Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/04/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Lo and behold, just days after Berman's being taken out, SDNY's case against Jeffrey Epstein's child victim procurer Ghislaine Maxwell finally proceeds after having been sat on for years. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/02/epstein-confidante-maxwell-arrested-in-new-hampshire/
  2. 2 points
    Jon, Just for the reader, here is a bolded headline to that link and some excerpts: Epstein Confidante Maxwell Arrested In New Hampshire [Updated] Here is the indictment if anyone is interested. Also, a video right out of the oven of the official press conference about Maxwell's arrest. This case shows AG Bill Barr's method of working. Re investigations, he's a plodder and keeps a tight ship on leaks. When the time comes he and his staff believe they have an air-tight case, they clean the path (like getting rid of Berman through political channels), then swoop in and arrest bad guys who have no idea what hit them. I bet there are a lot of Deep Staters who are observing this very process and, suddenly as their arrogance turns into bile and goes down their throats with a big-ass gulp, are contemplating a move to another country that has no extradition treaty. And, as you keep reminding readers, the people who disparaged as a conspiracy theory and a sign of warped non-Objectivist epistemology the idea that elites controlled other elites through pedophilia-connected blackmail are silent about this. Reality doesn't fit the story they keep telling themselves where they are the superior good guys. From their words and deeds, they are protectors of science and reason and defenders of decent people of prominence who don't deserve to be smeared. That's the story they tell themselves. In reality, as the investigations are now proving and later prosecutions and jail will prove, many of their public heroes are pedophiles and have been blackmailed for years because of it. Some way to do philosophy and epistemology if it blinds people that much, huh? Let's just say I'm enjoying the show. Michael
  3. 2 points
    The WHO has outdone itself in corruption. They recently started a trial of the drug hydroxychloroquine, intentionally giving patients a near lethal dose so as to – obviously – make the drug look dangerous. Meryl Nass and others saw what they were doing and exposed it. Only then did WHO stop the trial. The following articles are by Dr. Meryl Nass. Even worse than 'Recovery,' potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine study in patients near death WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant 1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose. 2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2. 3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death. 4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials. 5. The conclusions to be drawn ... ... a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors. ... b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials. ... c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more
  4. 2 points
    Cockroaches rolled over by cop car ...
  5. 2 points
    I don't know where to put the following so here is as good as any place. To me it's hilarious. I'm still laughing as I post this... LOL... Michael
  6. 2 points
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-conspiracy-theory-buffalo-protester-police-officers/story?id=71150154 OANN did a piece, as far as I know, taking apart the innocence of the 75 yr old demonstrator in Buffalo. Leaving aside the feint push. He was filmed talking with the photographer who later filmed his fall. He was waving his phone near the holstered gun of the leo. He tweeted F the police. He was on an anarchist website. His name is Martin Gugina. Heres a piece echoing OANN news. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/06/buffalo-officials-duped-by-professional-antifa-provocateur-arrest- In other news......OANN filed a defamation suit against R Madcow. An Obama appointed judge found her comment saying OANN is a communist network news, to be a personal opinion, she's not a journalist an entertainer.
  7. 2 points
    Michael, I quoted the start of your post to draw quick attention to the post. The post's length might turn people away from reading it. I VERY MUCH RECOMMEND that people do read the whole thing. Please, readers, pay extra careful attention to the central part which describes in specifics how the leftist radicals took over college education . The description is spot on, including the part about non-radical faculty members finding meetings boring, often not attending them, saying, oh, well, if you want that hire so much, ok, etc. Capitulation through ho-humness to an attrition process they didn't realize was happening. The result has been a mind-ruined generation who are now old enough to start running things. Ellen
  8. 2 points
    I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
  9. 2 points
    A ray of light in the mainstream news. Tucker has balls. Thank God. This is one hell of a nice rant. And 100% true. Also, it comes on the tail of the left trying to take him off the air. As Tucker said, if we don't push back and exercise our birthright of freedom of speech, the left will push America into becoming like North Korea. I, and many who think like I do, will not take a knee. Shame on those who do. To you who kneel before the current leftist tyranny, we will take care of the problem and carry your sorry asses so you can have the freedom to bitch about us. Why? Because we love freedom and we have to for freedom to exist. But when we look at the likes of you, it's a dirty job. It doesn't have to be, but it is. So fuck you while we're at it. Michael
  10. 2 points
    From Joshua Lawson at The Federalist: Be Courageous And Stand Firm, America—We Do Not Kneel Americans didn't kneel to British tyranny, Nazi fascism, or Soviet communism. We won't kneel for a collective guilt movement that's gone off the rails. My people. Michael
  11. 2 points
    Q said years ago we would reach the day when they cannot safely appear in public. Welcome to that day.
  12. 2 points
    A visual homage, yes exactly, and yes, they know it. His murder was a ritual and the knee now is a replaying of the ritual. They believe their god rewards them for ritualized murder and for creating mayhem, chaos, pain, death and suffering. These people really are, not metaphorically, but really, seriously sick and evil.
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    So beautiful. Know what a U.S. Marshall is? U.S. Marshalls operate independently of mayors, cops, sheriffs, councilmen, governors, etc., and they serve federal, United States Justice Department indictments and they make federal arrests not subject to any local interference. No fraudulent Russian interference investigation, no amateur impeachment shitshow, no Scamdemic and no engineered race war will stop what is coming. Nothing can stop what is coming.
