October 17, 2013

The essence of Stuff White People Like is disliking other white people

I've only been hunting once, on my late father-in-law's farm, and we never saw a single dove all day. But I still have opinions on what is sporting and unsporting.

Hunting elephants with an AK-47 from a helicopter: unsporting.

Hunting cape buffalo on foot with any weapon less powerful than a bazooka: sporting.

But, the most crazily sporting thing I've heard of recently is what a young hunter named David Mayer did last year. He scuba dove 85 feet down in Puget Sound, but without a spear gun. He found a 9-foot-wide, 80-pound Great Pacific Octopus. From Marnie Hanel's NYT Magazine article:
The giant Pacific octopus was curled inside a rock piling, both its color and texture altered by camouflage. Mayer judged it to be his size, about six feet, and wondered if he could take it on alone. He lunged at the octopus, grabbing one of its eight arms. It slipped slimily between his fingers, its suckers feeling and tasting his hand. He reached for it again, and again it retreated. Able to squeeze its body through a space as small as a lemon, the octopus was unlikely to succumb to his grip. He poked it with his finger and watched it turn brighter shades of red, until finally, it sprang forward and revealed itself to be a nine-foot wheel charging through the water. 
The octopus grabbed Mayer where it could, encircling his thigh, spiraling his torso, its some 1,600 suckers — varying in size from a peppercorn to a pepper mill — latching onto his wet suit and face. It pulled Mayer’s regulator out of his mouth. His adrenaline rising, he punched the creature, and began a wrestling match that would last 25 minutes.

Eventually, he emerged alive and cooked the octopus for dinner.

That's about the fairest fight imaginable. I mean, a Homo erectus would have at least taken a rock with him.

This made Mayer a hero with Seattle's locavore community for harvesting a local, legally huntable and highly abundant foodstuff using the absolute minimum of technology. After all, as Hanel notes, octopus salad is one of the celebrated dishes served at the foodiest restaurants in Seattle.

Nah, I'm kidding. Mayer instantly became demonized in Seattle.

Why?

Well, much of it has to do with the culture war between coastal and inland white people. Mayer is from an inland exurb of Seattle, and exhibits all the class markers of Stuff White People Don't Like:
According to the permit he had just purchased at Walmart, Mayer was allowed to catch this sea life and cook it, which is exactly what he set out to do. He wasn’t much of a chef, but he had experience foraging for his dinner. Mayer had attended a high school known for its Future Farmers of America program; he also knew how to slaughter cows and castrate bulls. Now he was going to community college ...

By the way, this doesn't particularly represent a money divide -- scuba divers are seldom poor and Mayer, like Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate, practiced his scuba diving in his parents' swimming pool. Unlike The Graduate, however, he had his friends attack him in the pool so he could improve his underwater octopus wrestling skills.

Instead, this represents a cultural difference related, in large measure, to population density.

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

More proof that the real gap isn't class or intellect or culture; it's between alphas and betas. And after five thousand years of having their asses smacked by a wet towel in the locker room (outside Troy, for example) the Betas think they're finally winning. Hey, B-boys . . . wanna bet? Dudes, you are like totally cruising for a bruising.

Jason said...

Actually, if you're into this kind of thing Mr. Sailer, there is a wonderful scene in the book-version of Dr. No in which Bond actually takes on a gigantic octopus (or something like it, anyway); Flemming describes it all quite vividly.

Anonymous said...

We need someone to battle the big octopus circling the globe.

countenance said...

Which is the total opposite of the essence of Stuff Black People Don't Like. (Blog link hint)

Hunsdon said...

In the end, I'm convinced that they just don't like us. They don't like how we live, they don't like how we look at the world. They just don't like us.

Antioco Dascalon said...

Whites see status. Other races see race. So, low-class whites get the shaft from everyone else. Redneck jokes, honey-boo boo, Ivy league degrees, shopping at Whole Foods, voting for Obama, these are all signs of the class struggle among whites. And racism is the biggest weapons that class-striving whites use against their kin.

C. Van Carter said...

Many Seattle restaurants serve octopus, you can buy it at Uwajimaya or the famous Pike Place fish market, but no freakout over that.

Jason said...

Basically they are Whites who are Anti-White.

Sure, they like to live in the nicest neighborhoods they can, which are generally White, but Benedict Arnold liked to live well too, didn't he?

Anonymous said...

Ted Cruz looks like Mork. Nanoo Nanoo.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of whiteness, get a load of this:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/16/how_white_america_forgives_its_own/

"Woody Allen and Roman Polanski get a pass from white audiences for abuse allegations -- black artists don't."

Polanski and Allen and their fans are 'white'.

And blacks don't forgive scumbag black celebrities? So, who were those cheering on OJ?
And why did blacks in DC keeping electing Barry?

Dave Pinsen said...

I think you're eliding an obvious point here. When it comes to killing animals for food, SWPLs (and many non-SWPLs) would rather minimize cruelty than maximize fairness. There are even SWPLs who slaughter their own animals these days, but they generally try to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible. They would be similarly appalled if someone spent 25 minutes punching a cow to death; doesn't mean they're against eating beef.

Melendwyr said...

