about how stupid people are to vote Republican — never realizing that their fascism contributes to this.

        • Alan in SF says:

          I suspect it might be more a case of liberals relying on empirical evidence to see if their policies are in fact accomplishing those aims or not, and conservatives defying empirical evidence to insist that their policies are working. Liberals have also been very compliant when they don’t get their way — single-payer health care or gun control, for a couple of examples — while conservatives insist upon absolute hundred percent orthodoxy. No gun control ever, of any kind; how many dozen attempts to repeal Obamacare? It’s a thoughtful projection you make, but still a projection.

          • Hugo Torbet says:

            Burt Reynolds made a movie about a guy who makes a deal with the feds to go undercover to catch moonshiners in exchange for early release from prison. There is one scene in which the Sheriff is taking to one of his cronies, and he makes the point that they have their own way of doing things and they didn’t need any interference from D.C.

            This is an important message.

            Liberals have the choice to deny the political reality that large portions of America resent efforts of D.C. to micro-manage their communities and lives. However, that will not change the reality of that resentment.

            If you give a guy a choice between a politician who talks about regulations and taxes and a politician who has a few catchy slogans using the word “freedom”, which way do you think he’s going to vote?

            • Malaclypse says:

              When you find important messages in Burt Reynolds movies, it is perhaps time to evaluate the course one’s life has taken.

              • de stijl says:

                The wet suit vest as an aesthetic statement does not care whether you agree or not. The wet suit vest is the sine qua non of “less is more” – any more would be too much.

                Well, perhaps a dive knife strapped to one’s bicep, but no more than that.

            • sbgypsy says:

              they have their own way of doing things and they didn’t need any interference from D.C.

              The thing that Congressional wingnuts Really want to control is both gun rights and reproductive rights in the city of DC. Contrary to the will of the people, congress has struck down anti gun and pro reproductive rights laws that the city passed and implemented.

        • Hogan says:

          Go to a liberal rally on anything, such as women shaving their arm pits being symbolic of subjugation.

          You, sir, are a concern troll’s concern troll.

        • Dana Houle says:

          Funny you mention it; it’s been weeks since I was at a rally where women were shaving their armpits. Obviously you’ve got a better handle on what happens with liberals than liberals have with conservatives, cuz, you know, our collective opinion forming is done in the open at giant pub-shaving rallies, but conservatives hide their opinion-forming from us on Fox News, so we never have the possibility of seeing what prevails in the conservative mindset of the moment.

        • Murc says:

          They want everything their way and they want it right now, and they should get what they want because they are so much smarter.

          … that’s how politics work.

          You have a big fight and the guys who win get what they want. These days the fights take the form of elections rather than an actual fight.

          And yes, I do think I’m smarter than those who have political positions opposite mine, because if I thought they were smarter than me, I would adopt their position. Again, this is how politics work.

          Also; you do not know what the word fascism means should stop using it.

    • RepubAnon says:

      We already have a class of hereditary nobles – they’re called the 1%, aka the C-Level Executive / Wall Street Master of the Universe class.

      You know, the ones that Left keeps protesting against, and the Right calls “Job Creators.”

      There’s even a different justice system for the 1% – where most of the laws don’t apply, and the punishments are cost-of-business-level fines. Think HSBC and the lack of prosecution for laundering drug money, versus what happens to poor people that have their cars and money seized because a dog “alerted” to the presence of drugs, or get strip-searched at the side of the road because some police officer’s “gut instinct” suspected they were hiding drugs.

  10. I want bat-poop crazy gun nuts to have their children around more and more and more guns.

  11. Sly says:

    Awww, no fair. I thought we teachers we’re going to be the incompetent union thugs that were going to armed by the state. And a two day training course in safety paid for by the district! Will the generosity ever stop?

  12. James Robertson says:

    So then why are armed cleaning staff such a problem for you? It’s not a strawman I’m making here, or projection. The clear point of your post is that the janitors are not to be trusted because they are janitors. Most likely because you believed everything you every saw in a B grade horror movie set in a school.

    • Major Kong says:

      If that’s the case then any reasonably resourceful janitor should be able to fashion an improvised flamethrower using common cleaning supplies.

      No need for the handgun.

      • Davis X. Machina says:

        MacGyver as an in-service activity? What’s not to like?

        • RepubAnon says:

          How about the old “A-Team” TV series? They were always able to rig up some improvised weapons system as their plan came together, and none of the bullets ever hit anyone…

          Hey, it worked on TV, so it must also work in real life – just like the NRA’s “Dirty Harry” fantasy solutions.

    • Wyrm1 says:

      It isn’t that janitors are not to be trusted with guns in a school, it’s that there shouldn’t be guns in school.

      Do you have any idea how many things are misplaced, lost, stolen in the average school on an average day? I’d guess that at least twice a week there is an announcement that keys, purses, etc.. were lost or found and could the owner please claim them.

      While I do believe that teachers/janitors/anyone else in a school would be more careful with guns, all it takes is ONE mistake or one careless moment for a child to be killed.

      I know as a teacher I make mistakes, but most of them are harmless in the long run. Arming thousands of school janitors (or teachers or whoever) multiplies manyfold the possibility of a student being hurt or killed.

      • RepubAnon says:

        Precisely. Guns and children don’t mix well. Chuck Yeager’s autobiography mentions that his brother died from an accidental shooting.

        This fantasy that random shooting can be prevented by some marginally-trained person with a weapon sounds more like a much-deplored violent Hollywood movie script than real life. In real life, most of the people armed in these silly schemes would be careful with their weapons. However, there’ll be some carelessness – and some few of the persons will use their weapons inappropriately. Well-trained police officers are sometimes careles with their weapons, and/or shoot people inappropriately – imagine the problems resulting from armed personnel with even less training than police receive.

        • ironic irony says:

          Exactly!

          Police get shot all the time, despite all their training, yet some Joe Schmoe who only shoots on the weekends thinks he can take out a determined killer? Sorry, I just don’t see it.

      • sparks says:

        I think Mr. Robertson considers a disarmed populace a de-penised populace. So, MOAR AND BIGGER PENISES FOR EVERYONE!!

    • Sam240 says:

      The deadliest school massacre in American history was conducted by the person who did the electrical work for the school in question. That’s how Andrew Kehoe had access to the Bath School in order to carry out his murderous plan.

      I can imagine advertisements now. . .

      “Hey, you! Yes, you, the person who wants to kill a lot of people in your local school in order to send a message to the community. With just a high school diploma or a GED, you can get hired as a janitor, and your employer will give you your very own weapon. There’s no need to spend years in college getting a teaching certificate — you’ll get your gun in just a matter of days.

      “And don’t forget your bonus weapons. You can pick off your co-workers one by one and gain an entire arsenal. They’ll never suspect what you’re planning until they feel that bullet going through their head.

      “So, sociopaths, what are you waiting for? Go down to your local school and become a janitor today.”

      Nothing can go wrong.

    • Sharculese says:

      The clear point of your post is that the janitors are not to be trusted because they are janitors.

      Really, because the point I got was that the idea that the best response to gun violence in schools is to arm what is essentially a randomly chosen subset of the school’s employees is stupid and dangerous, no matter what subset you choose.

      Do you need any other obvious things explained to you?

    • DocAmazing says:

      Actually, Mr. Robertson, it’s pretty simple. Before med school, I once was a janitor. It was a busy job. I was always doing something. I didn’t have time to fuck around with firearms and response to crisis situations; I was disinfecting surgeons’ offices.

      It’s abundantly clear, Mr. Robertson, that you have never been a janitor. Moreover, it strikes me that you have time on your hands at work, since you seem eager to dream up new tasks for busy people. How ’bout you go do a little patrolling and keep yourself occupied?

    • Murc says:

      So then why are armed cleaning staff such a problem for you?

      Because they’re cleaning staff. They’re trained to clean and maintain the building.

      They are not trained in firearms safety, crisis response, how to deal with potential hostage situations, and the million other things they’d need to be trained in, and trained well, to be responsible enough to be armed, and to be expected to use those arms, the entire time they’re going about their janitorial duties.

      The clear point of your post is that the janitors are not to be trusted because they are janitors.

      Yes.

      And teachers are not to be trusted to be armed all the time in school because they are teachers, not soldiers or policemen. The administrative is not to be trusted to be armed all the time in school for the same reason.

      • Dagney says:

        Would you object to a janitor or a teacher to be able to conceal-carry weapon in school if she has trained and holds a permit?

        • Murc says:

          Not with the extremely minimal amount of training required to hold a concealed carry permit, no.

          If someone is going to be armed around children and responsible not only for wielding that weapon in the defense of their lives in the case of a sudden, violent onslaught, but for keeping that weapons secure on a 24/7 basis, I expect them to be not just trained, but EXTENSIVELY trained. In fact, I’d want them to be better trained than your average cop or soldier; they’d need to the equivalent of a specialist unit that’s specifically tasked with dealing with situations of the type they’re ostensibly being armed to counter.

          • grouchomarxist says:

            Exactly. At a bare minimum, you’d think that if we were serious about that training it would consist of running our prospective heroes through constantly varied simulations which came as close as possible to the real thing. Frequently.

            Assuming that you can get that kind of dedication from the same employees you’re constantly kicking in the teeth, anybody want to estimate what it would cost to maintain such a facility?

            • Cody says:

              I’m sure Republicans can find the money.

              They can find millions to fund firearms in schools. But paying you for that extra hour of work? No, no. We simply can’t afford that! The deficits! THE DEFICITS!!

  13. de stijl says:

    It’s not a strawman I’m making here, or projection.

    Um, you were the one who called janitors “the lower classes.”

    PS – There is a reply button on comments.

  14. Matt McKeon says:

    The NRA strategy should be clear. Every school massacre from now on will be the fault of the school district for not preparing adequately. And whatever preparations the school district makes, should a school shooting occur anyway, will be found wanting, or somehow not executed correctly. A mass shooting in any other setting will be explained away as the church, or school bus, or movie theatre or restaurant wasn’t sufficiently armed and fortified.

    LaPierre is not a man to go weak in the knees over a body of dead 7 years olds. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Sandy Hook like atrocity hadn’t been planned for, a “worst case scenario.” The worse case not being murdered children, but the threat to guns.

    Correction: This can be shortened to: “LaPierre is not a man.” What the fuck is he exactly, I couldn’t say.

    • Sam240 says:

      “A mass shooting in any other setting will be explained away as the church, or school bus, or movie theatre or restaurant wasn’t sufficiently armed and fortified.”

      Corollary: Given what happened at Fort Hood, no matter how armed and fortified a place is, it will never be sufficiently armed and fortified. Therefore an increase in the number of guns around is always necessary.

  15. SatanicPanic says:

    Wow, a job that requires you to clean toilets AND be a human shield, all under $10 an hour. Where do I sign up for this great gig?

  16. Dagney says:

    The police can’t be everywhere all the time, and paper-laws and ‘gun free zone’ signs don’t stop no bullets.

    A ‘gun free zone’ is a zone where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and where wolves are armed, since they don’t care about no law. Rather than deterring aggression, the sign of a ‘gun free zone’ encourages it : the wannabe murderers know they’ll be no resistance until the police comes by.

    • Matt McKeon says:

      Thank you for illustrating my point.

      • Dagney says:

        Sir, I was not making the case that schools should be preparing adequatly, that’s it’s a school’s (or an hospital’s or a factory’s) responsability to prevent mass-murder by way of guns.

