Cultural legacy

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

I was thinking, never mind why, about large countries eating small ones next to them, or small ones surviving, and I thought, in the way that human cultures work next to each other, it’s quite possible the US will eventually eat Mexico.

Oh, not soon. 200 or 300 years. I think the idiots in power are trying to speed it up by opening the borders, but they are idiots, and their ideas rarely yield what they want.

And yes, I think right now at least, given the cultures involved, this is a dangerously stupid idea, so any Mexicans reading this, no I don’t think we should annex you. (I know I have Portuguese readers. I don’t think we have any Mexican ones, but who knows?) I really, really don’t. The merger of the cultures would truly suck. And yours would probably win, because y’all are atavistic.

But in 200 or 300 years, who knows?

Why merge? It’s that long UNPROTECTED border. There is no big obstacle. And a wall won’t be a big enough obstacle, no.

England and Scotland at a larger scale.

But there are exceptions, of course. Portugal is the only stand out from the general unification of the peninsula, probably because Portuguese are very contrary. (Though that might be in the process of being diluted by communications and travel.)

Anyway, when I was thinking of that — because I’m not a well woman. Also, I was doing laundry. Dishes are for plotting. Laundry is for thinking about history — I thought about what would remain of the culture that works in such an event.

Of course I’m not sure. There’s no way to be sure. As is, our idiots in power think they can replace the population and get themselves more compliant people, and that only means they never actually dealt with Latin culture (which is mostly what they THINK they’re importing. Never mind.) Yes, sure, there’s a lot of going along with the “betters” but revolution is also a way of life. They’re just blinded by the stupid assumption communism is the future so all revolutions will be “for” them. This was Obama’s mental issue, too, when he planted OWS and thought the people would naturally support it, because people are “naturally communist.” (Rolls eyes.)

Anyway– getting back on track (sadly it’s one of my Adderal days.) — as I was thinking of that, I thought what remained was likely to be a straight up dislike of authority.

Why, you ask? Well, because it seems like we have inherited that all the way from the early British, though how I don’t know since most of us almost for sure don’t have enough English genetics to do that.

In 2012 I wrote a post called We King Killers. I ran it by Toni Weisskopf before I put it up, because something about it felt funny, and she advised me not to publish it, because it might be construed as incitement. (It wasn’t. It was mostly me running down an historical rabbit hole, but yes, she was right. And I don’t need more paid agents provocateurs flocking. So, it was good advice.)

The gist of the article is that the English, throughout their history are addicted to king killing. Which is kind of funny, because the French did it once, and get the bad reputation. No wonder they hate the English.

And the trend seems to have transferred to America, on more or less the same cycle of presidents either killed or attempted against. Seems to be a deep set cultural thing.

I didn’t realize how deep it went, though. I’ve been reading a mystery series set in the time of Edward I (I won’t post the name here, because I’ve met the author long ago, and he’d be very upset to be mentioned on this blog. But the books are decent. All his books are.)

Apparently around that time (and a hundred years before that,) the merchants of London rebelled and wanted… well, self-government and a republic.

This amused me no end because the earliest record of husband’s of family are as merchants in silks and luxury goods in London. (Probably where our lines connect and responsible for his tiny percentage of Portuguese: you see, dad’s paternal line were merchants in luxury goods.) And I could totally see them involved in that. We know for a fact they were involved in the glorious (failed) revolution, etc. And of course, an ancestor fought in the civil war.

Yes, his family is mostly (MOST of it) on the other side, but that’s…. the puritan character, right? And the belief they’ll emerge on top, like every smart person who falls for communism. (I wish they’d get a grip on reality, but hey.)

I suspect though that should we swing to a real tyranny (look, no. It’s not. They’d like it to be, but they can’t get enough of a grip. They have the institutions but not the people. It’s like the only way to precipitate a famine for real would be to confiscate food door to door. And while they’d love to do that, they can’t because we have guns. Like that.) they’d find their “king toppling” ways again. Because it’s part genes, part family culture.

And I think that part is so strong, it has survived the dilution of the original stock. (The blood and soil people who want only pure blood from revolutionary times would be able to round up maybe one or two pure Americans. With luck. The other part of the American character — like my dad’s family — is to marry the most exotic they can find, so there have been a lot of …. ah…. integrated imports. Even “born here for three generations” would be a stretch for most people.) Weirdly, most of my kids’ friends who were most aggressively don’t tread on me American had at least one foreign parent. (I know that didn’t use to be the norm, but I think in the eighties and nineties we drew an anti-authoritarian pool of immigrants.)

I don’t even know why, but I think it’s partly our image, and therefore the bend of character of those who throw in with us. “Nae Kings, Nae Queens, Nae Lords, Nae Ladies. We’ll never be fooled again.”

I think in the end that will remain. In fact, I’m almost sure of it, as much as it’s possible to be sure of something my grandkids likely won’t see.

I’m not sure where it comes from, how it attaches to our culture. And yes, I know you’re going to say Great Britain seems to have lost it, and so do the other anglo-descended cultures. I’m not sure that’s true. There were lulls and periods of “good kings” whose PR enabled them to sound like they cared for the people, etc. (Most of them didn’t.) But the characteristic always surfaces. More violent when it’s been repressed for a while. (Salutes in the general direction of Australia and Great Britain.)

In the same way that the French tend to be wordy and chaotic, no matter what actual genetics fall in THAT pool, the English tend to be “practical anti authority” and trying to limit the power of the state.

I suspect the aberrations of the 20th century, which haven’s played out in the rest of the anglosphere have to do with monopoly of very persuasive means of communication and story telling. More than ever before in human history. Or pre-history.

But hey, we’re shaking that off, and I suspect it will get to the rest of the world. Just later, and unpredictably. (Because the future comes to America.)

But that’s for the future. For now, we have to deal with our own issues.

It will happen, because the trend of history is that it will. And mind the “king killing” isn’t always — or most of the time — literal. We didn’t kill George III, but we most definitely “killed” him in these shores. And a lot of it, from John Lackland on involves clipping governments little ugly sticky wings.

There is, let us put this way, in anglo-descended cultures a marked self-government bend.

Now go forth and exert your natural cultural tendency.

265 thoughts on “Cultural legacy”

  1. Ah, I’m basking in the memory of watching Hillary stagger out and give a concession speech in 2016. No, we didn’t kill her. But my, wasn’t it fun.

    2. All the whining since then has been really tiresome, though. WAAAAAH!

      “What Happened?” indeed. The American people got a good look at yer skanky ass and voted against you in droves, is What Happened. Enough to outweigh the election fraud, even. So the Democrats had to double down in 2020, and still it wasn’t enough. Hence all the 11th-hour ‘irregularities’.
      ———————————
      When Eric Swalwell farted on camera, it was the most intelligent thing heard from a Democrat all day.

            1. Well, when she went on a fact finding trip to Afghanistan as a Senator, they hung Broomstick One as her helicopter call sign….

        3. “Though many things have changed in American political life over the past couple of years, one aspect remains a comforting constant: Democrats never lose an election. Not really. Not fairly.

