Nietzsche - "Irrationality of a thing"


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Francisco wrote:

Obviously, in any population of more than a few souls there will be members who are immoral, irrational or antagonistic to individual rights. It is the right of the non-aggressors in a community to protect themselves from predators, regardless of their motives.

end quote

Of course. But the superior, Nietzschean individual defines himself as the *non-aggressor,* and the same individual defines *others* as antagonistic or rights violating. The Rational Anarchist is NOT discussing George Orwells passive *Eloi* from The Time Machine. That is not the humanity he knows. He is talking about his own magnificent self. I have never heard of a Rational Anarchist who did not consider himself a superior person, quite capable of defense, aggression and acquisition of resources. The proof of this assertion is in their writings, in history and in introspection. I am not advocating psychologizing them. Oh, no. The Rational Anarchist is quite willing and able to become Nietzsches higher man. They will become what we in a civilized, governed society call a *prudent predator.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will just add a bit more. Does the Rational Anarchist Nietzschean higher man waffle? Perhaps a bit.

George H. Smith wrote:

If I ever decided to leave the USA, I would go anywhere if I had a beautiful woman with me.

end quote

That sounds like something the author John D. McDonald would write. And that is quite romantic.

George H. Smith wrote:

I don't defend anarchism because I ever expect to see an anarchist society. (An anarchist America is almost as unlikely as an Objectivist America.) But I do think we can effectively combat statism with the right intellectual ammunition, and this includes the total repudiation of political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions . . . .

OBJECTIVE JUSTICE VS. LEGAL MONOPOLISM

I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government.

And George H. Smith wrote IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM (November 1997):

Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government) . . . . I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice . . . . following the classic discussion of the sociologist and historian Max Weber, I shall define the "State" as a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.

end quotes

What will you, the rational anarchist higher man, do the day after a breakdown in Government? Can we have some honesty and an adult conversation? Sorry. That sounds a bit scathing. I am just trying to get an honest reaction. And I rest my case. (Do I hear a sigh of relief?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

Obviously, in any population of more than a few souls there will be members who are immoral, irrational or antagonistic to individual rights. It is the right of the non-aggressors in a community to protect themselves from predators, regardless of their motives.

end quote

Of course. But the superior, Nietzschean individual defines himself as the *non-aggressor,* and the same individual defines *others* as antagonistic or rights violating. The Rational Anarchist is NOT discussing George Orwells passive *Eloi* from The Time Machine. That is not the humanity he knows. He is talking about his own magnificent self. I have never heard of a Rational Anarchist who did not consider himself a superior person, quite capable of defense, aggression and acquisition of resources. The proof of this assertion is in their writings, in history and in introspection. I am not advocating psychologizing them. Oh, no. The Rational Anarchist is quite willing and able to become Nietzsches higher man. They will become what we in a civilized, governed society call a *prudent predator.*

Fine. Any damn fool with a shotgun can proclaim himself a non-aggressor while he's robbing people at gunpoint. Saying he's "non-aggressive" or "rational" doesn't make it so. It's reality that matters in law and justice, not what some brigand proclaims. Obama says, "I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known." Must we take him at his word?

If you've "never heard of a Rational Anarchist who did not consider himself a superior person, quite capable of defense, aggression and acquisition of resources," so what? Being capable of aggression doesn't mean one is in favor of or likely to commit aggression.

Instead of talking about some abstract "Rational Anarchist" "willing and able to become Nietzsches higher man," why don't you provide his (her) name? In my 50 years in the movement I've never encountered any such character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no my fellow Hobbits - I have awaken Smaug! Run Bilbo!

How many anarchists study Nietzsche? Probably a few - not a lot and a few might read George H. Smith. What I am trying to tie together is the person who wants no laws. Who breaks the laws now in a systematic fashion? Certainly on the low end, dopers and tax evaders, but also entrepreneurs like gangs and criminal societies. But what kind of person advocates no laws? A person fearful of taking care of themselves? Heck no. I wont name names but most of the advocates of anarchism I have known or who routinely break the law, own and use firearms. They know martial arts. They are confident they are superior and they will survive most dust ups - or they are not REALLY serious about having no government.