I see this as simple disconnection from the realities of meat-eating. Plenty of people eat meat yet are horrified by the sight of butchering corpses. Being horrified at the sight of harvesting an octopus is no different.

The species is doing fine and there are no indications that will change... so all those people turned out in outrage for no real reason.

Anonymous said...

They would be similarly appalled if someone spent 25 minutes punching a cow to death; doesn't mean they're against eating beef.


What are you talking about? Who are the vegans and vegetarians, the parents of honey boo boo, the duck dynasty rednecks? Gimme a break!

The SWPLs many of them are vegans/vegetarians but the vaaaast majority (try 95%) of all vegans and vegetarians come from the SWPL class.

Very few blacks are vegans/vegetarians. Very few white rednecks are vegans. Very few hispanics and asians are vegans or vegetarians.

Only leaves SWPL uppity hoi pollois. No one left and we know that the PETA folks was mainly started by the higher up SWPL.

Example right now: Who is having this major bugaboo about trying to change the NFL DC team Redskins? Not the rednecks. Not the blacks. Not even the Indians.

Where's all the hubbub coming from?
Who starts all these beta fights all the time?

SWPLs


And this time this is no time to be LOL about it.

Colin Laney said...

"They would be similarly appalled if someone spent 25 minutes punching a cow to death; doesn't mean they're against eating beef."

This is interesting. I read Steve's original post and sided with the hunter and against the SWPLs.

This argument was persuasive to me, though. I don't think the fellow should be demonized, but this is a legitimate point.

As for what constitutes hunting which befits a man, I think that knives, spears, and arrows all the way up to crossbows is fine.

If you want to hunt larger game, you need to go hunting in packs.

Recreation hunting of this sort was practiced by European aristocrats going back to the time of the Roman Emperors.

If you're using a gun to hunt an animal for some reason besides a need for food, you don't have any reason to think highly of yourself. Far from.

Hunting game with a gun is like fishing with dynamite. Not an occasion for pride.

Going after the boar with some Clovis Point tech - that I can admire.

Anonymous said...

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/16/how_white_america_forgives_its_own/


That's a perfect example of how the culture is relentlessly (and in this particular case ludicrously) anti-white. The SWPL phenomenon is only explainable in that context.

Saying it is about status striving - and it partly is - are missing the first step. How were those social status values decided upon and how were they transmitted to the young?

Schools and media - mostly media.

The creation of SWPLs began in Hollywood.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I suggest again that liberalism is largely social and fashion-driven, rather than a product of intellect. Not that many of them aren't smart. But their intellect is used in a)discerning the socially preferable and b)rationalising the choice.

Anonymous said...

Two tentacles are being sawn from this octopus.

Anonymous said...


If you're using a gun to hunt an animal for some reason besides a need for food, you don't have any reason to think highly of yourself. Far from.

Hunting game with a gun is like fishing with dynamite. Not an occasion for pride.


That's apples to broccoli. Fishing is hunting the prey while its underwater. Hunting mammals is on land.


You're MISSIN' it. This aint colonial aristocratic times. This is a new era.

In big game, you hunt...until you WIN. Period.

How do you win? When the game is killed. What is the one guarantee (if anything is a guarantee hunting in the wild) that you could mathematically win? Boom. Bang. You win. And oftentimes it takes more than a single shotter to win.

This whole crap "You can't think so high of yourself cause you used a gun, etc etc". That's really one opinion vs another. In the end, everyone is left the earth so it doesnt matter.

"Americans love a winner." THAT is what counts most.
Did you win, son? Did you win? History's written by the winners so after the fact it can always be interpreted to your advantage anyway.

Did you win?

And....you have to play until you win, so did you win? Gun = you win. No one really hunts for food in any significant number so who cares. It's the winning.

If you're in the wild and use an elephant gun to stop a rhino or a cape buffalo cause it was charging straight at you, fatster than you, ready to kill you....who's gonna really care at end of day how you stopped it? And you'll be glad you stopped it. Your family will be glad that you came out.....the winner.

That's all hunting for sport is about anyway. Winning. Bagging and taking home something, anything. Winning.

Americans.....love a winner.

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting student presentation from the University of Virgina entitled "White Trash: The Construction of an American Scapegoat." From the description:

This site explores the general treatment of working class whites in the media -- comics, literature, film and television; dealing in depth with the areas of religion, race relations, work and lifestyle in defining working class whites as a unique social culture.

It is not terribly long and it reads well. The sections are broken up into digestible chunks. I wonder what grade the student received for this report.

sunbeam said...

This guy sounds like an idiot. What's that word for seeing patterns where none exist?

There is no deeper meaning here about Alpha Males/Beta Males or whatever. The guy is a total idiot and if this had turned out badly for him, and the story had someone gotten known, he would have had a great Darwin Award entry.

I guess you can spin things or look at it as another example of fairly predictable herd thinking by the usual suspects in Seattle.

But I read this story and think "What a Moron."

When I was in High School I remember a story about some people drinking and a dare to piss on the sparkplug wire of a running truck.

A moron actually did it.

Anecdotal I know, urban myth even, but it was a secondhand account from someone who had reputedly been there.

This octopus story makes me react in the same way.

You know, the reactions to this story in this thread also make me think of another point.

