Onasander

I get most of mine off my kindle, which has a video search option. If you have a amazon prime account (about a hundred bucks) it's free to watch most. They also have some to buy. They have most of what you mentioned, as well as some subtitled foreign works I haven't seen elsewhere.

Good for him. Maybe someone can request a additional Superbowl from Obama in February. Like I said, I'm increasingly unimpressed by Rome, in comparison with the much higher standards of modern day backwater banana republics. I'm impressed such a inherently backwards and grossly ineffective system, by seeming design, can evolve in a noticeable manner. You would think it would just eternally stagnate, but these parasitic dictators do seem to be learning from the mistakes of their predecessors, and mutate in response by degrees, all the while running embarrassing little socialissimo regimes full of corruption, human rights abuse, and pure two-faced ideological spin.

I hate that version of 17th cross, but the link I posted still works. Old Jazz saxophonist. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0mq-fYPU5Ow A Garland of Stars by Bluetech

I don't know if any were actually liked.... we're given opinions by people who have natural biases, just not always easy to discern from our distance.... after a while, especially after the Augustan Dynasty, the Senate just simply wasn't what it once was, and doubt any Roman would of debated that assertion.... but merely being retrograde and hands off, keeping strictly to a executive function as you suggest isn't necessarily "good" either. It can indicate a delusional anachronism on his part in a society that evolved to need a strong executive power penetrating everywhere. Had say, Caesar or Augustus taken this policy and just left the Senate to its business and instead created a war college and rapid reaction force, and better integrated the provinces.... yeah, I'd think they would of made good executives.... more so had they officially codified their limited positions and delineated how to run for said office. But they didn't. They chose monarchy instead. After a while, it's like a Heroine addict, hard to go cold turkey without deadly consequences. A good leader under such conditions should encourage better integration and increased autonomy, emphasis on honesty, integrity, duty.... and encourage institutions to do some soul searching in terms of purpose and identity, and emphasise working together for the greater good.... but that's not inherently republicans. That's still a tyranny, but a enlightened one, with a light at the end of the tunnel. It needs to be remembered, the Roman Senate even on it's best of days could be rather thick headed and short sighted itself. It sorta got itself in this mess on it's own.

It also just occurred to me, the Romans used to exile female adulterers to Islands..... a territorial space concept, right hemisphere thinking, for a kind of sexual indulgence that transgressed the sexual discipline and social law expected (of noble women alone) of the early princips. If they organized one form of sexuality in terms of space, perhaps they listed other sexual indulgences via space too? A rape room would qualify in this scheme, as it's not too far off from adultery island (perhaps the ancient origins of the impulse for Caribbean cruises?)

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-claims-constructing-dirty-bomb-stealing-40kg-uranium/ This is one of the stories about the uranium. Good news is, Britian just opened a visa center in Basra, so it's certainly not going to happen..... Meanwhile, news comming out gets more and more banal.

I have alot of my research for the Sardanapalus-King Zhou article complete, a few books yet to arrive in the mail. I'm stumped.... I've seen plenty of academic Philosophy and History of Philosophy Journals, and don't think writing a thesis in that manner is proper or correct.... they find either a common theme amongst scattered works, or nitpick a few lines or words to death. I don't think presenting such a historical ground changing theory is correct in such a format. Likewise, I've seen a few medical journals that specialize in hypothesis.... better, but I feel obliged, given my background in dialectics, to also list flaws likely in my theory, as well as weak points, contradictions, etc. I see a few issues with the text that allows alternative explanations, and am not convinced it's all taken from chinese history. I want to arm historians examining this with all scenerios, every assurance I have, but also doubts. I don't want to be taken as one of the "Flavians Invented Christianity" nutjobs, but also want the theory constructed in ease, under 30 pages, and lots of sources to consider. I'm just not aware of the method historians prefer theories presented in. I want this to be eady to grasp.

And I know it's not a culture gap issue here, it's just sheer stupidity and incompetency. Both England and the US has a concept called Mens Rea: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In order, under our inherited and similar legal system, prove "racism", you gotta prove it was intentional in the very act in the court, not some general trend only evident through biased exposition of some classes of fact. Knowing this, BBC and most responsible news organizations should of asked, if it's near impossible to prove these cases, and when circuses are made about them, pointless riots and racially motivated showtrials... which nearly always, for very enlightened reasons fail for lack of evidence, resulting in jury nullification or not guilty charges.... to drop the racist angle all together, and look at a thinker like Rawls, and his Veil of Ignorance. Ask 1) What are the use of force criteria 2) was there evidence if a overstep of force 3) why the policeforce failed to train itself (lack of funding isn't a excuse, too many vets from the military serve in police forces who know what it is). If it's done this way, you'll get convictions. You try a invisible hand of racism approach, you'll fail everytime, especially in crime ridden neighborhoods. Media is the forth estate, they need to be competent enough to grasp these things, and not feed into the political rhetoric of the dumbest common denominator one sided each and every time.