So you start with the philosophy and thread's topic and observe its knowing or unknowing adherents - the Mafia Gangs Warlords Criminals - Prudent Predators and then go back and look for a philosophical buddy of theirs' which is kind of circular you find Nietzsche not Rand. You find the anarchist not the constitutionalist. I know George H. Smith has mentioned some of our founding father's who advocated some form of idyllic anarchy but who listened to them? There is always a minority that finds chaos a challenge because it is a challenge they will win.

And I am not advocating a restrictive government that does not protect individual rights. I just like Rands step by step process of shrinkage to a laissez-faire constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no my fellow Hobbits - I have awaken Smaug! Run Bilbo!

How many anarchists study Nietzsche? Probably a few - not a lot and a few might read George H. Smith. What I am trying to tie together is the person who wants no laws. Who breaks the laws now in a systematic fashion? Certainly on the low end, dopers and tax evaders, but also entrepreneurs like gangs and criminal societies. But what kind of person advocates no laws? A person fearful of taking care of themselves? Heck no. I wont name names but most of the advocates of anarchism I have known or who routinely break the law, own and use firearms. They know martial arts. They are confident they are superior and they will survive most dust ups - or they are not REALLY serious about having no government.

So you start with the philosophy and thread's topic and observe its knowing or unknowing adherents - the Mafia Gangs Warlords Criminals - Prudent Predators and then go back and look for a philosophical buddy of theirs' which is kind of circular you find Nietzsche not Rand. You find the anarchist not the constitutionalist. I know George H. Smith has mentioned some of our founding father's who advocated some form of idyllic anarchy but who listened to them? There is always a minority that finds chaos a challenge because it is a challenge they will win.

And I am not advocating a restrictive government that does not protect individual rights. I just like Rands step by step process of shrinkage to a laissez-faire constitution.

If by "Rational Anarchist," you mean "anarcho-capitalist," I don't know of anyone in that category who is opposed to laws. Opposing a monopoly law enforcement and adjudication is not the same as opposing laws. Furthermore, breaking stupid laws is not the same as opposing all laws. "Gangs and criminal societies" are not "Rational Anarchists." Since you are referring only vaguely, namelessly to some people you've met in the past, your examples hardly represent any worthwhile or interesting specimens of anarchist thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

Since you are referring only vaguely, namelessly to some people you've met in the past, your examples hardly represent any worthwhile or interesting specimens of anarchist thought.

end quote

Agreed. So. Let's keep it on philosophy and psychology neither of which is a science but an attempt to fathom what is difficult but intelligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

"Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor." -Ayn Rand (For the New Intellectual)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an old letter I wrote that pertains to a small degree. I think I wrote this during the time this thread was first active.

Peter

I am interested in a psychological evaluation of a person who espouses Anarchism in a philosophical sense. There are philosophical anarchists and then there are accidental anarchists, or as I call them, “free range anarchists.”   

 

Philosophical Anarchists are usually better educated and espouse their views from within the protection of a relatively free society, with leisure and surpluses. They reject any restrictions on their actions. They think a non-system of social interaction is better than any government, where each individual can do as they please until another Anarchist or group of Anarchists persuades or forces them to stop.

They say they are sure they can sustain individual rights and ensure justice because they and the people they will associate with, are capable of it. They point to themselves as proof and say, “I am rational enough to freely and respectfully interact with other individuals.” Many of them consider themselves “rugged individualists.” Many of them, at the drop of the hat, will tell you about their preferred mode of hand to hand combat and which weapons they prefer.

 
Free Range Anarchy, in contrast, is my way of describing an interim lack of government after migration, or for uncivilized people living under a family and clan system. They don’t deliberately choose Anarchy as a way of life, except in the sense that they may have been escaping something worse, such as savages or despotism. They are unable to articulate or establish a system that truly protects individual rights. These people are unsophisticated but not worthy of contempt. They deserve better and through cultural osmosis or interaction with civilizations they can become more civilized.

I would not consider Anarchy, under a free range system, the jungle. Generally all people have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this manifests itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. If this sociable sense did not exist, anthropologists insist, we would be extinct and not here today. Toddlers learn this from each other and mentors. Civility becomes the norm. I think those commercials showing Vikings bashing others are meant to be comical, and not as a true representation of free range anarchists.

Philosophical Anarchists also have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this can also manifest itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. Their difficulty, in my opinion, is that they have rejected a system of *government* that better guarantees multi-generational contracts and stability. There are legitimate disagreements among reasonable people. What type of person wants to be “on their own?” Remember, these are people who won’t move to the Alaskan wilderness to be alone. They want to be around other people, and be on their own.