Most of the readers here don't understand violence at all. There is no mythical bad-ass or something of the sort.

Violence is about shooting fish in a barrel. Making sure you have the most uneven fight possible, in your favor, by any means.

I think most white people have been brainwashed or something by Hollywood. Three on one isn't unfair, it's the Law of the Jungle. All this crap about bravery, toughness, Beowulf pulling off Grendel's Arm, etc is all mythological. You have spin doctors or bards or what have you to dress things up after the fact. Or shit talkers.

Real life is about you and two other guys ambushing someone you don't like, or a member of a group you don't like and beating him senseless with clubs. Or killing him. Anything else is the thinking of Hollywood types, the people who wrote penny dreadfuls, or the like.

Later you tell anyone that cares that you totally did it solo, and that he totally had it coming, you totally tried to avoid the unfortunate incident.

Do it enough times, be smart about it, and your side wins. The block, WWII, what have you.

Real life is also about not poking an octopus underwater, in an environment where you die if you have something go wrong with your breathing gear. I thought that would have gone without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous wrote:

"This site explores the general treatment of working class whites in the media -- comics, literature, film and television; dealing in depth with the areas of religion, race relations, work and lifestyle in defining working class whites as a unique social culture."

You know I can't remember the last time I saw a working class white male on a tv show. I don't watch a lot of TV, so I'm vaguely aware of Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy. But the last show I can remember with a white working class protagonist was Roseanne.

We are a long way from the Honeymooners where Ralph Kramden drove a bus.

Ichabod Crane said...

Even if this young man were a famed locovore chef, killing a large animal for sport is enough of a redneck class-marker to outweigh almost anything else. I don't it would go over well whoever did it.

Just as the a gang of redneck hunters or Lumberjacks might not approve of of an extremely manly lumberjack or hunter who is also openly gay:
Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo
Exhibit B: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-ylrA244nmhbJmm/bruno_2009_bruno_camps_with_hunters/

Anonymous said...

Antioco Dascalon said...
Whites see status. Other races see race.


Asians "see status." I find that Asians are some of the most SWPL in this country. Asian immigrants in this country are actually quite assimilative. But that's the problem -- they are no longer emigrating to America of 1950s. Instead they see SWPL-type people as top dogs, so they assimilate into that culture.

And that's largely the issue with immigration today -- we have seen the enemy and he is us. It's not that the immigrants aren't assimilating well. In fact, they are assimilating all too well. It's that we Americans are no longer requiring the type of assimilation that once was required of them.

JN

Whiskey said...

Sunbeam no ambush low level violence is the non Western way. Western way is shock battle of annihilation, Salamis, Marathon, Tours, Vienna, Platea, etc. Face to face killing the enemy, more disciplined wins in horrific battle.

Hollywood run by Louis Mayer and Sam Goldwyn had class animus ... against the rich. Anti lower, middle class is upscale Apple led advertising from the Clinton era.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Steve, it would truly be sporting and manlier if did not use SCUBA gear.

Mountain Maven said...

The real puzzle is the self-hatred of the swpl crowd. That is why the men are such wimps. They hate everything they are.

Ichabod Crane said...

Sasha Baron Cohen made fun of rednecks who took hilarious offense at homosexuality (Bruno) and other taboo behavior (Ali G and Borat). Also, a couple of years ago, I recall a spate of articles in the Times and other important publications claiming that politically conservative-types more easily take offense than liberals....

.... But I wonder if there couldn't be a redneck equivalent of Cohen who makes liberals take equally hilarious offense:
• A locovore wins kudos in a bar by discussing how he forages for his food, and then takes dead animals out of his backpack and offers a raw heart to his new friends.
• A flamboyantly gay Bruno-type man gathers other effeminate men together to build a gay pride float. But before beginning, he delivers a long prayer to Jesus, thanking Jesus for delivering him from his former abominable lifestyle, and asking Jesus to save everybody in the world, and ends with, "In Jesus' precious name we pray."

harkin said...

Why would anyone hunt elephants with an AK-47? Talk about using the wrong tool....

vetr said...

It is all fun and games until someone eats a green monkey and a hundred million people get AIDS.

Dave Pinsen said...

"What are you talking about? Who are the vegans and vegetarians, the parents of honey boo boo, the duck dynasty rednecks? Gimme a break!"

Vegans and vegetarians must be a pretty tiny minority of SWPLs these days. SWPLs dig meat these days.

"If you're using a gun to hunt an animal for some reason besides a need for food, you don't have any reason to think highly of yourself. Far from."

The hunters I know around here all hunt for food. What they don't eat themselves, they give away to friends, or donate to charities that feed the poor. As far as weapons, there are different seasons for different weapons. Some hunters use a bow during bow season, a muzzle loader during that season, etc. But again you've got the fairness/humanity issue. The most humane way of killing an animal like a deer is to shoot it with a hunting rifle. With a good shot, the animal will often die instantly. That's less likely if it's shot with an arrow.

Anonymous said...

This guy sounds like an idiot. What's that word for seeing patterns where none exist?

The answer = Lee harvey. As in Oswald. OMG, that's next month, Steve! The 50th anniversary of Grassy Knoll, JFK, etc. The media and Prez are gonna play it up big time, aren't they? This retro stuff never ends.