In the last few years, the BBC started to recover from it's intellectual slide. As some of you know, I'm addicted to international news website, and check the BBC regularly. I tend to get big war stories a few days in advance before they pop up, but have come to accept this. It's been over a week, however, since middle eastern sites started reporting ISIS took 40kgs of Uranium from the University of Mosul, and are actively discussing setting it off as a dirty bomb in London.... not one story I've seen. But we get plenty of this confused dribble:http://m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30310934 If it comes to Global Warming, Socialized Medicine, or liberal politics (which is hardly a thought out theory, full of contradictions by default as it's untested and dispersed, yes any theory has these flaws, but like Fascism and Communism before and after they became a experienced reality, had such contradictions as well, same for democracy in the beginning. Untested systems tend to utopian ideals, and thus oversights.) The BBC, I'm increasingly convinced, is a force of suicidal lemmings. They got it right in pushing internationally, but they seem to be rather superficial, and drop the big obvious stories that really should matter.... like setting a dirty bomb off in London, while chasing after every exciting yet ultimately failed story from around the globe by what they perceive to be their ideological confederates. They got stars in their eyes and trip over every branch on the ground. It's time to show off your degrees, strap on your thinking caps, and stop being a bunch of confused self important twats. Especially when investigating OTHER COUNTRIES NEWS. It's great to cover a minority view point in that country, but also cover everyone else, and study the underlining deposition of the psychology and why rifts occur. Don't just go with the viewpoints of a couple of friends who are reporters there too cause they dye their hair blond and carry the same faux luxury chanel purse too. This is really embarrassing. Higher standards please! You started to do so well, but take these incredible olympic high jump plunges into the shallow side of the pool. Is this really how Oxford taught your lot to think, like stoners?

Rome was backwards even by modern Banana Republic standards.... more I learn of it, less awed and more dismally disappointed I become. I don't drink or smoke, but I do have enough commonsense to know that if I'm a emperor, and the stupid people gave me a temple, and some worshipped me, but most just heckled me or gave me problems, as a proper far sighted tyrant I'd just change the sacrificial rites in the temples from killing a goat or a midget.... which does nothing for me, to smoking as much opium as possible, and for everyone to chill the hell out and let me do my thing. Drugs aren't a luxury, but a means to stiffle and control. If you have the need for it in the first place, it means something is lacking. This would only be in the case of me hypothetically being a imperial tyrant though, desiring a pragmatic means of control over and beyond the bread and circuses method, which can backfire, as in the Nike Revolt. My dysfunctional empire, if I didn't partically care for them, or even the longevity of the state, would be covered in fields of poppy. The whole system of banana republics are silly in the first place, you end up surrounded fantastically rich by useless puppets, and anyone intelligent enough to want to talk with wants to kill you. In the end, the dynasty collapses in a few generations. All for nothing, beyond the sex with lots and lots of women of course.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iGoSJSnYB0U Charlie Mariano, 17th Cross

Poppyseed? Romans had opium? That would of worked better than bread and circuses if your just looking to distract the disenfranchised masses.

