Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    He's a child or else a very young adult. The graphic is General Iroh from Avatar: the Last Airbender an anime series that ran from 2005-2008 and is still popular today. The hand gesture Iroh is making is likely part of a kata as he often imparted wisdom to his grandson while they trained together. My 15-year-old and I loved that series and quote from it on a semi-regular basis. The very next line after the graphic, our mystery poster says, "So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source." I read him in the same way I would have read my teenage son - more mature and smarter than average, but an awkward communicator and not sure how to convey that he wants to learn something while maintaining that he knows everything. You know, like a kid would do. Your experience, MSK, led you to read him differently, and you'll get no judgment from me on that, neither in my response to the poster nor in this response to you. However, I was compelled to answer honestly his honest inquiry. No, I did not get the same impression of him as others did.
  2. 2 points
    So, after Bandler finally let the Holocaust denial flag fly one too many times and Linz banned him, SLOP sort of lay there basking in the sun like a fetid marsh stewing in its own juices until Linz's new Great White Hope, Bruno Turner, came along. They did podcasts and everything! The idea being that Yaron Brook is a lousy public speaker, so they'd produce something far better. The one I was able to watch any of began with Linz butchering Italian--I guess Linz decided that if Brook could butcher a beautiful language, then he'd butcher a beautiful language even more grotesquely. Anyway, some people, including, one gathers, regulars there, made comments sotta voce to Turner that he of course reported to Linz, like any good enforcer does: Bruno, we'll never go broke overestimating the number of craven cowards, cultists and lickspittles within OrgOism. That includes the very people right here you've just rightly called out on other threads for their uselessness and gutlessness. It includes the jellyfish who attacked me to you in secret Faecesbook societies when we started our series. (Seriously, who thought it wouldn't get back to Linz? Maybe that was their way of informing him his performance in the series was lacking, or maybe they thought Turner was a man of enough honor not to report something told to him in confidence? And who knows if Turner even reported their comments correctly?) So, Linz sicced his new enforcer on the denizens of his own swamp. Turner wrote (highlights given; I urge you to read the whole thing), One of her philosophy's most crucial points is complete and total atheism, as opposed to agnosticism. Given her rejection of God is in more than one place indicated as being based on "moral" grounds (i.e. her distaste), she in fact comes out to be a hater of God and anything that could possibly be above human beings. Her "ideal man" is in fact her god; in other words she is an idolater. Her idol is a fictional character of her imagination, and her philosophy is the attempt to change human nature to become such a being. To the extent her idol is a "light bringer" he is very close to being a satanic symbol. Rationality, which in its pure form can only be of God, as recognized by nearly all the major philosophers, is in her philosophy given place only within man. However, since a man can obviously never obtain pure rationality, because he is in fact a creature of dual nature - animal and rational being - he can never attain this ideal. Linz then indicated 100% agreement with the non-religious sections of this screed. Luke Setzer and Gregster then asked the obvious question whether Turner is a Christian, and being a forthright brave new intellectual in the Perigo mold, Turner ignored the actual question (a simple "yes" would have sufficed) and went on the attack: " You useless cucks, who contributed NOTHING to MOGA, can you argue with what I said?" After more back and forth with Turner posing as an independent thinker while considering it a valid argument to count up the number of previous thinkers who argued there must be a god (far from the only logical fallacy in his new patented SLOP Swampwater), Linz's camp follower Olivia replied: If the world of Objectivism actually bred “first hand” thinkers, the movement would be successful beyond words. Appallingly, it did not, hence the cultism... and the “Ayn Rand said... Ayn Rand said” squawking mentality which always relies on a written prescription from her on every single topic, for all time. Luke’s “anyone who rants this is clearly not an Objectivist” line is a classic