by invitation of bronies & Tania
<Avatard RP reactionary leech is oUr fWiEnD u GuIsE
416 posts and 698 image replies omitted.EGGMAN EVIL COOKIES RECIPE
INGREDIENTS for evil cookies
¾ cup (115 g) macadamia nuts
2 ½ cups (372 g) all-purpose flour
3 cups (300 g) old-fashioned rolled oats
2 teaspoons (8 g) baking powder
1 teaspoon (4 g) kosher salt
1 cup (224 g) unsalted butter, room temperature
½ cup (90 g) light brown sugar
1 cup (230 g) sugar
⅓ cup (105 g) maple syrup
1 egg
2 tablespoons (30 ml) milk
1 teaspoon (5 ml) vanilla paste
1 cup (180 g) dark chocolate chips
1 cup (180 g) chocolate-covered raisins
STEPS
Preheat the oven to 325°F (162° C). Place macadamia nuts on a
baking sheet and bake for 15 minutes, or until golden brown. Set aside to
cool.
Combine flour, oats, baking powder, and salt in a large bowl.
In another large bowl, place the butter and mix until smooth. Add
sugars to butter and mix until smooth. Add the maple syrup, egg, milk, and
vanilla paste.
Slowly mix in the flour mixture. Add macadamia nuts and fold until mixed
well. Divide the dough into two equal portions.
Add the chocolate chips in one bowl and the chocolate covered raisins
in the other bowl, mixed until just combined.
Place the dough, about 2 tablespoons (55 g) at a time, on a baking
sheet and press down slightly into a cookie shape. Repeat until all the
dough has been prepared. Place in the refrigerator for 30 minutes.
Preheat oven to 350°F (177°C). Place in the oven to bake for 16 to 19
minutes.
>>702277bedhair Grace
very very cute
The Pre-eminence of King Charles II:
>His comely presence, meekness, majesty,
>Do Adamantine lustre far out-vie;
>If to be highly born it is great bliss,
>What Prince for Birth may you compare with his?
…
>Behold your King then thousands more tall
>In Grace, Power, Virtues, higher than you all
>When Kingship, Persons, Virtues thus you see
>All meet in one, happy's that Monarchy
>Not Solomon in Glory may compare
- P. Dormer's Monarchia Triumphans, 1666.
THE GREAT FOUNDER / PRE-EMINENT MONARCHY
As explained by Aristotle in Politics
>Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the Whole. But He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.
<& yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors!
>But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed. The Whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole [the State] to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always!
Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch:
>1. Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States
>2. It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person
>3. [We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed
>4. He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part
>5. He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience
>6. Is like a demigod among men
Aristotle went on to say.
>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.
>For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always.
>Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).
Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the kings of the East.
–
>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed
Thomas Hobbes, I think, refers to it as a state of awe
<Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24" (There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24)
<and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their Agreement constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.
<Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all.
Hobbes calls his Leviathan a mortal god – responding to the criteria of Aristotle on a pre-eminent monarch and earlier Plato in Laws (as Caligula referred to with his shepherd quote).
…
Nonetheless, these qualities of a pre-eminent Monarchy is what Absolutism stands for in the present day: this is what Mixed Constitutionalism rejects & what Absolute Monarchy upholds. So those people who dismiss absolute monarchy for being a 1600s innovation should take account of this and the criteria against mixed constitutionalism…
>>702916Note that a mark of pre-eminence in Monarchy accompanies being the founder of states:
That is why some monarchs name cities after themselves – to lend unto themselves the mark of pre-eminence spoken of here.
Examples like:
- Ramses and the city of Pi-Ramses
- Alexander the Great and Alexandria
- Romulus and Rome
- Constantine and Constantinople
- Emp Peter I and St. Petersburg / Petrograd
- Lenin and Leningrad
- Papa Doc and Duvalierville
Being the founder of a city automatically puts a ruler on par with the whole city (as the founding father) and gives them the relationship of the whole (the entire city / state) to the part that was described.