 

Anarchists think “unjust laws” are the initiation of force, and they will determine what is unjust. A Rational Anarchist may use force against others, but only in retaliation for force already used against them. In reality, after a catastrophe, the person with an anarchist personality may form gangs with people of like thinking to keep their collective strong against any other collective, or as they call themselves, a competing defense force. The philosophical anarchist cannot recognize anarchistic ideals in action, as with warlords in Africa, or mafia dons, in Italy and America.

 

I say The Mafia is anarchism idealized. The Rational Anarchist doesn’t see it that way. Look, the anarchist says, “They initiate force.” But I say to the Mafia’s Nietzschean thinking, it’s their territory. If you don’t play by their rules, you have initiated force, disobedience, or coercion against them and therefore you are in violation of their laws and you will be punished.

 

Anarchists insist any individual *can objectively determine* the justice of a situation. Is it possible two individuals or defense agencies could both conclude that one is objective but the other is not? What if neither agrees to binding arbitration? Would the winner of the dispute automatically, be the one with right on its side? The side that would win *could* be determined by factors other than *objective right*.  

 

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil:

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)
end quote

 

Now I ask again, in the case of two competing defense agencies, both who claim they are objectively right, who would win the dispute? It would be as Nietzsche says, “The Higher Men” - The better fighters - The Supermen. Might makes right, because the mighty are proven right, by prevailing over the lesser “herd animals.”

 

To any Psychologist, or any person willing to look at others from a psychological perspective, I hope you will pursue the psychological link between Nietzsche, Rand and Anarchism.  The Anarchist will insist his philosophical sources for Anarchism are Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers especially the Anti Federalists. And they may have ammunition to bolster that claim. Would a psychologist agree that in stead, a kind of naturally selective Nietzscheism is the essence of Rational Anarchism? Not the Anti-Federalist Founding Fathers. Not Ayn Rand. Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

His strength in the Rational Anarchistic vision is inspired, if not consciously, by Nietzsche’s Superman. The method of proof might be to compare the inevitable outcome of an anarchist situation with Nietzsche’s primacy of The Will. They are compatible.

 

The Rational Anarchist says EVERYONE within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational, and to administer their own justice. Aren’t the “Higher Men” as Nietzsche calls them, Rational Anarchists, born to rule their geographical area? To a degree are they also Nihilists?

 

Semper cogitans fidele,
Live long and prosper,
Peter

 

Some notes:

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

 

Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.

End of quote from the Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

Some disjointed excerpts from: IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM

Copyright George H. Smith (november 1997)

 

Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government). Many anarchists in the libertarian movement (including myself) were heavily influenced by the epistemological and moral theories of Ayn Rand. According to these anarchists, Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds.

 

Suppose I am asked what could conceivably change my mind and cause me to endorse government, and suppose I give the following reply: "If I believed in the God of Christianity, and if I believed that God had dispatched a squad of angels to communicate with me personally, and if these angels told me that the State is a divine institution, ordained by God for the protection of human rights, and if these angels further informed me that anarchism would lead to widespread death and destruction - then, under these circumstances, I would abandon my anarchism in favor of minarchism."

 

OBJECTIVE JUSTICE VS. LEGAL MONOPOLISM

I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government.

 

As Ayn Rand has said, the lives of other people are not yours to dispose of. Yet this is precisely what every government attempts to do. A government initiates physical force (or the threat of force) to prohibit other people from exercising their right to enforce the rules of justice. (Either every person has this executive power, or no one does, according to the principle of political reductionism.) A government, while engaging in certain activities which it claims are just, coercively prevents other people from engaging in those selfsame activities.

 

Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason.

 

If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead is objective - i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from the facts of man's nature and the requirements of social existence - then the principles of justice are knowable to every rational person. This means that no person, group of persons, association, or institution whether known as "government," "State," or by any other name - can rightfully claim a legal monopoly in matters pertaining to justice.

end of quotes from George

 

by John Ridpath

Zarathustra, the hero of Nietzsche's epic poem, is the shepherd who climbs to the top of the highest mountain, sees the greatest distance (into the future) and then returns to report that he has seen beyond the looming nihilistic future.