          “Sure, elections can be stolen. Americans can be misled. Big Oil or Big Business can buy elections – because these institutions possess the preternatural ability to control human actions. Voters always fail to understand what’s good for them (which, amazingly enough, always aligns with the state-expanding goals of the Left.) Whatever the case, something fishy and nefarious must also be going on, because there’s absolutely no way voters could reject Democrats.”

          http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/12/the-five-stages-of-losing-an-election-to-donald-trump/

  2. The anti-authoritarian immigrants of the eighties and nineties that you observed might have been the anti-communists coming here after Reagan reminded everyone that yes, the US was opposed to the Evil Empire aka the USSR. And also people like the Vietnamese kids who came over as refugees at the end of the war.

    As for Jolly Old England… Things do seem really screwed up over there. But it’s also true that Farage is getting attention from a good-sized chunk of the population. And that suggests that there are still a lot of people there who aren’t buying the current nonsense.

        2. Probably for the same reason why my avatar – generated by some sort of algorithm based off of the e-mail address I submit – randomly changed to a different one when I checked it a couple of hours ago (it’s back to normal now).

          1. And now it changed again (to the same “other” avatar) after I posted the above comment.

            /facepalm

        1. Hey, I hate his music just as much as the next guy, but Bieber made his money fair and square. (Yes, I know…)

    2. “people like the Vietnamese kids who came over as refugees at the end of the war.”

      There are a lot of them in the area. (We even have a “Little Saigon”, with markets and restaurants. Including Pho King II, for laughs.) I know one who was five when they took the tiny fishing boat over; his grandmother starved to death on the way, saving food for the youth. (There is a bit of a rumor that there was cannibalism involved, but since I haven’t heard it from him, I’m putting it in the “salacious gossip” column. ‘Cause he’s the sort that probably would mention it.)

      Anyway. He is the most fervent anti-Biden person I know, because he remembers Biden’s stance and speeches. Very pro-Trump, too.

      1. The Vietnamese who had to flee Vietnam (even if they were very young) are probably all very politically conservative. Subsequent generations… maybe not so much.

    3. Also, Bosnians. Being on the receiving end of an attempted genocide concentrates the mind and instills a distrust of the state.
      All the ones I met assimilated with a will.

  3. One aspect of England (vs France) is that England never had the absolute kings like France had.

    For most of England’s history, the king was “just the most powerful of the nobility” but not more powerful than all of the nobility.

    Lackland’s problem was that he had no “lands” which he could tax to fund an army.

    He depended on the willingness of Parliament (nobility and commoners) to “give him more money”.

    And plenty of English kings died facing English nobles who wanted “his job”.

    Of course, Parliament removed Charles II’s head and Parliament kicked James II off the throne. 😉

    1. “Lackland’s problem was that he had no “lands” which he could tax to fund an army.”

      Not just that; he also couldn’t grant titles to gain vassals since that required lands.

    2. For all that Magna Charta was signed, then strenuously ignored, and for all that the English pretended that the Declaration of Arbroath only applied to the signatories, there was a bloomin’ strong streak of belief that what would later be called the Divine Right of Kings was no such thing. G-d might have made someone king … for now. If they pushed it, well, another noble might do better in his place. (A fellow grad-sufferer argued that William the Marshall [1146-1219] was the first English noble to view the monarchy as an institution to be upheld rather than a person to be supported or opposed. I don’t know enough to say one way or another.)

      Having kings with divided interests (France and England) might have played a role.

      1. Having kings with divided interests (France and England) might have played a role.

        Yep, William the Bastard caused plenty of trouble by being a French Duke (IIRC) and becoming King of England.

        1. Why does this post remind me of the phrase, “By all means, let us act according to our culture,”?

            1. If we do get get violent it will be because the Democrats did, or will do something incredibly stupid. Oh, I don’t know, like firing on Ft. Sumter? They have been known to be very stupid at times, like now.

    3. One of my FB friends is a naturalized Brit: he’s remarked once or twice that the problem with every single one of the Stewart kings (or would-be kings), from James I to Bonnie Prince Charlie, was that they kept trying to be absolute monarchs, rather than constitutional kings-with-a-small-K. And that’s how we got the English Civil War, the Interregnum, Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution, the Jacobite Risings, and the rest.

        1. …which was, after all, THE center of culture in the Known World. And they were quick to let everyone know that.

          1. “But of course, monsieur. As all know, God created the French after the angels…. to perfect the design.”

      2. Stuart.

        It might have been because they were Scottish royalty as opposed to English royalty. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d come along with a few pre-conceived notions that didn’t necessarily apply to England and Wales.

        1. The older house were Stuart, I believe, but the more Anglicized spelling came courtesy of Mary, Queen of Scots, who married a Stewart, though herself born a Stuart.

      3. The Stuarts NEVER had a good handle on English politics. In particular, they never quite understood that they held the Crown of England because they were the nearest relations to the Tudors. Who were kings because they won Round 2 of the Wars of the Roses from the House of York, who had won Round 1 against the House of Lancaster, who had deposed Richard II in a coup.

        Talking about the Divine Right of Kings under those conditions was pretty silly.

        1. Ding dong, the witch is dead!
          Arise, leap from your beds!
          As on her wicked head
          A house did fall!
          Deceased and neatly dead
          She’s most completely dead.
          And she we greet instead
          No witch at all!

          What happened then was this,
          The wind began to twist,
          House pitch, and doors unhitch.
          This was the cause.
          For when this witch did itch
          And on her bessom switch
          It crushed her in this ditch!
          God save great Oz!

          (sung to a well-known tune.)

          Something about the regular replacement of ruling dynasties and their current national anthem was just begging to be filked. So I filked it.)

  4. Is there for honest Poverty
    That hings his head, an’ a’ that;
    The coward slave – we pass him by,
    We dare be poor for a’ that!
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that.
    Our toils obscure an’ a’ that,
    The rank is but the guinea’s stamp,
    The Man’s the gowd for a’ that.
    — Robbie Burns

    2. Right now? It would because they’re chauvinistic, and we tend to think other cultures are better. Oh, not completely, but we’d pick up a lot of unlovely things.

      1. There’s a lot of room in “we.” Our progtards, would-be elites, and general mushbrains reflexively think everything else is better. I’m not sure why, but I never have, despite many inducements. American culture as I know it is the best, and the rest of the world can suck it (and I’ll knock ’em to their knees for the occasion if I have to). Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with people doing their own thing and leaving me alone in the process, but if it comes to me or you, it ain’t going to be me making concessions. I wonder how much of that there actually is in America…?

        1. American cultures, all of them, are best simply because we add the attitudes, behaviors, and things that look better in other cultures than what we currently have; and slowly dump the things that either don’t work, or aren’t as good.

          The correct term for this process is Cultural Appropriation, and rather than being an evil thing, it’s actually the best thing going for us.

          1. Right! If it’s actually an improvement, we’ll happily adopt it (perhaps after regarding it suspiciously from arm’s length for a while). Id say our willingness to live and let live and to adapt pieces of other cultures to our own uses is both a strength and also a weakness, because the progs have perverted and weaponized it the same way they did empathy.