        I was arguing against ‘gun free zone’, and for the individual right of a law-abiding citizen to conceal-carry a weapon.

        • Dagney says:

          My point, in other words, is: yes. teachers and other staff (who went through proper background checks) should be allowed to train and CCW if they so wish.

          Being de facto the first respondant, they’d be able to defend the children and the other armless sheeps without having to use their own bodies as shields.

          Police can’t be there in time. Within seconds, the killer can kill many.

          • DrDick says:

            Within seconds, the killer can kill many.

            In which you completely invalidate your own point. People do not react instantaneously to unanticipated events (and nobody except you chronic bedwetters anticipates these kinds of things happening to them). Indeed, the more horrific the event the slower and more disorganized the response is. Not even the military and police, who spend massive amounts of time and money intensively training their personnel to respond properly, always react in the right way.

            • Dagney says:

              It does not invalidate the point. The point is to allow law-abiding people who passed adequate background checks to CCW if they so wish ; and that would make them FIRST RESPONDANTS on the spot, able to shoot back at the killer before the police comes by.

              In many cases, the sole fact that a lawful citizen unconcealed his gun resulted in the killer killing himself or giving up.

              • DrDick says:

                It does in fact invalidate it, but I understand your general inability to comprehend logic and reality. On the other hand, I would like some citation (other than your copious and toxic ass) for your last statement, because I have never been able o find any such statistics and I am a pretty good researcher.

                • Dagney says:

                  Let me come back to you on this. It’s a very important predicate for my argument, and I have indeed to provide adequate statistical evidence.

              • ironic irony says:

                What makes you think that they will actually shoot back? What makes you think they won’t freeze up?

                • Procopius says:

                  Good point. Many years ago I read the books of a great combat analyst, S.L.A. Marshall. In the first of his books I read he pointed out that the biggest problem in combat in the first and second World Wars was that by far most soldiers did not fire their weapons. Don’t know if the same was true in the Civil War because he did not nave any data on that. One of the important jobs of lieutenants and sergeants became to keep track of their soldiers and make sure they were actually shooting. Didn’t matter much if they were aiming or not, if only they would point their weapon in the general direction and pull the trigger. I have not been able to find his books at Amazon, so I expect he will be forgotten. I did not experience combat myself, although I served in Vietnam, and I haven’t heard any anecdotal evidence from Iraq or Afghanistan, but I think I can visualize the experience and understand why so many troops don’t shoot. This is just another reason why it seems to me this idea is so foolish.

      • Sharculese says:

        The first rule of pretend tough guy club is always talk about pretend tough guy club.

        The second rule of pretend tough guy club is panic. Constant panic at imagined existential threats to your existence.

    • Sharculese says:

      and paper-laws and ‘gun free zone’ signs don’t stop no bullets.

      Whereas puerile vigilante fantasies have an absolutely stellar record…

    • Major Kong says:

      Note to wannabe murderers – shoot janitor first.

      • Dagney says:

        They won’t — not if there’s a possibility they could shoot back; they’re always going for the sheeps, not the sheepdogs.

        • Spacebarsuperstar says:

          Why wouldn’t they go after the people who can stop them first? That makes zero sense.

          • DrDick says:

            So does everything else he says.

          • Dagney says:

            For the same reason they don’t go shoot in police stations, but rather in ‘gun free zones’.

          • Dagney says:

            Remember the last mall shooting in Oregon. As soon as the thug saw a man with a concealed weapon, he killed himself instead of continuing his rampage.

            Many, many times these shooters also kill themselves as soon as they hear the police sirens, or they just give up.

            • DrDick says:

              Citation?

            • Arouet says:

              Excellent! We just install police sirens in every school! All the effectiveness of a fumbling english lit teacher with a .22 and none of the disastrous consequences when he accidentally shoots off his toe.

              Actually, my point was in jest, but that kind of sounds like a decent idea…

    • DocAmazing says:

      Y’know, the cute double-negative jes’-plain-folks bit doesn’t really work after the King Of Philosophy Jargon routine last night.

      • Dagney says:

        The Guns is a descendant of the Silex, which is basically a big articifial tooth !!

          • Jameson Quinn says:

            …aaand we have proof that Dagney is an intentional troll. Can we get a little “troll” disclaimer on all its comments now please? No sense banning, it’ll just come back in another sock, but a troll avatar or something would be great.

            • Dagney says:

              More than one anthropologists wrote about it: the genealogical line of the gun goes back to the silex, to that silex in the shape of a big sharp tooth that our primitive ancestors were throwing to hunt and kill.

              • DocAmazing says:

                After being proctored on the use of the silex.

              • DrDick says:

                I must say that you have the advantage on me. Despite having a Ph.D. in anthropology and having taught the subject for 25 years, I am unaware of any anthropologists who have written on the history of firearms. I have even read quite a bit on the anthropology of war. Sounds much more like something a historian would do. Of course, you may be referencing some of the thoroughly discredited work of the 19th century unilineal evolutionists like Spencer or Frazer.

                • DocAmazing says:

                  Marshall McLuhan commented on the gun being an extension of the eyes & teeth, while the bow was an extension of the hand, or something like that. Does that count?

                • Michael H Schneider says:

                  … any anthropologists who have written on the history of firearms.

                  Not history: Dagney wrote of “the genealogical line of the gun”

                  At first, anthropologists assumed that guns constituted geneology and descent using the English system of consanguinity and affinity, with no recognition of the meaning of cross cousin marriage (see, e.g., E.E. Evans-Pritchard). Then more careful ethnographers tried to show that guns used the Crow system and reckoned descent matrilineally. However, the best and most recent work shows that guns follow something more like the Yapese system, where it is work on the land that gives one what westerners would call kinship affiliation, and without work on the land there’s no geneological connection.

                  On the other hand, some US gun owners follow the American practice of recognizing kinship, and thus geneology, based on affinity: I sleep with my gun, therefor she’s a member of my family.

                • DrDick says:

                  DocAmazing -

                  No. He is not an anthropologist, any more than a homeopath is a physician.

    • de stijl says:

      Paper laws?

      You’re equating SHES to someone going 32 in a 30 mph school zone?

      • Dagney says:

        My point is that basically, only a gun can stop a gun.

        Otherwise, you have as your sole option to cover the innocents with your own body.

        No law can stop bullets.

        So why would anyone NOT demand that every employee of a school (already they must have passed a background check to be employed at the school because they are in close contact with kids) could acquire — if they so wish — the training and ability to conceal-carry a GUN — which is the sole device capable of stopping a shooter?

        Those who insist that guns be available only to murderous, evil people, and not to those who respect life and the children are accomplice to mass-murders. Yes. They. Are.

        They are not only guilty of logical fallacy, they are part of the bloody, very bloody problem.

        A shooter does not care about the Law; he does not care if it’s legal or illegal to acquire a gun. So the ONLY deterrent — short of divine intervention — that such a shooter understands is the threat of FLYING BULLETS.

        • de stijl says:

          No law can stop bullets.

          Laws cannot stop howitzers either. Yet private ownership of howitzers is tightly regulated; I wonder why that is.

          Those who insist that guns be available only to murderous, evil people, and not to those who respect life and the children are accomplice to mass-murders. Yes. They. Are.

          Your demento rating would go way, way up with the proper deployment of bolding. I would have gone with “Yes. They. Are.

          See how that pops?

          • Dagney says:

            The main difference between an artillery piece and a gun is that The Gun is a sidearm, like sword; whereas many individuals are required to manage howitzer.

            There are huge anthropological differences between sidearms and artillery pieces; two different genealogical lines. One individual can’t carry a howitzer for instance.

            • de stijl says:

              In the first Mercenaries you could enter a cheat code at the Pause Menu and get a game-breaker weapon called “Pocket Artillery” and the game displayed it as a teeny, weeny pop-gun.

              If you played as Mattias Nilsson (Peter Stormare) you also got awesome banter after using the Pocket Artillery. Why would want to play as anyone but Peter Stormare?

              Also, Street Sweeper and Portable Airstrike. Plus banter.

              One individual can’t carry a howitzer for instance.

              Peter Stormare could carry a medium sized artillery piece, if properly motivated.

            • Major Kong says:

              Actually a “gun” is by definition an artillery piece.

              “This is my rifle, this is my gun…..”

              You obviously never served in the military (as if there was any doubt).

          • DrDick says:

            Have not seen a lot of submachine guns used in crimes since they were regulated in the 1930s, even though they were a favorite of criminals before that. not many rocket launchers, RPGs, or bazookas either.

        • Tom says:

          Too stupid to warrant a reply!

        • Spacebarsuperstar says:

          “No law can stop bullets.”

          Yes they can, but just not every single bullet ever. The problem isn’t preventing murder 100%, it’s doing everything a society can to limit that percentage as much as possible. And, as you can see from statistics of every other fucking country on this planet, restrictions work. The end.

          • DocAmazing says:

            Oh, are you being evidence-based? This is not the right environment for evidence.

          • Dagney says:

            There ARE over 270 million privately-owned firearms in the USA.

            You think you can eradicate ‘em guns?

            You want to replicate the huge failure of the War on Drugs? Wanna make a War on Guns?

            Besides, there is a Constitution ratifyin’ the right to own and bear arms; “shall not be infringed.”

            • DocAmazing says:

              Besides, there is a Constitution ratifyin’ the right to own and bear arms; “shall not be infringed.”

              This is like that old Mad Magazine gag about movie reviews–
              Reviewer: “An incredible waste of time!”
              Movie poser”…Incredible!”

            • Matt T. in New Orleans says:

              No one’s arguing to “eradicate” all guns, you incredible fraud.

              • Dagney says:

                I was just asking him.

                So what does he mean by “doing everything a society can to limit that percentage [of murder] as much as possible. And, as you can see from statistics of every other fucking country on this planet, restrictions work.”?

                It sure sounds like he wants to expropriate (or confiscate) many guns from lawful American gun-owners in order to make the USA analogous to Autralia or Canada.

                • DrDick says:

                  First off, nobody (or at least very few people) is talking about actually banning guns. Even when we talk about banning assault weapons and high capacity clips, we are only talking about reinstating the 1994 act. This did not actually completely ban them, but placed them under severe restrictions similar to those for fully automatic weapons.

                  You are just another loud mouthed jackass who does not know what the fuck he is talking about, but is terrified that “those people” are coming to get and the scary black guy in the White House is going to cut his dick off by taking away his guns.

                • Dagney says:

                  So you want to ban semi-automatic rifles and high-cap mag?

                  That’s what I meant by confiscating guns. There, you’ll know in the future.

                  Semi-automatic rifles in the hands of millions of American citizens is a very important factor between freedom and tyranny.

                  To ban semi-automatic and high-cap mag is to disarm the American people.

                  There were tens of millions of citizens owning legally semi-auto in 2012; many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Now to say in 2013 that those guns and those mag are now illegal would be tantamount to a declaration of war for many of ‘em.

                  Now please refrain from ad hominem attacks, OK? Thanks.

                • DrDick says:

                  It does not seem to have had such draconian consequences in 1994, why would it now? It has also worked quite well in Canada and Australia. Banning a small subset of weapons is hardly equivalent to “disarming the American people” when we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world.

                  As for the ad hominem, this:

                  Semi-automatic rifles in the hands of millions of American citizens is a very important factor between freedom and tyranny.

                  To ban semi-automatic and high-cap mag is to disarm the American people.

                  There were tens of millions of citizens owning legally semi-auto in 2012; many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Now to say in 2013 that those guns and those mag are now illegal would be tantamount to a declaration of war for many of ‘em.

                  would seem to confirm my statement.