 

Nietzsche called Zarathustra his "victor over God and nothingness," which has supported the view that Nietzsche is not a nihilist and therefore not a source of the nihilism now engulfing contemporary culture. Is this true? Or is the opposite true: that Nietzsche is, in fact, a major source of nihilism?

 

In these two lectures Dr. Ridpath addresses this question. He considers the nature of nihilism and its underlying assumptions, as well as the necessary repercussions of holding such a doctrine. He shows, using Nietzsche's biography and writings, that Nietzsche is one founder of today's nihilism, and that it is Ayn Rand, not Nietzsche, who is the true victor over nihilism.

 

By John Ridpath

Since the appearance of The Fountainhead in 1943, Ayn Rand has repeatedly been characterized by intellectuals as a follower of Nietzsche. In fact, she is the 20th century's greatest opponent of Nietzsche. This lecture addresses the reasons offered for this false association, which, despite Ayn Rand's repeated denials in the 1960s, continues to this day. Given that the most commonly asserted basis for characterizing Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean is that they both admire the strong "sovereign individual," the man of "noble soul," this lecture culminates in the grotesque contrast between Nietzsche's vision of the man of "noble soul" and Ayn Rand's vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Guyau said:

 

 

On January 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Guyau said:

. . .

OK, I see it now. It is 515: “From experience. . . – The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.”

. . .

 

On February 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Guyau said:

From the same work as #515 above, we have this related aphorism:

Quote
#31

The illogical necessary. – Among the things that can reduce a thinker to despair is the knowledge that the illogical is a necessity for mankind, and that much good proceeds from the illogical. It is implanted so firmly in the passions, in language, in art, in religion, and in general in everything that lends value to life. . . . Even the most rational man from time to time needs to recover nature, that is to say his illogical original relationship with all things.

(Translation of R. J. Hollingdale)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pertaining to Nietzsche in the preceding post:

From “The Impossibility of Philosophical Dialogue” - David L. Roochnik (1986, Philosophy and Rhetoric 19(3):147–65)

Quote

. . .

What I hope is becoming clear is that the consequences Aristotle sees as following upon a rejection of the PNC [principle of noncontradiction] themselves constitute a philosophical position on an FI [fundamental issue]. In fact, they represent exactly the position with which Smith and Montefiore and Rorty hope to converse. I am referring to post-Nietzschean continental philosophy as best represented by Derrida. The point I'm trying to make is that a PD between this position and others truly different from it is impossible for reasons I stated in Part I and which Aristotle states in Metaphysics, Book IV.

Derrida states very clearly in Of Grammatology that he is aware of the enormous gulf that separates him from the traditional version of logos or significant discourse, which he calls “logocentrism.” This is based upon a “metaphysics of presence,” i.e., a metaphysics that makes central the Aristotelian proton kath hou namely, ousia [substance or entity]. In Derrida's account logocentrism implies the primacy of the voice, which in turn implies direct access to that which is present simply and essentially as itself. Following Aristotle's On Interpretation spoken words are symbols of mental experiences, which in turn are immediate representations of things themselves. “Voice is close to the signified . . . whether it is determined strictly as sense or more loosely as thing.” In offering an alternative, that is, non-phonetic, account of signification, he says, “if the non-phonetic moment menaces the history and the life of spirit and self presence in the breath, it is because it menaces substantiality, that other metaphysical name of presence and ousia.”

Derrida is clearly affirming just the position Aristotle describes as following upon the rejection of the PNC. Both Derrida and Aristotle know what they're doing. Aristotle is aware that, if the PNC is denied, a set of consequences follows which he finds objectionable and self-evidently unacceptable. It is not clear whether he thinks that an actual and serious philosophical position can be maintained which includes a denial of the PNC. He implies, on the one hand, that Heraclitus, the most eloquent denier and massive critic of the PNC, did not believe what he was saying, and yet he spends a good deal of time explaining how it is that men come to adopt the position involved with the denial of the PNC (see 1005b25 and 1009a23). Regardless, Aristotle knows what it means both to accept and to reject the PNC as the fundamental condition of significant discourse. So too does Derrida know that his rejection of traditional logos implies rejection of the traditional metaphysics of ousia and presence that regulated the classical version of predication. He knows he is heading towards a version of “unregulated” predication. The single word that best captures what Derrida means is “playful,” which we might contrast with Smith's call for a “serious” (i.e., traditional) dialogue. The importance of play cannot be overemphasized in his thinking. It is a notion he inherits from Nietzsche, whom he rightly credits for making the first great move in the overthrow of traditional logos and metaphysics. “Nietzsche, far from remaining simply within metaphysics (with Hegel and as Heidegger wished) contributed a great deal to the liberation of the signifier from its dependence or derivation with respect to logos and the related concept of truth or the primary signified, in whatever sense that is understood.”