            1. Are you trying to talk while stuffing your face with your favorite ethnic foods, or did you fall asleep with your face buried in a wadded up dashiki?

                1. Funny, that’s what my cat said when I asked him a question while he was eating his breakfast.

        2. It’s been going on for a LONG time C.F. “I’ve got a little list” (aka the list song) from Wm. Gilberts text for the Mikado from 1885
          “Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone
          All centuries but this, and every country but his own;”
          He’s got them on the list and they’ll none of them be missed.

          I’d be surprised if anyone dares perform the Mikado with its massive cultural appropriation/Yellow face any more…

          1. It’s hard. The company I’m with last did it in 2010, I think, and they did the costumes only (no base makeup different from natural skin tone) and Veddy British. Then a company in the SF Bay Area reached out to the local Asian performer group for a partnership, got reamed out when they couldn’t guarantee 100% Asian casting, and scrapped that plan in favor of setting it in Italy and having it be “the Emperor of MILAN.”

            It used to be one of the Big Three that people would recognize from G&S. In the last decade, almost everyone has backed away from it.

            1. It has other bits and bobs that offend modern sensibilties too. A bit of racism further on in that song , out and out use of the N word in “A more Humane Mikado” and the portrayal of Katisha in “There is Beauty in the Bellow of the Blast”. Oddly it ended up Japanese because there had been a big spate of Japanese trade goods at one of the expositions and it was all the rage a year or two before. Tradition has it Gilbert had some of that junk sitting in his room when he was trying to come up with the story and that had set him going. Yeah the three people know are Pinafore, Pirates of Pezance and Mikado. Pirates had a successful Broadway staging in the 80’s to 90’s, And when the D’Oyly Carte finally had to let go of the rights on Mikado they did the Hot Mikado which was kind of jazzed up and fun.
              As a pair Gilbert and Sullivan were geniuses even their lamer attempts aren’t half bad. Gilberts biting wit and clever rhymes paired with Sullivans ability to write multipart pieces where each voice of the conversation can be clearly heard and yet it makes one melodious whole. Gilbert wrote a bunch of part songs that are quite good and a Parsival opera that is hardly ever performed (justifiably its dreadful). Don’t know if Gilbert did anything else he’d have been an awesome satirist.

      2. I’m not so sure it would go that way. I’d expect the core culture class/fusion to be at the individual level, not so much as the mass media culture. And I’d expect a lot of that to be Mexican and South American women marrying American men, and not really the other way around. I agree that the Latin American cultures are deeply chauvinist going to full on misogynist, I still suspect most of the women will have a preference away from the abusive side of that if they have the choice. And given the American ruling culture has exactly zero use for young men, I expect they will have a lot of choice there.

        And while the media culture and ruling culture do despise heroism, integrity, operating by the law and all of that, I am not certain they are representative of the majority culture.

        So, yeah. I think I sort of see an army of incels manning up to to topple the ruling culture in order to impress their Mexican girlfriends and make sure that their children have a decent and safe universe to grow up in. And it will be weirder than any of us can possibly imagine.

        1. I recall the story of the “Asian” (could be a bit off) woman who married an American guy and was oh so deferential. Until citizenship. “AMERICAN NOW! I can disagree.”

        2. While it makes a good story… women are generally the enforcers of that nonsense.

          As one of the other ladies in here pointed out– they were in agreement that rape was horrible, until it was their kinfolk who did the rape.

          1. Yeah. It could just as easily go that way too. But I expect it will still be driven a lot more by what the women who marry men want than it will be by either the current elites or the chappos.

        3. It’s a cruddy tiny sample, but part of why I hated El Paso was that … as poor as my machine knowledge is, I am the take care of cars person for our household. I have the time to take stuff in to get serviced.

          After the third or tenth place that tries to charge you for service on a system the car does not have, but suddenly flips sane when your husband is on the phone, it wears on you.

          Nothing in writing, of course.

          1. Not surprised. Latin America is quite sexist, racist and don’t have good rule of law. The funny thing is, it’s along a very different axis than the way the US defines. They have a real obsession with light skin, to the point that there is a real pressure to marry someone lighter skin toned than your own to “improve the blood”. Which runs right into Americans’ tendency towards exoticism and has some rather weird results.

            Will be strange to see how it all plays out.

            1. In Latin America, lighter skin means your ancestors were mainly upper class Europeans (Portuguese in Brazil, Spanish in the rest).

              The upper class brought their wives from Spain/Portugal while the lower class married Indian wives (if they married).

              And of course, some of the men had children with Black slaves.

              Oh, Latin America had plenty of terms denoting what percentages of White Blood, Indian Blood and Black Blood a person had.

          2. Yeah that happened both to wife and younger daughter when they were looking at cars for younger daughter. Using the “what color would you like little lady” on my PHD Physical chemist wife or mechanical/aero engineer daughter NEVER ends well. Certainly doesn’t end in a sale …

      3. I suspect if our culture had to seriously compete with a chauvinistic culture, we might see a strong resurgence of chivalry to compete with it. Not guaranteed by any means. But I’ve a suspicion that’s what would happen.

      4. Hmph. I’m Old School. I maintain the supremacy of the American branch of Western Christian culture against all others.

        Of course, there’s no copy-protection on it…

      5. Nah. Our culture is so infectious we can assimilate newcomers in a generation or two.

        Immigrant sons from Imperial Japan became the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Reviled Irish newcomers to cops and firemen. Slaves to statesmen.

        On and on. Sometimes slick, sometimes weird. Dang near inevitable.

  6. The idea of king killing is embodied in our constitution. Impeachment, and a built in peaceful revolution every four years.

  8. “it’s quite possible the US will eventually eat Mexico.”

    The first thought that popped into my head was “There is another theory that this has already happened.” OK, not all of Mexico, but we did slice off and consume a big chunk of it in the first half of the 18th century.

    1. …why would we want to take the rest of Mexico at this point? Short of willing to spend billions upon billions to bring the infrastructure up to something remotely modern (i.e. what it’ll take to get North Korea modernized), what’s the point short of moving the border somewhere that is easier to control?

      1. I think that’s the one plausible scenario. But a movement of the border would also include an ethnic cleaning…all Mexican nationals would be required to vacate the newly acquired lands.

      2. The flaw is in thinking we can avoid dealing with Mexico’s issues.

        Well will deal with it one way or another: either as an insoluble, endless, banditry problem like we have today. Or a much more immediately painful annexation, but we can start actually solving stuff.

      1. Well, Germany offered to help Mexico take it back. Mexico, which was going through a revolution at the time and had had Pershing running around Northern Mexico looking for Pancho Villa after he made the mistake of crossing the border and raiding towns in New Mexico and Arizona, creating bloody noses on all sides, and nearly kicking off a second US-Mexican war, took a look at the proposal and said “No”.

        1. Given the only nation in the Americas with a substantial arms industry was the US. . . .

  9. As a matter of history, the US did take half of Mexico, once upon a day, upon winning a war with them. Of course, that half was barely settled (a little in California, some more substantial settlements in New Mexico) – the bulk of what we gained after that war was claimed first as Spanish, then as Mexican territory, was never anything they could reasonably settle, mostly because of very hostile Comanche and Apache tribes,

    1. And a lot of the settlers were from the US anyway, and a number of those from Mexico came because they liked hanging out with the first group.

