Jave Galt-Miller

Philosopher, mentor, and rebel. Learn about the life and legacy of Socrates in POLIS: The Trial of Socrates. Buy your digital copy now: lesbian-zombies.gumroad.com/l/MZgtQ #socrates #plato #history #philosophy

@stogolp @ChickfilA No, the correct version for ChickfilA would be God is good! or Jesus is King! The sarcasm has to be against the target's god.

Hey @ChickfilA Open the F*ckin’ restaurant on Sundays, you crazy b*stards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah

@Timcast You really don't know sarcasm when you see it? One might criticize the idea of a President blaspheming a popular god. But there's no question is intent was sarcasm, not sincere praise. (Personally, I support the blaspheming of any god.)

Do you stand with Trump?

@TheDemSlayer Can't we just see fantastic sarcasm without looking for precedents in the Bible?

Exactly. And when President Trump says “Praise be to Allah,” he’s doing something very similar to what the prophet Elijah did on Mount Carmel with the prophets of Baal. He’s basically saying, “Call on your god all you want. He will not be there to save you from the fire and brimstone I’m about to rain down on you.”

@mikevwvo @Askwhyisit @erichovind More likely: they'll say either a, Zeus is a demon, which further proves theism; or b, Zeus was a misunderstanding of the real god, but that misunderstanding arose from something real, which further proves theism.

@Askwhyisit @erichovind I like the Zeus argument: Ask a believer why they don't believe Zeus is God? They'll make the atheist's point for them.

Eric @erichovind, it’s actually the other way around. Atheists tend not to believe because they care about evidence—and so far, no convincing evidence has been presented, nor has God clearly revealed himself. You apply that same standard yourself to every other god except your Jesus.

@MarcACaputo I take it as wonderful sarcasm (if it were in a movie, not necessarily from a President). But the whole "God is good" stuff sincerely coming out of gov/military lately lands a lot like Allahu akbar...

While my church-going friends don’t much like an American president saying “Praise be to Allah” on Easter Sunday, it’s being absorbed into the culture May as well thread these

“Open the Fuckin’ Strait”

@MarcACaputo And the Praise be to Allah. (I find it to be the funniest thing.)

The capitalization, the colloquial G-dropping, the message, the timing (Easter) —puts this in the realm of all-timers

@EPoe187 My reaction to No Country:

@EPoe187 My reaction to TWBB:

Every few months, I revisit the No Country vs There Will Be Blood debate. Both are obviously masterpieces, but I've landed on this: No Country is the better film because it is more restrained and precise. TWBB is a strange cinematic opera, No Country is a classical sculpture.

@Askwhyisit Hate is a feeling the weak feel for the perceived strong. A god can't hate. It can only despise.

Even when God is hateful?

@wil_da_beast630 He does have close to a million followers. If I posted that, no one would have paid attention.

You really can just make shit up, go viral.

@SantiagoAuFund Ha. I see this is repost, and I previously responded to it. (At least I'm consistent.)

@SantiagoAuFund No, the crowd chose Barabbas because the Gentile Gospel writers wanted to highlight how the Jewish people rejected their Messiah, and were often the hardest to convince to join the new faith. And because Barabbas represents the Jewish rebellion that Rome crushed in 70 CE.

I think this should be a pretty firm rule for the Overton window of American politics

@ConceptualJames @realAaronBergh @ThomasEWoods "Americans understood from the start that the only way a contractual and voluntarist society can work is with enough of a state to secure the individual liberties of people against bad actors, individual and collective"