example. Just like many Christians say “anyone who doesn’t believe such-in-such, is clearly not a Christian.” As a thinking human being, I have been influenced by many philosophers, writers and thinkers, but what sits well in my own conscience when everything gets weighed up in my own mind will be the motivating principle into actions or arguments. Again, the question of whether a site that claims to be Objectivist is still actually Objectivist in any meaningful sense is studiously ignored--can't have your cake if you eat it. Luke Setzer replied in part: Thanks for making it abundantly clear that this is no longer an Objectivist site. Y'all have fun. I will be sure to renew my monthly contributions to ARI this coming week despite my disagreements with them on immigration since they expose fine young people like this one to the philosophy. At least they are not prattling about how rotten are the foundations of Ayn Rand's thought while also praising the rationality of God and concurrently saying they want to MOGA, a hash of contradictions if ever I heard one. Indeed. (Though I would urge him not to contribute to ARI; among other reasons, his money would would mostly go to salaries.) No response to this has been posted yet; I doubt it will be particularly insightful, just Linz dismissing from his sight yet another of his former friends and admirers, with abuse piped in from the heroically posed enforcer and camp follower. This wouldn't be worth comment except for the fact that Linz calls his site Objectivist--it's in the damn name. One wishes he would show the independence of mind and heroic endeavor needed to finally create his alternate theory of Non-Sacrificism or Selfism or whatever other watered-down alternative to "selfishness" (which alienates people, doncha know, and a brave herioc individual can't have that!) he keeps claiming he is hatching. Please do, Linz--if it's as good as you claim it is, we'll all be the better, and if (as seems rather likelier) it's more SLOP Swampwater, then at least you will clarify what is currently as foggy as the modern world you so hate. But to do so, Linz would have to do at least two things: (1) Get off his lazy ass and actually produce something, and (2) assuming he were as honest as he claims, stop calling his site "Objectivist." A person who argues, as Linz does, that the body-soul dichotomy is in fact valid, that abortion should be banned once the fetus has a heartbeat, and that Rand was an unemotional Vulcan, among other things--why would he want to call himself an Objectivist? (The amusing part about her supposed lack of emotion is this complaint: "She had no idea of convivialism—with good food, good wine, good fellowship, good converstion—except in the entries in her journals when Roark, Dominique, Mallory and Mike got together after work. These are very brief, non-defining passages, alas." So basically, because she didn't have her protagonists get together after work for a cold one or two [I leave it to you to consider whether he is even correct here], and because she didn't make that a Leitmotiv of her fiction, then she was an unemotional Vulcan. In other words, she didn't include everything under the sun in her novels, regardless of whether they even pertained to the plot--that is, she actually was so much of an unemotional Vulcan as to exercise esthetic selectivity! A supposed Objectivist condemning Rand for not being a naturalist? That's some truly fetid SLOP Swampwater!) So, if Rand was so wrong on so many basic issues, if the coy theist enforcer and the studiously irrelevant camp follower are the only good ones of the bunch, why continue calling yourself Objectivist? That's obvious: It's the only branding the guy has. If he left off "Objectivism" and renamed his site more accurately as, say, "Emotionalist Spittle Duct," how many hits would he get in searches? None. He would fade even further into irrelevance. So, like any second-hander, he keeps the name while doing nothing to earn it and, indeed, doing his damnedest to undermine it for his admirers, but not forthrightly enough to save his integrity or, alas, lose his brand. He poses heroically as the great alternative to Rand, ready to correct all her mistakes and create something new and valuable and admirable, but in actual deed he just sits there holding court in an ever-diminishing salon, a bullfrog in a fetid swamp, damning the small channel of Objectivist water trickling into it through the occasional Google hit while making damn sure not to dam(n) it all off, because then his tiny corner of the world would all dry up and he wouldn't be able to market any more SLOP Swampwater. Second-handers are pitiful, Objectivist second-handers most of all.