I was thinking this tourguide was pulling everyone's leg too, but found a East Roman history that may suggest just such a tradition: Elmantatum is the key word, perhaps the designated Free Rape Zone? I dunno, came from a Monastic's History of the World: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm CHAPTER, LVI. 1. And in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah there were two brothers whose names were Romulus and Remus.72 2. And these built a great city near a small city Valentia in Italy, a city of Latinus where previously there had been a royal palace named Pallantium. And this they rebuilt. 3. Moreover they built a temple for their God named Zeus, and they named it in their own language the Capitol.73 And the appearance of one of the buildings, the royal palace, was very wonderful. And in the Latin language they named the Capitol 'Head of the city'. 4. And in those days they called themselves 'Romans' and the name of their city 'Rome'. And the two brothers ruled together in it. But afterwards a cause of enmity intervened, and Romulus slew Remus his brother and reserved the throne for himself alone. |44 5. And thereupon the city was shaken with earthquake and all the people were panic-stricken together because of the great quakings in their midst. And Romulus also was terrified and became heavy of heart by means of his great terror, and he learnt from the diviners and the unclean spirits that his throne should not be established in Rome without his brother Remus. 6. Then he had recourse to many a device in order to raise his brother and he was not able. But a great quaking ensued and in the midst of that quaking he saw an image of his brother, a perfect likeness from his head to his breast. 7. And he made an image of his brother in the likeness of the apparition which he had before seen, a golden statue representing his brother from the head to the breast, and he placed it on his throne and he adorned it with all manner of ornaments. 8. And in his prescripts he wrote after this manner, saying : '(In) the prescripts emanating from me and my brother so we declare, and so we command, so we execute', and so on. 9. And this custom derived from the Romans has prevailed to the present. Their kings and their magistrates have preserved this formula in the courts which are called 'praetorian', that is, in their places of justice. 10. And Romulus also was the first to ride on horseback in Rome and to rush to the encounter at full speed and to be ardent to be victorious. And he devised these diabolical practices and source of evils and vices, in order that his horse soldiers should be the strongest in the world. 11. And he appointed also a place of conflict for women called Elmantatum that the soldiers might resort (thither) in order to be with them (the women). For previously they had violated all the women, whether married, virgin, or widowed. 12. And by reason of his fear and discouragement Romulus instituted this order of female cavalry and made them alone without the men into one force. 13. And he divided them moreover into two parts, the virgins on one side and the married women on the other. And he assembled from all the cities far and near a great assemblage of women cavalry without number. 14. And |45 they kept watch over the foreign women in their midst who did not belong to Rome, in order to accomplish (their) desire. And (Romulus ordered them) to lay hands on all they found. 15. Now the young girls of the city of the Sabines which is near to Rome were beautiful women. And he summoned and assembled them (masc.) to him. And when Romulus had ended assembling the women, he gave them to the soldiers who had no wives. And he named those soldiers stratiw&taj, that is, warriors. 16. And the rest he ordered to carry them (the women) off as best they could. And subsequently to this ordinance they chose their wives according to their individual tastes without violence.

Just bought Dying Every Day when I saw it up there, it looked good.

I saw a video about a legion in Austria, the roman army rations of vinegar, grains, bacon pieces, and grease were warmed up and slapped in a bowel. I think they were trying for a hamburger and just didn't know how to do it yet. Most of the ingredients present, but.... just not quite the same outcome.

I just realized I forgot to post the book I got that from.... I just found his Wikipedia page, and it listed over a half dozen writers who quoted him.

What made it a Monarchy was it was a dynastic tyranny, and only the "dynasty" had a real say in the succession, especially in the beginning. Caesar chose his relative augustus, augustus tiberius, so on. It was a dynastic, monarchical house, not unlike House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Jackson wasn't a dynastic. He was voted in, and his replacement at the end of his lawful holding of office...... lawful in the sense he followed the laws of the republic and didn't make up his own laws at a whim and 'abide by them', was voted in, and was replaced by another president after him. Hence, the US was a republic. Rome from Augustus on was NOT a republic, unless you want to compromise and call it a Banana Republic.... but Banana Republics are the only kind of republics that can have Monarchies, largely because the people residing there are too uneducated and brainwashed to know what a fourth grade social studies class in America could teach them.... how severely F*ked over they are. For the Romans, the republican period lasted centuries, but was largely dominated by Monarchies. We don't memorize consuls, we memorize early king lists, and emperors. It's only because of the fixation the rise of modern republics from the Enlightenment, to now.... that we pay any attention to the republican era. It's a little Narcissistic and self aggrandizing, but that is the ancestral, ideoligical inspiration for many modern nations, especially the US.... and we don't appreciate it when some historian gets it in his head to throw down millennia of agreed history, philosophy, and statecraft just so he can pave a road for more thick headed fools to lead insurrections to overthrow their governments, establish dictatorships, pass the power on to their kids, and have the nerve like North Korea to continue to call themselves a republic.... a ideal which died under such evil and crude men. A republic is a shared commitment, has element of democracy.... but not a virtual direct democracy in all it's branches..... where power is vested in many to deliberate and debate.... and outside of constitutional checks and balances, segregations of powers, or agreed to parlimentry procedures.... the buck stops with them. The US is a Bicameral Legislative Republic. All members are elected.... save for emergency appointments due to death, via elections. Our Executive Administration head is elected as well, and until recently, his cabinet was approved by congress (now we use subject 'Czars' as a loophole against congressional approval.) Even under Obama, the most Tyrannical president we've had since Abraham Lincoln (and I'm a hugh supporter of Lincoln, but let's be honest, he's not the poster child of how a democracy should ideally work)... the transparency of the Executive Branch blotted out, we started wars out of the blue for no apparent reason and next to no warning to congress (Libya), a entire half of our legislative system fell to Obama (Senate).... but we were still able to keep the House of Representatives independent, and our elections were still preserved, and soon the legislative branch in Jan will begin to function as legislators legislating, and not sycophants stone walling to a tyrants whim. During the civil war in the US, we had elections as well..... and they were allowed to threaten Lincoln's reelection. Same for Bush, or Clinton.... or any other American president. Even the Confederate States in the South sought this. In our colonial era, when administered by foreign lords, like Lord Dunmore, we had local legislators..... though not technically a republic..... giving we had a monarch as head of state. We haven't had a pure dictator like Augustus since..... John Smith.... at Jamestown. The US has had two monarchs, on in Utah, and on in Michigan.... both Mormons, and the Michigan one was king ONLY over his Mormon branch, but was a lawfully elected Senator for his district and pointed out the difference himself. Hence the debate between Republic of England vs. the UK. In the Republic of England..... you would have no king. He would have NO Parliamentary Role, over any other citizen (citizen, not subject). You intentionally confuse the living daylights out of the term republic, which is a default impossibility. It's very insulting to people who live in a republic, and knows damn well what it means.

