what do indigenous spaniards look like anyways?

history is full of a lot of biases; arab sources push the primacy of arabs in the region, whereas more rigorous sources take into account what was very large scale migration from both germans and jews. but, this actually all happened rather late into history and doesn't really help us unravel the question, much.

i'm going to tell you such a thing doesn't really exist.

the first cities in spain were largely built by one of two peoples. the earliest semites in the region that we know of were the carthaginians, the ancestors of the modern day lebanese who got into a big war with the romans, who then took over the region as a consequence of winning that war. look up hannibal and the punic wars, if you don't know this history - which i find most people don't. if people knew the extent of carthaginian settlement in the region, they'd be less inclined to assign so much influence to the arab settlement, which was in truth both sporadic outside of a small number of settlements and actually mostly berber in composition. the arabs in spain were really recreating an ancient carthaginian maritime empire, by splitting it off from the former roman hegemony, almost in tact. so, the arab influence is generally over-emphasized in the arab sources. all of those j haplotypes aren't berber; it's more likely that they're carthaginian than arab, given that most of the major cities are carthaginian in origin, including cadiz, cartagena (new carthage) and tartessos. barcelona is also thought to be potentially of carthaginian origin.

the other colonies in spain and southern france that existed at the time of the punic wars were greek, although the only one that seems to have survived is the city of marseilles.

red is greek, yellow is phoenician and grey is latin. and, these are the earliest known settlements in the region.

but, if the earliest known settlements in the region are known colonies from people on the other side of the sea, and we can see the phenotypes of these early settlers in their descendants in the major cities of the south of the peninsula today, what did the people that lived there before the colonists moved in look like?

the people that lived there before the greeks and carthaginians moved in were celts, just like the celts in britain and france. they would have spoken a language that is not very similar to but in the same broad language group as gaelic - scots & irish. and, that's vaguely what they would have looked like. the historical record indicates physical characteristics such as red hair and green eyes all the way from spain to austria and beyond, on the northern and western edge of the roman domain.

these people traded with the greeks & phoenicians in a way that wasn't that different than the way that native americans later traded with the french and english - they would bring things like animal pelts or mined metals (including tin.) to the cities, which would be exchanged for more advanced technology, which they would take back to the wilderness with them. the world was bigger then, and they could coexist in that space, and did for quite some time.

but, we know that the celts are not indigenous to the region either, having migrated in from central europe and ultimately from eastern europe and central asia. who was there before the celts?

there were the beaker folk there before the celts, and we think they would have looked something like modern georgians or armenians, given the migration from northern turkey and the southern caucusus region with the spread of farming (even if there was some indo-european admixture by the time of the actual beaker folk, themselves). and, yes - there are megaliths like stonehenge all over spain, too.

but, they weren't indigenous either.  and, we've exhausted meaningful history, and exhausted meaningful archaeology, too.

yet, there are still a people there that we believe predates even the beaker folk, and their neolithic ancestors.

the closest thing to indigenous people in spain are the basques, who are quite light-skinned but generally look a little more like armenians than they do like germans. it's really not known at all how they got there, or if they've always been there, but they must be a remnant of a very old population that survived in isolation in the mountains, much as various caucasian groups have survived in isolation in the caucasus mountains.

here's some basquey looking kids:

that said, there was also a substantive amount of gothic movement into spain near the end of the roman empire, and before the arab invasion. that lasted until 711, when they were defeated by arab forces. again: the arab sources present the situation as though there was an arab state in spain until 1492, but the truth is that it really only took a few decades before they were pushed out of the top part of the peninsula, leaving a series of coastal settlements that took centuries to slowly clean up. the carthaginians and berbers, together, left a much larger footprint.

as you can see, and i did something like this for italy earlier, at any point in time you're likely to get a mix of people in spain. in the historical record, we've always had a mix of semites, indo-europeans and north africans mixing together in this region, and so real world people would have been some kind of mix, pretty much throughout the entirety of history. the result is that spaniards throughout history would have tended towards a brown, even if it's a result of light & dark mixing, more or less perpetually.

but, the people that have been there the longest are the basques, and that's the closest thing to what we can call a native spaniard, at this time.

i once heard chomsky describe angela davis as "reasonable", and she subsequently avoided much of the criticism he'd level at a zizek or a foucault. as much of an icon as he is on the left, he seems to be more of a pragmatist than an idealist (and he'd no doubt whisper-yell at me for saying that, as true as i think it is).