  3. 2 points
    Jon, And of course being bullied, right? That's the subtext everyone is responding to. And that's rich coming from you. Since when do you stand up for social justice warriors, anyway? Talk about weird and bizarre. You wanna do tough-guy talk, tough guy? Here's some tough talk. Tone it down. I mean it. My patience is wearing thin. Michael
  4. 1 point
    Okay, I get your point. The shorting has turned 10 shares into 11. The extra share disappears when the position is closed. The extra share is artificial and potentially very dangerous to the shorter. He has to buy a real share to cover. --Brant
  5. 1 point
    Exactly. They thought that they had the road cleared, permanent dominion on the horizon. And then Trump was elected. Ellen
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    Brant, I don't think Rand would have understood meme culture on the Internet. She might have since I don't channel her. My crystal ball broke down a few years ago and I have had a hell of a time getting it to work again. But the real world and the fictional AS world Rand lived in was full of gatekeepers. So her entire perception of human society was one where nobody had roaming freedom--they always had to ask permission if they strayed off permitted roaming paths. At Rand's time, fully free roaming was something that existed in the past, not in the present. But in the world today, because of the Internet, free roaming is making a comeback. The rule of thumb is to sin first, then then ask for forgiveness later, rather than ask first for permission. (This got longer than I intended, so I added some headings to make it easier to read. I could improve the headings and elaborate more on each item, but this is just a post on the Internet... ) The real destroyer That inversion--not any specific ideology--is what has destroyed people in high castles (real and metaphorical). Objectivism as its own avenger against those who do not adhere to an ideological purity baseline only works in a world full of gatekeepers. How can you tell a person he or she is doomed without Objectivism when they carry access to most of mankind's knowledge in their pockets? But that fact doesn't make Objectivism--or any other set of formalized ideals--obsolete. It only makes their spread and adherence different than before. Out in the meme and Internet world, Objectivism really has become an avenging angel against the bad guys, but it now happens in a form totally different than the way Rand promoted her ideas--that is, Objectivism has become a cultural pillar in that independent thinkers take from it what they resonate with and use that part in their own lives. People could do this before the Internet, but that process was culturally insignificant. Back then, they could only get Objectivism from the culture in the slices and slants the gatekeepers portioned out. And man, did power corrupt. Look at the mess the ARI folks did rewriting Rand's own words and history because they wanted to control access. Even Rand herself did her gatekeeping fudges, for one example, when she went through We The Living to take out some of the Nietzsche she no longer agreed with, then said she didn't do that and dared anyone to say she did. How Objectivism is spread and used Today, people basically say, "Who gives a crap?" If one person is acting too authoritarian, people get their information from another. As I said, they take from Objectivism what they can get behind according to their values, not any values handed down from on high. Then they show and comment on what they believe and think, and how that is working for them. Others get to opine and interact. In other words, there is a total cultural saturation of discussion, high-fives, bickering, and so on. We can call this living Objectivism, not just being instructed on it from insiders. Lots and lots and lots of people do it this way all over the world--and that hogs the attention time away from the orthodox gatekeeper folks. After all, each person only has 24 hours each day. And here's a corollary social reality for ya', people prefer to talk to those they know rather than gatekeepers. What's more, in this way, Objectivism has become far more powerful politically and culturally than it ever was in the pure state controlled by insiders. That means it is decentralized no matter how much gatekeepers and gatekeeper wannabes howl. Unless humankind destroys the Internet, gatekeepers are never coming back as the main model of packaging and spreading ideas. Not even the tech giants are able to keep political agenda censorship alive, and, man, are they trying. Purity If anyone wants pure Rand the way she wrote it and said it, they can get that. If they want to belong to an insider group around Objectivism, they can get that, too. And if they want to check Rand's own premises or apply her thinking in ways she never imagined, and do it all publicly, they can get that all over the place. They can get Objectivism in any form they wish. Their minds are their own so they get to choose, not have gatekeepers choose for them. That doesn't mean Rand and her more ortho disciples do not have any control. They can control the fact and form of their notion of the pure version of Objectivism. They just no longer control other individuals by doing that. All they have in order to enforce their form is their own little in-group. They can keep the independents out. Big deal. So what? The only thing that accomplishes out in reality is it makes them feel good. Humankind in general doesn't care and doesn't want in. As for the rest, these ortho insiders have to persuade--and persuade on a public platform in competition with a whole lot of different individual takes on Objectivism. There's no way to shut other folks down anymore. They lost control of what they should have never controlled in the first place. Also, so long as there is an Internet, there will be memes and other communication forms to wreak havoc on control freaks, authoritarians and even copyright laws. (I'm not against copyright laws, I'm for them. But I don't like it when they are used as weapons for mind control.) Freedom There's another word for all this. Freedom. Objectivism, which includes freedom in it's set of ideals and principles, now has to exist in a world that is much more free than when Rand created her works. In other words, Objectivism now has to co-exist with freedom in reality, not just in the preaching of it. That means Objectivism will live or die on its merits, and that means, on the value it provides to individuals, not on the protection and enticements of gatekeepers. Insiders will never admit it, but they fear such freedom will kill Objectivism. I don't. I see Objectivism alive and well and growing--inside the minds and lives of individuals of all kinds of different persuasions. It's not growing much inside authoritarian structures (which are becoming more irrelevant each day), but it's going gangbusters inside the individuals out in the real world. For an easy example that is well-known, even the now-leftie Silicon Valley upended everything humans knew, and many of the prime movers did it fueled by Objectivism. In that form, I say, "Long live Objectivism!" It will, too. Live long... Michael
  8. 1 point
    A stock is an asset. --Brant
  9. 1 point
    The inherent problem lies in (not) connecting idealism to reality. Reality doesn't accede to one's (often) rationalistic ideals one finds, so one either re-thinks and reconnects, or likely collapses into subjectivity and skepticism.That's the inevitable route to ex-Objectivist. For a philosophy entirely constructed out of reality and the mind, no one can blame the philosophy, rather accept upon oneself the fault and lack of rigorous thought. Testing times. I believe there's frustrated disillusionment within Objectivist circles for not having made enough inroads to strongly influence politics and voters. Which shows signs of intrinsicism, as if expecting the great majority of people to accede to 'revealed knowledge'. Anti-real, also. Times (in politics) we have to make the best out of the material we've got, knowing there's far worse alternatives.