    2. I’d honestly quibble if “one part of the Spanish new world rebelled against Spain, and claimed an uninvolved part, that wasn’t so much interested” means it belonged to the folks who rebelled…..

      Seems like a rich story mine.

      1. A great aunt of mine was a Californian who traced her lineage back to Spain (IIRC there may have been at least one European in her lineage) and would never claim that she was Mexican-American.

        IE She was Spanish not Mexican. 😈

        1. That’s the root of my objection, too– the old Spanish families I grew up around… well, Zorro was a hero because he was NOT Mexican.

    3. Also because arid. Very arid. The Mojave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan deserts do not support a large agrarian population (not without irrigation, anyway). And north of those, there are about ten thousand square miles of terrain that looks ready to wash away in the next big rain. Which doesn’t come often enough for much of anything to grow on top and keep it in place. With 19th century or earlier technology, in isolated spots, it is possible to eke out a living. Eke being the operative word. Especially with the Apache and Comanche around, who practiced and honed their warcraft by raiding the more settled tribes.

  10. You got me thinking. Always dangerous, that.

    Toppling kings, IMHO, happens the most when competent people trying to get their work done find the King’s Men getting in their way and taxing away their property.

    Currently the king’s men are more in the way than they’ve ever been throughout history, excepting only the Pharaohs and priesthood of the Nile Kingdom. Its possible they may have been worse. Monopoly on water is hard to beat.

    Ripe for the toppling, I’d say. Let the Greenies f- up the power grid and mess with the farmers a bit more. Power outages are about the only thing aside from actual starvation that will wake up -all- the normies.

    California will probably be toppled first. Have you seen the news about what they’re doing with electric trucks and banning all diesels next year? An election year! The greenies are doomed. If they cheat the polls again, they are doomed -faster-.

    1. I suspect that Newsome’s hoping he can (successfully) run for president based on implemented programs here before the birds come to roost as a result of those programs. i.e
      he’ll claim California is doing great on his watch, and be safely in the White House just before the really bad stuff starts happening as a result of what happened during his watch

      1. Newsom is counting on the fix being in, as are the rest of the Democratic Party (which is a big oxymoron since the last thing the Democrats want is the populace having a genuine say in policy).

        1. It’s easier to sell him as the desired target for the fix (because the fixers don’t need to work as hard) if he runs before the events that I am starting to suspect will take place in California within the next couple of years.

        2. I imagine that Gavin Newsome thinks he is going to come in as the Man on the White Horse to save the country from Trump or DeSantis, whichever one comes out on top. Trouble is, the white horse he’s riding is named California.

          1. Anything coming from California government will be riding a pale horse, not a white one.

    1. Any self-respecting redneck can knock together a guillotine in a day or two, and gear up for mass production in a week.

      Setting one up in front of the Capitol in the middle of the night without getting caught would be a bit trickier. 😀
      ———————————
      The U.S. Capitol is OUR house. Congresscritters are just the help.

      1. Shucky darn Bubba, we just tell em it’s the first section of the new fence they ordered to keep out deplorables. “See that thar shiny piece of steel Senator, that’s the bulletproof gate, we pulls it up, way up, & ya can go right through. Wanna give it a try Senator?” Perrdy sure they’d buy it.

      2. Guillotine

        Crossed with

        Pachinko machine.

        (Grin)

        Monty Python’s Roman Circus

        1. Anti-Antifa line of mobile wood chippers, sleek fast and painted a nice shade of Soylent Green.

      2. Hell they make giant wood chippers on tracked bodies that would suit a Caterpillar D-9. Think of that 🙂

  12. Yes, the culture of the USA is one of “doing away with Kings” and other such ner-do-wells. Remember, we are a country of the disenchanted, malcontent rabble-rousing and dont-fit-in types who were (many still are) just looking for a chunk of dirt to call their own and to be left alone. There are parts of Mexico where the locals have managed to get their hands on some serious firepower and have kicked the local drug lord to the curb and the government too and have gone to local issues and local rule.

    I am not likely to see it in what is left of my lifetime but, eventually the average family and their allies will no longer put up with the nonsense being shoveled out and there will be huge chunks of America that tell TPTB to pound sand and the poor elites won’t be able to do anything about it. Those that try to force compliance may have some success but it will be short lived and limited. They will FAFO and it won’t be in their favor.

    Some may (likely will) have a different view but I’ll stick to being the old crank who briefly taught US History and Western Civ and learned a thing or two over the years.

      1. Cartels are also easier to make deals with because they are essentially operating a very violent business, whereas commies won’t accept anything less than everyone else also being commie.

        1. Cue C. S. Lewis and his preference for robber barons (cartels) over do-gooders (communists).

          “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
          ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

      2. Pity. Wouldn’t mind trading in our nut bar of a shiny pony in for something a bit more sane.

  14. I am down for annexing Mexico one year after we release a set of robustly-engineered crop viruses that wipe out, globally, all strains of opium poppy, cocoa, cannabis, mitragyna, etc. and other abusable illegal pharmaceuticals upon which the cartels base their wealth.

    Crash the cartels and the gangs, civilize the world a bit (and honestly IDGAF about the addicts).

    Leave the mushrooms/DMT/peyote, not worried about psychadelics.

    1. Cocoa? You propose wiping out COCOA?

      As my dad would have said, you have quit preaching and gone to meddling.

      1. I hope he meant coca. Destroying cocoa would be, er, suboptimal* for those attempting it.

        (*) There’s a possibility that I misspelled “fatal”.

    4. Lol. You totally fail to address the -demand- that turns all those hardy weeds into recreational pharmaceuticals.

      Your plan simply moves the money to something else, likely synthetics like Fentanyl, extecy, etc. Oh drat. Already in place, waiting…

      Totally wrong approach. Just breeds tyrants and rich cartels. Examples abound.

      Prohibition cannot work, because the money is on the demand side, and almost unlimited. Unless and until you can curtail demand, prohibition is utterly doomed.

      Note that the current “everything spiked with deadly fentanyl” is utterly failing to dissuade consumers. I suspect doping the supply with VX would do little good on demand, until casualties exceeded 50%. And as crazy as those folks are, -that- might not dissuade them

      Whats 50% of 20 million+?

      1. Prohibition cannot work, because the money is on the demand side, and almost unlimited. Unless and until you can curtail demand, prohibition is utterly doomed.

        If you require a standard for “working” that exceeds every other law on the books, sure.

        Theft, rape, and murder– all illegal since forever, even if the definitions shifted. All still done, because there is a demand for them.

        Humans want bad stuff and will do stupid stuff to get it, news at 11.

        1. Robbery, rape and murder are crimes against other people. Alcohol and drug abuse are…crimes against yourself? Who are you harming, exactly? ‘Society’? Which society? By what metric?

          When you start punishing people ‘For Their Own Good’ you’ve overstepped the bounds of government and strayed into cult territory. Freedom will always allow some people to do stupid things. Those trying to prevent stupidity with laws are themselves idiots.
          ———————————
          There is no shortage of people convinced they can create the Perfect World. They just have to eliminate all those imperfect people who don’t fit in it.

