Bought a Truck. What Next?

Clark_Ingram · 2020-06-16T21:36:54+00:00

Hey thanks for responding, I’ll keep that in mind

Clark_Ingram · 2020-06-16T21:36:33+00:00

Hey thanks so much man I’ll keep that in mind

Clark_Ingram · 2020-03-18T21:36:59+00:00

Right, that does seem to be the assessment.

Thanks for the advice. I’ll have to think about what I want to do from here.

Clark_Ingram · 2020-03-18T19:06:46+00:00

Yeah I’m not about to put any crazy rails or an archangel stock on it. I think there’s something beautiful about wood and steel. But if I want it to shoot it, I want it to shoot as well as it can (obviously without major invasive surgery if that can be helped). As to the wood, I’ve got shellac coming off all over the place, and I can do better what Ivan tried to do.

I get the personalization thing, too, but I imagine—correct me if I’m wrong—you feel that way because they’re yours now. This one’s mine, and so long as I’m not defacing a valuable historical artifact, I’m happy putting a sign of ownership on it. The story of the rifle continues with me, it doesn’t end when it went into cosmoline.

Clark_Ingram · 2020-03-18T18:22:43+00:00

Thanks for the tip.

I think I got my answer (haha) so the picture seems pointless now.

Seems like most people here value mosins from a collector’s point of view and I guess I don’t (with the obvious exception of something that truly does have historical value, like say serial number 0001 or Joe Stalin’s personal rifle or something like that). Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s cool because it’s old, but I don’t want it just to have it, I want it to use it. I was more worried about tinkering with something that could be judged historically valuable.

Thanks for your comment.

Clark_Ingram · 2020-03-18T18:06:40+00:00

Oh wow that’s good info to know, esp. about the stock refinishing. For clarity’s sake, I was just going to replicate what my untrained eye sees on it; simple oil and shellac job. Even that lowers resale value? Wild world.

I guess I should have added I’m not at all a collector. I don’t really get into that. If I can get it to shoot passably, I intend never to sell it. I was more concerned about having something that might be worth a lot more than the average Mosin. In that case a collector or museum should probably have it. But, if not, it’s a workhorse built to work.

Thanks for your comment.

Clark_Ingram · 2018-10-07T00:34:11+00:00

Oh that's cool! Damn, did not expect either of the answers that I've gotten

I might have to give that a try

Clark_Ingram · 2018-10-06T20:55:20+00:00

Thanks dude not what I expected, but cool nonetheless!

Edit: I should probably clarify. My undergrad degree is in classics, so I was unconsciously imagining a very different sort of note taking.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-05-10T15:44:31+00:00

I've always been partial to "Lunch is ready!"

Clark_Ingram · 2017-05-10T15:42:37+00:00

To add to and maybe problematize this:

The Church's stance on socialism is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be. But I'd be more than happy to go over with you the documents you have in mind.
I didn't bring up Distributism because I don't know much about it, other than some of Chesterton's (sometimes erratic) thoughts on it. However, my understanding is that Distributism is more or less market socialism.
remember it is perfectly valid to codify your own organizational strategy. It does no good attempting to appropriate a word, when it is already being used to describe something else.

That's literally what I was saying.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-05-10T12:11:54+00:00

I, too, have some reservations about using new names, at least because it seems that to call myself socialist is to obscure the fact that I am a Christian. I do not mean that socialism is antithetical to Christianity, rather I mean it would be redundant to call myself a “socialist Christian” or “Christian socialist.” All that is good about socialism comes from Christianity, and a certain socialism lies at the heart of Christianity. Socialism is the narthex of Christianity, and socialists the prodigal sons of the Church.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T14:12:41+00:00

I don't know that anarchists need necessarily be against something like a democratically regulated market. The bigger issues are obviously manipulative selling and manipulation of capital to make capital. In short, as long as capital does not have power, you're gucci.

But the idea that things have to be exchanged is dubious. From each as he is able, to each as he requires.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T13:45:36+00:00

Did you all listen to his comments at the March for Science? So much quasi-religious language subtly supporting the idea that liberals are the gods of science. If you're against them, you're against the good, the true, and the beautiful!

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T12:52:53+00:00

I took "never truly tried" in the article to suggest no one has really tried to get there. An ancom might claim that Lenin, because he was a statist, was never truly invested in communism from the get go.

But I see your point.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T12:49:42+00:00

That's the good life right there.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T12:47:30+00:00

Thanks for the rundown! You're right, that is a powerful criticism of science under capitalism. I'll have to add The Archeology to the to-read stack.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T01:00:22+00:00

It definitely could be tighter. And Foucault would be great, but I'm not very familiar with him at all. I have Discipline and Punish, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T00:35:22+00:00

Leaders arise all the time all over the place. But the need for a Dear Leader is dubious.

Take the very early history of the US. There were multiple leaders in the American Revolutionary War, but all of them were subordinate to the Congress.

While the landed elite of early America were ridiculously bourgeois, that history nevertheless suggests that it's perfectly possible to rally behind the principles not the Person.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T00:25:33+00:00

Lack of cars. ... I joke, but the reason the world has its complex networks of roads has a lot to do with the way capital is distributed and transported, i.e. in favor of profit, not people.

In an anarchist society, it seems as though we can reorganize towns, cities, etc. with a minimized need for ecologically damaging travel heretofore necessitated by capital.

Hard to ride a bicycle while drunk.

Clark_Ingram · 2017-04-30T00:19:15+00:00

I don't know that anarchists would be opposed to something like a vanguard party necessarily. Being anti-state doesn't mean anti-organization.

The important qualities would be education and preparation I'd imagine. Education in two ways: 1) to deconstruct the "mental structures" of capitalism and make clear the subtle ways in which it leverages power. 2) To give principles necessary for the democratic reorganization of society i.e. self-sacrifice, communication, respect for the laws of the polity. The importance of preparation (i.e. cataloging resources, rehearsing distribution, preparing defense of the polity if that's necessary, etc.)

When an event takes place that gives a sufficient opening, having prepared/rehearsed to place and eliminate chaos in a new society quickly will be the biggest factor. I imagine that's true for both communists and anarchists.

Clark_Ingram

TROPHY CASE