  15. 2 points
    Just for the record. Michael
  16. 2 points
    Mayor Bowser is attempting to evict the National Guard that’s protecting Washington, DC, from the hotels they stay in at night. Trump says if she keeps up with her shit then they will be replaced by police of the various Executive Branch agencies such as the Justice and State Departments and military, under his direct command. The fascists are planning to overrun the White House. Don’t get too upset if it happens. It is not real. If it happens it will only be because he allowed it to happen — they can’t really overrun him or anything of his, but they may be allowed to. Such an event would wake up more people to the danger we are in. A necessary scare event, like if it were to say, burn down. It would sharpen focus and help people understand why President Trump is going to have use all the powers of the Executive to protect the People and the Republic.
  17. 2 points
    This country is in a state of fulmination. --Brant I expect to see beautiful things before I die--the secondary death of the now zombie left that left is intellectually and morally dead RIGHT NOW Ayn Rand didn't know half of what she was up against, but she still had the left by the balls
  18. 2 points
    Oh my... don’t fill me with false hopes like that. A living example to explode so many of the false narratives in identity politics and a sane voice to reject socialism and encourage right thinking (up to a point) ?? That really would be awesome!
  19. 1 point
    Hahahahahahaha... Seattle Police Dismantle CHOP After Protesters Threaten Mayor's $7 Million House Mayor Jenny Durkan is a total idiot. When the heat came to her house, now she's scared and her principles were the first thing she sacrificed as she sent in the guns. I guess her summer of love came to an untimely end. LOLOL... Michael
  20. 1 point
    No one. Emotions are not things. They may be electrical / chemical / and psychic? in a good way. I was thinking about that "independence." What if you were a human or a lower animal for that matter, and you got bit by an ant? What would that entity experience? Pain . . . OUCH~ but then something emotional attached to the sensation of pain, which requires a consciousness to respond, in ANY way.
  21. 1 point
    I suspect a Gates connection. Hunch, so far, maybe wrong. A tidbit I found: https://medium.com/@jonathanferguson_72851/i-didnt-know-you-were-on-medium-curtis-yarvin-eab1266ae581 Here's a link to a Feb 2017 Verge piece about Yarvin's internet project "Urbin": https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon Ellen
  22. 1 point
    D, Socialists tell their stories to a captive audience during their formative years. Over and over and over. Rand wrote "The Comprachicos" and focused the entire essay on the conceptual mind. But notice that she did start with a story... She also quoted an old saying about Jesuits: I say this applies to storytelling even more than concepts (although I don't dismiss or degrade conceptual development--it's very important). What's more, it carries with the same deadly effect all through education. After a decade and a half or so of growing up listening to the same stories saying who the good guys are and who the bad guys are--with peer pressure and all kinds of other covert nudges to get you to accept those stories as real life, it becomes a horrific challenge to think independently based on one's own observations. You will never reason a person out of that with reason. You have to tell a better stories--ones they resonate with. And you have to tell these kinds of stories over and over and over until they break down the inner resistance of the audience to looking at the world based on independent observation. Only a story can beat a story in the human mind. And a core story is why (for the most part) a person will engage his or her reason in the first place. Michael
  23. 1 point
    I am glad some will be made fighting mad, but personally, I love this. Losers getting caught acting like losers because they are such fucking Losers. Losers: We can hardly wait for your Nov 3rd tears and thank you for all the clown act entertainment between now and then, you fall on your faces so adorably.
  24. 1 point
    Seventy years ago Harry Truman involved the U.S. on the Korean peninsula. Since then the U.S. has been at war with North Korea. Many people don't understand this. We are still legally at war, only a formal cease fire is in place and we have kept some 30,000 - 50,000 troops on the peninsula since 1950. John F. Kennedy did not resolve it and get us out. Richard Nixon did not. Gerald Ford did not. Jimmy Carter played with his nuts. Ronald Reagan did not resolve it and get us out. George H.W. "Poppy" Bush murdered JFK and ran the opium operations in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton pleasured a barely legal intern with a cigar in the Oval Office. George W. Bush initiated two more wars. Hussein expanded all the wars and the use of drones, including on U.S. citizens abroad. Trump was the first U.S. President invited inside North Korea. He is making peace, resolving a dangerous situation and finally correcting a grave moral failing on our part that has gone on for way too long.
  25. 1 point
    The first blow of the hammer on those who fight statues. More coming. btw - This technique is pure Rudy. Well... not pure Rudy... it's a bit of Trump, too. Rudy would have incarcerated the first cases of vandalism. President Trump let it run for a while to make sure the fake news media was supporting it in a way that is hard for the public to forget, then lowered the boom. A great showman makes sure all the eyeballs are where he wants them to be before he springs a whammy. Michael
  26. 1 point
    Wow. This is the most I have learned about AG Barr from his own mouth. The Deep State really is going down under his execution of his job. And Social Media giants will start feeling some real pain in about 3 or 4 weeks or so. Michael
  27. 1 point
    Viral photo from April 2021 of Biden sniffing his Pizza BFF during intake processing at gitmo …
  28. 1 point
    The emotion of compassion is like all emotions; an automated response from one's value-judgments. Likewise, it signals that something positive/negative, by your standards, is afoot. Simply, feeling empathy is the response of one's own value-judgements -- applied to ~an other's~ situation, plight, suffering, pain. Since compassion is being kicked about so much lately, it should be analyzed closer. Seems to me the teaching of empathy started springing up about 15-20 years ago simultaneous to teachings by supposedly learned experts that emotional intelligence EQ is more important than intellectual IQ. Making for and confirming the old dis-junction between mind and emotions. Prescribed largely by women at the time, men too began searching themselves for that telling lack of empathy. But because no two persons' value-systems are exactly alike, sure as hell they'd find that they didn't necessarily feel the same way about the same situation as others apparently did. Not for the same thing, and/or not to the same degree. On other occasions, feeling much MORE than them . Aha, crowed the empathists, not good enough. You either feel what we feel - for the poor, the children, the Africans, etc.etc. - or...[you are probably a sociopath]. And so, many men and other women learned to fake it. That's when the cult of empathy began. Used as a psychological force that would create uniformity/dependence in a mass response. Children too, were indoctrinated and have been ever since. The oldest trick, using one's better emotions against one. If one blindly accepts this lie and subterfuge and senses one doesn't meet the conformist, compassionate grade, naturally the next emotion is guilt. They have you, coming or going.
