Comments on: Honor, shame, Zimmerman, and Martin

By: Captain Ned

Captain Ned — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:26:00 +0000

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

By: Rob Crawford

Rob Crawford — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:16:06 +0000

Honestly, I am not sure where this has come from. I’ve seen people lambaste Zimmerman as a weakling (not the word they used) and not a “man” because he was losing the fight.

I call it the language of bullies. Frankly, I think people are “anti-gun” because they are bullies, and are terrified that someday they may bully a target capable of fighting back.

By: Not Malcolm X

Not Malcolm X — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:24:07 +0000

These people are only a couple of centuries removed from the tribalism – and the violent and barbaric environments – of the African jungles they once called home. Western civilization has cast off most vestiges of it’s clannish origins and barbarism but it took many many centuries.

By: Socratease

Socratease — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:58:17 +0000

Not sure if someone already brought this up, but the same people who are (at least by implication) making the argument that a black person (unlike a privileged white) is justified in using violence against someone if he perceived from him a lack of respect and/or some measure of prejudice, are the same people who decry as bigoted neanderthals anyone who suggests that being wary of young black males is not unreasonable given the statistical propensity for violence and criminality of that cohort.

Anyway, none of this “logic” makes sense, since Zimmerman wasn’t white, wasn’t rich, wasn’t privileged, and had no more political influence than Trayvon did, yet the Left happily ignores facts and continues their class warfare meme regardless. It seems to just be a knee-jerk reaction against anything that smells like individual empowerment, self-sufficiency, and bourgeois values — all the rest is just their public justification for being outrageously outraged.

By: Cobalt Shiva

Cobalt Shiva — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:48:36 +0000

I’ve run into this mentality here and there as well.

One man told me that he’d do it because it was somehow “self-defense” to beat someone for following him, and he further argued that he was able to “defend” himself with his fists, and, “…not defend myself the way a complete coward would, which is with a gun.”

The guy who posted the above claimed to have a bachelor’s degree and a good job.

It’s the worship of “might makes right” as a method of organizing a culture.

Buckle up for safety, folks, it’s going to be a very rough ride.

By: bill-o

bill-o — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:39:28 +0000

For more read Thomas Sowells: Black Rednecks and White Liberals

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031436

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:49:36 +0000

I heard once that regiments were based entirely on a single province, in order to solidify esprit de corps. Also an easy way to suppress rebellions by taking a provincial force miles away to do the job.

But the British Empire’s military was not something I studied in depth so I don’t know if they followed that custom.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:48:03 +0000

I’ve heard many of the Roman auxiliaries were Celtic skirmishers or berserkers. Lightly armored, but very stamina trained. The Romans themselves recruited from the civilized portion of Briton, but they were more than a match for the disorganized barbarians up north like the Picts.

On an individual level, though, civilization made individuals soft and less effective as warriors.

In the modern era, we supplement training time with more efficient training methodology, safety and lack of injuries, and scientific reproduction of theories.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:29:21 +0000

Y.
Yeah. The Galatians got a letter, long time ago. I think they have some kind of bagpipes.

Read something about the Painted People. Guy made the case that the British Army’s shock troops were mostly Celtic, either by regimental recruiting, or with many in the supposedly English regiments. While continental Europe had some great castles in defensible terrain–makes for fabulous travel posters–it was on the Celtic borders that massive fortifications had to be built without terrain to help. Welsh border, Hadrian’s Wall.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:34:18 +0000

They were later called “Jacksonians”. Although that didn’t mean they shared Andrew Jackson’s personal beliefs and behavior.

Celtics were responsible for a lot of magical witches, warlocks, and druids back in the day. Somehow, following a leader, war leader, or a spiritual guide, they made it all the way to Turkey, one such tribe.