It should be noted here, in order to show how little the fundamental debate has changed, that Nietzsche himself was deeply in debt to Heraclitus, Aristotle's imagined interlocutor in Bk. IV. This is shown particularly well by fragment 52: “Time is a child playing a game of draughts; the kingship is in the hands of a child.” For Heraclitus, Nietzsche, and Derrida there is no stable and unchanging version of being; being is play or constant unregulated flux. The PNC loses its privileged status for these thinkers since there are no ousiai capable of admitting unequivocally and enduringly true predications. It is with this position that Smith and Montefiore want English-speaking philosophers to converse. But, as Aristotle showed, this position represents a stand on the most fundamental of issues. It is impossible to argue with it.

. . .

The Rortian attempt to instill the spirit of conversation among us, just like Smith and Montefiore's call for a philosophical dialogue, is misguided. Rorty is not engaged in a new, edifying version of philosophy which avoids the pitfalls of the old. Like Aristotle, he is taking a stand on a fundamental issue: he is denying the existence of fundamental issues. He finds himself in exactly the same relationship with those who disagree with him as did Aristotle. No dialogue can bridge that gap; on this point he is surely right. But no “conversation” can make it whole and a sanguine prospect for the future. The situation is, and always has been, too serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2010 at 2:00 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This quote has been haunting me recently. It was spoken on the TV show Criminal Minds and it stuck with me.

It has many levels of understanding, going from the humorous all the way up to the epistemological attitude of valuing observation over preconception.

It worked as a hook for me to look deeper into Nietzsche. I had tried to read Zarathustra when I was younger, but I couldn't get into it. I just now did an overview of Nietzsche by bopping around on the Internet. What a wonder! Where have I been? I know I am at the start of a long journey.

Part of my bopping was a documentary on his life (free online here). I am beginning to suspect that he got a bum rap in the Objectivist world. In the documentary, I saw models of Rand's thinking (large basic approaches, not necessarily the conclusions) all over the place.

I was unaware until now that his sister (his heir) had misrepresented his views to the world by rewriting some of the unpublished stuff and publishing it.

(scratching head...)

That sounds vaguely familiar...

:)

Michael

Indeed, his sister did misrepresent Nietzsche. .  He was no anti-semite.  In fact he broke with Richard Wagner on the matter of Wagner's anti-semitism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Donald “Wiki” Trump. I was raised in Forest Hills, Queens. Queens is host to the U.S. Open Championship Tennis. As kids, we played tennis at, as we jokingly called it, The “richy rich” Club. The New York Marathon, which is one of the world's largest, is in New York. But I don’t run. I fight . . .  so whatever.

Whenever I say New York I mean the city not the state. Too many losers live upstate so I don’t claim the whole state. Many sports are associated with New York's immigrant communities. Yeah, we played Superb Stickball, a street version of baseball, but my crowd had our servants chase after the ball, after we coned off the street. The NYPD was always there to keep the riffraff out.

The New York Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA), which is a branch of the government of New York City, is the largest public funder of the arts in the United States. DCLA's funding budget is larger than the National Endowment for the Arts, the Federal government's national arts funding mechanism. I support them lavishly. But sometimes I hire the entire cast of a Broadway show to play my personal estate’s Auditorium so sorry if they refunded your money last Friday. The cast loved me. We are great.

Ba’al? Stop criticizing me. We love our Jews. New York City has a larger Jewish population than any other city in the world, larger than even Jerusalem. Approximately one million New Yorkers, or about 13%, are Jewish. As a result, New York City culture has borrowed certain elements of Jewish culture, such as bagels. And words like schlong. And schlep. I frequently called room service or got my servant, to get me a bagel. Jews love me. I agree with Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel is the last and farthest outpost of New York City. If I get Israel blown up when I am President the survivors can move up state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now