  29. 1 point
    Free-will is not going to be explained linearly because it is paradoxical by nature. It's essentially the concept of a thing created by itself.
  30. 1 point
    You might also want to check out Harlow's monkeys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow Harlow was briefly mentioned in the Atlantic article ...
  31. 1 point
    Yeah Michael, I did fall for the “story line” that he wanted to kick them out, so thanks for setting me straight. In the following he is pushing some buttons. I really don’t think he is goading the lowlifes to disrupt, but that may be the effect of the message. President Trump: Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene! end quote If there are violent protesters, I hope they are arrested quickly, but does Oklahoma have the capacity to “store” hundreds of rioters? It sure does! Perhaps the hottest, driest, and most remote Indian reservations will be available for storage? Hmmm? How much will they charge per “scalp?” Peter Notes. Oklahoma Indian tribes: Cherokee, Arapaho, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Wyandot Kickapoo, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Osage, Pawnee, Seminole, Wichita, Shawnee, etc. From Wikipedia. Department of Defense Indian Incentive The Department of Defense (DoD) Indian Incentive Program, part of the Office of Small Business, provides a 5% rebate to a prime contractor, based on the total amount subcontracted to an Indian-Owned Economic Enterprise or Indian Organization To qualify, the organization must be at least 51% owned by an entity (or tribal member) of a federally recognized tribe. end quote
  32. 1 point
    Did someone say Branden? I hope nothing got double clicked, and repeated. I saw it happened once. Oh, and Nathaniel Branden stopped typing in capitals when someone told him it seemed he was yelling, Anthony. Peter From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: "R. Christian Ross" < CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800 I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited. Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals. And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: RogerEBissell CC: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:18:50 -0800. THE REASON WHY THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS POINT, I SUSPECT, IS THAT RAND SOMETIMES USED "METAPHYSICAL" TO MEAN "PERTAINING TO REALITY (USUALLY EXTERNAL REALITY), AS CONTRASTED WITH PERTAINING TO CONSCIOUSNESS, AND YOU WILL SEE THIS USAGE AMONG SOME HER FOLLOWERS. HOWEVER, PHILOSOPHICALLY, IT IS NOT PRECISE BECAUSE "MAN'S NATURE" IS AN EMPIRICAL, SCIENTIFIC ISSUE NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE, ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY HAS PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL RAMIFICATIONS. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: atlantisSubject: ATL: Objectivist metaphysics Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:55:08 -0800. In response to my earlier post in which I explained that the definition of human nature is not part of metaphysics, I have been asked to elaborate on what is included in the domain of metaphysics. It's an important question because it touches on one of the most important and distinctive features of Objectivism. Rand rightly dismissed "cosmology" as not part of philosophy, insisting instead that it was the province of science. She argued that metaphysics deals only with the most fundamental features of existence as such. She set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics"--fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed. This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality. In other words, metaphysics is concerned with that which is true "of being qua being." By this definition, the particular attributes of man or other animals are in the domain of science, meaning they are not "metaphysical." However, as I observed in a previous note, Rand sometimes used the term "metaphysical" more broadly to mean "pertaining to reality" as contrasted with "pertaining to consciousness"--, on other occasions, as meaning "pertaining to that which is given in nature" as contrasted with the "man-made." I hope this clarification is helpful. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: Michael Hardy <hardy CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Objectivist metaphysics Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:29:38 -0800 Michael Hardy wrote: >Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote that Ayn Rand set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics" --fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed. This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality. >I for one would have said the laws of logic belong to epistemology rather than metaphysics. Can anyone explain this classification? Shouldn't the nature of free will also belong to metaphysics? Mike Hardy THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE, QUA LAWS OF THOUGHT, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AND, QUA LAWS OF REALITY, METAPHYSICAL. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden To: ATLANTIS Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:33:38 -0800/ If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: Michael Hardy <hardy CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: free will & epistemology Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 15:51:10 -0800 Michael Hardy wrote: > Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote: > If volition does not belong in metaphysics, where does it belong among the branches of philosophy? Good question. I would venture to say...epistemology. >The argument you wrote that appeared in _The_Objectivist_, and which was also put forth by miscellaneous philosophers before that, and by me when I was in 12th grade, could be summarized by saying "epistemology presupposes free will", and Leonard Peikoff did put it in those words in his 12-lecture course he delivered under Ayn Rand's supervision in 1976. It has also been observed, by a much larger number of philosophers and others, that *ethics* also presupposes free will. To say that ethics presupposes free will does not mean that ethics is the branch of philosophy in which the nature of free will belongs, and the same is true of epistemology. > Nathaniel, in your 20-lecture basic course at NBI you said philosophy is the attempt to answer three questions: (1) What exists? (2) How do you know? (3) So what? Epistemology deals with the second question. Why is free will a part of the answer to the second question? Saying only that epistemology presupposes free will fails to answer this unless you also want to say epistemology is a part of ethics. -- Mike Hardy IF SOMEONE WANTS TO EXPAND THE MEANING OF METAPHYSICS TO INCLUDE "THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MAN," SO BE IT, NO ONE IS GOING TO ARREST HIM (OR HER); NO ONE IS EVEN LIKELY TO GET EXCITED ABOUT THE QUESTION, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I SUGGESTED THAT VOLITION BELONGS AS PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF EPISTEMOLOGY, IN THE OBJECTIVIST SYSTEM, BECAUSE THAT FOUNDATION HAS ALWAYS STRESSED THE NON-INFALLIBLE, NON-OMNISCIENT NATURE OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VOLITION IN THIS CONTEXT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MY VIEWPOINT ANY CLEARER, SO I AM GOING TO STOP AT THIS POINT. GO IN PEACE, EVERYONE. