You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rome’ tag.
William Dalton says (in a comment at TAC):
September 22, 2015 at 3:04 am
“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election. He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?”
Pat Buchanan knows history well enough to know that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party had not won a plurality of seats in the Reichstag, nor had President Hindenburg been convinced to appoint him Chancellor of Germany, because Hitler had “succeeded in the marketplace of ideas”. A majority of Germans considered Hitler’s ideas to be ridiculous, even when they gave his party a victory. They did so because, in a country in which, under the Weimar Constitution, it had proven impossible to elect a moderate government which could maintain the peace and suppress radical militia roaming the streets, and faced with a choice of government led by either Nazis or Communists, a plurality chose, and a majority approved, the party they saw to be the lesser evil.
It is not far distant from the choice Americans currently have, between a party representing warmongers eager to institute a police state for the protection of “national security” and a party dedicated to instituting a welfare state guaranteeing each citizen, and non-citizen, all the necessities of life, governed by coalition of sexual libertines and worshipers of Baal and Ashtoreth. When either one or the other gets elected, it won’t be because they have been successful in selling their wares in America’s “marketplace of ideas”. It will be because they have succeeded in scaring the bejeezus out of Americans at the prospect of again empowering the alternative.
I would add that the choice today is different. First because, for practical purposes, the US has not one, but two major neocon parties – the only difference is that one is slightly a bit more neocon than the other.
Obama and Clinton did not dismantle the military/industrial complex – nor had any intent or demand from their constituents to do so. Clinton played golf at times during the Rwandan genocide was happening – a testament to just what monsters liberals are. US arm sales that spread death and destruction to millions of civilians worldwide continues unabated – and receives robust support from liberals and Democrat voters. And there is probably no difference between Hillary and Bush regarding war and imperialism, while there may have been a very small one between Bush and Bill.
Seven years into the Obama administration and the Patriot Act police state is just as much implanted as when Bush went to clamor for its existence. In a little Twitter feud this week, a liberal shot back that the maintenance by Obama and all the Dems of the Patriot Act and the current US police state is Bush’s fault, since Bush started it.
These people actually vote and in their crazy minds, only Republicans are neocons, no matter how much both are exactly for the same kind of things. It’s no consolation, but at least Republicans don’t engage in this level of 1984-ish twisting of reality about themselves. I always find people who lie on such barbaric levels disturbing – specially since it’s collective and involving millions of people.
In the minds of Democrats, the fact that they can point their fingers at Republicans for doing the same thing they do entitles them to absolve themselves of all responsibility regarding the evil they are and do. They are the American version of “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, the responsibility for every neocon act of a liberal lies with Bush/Republicans and they never acknowledge anything they do is actually their own doing.
Lastly, Dalton above fails to mention that the welfare liberal state is a state full of sexual violence and is currently implementing the destruction of fundamental civil rights, like freedom of speech and the right to an ethical society in the sphere of personal relationships, so it certainly does not provide “the basic necessities” citizens need.
What Americans can choose from are two very corrupt political parties, one which is particularly insane for not admitting its neocon attitudes and doings (the Democrats) and the other one which is a little bit more straightforward, while being just as destructive for most practical purposes.
This is “democracy” in the 21st century. Much like Rome a couple of millennia ago.
A toga had no less than 18-20 feet in length! And Romans had a special way of wrapping it around them so that it enclosed the left side and arm, and left the right arm free. Roman men used the toga when they went to parade outside the home, and it was worn over a tunic, their homewear.
The toga was made from wool, and the tunic, linen. I wonder how rough that wool was? I had always imagined the toga as being made from another lighter material, since we can see so many small folds in the Roman statues. Surely, it couldn’t have been a very thick wool, because thick wool doesn’t ply into multiple folds like that.
Look at those partially covered legs!! too funny!
The toga of an ordinary citizen, like his tunic, was the natural color of the wool from which it was made, and varied in texture according to the quality of the wool. It was called toga pura (plain toga), or toga virilis (man’s toga), or toga libera (free toga). A dazzling brilliance could be given to a garment with a preparation of fuller’s chalk, and one so treated was called toga candida (white toga). All men running for office all wore this toga. Hence, office seekers today are called candidates. [another cool etymology bit! 🙂 ]
Curule (high-ranking) magistrates, censors, and dictators wore the toga praetexta, with a border of purple. It was also worn by boys and by the chief officials of free towns and colonies. The border was woven or sewed on the curved edge.
The toga picta (crimson, embroidered in gold), was worn in triumphal processions by victorious generals, and later by emperors. [you have seen this in movies 🙂 ]
And in case you are wondering, they didn’t go nakkid underneath their togas and tunics, Romans who were part of the senate wore purple heart boxer shorts underneath! (LOL 😉 Actually, they wore a loincloth.
In early times Romans wore long hair and full beards. According to Varro, professional barbers first came to Rome in 300 BC, but razors and shears were used before the beginning of history. Citizens of wealth and position had their hair and beards kept in order by their own slaves. Slaves who were skillful barbers brought good prices. Men of the middle class went to public barbershops, which became gathering places for idlers and gossips. The very poor found it cheap and easy to go unshaven. But in all periods, hair and beard were allowed to grow as a sign of sorrow as much a part of mourning as mourning clothes.
Different styles of hair and beard varied with the age of the man and the period. The hairs of children (boys and girls) were allowed to grow their hair long and hang around the neck and shoulders. When a boy became a man, he had to cut off his locks; sometimes with great formality. During the Empire they were often made an offering to some god. In classical times, young men wore close-clipped beards. Mature men were clean-shaven and wore their hair short. Most statues that have survived show beardless men until well into the 2nd century of our era. But when Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138) wore a beard, full beards became fashionable.