But that's the real answer, or rather the type of person who sees things, sees stuff when nothing's there. Lee Harvey Oswald, that's what you get.




Real life is about you and two other guys ambushing someone you don't like, or a member of a group you don't like and beating him senseless with clubs. Or killing him. Anything else is the thinking of Hollywood types, the people who wrote penny dreadfuls, or the like.



You want real life? Only film of 70s to really explore the violence theme was death wish. THAT is real life. Why did he win? He had a gun. Bang. Boom.

Real life is survival and thus winning to live, to survive yet another day on earth.

The character in the film won cause he had a gun, concealed, and most of the thugs did not. That confirms your point and also that it is about winning.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Ted Cruz looks like Mork. Nanoo Nanoo"

Actually, he kinda looks like Murray Hamilton, the actor who played Anne Bancroft's cuckolded husband in "The Graduate" and, more famously, the mayor of Amity in "Jaws".

Mr. Anon said...

"sunbeam said...

This guy sounds like an idiot. What's that word for seeing patterns where none exist?"

I thought the same. The guy sounds like a nitwit.

"Violence is about shooting fish in a barrel. Making sure you have the most uneven fight possible, in your favor, by any means.

I think most white people have been brainwashed or something by Hollywood. Three on one isn't unfair, it's the Law of the Jungle. All this crap about bravery, toughness, Beowulf pulling off Grendel's Arm, etc is all mythological. You have spin doctors or bards or what have you to dress things up after the fact. Or shit talkers.

Real life is about you and two other guys ambushing someone you don't like, or a member of a group you don't like and beating him senseless with clubs. Or killing him. Anything else is the thinking of Hollywood types, the people who wrote penny dreadfuls, or the like."

That's a good and important point. Most military tactics involve achieving the most lopsided odds possible. Erwin Rommel is remembered as a great general and the greatest tactician of armored warfare. And what was his trick? Flying columns of tanks hurtling toward the enemy like knights at the charge? Hell no. He arranged his forces in a cul-de-sac with free-standing artillery and tanks dug-in (used as artillery). Then he would send out a small force in a feint attack to bait the trap and lure enemy formations into it, whereupon they would be slaughtered like cattle in the crossfire. He used defensive tactics as an offensive tactic.

In the "Flashman" novels, the author George MacDonald Frazier describes 19th century military tactics and armaments at some length. I had always thought those armies of yore vaguely silly with thier colorful and delaborate uniforms and customs and so on. However, he brought home to me the point that they were military professionals, that they were quite serious about thier work, and that there were reasons for what they did.

Anonymous said...

Octupus Wrestling used to be all the rage in the 60ies, apparently: Octupus Wrestling

Ray Sawhill said...

I can't eat octopus any longer. After reading about them a bunch and (especially) after watching a lot of videos of them on YouTube ... Well, they're just too cool. They've got brains and personalities. I can't work up many feelings about chicken, cows or fish, and I don't mind eating them. But I'd feel really bad eating an octopus now.

Svigor said...

If the war ever goes hot, the coastal SWPLs will be paying guys like Mayer to fight guys like Mayer. They'd better hope their money outlasts the fighting.

In the end, I'm convinced that they just don't like us. They don't like how we live, they don't like how we look at the world. They just don't like us.

It's fear.

I think you're eliding an obvious point here. When it comes to killing animals for food, SWPLs (and many non-SWPLs) would rather minimize cruelty than maximize fairness. There are even SWPLs who slaughter their own animals these days, but they generally try to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible. They would be similarly appalled if someone spent 25 minutes punching a cow to death; doesn't mean they're against eating beef.

The guy spent 25 minutes wrestling a giant octopus to the death and that's the best you can come up with?

Anybody who spends 25 minutes fighting his food underwater deserves his kill, end of story.

If you're using a gun to hunt an animal for some reason besides a need for food, you don't have any reason to think highly of yourself. Far from.

I hear this horseshit from SPWLs every time this subject comes up. As usual, their shoddy arguments flow ineluctably from their laziness. Anybody who bothers to think about it for a few minutes knows that hunting for sport and hunting out of need are inextricably linked; only a moron waits to learn to hunt because he isn't starving yet. That's a great way to starve to death. Hunting is a skill that takes practice. The two activities are essentially one.

Hunting game with a gun is like fishing with dynamite.

You have no idea at all what you're talking about.

There is no deeper meaning here about Alpha Males/Beta Males or whatever. The guy is a total idiot and if this had turned out badly for him, and the story had someone gotten known, he would have had a great Darwin Award entry.

I do have to admit he sounds like a real nutjob.

Violence is about shooting fish in a barrel. Making sure you have the most uneven fight possible, in your favor, by any means.

It's also about having the fortitude to carry through. If anything, the lack of immediate necessity makes raises the bar; it's the spectre of necessity that drives the will here. Gutting an animal for the first time is not pleasant. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

Anonymous said...

Colin Laney said...

As for what constitutes hunting which befits a man, I think that knives, spears, and arrows all the way up to crossbows is fine.


