MrBenjamatic

I'm sure he knew much more about Ayn Rand than he admitted. I was reading Atlas, again, after hearing that Obama won; I was reading the scene when the bum from Starnes company was in Dagny's car. Rand, making clear the causes and effects of adopting an economy from each according his ability to each according to his need, said something to the equivalent of: When someone falls for a miserable piece of insanity and cannot make it work or name a reason for continuing it that means they have a reason they don't want to admit. Obama I'm sure knows its Objectivism he's up against as I'm sure he violently, under his expertly perfected front, pretends he is actually helping the people and doing good. He knows his reasons, he just doesn't want to admit them; they would scare others and himself more so. Furthermore, regarding the quote of keeping silent about one's true goal, in justifying politics with the laws of logic, I got those I argued with to "justify" tyranical law by stating, rather yelling (and literally sometimes shrieking) that things are not what they are. THAT, logically, is their justification. They screamed, obviously, as I didn't leave them the opportunity not to justify their politics illogicially. The laws of logic must be the standard of all arguments and all arguments must be purposeful. The basic "justification" for political regulation today is to violate the rights of men, not because he has violated anothers rights, but because he hasn't but might because he has the ability to. In order to practice most professions, you must serve a guild socialist "professional" organization and learn in colleges approved and dictated to by the organization, not because you have violated others rights in that profession, but because you haven't but might as you're able to. The important difference between 18th & 19th century slavery and "professional" slavery is that the slaves back then weren't allowed the opportunity to switch masters. All slave drivers regulate a single or group of slaves physical and mental labor. Now, as I said, their primary unstated justification is that you should be regulated not because you have violated others rights but because you haven't, but might because your able to. I don't want to get off topic so I'll conclude here.

I know you are a socialist. I wonder if you know that the UN are socialists too?

2:18 -2:43 says it all from the maggots mouth: without the help of the US alone, the UN is NOTHING. If they were booted, they would die off. The US is obviously the life blood of the global tyrants and they want to destroy it... hmmm wonder why? (sarcasm). It stands to logic that the UN can't steal (man-made) values from countries that bridle and forbid production of values.

Sports are a game. In a game some lose and some win (except perhaps some games I haven't heard of). In business there's not always one winner in a single field (like Gary Cola who should be the richest as his metal (Bainite Steel) is the best, but doesn't even have his own foundry as he's being ignored). I don't consider economics to be a game. In rational business (whether it be industry, art, etc) Its not important whether or not you beat others, its important that you achieve that which you rationally decided and set out to achieve. In other words using sports as a metaphor for economics is fine so long as you don't overstretch the metaphor. Every single thing is not exactly like every single thing, metaphors can only represent to limited degrees. Sports are not exactly like economics.

Michael, I like the way you said that.

Haha! This is delightful

I've been reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I've barely read it but I've done a lot of thinking about it. It's obviously not a book you can read in a week or a month as you have to completely understand each sentence to understand the next sentence. Anyway, Rand wasn't clear, to me, about sensations (and the dictionary was too broad). From what I understand a sensation is the sensory evidence of one of your senses in a given moment. Am I right in saying this?

I couldn't have said it better!

I will start out with the positive and say I'm glad the series was continued. I'm glad they made it and I liked how stylized Reardens office was, barely mediocre (which is VERY rare). I liked Dagny but the first Dagny was more believable and attractive. I didn't like the acting of he who played Francisco at all- he seemed very pretentious and made too much of an effort to be suave. I will say that, to the extent of my knowlege, naturally aristocratic posture, movement & suaveness, if thats a word, is possible only to virtuous creators- it comes with being virtuous, confident, courageous and recognizing ones own great ability to exist. The Washington crowd wasn't very accurate in their reactions and emotional display- it didn't match their philosophy. For instance, I seldom saw accurate sadistic expressions and reactions on the faces of the evil. Most sadists can't hide their sadistic expressions absolutely or pretend they're not anxious absolutely. They slip because they know they're unfit for existence no matter how much they pretend otherwise, that knowlege scares them too much to hide their fear, anxiety and hatred. Lillian for instance was a bit corny and I think the first movie's Lillian was much better at accuarate portrayal. The scene from Part I when Lillian Reardon and the mother were gracefully sitting, smiling watching Hank in his office having to give his other companies to looters was, for instance, deliciously accurate! They were sitting so gracefully, more so than usual (when they don't care enough to compeletly hide their sloppy display hatred for existence) because they believe their philosophy defies reality and wins when they destroy and watch others destroy the God of Hank Rearden. I think the first Dagny was much better at portraying the character with her solemnity and refusal to express emotion- the original Hank was the same way. The second Dagney had a very slight hint of sloppiness. Very accurate, however, was the mediocre "thinkers" constant refusal to take responsibility for ones thinking and actions and the panic that most people experience when they are blamed. The recent Dr Ferris did a delightful job at portraying an incompotent, gangster doctor who wanted power and meant it. Bravo! Bravo! I none the less look forward to the final - I liked the way Galt walked on his way to help Dagny and I liked his voice.