          1. Eh, I give that goalpost shifting a maybe 4 out of ten, a two point penalty for being extremely uncreative, plus an additional one for a botched transition.

            1. BZZZAAAT! Nope, the penalty is on you, and it’s a lot more than two points. YOU equated drug and alcohol abuse with robbery, rape and murder. Everybody can see it, right there in black and white. Don’t get snippy with me for pointing it out.

              1. Knock it off!

                First, you ignore the damage done to people who abuse drugs and the damage done to the druggies’ families.

                Second, you ignore the damage to neighborhoods and cities caused by druggies. A large percentage of the so-called homeless are people who abuse drugs thus losing their jobs. And of course, these “idiots” are homeless because these people chose to abuse drugs rather that live with people who want them to “kick” the drugs.

                IMO, some drugs are illegal for good reasons (take a look at the shit druggies cause) and same is true about murder/theft.

                I find Foxfier more intelligent than anybody who thinks the drug problem can be stopped by making the problem drugs legal.

                1. It’s similar to traffic laws, where cutting someone off or unsafe following distance is illegal– even when someone is not hurt this time.

                  AKA, why third world roads SUCK, and the US is fairly safe.

                2. How much of that is the drugs, and how much is caused by the government punishing addicts For Their Own Good? The War On Drugs is entering its 7th decade with no end in sight, nor any battles won, only a whole shitload of casualties. Highly profitable for certain parties, but is Society any better off for all the lives and trillions spent (and bribes taken)?

                  What’s your answer? Bring back the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act? I’m sure that would be a resounding success. They just didn’t do it right the first time, that’s all.
                  ———————————
                  Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. Those who do remember are doomed to watch everybody else repeat them.

                  1. If your answer to the Drug Problem is to legalize all drugs, then you are a fool.

                    There are likely better ways to solve the Drug Problem but I’ve never heard sh*t from people like you about how you’d do it better.

                    And yes, there may be Constitutional problems with the Federal “Solution” but until people like you get off your rear-ends and work out a better way, then I don’t want to hear any more of this sh*t of legalizing all drugs.

                    So put up or shut up. 😡

                    2. I’ll point out legalizing ALL drugs CAN be the answer. You just need to be on like donkey kong on all the resulting crime.
                      Vagrancy laws go back to Victorian England, floggings and whippings for petty crime. And outright war on the cartels.
                      That’s VIABLE. We could do it.
                      Somehow, though, what happens is legalize and cover up/prettify the statistics.
                      No.

                    3. Nod.

                      The idiots will ignore all the shit resulting from their nonsense.

                    4. “I’ll point out legalizing ALL drugs CAN be the answer. You just need to be on like donkey kong on all the resulting crime.”

                      And we’ve already run that experiment with alcohol. Which causes at least as much damage (to the alcoholic and anyone who associates with them) as any other intoxicant. What we’re seeing now is just that people are self-medicating mental illness with other drugs in addition to or instead of. We could have continued those vagrancy laws etc. wrt drunkenness, but chose not to for whatever reason, and we saw the results even before drug use became more widespread.

                      Drak, there is no “solution”, just a series of awful options. Probably the least awful is to stop treating addiction as an excuse and punish whatever actual bad behavior it leads to. That punishment includes cutting off any form of financial support for it outside of voluntary charity.

                3. I honestly thought making drugs legal would solve the problems of cartels and crime.
                  Looks towards Portugal. Yeah. No.
                  It just fixes things on paper, and makes them pretty.

                  1. Agree.

                    Heck. Look at California or Oregon now. Legalizing drugs does not solve the problem. Legalizing drugs does not get rid of the cartels, etc.

                    1. Again, a hard core police regime on everything that results from legalization would work.
                      BUT that’s never proposed. And frankly would cause MORE constitutional abuses, because you’d need to go down that rabbit hole so hard.

                    2. Yep. Left that part off.

                      Of coarse neither of the states bother to address the illegal activity as a result of the now legalized drugs. Also, you are correct, about the constitutional abuses that will occur, if they had.

                      The cartels need to be declared terrorists.

              2. First, you refuse to actually engage the argument that was made and ongoing– and then, to increase it, you want to grant yourself the right to define what harm is allowed to be recognized.

                I can see why you would find pointing out the goalpost shifting as “snippy”, how dare someone sin against your argument from (your own) authority? Even when it’s injected where it was only tangentially connected?

                1. Arguing with somebody who thinks abuse of drugs/alcohol is a “victimless crime” is a waste of time.

                  2. I wish I had a copy of it, but– when I was a teen, some wag wrote up a thing PROVING that violent rape did no harm.

                    And they used a definition of “harm” that was, surface level, very reasonable.

  15. I am down for annexing Mexico one year after we release a set of robustly-engineered crop viruses that wipe out, globally, all strains of opium poppy, cocoa, cannabis, mitragyna, etc. and other abusable illegal pharmaceuticals upon which the cartels base their wealth.

    Crash the cartels and the gangs, civilize the world a bit (and honestly IDGAF about the addicts).

    Leave the mushrooms/DMT/peyote, not worried about psychadelics.

    1. all strains of opium poppy, cocoa, cannabis, mitragyna, etc.

      You want to destroy CHOCOLATE??!!

      You monster!!

      1. Get rid of chocolate?

        Get a rope, and not the “fun with consenting adult friends” sort of rope. Chocolate is the only thing that keeps me going some days. (Well, that and caffeine.)

        2. Also I oppose that kind of defoliation. The cartels need to be fought as criminal organizations.
          Look, coca (not cocoa) is used for legitimate medicines.

          1. This. Coca Cola still sends coca extracts to pharmaceutical companies.

            And I’ve got a shiny new dime that says opium also is used legitimately.

            2. It’s the source for Morphine which has legal uses.

          2. Treat the cartels the same way that the Romans (namely Julius Ceasar) treated the issues of piracy in the Mediterranean back in the day.

            Minus crucifixions, because rope is cheap and easily recyclable.

          3. *terrorist
            not just criminal.

            Look, it just triggers some legal abilities…which I suspect would clean up a lot of political issues….

            1. One would think that our declared “War on Drugs” would make it possible to designate drug traffickers as an enemy army and therefore subject to military response.

              1. What is the rule about combatants you find in your territory without uniforms, again?

              2. If it had been organized as a legal format, rather than a rhetorical one?

                Yes.

                The “fun” thing is that all the terror groups also do the same stuff as the cartels. It’s very, very hard to go “oh, this one wants money, and this one wants socioplitical goals.”

                1. Especially when the ones that want sociopolitical goals inevitably turn to drug dealing to raise money.

        5. Cocoa!!! You’ll get my Cadbury bar when you take it from my cold dead (and rather sticky) hand…

      2. The Reader is going to hope that this is a case of Autocorrupt.

          1. No chocolate would cause one. Although the Reader wouldn’t notice. Chocolate has become a migraine trigger in his old age.

