List #2

I found a list to this effect in the back of a book (well I changed the words to make it easier to read and added some extra information), and then I added some things by Albert Speer at the end. There isn’t really a point to this list. It’s just information…

Berlin: Symphony of a Great City 1927 silent film, day of life in Berlin

Miracle of Flight 1935 propaganda film, Luftwaffe

Ian Kershaw’s Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris

Alan Bullock’s Hitler: A Study in Tyranny

William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Richard J. Evans’ The Third Reich in Power: 1933-1939 and The Third Reich at War: 1939-1945

Shareen Blair Brysac’s Resisting Hitler: Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra

Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev’s (KGB historians) The Haunted Wood

Alexander Vassiliev, John Earl Haynes, and Harvey Klehr’s Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America

Rudolf Diels’ memoir Lucifer Ante Portas

Robert Gellately’s “The Gestapo and German Society: Political Denunciation in the Gestapo Case Files” Journal of Modern History 60, no. 4 (December 1988) – – – – – The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy, 1933-1945. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1990

Albert Speer’s Inside the Third Reich (autobiographic), Spandau: The Secret Diaries (autobiographic), and Infiltration (about the SS)


P.S. You know what’s a good song? Requiem 1 from Giuseppe Verdi – Dies irae, Libera me. I happened across it while looking for things by Wagner, Verdi, Liszt, Grieg, Strauss, Chopin… You know. That sort of thing. It’s good music.

Basic Hunting Notes

There’s a lot of stuff in the book that I’m not going to be covering, but it’s the second edition of Clyde Ormond’s “Complete Book of Hunting” (this edition is copyright 1972). I didn’t find an ISBN number on the book, but the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is 77-169126. Hopefully that will be enough information for anyone who wants to find the book for themselves. I just have a few quotes and things with some of my own commentary and opinions.

Clothing and Equipment

-“If you don’t use an item every day, leave it home.” You should still be prepared for changes in weather and terrain though. Like even if you don’t use your rain coat every day, you might still need it.

-Fundamental gear: “clothes, personal items, camp equipment and food”

-The right kind of footwear is extremely important. That section of the book was actually very long, so if I’ve boiled it down that much then you can imagine how much I left out.

-Bring a change of clothes in case you fall into a creek (stream) or get your clothes snagged on thorns or something like that. This is even more important if you plan on being out hunting for multiple days at a time because otherwise your clothes will start to smell like you’ve been wearing them for multiple days at a time. How to thoroughly mask one’s scent when one smells like a desperate laundry basket… Actually, let’s not discuss the world of bottled urine from elk, moose, deer and so on. Furthermore, if you are going to use one of those things, you don’t want to go to sleep smelling like that.

-The author of this book recommends using a down-filled sleeping bag with “either a cotton sheet or inner liner” which you can place a folded woolen blanket inside when it’s very cold.

Equipment and Food

-Don’t take too much of the wrong kinds of food and equipment. If you don’t plan on taking an experienced hunter with you, then the least you could do is ask one for advice on what to bring before you go.

-Basic equipment: “tent, stove, lantern, axes, saw, shovel, waterproof tarp, and camp cooking and eating utensils” (bear in mind he said “axes” and not “axe”, which implies that multiple people should be sharing the chopping chores)

-Factors determining type of gear: “the number in the party, the kind of country, the season of year, and the length of the intended hunt” I’d also like to remind you all that various unforeseen circumstances can cause the hunt to last somewhat longer than you originally intended, so you should be sure to have good equipment that will be useful in these situations and which will resist wear and tear.

-The author also recommends bringing a medium-sized Dutch oven if possible. He also recommends a, “plate, cup, spoon, knife, fork, and a small bowl or dish” for everyone in the hunting party. I imagine you’d want to consider bringing a spork if you plan on cooking stew or soup while you’re out. I’ve never been hunting, but if you have a good spork wouldn’t you be able to just carry that instead of both a fork and spoon? It’s less dishes and can do the job of either utensil just as well if you have one that’s good enough.