so, she was reasonable enough to organize with.

he's described richard dawkins using precisely the same language.

in the context of the united states specifically, as well as in south africa, her system makes quite a bit of sense; it's a reasonable deconstruction of american or south african slavery. it's when you try to extrapolate it that you end up making a fallacy called generalizing the specific, and that's where i tend to push back.

so, yeah - that framework makes oodles of sense in the specific context of the united states, which is where it was developed, and where it was intended to be applied.

i'd just suggest that you need to be exceedingly careful about extrapolating her ideas beyond that very limited scope, because there's always a history geek around to poke holes in your argument when you try to make that specious jump to generality.

this is your face of colonialsm.

deal with it.

christopher columbus was brown.

we need to start thinking about the christianization of europe as the unwanted, violent colonization of an indigenous people by a foreign culture, in a process that has very strong parallels to the later spanish and portugese (that is, brown people) domination of africa and latin america, who themselves were following a papal regime built strongly on the caliphate, itself modeled on the roman emperors, followed later by french and english merchants (half-colonized white people) looking to control the trade of resources.

so, there's some problems with this picture. frankly, most of it is wrong, because it's following official dates. that wide swath of pink may have been officially christian by the year 600, but that doesn't reflect actual practices by real people.

as mentioned, we have evidence of paganism surviving throughout europe well into the renaissance and beyond. nowadays, when we talk about the inquisition, it is to remind people how stupid and barbaric that christian colonization was in europe, but we don't stop to think that they went on witch hunts because indigenous religion was still extant and vibrant, if underground. we imagine that they were just randomly accusing women of witchcraft, when the evidence rather suggests that in many of the formerly celtic realms at least (british isles, spain, france), they were burning witches because people were continuing their indigenous practices, outside of the sanction of the authorities, who wished to stamp it out. we have weird, choppy narratives of gatherings around groves talking place in the aftermath of the black death, and can only fill in the blanks. we have evidence of sympathetic magic and human sacrifice all the way into the enlightenment. even newton was a known alchemist.

the christians were defeated in the end, and it was a hard struggle that we should be proud about winning; we shouldn't let history assert a false narrative of "christiandom" that never actually existed on the ground. we should celebrate our independence struggle against christianity, instead.

you can add 300-500 years to most of these numbers, if you want a better picture of reality on the ground. but, it's the right way to look at this.

it is even actually more true to say that greek philosophy forms a basis for christian thinking than to suggest that christianity is in some way underlying western institutions, norms and values.

it is a historically, factually, empirically false statement to state that modern europe has substantive christian foundations in any way at all.

there really is no other candidate for an actual christian emperor in europe, besides charlemagne.

and, jesus never said to conquer in his name. that was constantine, not jesus.

in a real and meaningful sense, what conservatives like o'reilly and peterson (and i guess fake nazis like spencer) are doing when they talk about this myth of a christian europe is projecting the fantasy of leo III for a return of the empire, based on christian foundations that no emperor before 476 ever actually had. it's both a revision of a history before dec 25, 800 and a projection of a history from that vantage point of standing in rome on dec 25, 800.

the o'reilly-peterson concept of christian europe is the history of europe as leo III imagined it on that distant saturnalia feast day, but as it never actually happened.

it existed.

we fought hard against it, and we won.

but it was a couple of centuries at most, and it's legacy was not at all enduring.

it was a blip. that's all.

(note: this entry seems altered, and my memory is only able to reconstruct my initial thoughts partially. i can't prove it, but key sections of this do not read off at all like something i would have written, and i recognize i'm only able to partially succeed in reconstructing my initial thoughts. i've at least removed certain phrases that seem entirely uncharacteristic. but, if it seems fragmented, it might be because it is. i've put confusing points where i'm not sure in red.)