              1. The Reader misses chocolate worse than bourbon (same problem). He is thankful that caffeine still isn’t a problem.

                No problem about Discord. Whenever you get to it is fine.

    2. Even if you did wipe out all the ‘drug crops’ they would just go all-in on synthetics like fentanyl and horse tranquilizer.

      Illegal drugs is one of those complex questions that don’t have simple answers. Not even Bob’s answer. 😮

      1. They also do normal theft and resell type crimes.

        when I heard of that big fertilizer gone missing thing, that’s what I figured. (even if it turned out to be “oops, there’s a hole in the hopper, we fertilized the tracks”)

        1. Yup. Unsecured dump gate was the official story.

          Happens often enough.

          Scale of material unaccounted for, is 12x the Oklahoma city bomb

          60 thousand pounds of earth-shattering kaboom

          1. Which I’d be more worried about if the reporters hadn’t worked so very, very hard to avoid giving any kind of context, the information that it was a single hopper-car, that they DID have a believed cause, what manner the stuff would have to be moved in,…

            well, basically, they did no reporting. Just set underwear on fire and tried to get people to put it on their heads.

            1. Going the other way, AN is absurdly commonly available as bulk fertilizer, and available in small quantities in some surprising products.

              If the presstitutes understood -that- , they would poop Adobe blocks.

              And it is also sold quite openly as “exploding target” kits. Which kinda boggles me. For laughs, watch any number of idiot-videos on you-fool. Most instructive is the dude that just misses eating a fridge door at boomspeed. Darwin said “drat”.

              1. Or that poor idiot that blew up a lawnmower and got very closely acquainted with the blade a split second later…if that video is still around. Yikes. Not sure if that dude survived or not.

  16. “Dishes are for plotting. Laundry is for thinking about history.”

    Ah a glimpse into the mind of the author! God willin’ and the creek don’t rise, see you in a couple of weeks (at LibertyCon).

    We Irish took about 4 generations to be finally accepted, and we’re a particularly ornery lot. You know the whole all our wars are merry and all our songs are sad. The Chinese took longer because there were actual laws enforced against them. We took over the police in the Northeast. The Koreans cornered the donut shops. The Indians the motel business. The Vietnamese, mostly software and high tech.

    The Mexicans are an unusual case since they’re highly concentrated in states that used to be part of Mexico (even if only nominally as our hostess points out), and there are many out there who would insist the land is still theirs. Of course that ignores the Indian Tribes that they fought and enslaved at every opportunity.

    1. Around here (Seattle), sushi restaurants are largely Cantonese, and teriyaki restaurants are largely Korean. I suspect that’s because sushi and teriyaki are popular but there aren’t enough actual Japanese Americans to cover the demand.

    2. Vietnamese also cornered the nail salon business pretty much everywhere they settled.

      There’s a neat story behind that.

      1. Yup. Tippi Hedren was working with relief agencies when several refugees started admiring her nails. She thought that would be a great career path for folk who had lost everything (because like hair salons, you “rent” a space at a salon and don’t need to provide the gear.)* So she flew in her own personal manicurist to teach folk and helped them navigate the licensing processes.

        Crazy thing is that 50% of manicurists are Vietnamese now, which is one hell of an impact for one woman with an idea.

        There’s an interesting bit of information about refugee impact on subsequent generations, specifically the jobs they push their kids towards. Refugees want their kids to have jobs that are high status, but are portable. The example I saw was Jewish musicians—they tended to have the stereotype of violin, which is portable, or piano, which no one expects you to transport.

        I live in an area with a large Vietnamese population. First generation was strawberry farmers (low capital job.) Among other things, there’s a large number of dentists in the second generation.

    3. In Silicon Valley (back when semiconductors were there), the Hmong had the doughnut franchises.

      I’m ignorant of the situation in Flyover Falls, since eating a donut has extremely unpleasant aftereffects.

  17. Back in the seventies, the favorite LP of the libertarians I knew was Who’s Next, and especially its final track, “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” with its cautionary final lines, “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”

    Earlier on, there was Kipling’s warning against the king’s return, in “The Old Issue.”

    I hope such sentiments haven’t vanished from the British Isles.

    1. https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_oldissue.htm

      The Old Issue
      October 9, 1899
      (Outbreak of Boer War)

      “Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets,
      “Many feet have worn it and the road is old indeed.
      “It is the King—the King we schooled aforetime !”
      (Trumpets in the marshes—in the eyot at Runnymede!)

      “Here is neither haste, nor hate, nor anger,” peal the Trumpets,
      “Pardon for his penitence or pity for his fall.
      “It is the King!”—inexorable Trumpets—
      (Trumpets round the scaffold at the dawning by Whitehall!)

      “He hath veiled the Crown and hid the Sceptre,” warn the Trumpets,
      “He hath changed the fashion of the lies that cloak his will.
      “Hard die the Kings—ah hard—dooms hard!” declare the Trumpets,
      Trumpets at the gang-plank where the brawling troop-decks fill!

      Ancient and Unteachable, abide—abide the Trumpets!
      Once again the Trumpets, for the shuddering ground-swell brings
      Clamour over ocean of the harsh, pursuing Trumpets—
      Trumpets of the Vanguard that have sworn no truce with Kings!

      All we have of freedom, all we use or know—
      This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

      Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw—
      Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law.

      Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
      Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.

      Till our fathers ’stablished, after bloody years,
      How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

      So they bought us freedom—not at little cost
      Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost,

      Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
      Suffer not the old King: for we know the breed.

      Give no ear to bondsmen bidding us endure.
      Whining “He is weak and far”; crying “Time shall cure.”,

      (Time himself is witness, till the battle joins,
      Deeper strikes the rottenness in the people’s loins.)

      Give no heed to bondsmen masking war with peace.
      Suffer not the old King here or overseas.

      They that beg us barter—wait his yielding mood—
      Pledge the years we hold in trust—pawn our brother’s blood—

      Howso’ great their clamour, whatsoe’er their claim,
      Suffer not the old King under any name!

      Here is naught unproven—here is naught to learn.
      It is written what shall fall if the King return.

      He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,
      Set his guards about us, as in Freedom’s name.

      He shall take a tribute, toll of all our ware;
      He shall change our gold for arms—arms we may not bear.

      He shall break his judges if they cross his word;
      He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

      He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
      Watchers ’neath our window, lest we mock the King—

      Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies;
      Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.

      Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
      These shall deal our Justice: sell—deny—delay.

      We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse
      For the Land we look to—for the Tongue we use.

      We shall take our station, dirt beneath his feet,
      While his hired captains jeer us in the street.

      Cruel in the shadow, crafty in the sun,
      Far beyond his borders shall his teachings run.

      Sloven, sullen, savage, secret, uncontrolled,
      Laying on a new land evil of the old—

      Long-forgotten bondage, dwarfing heart and brain—
      All our fathers died to loose he shall bind again.

      Here is naught at venture, random nor untrue—
      Swings the wheel full-circle, brims the cup anew.

      Here is naught unproven, here is nothing hid:
      Step for step and word for word—so the old Kings did!

      Step by step, and word by word: who is ruled may read.
      Suffer not the old Kings: for we know the breed—

      All the right they promise—all the wrong they bring.
      Stewards of the Judgment, suffer not this King!