-“Two of the best staples for an emergency are an extra bag of flour and potatoes. With these two items, and with any game in camp, a party could become snowed in or endure similar emergency for a month if necessary.” (This is starting to remind me of the stereotype section in a book about Ireland I read once.) Make sure you know how to make these meats, potatoes and flour into things you actually want to eat. Look up recipes beforehand if you feel it is necessary or if you are some sort of aspiring wilderness chef.

Mountain Sheep and Goats

-“Often the meat of wild sheep must be left overnight… The best way to protect a trophy is to turn the dressed carcass belly down over a large rock in a crevice, then pile rocks over the exposed parts. Breezes will circulate over the carcass, allowing it to cool without spoilage, and predatory birds cannot get at it.” I’d like to add the suggestion of either picking out an obvious landmark or in some way marking the environment without causing it any harm so you can find the carcass more easily later. You might consider something like leaving some rocks in a peculiar shape or pattern or tying a bright red handkerchief to a tree branch. I do not recommend tying it to a tuft of grass because it might blow away or some other misfortune could befall you (like in the fairy tale I’m going to summarize at the end of this post).


From what I gather, hunting these predators must’ve still been legal when the book was written. I’m fairly certain that has changed for at least some of these animals.


-Coyote: western predator, scavenger, despite the latter I still maintain that they threaten the lives of local chickens

-Bobcat and lynx: I once heard these described as “very big, very very angry dogs – except cats”, they used to be hunted with dogs

-Cougar: “One of the most relentless and seldom seen predators of North American wildlife is the cougar, also known as panther, mountain lion, or simply lion.” It mostly ranges west of the Rocky Mountains from Canada to Central and South America, but there have been rare occasions when one is killed in a Florida swamp. These also used to be hunted with dogs.

-Jaguar: “Found in Mexico and Central America” … “The location of individual animals is usually learned from Mexican natives – often because of the cat’s depredations against stock.”

Smaller predators were not included in the author’s list because they don’t prey on big game “and often overlap into the varmint classification as well”.


Now about that fairy tale… I don’t remember all of the details, but basically a leprechaun was somehow forced to reveal the location of his pot of gold to this boy. It was under a tuft of grass in a field which the boy was unable to dig into with his hands because the earth was so hard. He wanted to go home to get a shovel, so to prevent himself from losing the location of the pot of gold, he tied a bright red handkerchief to the tuft of grass. When he came back, every tuft of grass in the field had a red handkerchief tied around it. I don’t think he ever found the gold after that.

P.S. So many Ireland references today. All we need now is for someone to start singing about Molly Malone and my afternoon will be complete. (I don’t even have any Irish blood, by the way. I’m just “fan-girling” right now. XD )

German Grammar: Genitive

I did some cleaning and found my old German notes. Then I got bored and decided to give you all a refresher post on the genitive case. The explanation I gave of it before was inadequate anyway.

So anyway, the genitive in English works by either using an apostrophe after a noun (ex: “the Judge’s ruling” or “the dog’s fur in my pancakes”), or by using the word “of” with an article (ex: “the ruling of the Judge” or “the hair of the dog”).

(The hair of the dog… Haha! That reminds me of this old television show. I can’t recall the name of it now, but I guess it doesn’t matter anyway. Actually, ol’-what’s-his-face might have said it in the movie instead of the show. I’m not even sure what I was watching now.)

Possession can be shown multiple ways in German as well.

First: by use of the -s ending on a proper name. This one is similar to English, but no apostrophe is used. (ex: “Peters Auto” = “Peter’s car”)

Second: by use of the actual genitive case. In this case, -es is added to the end of most masculine and neuter nouns with only one syllable and -s is added to the end of the masculine and neuter nouns with more than one syllable. When you want to change a masculine noun ending in -e to the genitive case, you add an -n after the -e (ex: “das Auto des Jungen“).

