UPDATE: Re-post due to the post here, at Aesop’s blog, that lauds a reprint of the original 1911 Boy Scout Manual. In my 1938 copy, the following test was required of beginners. I wonder how many so-called ‘survivalists’ and NPT members could do this today, just to qualify as a member of a particular group….if you can, great; if you can’t, some PT is in order, right?
Sure, the Boy Scouts didn’t do a lot of small unit tactics, but they sure knew their way around bushcraft and how to improvise. Take a great self-challenge and see if you can do what the lowest ranking Boy Scout had to do in 1938 to be classified as a ‘Tenderfoot.’ Some of these requirements have been adapted to current times and circumstances, but all of them can be found in their original form in the 1938, “Handbook for Boys” by the Boy Scouts of America.
- Know proper etiquette at training exercises and meetings; know how to properly care for and wear field clothing.
- Know the composition and history of the Flag of the United States of America (to do that, you’ll have to know a good bit about American history…) as well as how to properly display the flag, fold it, what the flag code is, when it’s flown at half staff, how and when to display on a casket and even what is proper for bunting in decorations.
- Know all elementary terms used when dealing with cordage; tie a square knot and any 8 of the following (for a total of 9 knots) correctly.
- Sheet Bend
- Fisherman’s knot
- Slip knot
- Clove Hitch
- Timber Hitch
- Two Half Hitches
- Carrick Bend
- Miller’s Knot
- Rope Halters
- Pipe Hitch
- Stevedore knot
- Barrel Hitch
- Girth Hitch
- Binder Twine Bend
- Lariat Loop
- Hitching Tie
- Know the composition and purpose of your ‘patrol’ (aka NPT or other group); know all identifying accouterments or patches and correctly name them.
That’s just for starters…..they haven’t even mentioned the hikes or packs yet…..of course, some might ‘poo-poo’ these old school ideas, but if you think about it, the Boy Scouts of old knew what they were about and could perform…or they didn’t stay long.
Something to consider.
So…do you think that a, ‘Protestant or Catholic Girls Only Prom’ would be allowed to happen without a complete meltdown by our intrepid SJW culture (who’s entitlement mindset boggles the logical and rational mind)?
In fact, this little ‘safe space event’ literally smacks of discrimination based on religion or creed, as prohibited in the Michigan Constitution: “The civil and religious rights, privileges and capacities of no individual shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his opinions or belief concerning matters of religion.” Looks as if there’s some privileges being ‘enlarged’ on account of religious belief….read the whole thing, here, in paragraph 6, under the ‘Bill of Rights.’
To employ a phrase learned many, many years ago as a young man, “This is BULLSHIT!”
“With the goal of creating a “safe space” in mind, a Detroit school has set out to hold a girls-only prom to celebrate traditional Muslim customs. It’s being created for girls who would otherwise be prohibited by their ultraconservative Muslim families from going to regular proms, where attendees are allowed to have fun and dance with members of the opposite sex in good old American tradition.”
Read the rest, here.
Yes, it’s true. Both ‘Team Freedom’ and ‘OPFOR’ are basically two sides of the same coin when observing them in their natural habitat on the internet venue of choice. Here’s a few examples that provide a synopsis of commentary on various subjects at blogs both in the ‘liberty movement’ and the other side ‘liberal/progressive/cultural Marxists/communists’:
Fallacious reasoning, ad hominem attacks, circular arguments, demonization, arrogance, group think, BFYTW (a chicken shit excuse to avoid presenting reasonable explanation to a challenger in a discussion), etc., etc., etc.. And our ‘side’ wonders why readership and mindset growth based on value added discussion doesn’t occur. Our side wonders why such ‘piece of work’ groups such as Antifa is growing. Why should anyone ask a question or join a discussion when there’s a good chance some brave, consequence free keyboard hee-row is going to use the same exact Alinsky tactics to silence his or her opinion? Especially when our consequence free keyboard hee-row uses the ultimate, “I get the last word, so there!” junior high school ‘slam.’
My own thoughts on the subject are simple: If ‘Team Freedom’ wants to move ahead, get ‘the message’ out to a larger audience that will also help us move forward, we need a really significant lesson in ‘Come, let us reason together….’ Debate is fine; disagreement is fine; inability to back away and not get the last word (typically a cheap shot) is a losing proposition because it does not move our ideology forward or gain a single follower. It might make the person taking the cheap shot think, “so there!,” but the victory is short lived, because someone who may have helped us most likely walked away.