              • Hogan says:

                Now please refrain from ad hominem attacks, OK? Thanks.

                This self-loathing degenerate appreciates your call for civility.

                Also, good luck fighting off an air strike with your assault rifle.

                • Dagney says:

                  I said “you sound like a degenerate”, and I meant degenerate literally, since calling for humanity’s extinction is exactly, precisely, degenerative.

                • Hogan says:

                  And I’m pretty sure DrDick was calling you a loud-mouthed jackass in the strictest and most technical sense.

                • DrDick says:

                  Hogan is correct, as this very exchange demonstrates.

                • Hogan says:

                  And apart from the deeply uninteresting question of whether “self-loathing degenerate” is name-calling, you were making an ad hominem argument in the strictest sense: because I have personal qualities that make me unlikely to achieve evolutionary success, my arguments are unworthy of consideration.

            • DrDick says:

              Again, you omit the critical first clause regarding a “well regulated militia.”

              • Dagney says:

                I’m talking about the individual right to conceal-carry here.

                Not about any group right. INDIVIDUAL right.

                • DrDick says:

                  And please state where exactly in the Constitution it explicitly provides such an individual right? there is no such language in the Second Amendment or anywhere else.

                • Dagney says:

                  It belongs to the NATURAL right to self defense.

                • DrDick says:

                  There you go again wandering off into la-la land. For the gazillionth time, there simply are no NATURAL (or natural) rights. there are only those rights conferred by society (through the government in state societies like our own). Capitalization does not make it true.

                • Dagney says:

                  No sir.

                  Go back and read Thomas Hobbes, among many authors on the relation between natural and positive laws: no free individual can surrender her natural right to self-defense, and this means her right to bear and own arms.

                  This right is so strong that it can justifies killing; to kill in self defense ain’t a murder; it exceeds and preceeds any positive law.

                  Of course, there are exceptions — for “felons” and the “mentally ill”, for instance — but those individuals have lost their freedom, they have lost their individual sovereignty: they are subjected to some other power, police power or psychiatric power for instance.

                • DrDick says:

                  No. You go back and read some cultural anthropology. I am a political anthropologist. This is what I do for a living. There. Are. No. Natural. Rights. All rights are cultural constructs and vary from one culture to another. Even the doctrines of Hobbes and other Enlightenment philosophers are major innovations at variance with early European cultural traditions. Your ignorance of both history and social science (as well as empirical reality) is truly monumental.

                • Dagney says:

                  No. You go back and read some cultural anthropology. I am a political anthropologist. This is what I do for a living. There. Are. No. Natural. Rights. All rights are cultural constructs and vary from one culture to another.

                  Yes. There. Are. That’s why we always have a choice between following the laws and not following them.

                  Eichmann would agreee with you: I had no choice but to follow orders.

                  This is a lie. There IS a choice.

                  Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, knew that they had a choice between either revolting against tyranny or surrendering to it.

                  One can differentiate a just law from an unjust law when it conflicts with LIFE, with natural law, such as the immanent right to self-defense.

                  No government can make you do anything you deem ‘unnatural’. There is always an alternative to positive laws, and at a certain critical threshold, the alternative of non-compliance is not only available, it is REQUIRED — required by the necessity of natural law, of immnanent life.

                  The difference between a positive law and a natural law appears via the concept of authority.

                  A positive law is deemed illegitimate when it does not have any authority. It does not have any authority for instance when it does not possess the consent of the governed.

                  You are like the guy arguing, Jeezzzz, the government does have power; yes, it does have power, but it has NO AUTHORITY without the consent of the governed.

                  Hobbes said that this consent was the trade the individuals exchanged with the sovereign power of the State against just positive laws and their protection. Withdraw the consent of the governed, and the AUTHORITY of the State is is gone; only sovereign violence remains.

                  Your right to self-defense is the God-given right to your life; it is the right to protect yourself, and your family, and your property. No one has the authority to take that right away from you except yourself. The sovereign power of the State can try to pass laws banning gun ownership and bearing, but those laws are each illegitimate when they go against that preceeding, exceeding natural law to self-defend your life.

                  Nobody can make you fly like Superman.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Natural law – the last refuge of the (invariably Catholic) bigot.

                • Dagney says:

                  Of course we should probably go beyond that dichotomy between natural and positive laws. Maybe the concept of natural law is flawed. But there is something that exceeds and preceeds positive law. How would you call it? Which concept would you use?

                • Dagney says:

                  Walter Benjamin suggested that a critique of violence would have to unfold “outside positive legal philosophy but also outside natural law.”

                  We can’t separate violence from the law, he said; both law-making and law-conserving are violent.

                  But there is another form of violence, different in kind, and whose expression ain’t to create a law nor to enforce an actual law. He called it revolutionary violence, or divine violence.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  But there is something that exceeds and preceeds positive law.

                  And what a remarkable coincidence it is that this something so completely coincides with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Truly, thou art blessed among the crazies.

                • Dagney says:

                  @Malaclypse

                  That concept of precedence and excedance can also be found in the radical empricism of William James (in his concept of relation, preceding the terms in interaction) and in the technical philosophy of Gilbert Simondon (who inspired Deleuze’s ontology).

                • Malaclypse says:

                  That concept of precedence and excedance (sic) can also be found in the radical empricism (sic) of William James (in his concept of relation, preceding the terms in interaction) and in the technical philosophy of Gilbert Simondon (who inspired Deleuze’s ontology).

                  How very fortunate for you, and your remarkable coincidence. I’m now convinced, your Bronze Age myths are true (in, of course, an Eliadean sense). Axis Mundi indeed.

              • DrDick says:

                Natural law – the last refuge of the (invariably Catholic) bigot.

                Just incidentally developed by the Church to justify colonial conquest and genocide in the Americas. Has antecedents that served to justify the same in the Middle East.

              • ironic irony says:

                You can repeat that “well regulated militia” clause again and again, Dr.Dick, and they will keep ignoring it. They see what they want to see.

        • Colin Day says:

          The PATRIOT Act can stop bullets as it’s more than a thousand pages thick.

    • Murc says:

      The police can’t be everywhere all the time, and paper-laws and ‘gun free zone’ signs don’t stop no bullets.

      The law did a pretty good job of stopping people being killed by tommy guns. That can’t work for other kinds of guns as well?

      Aside from that, if you think schools should have well-trained armed guards who are trained specifically to deal with a gunman, as opposed to someone who gets a concealed carry permit (the training for which is woefully inadequate to let you walk around strapped all the time, in my opinion) I don’t disagree.

      If you think anyone who can fill out a form and pass a background check in a shall-issue jurisdiction should be able to walk around strapped amongst kids all day, I can only conclude that you’re kinda crazy.

      • Dagney says:

        The question would be about what, precisely, constitutes an adequate training in order for a teacher or a janitor to become able to CCW in a school. Right?

        • Murc says:

          I suppose. But at that point wouldn’t it be a lot more efficient to just pay for a trained professional?

          • Dagney says:

            Hmm. There’s an interesting debate here.

            But at that point wouldn’t it be a lot more efficient to just pay for a trained professional?

            This administrative dimension should be also be accompanied by an ethical dimension (why sould we prohibit a young woman-teacher to CCW if she’s willing to train to get her permit?).

            As for your *extensive* requirements, well, I’d have to disagree; there are too extensive.

            Why do many people support willing teachers and staff to be able to carry concealed weapon? Because we can NOT have perfect defenses against hell-bent murderous thugs, and the last line of defense when someone is hell-bent to commit murder is the ability to stop the assault with flying bullets.

            It’s either that line of defense (imperfect as it is) or NOTHING (waiting passively for the cops to arrive); a fighting chance is better than certain death.

            • Murc says:

              This administrative dimension should be also be accompanied by an ethical dimension (why sould we prohibit a young woman-teacher to CCW if she’s willing to train to get her permit?).

              Because of the externalities involved here?

              Basically, you’ve been assuming that there’s literally no downside to putting a lot of weapons in the hands of people who aren’t that well trained (as evidenced by the fact that people who have concealed carry permits have accidents and misplace their weapons all the time, certainly more often than, say, a trained soldier or police offer does) and then surrounding those people with kids.

              But the extensive presence of guns DOES have a downside. Widely available weapons increase the amount of violence done with those weapons and increases the number of fatal accidents involving those weapons. There’s a reason there’s so much more fatal gun violence in the US than any other industrialized nation, and it ain’t because of our culture.

              Basically, it comes down to ‘is the possibility of preventing another Sandy Hook outweighed by the generally higher level of background violence that putting a lot of guns into the hands of poorly trained people entails?’ And I don’t think you’ve made that case.

              • Dagney says:

                you’ve been assuming that there’s literally no downside to putting a lot of weapons in the hands of people who aren’t that well trained (as evidenced by the fact that people who have concealed carry permits have accidents and misplace their weapons all the time, certainly more often than, say, a trained soldier or police offer does) and then surrounding those people with kids.

                I have not been assuming there is no downside. There is, yes, I fully agree.

                And yes, “the extensive presence of guns DOES have a downside,” “widely available weapons increase the amount of violence done with those weapons and increases the number of fatal accidents involving those weapons.” Yes.

                My argument is twofold:

                1) individal right to self-defense
                2) prevention of tyranny (foreign or domestic)

                ==

                1) What do ordinary people do when they are concerned about their individual security? They go buy a gun. And so often, the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a young woman or an old man deters a coming crime without the gun needing to be fired. It prevents being raped or murdered.

                2) It’s a price to pay to buy something precious: the deterrence of tyranny. We have seen how tyrannies killed MILLIONS in the XXth century, — cf. all the hell-bent socialist regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Potts for instance.

                The American (couter)-Revolutionary War was a good fight, it was worth the cost in blood to buy freedom from the unjust laws imposed upon The People by King George. And that good fight could not have been fought against the Redcoats had The People been disarmed.

                ***

                A young woman teacher; she has the natural right to defend herself and her children against a gunman.

                Why are teachers unarmed? She couldn’t defend herself and her children against a hell-bent murderous gunman with no gun herself.

                The laws say that schools are “gun free zones.” But those laws go against her personal responsibility for herself in the event the cops can not make it in due time.

                In Sandy Hook, many were already dead or injured before the call to police came in. Had a few willing teachers and staff had guns (and the proper training to use them), the teachers and staff would have been able to counter-attack the killer from multiple angles and thus ending the hostilities way, way before the hell-bent thug could murder 20 little angels.

                Laws don’t work against someone who’s hell-bent upon murdering. Taking guns and weapons away from law-abiding folks does not prevent mass murderers from committing their acts of violence (tyrans or lone wolves) — it only prevents the unarmed people from defending themselves properly against them wolves.

                • DrDick says:

                  So you deny that in the genealogy of anthropological evolution the form of the tribe came after the form of the HERD ??

                  It’s a strata that precedes the strata of the tribe.

                  You’d be wrong to deny this. The form of the herd was a small group, nomadic. From this perspective, the form of the tribe (that informed itself from the agregation of herds) is very ambitious. And quite remote. As remote as is the form of the kingdom from the comparatively primitive form of the tribe.

                  Tell me where this is wrong, if you please.

                  I hope you don’t think that human groups jumped from the herd to the kingdom!

                  All of this is so unbelievably wrong as to defy any rational response. This is not even up to the level of the nineteenth century speculative fantasies. Humans never lived in “herds”. There are not social “strata” in the since you use. The band precedes the tribe, which precedes the chiefdom, which precedes the state. I am done even trying to educate someone who is this unbelievably ignorant.