  10. 1 point
    We'll take Alberta if Canada takes California. --Brant
  11. 1 point
    Thank you, William. That's the clip. Michael
  12. 1 point
    We're moving closer to eco-terrorism, Crichton-style. J
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Um, who came up with the bullshit that the question about Parrish was about an artist trying to cash in on Rand's popularity? Was it Mark, or was he linking to someone else's site? Heh. Anyway, WTF? Slop. Never heard of Parrish? Um, okay, but even then, how hard is it to look up? And, seriously, how in the hell did the story get twisted so that Parrish, who preceded Rand, and enjoyed much more fame than she had, and still does, followed after her and was cashing in on her lesser fame? Is the rest of the article as sloppy? As for Minn's art -- eeesh. J
  15. 1 point
    Mike Cernovich is not happy with the fake news media right now. I agree with Mike. Michael
  16. 1 point
    Hello Michael. Robert
  17. 1 point
    Mark, Bullshit. That's not what I said nor what I meant and you know it. I said that Ayn Rand is equivalent to Johann Sebastian Bach as a creator of masterpieces, and that both looked on death and torture as part of their creative process. That's the comparison in my point and I know I was clear enough for anyone to understand. Good God. I don't know if you were being intentionally misleading or just contentious to show yourself, but your remark is despicable. Michael
  18. 1 point
    Brant, That part counts for us. But for Rand, she had to use her creative mind as it came out of the box. She didn't invent being human and she didn't invent creativity. Brainstorming--even when contemplating gruesome stuff--is a part of creativity. Besides, look at a world that worships and is inspired by--in many different forms--death and torture. In Christianity, for example, people have been inspired to create masterpieces for centuries by contemplating a man who was tortured to death and his final agonies put on public display for entertainment. All religions have their gruesome death and torture stories. And how about scientists with their sundry mutilations and killing of humans in their experiments while talking about "advancing" human knowledge? And doctors? What do they see? They look at death and torture all the time. And when the hypocrisy of all that gets too uncomfortable, how about the warmongers they turn the fruits of their mental endeavors over to? Talk about human death and torture on a grand scale. How about a little war for kicks? But people make movies and novels and painting and poetry and so on--much of this great art--inspired in all this gruesome stuff. So, to me, I am unwilling to cede to Rand's critics that she was uniquely awful and psychotic for extracting a good and not so evident truth from a horrible situation when she was young. People have done that since recorded history. In Rand's case, a strong aspect of her particular creative genius was to flip clichés and normal situations upside down to see what falls out of the pockets. Her writing is full of inverted and altered clichés. In the Hickman case, instead of focusing on how awful he was (the cliché), she looked at how awful society was acting under the guise of respectability (the flip), and from that angle, she looked at the defiance in Hickman (another flip), especially his facial expressions, during the trial as what it looks like to stand up to that awfulness. Whether that was what he was actually doing or not is beside the point. That noble loner standing up against the howling mob theme was what she was looking at in her mind--including looking at reality for examples of what that might look like. So Rand didn't ignore the little girl just as no Christian ignores the diarrhea and God knows what else Christ must have suffered on the cross. She simply wasn't writing a story about little girls and those who kill and mutilate them just like Bach (for one example) didn't write his great musical masterpieces about the effects of torture on the human body. Rand saw something transcendent in the situation just like Christians do with the torture and murder of Christ. That transcendence was what she was aiming at and writing about. I extend this same attitude to many of the people in the other groups I mentioned above who contemplate, and are inspired by, situations of death and torture. As to the Rand critics among them, it's really rich to see some of them bash Rand as psychotic for the same thing they do every day of their lives. Michael
  19. 1 point