"Haven't you ever heard it said that something is unreal? Reality isn't always real" -Dad My GOD I burst when he said that! "Always remember to balance fantasy with reality" - Hallmark inspiration book

I am sure there are more types than that and much more specific. My differentiation is my differentiation and its true. I'm sure others have different differentiations that are also true. All I did was use dependency as the standard of differentiation (and by the way Rand discussed it in JG's speech and I don't claim credit for first discovering what I said). This conversation can sprout in many different ways but I don't want to discuss epistemology until I better understand it further (which I will in 4 months)

And what the mercinary said about politicians goes for most evil people. There are two types of insanity. One is mere insanity with which you don't depend on others to belive the non-reality you imagine as real. A parasite of lunacy, the mercinary and most, if not all, politicans, is one who depends on others insanity: a parasite of lunacy, who, for example wishes the sky was orange, believes that if the majority or a certain number of people believe the sky is orange it will turn orange precisely because that many people believed it. Ask someone, "If a tree fell in the woods and you weren't there to hear it would it make a sound?" No rational person would answer no or I don't know.

Let's examine some of these statements, one by one. Obama may try to pass legislation forbidding further elections and such legislation, though I doubt it, may pass. Probably correct. But with voting machines being dishonest, that would be the same as no election but with the advantage that the people are pacified. But would there not be chaotic riots once people realized that they are irrefutably living under a dictatorship? Of course there will be riots and of course there will be rebellion. Certainly. The Globalists anticipated that. They expect that. That is why the Globalist want to disarm the people (as Hitler did) and they arm themselves with hollow point ammo and they are ready with FEMA camps and some new high tech weapons. Ask anyone how they would react if Obama forbid further elections, how they would react if the UN ordered armed forces to go house to house and disarm every citizen and force them to sell their houses to the government and thereafter pay rent. Ask a police officer if he would, if ordered, go from house to house and disarm the innocent. About phony elections, I don't see much rebellion against voting machines; most people think voting machines is just a conspiracy theory. All voting machines should be banned. All elections with voting machines should be declared invalid. About disarming citizens, they did in Germany and they are even more clever about it now. They plan to condition people to believe owning a gun is bad. About police officers, we can hope that they become Oath Keepers, but look at the Rawesome Foods case for one example. There was a news report about a man who applied to become a police officer and his application was rejected because his IQ was too high. The explanation given was that police live a boring life and people with high IQs tend to get bored and quit and then it's a waste of police training. That may be, but I have a suspicion that the main reason is that people with high IQs have more tendency to question orders. The way the people were disarmed in Germany, according to a person who lived thru the experience, was the people were told that there is this big problem of crime and therefore the people are requested (not forced) to register their guns. The good people, wanting to be helpful, voluntarily registered their guns, thinking that they were helping to win against crime. A few months later, the people were told that the problem of crime was not solved and so now the people must give up their guns. By this time the government knew who had guns because they were registered. What is happening in the USA (and probably some other countries) is even more clever than that. People are being brainwashed into thinking guns are bad and they will voluntarily give up their guns. There are many people like Alex Jones who are terrified of the UN and Obama because they're evil and want to take over the world. Yes Obama and the UN are powerful, but only as powerful as the support they get from their victims. What if the Germans told that maggot Hitler NO during elections? What if no one supported or worked for Stalin? "Stop supporting your destroyers" -AR. I agree that we, the people, have the power to stop the cockroaches. It is like Hopper explaining that the ants outnumber the grasshoppers a hundred to one and "if they ever figure that, there goes our way of life". But we should not assume that victory will happen by itself. Never relax in the hour of victory and never despair in the hour of defeat. I will tell you a little secret. The Globalists are terrified shitless that they might be exposed. I will tell you another secret. Evil is a plant that grows in the dark, the darkness of ignorance and deception. The light of knowledge is lethal to evil. I have no evidence that voting machines are dishonest so I won't hold it