                • DrDick says:

                  Mine above is out of place and is response to our deranged moron troll below.

                • Dagney says:

                  The enterprise was the same, to establish dominion over peoples seen as innately inferior.

                  Pffft. I suggest you read Giorgio Agamben’s “Homo Sacer.”

                  Hitlerism was a project based on the concept of population AND the application of the State Reason.

                  The European colonizing America had not such concept at the time, when they brought elements of imperial civilization to the tribes of America.

                  Those are very different projects; different genealogies, different goals.

                • Lurker says:

                  In fact, not even the social systems of our closest primate relatives are “brutal”. While the chimpanzee and gorilla groups sometimes engage in violent intra-group behaviour, it is seldom fatal and usually posturing. Inter-group violence (including young outsider male gorillas challenging the reigning male) does take place.

                  Somewhat similarly, a human band of stone-age hunter-gatherers is very likely to live peacefully amongst themselves, just like most extended families around the globe in all kind of societies. The possibility of inter-group violence is rather high, however, as band-level societies have relatively few rules concerning situations where bands are interacting. (When they get more rules, they become tribes.)

                  Private property, on the other hand, is a completely different kettle of fish. As far as I understand, the concepts of “mine” and “yours” are part of our genetic makeup. However, in primitive societies, personal ownership only makes sense in case of personal effects. For land ownership, ownership systems may be extremely complex, but they are seldom individual-based, as the use of land is not individual.

                  I’d like to take the old medieval Swedish land ownership concept as an example of a very complex but non-individual system of land ownership. Roughly, it would be the following:
                  * Wilderness and its hunting rights are owned by a parish or by the province (in case of very distant wilderness) collectively.
                  * Fishing waters and close-by wilderness are owned by a skifteslag, a group of villages.
                  * Forests close to a village, pasturages, and fields are owned by the village, with the plots randomly distributed to the houses every few years.
                  * Family garden plots are owned by houses, as well as the fields recently cleared by the house (for a number of years)
                  * A remotely situated house may be considered a village of its own.
                  * The house can, in theory, be sold, but relatives have the right of first refusal.

                  As you see, such system gives a very definite title to each plot of land and water, but it is not individual. Thus, it is incorrect to state that the nonexistence of private land ownership would mean that all land is held in common.

              • Dagney says:

                In short: the downsides you see are lesser than the downside of a potential tyranny.

                The cost being paid to that deterrence is the blood of innocent folks. It’s a very expensive cost, but it is still way cheaper than the cost of tyranny and the loss of freedom.

                • Dagney says:

                  Murdered by Lenin and Stalin: about 62 M
                  Murdered by Mao: about 35 M
                  Murdered by Hitler: about 21 M
                  Murdered in the territory now called Turkey: about 2 M
                  Murdered by Potts: about 2 M

                  By a vast measure, more murders were committed by governments against their own people than by standing armies against foreign enemies.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  The cost being paid to that deterrence is the blood of innocent folks.

                  The stupidity born of privilege is the ugliest stupidity there is. And yes, I am in fact calling you stupid. Stupid and a good vocabulary can actually go together. See Bill Kristol.

                  It’s a very expensive cost, but it is still way cheaper than the cost of tyranny and the loss of freedom.

                  Hell, we might end up as oppressed by tyranny as (shudder) Belgians. Libtards never answer that, amirite?

                • John Protevi says:

                  Y’all know this guy has no skin in the game, don’t you? https://twitter.com/Kateshon

                  My theory is that he’s a Canadian nationalist hoping the Yanks will waste each other and he can swoop down, drowning the survivors in maple syrup.

                • Dagney says:

                  Wrong, I have skin in the game. The fact that I’m nomadizing between Bangkok, Montreal, Gokarna and Las Vegas is irrelevant. This is not about me, but about Reason.

                • Dagney says:

                  “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

                  – Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426).

                • Dagney says:

                  @Malaclypse

                  What do you make of the fact that German gun registration laws were enacted during the Weimar Republic, years before Hitler took power. Gun registration was mandated in the name of “public safety.”

                  Then Hitler used the gun registration lists to disarm the Jews and others (Gypsies, Slaves, etc), and then to force ‘em into getthos or camps.

                  The Nazi genocide was enabled by gun control and registration lists.

                  When millions of Jews and Gypsies were rounded up, the Nazis only needed very few policemen to their victim: a ration of about 1:10. A mere 100 Nazis would round up a thousand people over the course of a single day. How come? Because those folks had been disarmed. The Nazi would force ‘em folks to sit together on plazas or fields under the watch of small handful of armed guards.
                  A ratio as small as 1:10 means that the Nazis were not worried about resistance. The victims had all been previously disarmed.

                  What do you make of that? Is it ‘stupid’ to argue that the armement of folks could prevent, deter, a potential tyranny (foreign or domestic), gangsters abusing the power of the Executive branch for instance.

                  It took years from the restrictive measures of the Weimar Republic became a tool of mass-murders by the Third Reich.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

                  Yes, yes, the only thing separating us from Nazis is an overwhelming dependence on individual firepower. And that is why Somalia is a veritable City Upon A Hill. That, and a comforting reliance on wingnut talking points.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Is it ‘stupid’ to argue that the armement (sic) of folks could prevent, deter, a potential tyranny

                  Yes.

                • DocAmazing says:

                  What do you make of the fact that German gun registration laws were enacted during the Weimar Republic, years before Hitler took power. Gun registration was mandated in the name of “public safety.”

                  This has been covered a lot lately. It was the Treaty of Versailles that disarmed the Germans; the Weimar government relaxed its provisions quite abit, and the Nazis relaxed it still further, but added racial classifications so that certain racial groups were prohibited from owning firearms. (The “Good Germans” could own more firearms under Hitler than before him! makes a mess of that whole “we would have opposed the Nazis, but…” jazz that was so popular in the ’50s.)

                • Tom Cruise says:

                  I only wish you would bring those awesome research copy-paste skills to bear on the question of why it’s ILLEGAL for the Senate not to pass a budget resolution. Or has that gone down the memory hole?

                • Hogan says:

                  That was totally Tom Cruise. SERIOUSLY.

                • MAJeff says:

                  Just don’t let him near the furniture.

                • Uncle Kvetch says:

                  And that is why Somalia is a veritable City Upon A Hill.

                  And the UK is exactly like Nazi Germany.

                • Dagney says:

                  @DocAmazing

                  It was the Treaty of Versailles that disarmed the Germans; the Weimar government relaxed its provisions quite abit, and the Nazis relaxed it still further, but added racial classifications so that certain racial groups were prohibited from owning firearms.

                  Thanks for that. It makes sense.

                  @ Hogan

                  I did not say that it was illegal for the Senate to refrain from passing a budget in the last 3 years; I’ve said it could be argued (I’ll try another day) that a consequence of this refusal of the Senate to do fulfill its main duty is that the government has been spending money illegally for those last 3 years.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  And the UK is exactly like Nazi Germany.

                  Road to Serfdom, indeed.

                • DrDick says:

                  By a vast measure, more murders were committed by governments against their own people than by standing armies against foreign enemies.

                  Tell that to the several millions of Native Americans and Africans slaughtered and enslaved in the name of your blessed “Natural Law” and the Holy Mother(fucking) Church.

                • Dagney says:

                  You’re conflating Christ with Caesar.
                  If you are referring to the glorious Crusades organized by popes, it was primarily to liberate parts of Europe and Jerusalem from islamic conquests.
                  *
                  And no Christian ain’t genociding nobody in the Middle East now; Christians are being persecuted now from Egypt to Syria.
                  *
                  Re: the Native Americans. Well, Christians brought elements of civilization in America. They brought the concepts of individual rights (they had only group “rights”) and other important elements of civilization.

                  Native Americans did not protect any property right nor individual right. They lived as collective units; their members had no indivual rights and private-property rights.

                  We brought it to them.

                • DrDick says:

                  Native Americans did not protect any property right nor individual right. They lived as collective units; their members had no indivual rights and private-property rights.

                  We brought it to them.

                  Thank you for proving Mal’s and my point that you are simply another racist fuckwit. Also, my son’s ancestors would like to say, “Fuck you, yoneg asshole.” What the (un)Holy Church and whites “gave” them was death and destruction and the theft of their lands and resources. You further reveal your total ignorance of history, social science, and empirical reality.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Well, Christians brought elements of civilization in America. They brought the concepts of individual rights

                  The Trail of Tears would like you to die and fuck off.

                • DrDick says:

                  The Trail of Tears would like you to die and fuck off.

                  My son’s ancestors traveled that trail and gave it that name, Nu na da ul tsun yi.

                • Dagney says:

                  A collectivist, tribal form of life ain’t correlated to race. (Wow, I’m surprised you did not know that.)

                  Prior to the genesis of subsequent more ambitious forms of life (such as kingdoms, empires, nation-states for instance), humans lived within collectivist tribal formations. Everywhere, except where the archaic form of the herd was still alive.

                  Indeed, prior to the tribal formation, we were all living in small herds, in very totalitarian groups, aimed primarily and exclusively at the reproduction of the group by the group, animated solely by survival.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Prior to the genesis of subsequent more ambitious forms of life (such as kingdoms, empires, nation-states for instance), humans lived within collectivist tribal formations. Everywhere, except where the archaic form of the herd was still alive.

                  Which has jack shit to do with the historically obscene (and laughably inaccurate!) idea that European Christians brought individual rights to the non-Christian world.

                • DrDick says:

                  A collectivist, tribal form of life ain’t correlated to race. (Wow, I’m surprised you did not know that.)

                  Prior to the genesis of subsequent more ambitious forms of life (such as kingdoms, empires, nation-states for instance), humans lived within collectivist tribal formations. Everywhere, except where the archaic form of the herd was still alive.

                  Indeed, prior to the tribal formation, we were all living in small herds, in very totalitarian groups, aimed primarily and exclusively at the reproduction of the group by the group, animated solely by survival.

                  You have outdone yourself sir. This is by far the most egregious pile of execrable vomitus yet. Not a single word of of truth or reality in the lot. All totally, completely wrong. It is by far the most insane counterfactual statement you have offered to date, which is no mean feat. Also, as Mal says, has absolutely nothing to do with your outlandish claims about the beneficence of the genocidal Europeans.

                • Dagney says:

                  @ Malaclypse

                  The Native Americans were living in tribal forms of life. They had no concept of private property nor individual right.

                  They had not conceived those rights nor were they using them. We did, and we were !!

                • Erik Loomis says:

                  We? You were alive then?

                • Dagney says:

                  @DrDick

                  So you deny that in the genealogy of anthropological evolution the form of the tribe came after the form of the HERD ??

                  It’s a strata that precedes the strata of the tribe.

                  You’d be wrong to deny this. The form of the herd was a small group, nomadic. From this perspective, the form of the tribe (that informed itself from the agregation of herds) is very ambitious. And quite remote. As remote as is the form of the kingdom from the comparatively primitive form of the tribe.

                  Tell me where this is wrong, if you please.

                  I hope you don’t think that human groups jumped from the herd to the kingdom!

                • DrDick says:

                  The Native Americans were living in tribal forms of life. They had no concept of private property nor individual right.

                  They had not conceived those rights nor were they using them. We did, and we were !!