Why stop there? In my book, you are not man enough unless you can punch an elephant to death for 25 minutes with nothing but your hands. Not even hand-wraps.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. I find all this "man enough" and "sporting enough" talk (let alone European aristocratic sport talk) all very silly -- posturings of people who don't know much about hunting at all, let alone about "being a man."

Hunting game with a gun is like fishing with dynamite. Not an occasion for pride.

I don't hunt for "pride." I hunt foremost because I get a huge thrill from killing a large, powerful animal. Frankly, it's fun and deeply satisfying. The meat is a nice bonus too (although it becomes some pretty expensive meat once you factor in all the costs).

Going after the boar with some Clovis Point tech - that I can admire.

I killed a wild boar with a knife once. But I had a pack of very powerful dogs with me and they did most of the work. In retrospect, I should've saved the money and the effort and just used a rifle.

And, yes, wild hog BBQ is great.

JN

Anonymous said...

sunbeam said...

I think most white people have been brainwashed or something by Hollywood. Three on one isn't unfair, it's the Law of the Jungle. All this crap about bravery, toughness, Beowulf pulling off Grendel's Arm, etc is all mythological. You have spin doctors or bards or what have you to dress things up after the fact. Or shit talkers.


I am a fairly pragmatic person. But I don't think words like courage, nobility and indomitability mean nothing. If survival were all that mattered, man would rather be a slave than dying "facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods."

It seems to me, if anything, the post-modern white man has been brainwashed to be "practical" like so much a nut- and berry-gathering woman rather than be a warrior who cares about his reputation, his deeds, his words and indeed his standing amongst other men.

Real life is also about not poking an octopus underwater, in an environment where you die if you have something go wrong with your breathing gear. I thought that would have gone without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

You are right. People shouldn't take risks in unfamiliar environments at all. That's so SWPL.

Da Gama shouldn't have ventured into India, Cort├ęs shouldn't have tangled with Aztecs and (to be multicultural) Cheng Ho shouldn't have voyaged to East Africa.

My gosh, a thousand things could have gone wrong and they could have shipwrecked like so many other sailors and explorers.

JN

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1RBQ_nukXM

Charcoal grilled octopus greek style

Dave Pinsen said...

"Sunbeam no ambush low level violence is the non Western way. Western way is shock battle of annihilation, Salamis, Marathon, Tours, Vienna, Platea, etc. Face to face killing the enemy, more disciplined wins in horrific battle."

When I was in US army infantry training, we spent plenty of time on ambush training. It's a staple of small unit tactics. Granted, the US military would prefer enemies face it in massed, large units, but most enemies (aside from Iraq in the first Gulf War) aren't that cooperative.

The key distinction here isn't between west and non-west but strong versus weak. Weaker forces resort to sabotage, infiltration, ambush, etc.

Gilbert Ratchet said...

I'm sending you $20 for this post alone.

Dahinda said...

I think that he is recieving heat from the PETA crowd more that the locovore crowd. Many locovores are taking classes on butchering their own meat which include killing the animal first. Here is a Chicago reporter who is part of the movement. (She is of Asian descent and not white, but she is still a large part of the SWPL crowd) http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/sections/lifestyle/should-children-meet-their-meat-108872

Anonymous said...

The Fallacy of Racial Kinship Politics

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/fallacy-racial-kinship-politics

Anonymous said...

I don't hunt for "pride." I hunt foremost because I get a huge thrill from killing a large, powerful animal. Frankly, it's fun and deeply satisfying.


Also, you like to win. And a gun guarantees that you most likely will win.

Really, now. Who likes to lose any more than they have to?

In part, the thrill results because you won. Its about winning, at the basic level. At the end of the day, mammal vs mammal, on land, and only one will emerge alive (the winner).

Good job, winning. Never need to apologize for it.

FredR said...

At the Huffington Post, Eric Kaufmann has a good, serious article on how the collapse of a shared ethno-nationalist tradition has led to a more polarized and dysfunctional political and social climate. He closes with a suggestion:

if America wants to have the more rational policy debate of Old Europe it may need to sacrifice some of its diversity for solidarity and adopt a more European model of national integration... It is difficult to see how a functioning welfare state and an end to polarisation can return without some revival of shared national understandings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/eric-kaufmann/how-liberals-helped-creat_b_4117018.html

Mr. Anon said...

"Dave Pinsen said...

""Whiskey: Sunbeam no ambush low level violence is the non Western way. Western way is shock battle of annihilation, Salamis, Marathon, Tours, Vienna, Platea, etc. Face to face killing the enemy, more disciplined wins in horrific battle.""

The key distinction here isn't between west and non-west but strong versus weak. Weaker forces resort to sabotage, infiltration, ambush, etc."

Yes, as Sunbeam mentioned, whether strong or weak, one tries to stack the odds in one's own favor.

But then it is no surprise that "Whiskey" (in his ridiculous, telegraphed text-speak) was once again yammering on about something of which he knows nothing.

But then it is not surprising

Anonymous said...

"Sure, they like to live in the nicest neighborhoods they can, which are generally White, but Benedict Arnold liked to live well too, didn't he?" - Benedict Arnold was a fairly decent man, its pretty unfair to him to compare him to SWPLs.

Captain Tripps said...