    Here is one hell of a story war technique. Override a defense mechanism in the human brain that shuts off predictions and scare the shit out of people with their own personal death. Then offer your agenda as a savior to stave off the end for a time. This technique is as old as the hills, like stories of the apocalypse, but the left and ruling class has come up with a way to literally rob the young of their future by short-circuiting the brain's defense against depression from contemplating their own deaths. Many young people don't believe they are going to live past 30 because of manmade climate change (and other things, but climate change is the main story culprit). And the unintended consequences? There is a huge increase in young people suicides. How's them apples? Congratulations, assholes. Here's the transcript. The Left Has Reprogrammed the Human Brain to Focus on Death Read it. This is really evil. Rush based his comments on this story: Doubting death: how our brains shield us from mortal truth Brain seems to categorise death as something that only befalls other people And that is based on a study that is coming out in a few weeks. I will try to remember to post it. In sum, if you can indoctrinate school kids with fear of their own impending doom--with no plausible escape--in order to mold them into proper little voting machines after they grow up, you also rob them of their entire meaning in life. If there is no future worth living, many of them will check out through suicide. And that is exactly what they are doing. I don't think the elitist ruling class gives a damn. They already send the young to fight pointless wars just so they can make money and keep power. If some legs get blown off or the caskets pile up, well, too bad. They just want power over whoever is left. Michael EDIT: A tangent from Rush today: Environmentalist Wackos Drop the Polar Bears. The polar bears were storytelling gold for manmade climate change. People even made commercials about polar bears showing up and hugging people who held back carbon emissions. But those suckers just won't die. What's worse, they are thriving and increasing. Now it's at a point where the victimhood story has collapsed. It's just too damn obvious to everybody that the polar bears live. They live! So the poor things are being fired as poster animal for the environmentalist movement.
  20. 1 point
    Jon, Re the first paragraph. Try tracking. Re the second: No "siege mentality." Michael knows, I know, you know that you can't take over. You can, however, drop the efforts to tell Michael how he should run his list. Ellen
  21. 1 point
    "Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.
  22. 1 point
    Jon, You claim that Michael can't handle criticism. (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.) Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list? Ellen
  23. 1 point
    Jon, Nah... I wasn't even testing. Banter and a flare-up are not tests. They are, well, banter and a flare-up. It's true I will test a newbie a bit to see about his or her honesty of intentions (OMG! There's that word again. ). That's to save time and headaches later on and is based on some chops I have earned the hard way. But test the alpha dog? Why? That doesn't pass the smell test. It smells too much like balls. And I don't do balls sniffing... Michael
  24. 1 point
    Imagine the approach used by a reporter. Of course journalism includes more job niches than reporter, but lack of communication skills isn't a recommendation for any of them I know of. Ellen
  25. 1 point
    Deanna, Ah, come on. I ask a simple question about what you see, and even tell you I am curious for my own reasons dealing with my studies, and you're not sure you see the point? I even tell you I am not judging anything with this question? Well, here's the point since it is not clear to you: Exchange of information. It's simple. You know something I don't and I would like you to tell me so I can know it, too. I even said that. How is that not clear? But this phantom dude comes here and opens with a crapload of negative assumptions about Rand's flaws, and ours for that matter based on no knowledge at all, and you do see the point? Jeez, Louise... On another issue, I looked up Socratic Circle since I had not heard of it and looked at a few search entries. I happen to like the Socratic method of digging information out of the right brain and underbelly of the mind in order to verbalize it through questions and discussion. (I can give you great books that discuss how this happens, starting with Iain McGilchrist's book on the divided brain. But there are many more I have read.) Much of the info in the brain has not been recorded in memory in verbal form, nor even the processing of it is in verbal form. So with questions and discussion, things often emerge and appear like they are new. And they are--in words. But the info was there all along. Also, the Socratic method allows the creative impulse to be added to that process so some truly new paths and dot-connections happen. (Apropos, Rand used this method in a solitaire-like manner in her creative writing and later in her nonfiction. She would list a string of questions as they came to mind, then proceed to answer them as if they came from someone else. After she did that, she