"christian europe" as conservatives imagine it did not exist until charlemagne, and ended at the same time as the black death.

it's a few centuries.

a blip.

before that, you had a three-way struggle involving pagans & muslims ganging up on the empire (??), which emerged from the process victorious (when the pope crowned charlemagne emperor, he wasn't fucking around. this was the full return of the empire in complete intent and total scope. it didn't work out, but that was the plan.). europe wasn't simply delivered to german civilization as christian, or something. the germans were viciously anti-christian, and largely settled upon arianism (the idea that jesus was cool and stuff, but fully human) as a compromise with the new system moving up from the south. the late romans never fully converted themselves, either, maintaining things like diana worship in france (and there's evidence of pagan child sacrifice in italy after the year 1000, presumably to ask the gods for favour in the ongoing collapse of society).

so, the first meaningful christian empire in europe was with charlemagne, about the year 800 or so. they tried to change the calendar date and everything.

then, after charlemagne, they started launching crusades to convert people by force, initially mostly against white people. this provoked a retaliation against charlemagne by vikings, who set up in the north of france, and then in the south of italy, before becoming crusaders, themselves. there was something called the saxon genocide that occurred under charlemagne, where he slaughtered the entire saxon aristocracy for refusing to convert. crusades then moved east and north around the north sea, often literally via piracy, through the medium of the hanseatic league and the teutonic knights. berlin was founded roughly the year 1200 by crusaders taking over a slavic settlement, and they just kept going, not meaningfully reaching the baltic/slavic heartland until the year 1500 or so.

by then, the black death had already reshaped the ruling structures in europe, leading to the renaissance and then the reformation and eventually the true ethnogenesis that sunk in during the enlightenment, after all of the indigenous systems had been dismantled, and all of christianity's opponents had been slaughtered. if the idea of a christian europe ever existed at all, it was after the trauma of the black death that it began to fall apart, and not during these revolutionary changes, which came as a consequence of the rejection of christianity, and not vice versa. henry VIII was hardly at the start of a process, but at the end of one.

it is this struggle against latin and roman and christian colonialism that defines an emerging white identity, not the christianity itself, which tried to absorb them and control them and stamp them out.

the parts of europe that were christian were the parts that were brown, not the parts that were white.

and, the way that white people ended up christianized is that brown people showed up with swords and forced them into it.

their concept of history is incoherent.

racists are generally stupid people, and they're wrong in a lot of ways...

that said, i think the article kind of...the argument they're presenting sounds less like richard spencer and more like bill o'reilly, or maybe jordan peterson, this idea that christianity is fundamentally white and european civilization was built on it.

it's a common trope on the regular old right, and it's absolutely wrong to it's core, in every way.

1) christianity is not white in any way. it was invented by jews, popularized by brown middle easterners and then pushed down on the north of europe by italians that were every bit as brown as the jews that came up with the whole pile of bullshit. christianity initially hit it's highest point of popularity in egypt in the late classical period; western europe wasn't christianized for hundreds of more years, and northern and eastern europe weren't christianized until the fucking renaissance. not only is it not the case that europe is christian in culture, but most of europe has no substantive history of christianity before the year 1500 at all.

2) the institutions (legal, political, etc) that exist in europe are roman & german in origin, not jewish or christian. even the papacy is a fundamentally pagan institution. this is a common argument by conservatives, this idea that christianity is at the crux of our legal system. it's just plain out, straight up fucking wrong.

3) the history of european ethnogenesis is long and complicated, but the contemporary concept of europe - human rights, democracy, etc - came out of a total reversal of christian attempts at colonial dominance in europe. the kind of white identity they're hinting at is defined in opposition to christianity, not in coordination with it. it did not exist before the renaissance, and developed largely as a result to reclaim the culture from the christian dark age.

it's not just nietzsche they don't understand, it's the movement of history, in general.

but this is a better takedown of jordan peterson or bill o'reilly than it is of richard spencer.

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/alt-right-nietzsche-richard-spencer-nazism

it's a grown ass man using complicated language to ask a series of questions you'd expect from a four year-old.

but, what about the exact claim that nietzsche was literally an idiot? that would require an essay, and quotes to demonstrate the point.

no, i'm not doing that right now. if i do some reviews for the site, one day...

for now, just take note of the fact that his entire ubermensch discussion is essentially wondering outloud why there are still monkeys, if we evolved from them.

he was a complete fucking buffoon.

ok, i'm going to call on monday and see if they're open.

i'm happy to see that they're working on an electronic process, as it could end-around a lot of the problems i've been dealing with around incompetent and/or malicious court staff.