Ah yes. The centuries-old conflict between one group of Euro-Americans, like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GryQrpCsUdk

And the other group of Euro-Americans, like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68TdgErXkE

Or, if you prefer a modern view, these folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESGLojNYSo

Versus these folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1oL37ycONQ

I know who I'd want on my six when the chips are down.

Anonymous said...

My favorite part of the article is how quickly the Puritans of modern society got the young ladd to repent of the whole thing. They should have made a statue of him and set it on the edge of the bay, for all future young boys to aspire to. Instead, he wimpered about how sorry he was for having been a man.



This is why we can't win wars.

Dan Kurt said...

re: "f you're using a gun to hunt an animal for some reason besides a need for food, you don't have any reason to think highly of yourself. Far from." Colin Laney

Here is a person who never has hunted, never has gutted and quartered an Elk or Mule Deer, and never has humped up a draw with the quarter on his back one, two or even four times. Here is the epitome of BETA.

The hunt begins after the kill to the Hunter. There is no romance in a successful hunt.

Dan Kurt

pat said...

My reaction was that he was lucky to live through it. I had read the old Ian Fleming Jamaica story years ago where Bond is an incidental character. The protagonist is caught in some misdeed and is about to be arrested by Bond. But he chooses to go out on the reef and confront the octopus that he has been feeding. The octopus drags him under. A lot of Fleming is of course nonsense but I always assumed that that story was based on truth.

I see that I had commented on Professor Harpending's buffalo story all those years ago. I really must get on with my life.

Albertosaurus

Dan Kurt said...

re: "When I was in US army infantry training, we spent plenty of time on ambush training. It's a staple of small unit tactics. Granted, the US military would prefer enemies face it in massed, large units, but most enemies (aside from Iraq in the first Gulf War) aren't that cooperative." Dave Pinsen

"The key distinction here isn't between west and non-west but strong versus weak. Weaker forces resort to sabotage, infiltration, ambush, etc." Dave Pinsen

Not true in all cases of strong vs. weak. Were the Germans of 1939 -1942 weak or the Japs up to 1942 weak? It is a matter of doctrine. H. John Poole has written a number of books to explain this type of fighting. Let me recommend three of them:
1) Phantom Soldier: The Enemy's Answer to U.S. Firepower; 2) Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods, and 3) The Tiger's Way: A U.S. Private's Best Chance for Survival.

Dan Kurt

sconzey said...

This is already known. Mencius Moldbug calls this the 'Brahmin-Vaishya' conflict. The group blog theden was started to define and defend Vaishya culture.

Anonymous said...

Let's not ignore the other important thing about all of this. He wanted a decent meal that day.

Isn't it true that Octopus tastes just like chicken?

James Kabala said...

There is a thin line between bravery and foolhardiness, but I think a usual characteristic of bravery is that is geared toward an outcome that is actually useful and necessary, such as defending your family or country from attack. Also probably falling under bravery, although often borderline, is working toward a goal (climbing Mount Everest, landing on the Moon) whose direct value is more dubious but which would still seem impressive and worthwhile to normal people. Killing an octopus with your bare hands? In my mind I picture it set to the Benny Hill music.

James Kabala said...

I'm not usually a Moldbug fan, but his caste divisions actually seem to make sense and reflect reality, more so than the out-of-date classifications of, say, Paul Fussell.

David Davenport said...

Really, now. Who likes to lose any more than they have to?

In part, the thrill results because you won. Its about winning, at the basic level. At the end of the day, mammal vs mammal, on land, and only one will emerge alive (the winner).

Good job, winning. Never need to apologize for it.


I suspect that the fellow who said that has considerable experience of being a loser.

Anonymous said...

no ambush low level violence is the non Western way.

Modern firepower is so horrific that ambush is one of the primary tactics. A few people with machine guns, guided missiles, and a radio link back to artillery or air power can wipe out many times their number. Conversely anyone in plain sight is going to get hammered by an opponent that has similar capabilities.

That doesn't mean that the military isn't trying to achieve decisive results by shock battle. The tactic of ambush is being used as a means to that end.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon said...

Erwin Rommel is remembered as a great general and the greatest tactician of armored warfare. And what was his trick? Flying columns of tanks hurtling toward the enemy like knights at the charge? Hell no. He arranged his forces in a cul-de-sac with free-standing artillery and tanks dug-in (used as artillery). Then he would send out a small force in a feint attack to bait the trap and lure enemy formations into it, whereupon they would be slaughtered like cattle in the crossfire. He used defensive tactics as an offensive tactic.


That was not uniquely Rommel's. That was the standard German defensive armored doctrine in view of the fact that 1) their early tanks were quite thin-skinned and no match for Allied heavy tanks in a tank-to-tank combat and 2) they had an excellent flak gun (the famed 8,8cm gun) that proved a superb long-range anti-tank gun without peer.

Rommel may be "remembered as a great general," but really he was not and he certainly was not the "the greatest tactician of armored warfare."

Rommel's early successes in Africa relied heavily on daring and benefitted substantially from the thin nerve of his counterpart on the British side who was liable to retreat the moment he was attacked unexpectedly. Once the Allies found a stable and capable (but by no means extraordinary) commander who was able to take advantage of the material abundance the Allies enjoyed by turning the war into one of attrition, Rommel was doomed. Rommel, of course, contributed to his own demise (and that of his own men) by being overly "daring" and ignoring basic logistics and taking his men and machines to the breaking point (at one point, his force-marched his tank units so far ahead of supplies that he only had a dozen or so functioning tanks left -- predictably the attack was repulsed).