There is. Hoppe rejects Marx, as you can see in the next sentence after the highlight, but what he doesn't reject is the overall structure of Marxist critique. He believes he can reorient Marxist critique from a more accurate starting place (as with the French classical liberal class theorists) and then update that with Austrian economics and get something that's not structurally the same as Marxism, or something. Ultimately, what Hoppe and the French classical liberal class theorists assert is kind of an inverse of Marx, and then they just draw all the same conclusions about how things work from that inverse. Of course, this implies different solutions (protecting private property rather than abolishing it, e.g.). In brief, Marx asserts that private property ownership gives rise to exploitation that the owning class wishes to protect, thus it erects a state built in its own interests to protect itself, and that state becomes an instrument of their oppression. By contrast, Hoppe and the French classical liberal class theorists insist that the state itself is the primary actor here, enabling the exploitation of the productive classes (e.g., homesteaders) and the rise of a parasitical bourgeois class. That is, it's structurally the same paranoid, conflict-oriented model of society but with the root causes and central problem actor locations reversed. (Tom thinks I don't understand this, btw.) Therefore, Hoppe can affirm all of Marx's conclusions from his theory of history while rejecting all of his solutions (e.g., abolishing private property, establishing a temporary socialist super-state apparatus that will manage production until it can wither away, etc.). Ultimately, he has the same structural model. Hoppe and his French class-theory homies would assert that the state itself is the cause of the oppression, effectively creating parasitical and rent-seeking classes, so the proper solution is the direct abolition of the state entirely to allow a completely contractual and voluntarist capitalism to arise. The idea is no state implies no parasitical class that can rent-seek or exploit the productive implies no exploitation, so even though everything is unequal, it's unequal contractually and voluntarily, thus not exploitative. Of course, this is retarded Eurotrashism unbecoming any American thinker, especially one with Ivy training in economic affairs. Americans understood from the start that the only way a contractual and voluntarist society can work is with enough of a state to secure the individual liberties of people against bad actors, individual and collective, and that it must have the authority and strength to be able to accomplish that end rather unambiguously. They also understood that such a state of affairs naturally tends toward a tyranny, which is the critique of people like Tom and Hoppe (who believe the American system already failed, btw), but their solution to it wasn't to just hope for the best in terms of getting people to all understand that they're going to act in a good enough way but instead to divide the powers of government and establish a Bill of Rights that severely limits its power. As Madison and Hamilton argued in Federalist 51, which directly addresses these concerns, in fact, they make the famous argument that if men were angels we wouldn't need government, but they were astute enough students of history and human nature to know that Romantic Idealism like that simply isn't real. Government might need to be minimal, divided against itself in its powers, restricted in its scope, and hindered by having to cater to the interests of varying factions, but it also needs to be centralized, federal, and powerful enough to be able to achieve its only Just ends. Ultimately, Madison and Hamilton were right, and Hoppe, Tom, Gottfried, "Comic" Dave Smith, and all the rest of these idiots are BTFO and always have been. They're utopians mistaking themselves for realists and fools professing themselves wise. But, at least we can understand why they're dumb, I guess.

Long before Marx came along classical liberalism had a class theory of its own. That did not make it Marxist. You may suspect, with me, that James, despite declaring himself my intellectual superior, does not know anything about classical liberal class theory

@ThomasEWoods @JoelWBerry A guy who believes he was attacked by a demon in the middle of the night. That's your best? Jesus.

@JoelWBerry Tucker is the best voice on the right and it isn't even close. If you weren't blinded by the Israel thing you would be able to see that. Who else is there? Somebody from the Never Trumpers? Somebody from National Review? Give me a break

When Charlie Kirk was murdered, most of us saw a martyr. Tucker and Candace saw an opening.

@ranger_viking @MarkNaughton9 ugh... no progress, not on progress...

@ranger_viking @MarkNaughton9 These are good examples of where to fire generals in the midst of war. The potential difference: Trump/Hegseth are firing at the start of a war. Lincoln fired after several years of on progress. (Then you've got Xi firing a bunch before a war...)

Firing Generals in war is the best time to fire them…very common

@BillMelugin_ How would anyone with a basic knowledge/education of the situation ever confuse the two?

A six month CBS investigation found no evidence that California’s highest in the nation gas prices are the result of price gouging, as state politicians have repeatedly claimed. Instead, the investigation found those prices are largely the result of California’s own policies.

@BlueApsaraBlog @GrowlerEnjooyer @johnkonrad I mean, would a Christian really see any value in talking to an imam; would a Muslim see any value in talking to a Christian. In matters of faith.

@BlueApsaraBlog @GrowlerEnjooyer @johnkonrad By "expected to talk to" I meant "expected to give advice and comfort in spiritual matters". So yes, this is very surprising. As an atheist, I'd have no reason to talk to a chaplain, other than debate over beers. So I wonder if that's the same for contradictory faith believers.

Two star military chaplain publishes a 112 page spiritual guide for 🇺🇸 warriors. Zero mentions of Jesus. ZERO. Non-denominational writings will at least recognizes Jesus as a historical figure. Marxists erase him altogether. General Green is a commie.