                  They did have concepts of communal ownership and property. Indeed, they spoke quite eloquently of their aboriginal title to and ties with the land. Your ignorance and bigotry are frankly appalling. You are no different from the Nazis and their excuses for slaughtering Jews, Gypsies, and others they considered lesser beings. This is full on racism and would be right at home at Stormfront. Fuck and damn you, all your ancestors, any possible descendants, and every relative living and dead unto the seventh generation.

                • DrDick says:

                  So you deny that in the genealogy of anthropological evolution the form of the tribe came after the form of the HERD ??

                  It’s a strata that precedes the strata of the tribe.

                  You’d be wrong to deny this. The form of the herd was a small group, nomadic. From this perspective, the form of the tribe (that informed itself from the agregation of herds) is very ambitious. And quite remote. As remote as is the form of the kingdom from the comparatively primitive form of the tribe.

                  Tell me where this is wrong, if you please.

                  I hope you don’t think that human groups jumped from the herd to the kingdom!

                  All of this is so unbelievably wrong as to defy any rational response. This is not even up to the level of the nineteenth century speculative fantasies. Humans never lived in “herds”. There are not social “strata” in the since you use. The band precedes the tribe, which precedes the chiefdom, which precedes the state. I am done even trying to educate someone who is this unbelievably ignorant.

                • Dagney says:

                  @ Eric Loomis

                  I was speaking from the perspective of the Europeans colonizing America, bringing ‘em Natives elements of meta-tribal forms of life. Rhetorical fast track.

                • Erik Loomis says:

                  You should probably avoid such things. Whether the rhetorical fast-track or speaking is something we’ll let the community decide.

                • Dagney says:

                  DrDick

                  What you call the “band,” I called the “herd.” Different words, SAME concept.

                • Dagney says:

                  They did have concepts of communal ownership and property.

                  Yes, but not individual right, nor individual private property.

                  The representants of European meta-tribal forms of life bring it to them, who still lived the tribal way of life.

                  This is full on racism and would be right at home at Stormfront.

                  This has nothing to do with race, again, since so many ethnicities were at some point living tribally.

                  Fuck and damn you, all your ancestors, any possible descendants, and every relative living and dead unto the seventh generation.

                  Wow. Very gracious. I wish you salvation, not damnation.

                • Hogan says:

                  bringing ‘em Natives elements of meta-tribal forms of life.

                  And then killin ‘em fuckin dead. They’re lucky we found ‘em, eh?

                • DrDick says:

                  What you call the “band,” I called the “herd.” Different words, SAME concept.

                  No. It is not even remotely the same concept and,as I have pointed before, I am an expert on this and you are full of shit. You know absolutely NOTHING about what you are talking about. You would flunk any freshman anthropology class.

                  As to your subsequent comment, it is also pure unadulterated horseshit and also overtly racist, regardless of what you want to call it. Privileging European cultures over non-western cultures is inherently racist.

                • Dagney says:

                  @Hogan

                  There is such thing as a just war. The Natives were vainquished, and had to integrate into the new, trans-continental form of life — from sea to shining sea. Of course there was resistance, and it was ruled by way of violence. There are many kinds of violence, some just, some unjust.

                  And DrDick is a fool to conflate that conflict, that clash, with the very different biopolitical project of Nazism. Completely different. The Europeans colons did not aim to produce a master race. Native Americans were offered the same individual rights as any other colonizer.

                • Erik Loomis says:

                  You are what I believe is known as a racist.

                • Dagney says:

                  What you call the “band,” I called the “herd.” Different words, SAME concept.

                  No. It is not even remotely the same concept and,as I have pointed before, I am an expert on this and you are full of shit. You know absolutely NOTHING about what you are talking about. You would flunk any freshman anthropology class.

                  Yeah, and you’re unable or unwilling to differentiate it from mine. You are very good at insulting however.

                  As to your subsequent comment, it is also pure unadulterated horseshit and also overtly racist, regardless of what you want to call it. Privileging European cultures over non-western cultures is inherently racist.

                  The dynamic here is not between “European cultures” versus American native cultures, it is between a very ambitious form of life — that of an EMPIRE, a kingdom of kingdoms if you will — versus a comparatively incredibly primitive and archaic tribe. It has nothing to do with race; you conflate things shamelessly: it’s between differentiated forms of life.

                  I’m done with you.

                • DrDick says:

                  DrDick is a fool to conflate that conflict, that clash, with the very different biopolitical project of Nazism. Completely different. The Europeans colons did not aim to produce a master race. Native Americans were offered the same individual rights as any other colonize

                  Again you reveal a profound – near total – ignorance of history and social science. The enterprise was the same, to establish dominion over peoples seen as innately inferior. You really need to read some actual colonial history (I have). Nor were Native Americans (or Africans or any other colonial subjects) ever offered rights even approaching, let alone equal to, those of the colonizers. Indeed, your “natural law” provided the pretext for stealing all their property, enslaving them, and slaughtering them.

                  You are a racist shit, whether you will admit it or not. The history of European colonization is one of rape, pillage, murder, and barbaric atrocities against those they claimed to “civilize.” They gave nothing, but took everything and continue to do so today. The role of the Catholic Church in enabling this (as well as the barbarities committed by the European savages during the Crusades) destroys any moral authority it may ever have had.

                • Dagney says:

                  @ Eric Loomis

                  It has nothing to do with race. It could have been to opposite (but it was not): Natives evolving into an imperial form, and colonizing smaller, weaker European tribes…

                  I don’t see why not. It could have happened, but it did not (and that’s not my fault). I’m not adovating biological trash to justifies the superiority of a race over another. Never. I’m talking about a clash between different form of human association: an empire versus a tribe.

                  Where is the concept of race kicking in, here? Seriously, where, how? I don’t see it.

                • Dagney says:

                  You are a racist shit, whether you will admit it or not. The history of European colonization is one of rape, pillage, murder, and barbaric atrocities against those they claimed to “civilize.” They gave nothing, but took everything and continue to do so today. The role of the Catholic Church in enabling this (as well as the barbarities committed by the European savages during the Crusades) destroys any moral authority it may ever have had.

                  And I am the racist here? While YOU show incredible contempt for the Church and Europe colonization? Refusing to aknowledge any benefit for the Natives.

                  No, you are the racist here.

                • DrDick says:

                  Yeah, and you’re unable or unwilling to differentiate it from mine. You are very good at insulting however.

                  That is because what you propose is so absurd and incoherent that there is no coherent response. What you are calling the “herd” (I think you mean “horde”) reflects a very antiquated, false (and inherently racist) category developed by 19th century social scientists/philosophers as part of an enterprise to justify European colonial conquests and slavery. Nobody other than racist fuckwits has used that term or the theories it reflects since the early 20th century.

                  The horde is an unorganized collective without leadership or social rules and no human (or even prehuman) society resembles that or has. Bands are coherently organized with formal rules of behavior and relationships. Most Native American societies initially encountered by the Europeans were not organized in this manner and many were complex chiefdoms (like small, weak kingdoms). The Aztecs and other groups in central and southern Mexico that they encountered, along with the Inca in Peru, were empire states. Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztecs, was the largest city any of the conquistadors had ever seen, as it was larger than any city in Europe. All of the Spanish conquerors were in awe of the splendor and wealth of the American empires in Mexico and Peru.

                  You are so wrong about so much that there is simply no point of contact. You need to start by reading any introductory cultural anthropology textbook.

                • DrDick says:

                  Refusing to aknowledge any benefit for the Natives.

                  You mean like the benefits the Nazis brought to the Jews? You are unwilling to acknowledge the historical realities and their consequences, preferring your false and racist narrative of the heroic White Race Triumphant!

                • Dagney says:

                  The horde is an unorganized collective without leadership or social rules and no human (or even prehuman) society resembles that or has. Bands are coherently organized with formal rules of behavior and relationships.

                  The horde was organized but not formally; it was brutal; but there were alpha males, and the virtual center of the horde was the small babies with the mothers, protecting and feeding them; that was the hottest place in terms of affects. It was a radically nomadic group.

                  Most Native American societies initially encountered by the Europeans were not organized in this manner and many were complex chiefdoms (like small, weak kingdoms).

                  Of course there not organized in horde! They were organized in tribal forms, which is way more complex and populous than the very small form of the horde. Of course. I’ve never suggested that Natives were living in hordes!

                  As to the Aztecs and other marginally post-tribal forms of Native lives, there were SACRIFICING HUMANS, and Christianity felt it was a duty to exterminate this ungoldly practice.
                  And they had no concept of private property, which is an attribute of a tribal form of life (as well as of the horde, obviously).

                • DrDick says:

                  As I suspected, you are basing this on 19th century speculative fictions posing as social science. All of that was disproven a century ago and there is nothing is this response that is remotely true. The Aztecs and Incas had a civilization equal to that of the Spanish and were far wealthier.

                  Do try to read some credible social science and history. Any cultural anthropology text will work and Eric Wolf’s Sons of the Shaking Earth is a good, short overview of the Spanish conquest and colonization of Mexico.

                • Dagney says:

                  Thank you, I’ll have a look at this book.

                • DrDick says:

                  I would add, once again, there is not and never has been anything resembling the “horde” you describe. That does not even accurately describe the social organization of any of the other apes. It was a speculative invention of 19th century social theorists with no basis in reality. The terms “meta-tribal” and the like that you throw around are simply meaningless bullshit and not really words at all.

                  Bands are not at all brutal. They are in fact generally peaceful societies based on sharing and cooperation. There are no power hierarchies, no one can boss around anyone else, and war is absent or very rare. They live in regular family groups (indeed the band is based on ties of kinship), with regular marriage and shared parenting. They live a leisured life, working about 10-12 hours a week total (including child care), with generally ample and nutritious food.

                  Now it is time that you ran off with your tail between your legs before you embarrass yourself any further. You have thoroughly proven here (if it needed any more proof) that you have never really read any social science (or much of anything else from the sound of it) and not understood even a small fraction of what you have read. You are quite simply an appalling ignorant, not very bright racist. Also, race and ethnicity is one of my specialties, so this is the proper technical use of the word.

                • Dagney says:

                  The terms “meta-tribal” and the like that you throw around are simply meaningless bullshit and not really words at all.

                  I said ‘post-tribal’, not meta-triba, as in AFTER the form of the tribe.

                  Bands are not at all brutal. They are in fact generally peaceful societies based on sharing and cooperation. There are no power hierarchies, no one can boss around anyone else, and war is absent or very rare. They live in regular family groups (indeed the band is based on ties of kinship), with regular marriage and shared parenting. They live a leisured life, working about 10-12 hours a week total (including child care), with generally ample and nutritious food.

                  Then how do you call the form of life between the monkeys and the band? The hominian form of life when hominians were more than monkey, less than fully human? — with more than claws, but less than hands?
                  – durign that period of transformationb from monkey to human, with a technological evolution and a biological evolution?

                  Because there was a very different form of life prior to the band, that is for sure. They were no individualized families yet; it was a totalitarian form, with very slight differentiation among alpha males and the rest, and mothers and babies (but no differentiation between a mother and ‘her’ babies; all babies were the group’s).

                  How do you call it — if not the horde?

                • Dagney says:

                  Also, race and ethnicity is one of my specialties, so this is the proper technical use of the word.

                  This is not a valid argument.

                • DrDick says:

                  Yet more evidence that you do not know what you are talking about. You clearly do not know what “tribe” or “tribal” mean and just use is as a synonym for “primitive.” “Hominian” is not even a word. What you are flailing around for is “hominid” or “hominine.”