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: "R. Christian Ross" atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800. I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited. Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals. And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: ATLANTIS Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:33:38 -0800 If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden To: atlantis Subject: ATL: one more Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:27:05 -0800 Oh, yes, one more. Anyone who thinks AR provided rational grounds for her assertion that no rational woman would want to be President of the U.S.--doesn't understand Objectivist epistemology. Nathaniel Branden From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Man-woman relationships Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:11:10 EST I once read something that still has me laughing helplessly whenever I think of it. It was a book written by a raging feminist, and nowhere was there a hint of the possibility that any woman might react differently than she did -- except once. One turned a page to see another page that was blank except for one bold-faced line: EVERY WOMAN LOVES A FASCIST. There was no explanation and no reference to the line in the rest of the book. I thought it hysterically funny, and I knew exactly what she meant. Barbara
  33. 1 point
    I think this quote was supplied by REB and I think I once posted it about 10 years ago on OL. Peter Some Aspects of Prenatal Parenting by Thomas R. Verney/ Many people think of birth as marking the beginning of a person's life. To them a baby is not alive until he takes his first breath and utters his first cry. If you stop to think about it, you quickly realize how false this popular notion really is. We need to understand that one hour, one day or several weeks prior to birth, a child is not significantly different mentally from what she is at birth. The mental apparatus of a baby is not suddenly thrown into gear with birth. All the complex tasks associated with living outside the womb--like breathing, sucking, swallowing, touching, smelling, looking, listening--are the end result of mental work begun long before birth. Prenatal Mental Development We know that by the fourth month after conception, the fetus will suck if his lips are stroked. If a bitter substance like iodine is introduced into the amniotic fluid, he will grimace and stop swallowing liquid. At the same age, if a bright light is shone on the mother's abdomen, the baby will gradually move his tiny hands up towards his eyes, shielding them. At five months, if a loud sound is made next to the mother, the unborn child will raise his hands and cover his ears. By the sixth month, the hearing system of the baby is perfectly developed. Because water is a better conductor of sound than air, the baby in the womb can hear very well, although with distortions. Recordings of the baby's brain waves at the beginning of the last trimester demonstrate that during sleep the baby exhibits REM (Rapid Eye Movement) motions. In adults REM sleep is almost always associated with dreaming. It follows, therefore, that babies must be dreaming by the seventh month. Studies of expectant mothers show a correlation between their feelings about their pregnancies and the ease of their labor and delivery. The health of their newborn infants is also connected to their attitudes towards pregnancy. Because the unborn child is a feeling, sensing, aware and remembering being from the sixth month after conception (if not before) and because of the intimate connection between her and her mother, everything that happens to the mother also, in a sense, happens to her baby. Extensive studies leave no doubt that interaction between mother, father and the unborn, with all the consequences that has, for personality development, begins well before birth. Fetal Perception and Memory Anthony DeCasper, professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, has been researching fetal perception and memory for the past ten years. DeCasper has demonstrated that newborns can pick out their mothers' voices from among other female voices (DeCasper and Fifer 1980). Infants were tested with a non-nutritive nipple, hooked up to a tape recorder, to see if they preferred listening to a taped maternal heartbeat and a taped male voice. (By changing rhythm of their sucking, the babies could switch the taped sounds.) The majority of babies favored a tape recording of the heartbeat (Kolata 1984). A group of pregnant women was asked to tape record their reading of two different children's stories. During the last six and one half weeks of their pregnancy, half of the group was asked to read story "A" twice a day, the other half story "B". When their babies were born, the researchers offered the infants a choice between the two stories. Within a few hours after birth, eleven of the twelve newborns adjusted their sucking rhythm to hear the familiar story as opposed to the new one. This data provides the first direct evidence that not only does the newborn hear and recognize his mother's voice but also, surprisingly, remembers the words! What does this research mean for expectant parents? Simply this: they should talk to their unborn baby as much as possible, whenever they feel like it, in a soft voice. Partners and other members of the family can join in since what they say is not so important as how they say it. They should feel free to read children's stories, nursery rhymes or poems, avoiding violent subject and overly dramatic readings. After the birth of their child, they can experiment to see if their newborn, like those in the study, prefer the familiar tale to a story never before heard. Prenatal Touch By the seventh week after conception, the baby responds to tactile stimulation. At twelve weeks he can kick, turn his feet and curl his toes. At sixteen weeks he begins to suck his thumb. This sense of touch is necessary to the well-being of the baby. He uses it to explore his aquatic universe as well as to comfort himself. Thus, thumb-sucking not only calms the baby but also helps him develop coordination and strengthen jaw and cheek muscles. Like all living beings, babies like to be touched. Expectant parents can discover this for themselves after their baby grows big enough for mom to feel her kicks. At this point, by stroking the abdomen gently from underneath the naval, moms will quickly observe that their baby will stop kicking and relax. By about the seventh month of pregnancy, the expectant mother will know the positions of her baby's head and feet. She can be encouraged to stroke firmly and repetitively from baby's head toward her toes, which is thought to accelerate the development of the baby's peripheral nervous system. More importantly, this massage helps the pregnant woman (and her partner) to make contact with the baby, enhancing the baby's feeling of being loved. Music in the Womb Mothers have known about the effect of music on unborn children for generations. Scientists, however, are just beginning