would choose what to pursue and what to discard.) In my search, I saw a lot of things mentioning Common Core when they talked about Socratic Circle. So maybe I never heard of this because it's a new jargon term from that system. I don't know... I will look deeper over time. From what little I read, I didn't find any meaningful connection with how this phantom guy opened--talking about what he is not nor ever could be--presuming that that unfortunate state was what we were, and how flawed and foolish the things he wants to discuss are, etc., as he seeks wisdom from all this. That's the Socratic Circle way? Really? (All right, all right, that was a friendly poke in the ribs...) I want to ask you how you think the mental and emotional immaturity of a 15 year old can apply to college graduates because I'm still curious and I'm still not sure what you see. When I look at what goes on in the news on college campuses, with their safe spaces, bullying by collectives, conviction by accusation, intolerance of the boogiemen they have been indoctrinated to hate (mostly America and white males), etc., I can see the possibility. But, frankly, I am looking even deeper. Maybe you're not interested. Whatever... As part of what I see, I got into my stepson's head and, even though he is on the autistic spectrum, his IQ is now recorded as much higher than before--in fact, now it's at an average level--and he is going to college.* That tells me the system that coddled him and molded him into a special needs sausage was screwed up, not him. I've tested him on his college lessons and in everything I walked through with him, he was spot on. Hell, I even screwed up the math on one thing and he corrected me. You have no idea how proud of him I am. Anyhow, enough of that. There's no point, right? I sincerely hope this phantom guy does not apply for a job or things like that using the same approach he used here to introduce himself to strangers on a forum. I don't predict he will be very successful if he does. Michael * Note: I do not believe his IQ increased since that rarely happens and the increase is small when it happens (although within normal parameters of how much it can increase, it may have), but I do believe the earlier testing was incompetent--the testing when he was being shaped into a special needs sausage. And that resulted in a very low score. He has a slow response time for thought to become bodily expression, including speaking. Some people take this to be evidence of lack of cognitive ability and, to be fair, it often looks like that. But it isn't. The proof is in his results when he gets the amount of time he needs and has actually done the work. I always suspected this and that's the way it worked when I coached him on writing and so on, or when he taught himself wikicode, but it finally came evident in college where, by some miracle or other, they do allow him extra time. In special needs, they kept him doing super-easy tasks and silly shit. All. Day. Long. This went on all through his public education. To say that I am angry at the system is an understatement. Fucking technocrats and government ass kissers playing at teaching to collect a paycheck...
  26. 1 point
    Brant, We all get pissed at times, but at least we have real men on this forum. (Real women, too. ) As opposed to sissies who need to be coddled... Michael
  27. 1 point
    I had a similar thought, that he's a candidate for a Fake News team - if even they want someone so poor at communicating. He isn't a "prof," just a college graduate. He was nebulous in his first post as to whether he was still in college or had finished undergraduate work: "...nor am I a philosophy major" indicates someone still in college. "I did not study philosophy" indicates someone who's finished college. The "B.A." degree affirms the latter. Ellen
  28. 1 point
    That prof was full of Peter Keating shit. --Brant
  29. 1 point
    On August 31 (on page 1), "Phantom000" wrote - bold emphasis added: If he has a B.A. in Journalism, he isn't a teenage kid. Ellen
  30. 1 point
    Jon, Well, we can't have bizarreness, can we? So let me help make this more understandable. Here'e the opening post. I could go a lot deeper than what I am going to do here, but just a few comments on this guy's opening post should suffice. Before I start, take a look at the threads in the Meet And Greet Section. In almost all of them I offer a very warm welcome, praise OL members, and make some friendly banter. Most people who post on that thread like to tell us something about themselves. Let's see what this guy tells us about himself: 1. He's not an objectivist (lower case "o"), nor could he ever consider himself one. 2. He is not very familiar with Rand's writings, nor is he deep into philosophy, but he thinks Rand's ideas range "from naive to foolish." However, some of them are just confusing. But that might be on him. 3. He wants to practice what he preaches by coming to OL. 4. To explain that, he provides a huge comic book-like graphic implying that people who study one thing only--like he thinks we do here on OL--become rigid and stale. With the guru dude pointing his finger in admonition and all. 5. Despite him thinking Rand naive to foolish (and confusing), he thinks she has some good points and "just as many bad points." 