                  The answer to your question is that we do not really know what their social organization looked like. That does not fossilize. We do know that it was not generally violent or brutal, as there not signs of pervasive violence in their skeletons. Such evidence only appears after people settle down and develop more complex political and social organization. No other ape has a social organization of the type you assert, so it is highly unlikely our ancestors did either.

                • DrDick says:

                  This is not a valid argument.

                  It was not a logical argument, but a technical definitional statement. In a situation like this, where one of us is an actual expert on the topic and the other is an ignorant fuckwit who clearly does not understand most of the terms he uses, it is perfectly valid. Admittedly, yours is more implicit than explicit racism, but it clearly crosses the line from simple ethnocentrism (USA! USA!) to overt racism. It is not just my opinion. That is how the theories you subscribe to are describe in the professional literature.

                • John Protevi says:

                  Starting a new thread below. DrDick has shown Dagney knows nothing about current anthropology; I show how Dagney misses an absolutely key point in his slinging around of Foucaultian terms.

                • Hogan says:

                  I said ‘post-tribal’, not meta-triba, as in AFTER the form of the tribe.

                  You did in fact say “meta-tribal.” But if you’re not going to pay attention to your own comments, the rest of us probably shouldn’t bother.

  17. Barry says:

    I don’t demand everyone at a school carry a weapon because I recognize that there is a pretty high likelihood of some of those people not really being the sort who should have a weapon, regardless of background checks.

    The fiction behind ‘good guys with guns’ is the idea who have any idea who the good guys are. Not to mention accidents, pretty much every study ever has shown that you are more likely to get shot when guns are around. Shocking, I know.

  18. melior says:

    The clear point of your post is

    Sure I chuckle darkly at them, but I always wonder after I get to the end of a steaming drizzle of wingnut comments on posts like these how they manage to get through the more difficult tasks of their day. On balance, has the shift to Velcro to replace shoelaces really been a net benefit for our country?

  19. Joe says:

    NYC custodians want to be armed, mainly because those rats can be pretty nasty. Anyway, the whole arming the teacher idea? Turns out a few states actually already allow that, even sometimes on the elementary school level. No news as to if they ala Meghan McArdle want to train the “young people” to rush the attacker.

  20. DOW says:

    Janitor Convicted Of First-Degree Murder In Placerville Principal Shooting

    April, 2012 PLACERVILLE, CA – A Placerville jury has found John Luebbers, the school maintenance worker charged with the Feb. 2, 2011 murder of Louisiana Schnell Elementary School Principal Sam LaCara, guilty of first-degree murder.

  21. Matt McKeon says:

    The NRA will now move the debate from a feasible, practical and well tested set of regulations that might actually reduce the massive pile of dead bodies of people shot to death each year in this country. If we let them.

    They are attempting to move it to scenarios of mass shooters engaged in gun battles with armed janitors or librarians or what have you. It’s madness. Do you want to live in a society where the only option is to be constantly heavily armed at all times and all places? Where every gunshot victim is to blame because they weren’t armed, or armed enough or quick enough on the draw? Do you think you live in a society like that now? The NRA either does think that, or wishes it was so.

    • BigHank53 says:

      That is precisely what the NRA wants, and has been moving towards. Examine, if you like, the amount of effort expended on blocking a head for the ATF, preventing the Justice Department from tracking criminals’ firearms and identifying slack gun dealers, and preventing the CDC and HHS from even spending money researching gun violence. The NRA is so committed to getting a chance to plug a “bad guy” that they’re willing to up the supply of bad guys. They like the idea of Hobbes’ “state of nature”.

  22. Uncle Kvetch says:

    Well, if nothing else, we may have finally witnessed the most aptly titled thread in the history of LGM.

  23. DrDick says:

    I guess Dagny feels he has to earn his keep. That cracker is batshit crazy and dumb as a stump. Classic example of the dangers of a little (very, very little) knowledge.

  24. Matt T. in New Orleans says:

    Yes, yes, the only thing separating us from Nazis is an overwhelming dependence on individual firepower.

    That’s an interesting stroke. Just what sort of tyranny would we be looking at were we to slip back to, say, the ’94 ban (which is probably the radical end of the upcoming presidential announcement)? I mean, I’m a middle-class, college-educated straight white male that works a blue-collar job. I’m pretty much the Majority, plus I’ve got a Southern Baptist background and was raised in the South, If tyranny does come to U.S., it’s going to be wearing my face, as likely as not. The numbers, the money, the political power, the religious power, no other group really could pull it off, not just for a country of 300 million, but also pretty much for any city or state in the country.

    The only thing that would really put me at odds with any sort of Nationalist movement – and indeed, sets me apart from what I’m told is current political culture, both by the “liberal” media and the current Democratic administration – is my fairly leftist politics. Really, the most venom I feel is from people who’re anti-gay or of the opinion there’s nothing wrong with racial profiling because “you know…” or of the opinion that atheists just need the Jesus kicked into them. One rarely sees a Guns Against Tyranny type protecting women’s right to choice at Planned Parenthood or making sure all votes in predominately African-American districts are counted.

    Either way, it has fuck-all to do with stopping the next jackass pissed off that people besides white dudes with money can make decisions these days from strapping on friggin’ body armor and expressing his full-metal butthurt at a football game.

  25. Bill Murray says:

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/01/13/big-win-for-gun-nuts-as-long-as-everything-goes-according-to-plan/

    I’ve had the pleasure of living in the one place in the world where it is positively required to carry a weapon on your person at all times – an Army FOB in Iraq… On the FOB, we were required to carry our weapons as described above at ALL TIMES. Also, weapons on the FOB were unloaded. You kept a magazine on your person ready to insert, lock and load as needed but unless you were on perimeter patrol or tower watch you did not have a loaded weapon on the FOB. Why? Because negligent discharges happen, and people get hurt or killed.
    When leaving the FOB on a mission everyone would “go red,” which means we would insert magazines, lock and load a round into the chamber of our weapons. When we returned from missions, immediately inside the FOB there were clearing barrels, basically 40 gallon oil drums half filled with sand, and with a circular opening cut into the top.
    We would dismount our vehicles., walk to a clearing barrel under the supervision of another soldier, drop our mags, eject the round from the chamber, and lock the bolt back so the weapon could be verified as “clear.” Then, and only then, could we proceed into the FOB which was filled with unarmored people.

    • ironic irony says:

      Yes. This. A million times this. This has been my personal experience.

      When people talk about “highly trained soldiers”, yes, soldiers are highly trained. Highly trained with rifles, machine guns, grenades, explosives, and other things. But soldiers make mistakes. Negligent discharges HAPPEN. (And that soldier is usually punished for it, as they are expected to know how to clear their weapon.) But it still happens even after years and years of training. Fatigue, stress, etc. take their toll. Do teachers and janitors not experience fatigue or stress (perhaps not on the same level as deployed soldiers, but still)? Are teachers and janitors on the same level of training as someone who has been trained on firearms for years? I think not.

      The big difference is that soldiers ARE NOT USUALLY AROUND LOTS OF CHILDREN WHEN THEIR WEAPONS ARE HOT.

      Big. Diff.

  26. [...] to LGM. Posted: 4:24 amCategories: Guns and Ammo, WTF?Bookmark the [...]

  27. Phony Leftist says:

    Here’s a good Randian ally of the NRA
    “A disarmed citizenry is more vulnerable not only to criminals but to government tyranny as well.”
    -Glenn Greenwald
    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/brazilians-refuse-to-give-up-right-to.html

  28. John Protevi says:

    Man, oh man, you take one Sunday off and the whole place goes straight to hell.

    Anyway, rather than drag myself through every mistake he makes — he knows the terms just well enough to make that a real drag, and since he’s a crazy little speed freak he’ll succeed in wearing you down just by sheer repetition — I’ll just let this show the way Dagney just isn’t careful enough to really understand the theories he throws around. Above he says:

    Pffft. I suggest you read Giorgio Agamben’s “Homo Sacer.” Hitlerism was a project based on the concept of population AND the application of the State Reason. The European colonizing America had not such concept at the time, when they brought elements of imperial civilization to the tribes of America. Those are very different projects; different genealogies, different goals.

    Here is Foucault in “Society Must Be Defended”, p 257 E / 229 F, one of the Ur-texts for the whole biopower / racism line of thought:

    And we can also understand why racism should have developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode; we can understand why racism broke out in a number of privileged moments when the right to take life was imperative. Racism first develops with colonization, or in other words, with colonizing genocide [Le racisme va se développer primo avec la colonisation, c'est-à-dire avec le génocide colonisateur]. If you are functioning in the biopower mode, how can you justify the need to kill people, to kill populations, and to kill civilizations? By using the themes of evolutionism, by appealing to a racism.

    This is not an obscure “gotcha” quote; this is a very well-known key passage that most of my undergrads pick right up on in a first reading.

    Now it’s true that Foucault should be criticized for not having emphasized in his other works the first development of biopower in colonizing genocide. This passage might in fact be something of a self-criticism by means of an allusion to Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism and its famous claim that Hitler only shocked the Europeans by applying to them the methods of concentration and genocide they had previously applied to their overseas colonies. Few people in Foucault’s audience for these lectures would have missed the allusion, IMO. It’s only half-baked and hopped up guys like “Dagney” who overlook this stuff.

    BTW, Mintz’s Sweetness and Power can be read as showing how techniques of discipline were possibly first developed in the New World slave plantations and then imported to Europe. A genealogy of “human resource management” techniques via the “Black Atlantic” if you will. Ann Laura Stoler’s work should be mentioned here as well.

    • DrDick says:

      This is pretty well characteristic of all his rants. Not only does he not know current anthropology, he is totally ignorant of everything in the field after 1900 and generally misrepresents the discredited 19th century theorists he references. Mintz is awesome, as is Stoler (who is one of the readings in my upper division race and ethnicity class). Eric Wolf is good in this regard, as well.

      I am pretty much convinced that he has never actually read any of these people he cites, but only read about them, most likely in rightwing blog posts. He thinks throwing around these names and terms makes him look smart, but it only reveals his profound ignorance and lack of understanding.

      • John Protevi says:

        Thanks for the reference to Eric Wolf. Have just ordered it.

        Mintz is great, I agree. I love the way he shows the drop in height for British military recruits correlates with the spike in sugar consumption.

        • DrDick says:

          You may also like Helen Kanitkar, “Real True Boys” in Dislocating Masculinities, Cornwall and Lindisfarne, eds. She looks at changes to the socialization and education of 19th century British boys in response to colonialism, particularly the emphasis on sport. I use this in my anthropology of gender class.

    • Dagney says:

      @ John Protevi,
      It is not enough to point to racism in the colonization of America, and in Nazism, and then to conflate them.

      Their project were very different. Your quote does not adress this.

      The biopolitical project of the Nazi was to produce a Master Race from the volk. The difference between the volk and the rest was not only race, — it was also between the normal and pathological (they wanted to elimante the ‘mentally ill’).

      And more importantly, the respective political PROJECT of Nazism and of the colonization do not coincide. The European colon did not aim to produce a Master Race. It was not a government of the population. Far from it.

      • John Protevi says:

        Take it up with Foucault, loser boy.

      • DrDick says:

        You really need to go read some original colonial documents where they talk about what it is they are doing, as I have done. You also ignore broad patterns of similarity to highlight essentially trivial differences (immersion baptism vs aspersion).