to discover it. Experiments with animals and human fetuses have clearly shown that sound is transmitted through body walls and amniotic fluid with about a thirty decibel loss in intensity (Armitage, Baldwin and Vince 1980; Bench, Anderson and Hoare 1970; Bernard and Sontag 1947). Human infants respond to sound by six months after conception, because babies move in rhythm to the music and their pulse rates react. Hundreds of women have told me about their experiences with music during pregnancy. The one common denominator to these accounts is that the songs played prenatally provoked a very positive reaction in their babies after birth. The familiar music seemed to capture the attention of the infants and relax them, particularly when they were cranky, over tired or feverish. Donald Shetler, professor of music education at the University of Rochester, has been studying the effect of music during pregnancy on infant development. He has found that infants exposed to music while in the womb show a remarkable ability to imitate sound and respond to it after birth, in comparison to babies who have not had "prenatal musical stimulation" (Shetler 1985). Pregnant woman can be encouraged to play music that they like during pregnancy, music that is calming rather than exciting. The only types of music that should be avoided are hard rock, acid rock, heavy metal, etc. Childbirth educators can urge expectant mothers to establish a daily routine of listening to music ten minutes or so twice a day, making sure they are sitting comfortably or reclining in pleasant surroundings. They will enjoy a number of benefits. First, by reserving two ten-minute periods for doing "nothing but listening to music," they will have planned time for relaxation, enhancing the stress relief that good music brings. A second benefit is that it will stimulate the baby's mind. Lastly and most importantly, the music serves as an emotional bridge between the mother and her unborn child. This occurs because while she listens to the music, the pregnant mother will try to "see" the baby and will accompany this picture with thoughts or spoken wishes for the health and well-being of her unborn child. With each day she will grow closer to her baby. You can also recommend that the women play their tape of pregnancy music during labor to help them and their birth attendants relax. After the baby is born, they can continue to play the music to him when they want to calm him at bedtime, for example. Conclusion / In summary, the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in favor of and shows a new appreciation for the mental and emotional development of the unborn child. The evidence indicates that the unborn baby certainly, from the sixth month of intrauterine life on, is a sensing, feeling, aware and remembering human being. Consequently he or she is eager and in a rudimentary way quite capable of responding and benefiting from prenatal parenting communication. Tom, MD, D.Ppsych, FRCP(C) is author with John Kelly of The Secret Life of the Unborn Child (available from the ICEA Bookcenter). He is president of the Pre and Perinatal Psychology Association of North America and editor of the PPANA Journal. His latest book is Parenting Your Unborn Child, published by Doubleday Canada.
  34. 1 point
    Tony, You are not going to square the circle. Just because empathy, rage, love, boredom, etc., can be used for manipulation, that does not mean they don't have a specific nature grounded in biology. Imagine if empathy was merely learned according to chosen values and nothing more. That means warlords would be able to cultivate empathy for chopping off heads. At times I think you are more certain of Rand's propositions about emotions and cognition than she ever was. She even called ITOE a theory and nothing more than a theory. I'm not going to hammer you on this, but I will make a suggestion. I suggest you look at stuff I am almost certain she would have had she remained alive to see it. And, here's a poke in the ribs. Rand once told NB that she was content to leave the swamp of the subconscious to him. By logical extension, this mean humans, by being born with a subconscious, that is, a swamp, are doomed to immorality unless cured by reason, which they are supposed to acquire by choice. In other words, man is born immoral by his very nature and must redeem himself. This is Original Sin. Michael
  35. 1 point
    Here is some advice from Polly on not taking a knee in everyday life. Her advice is to stand up to bullies in the moment they are bullying. Even in small places like supermarkets. The left's army of bullies are trying to win the culture war using death by a thousand small cuts. Polly (who does not use this metaphor) says do not tolerate even one small cut from a bully. Appeasers follow strength, so be stronger than the bullies and show this as the bullying is happening. Bullies always back down when confronted with strength. Then the appeasers will follow you. Michael
  36. 1 point
    Jon, I didn't listen to that at first, probably because the visual was not enticing. But I just listened to it. Good on that lady. The one yelling. Good on her. Do you know who is not listening to people like her? The Deep State, fake news mainstream news, Antifa, spoiled celebrities on a mission to tell others how to live, the current Democratic Party, anti-Trumpers, etc. etc. etc. But I hear her. You hear her. People all over America hear her. Michael
  37. 1 point
    T, The quote from you above is the discussion on William's OL blog here. I am continuing the discussion here for reasons I gave over there, but I highly recommend readers go to that link and read through the discussion. There is a lot there that is not here. Now on to my response. You know I admire Tim Pool. He is doing something in the sense you mean. He built up a growing audience and supplies them with ongoing commentary several times a day. And he is going against the political grain of the Big Tech platforms he uses, so he walks a fine line at times on obeying their rules while seeking to undermine their authoritarian crap. Thus he is getting his ideas out even as these platform are helping to orchestrate the mess you see. That is something that should be emulated if you, or someone you know, wishes to pick up the standard and sally forth. But when I look at Tim, I see something deeper. Watch the video below (which has a horrible title ) and think about how far a leftie has to come to say the things is he saying. Then think about how that happened and why it happened. And for a treat, in the beginning of the video, Tim and his peeps painted a picture of the Founding Fathers that was awesome, far more relatable to young people than the Wig and Stuffed Shirt version in the history books. Also, Tim sees checks and balances exactly the way I do. Think about what it took for Tim to go from being right in the middle of Occupy Wall Street to openly preaching individual rights and capitalism as the best system humans have ever devised. Something caused that to happen. If you want to fight the bad guys, this is something to ponder. There are lefties out there like Tim and, as proven by his example, they are reachable. Maybe the first step in storytelling to them is not in trying to prove them wrong, but instead in