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19-supplementary-memo-august-6-2020/

this is one of the more eye-opening marxist texts.

it's not flattering to engels, but it demonstrates how they saw religion.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm

it's also instructive to look at what nietsczhe was writing about the potential end of christianity in europe one day, and then look at what engels was writing at very roughly the same time, documenting how christianity had already ended, centuries ago.

we should read engels, instead.

i understand that there are still people alive today that think ending religion is going to make us less moral and lead to some kind of collapse, as though religion hasn't been an irrelevant idea in western culture for over three hundred years, and that period didn't coincide with our greatest advances, socially.

this is the back of an old neubauten disc from the 80s:

they're holding on to a broken column in an already destroyed structure.

it's not even close to being over; it's been over for centuries.

my sweat appears to smell like skunk weed.

that's pretty gross.

like, we can have some subtlety about the right use of terms, sure.

but a term like "christian europe" has it's maximum end point with the french revolution, at the absolute very latest. it's entirely meaningless after napoleon, who was dead before nietzsche was even born.

nietsczhe writing about the consequences of the hypothetical death of religion from mid nineteenth century europe is like somebody standing on the moon and wondering out loud about the potential consequences of heliocentrism.

he was so ridiculously out of touch with the reality that existed around him that it's an absurd waste of time to bother with him.

if you want to have that debate, go back a few hundred years and read voltaire and swift and the lot of them instead, back when the debate actually mattered.

i want to be clear.

i'm not trying to make a declaration that nietzsche was "good" or "bad" which, despite the simplicity of the statement, is usually how this is initially approached.

i'll let you do that for machiavelli, but not with nietsczhe.

nietzsche is actually, historically, entirely irrelevant.

there's absolutely nothing that nietszche wrote about that hadn't already been resolved before the french revolution.

i'm not being facetious.

we have to remember kant, even if it's just to undo him. but, i really don't think there's any value in teaching nietzsche at all, or any place for him in the western canon.

i hate jonathan swift. truly.

i'll admit i like this quote, though:

When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

given that truth, it's probably falsely attributed.

the best rebuttal to nietzsche comes from voltaire.

and, fwiw, i think nietzsche was an idiot, too.

the dude lived through the enlightenment, and wrote like he lived through the very earliest, most ignorant stages of the renaissance. everything he fear mongered about already existed 200 years before he was even born.

you'll get more of value out of jonathan swift, as he was at least contemporary to what he was reacting against.

there are actually much better reasons to argue that kant was an idiot than this.

these are euclid's five postulates, which were the very first thing that anybody studying geometry learned, for thousands of years.

1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight lines segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All Right Angles are congruent.
5. If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two Right Angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.

one of them is considered false in the context of the universe we inhabit, today.

don't look it up. which one is it?

so, a modern mathematician would never think she has the authority to decide if something is true or false, or if it's even decidable.

rather, they would state that if the axioms hold (including the assumptions of the rules of inference, which are usually treated as axioms) then the statement follows.

which doesn't mean it's true. it just means it's consistent.

yes.

our contemporary concepts of academic logic were defined by a handful of autistic people.

to be even clearer....

modern mathematics doesn't even tell you what rules of inference to accept. it can't; it's a limitation in the idea of math, itself. it just simply cannot argue that one rule of inferences is more valid in some imaginary objective reality than any other is, it can only tell you what rules of inference are being used in context, so you understand what is being done.

what i just said is summarized using the term hilbertian, as it is a reflection of david hilbert's dominant philosophical influence on modern mathematics. hilbert's famous catchphrase was:

Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper.

that may be a paraphrase in translation (hilbert mostly wrote in german), but i don't think it's apocryphal.

together, hilbert & godel are the dominant influences on modern mathematical logic. godel was a weirdo that was quite plausibly on the autism spectrum along with einstein and cantor, but hilbert wrote widely and is not particularly inaccessible for arts students. i hear he makes more sense in german....

if you want to get into this more, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_completeness_theorem

mathematical logic can be challenging, but it doesn't require a lot of pre-requisites. i'm actually in the group of people that thinks it ought to be a more widely taken pre-requisite, itself.

to be clear....

in logic, you can't make a false assumption, so long as it's consistent. that is, you can't contradict yourself in the process of making an assumption, so something like 2 + 2 = 5 wouldn't hold (because it's just wrong). but, logic doesn't care about your opinions, it merely seeks to regulate ways that you derive results from them.