        • Malaclypse says:

          “In a little more than one hour, five or six hundred of these barbarians were dismissed from a world that was burdened with them.” – Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana

          • DrDick says:

            The accounts of the epidemics among the Powhattan in the Jamestown records are entertaining as well, with their descriptions of God’s providence wiping out whole villages and freeing up land for the Righteous white settlers.

  29. Sandra says:

    Yeah, let’s arm all of the janitors in every school across the nation. What could possibly go wrong?

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/04/24/verdict-reached-in-placerville-principal-slaying/

  30. Dagney says:

    @Hogan

    I’ve used the term “meta-tribal” when adressing Loomis; when adressing DrDick, I was speaking of post-tribal, which is different.

    @ John Protevi

    Which point am I missing?

    • John Protevi says:

      Don’t try your little troll tricks on me, boy. You claimed bio political racism was Euro based and had nothing to do with New World colonization. Foucault says exactly the opposite. So you’re busted as an ignoramus about the very stuff you brag about knowing. Just admit it and then go away, loser.

      • Dagney says:

        You claimed bio political racism was Euro based and had nothing to do with New World colonization.

        I did not claim it. You lie again. I said about HITLERISM.

        Hitlerism was a project based on the concept of population AND the application of the State Reason.

        The European colonizing America had not such concept at the time, when they brought elements of imperial civilization to the tribes of America.

        What the Euro-colonizers did not have was the concept of POPULATION, which was a very important, operational concept in the art of government the Europeans referred to as ‘liberalism’. From the concept of population emerged the concept of civil society, and so on.

        I never claimed there was no racism in the colonization. I was referring to the concept of population in the use of State Reason.

        By the way, you call me ‘boy’; shall I you ‘master’? LOL

    • DrDick says:

      I read all the comments, not just those addressed to me and you are still using made up nonsense words.

      • Dagney says:

        If I say “meta-” as in ‘meta-tribe,’ it means square-tribe, a ‘tribe’ of ‘tribes’, some form of life which integrates many tribes but with something more, with something more that can’t be reduced to a simple agregation of tribes.

        When I say ‘post-’, it means ‘after’.

        • Malaclypse says:

          ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

        • DrDick says:

          When you say that word it is nonsense and has no meaning at all to anyone other than yourself. It also illustrates your absolute ignorance of social science.

    • Hogan says:

      DrDick said you throw around terms like “meta-tribal”; you said you used “post-tribal” and not “meta-tribal.” A more nearly truthful answer would be that you use both. And also that the state is not an amalgam of tribes, so the term is indeed meaningless bullshit.

      • Dagney says:

        And also that the state is not an amalgam of tribes

        Of course not. The State is an effect of the use of the State Reason.

        Sovereign power however has a deeper genealogy. There’s a sovereignty inherent to every form of life, be it the pre-tribal form (that I and German anthropologists such as Dieter Classens refer to as the horde/herd), the tribe, the kingdom, the nation-state, the empire.

        I don’t know where you take that I ever suggested that the State was an amalgam of tribes.

        • Sovereign power however has a deeper genealogy.

          • Dagney says:

            The first theoreticians of the State Reason (or Reason of State) comes after the Reform, when arose the problem of a post-Catholic form of government. It gave birth to mercantilism and it’s effect, the police state, in many german-speaking principalities.

            Before, sovereign power was very different than the operation of government, which was mostly taken care of by the Church.

            • Hogan says:

              Before, sovereign power was very different than the operation of government, which was mostly taken care of by the Church.

              Well, no, it was taken care of by (mostly) clerics, whose motives and interests may or may not have overlapped with the Church’s (or, shall we say, the papacy’s).

              • Dagney says:

                It was a pastoral form of government, whose main value was not the gold of mercantilism nor the population of liberalism but the flesh and blood of Christ.

                The goal of that form of pastoral power, of that form of government, was the salvation of souls, not the salvation of the State (that’s an objective of the Reason of State).

                The clerics you are refering to were exercizing pastoral power in order to save the souls of their flocks.

                • Hogan says:

                  Holy mother of . . . I wouldn’t have thought it was physically possible, but you know even less about the Middle Ages than you do about anthropology.

                • Dagney says:

                  Could you be more specific, please? I’m on my iPhone.

                  Please provide the arguments against mines, rather than just claiming I’m such an ignorant troll. That would be polite.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Please provide the arguments against mines, rather than just claiming I’m such an ignorant troll.

                  Once someone writes

                  If you are referring to the glorious Crusades organized by popes, it was primarily to liberate parts of Europe and Jerusalem from islamic conquests.

                  then the assumption that you are ignorant is actually the nicest of the things we could safely assume about you. Really.

                • Dagney says:

                  @malaclypse

                  Again, please provide your argument, instead of limiting yourself to name-calling, Protevi-style.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  My argument is that you spout off a lot about things you have literally less than no knowledge about, such as, for example, the Crusades.

                  Dressing up Catholic revanchism in fancy language was old and tiresome in de Maistre’s day, and he was better at it than you are.

                • Hogan says:

                  It was a pastoral form of government, whose main value was not the gold of mercantilism nor the population of liberalism but the flesh and blood of Christ.

                  I guess you skipped the link, but let’s just say this: The main value of “pastoral power” was the preservation and expansion of pastoral power, especially as that power took the form of very large land holdings (which are political and economic as well as pastoral power). That was one important reason behind the institution of clerical celibacy (so land would not be inherited outside the control of the order/diocese). It was one important reason behind the investiture controversy (so that the papacy rather than the king/emperor would retain control of who could control diocesan land). The church never figured out a way to control sources of wealth other than land (no usury! well, usury kind of! oh never mind), so as those sources became more productive, the church lost (relative) wealth and power.

                • Hogan says:

                  Or maybe this: the Albigensian Crusade may have been produced by Innocent III, but it was written and directed by Philip Augustus to break the power of the Counts of Toulouse. There’s your saving of souls.

                • Dagney says:

                  “My argument is that you spout off a lot about things you have literally less than no knowledge about, such as, for example, the Crusades.”

                  Boring.

                  You do not disprove my thesis that the Crusades were in reaction against islamic conquests of parts of Europe, and while being mobilized, to liberate Mount Zion from islam, to retrieve the Temple of Solomon. (I wonder why they did not destroy the Dome of the Rock while at it!)

                  If I’m just spouting off trash, then please stop ‘talking’ to me then. Thanks.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  You do not disprove my thesis that the Crusades were in reaction against islamic conquests of parts of Europe, and while being mobilized, to liberate Mount Zion from islam, to retrieve the Temple of Solomon.

                  Well, Constantinople disproves that thesis pretty conclusively.

                • Dagney says:

                  @Hogan

                  The main value of “pastoral power” was the preservation and expansion of pastoral power, especially as that power took the form of very large land holdings (which are political and economic as well as pastoral power).

                  I think you are confusion pastoral power with sovereign power here.

                  The Holy Roman Empire was mostly bipolar, with the Pope on one pole, and many sovereigns (many Caesars!) on the other. But that does not mean that the Papacy was immune from elements that belongs to terrestrial sovereignty, Caesar-style.

                  The pastoral power used by the Church belongs to the art of government; it was used by the Church over her flock in regulating the rituals around births for instance, or marriages, deaths, and many, many affairs of daily life.

                  You are right to point to a sovereign dimension of the Church, as shown by her possession of lands. But this dimension does not negate nor invalidate the government aimed at saving sould, does it?

                  ==
                  re: the Crusades

                  the Albigensian Crusade may have been produced by Innocent III, but it was written and directed by Philip Augustus to break the power of the Counts of Toulouse. There’s your saving of souls.

                  Competitivity, rivalry, do not negate the goal and function of pastoral power, no more say, that homosexual activisits within the Church negates the radical stance against sodomy edicted by the Doctors of the Church.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Competitivity (sic), rivalry, do not negate the goal and function of pastoral power, no more say, that homosexual activisits (sic) within the Church negates the radical stance against sodomy edicted (sic, verbing wierds language) by the Doctors of the Church.

                  Shorter Dagney: watch what the Church says, and ignore what it actually does.

                • Dagney says:

                  The invasion of Constantinople revealed the faultine between the East and the West that was (and still is) fracturing the Church.

                  That’s another dynamic, different than the reaction against the islamic conquests of parts of Europe and the will to liberate Jerusalam fom the muslims.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  The invasion of Constantinople revealed the faultine (sic) between the East and the West that was (and still is) fracturing the Church.

                  Nobody ever actually cared about the Abomination that is the filioque.

                • DrDick says:

                  The invasion of Constantinople revealed the faultine between the East and the West that was (and still is) fracturing the Church.

                  No, it reveals that the true motives of the Crusaders were mostly looting and pillaging from the much richer, more civilized Muslim countries. Byzantium was also a handy target (as were many other locales in route to the Holy Land).

                • Malaclypse says:

                  the will to liberate Jerusalam (sic) fom (sic) the muslims.

                  Oh dear fucking hell.

                  You really are an obscenely ignorant git.

                • Hogan says:

                  the Crusades were in reaction against islamic conquests of parts of Europe, and while being mobilized

                  Wait what? The Crusades were mobilized in 1096 in response to the conquest of Spain in 788? Or was it the Saracen conquest of Sicily in 965? Because the Normans dealt with that before 1091.

            • Malaclypse says:

              The first theoreticians of the State Reason (or Reason of State) comes after the Reform, when arose the problem of a post-Catholic form of government.

              Machiavelli wept.

              • DrDick says:

                Reason and sanity are discussing a suicide pact.

              • Dagney says:

                Me:

                The first theoreticians of the State Reason (or Reason of State) comes after the Reform, when arose the problem of a post-Catholic form of government.

                You:

                Machiavelli wept.

                I’m willing to bet Protevi will take my side here.

                The loser won’t post for 3 days, OK?

                • Malaclypse says:

                  The Prince was first circulated in 1513, while Luther nailed his Theses to the door in 1517.

                  Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

                • Dagney says:

                  Is The Prince included within the body of State Reason?

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Nobody could have predicted you would fall back on redefining terms out of existence.

                  You lost a bet, troll. 1513 was before 1517. Theories of state power preceded the Reformation. You were wrong, and we all know you won’t pay up, because that is how trolls are.

        • Hogan says:

          OK, you have me there. Your definition of “meta-tribal” is “amalgamate tribes and then add the Secret Ingredient.”

          • Dagney says:

            There are more than one meta-tribal form of life: nation-state, police-state, kingom à la David, empire, etc.

            I’ve simply defined it as a form of life that agregates tribes but can’t be reduced to an agregation of tribes.

        • DrDick says:

          More absolute bullshit. This is empirically and historically false. You really need to find more reliable sources than your ass and the voices in your hea.

  31. Dagney says:

    You claimed bio political racism was Euro based and had nothing to do with New World colonization.

    I did not claim it. You lie again. I said about HITLERISM.

    Hitlerism was a project based on the concept of population AND the application of the State Reason.

    The European colonizing America had not such concept at the time, when they brought elements of imperial civilization to the tribes of America.

    What the Euro-colonizers did not have was the concept of POPULATION, which was a very important, operational concept in the art of government the Europeans referred to as ‘liberalism’. From the concept of population emerged the concept of civil society, and so on.

    I never claimed there was no racism in the colonization. I was referring to the concept of population in the use of State Reason.

    By the way, you call me ‘boy’; shall I you ‘master’? LOL

      • Dagney says:

        Yes, that was in response to Loomis’ accusation of ME being a racist, when I was only comparing different form of life, namely the empire and the tribe. To aknowledge the superior complexity of the empire over the tribe is not racist; that was my point to Loomis.