trying to break their hearts (as I mentioned in another post). Simply point to where their heroes intellectually hang themselves with their own rope of contradictions and highlight their transformation into dogmatic and vicious authoritarians. Once their hearts are broken, point to principles, not people on the right or even Ayn Rand. Do that later. At this stage, let them come to their own conclusions. btw - Setting up situations, then letting people come to their own conclusions is by far the best persuasion technique in existence. It keeps you honest and it keeps them honest. Once a person has concluded something from thinking it through on his own, no talking point or covert persuasion technique on earth will dislodge it. I believe understanding the history of a problem like the one we have right now will go a long way in fighting to fix it. The root of the problem is that we are suffering what happens when an entire generation of young people was indoctrinated with leftwing authoritarian bullshit, then grew up. This is reflected even in the way they are raising their kids. The big sin of the American people is that they went off and enjoyed the wealth and prosperity of the American system (after Carter) and left the education of their children to whoever showed up. It's a sin of omission, not commission. And the sin is against reality. It's a sin of turning off awareness and getting lulled into a false sense of safety--self-inflicted through the stories everyone told themselves about what the good life was, but leaving out parenting in terms of what ideas their kids assimilated and from whom and where. When they left the field of ideas to whoever showed up to teach their children, organized bad guys showed up and went to work. They did a damn good job, too. Just look around at their product. Here is a breakdown of how this happened over time. I wrote about this a couple of years ago and did a pretty good job, so I will quote that. (As an aside, I was talking to Jon. ) btw - A similar story happened in mainstream news, especially television. This was not an area that was profitable back in the early days, so the networks left it to whoever showed up. Once again, organized bad guys showed up and went to work taking over the system. Do you see that this problem is much bigger than you as an individual can handle? The bad guys are organized, hungry for power, and have been doing what they do for decades. If you want to fight the crap you see right now, I suggest you do what you can short-term to help and save whomever you choose, but realize that without massive government power, nothing you do will make a dent in the big picture. On the intellectual side, one that will start making a dent (but in seed form, not grown tree form), the best tactic I can think of is to scout around for leftie people who seem to be open to looking at ideas from different angles (like Tim Pool was) and break their hearts. I wouldn't waste a lot of time on severely indoctrinated people as their minds are imprinted just like goslings who follow around a person or non-goose animal as their mother goose all during their growing-up-stage because the person or animal showed up at the right moment. Just make it clear you disagree. Then honk or quack if you like. On the massive government power side, I know what I did. I supported President Trump. I saw what he really was in the beginning and, once I realized he had a shot, I went all in. A guy like that with power in his hands would work to tear out the rot without going off into crony corporatism and endless war for profit. But doing that meant flying in the face of most of the leaders in O-Land, especially those idiots in our subcommunity who think he's a dictator. You can tell who the worst of them are because they make seriously horrible intellectual misidentifications. A good example is calling the inter-government trade manipulations the globalists had implemented "free trade." Someone steeped in Rand who cannot see the problem with that is a person with a hidden agenda. So fuck 'em. Those people don't want to improve the world. They only want to improve their own lives at the literal cost of others. Crony trade. Power cliques at think tanks. And so on. In fact, those kinds of people allowed the crap we see unfolding right before our eyes at the moment to come to flower. On the personal side, I cannot emphasize strongly enough, do not fall into sanction of the victim and wallow in negative emotions, especially guilt. You did nothing wrong. And you have the volitional power to snap out of it. (I can back that up with neuroscience, too. Think neuroplasticity.) Unearned guilt is not empathy. I suggest you ponder long and hard on that. Think it through and get real clear on it. Unearned guilt is awful. Empathy is wonderful. So what best to do? Whatever you want, really. It's your life. I suggest you do what you can to fight the current situation, but most of all, use that marvelous brain of yours to come into your own flowering, thus increase the beauty in the world. I have a feeling President Trump has the big picture under control (should he stay in office, which I will fight for). Our intellectual job is to take care of the roots so the good stuff can grow. You can help do that by whatever persuasion you can learn, but best of all, by working on yourself and becoming an example of what you want others to be. In fact, that, to me, is the best thing I ever got from Ayn Rand. Michael
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    TG, I agree. Sometimes reality is a bitch to swallow. But swallow it we must. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. And one reality is that a war is far more important to win than any single battle for solidifying a system of government. In our system, a crime must be committed before it can be punished. The people who voted for their local governments in the current trouble spots in America elected assholes who crapped all over the police. No wonder they are walking off the job or doing things half-assed. The only way to fix that is let the crimes be committed, make all due appropriate legal cases and paperwork, then go in and clean it up without mercy. Then make sure everybody knows what the rules are for there on out, and make sure they know bad things will happen to them if they try to infringe those rules to harm others. You and I, for as much as we feel for the innocent victims in these situations, are not the ones who commit the crimes. The criminals are. So feel bad, if you must. I certainly do when I see distress signals of the innocent. I think I have an oxytocin overload inside me. I can turn into mush on a dime. But never guilty. Never feel guilty for something wrong you did not do. Accept the reality that in a situation like Seattle, you did nothing wrong. If you accept that frame, and you believe in law and order based on individual rights, you will opt for permanent solutions, not temporary appeasements and gestures that are easily undone just to stop the suffering of someone you did not attack, but someone else did. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Not much longer. And it will be particularly amusing to watch the Free Seattle Zone twerps scream like little girls when they are beaten and taken away in unmarked cars.
