Just War Theory used to be a major focus of mine when I was much younger. When I was a communist, I had two motivations for researching and debating just war theory: the first was whether or not revolution counted as war and whether it would be justified, the second was a result of 9/11, the subsequent continuation of war in the middle east, and the discussions that ensued with parents and classmates.
After a few years of research and debate, I decided that Just War theory really is nothing more than a Theory on How To Justify a War. Today’s resource is someone much more engaged in this discussion than I in an interview with Tom Woods, but saying essentially the same things I have believed for years, now.
Today’s Resource Suggestion is a little bit of a surprise, I think. I have been doing a fair amount of research the last couple years concerning Saint Nicholas (from 3rd century Turkey, not the north pole), due to a family devotion we started. Patron saint of the Byzantine Catholic Church, the man himself was really interesting, punching heretics in the face, writing philosophical and theological treatises…
Of course, research concerning St. Nicholas inevitably leads to researching the truth about Santa Claus. Something about Santa Claus’ traditional genealogy back to the historical St. Nicholas has always bothered me. After doing research, I think I’ve figured enough of it out; then, fortunately enough, yesterday I heard a podcast about a book concerning that very subject. Now, instead of being a crazy old scrooge no-one listens to, I can be a crazy old scrooge with academic references that no-one listens to.
Yes, it’s an atheist podcast. However, I dare you to find any factual inaccuracies concerning the Church and St. Nicholas/Santa Claus.
There isn’t much to say, despite the length of the text I’m suggesting. This chapter explores the revisionism applied primarily to the railroads of the pre-FED american landscape and teases apart fact from fiction. It’s no surprise, really, that public education would try to paint capitalism as evil, even when examining one of the greatest successes of capitalism itself; it’s all a matter of financial incentives, given that “public” school is funded by the same institution that is a competitor against capitalism…
Hans Rosling is a very smart man who has a lot to say. Fortunately, he’s entertaining to listen to. Given his age and his profession, he is a true scientist. In his talks and lectures, he presents quite a lot of food for thought.
He has certain ethical commitments that I don’t agree with (he’s a big fan of population controls and contraception as well as curbing greenhouse gasses/fossil fuel use), but he presents the information in a manner that allows one to pick apart the data and make their own analyses.
This week, we’ve got another audio-only post. I was asked to refute a very simple claim that anarchism is synonymous with feudalism. While such a claim demonstrates a lack of economic literacy (which I made a conscious effort to avoid getting into today), I thought it would be worth at least beginning a conversation about, given that I’ve heard it multiple times. Not only have I heard it multiple times, but it was the argument which I presented in defense of Objectivism against anarchism during my 6-moth conversion from neoconservatism to anarchism.
In this recording, I address a few different reasons why it’s unlikely that feudalism would be the result of anarchism (I ignored the fact that feudalism and anarchism are antonyms and could not therefore be synonymous) and allow for one historical interpretation which could allow for feudalism to emerge, which also effectively explains how we got ourselves into the mess we’re in.
I feel compelled to point out, though, that feudalism is, in many ways, superior to the current situation in most of the globe (Empire included). Additionally, in the argument presented in the OP (presumably off 4chan) there is an implication that AnCaps don’t care about the poor. While *some* AnCaps may not, it is not inherent to the belief system of anarchism. As a matter of fact, I recently addressed just how an anarchist is often more concerned about the poor and more willing to do what it takes to help them.
However, in a truly anarchist (AnCap) society, the only people that wind up poor are those that are unwilling to work (RE: provide a valuable good or service to others) and/or unwilling to maintain healthy relationships with other human beings. In which case, there is little reason for one to be concerned for the poor, as it is a free choice to be such.
Anarchists, in particular, ought to be interested in history, both for the sake of understanding how the world works and for coming to know one’s enemy (the state). A number of conflicting accounts have been presented concerning human origins, pre-history, and the nature of civilization. However, through this plethora of theories and paucity of available information, certain narratives have gained traction based on what evidence is available, and it (conveniently enough) begins to support certain anarchist understandings of the world that are similar to my own.
One such narrative that has emerged is one which claims that the “out of Africa” theory of human origins is a load of bunk, which is based on the biological fact that race is genetic, not social. While this particular pair of suggestions is from a website that is suspect, the case they are presenting is present in numerous publications. The reason I chose this particular site to share is due to it’s readability (less academic jargon) and due to the fact that it is based in South Africa, which is of particular interest to me as an anarchist.