Is it? It's neither a philosophy or a neurology forum, but I've done alot of w.ork in the metaphysics of violence. Chimpanzees and humans have similar senses, dietary and social needs, and similar bodies, as opposed to Tapirs or Earthworms. We also have the capacity to learn, and our learning is responsive to conditioned response. They, unlike us, lack complex language,traditions of tool making.... their ability to learn is gleaned from direct observation, and flight or fight response. They get hungry like we do, and need reliable sources of food, much like a scavenging hobo. They aren't militant, it's not a conceptual root in ours or theirs to be, just they have less options, we have more.... and learned to be as such seeing how to behave from the older generation. Bonobo chimps don't do this sorta thing, nor do Andorrans or people in Kiribati. We learn it, how to balance space and time.... via categorical selection on a A Priori basis, via the Supplementary Motor Area. It's a Either-Or process.... Homo Sapiens have more options. What do you think the Cynics were trying to show in pointing out the dialectics discourse and preconceived assumptions were rubbish for? Our genetics don't boil down to the dumbest common denomination, but in our highest capacity to bend, mend, and assert new forms of resolution. We are tool makers and problem solvers, apply your genius to solutions, and not luxury, and you'll find many of our hardest problems seem so much easier.

I wonder if this event ever made it into the Satyricon.... He usually (from my research so far, incomplete) based it on Platonic Dialogues, but made it in contemporary settings.

Do you suppose that our dictator who granted an audience to the ambassadors of the Samnites, while he roasted the commonest food before the fire himself with that very hand with which he had so often smitten the enemy, and with which he had placed his laurel wreath upon the lap of Capitolian Jove, enjoyed life less than the Apicius who lived in our own days, whose habits tainted the entire century, who set himself up as a professor of gastronomy in that very city from which philosophers once were banished as corrupters of youth? It is worthwhile to know his end. After he had spent a hundred millions of sesterces on his kitchen, and had wasted on each single banquet a sum equal to so many presents from the reigning emperors, and the vast revenue which he drew from the Capitol being overburdened with debt, he then for the first time was forced to examine his accounts: he calculated that he would have ten millions left of his fortune, and, as though he would live a life of mere starvation on ten millions, put an end to his life by poison. How great must the luxury of that man have been, to whom ten millions signified want? Can you think after this that the amount of money necessary to make a fortune depends upon its actual extent rather than on the mind of the owner? Here was a man who shuddered at the thought of a fortune of ten million sesterces, and escaped by poison from a prospect which other men pray for. Yet, for a mind so diseased, that last draught of his was the most wholesome: he was really eating and drinking poisons when he was not only enjoying, but boasting of his enormous banquets, when he was flaunting his vices, when he was causing his country to follow his example, when he was inviting youths to imitate him, albeit youth is quick to learn evil, without being provided with a model to copy. This is what befalls those who do not use their wealth according to reason, which has fixed limits, but according to vicious fashion, whose caprices are boundless and immeasurable. Nothing is sufficient for covetous desire, but Nature can be satisfied even with scant measure.

Was it a history or a satire? http://www.angelfire.com/art/archictecture/articles/juv5.htm This is a condensed version of Juvenal. May very well be in the longer version. I see alot of evidence too on my search of people being starved to death, but against their desire.

If it isn't the Satyricon, my google searches mostly point to key words being found in Seutonius, and I don't recall reading that.

Your not talking about the dinner scene from the Satyricon, are you? He wasn't literally dead yet, just fixated on it.

It offered no explanation. It's from the 21st century, as he mentions flooding that occurs in the 90s. Just has a old 80s feel to the video, BetaMax almost. I want to start making clips of all the horrid scenes from history movies from hollywood, and documentaries like this, and send it on a 100,000 year elliptical orbit of the sun, and when it returns, future historians can have verifiable knowledge of their ancient world, and was like.... I figure by then all knowledge of the past would of been lost a few times over.... they wouldn't know any better.