  41. 1 point
    We might could reach a consensus that this will be used as an example of Trading Up The Chain, even if the example is arguably illustrating no such thing/not quite the same thing. I left out that an initial spark of information content on Twitter led to the next level of contagion at the Conservative Treehouse, before being incorporated in OANN reporting, before the reporting based on a tweet was amplified back on Twitter to the timelines of 82,000,000 followers. I also left out the raging manic reaction of those who believe a former/current Sputnik employee might work in ways inimicable to the US project. Who cares about possible motives? Consensus. Tap tap tap.
  42. 1 point
    Race is the smokescreem for the riots. The following is what all the rioting is really about. And don't be fooled. The rioting is not only against President Trump. If you are like me and support him, it is aimed squarely at you, too. Michael
  43. 1 point
    Here is an article from Jemima Kelly at the Financial Times. I will stretch the criteria for fair-use as much as I can:
  44. 1 point
    Here's one for those of a conspiracy theory bent. That's one hell of a coincidence. Michael
  45. 1 point
    You think it funny that respected men in suits own the cartels and not the short fat thin-mustached greasy guys with no shirt who "eluded the police of the world for decades" who were the actual billionaires behind it all? I laugh at your warrantless claim.
  46. 1 point
    Candace is awesome , she is courageous and intellectually rigorous, do we need to be fearful for her ?
  47. 1 point
    This. The video is embedded from Facebook and I haven't figured out how to make it smaller yet. George Floyd had a long rap sheet. Including invading the house of a pregnant woman at gunpoint and holding her hostage as his cohorts ransacked her house, And including many stints in the joint. Also, he was a serious druggy. Candace doesn't think he needed to die, but she is sick at heart that this guy is being held up as a black hero in the press and by many in the black community. He wasn't. He was a small time criminal. Michael
  48. 1 point
    Jon, Here. I did a screenshot. Michael
  49. 1 point
    Okay, you forced my hand. Sex has nothing to do with children or evolution. I've created a lot of fictional characters over the years, many of whom I liked and respected. A few were modeled on people I knew, supporting characters whose personalities were frozen -- well, that's a bit harsh, let's say inflexible, unable to transform. It happens in life to most people. Their formative battles were fought long ago, and it shaped how they think and live. All of them deserve honorable mention to acknowledge their strengths and sorrows. It's important always to treat a character with respect, even the tawdry ones, the bit players and stock figures -- tailors, waiters, uniformed cops, cab drivers. Little glimpses need to be three-dimensional and real. It's never wrong to be honest about where they are in life, how they move, talk, think, hide themselves from others. Characters who transform, undertake challenges and put their future at risk, are "principal players." There is no story without such people. Some of them are heroic men and women, some are dangerous villains. It's possible to see virtue in a villain, no different than a hero with inner conflicts and limitations. I'm speaking mostly of male characters. Women seldom deliberately do wrong, although it's good to see the extreme and exceptional. One of my favorites was a film star -- Ophilia Opfir -- always outrageous, mercurial, a comic figure. Now that I think of it, all of my women were wonderfully complicated. The Good Walk Alone had several female characters, no two alike, vital to the story line. In Mars Shall Thunder, Wendy and Emma Churchill played pivotal supporting roles, far more important than the men. Leading ladies are important to me. Sorry, that's an understatement. The Good Walk Alone is Janet DiMarco's story. Mars Shall Thunder is Laura Oak's story. Chris is nothing until he meets Peachy in A Portrait of Valor. Chris and Peachy are the subject of this essay. For the rest of my remaining days as a writer, I will author stories about them, as they mature in life as a married couple. It's interesting how they emerged in a tutorial of screenwriting on Zoetrope, to explain a method of organizing and creating scenes. Movies usually have 40 scenes. It's not important to start at Scene #1. Scenes can be written out of sequence, if you have a good outline, each scene with a unique dramatic action, no two scenes alike. The method of organizing a movie using Scene Cards is something that I was blessed to get from a profoundly talented mentor a long time ago. It's explained in Screenwriting Form & Structure, and there's a video on Vimeo that shows how Scene Cards are useful in story rewrite, to identify and resolve problems. To demonstrate Scene Card logic, I offered to write a screenplay out of sequence. Members of my private office at Zoetrope could pick a number, any number, from 1 to 40 in a story outline, and I'd write that scene to a budget of pages for that particular scene. Some were simple and quick, others were long dialogue scenes, or tense action, or lonely monologue. No two scenes alike, remember? The result was a completed screenplay called The Case of The Empty Case, and it introduced Chris Cable, private detective, and Mary Blount, Ph.D., a spectacularly stunning babe he orders to scram, go away, while he's dealing with a suitcase bomb parked in front of his office door. He doesn't know her name, calls her Peachy. It wasn't supposed to be a good story. It was a practical demonstration of a movie structure, how to conceive and execute individual scenes. Years later, at a watershed moment in my writing career, I thought of Chris and Peachy again. They deserved a series of novels. I risked everything to do it -- personally, financially, artistically. I don't regret it, although I doubt that Chris and Peachy will be well received by readers. I'm writing purely for myself, something I felt drawn to do after 30 years of storytelling, some of which was work for hire, a polite term for prostitution. It became important to give Chris and Peachy a voice of their own, in honor of their exceptional lives and exceptional challenges. A narrative novel is supremely expressive. Every word matters. I cringe whenever a typo or an ill-chosen word appears in print, self-published. It's humiliating to be self-published; I do it to archive the work. Others can make Kindle or POD