it was the east german tribes that the huns took control of.

and, we now no longer have east german tribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_languages

the greek settlements were important and everything.

but the real character of the crimea as we understand it is actually east german - an entire language group that, today, is actually lost to history, partially due to the destruction created by the huns

the thing we often forget about the huns, and this is so important, is that they were really just an aristocratic elite. if they hadn't evaporated, they could have maybe been understood using renfrew's model. but, they left very scattered traces, mostly in german mythology. "hungarian" as we understand it as a kind of corruption of history; these people were never the historical huns.

when the huns attacked the empire, they did so using a very broad coalition of the willing that was composed of an assortment of german and iranian tribes, most notably the goths and the burgundians, and the alans. the huns themselves, famous for their archery, were not the foot soldiers. they just provided air power. it was white people that did the pillaging and slaughtering...

the mongols were something else, and separated by several centuries.  they famously upped and turned around for reasons that have never been clear to history, leaving an ad-hoc system of tribute that took eastern europe centuries to emancipate themselves from.

regardless, you can't describe these people as indigenous to eastern europe - for they are clearly indigenous to the eastern steppe, which is where they first appear to history as the barbarians that the chinese built a great wall to keep out, and were also eventually subsumed by.

ireland and iran are the same word.

listen.

white people came from somewhere right?

and, where they came from is eastern europe, specifically the steppe forests that stretch from poland to kazakhstan. they then invaded western europe, displacing what were probably quite tanned farmers. this shouldn't be shocking to you - the southern parts of europe have always been dark skinned, except during periods of heavy migration from the north, which has happened a few times (the fall of the roman empire is the most documented case, but we know it happened several times in pre-history, too).

and, if white people came from somewhere then they are indigenous to that region. and, that place they came from and are indigenous to is what we could call greater russia - the areas of eastern europe that are today occupied by slavic speakers, pretty much inclusively and almost exclusively. and, the most ancestral of all of these regions is what we today call ukraine.

all you need to do is look at a turkic speaker for a few seconds to realize that they came from the far east - that they are ethnically related to the japanese, the chinese, the mongols. we have written records that explain their expansion. and, we can trace their movements using archaeological digs. this is actually not an obscure or ambiguous point - it's about as established as history gets.

the media is going to lie to you over and over again. it's not independent from the military - that is itself a lie. it's your responsibility to educate yourself, or to at least listen to people that know better.

i have no tolerance for drug addicts. at all.

so, the question is whether i'm able to find something stable or whether we have to do this all over again. there isn't a third option.

i just want this move to be long term, so i want to fail proof it.

if i move into another one of these walk-ups, convinced that it seems ok, and it actually is, and a pothead moves in in six months or a year, i'm going to be going through this all over again.

if i'm on top of a business, that can't happen.

if i'm in a basement, that can't happen.

if it's a single house, that can't happen.

and, make no mistake - it will happen. i will sue again.

hardwood is fucking terrible, alright?

i want four layers of concrete reinforced by steel at the corners, and covered over with three layers of carpet.

that said... i understand that the reason this is hard to find is that smokers ruin carpets and everybody's just given up. whatever. i'll wait it out.

so, these are the types of units that i am interested in:

- high rises
- well built low rises (not ground floor)
- detached houses
- basement units in duplexes
- apartments on top of commercial units

these are the types of units i'm not interested in:

- ground floor apartments
- walk up buildings with hardwood flooring throughout
- upper level duplexes

yeah, but what emperor trump actually wants is for his vassals to pay tribute.

i keep pointing this out...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-nato-brussels-1.4741585

everything in this city has the same awful hardwood flooring....

i'd like a carpet, to begin with.

thanks.

so, i have an appointment today.

i would have liked to take a shower before going to that appointment, so that i don't smell badly - specifically so that i don't smell like pot.

unfortunately, she's been chain smoking in the bathroom all morning, to the point that i can't even stand in the bathroom - i'm just going to get stoned, if i do.

so, i'm going to have to show up to this appointment unshowered, unshaved and smelling like a bong - and i'm going to have to explain the situation to her as it is. i'll have to present myself as evidence as to the severity of the problem, and have to ask her to believe me when i say it.

if i was taking rental applications, and somebody showed up smelling like pot, i would deny them on the spot - i would not want them in my building.

but, what can i do about this? i have no choice but to show up smelling and looking like a fucking drug addict.

i'm looking at a unit with free wifi, and i'm wondering what i'd even do with it.

i have three pcs, and none of them have wireless cards in them. i decided some time ago, though, that i would no longer be connecting my pcs to the internet. such is the depth of my concern about spying. these are production machines, and i do not want them to be corrupted.

i'm currently using my 90s laptop as my tv, and it does not have a wireless card in it. so, to continue to use this laptop for tv purposes, i would need to get a wired connection or find a way to connect it to the wireless network. can routers work backwards like that? i'm sure this is less difficult than my mind is imagining right now.

one of my modern laptops is currently broken and will eventually be turned into a video editing console. this will connect to the access point via rj-45. i have removed the wireless card from this device and do not want it connected to a wireless network..

the other modern laptop is my current access point, but i'm not comfortable with doing banking over an insecure wifi. these packets could be picked up by anybody in the building.

but, what i could do with free wifi is finally set up my phone and start using it as a phone. and, i might actually prefer that, as it keeps the phone traffic off of my internet network.

what i was going to do, eventually, was set up three routers in sequence, so that the networks couldn't see each other. a free access point is better than that...

a bigger question is whether "free wifi" means "i don't want you to install a wired connection" or not.

again....why?

we did this, in the first place, to appease obama. we made the right choice, historically, in not participating in iraq - which was also an overwhelmingly popular decision in canada. but, it did upset the americans, and harper did cave on it. the nature of the threat was always questionable, but it did seem for a while like isis was something we had to fight, so these debates kind of disappeared. but, isis is gone now, so this debate is pertinent again: let's start withdrawing.

has canada become the more belligerent, more hawk-like nation? and, how the fuck did the liberals end up supporting bombing iraq?

yuck.

no.

yuck.

get this fucking idiot out of office.

https://www.cp24.com/news/pm-trudeau-announces-new-canada-led-training-mission-in-iraq-1.4008501

i'm unable to interpret children as anything more or less than a burden. it's not really a revulsion on the basic level, although i'll admit to being afraid that my clumsy nature may accidentally harm them, especially when very young, but just the premise of responsibility that i find incomprehensible. i may actually be taking the responsibility too seriously; i'm essentially interpreting parenting as the death of the individual, and there may be some exaggeration in that. but, even admitting as much, i just can't make room for this in my life.

we live finite existences that are far too short. and, while i understand that so many of us can't find anything to do at all, i'm constantly struggling with the futility of completion, and the certainty of running out of time.

i would be absent in spirit and in fact; absent-minded and absent-bodied. and, i wouldn't blame anybody for resenting me, a priori. i'd just hope that they can understand, in the end.