as true but I will hold it as probable. That would most definently be something Obama would do and looking at the dictators of the past who forced people to support them, Obama would be one to secretly force others to vote for him, which, in this case if true, would be fraud. What are FEMA camps? Concentration and death camps? I think the only one right now is Cuba but I don't have much evidence. Besides, the whole United States is lowly turning concentration camp as almost every field is regulated and in order to work you have to serve, involuntarily or not, a collective of gansters WHO ELECTED THEMSELVES INTO POSITIONS OF POWER AND FORCE supported by the government. They make the laws they control every field and argue that you dont have to serve them and you can change careers; (of course I refuse not to be an architect, however, regarding those who would switch careers to escape "professional" regulation, there is like a 95% chance the field they switch into requires gov permission (look up the definition of license) and forced servitude to yet another "professional" lot of gangsters. You said, "They plan to condition people to believe owning a gun is bad". This is true. However, it only works so long as people take them on faith, act on emotion and accept unearned guilt (the only alternative is force). A lot of people, including my most philosophically dignified father, hold that gun-ownership is evil, but some of them hold that because they want to watch people suffer. That sounds horrible and unbelievably evil but so did the fact of death camps and the KGB. I think Rand discussed something like that: committing so evil an act knowing that its too evil for people to believe and if they do just call them crazy for calling you the devil. My parents do that. And by the way brainwashing, despite what propoganda preeches, requires the sanction of the victim. It does not consist of technologically erasing info in the brain and what not, it consists of lying to the victim and them taking you on faith. Imagine if someone had unlimited faith in what you said, you could get them to believe ANYTHING. And yes, the globalists are scared shitless. I'm sure Vladmir Putin has heart problems caused by constant hatred for existence. Go to 0:53 for a funny clip of Ban Ki Moon's fear. As for your last paragraph, I like better what Rand said: that power is a weed that grows in the lots of an abandoned mind. Evil is not the product of ignorance, its the product of refusing to recognize truth. Your last sentence is absolutely correct. I had philosophical conversation with a man I knew to be evil for the sake of studying him. It was slightly spooky when I first met him as he knew WAY too much about me (where I shop, what websites I go on, what questions if answered will reveal my plans to win against the architectural gansters). He claimed to have been a mercinary, which is what I thought he was as first as he looked at me like a serial killer looks at a victim (that sadistic smile which comes from holding that by killing his victim he can defy reality and win). Anyway, he said something very important. He talked about how DC politicians pretend to themselves that what they're doing is actually for the public good, lying to others who support and believe them is something they can't do without. If others didn't believe their lies they wouldn't be able to evade truth, they hold that others make their lies true by faith (believing their lies are true). He also said that no matter how hard they try to evade the knowlege that they're monsters, they can't. I've long studied evil people as it is somewhat fascinating how people could be so willing to destroy themselves. They spend their life running from monsters, to horrified to know that the worst of those monsters is themself.

MrBen, I think that's well expressed and accurate. Do you think a composer ever/at all relates back to concretes in reality (wind, birds - traffic noise, etc) while composing? I'm not very knowledgable in this field by any means. Some music is imitative. Some music is very suggestive and paradigmatic. There are some passages in Bethoven's Seventh that are suggestive of horses galloping. Ba'al Chatzaf The imitative music you speak of is mediocrity. Mediocrities take metaphysical value judgements on faith, and, generally, I think, because those melodic metaphysical value judgements became prestigious. Look at Benny Goodman: he was most definently a creator and a melodic genius in the school of jazz and look how many mediocrities copied off him. Thats probably not a good example to use, but oh well.

MrBen, I think that's well expressed and accurate. Do you think a composer ever/at all relates back to concretes in reality (wind, birds - traffic noise, etc) while composing? I'm not very knowledgable in this field by any means. Yes. My favorite example of this is the canons at the end of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Orgasmic! I don't know too much about music but I'm very interested as it has SOOO much in common with architecture. Architecture is frozen music. I'm friends with my favorite composer over the internet so I'll definently learn more as he's an aristocratic melodic genius.