successful. I can't. Please don't offer suggestions about marketing, or writing popular material in well-grooved genres. Chris and Peachy matter more than money. Christopher Cable, P.I., is a better man than I am, far more complex, far more courageous. He was an only child born into a military family. His birth took his mother's life. His father was a stern naval officer who became a powerful member of the Deep State, if you know what that is. Chris was raised by colored servants, if you know what that is. He went to Ivy League prep school, a sprig of privilege. He spent summers in New York with show people, his mother's clan of Broadway actors, dancers, musicians. When he was 18 years old, he was accepted in Marine Corps Officer Candidate School to honor his father and follow in his footsteps. Combat changes people, always, and Chris fought with courage that could not erase sorrow and guilt and revulsion. He hated killing. As an officer, his duty was ever-present and clear, ordering men to their death and dismemberment. Rising to the rank of Captain, partly on merit, partly because his father pulled strings, Chris couldn't continue. He resigned, changed his name, and fled to Los Angeles -- a disgraced black sheep who abandoned his duty and his father's iron sphere of influence and expectations. Ex-military is where most of our cops come from, and Chris had friends in L.A., ex-Marines who went into law enforcement, well-paid private surveillance, and medicine. None of those jobs were right for him. Chris couldn't deal with fussy paperwork or take orders, especially an order to do nothing, to drop a case, let the guilty skate because they had political pull. When the story opens in A Portrait of Valor, he's alone, lonely, miserable, age 38, jailed for killing a man, which he regrets but was compelled to do, to save a crowd of laughing drunks and doped-up chicks at a Hollywood nightclub. Terrible karma. The man who hates killing, forced to kill as a licensed private eye, working alone, financially strapped, hardened to life, expecting nothing but trouble. Not handsome, covered in battle scars, Chris cleans up every night and tries to be cheerful, drinks in nice nightclubs and dinner joints, hoping to meet a single woman his own age or thereabouts. He's ignored, night after night, year after year. Enter Peachy. I don't think I want to talk about her, a truly exceptional woman among women, beautiful, brilliant, elder daughter of a billionaire nuclear physicist (a horrible father), turned her back on wealth and made her own way in the world, a Stanford Ph.D. plugged into Silicon Valley. Wonderful couple who saved themselves for each other, wouldn't settle for less than ideal romance, astounding sexual chemistry, risking their lives for each other repeatedly. This is the glory of heroic fiction, to paint the beautiful. What other people write doesn't matter.
  50. 1 point
    Here's the gist of of the purported Atlas Shrugged world domination conspiracy. It's worse than you think. And by the way, the next time someone tells you that Ayn Rand is embraced by the radical right, and is the darling of the crypto-fascists and neo-Nazis, show them what those people really think about her. This gem of paranoia has been described, with sort of a scholarly incredulity, in two books by Michael Barkin (Professor of Political Science, Syracuse University), Religion and the Racist Right: Origins of the Christian Identity Movement (rev.ed., 1997, Univ. of North Carolina Press) and more recently, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003, University of California Press). I should make clear that Professor Barkin is not an adherent to these beliefs, nor is he implying that Ayn Rand was admired by the people that he is describing - quite the contrary, as you will see. It seems that the extreme rightist "Christian Identity" (i.e., neo-Nazi) movement discovered Atlas Shrugged and, not surprisingly, hated it. The anonymous author (who Barkin surmises is probably Kerry Noble) claimed to have discovered something that normally functioning minds had not, and revealed his discovery in a pamphlet with the catchy title, Witchcraft and the Illuminati. Here's just a taste, as summarized by Barkin (1997, p. 193): "Witchcraft and the Illuminati can scarcely contain its excitement about all this secret knowledge.....They know because they possess the key that allows them to unveil the true meaning of the encoded text of Illuminati plans, which turns out to be Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Much of the rest of the CSA volume purports to be a decoding of the sinister plans allegedly contained in Rand's best seller." There is an addition to this fantasy,: in his later book (2003), Professor Barkin adds (pp. 30-31) that Witchcraft and the Illuminati was "inspired" by another Identity devotee (John Todd, the speaker on some of the bizarre videos posted on YouTube), who had discovered that the movie, Three Days of The Condor, "contained a doubly encoded message.... the book on which (Robert) Redford was working as a CIA analyst early in the film was Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, itself an encoded conspiratorial work....Rand had been commissioned to write the novel by [her lover!] 'Philip [sic] Rothschild,' allegedly the leader of the Illuminati." And "[w]ithin the book is a step-by-step plan to take over the world by taking over the United States." But, nobody believed these fantasies, right? Wrong. Professor Barkin goes on to describe that the "bizarre claims about Rand's novel had a deep influence not only in fundamentalist churches, but in the Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord [CSA], a heavily armed commune in the Ozarks affiliated with the anti-Semitic and millenialist Christian Identity movement....Indeed, Noble attributes CSA's program of arming and military training to the fears...The community dissolved shortly after a raid by federal law-enforcement authorities in 1985." As a result of this armed confrontation with the Feds, Kerry Noble spent some time as a "guest" of the federal prison system, during which he had a change of mind, and later wrote an “expose,” Tabernacle of Hate: Why They Bombed Oklahoma City(1998). On the internet, in YouTube, one can still find several videos, crudely done, disorganized, and bordering on incoherence, from some who still hold these views. Simply search on “Witchcraft and the Illuminati,” in Google., and they pop up. And you thought only the Leftists (excepting, of course, the National Review-Buckleyite devotees!) hated Rand?