And, of course, the Germans knew all this before committing to North Africa to aid the Italians. General W. R. von Thoma, an actual armored warfare expert, was sent to study the situation and advocated a relatively small force, all mechanized or motorized (and no Italian units) in view of the difficult logistical conditions. This was, of course, deemed politically impossible in view of the Italian consideration. Nonetheless, North Africa was meant to be a side show until Rommel's foolhardy early successes, his primadonna publicity-seeking and demands (aided by the German press) sucked in more men and resources than the Germans initially intended for that theater of war.

Though very daring, principled and personally courageous, Rommel was a failure as a commander.

The greatest armored commander the Germans had during WWII was probably Heinz Guderian (though he was hardly perfect) and the best strategist likely Erich von Manstein.

JN

Anonymous said...

"Dave Pinsen said...

The key distinction here isn't between west and non-west but strong versus weak. Weaker forces resort to sabotage, infiltration, ambush, etc."


We have a winner! Thanks to non-specialists like Victor Davis Hanson and many other romanticists, the notion of "The Western Way of War" stretching in an unbroken fashion from the Greek phalanx settling a war in one day on flat ground decisively all the way to the clash of massive armored forces during the Battle of Kursk (Operation Zitadell) to settle a titanic struggle is now accepted as a truism.

This is simply contrary to the historical evidence and is largely a byproduct of the particular Western ideologies and self-conception of the 18th-19th Century. There were many periods of war in which Westerners fought like the stereotypical Easterners -- engaging in ambuscade, bushwacking, feigned retreats, freebooting and so on.

Whether Belisarius in Italy, various raiders in the Hundred Years War, freebooters in the Thirty Years War, the Iberians in the Napoleonic Wars (from which the term "guerilla" or "small war" originates), the Germans in East Africa during the First World War (roughly around the time and place of the film "Out of Africa" based on Baroness Karen Blixen's book) or the Irish in "The Troubles," men of the West have engaged in the so-called "Eastern Way of War" when conditions of war dictated it, namely, as others have pointed out, when one side was at a gross material disadvantage and had to make up the deficit with cunning, speed and/or other variables.

And because man has an innate sense of equity that apes lack, the weak fighting the strong has always garnered sympathy of one sort another while the stronger participant in conflict was subject to greater scrutiny. This is why Martin van Creveld wrote that when the strong and the weak fight in a long war, the strong loses (meaning, simply not losing and continuing the war is victory enough for the weak).

At least one aspect of war is knowing when to fight dirty and when to fight "fair." The North Vietnamese certainly did when they switched from the popular war to the armored blitzkrieg once the U.S. abandoned ARVN.

JN

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Also, you like to win. And a gun guarantees that you most likely will win.

Really, now. Who likes to lose any more than they have to?

In part, the thrill results because you won. Its about winning, at the basic level. At the end of the day, mammal vs mammal, on land, and only one will emerge alive (the winner).

Good job, winning. Never need to apologize for it.


While winning is certainly important and necessary, winning at table tennis, for example, would not give me much thrill or satisfaction as killing a powerful animal. To be perfectly frank, I like hunting because I like to kill. Being able to kill, which is the ultimate way of imposing dominance (over nature in this case), is power. And all men (or most men, in any case) crave power.

Though not my particular type of hunting, kudos to the man in the article for killing a difficult prey. Grilled octopus IS very delectable, a nice reward.

JN

Dave Pinsen said...

You sound like Dexter.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of strong vs. weak, try pest-control, Chinese-style:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/18/pla-deploy-flamethrower-fight-hornets/

Not sporting enough for some here, eh?

Dan Kurt said...

re: "I'm not usually a Moldbug fan, but his caste divisions actually seem to make sense and reflect reality, more so than the out-of-date classifications of, say, Paul Fussell." James Kabala

1) Moldbug really needs an editor to sift the wheat from the abundant chaff: cut each essay by 80%, a sort of Pareto's rule of editing would be so helpful.

2) As to Paul Fussell, God bless his memory for his marvelous books: The Great War and Modern Memory and Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War. As to his book Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, he didn't like proles much and as a Liberal his policies and politics ironically are swelling the size of that class.

3) To get a handle on the idea of classes (or castes) read Edward C. Banfield's The Unheavenly City (or better the revised edition, The Unheavenly City Revisited). Banfield as Fussell was a professor at Penn but Banfield was driven out and returned to Harvard from whence he came while Fussell was celebrated. Banfield was the hero who spoke truth to power. I have wondered if Banfield was aware of Mises.

Dan Kurt

Dahlia said...

JN said,
"I killed a wild boar with a knife once. But I had a pack of very powerful dogs with me and they did most of the work. In retrospect, I should've saved the money and the effort and just used a rifle.

And, yes, wild hog BBQ is great."

