Source: Facebook

  • Trump isn’t a cause. He’s a consequence. We will persist either way. It’s just w

    Trump isn’t a cause. He’s a consequence. We will persist either way. It’s just way more fun when he’s out in front. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 17:24:00 UTC

  • “The left seems to be doing everything in their power to make cooperation with t

    —“The left seems to be doing everything in their power to make cooperation with them expensive and violence against them cheap.”—Ben B. RodrĂ­guez


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 17:17:00 UTC

  • “YOU’RE MAKING IT HARDER AND HARDER TO PREFER NOT TO KILL YOU AND TAKE YOUR STUF

    “YOU’RE MAKING IT HARDER AND HARDER TO PREFER NOT TO KILL YOU AND TAKE YOUR STUFF”.

    (by James Augustus Berens)

    —“Majoritarian Democracy can only function in a state of Perpetual Prisoner Dilemmas, where zero-sum outcomes are not deterministic and sub-optimal outcomes are preferable to default aggression. We choose to cooperate via comprise (sub-optimal outcomes) because the comprise is preferable to war and defection.

    When the rules (normative & legal) make the outcome of the game zero-sum & deterministic, favoring one set of agents over another (as opposed to a sub-optimal agreement) players will abandon the rules and start playing a different game.

    Or, plainly worded: why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?

    You’re making it harder, and harder, to prefer not to.”—James Augustus Berens


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 16:10:00 UTC

  • WHAT DID I TELL YOU? FROM VERONIKA in UKRAINE. Awesome!

    WHAT DID I TELL YOU? FROM VERONIKA in UKRAINE. Awesome!

    https://www.facebook.com/prikoland/videos/1399096630108364/


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 15:58:00 UTC

  • “The last thing the rabbits want is to give the wolves no other choice, but they

    —“The last thing the rabbits want is to give the wolves no other choice, but they wouldn’t be rabbits if they had any agency over the matter.”—Josh Jeppson


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 15:18:00 UTC

  • Fist, Club, Noose, Pike, and Pyre

    Fist, Club, Noose, Pike, and Pyre.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 14:47:00 UTC

  • “A Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, p

    —“A Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America’s future appears disunited and grim.”— Buchannan


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:56:00 UTC

  • Apple screwed up. they upgraded the Air and called it a Pro. and it’s simply NOT

    Apple screwed up. they upgraded the Air and called it a Pro. and it’s simply NOT a professional model. Period. Especially with taht ridiculous consumer-oriented bar on it. This is an upgrade cycle I’ll have to skip on laptop as well as on the iphone.

    WTF is going on over there?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:55:00 UTC

  • Well you know I don’t think reducing relative equality of material condition is

    Well you know I don’t think reducing relative equality of material condition is a bad thing. I think that doing it by command at the point of a gun, whether by one tyrant, a tyrannical oligarchy, or a majority tyranny, makes no difference. Most of us will prefer it if we obtain behavioral payment in exchanges, so that our commons both physical and human improves. If one cannot produce in the commercial economy that does not mean one cannot produce in the normative, economy of behavior, nor in the production of commons – which is almost entirely one of casual daily maintenance and care. The Russians didn’t get it all wrong you know. The build a good commons economy with the working and underclass, just like we built a good commercial economy with the working and middle and upper middle classes. But monopoly of economic models makes no more sense than a monopoly provision of commons by majority rule. There is no reason we cannot have commercial, commons, and normative economies, each operating with different members and different methods of compensation. Becuase the normative, common, and commercial all depend upon each other.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:40:00 UTC

  • “The Middle American Radicals, the MARs”—Sam Francis —“While con­duct­ing ex

    —“The Middle American Radicals, the MARs”—Sam Francis

    —“While con­duct­ing ex­tens­ive sur­veys of white voters in 1971 and again in 1975, War­ren iden­ti­fied a group who de­fied the usu­al par­tis­an and ideo­lo­gic­al di­vi­sions. These voters were not col­lege edu­cated; their in­come fell some­where in the middle or lower-middle range; and they primar­ily held skilled and semi-skilled blue-col­lar jobs or sales and cler­ic­al white-col­lar jobs. At the time, they made up about a quarter of the elect­or­ate. What dis­tin­guished them was their ideo­logy: It was neither con­ven­tion­ally lib­er­al nor con­ven­tion­ally con­ser­vat­ive, but in­stead re­volved around an in­tense con­vic­tion that the middle class was un­der siege from above and be­low.

    War­ren called these voters Middle Amer­ic­an Rad­ic­als, or MARS. “MARS are dis­tinct in the depth of their feel­ing that the middle class has been ser­i­ously neg­lected,” War­ren wrote. They saw “gov­ern­ment as fa­vor­ing both the rich and the poor sim­ul­tan­eously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply sus­pi­cious of big busi­ness: Com­pared with the oth­er groups he sur­veyed—lower-in­come whites, middle-in­come whites who went to col­lege, and what War­ren called “af­flu­ents”—MARS were the most likely to be­lieve that cor­por­a­tions had “too much power,” “don’t pay at­ten­tion,” and were “too big.” MARS also backed many lib­er­al prorams: By a large per­cent­age, they favored gov­ern­ment guar­an­tee­ing jobs to every­one; and they sup­por­ted price con­trols, Medi­care, some kind of na­tion­al health in­sur­ance, fed­er­al aid to edu­ca­tion, and So­cial Se­cur­ity.

    On the oth­er hand, they held very con­ser­vat­ive po­s­i­tions on poverty and race. They were the least likely to agree that whites had any re­spons­ib­il­ity “to make up for wrongs done to blacks in the past,” they were the most crit­ic­al of wel­fare agen­cies, they re­jec­ted ra­cial bus­ing, and they wanted to grant po­lice a “heav­ier hand” to “con­trol crime.” They were also the group most dis­trust­ful of the na­tion­al gov­ern­ment. And in a stand that wasn’t really lib­er­al or con­ser­vat­ive (and that ap­peared, at least on the sur­face, to be in ten­sion with their dis­like of the na­tion­al gov­ern­ment), MARS were more likely than any oth­er group to fa­vor strong lead­er­ship in Wash­ing­ton—to ad­voc­ate for a situ­ation “when one per­son is in charge.”

    If these voters are be­gin­ning to sound fa­mil­i­ar, they should: War­ren’s MARS of the 1970s are the Don­ald Trump sup­port­ers of today. Since at least the late 1960s, these voters have peri­od­ic­ally co­alesced to be­come a force in pres­id­en­tial polit­ics, just as they did this past sum­mer. In 1968 and 1972, they were at the heart of George Wal­lace’s pres­id­en­tial cam­paigns; in 1992 and 1996, many of them backed H. Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan. Over the years, some of their is­sues have changed—il­leg­al im­mig­ra­tion has re­placed ex­pli­citly ra­cist ap­peals—and many of these voters now have ju­ni­or-col­lege de­grees and are as likely to hold white-col­lar as blue-col­lar jobs. But the ba­sic MARS world­view that War­ren out­lined has re­mained sur­pris­ingly in­tact from the 1970s through the present”—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:31:00 UTC