There are no special genitive endings for feminine and plural nouns, but the articles or adjectives have the genitive -er ending. (ex: “das Auto der Lehrerin” or “das Auto meiner Mutter” taking note that the words “Lehrerin” and “Mutter” remain in their regular forms, not taking a special genitive ending while “die” changes to “der” and “meine” changes to “meiner“)

Third: with the von preposition and the dative case in colloquial German can also be used together to show possession.

Example 1:

Genitive: “Das ist das Auto meiner Mutter.”

Dative: “Das ist das Auto von meiner Mutter.”

Example 2:

Genitive: “Das ist das Auto meines Vaters.”

Dative: “Das ist das Auto von meinem Vater.”

Notice again how the word for “mother” does not take a special ending in the genitive case since it is a feminine noun, while the word for “father” takes a special -s ending in the genitive case because it is a masculine noun.

As a quick reminder: plural nouns don’t have special endings either (same as the feminine nouns). An example of this would be, “Hier ist das Haus meiner Eltern.” You can see “meine” change to “meiner” while “Eltern” stays the same because it is plural.

Another reminder: neuter nouns act like masculine nouns in the genitive case and take either the -s or the -es ending, so in the genitive case a phrase like “das Land” becomes “des Landes“.

Ares, Aphrodite and Hephaestus

I found this one while looking through Homer’s “Odyssey”. It mainly concerns Ares, Aphrodite and Hephaestus (hence the title).

As it begins Aphrodite and Hephaestus are married, but Helios told Hephaestus that his wife had been playing at love with Ares (and in the married couple’s bed for that matter). Sometimes rumors aren’t true, but this one happened to be somewhat more trustworthy since Helios had seen the two embrace.

After hearing this news, Hephaestus went to his forge and hammered out a chain with links that could not be sprung or bent. He went to his and Aphrodite’s bed and strung the chain around the bed posts and from the ceiling rafters to trap the two. Because of his skillful craftsmanship, the chain was so light that even gods in bliss could not notice it.

Then he pretended he was going on a trip to “the trim stronghold of Lemnos, the dearest of earth’s towns to him.”

Ares watched Hephaestus leave for this trip and straightaway went to find Aphrodite (“or sweet Kythereia” as it says in this line). He found her in her chamber. Ares tenderly touched her hand and invited her to lie down with him.

Aphrodite welcomed the idea and the two lay down in bed, but as they did so the chains rained down upon them, pinning them both so they could neither rise nor move apart.

Helios had been spying on them for Hephaestus. Seeing the two caught, he told his friend to return immediately.

Hephaestus’ heart was filled with rage to see the two together. His voice boomed out to the other gods that these two would stay chained together in bed this way until Aphrodite’s father sent back his wedding gifts (“all that I poured out for his damned pigeon, so lovely, and so wanton”).

The gods crowded in to see the spectacle while the goddesses “stayed home for shame”. The gods laughed and jeered at Ares – being one who outran the wind and having been caught by someone with deformed legs.

However, Poseidon was not among those laughing. He stood there stone-faced until he finally began to urge Hephaestus to unpin Ares, and furthermore swore that Hephaestus would be paid if he did so.

Hephaestus did not trust Ares to pay, but Poseidon assured him that if Ares left without paying him, then he would pay on Ares’ behalf. Hephaestus agreed to these terms and released Ares and Aphrodite.

Ares lept into Thrace while Aphrodite fled to Kypros Isle and Paphos. In this place the Graces bathed her and anointed her with golden oil. The folds of her mantle fell in glory.

A Brief Thought

This will likely be largely irrelevant to my readers living outside of the United States, but I’ve made an observation today which I would like to file in this archive/blog of mine.

It starts with banks being incapable of cashing certain kinds of checks if the person trying to cash the check does not have at least one account with that bank. One can cash a pay check. Maybe a personal check, but that isn’t always the case. One cannot, however, do anything with a check from the IRS without a bank account.