i can consequently derive a perfectly coherent logical system from entirely wrong assumptions without ever actually making a fallacious deduction. in that case, if you want to argue with me, we need to have an argument about whether the axioms are justified, not whether i'm producing a bad argument from them.

and, as i've stated repeatedly, leftists are supposed to be good at this; our superior understanding of logic is supposed to be our most powerful weapon against the forces of the right, who operate on religious assumptions of dominance and submission.

fwiw, "no true scotsman" is generally not an actual fallacy, in terms of meaningful logical analysis. it's a fake fallacy, pushed mostly by english majors; logicians aren't going to get upset about arguments of this sort, with caveats for extreme cases.

and, usually, it's the person accusing you of the fallacy that is actually committing an actual error in logic.

ideas have definitions, and there's nothing inconsistent or illogical about insisting that you hold to the core concepts of an ideology if you're going to promote yourself as adhering to it.

regarding scotsmen, you'd have to define what it means to be one, first. if you decided that a scotsman has to be a certain amount scottish, then it's not in any wrong to deny the scottishness of somebody that doesn't fit your definition, as you presented it. we can argue about the definition, and whether our arguments follow from the definition using the proper rules of propositional calculus (if we agree on that system), but we can't have a meaningful debate about an actual assumption. what english majors will generally suggest is that the definition is arbitrary, and the value of their argument may depend on context, but that's not an error in logic; it's not a fallacy, of any sort, and using these arguments is not actually wrong in any way.

with socialism, it's at least supposed to have a meaning about worker control of production, and it's supposed to come out of the writings of karl marx. while this opens a lot of space for dissent, there are certain key components of the system that champagne socialists just can't actually make actual sense of.

so, if your concern is logic and consistency, there's nothing wrong with telling them they aren't socialists; in many cases, there is something wrong with letting a person perpetuate a system that has nothing to do with the words they're using to describe it.

it's useful to take note of james madison's argument for small electoral districts when opining your support for small business over big unions.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

it's divide and conquer.

and, whether intentionally (like madison), or accidentally (like most bourgeois socialists), support for small business instead of big labor is, in truth, just a divide and conquer strategy to keep workers from organizing.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/

progressivism has historically been a conservative reform movement intent on saving capitalism from itself, and has generally been exceedingly racist in the process of doing it. you're in that tradition - you're just not a socialist, and i won't let you call yourself one.

and, again, i won't criticize you if you call yourself a "progressive" and throw all this anti-socialist crap about supporting small businesses out there.

that's consistent with history. that's fine.

so, when you hear people argue in favour of small businesses and then call themselves socialists?

they don't get it.

like, at all.

that's bourgeois, champagne-style socialism, at best - and a conscious intent to subvert socialism for bourgeois aims, at worst.

but, it's mostly actually just ignorance.

those are the kinds of "socialists" that have never read a word of marx in their lives.

in the end, what breaking up big corporations does is slow down the socialization of production, and eventual transition to communism, by eliminating the vehicle in which socialism asserts itself.

that is, of course, why the smarter capitalists are all about it - it's designed to "save capitalism" and lengthen this period of late capitalism.

leftists need to see the truth for what it is and be clear about it.

they agree with me.

sort of.

jacobin does have weird liberal tendencies, too.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/03/nationalize-amazon-coronavirus-delivery-usps

i don't want to break up amazon to promote competition over the market. that's a liberal prescription.

what i want is to unionize and ultimately nationalize it, to eliminate competition altogether. that is a socialist prescription.

there's no such thing as small business - and certainly no such thing as a small business owner - in a socialist economy, guys.

the whole point is to do away with the bourgeoisie.

i support increases to the minimum wage, but liberals are wrong to fight against the socialization of production, and a lot of self-identified socialists are very confused about the point.

socialism is defined as a system that evolves out of the development of large corporations, not as one that maintains a system of markets driven by small businesses, who will inevitably just retard the process to a fully communist society. there's no future in the bourgeois liberalism of a society built around small businesses.

as a socialist, i support policies to reduce competition (which we call anarchy in production), eliminate markets and increase the labour bargaining power of workers by positioning them in large, industry-wide unions.

so, i'd rather see a unionized walmart (which is a socialist future) where market competition is reduced and workers get huge proportions of the profits than argue in favour of breaking it all up (which is a liberal/conservative free market vision) and telling people to compete over who can sell useless crap more effectively.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/opinion-oates-minimum-wage-1.5676264

hey, the planet will still be worth saving in twenty years.