6. He does not believe in accepting or rejecting any system in totality. 7. He thinks wisdom can be found just as much in objectivism as in collectivism without being a proponent of either. Everything he said is a criticism--overt or implied--of what he thinks we are and think here on OL. There is nothing about him. Does he play the cello? Who knows? Chess? Total blank. Is he into science? Nothing. Sex? Who knows? Is he a student? Nada. Civil servant or factory worker or academic? Big fat zero. Where did he hear about Rand? Zilch. What does he agree with in Rand's writing? Or disagree with for that matter? Damned if anyone knows. But he knows for sure her writing is naive to foolish. I could go on, but I've been doing this forum stuff for years. When someone makes a come-on out of the gate like that, saying everything about you but nothing about themselves, they turn out to be one gigantic headache. Don't we already have enough headaches among our insiders? Do you think we need more? Well, let's look at it from a different angle. Maybe I overreacted. Could this guy have been an exception? Who knows? Maybe. I have yet to see one like him be an exception, but I admit the possibility--remote possibility, but still possibility. However, I was under an extreme amount of stress at the time, so I just didn't have the patience to test whether a new dog will bark or not. I used my experience of seeing a whole bunch of dogs bark in the past, and I just assumed the new one will bark, too. btw - I did not attack him. Go back and read what I wrote. I gave him constructive feedback. Maybe a bit coldly, but not with hostility. Let's call it dog training. Still, I stopped and went friendly. My friendly post ended up being test enough. And guess what? It wasn't enough for this guy to engage further except to ask, disbelievingly, if he really came off the way I said. Then poof. Gone. So I stand by my evaluation that he would have become a gigantic headache--nay, pain in the ass--had I followed his lead. I also got a private OL message back then from a female I've never heard of bashing me for "back and forth." I don't know if she was a friend or whatever of his, and she didn't even mention what she was talking about on OL, so it might have been simply a weird message out of nowhere. I suspect it was someone known to him, though. Timing and all. For the record, I don't mind the innocence of youth and their sporadic stomps on their own dongs. God knows I've had my own share. But that was not what this guy was about. You may disagree, but hopefully, my behavior is no longer bizarre to you. Also, since I seriously doubt he will be back, I get to have some fun. And if he does come back, it will be even more fun. 😎 😎 😎 😎 Michael
  31. 1 point
    MSK’s claim: “One of the most devastating effects of pedophilia on the culture at large is when people who practice it gain power and influence among the elites.” How would you say that is going, Korben? I ask sincerely. It has been a year and three months since you asked for proof and a lot of evidence has since come in about the elites and how abuse of children ties them together. You have followed postings here about Epstein, Bill Gates, Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard, MIT, etc., etc.? Are you as skeptical as the first time you heard the assertion? How would you rate the plausibility or the truth-status of the assertion today?
  32. 1 point
    Don't worry. Billy is going to save us. He has enlisted, and is right now packing up his shit, and heading over there to straighten it all out. He's taking printouts of his posts with him, and a PLS container full of tracers. Fuck yeah! J
  33. 1 point
    If it were a youtube video it would probably have been titled "phanom000 destroys pouncing randian sycophants"
  34. 1 point
    Oh, but Jonathan, ABC’s error was a common and innocent one, just ask Mike Rat’schild, who explained it all while also exposing the dangerous and disturbing conspiratorial mindset behind your kind of thinking, in the latest at Billy’s Q blog.
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Who is Alexandra Chalupa? So, how do we fit together Manafort, Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman, 2014, 'dirt,' 'black ledgers,' prison, guilty pleas and the churn of reporting? Shukin, Yanukovych, Zarrab, Flynn, Gates ... Sometimes it just feels right to take a breath, retreat to an information island, where any harpies in the air are "our (side's) harpies." The fundamental attribution error covers all situations.