Now isn’t it odd that this privately-owned central bank which controls the economy and other, lesser banks with their exclusive ability to print money, would require people to fork over their personal information and let this private bank hold on to at least part of their money (assuming the person is not in debt) in order for someone to collect money from this bank? No? I didn’t think so either. I furthermore assert this to have all the appearances of a business strategy (banks being businesses which get money from people by doing things like charging fees for having or using an account or cashing a check, not to mention interest on any loan (loans = instant debt) one might desire).

For a bank to refuse to serve a customer who does not wish to have an account with such things is a rather unfair business method and, furthermore, discrimination against those of us who do not wish to do any business with these vermin.

It could of course be argued that no one is legally required to cash a check from the IRS, but it could be countered that if one cannot do anything with a return check, then that person shouldn’t have to bother filing their taxes in the first place regardless of how much or how little they make. (As a side note I’d also like to point out that there isn’t much point in most people filing taxes anyway since the United States is in such a phenomenal amount of debt. And if the proverbial “one percent” owns and controls so much of America’s money it wouldn’t make much, if any, difference for the IRS to know what happens with the “ninety-nine percent’s” significantly smaller amount of money.)

Unfortunately I had to wait over an hour today for a chance to ask a banker for a quote about his opinions on this, but he was not allowed to comment. How disappointing.

Not that I didn’t expect something like that to happen, but at least I tried.


NB: I use “Federal Reserve” and “IRS” interchangeably in this post. I do see them as two heads on the same beast, after all.

Rabies Notes

I know I’ve posted about rabies before, but I like to remind people every now and then not to go sticking their fingers near wild animals or domestic animals acting strangely – especially by the mouth or claw areas.

The incubation period in humans can last from a few months to a few years depending on the patient.

The first symptoms may feel like the onset of the flu, and may include a fever and sore throat.

Later (maybe after a few days or so) the patient may experience:
-difficulty in sleeping or inability to sleep
-tingling sensation where bitten or scratched
-a freakish amount of salivation
-confusion and/or change in behavior
-breathing problems
-heart problems

(above happens over approximately two weeks)

The patient may also experience muscle spasms of the mouth and throat during this time, which will make eating, drinking and speaking difficult (rabies is also sometimes called “hydrophobia” for the above reason since the muscle spasms result in difficulty swallowing, making the patient want to avoid drinking water lest they choke to death).

By the time the patient starts showing signs of illness they are doomed, and the doctors can’t do much more to help the patient
other than giving them sedatives to ease their suffering.

There is virtually no chance of survival once the patient begins to exhibit symptoms.


The sources are the usual suspects again:

“The American Medical Association Family Medical Guide” Medical Editor: Charles B. Clayman, MD (ISBN: 0-679-41290-5)

“Standard First Aid and Personal Safety” (“Prepared by the American Red Cross”) (ISBN: 0-385-15736-3)

N v. B

We’re going to be trying something different today. I’m eventually going to be making some weird comparison, but before that I have some notes on the Necronomicon I’d like to share with those of you who didn’t leave the moment I used the word “Necronomicon”. (And for those of you who are here because you have nothing better to do rather than because of an actual interest: you may move directly on to my post on rabies if you prefer. Don’t say I never gave you any other options.) By the way, I haven’t actually read any versions of it or anything by H.P. Lovecraft. I just did some Wikipedia research and I’m just going to take this opportunity to have some fun with it. It’s nice to spice things up occasionally.

To repeat before I begin: I just did the research on Wikipedia, so that’s where the quote came from.

A summary of the Necronomicon: “an account of [entombed primordial beings], their history, and the means for summoning them”, about things that lived in a place of questionable location a long time ago, cited by external sources to give it the quality of being true or real, many versions have been published.

The summary of the points on the Necronomicon shares striking similarities with the Bible as the latter: is an account of entombed (sometimes) dead beings, their (versions of) history, and the means for properly interacting with them (praying, singing certain things, sacrificing animals, obeying the rules put forth in the book, talking to angels, Jesus, saints, YHWY, stoning children to death, preforming surgery on infant male humans, giving financial offerings and so on); it is also about people/things that lived in or visited places of questionable location (or people of questionable origin as the authors couldn’t decide whether Jesus was “of Nazareth” or “of Bethlehem”); the Bible is also cited by external sources to give it the appearance of being true or real, and, like the Necronomicon, many versions of the Bible have been published.