        Whereas my point to Protevi was about the difference in the project of the IIIrd Reich versus the colonization of America by Europeans empires.

        You see the nuances, there?

        • Malaclypse says:

          To aknowledge (sic) the superior complexity of the empire over the tribe is not racist; that was my point to Loomis.

          Yes, yes, I do understand that you don’t see the racism involved in discussing the White Man’s Burden to Civilize and Christianize the Wogs.

        • Hogan says:

          So you can say contradictory things, but as long as you’re addressing them to different people, you’re not contradicting yourself? Maybe this blog commenting thing isn’t right for you; it doesn’t adequately conceal your incoherence.

          • Dagney says:

            Where have I been incoherent?

            Protevi says i lacked coherence because, since racism was involved in both the colonization of America and in Nazism, we should assume that their genealogy and their goals was the same, and me, I do not.

            Well, Protevi is wrong. And Foucault did not say such a thing.

            The faultline of racism sure goes through the Eurocolonization of American and hitlerism, but hitlerism was a radicalisation of a “government of population,” as Foucault says. The biopolitical fracture here, in such a art of governing, is between the population (volk) and the rest. And that rest often was dividing the volk itself: the criminals, the mentally ills, the ideologically unaligned, etc. There was not a coincidence between racism and the biopolitical fracture of the Reich.

            Hitler thought that the population was the ultimate value (the value of all values), the key to build a millenial Reich. But the Eurocolonizers did NOT, they did not operate along the concept of population. That’s why they gave individual rights to many Natives for instance.

            The problematics of slavery of black people was resolved by the civil war, after Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves by Executive Order, and generalized a state of emergency throughout the entire territory of the United State.

    • DrDick says:

      The very concept of race (in the modern sense) was invented to justify colonialism and slavery. You might want to stop digging before you reach China and confront one of those “differentiated forms of life.”

  32. Dagney says:

    Where have I been incoherent?

    Protevi says i lacked coherence because, since racism was involved in both the colonization of America and in Nazism, we should assume that their genealogy and their goals was the same, and me, I do not.

    Well, Protevi is wrong. And Foucault did not say such a thing.

    The faultline of racism sure goes through the Eurocolonization of American and hitlerism, but hitlerism was a radicalisation of a “government of population,” as Foucault says. The biopolitical fracture here, in such a art of governing, is between the population (volk) and the rest. And that rest often was dividing the volk itself: the criminals, the mentally ills, the ideologically unaligned, etc. There was not a coincidence between racism and the biopolitical fracture of the Reich.

    Hitler thought that the population was the ultimate value (the value of all values), the key to build a millenial Reich. But the Eurocolonizers did NOT, they did not operate along the concept of population. That’s why they gave individual rights to many Natives for instance.

    The problematics of slavery of black people was resolved by the civil war, after Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves by Executive Order, and generalized a state of emergency throughout the entire territory of the United State.

    • John Protevi says:

      Seriously, dude, you have to remember the First Rule of Holes.

      The faultline of racism sure goes through the Eurocolonization of American and hitlerism, but hitlerism was a radicalisation of a “government of population,” as Foucault says. The biopolitical fracture here, in such a art of governing, is between the population (volk) and the rest. And that rest often was dividing the volk itself: the criminals, the mentally ills, the ideologically unaligned, etc. There was not a coincidence between racism and the biopolitical fracture of the Reich.

      Foucault, “Society Must Be Defended” 260 E:

      The Nazi State makes the field of the life it manages, protects, guarantees, and cultivates in biological terms absolutely coextensive with the sovereign right to kill anyone, meaning not only other people, but also its own people. There was, in Nazism, a coincidence between a generalized biopower and a dictatorship that was at once absolute and retransmitted throughout the entire social body by the fantastic extension of the right to kill and of exposure to death. We have an absolutely racist State, an absolutely murderous State, and an absolutely suicidal State. A racist State, a murderous State, and a suicidal State. The three were necessarily superimposed, and the result was of course both the “final solution” (or the attempt to eliminate, by eliminating the Jews, all the other races of which the Jews were both the symbol and the manifestation) of the years 1942-1943, and then Telegram 71, in which, in April 1945, Hitler gave the order to destroy the German people’s own living conditions.

      So Nazi racism is the apotheosis of biopower, and to repeat, Foucault says explicitly that racism first appears in biopower (which is the management of populations) with colonizing genocide. Your complaint is with Foucault, who says that the biopolitical racism of which the Nazis were the culmination, makes its first appearance in colonizing genocidal racism.

      You can try to wriggle out of this, but it’s really plain as day. The best you could possibly say, and I don’t know why I should do your homework for you, but what the hell, is that Foucault is talking about 19th century colonization (that is, Euro colonies in Africa and Asia) as well as the 19th century biopower management that the New World colonies only adopt then. But really, that’s going to be a hard sell, since 17th-18th century slave plantation owners and managers were quite concerned with the biological properties (the birth, death, and sickness rates) of their work forces.

      • Dagney says:

        How could the Eurocolons have been trying to manage populations when they did not have the concept of population?

        We need to define biopower here.

        The way Foucault defined it was within the context of liberalism, defined as a government of population, — as a particular product of the Reason of State (a product that came after the failure of mercantilism).

        “Population” was to liberalism what “gold” was to mercantilism: the key to strenghten the State, to save it from revolution, from invasion, from collapse; the key to increase the strength of the State. Where mercantilism promotes the accumulation of gold by the State, liberalism argued for a strong, healthy, educated, and secure population, instead: we have population as a living “gold”.

        But the population was not define only in biological terms. It was alive, unlike gold, but it was also educated, or sick, or scared, or hungry, or angry, etc.

        Biopower, as defined by Foucault (Agamben gave a different definition), is involved in any operation aimed at producing that population. And that production implied an operation of SEPARATION.
        As you know, in order to manage what was called ‘population’, liberalism invented the technology of government called ‘civil society’, which works precisely as the interface between the population and the state. Liberalism produced various institutions aimed at educating the population (public schools), keeping it healthy (hospitals), protecting it from criminals (prisons), making it productive (factories). But civil society is different from those disciplinarian institutions; it was the place where the state should ‘
        laissez-faire‘, where police nor disciplinary power should not intervene directly, in order to let the invisible hand of the market do what it has to do.
        So, biopower was in action to separate the people in general from the autonomous population which sovereign power should laissez-faire within the space of civil society.

        Hitler applied biopower in order to produce the population of all populations, and he used overwhelmingly the SOVEREIGN power of the state to kill the elements deemed dangerous to an ideal of coming meta-population (the Master Race).

        The justification of KILLING points to the nature of sovereign power, more than to the specific project of liberalism and its government of population; and thus, yes, we have here a junction between the murders of Hitler and the murders perpetrated by many Eurocoloniers.
        That’s where Agamben comes by: he proposes another definition of biopower: the capacity (and justification) by sovereign power to KILL without it being a murder.

        It does not matter if it’s in the name of racism or in the name Christ or for the sake of accumulating gold.

        A homo sacer is the individual one can kill with impunity from the law. Hitler suspended the Constitution after the fire of the Reichstag; and thus never went against the law while sending gypsies and Jews and others to the camp and to their death.

        If we take that definition, yes, sure, we have biopower in action in the Eurocolonization. But the project of the Eurocolonizers was not about impleting a strong civil society by producing a master population; it was different than hitlerism, which was the ‘culmination’ not of “biopolitical racism”, but of liberalism, the production of a strong population by any means necessary.

        That’s why after WW II, we have the invention of another form of State Reason, applied in Germany, with NEOLIBERALISM.

        • John Protevi says:

          Look, dude, I know all this stuff backwards and forwards. I’ve been teaching it for years; there’s no need to keep restating your point. You keep saying the European colonizers didn’t use the concept of population. But Foucault, who really ought to be the authority here, says that biopower racism first appears with colonial genocide. Therefore the colonizers were involved with biopower. Biopower is the management of (the biological aspect) of populations. Therefore the colonizers were involved with the management of populations.

          So here’s the bottom line. You’ve sort of half kinda understood things, but not really. I’m going to condescend to you here, because it’s clear as day to me you’re about 25 years old and are flush with excitement with having a certain facility with the vocabulary. But you’re never going to be anyone who commands respect without a lot more rigor and discipline in your thinking and a lot more willingness to admit when you’re wrong. And you’re wrong here, as plainly stated by Foucault, about the inter-relations of racism, biopower, population, and colonization.

          • Dagney says:

            Please explain wow could they without an operational concept of population?

          • Dagney says:

            To those who wonder about the difference between biopower and biopolitics, the key here is “liberalism,” defined as a government of population as per the State Reason.
            Biopower precedes and exceeds liberalism. That’s why Giorgio Agamben seeked to define sovereign power as per life, with the concepts of ZOE and BIOS.

            The population was BIOS, qualified to let be alive, whereas the Jews and all the rest were zoe, bare life, that sovereign power can kill for the sake of BIOS.

          • Dagney says:

            In short, Protevi is grossly conflating biopower with biopolitics (defined by Foucault i relation to liberalism, ie. a government of population).

            • DrDick says:

              You do realize that nobody gives a shit what you think, don’t you? You have amply demonstrated that you are as ignorant as you are arrogant. We have all just been laughing at you, but now it has just gotten boring. You really are ineducable.

    • DrDick says:

      Where haven’t you been incoherent? You babble meaningless gobbledegook, make outrageous and unfounded statements, distort and misrepresent sources and facts, and that is just the beginning.

  33. Dagney says:

    I was fully aware that the Prince precedes Luther’s.
    my point was that it’s not included within the corpus of ratio status.
    The bet was about Protevi’s decision.

    • Malaclypse says:

      my point was that it’s not included within the corpus of ratio status.

      Like I said, you fell back on redefining terms. Because you are a loser troll who conspicuously lost a bet.

      Keep fucking that walrus.

      • Dagney says:

        I was not redefining our bet’s terms, only replying to:

        You lost a bet, troll. 1513 was before 1517. Theories of state power preceded the Reformation. You were wrong, and we all know you won’t pay up, because that is how trolls are.

        The bet stands as it is, and it’s for Protevi to decide who wins and who loses. I was only saying that I was fully aware of the fact that The Prince precedes Luther’s, and that, while proposing the bet, I was implying that The Prince ain’t part of the the corpus of ratio status; The Prince is not about a State government; it did not contribute to mercantilism, the first form of State Reason. That was my reasonning.

        Yet I will submit to Protevi’s verdict.

        By the way, I’d realy appreciate it if you could lower the level of your hostility against me; it is quite unpleasant. I don’t know still if you’re joking or being serious. I don’t ‘know’ enough.

        • Malaclypse says:

          The bet stands as it is,

          Which one? I took the bet where you said theories of state power arose as a response to the Reformation. The bet you have redefined into oblivion, because you are a useless troll. But you go on with your “corpus of ratio status.” Because yea, that’s what the bet was about. Obviously.

          But I took the bet that you made, the bet that you will never live up to.

          • Dagney says:

            This is the bet

            Me:

            The first theoreticians of the State Reason (or Reason of State) comes after the Reform, when arose the problem of a post-Catholic form of government.

            You:

            Machiavelli wept.
            I’m willing to bet Protevi will take my side here.

            The loser won’t post for 3 days, OK?

            So the bet is basically, is The Prince included within the theory of State Reason?. Right?

            And it’s not for wikipedia nor you nor me to decide, but for Protevi.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site