Joell Davis
Our sacred rights as Englishmen descend from (the quasi-myth of) the Magna Carta, a contract between the Sovereign and his people, a promise to respect and protect their life, liberty and property in return for their loyalty and service.
Anglo militias have time and again staged rebellions against sovereigns who broke this sacred contract. Their blood gave us our inheritance of liberty, not God.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 21:30:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)(unrelated)
Axe……..(Chop w/ Face)
….|
….|…….(many variations)
….|
Knife……(Cut w/ Edge) —–> Cutting Sword –> Cutlass
….|
….|……. (many variations)
….|
Dagger..(Stab w/ Point) —-> Stabbing Sword -> Rapier
….|
….|
….|
Spear…..(point)
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 21:27:00 UTC
by Eli Harman
You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.)
Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 19:38:00 UTC
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method such that we can test statements and arguments in every field by a single grammatical system. The rest of it is just the application of the completion of that method to the entire spectrum of human knowledge, from metaphysics through aesthetics.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 18:03:00 UTC
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I read scientists. The principal purpose of reading philosophy is that once you’ve mastered the basics of the the major logics and sciences, you may want to know ‘how to do it wrong’ -so you can avoid it. Because that’s what philosophy means: how to do it wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 18:02:00 UTC
One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity. Arguing to preference, belief or principle is just an admission of ignorance and incompetence – meaning one should not impose the costs of incompetence and ignorance upon others and merely remain silent.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 17:59:00 UTC
REVIEW: A WASTE OF PHOTO PAPER
“At the Border of Truth: Photographing the New East “
Sasha Rudensky, Assistant Professor of Art
Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 5:00 pm
Ring Family Performing Arts Hall, Center for the Arts
Wesleyan University
Aside from three or four shots that showed insight into stereotypical russian working class archetypes – which I found insulting as I assume they would – the work is worse than student quality – so much so that the viewer is left not pondering the image, but pondering why one would select such images other than for their lack of composition, content, and insight.
Seriously. I know the art world has been a relative wasteland since the dawn of the digital age, and americans lack the culture and acculturation necessary to produce high arts. And I know the ‘new inspirationless and aspiration-less primitivism’ is meant to appeal to the rising anti-western underclasses now aspiring to upper middle class decor.
So, why don’t we just rename Art in America,
(New) American Painter, Art News, … the whole lot of them to “Proletarian Decoration in Western Civilization”?
I have literally not seen a gallery show in over a decade that didn’t insult my intelligence and my aesthetics.
God. What A Wasteland Aesthetics Has Become.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 17:37:00 UTC
Americans are now just a different kind of barbarian. Uncultured, ignorant, utopian, and able to cause damage by just about every means OTHER than violence.
Strange, isn’t it? That infantilization can produce the same damage as violent radicalization?
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 15:14:00 UTC
ABORTION
Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but helpful or harmful.
It is helpful or harmful to the individuals, or helpful or harmful to the polity, or helpful or harmful to mankind.
In other words, abortion in the upper 20% is harmful to society and to man, and abortion in the lower 50% is beneficial to society and to man, and for everyone else it’s merely helpful or harmful to the individual.
Likewise reproduction in the lower 50% is harmful to individuals, to society, and to man. Reproduction in the upper 20% is helpful to society and to man. And for everyone else, reproduction is merely helpful or harmful to the individual.
Really. It’s that’s simple. That’s the answer, and there is no other answer that I know of. It’s not only simple it’s patently obvious. The only reason it’s an even vaguely interesting question is the strange cognitive bias that the question applies equally to all, rather than differently to each.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 15:12:00 UTC
Is it just me or are american college kids incredibly immature compared to their eastern european counterparts?
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 13:26:00 UTC