      3. Holy moly, Kipling was a prophet (says the native Southerner, mocked for the land she lives on and the tongue she uses).

        1. If you look carefully, Kipling quotes the Magna Charta in several places. (As does the Declaration of Independence, in the grievances section.)

      4. I love that!

        We know the breed — all the right they promise — all the wrong they bring. Stewards of the Judgment, suffer not this King!

        1. Been pointing that out, with that poem, for years. “Nothing here unproven, nothing new to learn.”

          We are seeing what always falls when the King is allowed to return.

  18. (I know I have Portuguese readers. I don’t think we have any Mexican ones, but who knows?)

    At least one reader who is in Mexico, a cousin in law of mine.

    Lurker who doesn’t read the comments, though.

  19. I think the process of assimilating Mexico has been going on for a long time. So many families have branches on both sides of the border. Hasn’t the US conquered Mexico City twice? Then left due to too much trouble and bother?

    I’ve sort of thought that most of the illegal immigration is coming from farther afield like South America or even folks from Africa on airplanes?

    For some reason I’ve felt that Mexicans are quite aware that Americans are reaching a tipping point. And they have been going home or wrapping themselves in US flags, and wearing Make America Great Again hats.

    Sort of felt similarly about Turkey and Germany from what I have read. Turkish folk know Germans don’t have infinite patience, refugees have been coming from much further afield, with know experience for signs of ‘about to lose it’.

    Sorry ramble…

    2. No, no. You’re RIGHT. It’s the “elite” who thinks they’re importing Mexicans. They aren’t. The Mexicans, and actually Central Americans sniff the air and know what is coming. And want no part of it. The exceptions are people like Venezuelans because what do they have to lose.

  20. “… because people are “naturally communist.” ”

    (pondering) The central “virtue” of Communism appears to be Envy. People are, indeed, naturally inclined toward envy, and must be carefully trained to constrain and redirect the impulse. So: the assertion is partially true.

    1. I wrote a weird little riff on A Christmas Carol and included Envy as a creature on the back of Ignorance, not on the back of Want (who I changed to Lack to alleviate confusion.)

      And yes, I did it that way on purpose. It’s not the lack of things that causes envy.

  21. I, for one, am too tired to kill any kings or other self-appointed fuehrers.

    I’m not worth a bullet or a new rope, I would probably infect the other prisoners in my cell lock, and left alone, I don’t cause enoughvtrouble to bother with.

    But the left can’t leave anything or anyone alone. And that’s where they slip up. They’ll make others notice me And what I think will spread.

    I have US flags in many places, copies of Sarah’s books and the Bible as well.

    We all livebor die by the grace of God, so I wanted more prep than a couple (large) bags of rice, beans, oatmeal, powdered eggs, and Vienna Sausages…

  22. Have to go back 4 generations to get an import in my family tree (Bohemian by way of Germany, of course. And Bohemian sounds better than Moravian, or Czech.)
    “Hey Mike, what’s that symbol in your family tree?”
    “It’s a Czech Mark, of course.”

    2. The Reader suggests you pitch the ‘Czech Mark’ to Elon Musk.

  23. My bias will show but the dislike of authority ran deep in the Scandinavians who established much of England. I say this as someone who’s had my own troubles with “fairness “. White privilege will only get you so far when you’re a pita.

        1. Yep: “Duh, I dunno.”

          Unfortunately for her, real parrots are more intelligent.

  24. I still say that what we are seeing in United States is the high water mark in the flood of Communism. They are winning in some areas, but those wins have resulted in them pushing things too far. Their woke cities and states are collapsing under the weight of their own wokeness. The normies are fleeing and they probably won’t be back. Which is reducing the number of woke representatives in congress, both New York and California have lost seats in congress. Not to mention the lost revenues going into their treasuries. Just ask Bud Lite and Target and the shopping district in San Frandisco whether or not woke works. Newsome is little more than a modern day Nero, not the Democrat hero. If they try to pull off the whole cheating again this time around, I don’t see people putting up with it. They are stupid enough to try it, if they do that’s when I think the problems will arise. I could easily see the people not only hanging politicians, but the press as well. Dear press the American people are starting to hate you, even more than you hate them. If you thought the few who got beat up the last time there were protests, that was the scumbags and criminals, not the normies. When they start, all bets are off and you’d better hope you’re the large breasted weather girl not a reporter.

    1. San Frandisco is not a misspelling, the politicians there still think it is some kind of wonderful party and it’s all kumbiya and cookies. Marijuana was not the salvation they thought, and all the revenue they have gained does not cover the expense of legalization. That and no one can compete with the cartels for price. You’d have to secure the border for that. Which because of their wokeness, they can’t do.

      1. Mayor Breed in San Francisco appears to be getting a clue and coming to the realization that things have gone too far. I pity her in that respect because it’s also clear right now that short of the public lynching every Antifa member within the city limits, she’s not going to be allowed to make even the slightest rollback of the disastrous policies that have SF rushing headlong toward the precipice.

        And someone over in Ace’s comments mentioned the other day that SF’s new DA (the one who replaced Boudin after the recall election) tried to do her job, and has gotten the State AG sicced on her as a result.

        1. THIS. Once you have crossed over into wokeness, you can’t retreat without being shot in the back by your former fellows.

        1. So has the Oregon government.

          Canada is working on that too. Our recent trip notice pot is legal now, at least in Alberta. Still can’t carry it, or the by products, across the border, legally. Go figure. Just an amusing thought for us as we noticed the signs posted.

          Also, crossing north, showed passports, got asked why, dog barked. “Have a good trip.” Didn’t even ask for dog’s rabies certificate, let alone the health certificate. (Waste of $238 for the health certificate. Won’t bother next time, if there is a next time.) Crossing south got a few more questions, even “Do you have any firearms?” Resisted the “do you think we are stupid” type of answers. Also did not ask anything for the dog (who was again NOT quiet). Did kind of look into the back of the vehicle. Like border guard could see a thing after a week+ of traveling and 3 hotels. Hey, vehicle started packed nice and neat, and we didn’t have any human kids with us. By Friday morning? Not a chance.

        3. I suspect that all of the states that have legalized pot either have, or will, end up screwing it up. The problem is that it’s being sold to state governments as a good source of tax revenues. Which means that state governments expect to tax it in exchange for legalizing it. And taxing it is what drives the “honest” pot salesmen out of business.

          2. Taxed to the max here in WA. They did the same when the referendum on eliminating state liquor stores came around; tax per bottle is pert near 40%. Now I only buy liquor when I visit neighboring states.

            1. Oregon. There is a reason some take orders and make special runs to Mexico. (Cough, BIL.) BIL goes through cases of the stuff. Hubby puts in orders for 4 bottles, which lasts forever at this house because we don’t drink regularly. Hubby does as part of golf, sips for different types of strokes (don’t ask don’t remember). But 4 quarts lasts him forever. I remember when before started playing 4x/week hubby won a gallon of whiskey in a raffle. How did we get rid of that? Took it to a New Years Eve party and conveniently “forgot it”.