My hat's off to you, sir. My step-father had captured some in the swamps in south Florida and penned them in the woody section of his property. The scariest animals I've ever come across in my life. They seemed to bear no resemblance to the regular hogs on another relative's farm. They're huge and they never calm down. Just a huge, seething, menacing mass that acts like it wants to do nothing more than to tear you to shreds with its tusks.
When I met them, accompanying my dad to feed them their slop, every fiber of my being told me to get out of there and never return.
When it came time to slaughter, my step-dad and a small group of men did it, but I don't know how. One of the men got sliced by a tusk and ended up in the hospital.

Anonymous said...

Call it a function of my gender, but as you told the story I found myself rooting for the octopus and I hate the things. Guess it's the notion that the guy was, after all, just looking for a fight.

David Davenport said...

Early roots of the US Army:

Rogers' Rangers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rogers' Rangers

Active 1755–1763
Country Great Britain
Allegiance British Army

Branch Provincial Irregulars

Type Special Operations Light Infantry

Role Conducting unconventional or special light infantry operations
Size Nine companies
Garrison/HQ Fort William Henry (1755–1757)
Rogers Island (1757–1763)

Engagements French and Indian War

Battle on Snowshoes (1757)
Siege of Fort William Henry
Battle on Snowshoes (1758)
Battle of Carillon
Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)
St. Francis Raid
Pontiac's Rebellion
Devil's Hole Massacre

Commanders
Notable
commanders Major Robert Rogers
Lieutenant John Stark
Moses Hazen

Rogers' Rangers was initially a provincial company from the colony of New Hampshire, attached to the British Army during the Seven Years War (called the French and Indian War in the United States). The unit was quickly adopted into the British army as an independent ranger company. It was trained by Major Robert Rogers as a rapidly deployable light infantry force tasked mainly with reconnaissance as well as conducting special operations against distant targets. Their tactics, built on earlier colonial precedents, but codified for the first time by Rogers, proved remarkably effective, so much so that the initial company was expanded into a ranging corps of more than a dozen companies (containing as many as 1,200-1,400 men at its peak). The ranger corps became the chief scouting arm of British Crown forces by the late 1750s. ...

... French and Indian War[edit]

Further information: Great Britain in the Seven Years War

Rogers' Rangers began as a company in the provincial forces of the colony of New Hampshire in British North America in 1755. The unit was the latest in a long-line of New England ranger companies dating back to the 1670s. The immediate precursor to and model for the unit was Gorham's Rangers, formed in 1744 and still active in 1755.[1] Rogers' company was formed to fight in the French and Indian War (the Seven Years War in Canada, Britain and Europe), in the borderlands of the colonial Northeast. Commanded by first Captain, then later Major Robert Rogers, they operated primarily in the Lake George and Lake Champlain regions of New York. The unit was formed during the winter of 1755 from forces stationed at Fort William Henry. The Rangers sometimes undertook raids against French towns and military emplacements, traveling sometimes on foot, sometimes in whaleboats and, during winter, on snowshoes.

Over the course of 1756 and 1757 the usefulness of Rogers' company prompted British officials to form a second ranger company, and eventually four more. By early 1758 the rangers had been expanded to a corps of fourteen companies, containing 1,200 to 1,400 men. This included three all-Indian units: two of Stockbridge Mahicans, and a third of Natives from Connecticut (mainly Mohegan and Pequot). Eventually Rogers was promoted to Major and served as commandante of the ranger corps.

...

Three military formations now claim descent from Rogers' Rangers:

The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) of the Canadian Army, formed by Rogers and Loyalist veterans of Rogers' Rangers;

The 1st Battalion 119th Field Artillery of the Michigan National Guard, with members directly descended from the 30-strong detachment of Rogers' Rangers stationed in Fort Detroit; and

The U.S. Army Rangers, who claim they revive the traditions of Rogers' Rangers but whose members have no direct personal line of descent from the original group...


Prof. Victor Davis Hanson is an unreliable military historian and also an unreliable conservative.

Anonymous said...

Dahlia said...

My hat's off to you, sir. My step-father had captured some in the swamps in south Florida and penned them in the woody section of his property. The scariest animals I've ever come across in my life.


Thank you, but I was not terribly courageous. The Dogo Argentinos of my guide did practically all the work. I just had to stick the boar.

Yes, a full grown wild boar charging at you is a nerve-wrecking sight. Better not miss! Best to shoot them from a safe place.

I don't think I will do this type of hunting again, as I am a sucker for dogs and I didn't care for the injuries the dogs sustained. My guide assured me, however, that these were "honorable scars" for the dogs.

JN

Anonymous said...

David Davenport said...
Early roots of the US Army:

Rogers' Rangers


There is definitely a strain in the U.S. military that is very much of this ranger tradition.

The modern U.S. military, however, has not always looked kindly upon small wars. For all the talk of special opearations, 4G warfare, RMA and such, U.S. still largely gears its fighting forces with industrial firepower in mind.

But perhaps this is a good thing.

Men like George Washington and Robert E. Lee abhorred irregular warfare. I suspect they knew its effectiveness in both harming the enemy and, in the long run, harming oneself. They seemed to have understood, instinctively, that legitimacy was sine qua non for nation-buidling (or nation-healing) and could not be obtained by irregular warfare in the main.

JN

P.S. Octopus does not taste like chicken.