your grandmother won't be. at all.

unless you mean "saving micro-nutrients".

it's always important to take time for the classics.

orwell & klein were/are leftists, clearly.

fwiw, atwood has historically described herself as a 'red tory', which is a peculiarly canadian term that refers to somebody that is more or less a modern democrat. in canada, it refers to somebody that is kind of an old-timey tory, and opposes the neo-liberal tendencies in the contemporary conservative party, but that would position her several buses of school children to the left of somebody like joe biden.

it's also inexact. while the premise of red toryism has a concept of social liberalism underlying it, people that call themselves red tories today are oodles more socially liberal than any historical tory ever was.

so, she's far more moderate than the other two, but her point is no less cogent.

a critical reading list right now includes

- orwell, 1984
- klein, shock doctrine
- atwood, handmaid's tale

you should have read all of these by the time you turned 15.

you still have time. turn off the fucking tv, and spend a weekend with some classics.

look at the world around you.

did all of this fascism stop the virus?

the answer is that, no, it did not.

and, in the end we will have both the virus and the fascism they're bringing in, as they capitalize on the fear that the media is spreading.

unless we stop it.

the only thing to fear, is fear itself.

they're the new mccarthyists.

and, this is the new anti-communism, and every bit as irrational.

have you no shame?

you should just all join your local police enforcement agencies.....that's basically what you're doing, anyways....

i want to see a powerful left-wing movement develop that wipes away capitalism forever.

but, these people in front of me are a bunch of fucking idiots: easily manipulated by the worst arguments you could imagine, and under total statist control in their behaviour.

when your anarchist backlash involves handing out government health propaganda, you've lost the plot entirely.

i want to see people with signs walking through the street that say things like

REASON OVER PASSION

or

SCIENCE DEFEATS FEAR

that is the movement i would support.

as it is, you're really prioritizing the profit of plastics companies over the health and wellbeing of the planet.

because, that's what's up next - dealing with all of this unneeded waste.

this idea that opposing unscientific restrictions that will fail to stop the spread of this virus is about putting profit over people is retarded, and you're a moron to talk like that. it demonstrates the deepest level of ignorance, across the issue - you don't understand anything that's happening in front of you.

i don't oppose these restrictions because i want to maximize profit, and will gain nothing financially from re-opening the economy to the full extent.

rather, i'm just frustrated that i have a government that is forcing me to do stupid things that science says have almost no chance of actually working.

the calculation is neither about profit nor is it about people, what it's about is putting reason over fear.

sorry, i want to clarify the last post.

it was initially posted as:

i guess you might experience it differently, but i'd advise rolling with a raspberry-dominated mixture if you really want a good perk with your thc.

i have changed that to:

i guess you might experience it differently, but i'd avoid rolling with a raspberry-dominated mixture if you really want a good perk with your thc.

...which is what i intended to type.

nope. slept. s'ok, i'm up now.

before i showered last night, i had one raspberry cigarette with the overpriced mix just to see what it does, and the effect was truly mild in isolation, but certainly on the "feeling a little mellower than normal' spectrum. i would not describe the feeling as being 'high', just a little relaxed.

nonetheless, it may have contributed to the sleepiness.

i should have known better, but this was supposed to be the "awake" blend, too. so, price is meaningless as a market mechanism in the marijuana era, and so are basic advertising claims, apparently.

if this was some little store full of ignorant hippies operating on the market, i'd no doubt shrug it off. but, when you take this kind of thing from a very strictly controlled government entity and combine it with some other things - like the anti-science covid response, or the brand new agrifood-industry-written food guide - it really clarifies where science and facts exist in the minds of the existing ruling party, which is really just as a way to trick people into buying garbage.

i guess you might experience it differently, but i'd avoid rolling with a raspberry-dominated mixture if you really want a good perk with your thc.

i don't know why it took so long to figure this out, though.

boris. russian spy.

like, obviously.

do you think he'd have gotten elected with a larger or smaller member if his name was boris jerkoff?

also: don't test this thing on laika.

test it on boris johnson, instead. good russian name - proper test subject.

it's easy to guess why boris' grandfather changed his last name from johnson-off.