          3. Whether on pot, booze, tobacco, or soda drinks, these ‘sin’ taxes hit a trifecta of stupid, evil, and crazy. The taxing authorities sincerely and simultaneously believe that:
            a. The ‘bad effects’ from the sin being taxed will drop because the high taxes will make people give up the product.
            b. The revenue from the tax will be huge because the high taxes won’t make people give up the product. And…
            c. People won’t try to evade the tax, legally or otherwise, but instead will simultaneously pay the tax and stop consuming the product (see a and b above).

          4. And it’s not like there is a whole pre-existing underground market infrastructure. …

            Oh, wait..

            1. And it’s not like there is a whole pre-existing underground market infrastructure. … Oh, wait..
              …………….

              In Oregon a lot of those prior illegal growers were hired to go legit. Not that it hasn’t stopped the illegal grows. One thing it did stop, or maybe my example finally just grew up, the small house grows.

              Example is neighbor of mom’s. Though to be fair the current owner, grandson to the original owner, washed his hands of the situation as soon as he legally could get out. He has now fully inherited the house on his own, paying something to his surviving cousin, and his father, although legally not required to. Getting the quit claim notarized signatures was worth the minimal cost (his words – $75k total on a house and property worth $400k+ even in the shape it was in). What we do know is the backyard and inside house medical grows next to mom’s house, is gone/uprooted/ history.

  25. I suspect that a cleansing of the United States is a more likely scenario. Expulsion of the illegals en masse, without exception, would be wildly popular. And solve a LOT of problems, we’re not importing Payers illegally.

    Follow it up by pulling the corrupt Democrat big-city political machines up by the roots.

    1. Unlikely to occur. If it did, too easy to sabotage by small groups. Then we have war. Ain’t happening.

      Are you really supportive of -this- government having the power of mass arrest, and mass “relocation”?

      You cannot possibly be so naive to believe you or others you care about won’t wind up in those boxcars.

      You can’t say “well I would fight” yet assume they would be helpless to fight, or unwilling.

      Madness.

      Could we make it uncomfortable to freeload? Sure. To the same degree we do so for all. But lose the mass roundup/deport fantasy. No one sane would allow that setup to get rolling. Because it will be directed against those who annoy the State, guar-an-teed.


  26. And the trend seems to have transferred to America, on more or less the same cycle of presidents either killed or attempted against. Seems to be a deep set cultural thing.
    At least as expressed in America… it’s … like the king version of stoning a false prophet.

    You keeps your deals, or you dies.

    1. Ours seem to fall to lunatics.

      It’s the age-old assassin problem. The lone crazies often succeed, because they act alone and are nuts. The other often-successful category are bodyguards. (Paging Indra Gandhi to the courtesy phone…)

  27. Haven’t read yet. Or any of the comments.

    We are back, as of 7:30 PM PST. 5000+ miles driven: Banff (via Eugene to Bonner Ferry Idaho, across border 4 bears*, 3 black/brown, 1 grizzly), Jasper (8 bears in one day), Waterton, Yellowstone, Tetons, home to Eugene (very, very, long day – 840 miles and 14 hours). Gone 15 days (counting the two major travel days).

    (*) Bears were this spring trip’s theme. Saw at least one / day, other than the extensive travel days. Including Yellowstone to Tetons (route: W. Yellowstone, Mammoth, Tower, Dunraven Pass, Hayden Valley, Grant, South Entrance, i.e. the long way) saw 4 grizzlies (sow and triplets – cutie little babies).

      1. Not ALL the bears had cubs. It is interesting that in every single park the trend is for mama bears to raise the cubs by attracting the paparazzi (Harry & Megan eat your hearts out) and raising that seasons COY (black/brown bears), or COY/yearlings (grizzly) near-ish to roads. Why? The boars, who kill a cub (COY or yearling) if they get a chance, stay away.

        Trust that once you’ve experienced it, there is a huge difference between a “bear jam” and any other animal jam, including bison. Note, we also saw moose, big horn sheep, wild goats, elk, pronghorn, and other animals; but we always see these. Bears a lot more elusive and involve “Luck”. (They can be yards off the road and invisible. Even when you watched them move to that location.) Even saw wolves, even it we do have to add red flashing arrows to the printed picture stating “Wolf! Honest!”

  29. The Scots had a century and a half or so of “kings in name only”. They liked the concept of a king, just not the Stewarts that were the actual kings so they kicked them out and/or made sure they were minors as much as possible. See Mary QoS, James 6th (and 1 of England) etc.

    They also had a lot more kings die in unpeaceful ways. England has had long periods where we didn’t kill a king or have a civil war though there have a been a number of cases (most recently Ed VIII in the 1930s) where the powers that be have made sure that the right person became king and if wrong he died.

    On the whole I’m in favor of constitutional monarchs rather than the US (or French) Presidential system. You need someone who is not a greasy politician who can occasionally bang heads together and so on. And having someone who has observed the various pols and so on down the decades who can give advice to the Prime Minister is useful. I know many British PMs have said they appreciated the advice they have received from their monarch.

    A constitutional monarch is really there as a way to keep a chain of authority when the politicians do dumb stuff and need to be firmly put in their place. It results in fewer heads on spikes and the like. I think it is actually important that the monarch is the titular head of the armed forces because that means that, when push comes to shove, the monarch has an army to ensure the slimy pols and/or bureaucrats behave

    1. Going by the example of Britain? Gah. Europe in general? Gah. Unless reduced to a figurehead? Then why even bother?

      Choosing inbreeding of monarchs seems like a poor plan for good governance. Especially long term.

      Britain lasted as long as it did in spite of monarchy, not because of it. And the last 100 years is instructive.

      1. Not defending monarchs, but plenty of elected politicians are as stupid/evil as any monarchs of the past.

        On the other hand, I wonder what’s the advantage of having a monarch but not giving the monarch any real power.

        And yes, I’ve heard the claims by pro-monarchy Brits supporting having that sort of monarch.

        1. Elizabeth II did rather well.

          Charles? Look out Britain. He will out weird George III.

          1. Charles? Look out Britain.
            …………..

            May his reign be short. May William’s apprenticeship be short. Long live King William. (As an a USAian, really don’t care, except for the popcorn.)

      2. inbred monarchs

        Well, I guess our ruling class Ivy League grads still have genetic diversity going for them.

  30. Apropos of absolutely nothing – for those who heard about the disaster declaration for my part of Texas last night, I’m fine. The high water is close, but RedQuarters is literally high and mostly dry (parts of the back yard go squish). We should taps wood start getting a few days without rain, and that will help.

    2. Start building a wooden barge, and laugh maniacly after asking “how long can you tread water?”

      1. “You and me, Lord, right?”

        Say what you want about Cosby, he had some great routines. 🙂

          1. The whole “Why is there Air” album is classic. Really is a shame that folks like that fall into the trap of thinking they can do anything (Looking at YOU Woody Allen, although honestly after Sleeper things went downhill).

              1. And it doesn’t help when you find out about Mr Allen’s proclivities and see some of it mirrored in what he wrote and put on screen. Hard to enjoy when you know what hides there.

Comments are closed.