The paragraph above is the primary reason comments on here are closely moderated.
Commentary that adds to the discussion, whether in the form of reasonable debate or disagreement on any topic, acknowledging that even brand-spanking new people bring something to the table (willingness to learn and personal motivation comes to mind), is entirely welcome and encouraged. Commentary designed to attack, discredit, demonize, or otherwise fallacious in nature that will stifle discussion for the sake of discord is not.
Some have said in the past, “Oh, so no free speech here? Well, Fuck YOU!” and then they either leave or are banned. What those few who’ve been banned or left on their own to never return fail to understand is simple: ‘Free’ speech is not license to crap all over input by another commenter or spread garbage where ever one wishes consequence. Free speech guarantees under the First Amendment refer to the limitation on government entities attempting to limit speech, not discussions between private individuals in one forum or another. There are consequences here for speech that doesn’t follow the guidelines set forth. There are only two: Banning and self-elimination from commenting. Pretty reasonable, in my opinion.
Bottom line at DTG: Positive discussions, debates, and disagreements that move the subject forward, even if corrective in nature, so long as those discussions, debates, and disagreements are not debilitating to those who may have a different opinion are welcome.
Let’s reason together and move toward the objective. Anything or anyone that doesn’t help that really isn’t on the same side intellectually or ideologically.
We need consensus, which is not unanimity.
Reaching consensus is reaching substantial agreement by discussion but not necessarily unanimity. There are four positions participants take while trying to reach consensus. The first three can be included in a consensus agreement:
- This is what I want.
- This is not ideal but it’s OK by me.
- This is not what I want but I can agree to support the group and not interfere.
- This is not what I want and I cannot agree to support it.
Getting to the first three bullet points above, where most ‘can live with’ what has been developed can be measured individually with a simple method of problem solving:
- What is the problem?
- What are the root causes?
- Who owns the problem (who does it significantly affect?)
- Why is the problem important to you?
- What evidence supports the assertion that the problem exists?
- What are the objectives of our ideology (political, economic, personal)?
- What strategy or options are available to nullify the root causes?
- What methodology will be most effective to implement the strategy or options for root cause mitigation/nullification?
- Who will follow up to determine if any ‘course correction’ or other action is necessary to reach consensus?
Here’s a few questions one can ask himself to determine whether or not he or she ‘consents’ or is joining in group consensus on a particular subject:
- Does the agreement being reached come somewhat close to fulfilling my interests?
- Will other people involved in the agreement fulfill their end?
- Does an effective process for measuring/monitoring the actions agreed upon by those involved being implemented?
- Does the substance of the agreement having consensus and the process by which it was reached satisfy a majority of those involved?
- Will all the other people involved in the process provide the same answers, give or take?
Note there’s nothing unanimous when reaching consensus. I’d be suspect of a group that didn’t have differences and rarely, if ever, reached unanimous conclusions or decisions. Differences are essential to move good ideas, plans, and processes forward into the arena of ‘great ideas, plans, and processes.’
From, “Men of the West,” here.
The Borg: Captain Jean-Luc Picard. You lead the strongest ship of the Federation fleet. You speak for your people.
Picard: I have nothing to say to you. And I will resist you with my last ounce of strength!
The Borg: Strength is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.
Picard: Impossible! My culture is based on freedom and self-determination!
The Borg: Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply.
“My how far we have fallen since that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation was aired in 1990.”
“We hate socialists just as much as we hate communists. More so in some instances because Socialists have become the respectable form of Marxism in modern society. (As far as we are concerned, the only difference between a fascist and a socialist is that one recognizes national borders and the other does not).”
What’s that popular saying? Oh, yes.
Source: Agumentum ad Hominem a Fortiori
Read and heed!
Work has kept me busy lately, so I’ve not had a lot of time to post. However, on one of my newest favorite sites, “Men of the West,” I found this great Op-Ed on art, aptly titled, “Modern Art is Crap.” Read, enjoy, and consider. Compare the two below….
Yes, that’s exactly what you think it is– a turd made into ‘art’ and on display. Art masters of old must be soooooooooooo thankful they died before the ‘modern’ era.
And it’s not only the establishment…. the cultural Marxists and outright Communists are emboldened.
In Boston, taken from Kenny’s place, here. What do you all have to say about that?