I then propose that people who feel that the events and characters of the Bible were real should also admit that the characters and other details of the Necronomicon could be real as well since it would be illogical and downright insane to believe one thing with scant evidence backing it (especially since the Bible has been so thoroughly disproved so many times) while disbelieving another with a similarly low level of evidence backing it.

Of course I don’t believe people will actually do this because I feel they should know off the top of their heads that the Necronomicon is a work of fiction. I also feel that one of the key differences here is that they probably were not taught from a young age that the Necronomicon is real and accurate, thereby allowing them to see it for the fiction that it is. On the other hand, many people have been taught from a young age that the Bible is a real, accurate, and entirely true account of history and if they don’t believe it they will be tortured for all eternity (and since lives take time to be lived, that would either mean that this eternity includes the time the individual spends being alive and they are already being rewarded in heaven or punished in hell for things they haven’t even done yet [a;so raising the question: if this is already a part of the afterlife, do people stay on Earth or get reincarnated when they die seeing as how that would imply that we are already a bunch of living dead people], or it could mean that this lifetime occurs in a manner and space separate from time itself and that an individual would enter the space of time upon their death – and, really, even with those short and blunt explanations, both options sound ridiculous).

People being taught from a young age that the Bible is real naturally means that the more sheepish people (pardon my pun) will be unlikely to question it out of fear that they will find it to be something they cannot being themselves to truly believe. This would either mean that they would be tortured forever if it was real, and if it wasn’t real that would mean that they were lied to by adults they trusted as children and that at least some of their beliefs were based on fallacies as a result of that lying (that’s “beliefs” and not “morals” because Judeo-Christian religions don’t have a monopoly on the morals they got from the European religion, but things like a belief in miracles or whether Israel is a bandit state based on having been told that the Jews were promised that land by some invisible sand totem floating around in the sky or that they maybe used to live there for a while because some inaccurate trash of a book said so – those among opinions about things like same-sex marriage, stoning people to death, slavery, Sharia Law and so on).

This would be rather disturbing to the weak-minded as it would allow them to realize all the great questions that come with being alive, and the weak-minded do not desire profound questions or deviation from the norm as these things would require them to think and form their own opinions. They are rather like a very sensitive moss which only grows on the stillest of stones, trees and the like, yet dies as a result of the slightest agitation.

But to be fair: children who are especially gullible or who have an inadequate IQ cannot help but believe the things they are told by authority figures, so it is not automatically the child’s fault for believing utter fallacies on par with the level of such characters as the tooth fairy or the man in the moon (and they may confidently proclaim the moon to be made of cheese). In these cases it is more the fault of the authority figures who choose to abuse their power over easily-led children such as these in order to control the thoughts and actions of these people more effectively when they become adults.

As for the intelligent children: I would like to assume they would be able to discover the difference between fact and fiction on their own at some point. I would also like to be able to say with confidence that they would also be able to obtain socially acceptable morals on their own, given enough time, even with a complete absence of any religion be it Judeo-Christian or not.

These things don’t always happen, but at least I can say that socially acceptable morals don’t always develop with the presence of religion either.

To be frank: every graph, every article, every letter I’ve ever seen or read on the subject has claimed the majority of inmates in American prisons to be a member of a Judeo-Christian religion. I wonder on occasion whether there is actually a scientifically-proven link between religion and crime rates, but then I decide that would be too vague for me to have a good chance of finding relevant, independent studies if I were to look it up.

P.S. As a side note, I feel that there are enough versions of both the Bible and the Necronomicon and that no more should be made. Actually, there are probably far too many. Maybe people should start using them as firewood since they are in such abundance. Save electricity and all that.