  37. 1 point
    Jon, It's odd because I used to have that same reaction. It's like a vibe thing. I wonder how much Roger Ailes was tuned into this vibe business. He's the one who hired and stood behind Sheppard Smith. And if Smith is to be believed, Ailes knew he was gay from the beginning while many at Fox only found out after he came out. Just as Smith repels people like you and me for no other reason than he's something to avoid for no particular reason, there are others who respond to his vibe as attraction. I wonder if Ailes had some kind of intuition about this and managed to keep it in balance with other talent. I know balance was an Ailes value in theatrical terms. For example, in The Five, which is his brainchild, he created it with five archetypes. I can't remember his original nicknames right now, but here is the way I call them. The Leading Man, The Jester, The Leg (the sexy lady), The Mature Lady (or voice of reason) and The Grump. This last is liberal as a kind of fact checker while the other four are conservative. ... Let me interrupt to say FINALLY! As I was writing this, I was also looking for the correct designations. I finally found what I was looking for. Whew! This was driving me crazy. This way, Roger Ailes could appeal to a wide audience while having each character remain true to his or her archetype. Ailes had one hell of an eye for talent. Just think of the stars he hired and mentored over the years. (He didn't have a very good eye for allies, though.) Also, it would have helped if he had kept his hands out of the cookie jar. But I guess with growing power comes the growing compulsion to wed it to appetites on the sly. At least his thing was adult women... The point is, I wonder if his eye for talent included a subliminal sensitivity to resonance between the talent and the audience. Michael
  38. 1 point
    I hope so. If Candace Owens goes on the way she's going, I'd love to see her as President. Ellen
  39. 1 point
    Who 'placed' Manafort into Trump's camp? Q never got around to the details ...
  40. 1 point
    Cunning little video exposing a much-cited QAnon account's disinformation ...
  41. 1 point
    Jon, Give it time. btw - Did you watch the video? Your comment makes no reference to anything it deals with. Michael
  42. 1 point
    William, PP is as good as any. Look at my paraphrase of a few of his (or her) comments. That while there are parents who willingly sell their children to the scientism and socialist indoctrination of modern education. It's more likely the teachers, nurses, and others who care for your children are there to turn them into willing thralls for the globalist manmade global warming power mongers. . . . Imagine living in this kind of fear. That a great evil hung over you like a cloud that will soon be destroyed along with the planet. That at any moment evil forces would be there to brainwash and control your family and destroy the entire earth in 10 years. That Christians (and now Trump) are out to get you. . . . Everyone is the outgroup. Everyone is to be distrusted. The enemy surrounds us. Only via isolation and safe spaces can we achieve salvation. Scientism plus statism is a poison that make people hateful and scared. To think anyone would want to be this way makes me sad. That works to a tee for SJW's. Michael
  43. 1 point
    Hey, this will be great (and essential reading).
  44. 1 point
    Nice rant, Wolfo, but there is no federal debt. All that "debt" is in spent dollars which are from a sovereign (fiat) currency. If your trillion buck T-bill has matured the US Treasury will give you another--roll it over--or credit your account with a trillion dollars. Just-by-pushing-a-button. Because of inflation you don't preserve wealth in any fiat currency but in assets. --Branto
  45. 1 point
    And another on fake social media. This cuts deeper in philosophical terms. Ayn Rand often said that censorship applies only to governments. But I'm going to embrace the term applying to crony corporatist social media giants, too. This is for two reasons: 1. Open any dictionary and you will see that words have more than one meaning. So, legally, I agree with Rand, that censorship applies only to governments. But there are other contexts where this word fits perfectly. And that leads to: 2. Free speech as a legal right is not the only context for free speech. It is also a principle. So, as there can be a principle of free speech, there also can be a principle of censorship. Styx mentions that giant social media platforms are the current equivalent of the town square. Legally, such town squares may have private owners (although I dispute that "private" characterization when the owner is a crony corporatist entity), but as a principle (a public gathering place), the principle of free speech should also apply. That means the principle of censorship is a valid criticism for that context. Michael
  46. 1 point
    Oooh, 'folks like yourself who see only' blah. This is gibberish to me, Adam. You have no argument, just apparent prejudice. I would ask you to flesh out your gibberish, but I don't think you can. I don't think you can connect your brief angry meta-analysis to facts. Such is bigotry and ignorance and pretension to knowledge. That you cannot seem to understand the horrors of war in Syria that have led to the 'hordes' leaving, there is no rational fruit to discussion with you. As if some unknown-to-you actor has whipped up an invasion. Pitiful prejudice and irrationality to my eyes. This is no good, Tony. You seem uninterested in challenges to the propaganda of the video. So be it. I shouldn't bother with trying to reason along with you as long as you ignore the import of my previous remarks entirely. As you seem to assume "both rates [will] remain steady" in succeeding generations, I can't get purchase on shared cognitive ground ... But, maybe this is the crux: you do not know how many children a second-generation French Muslim woman will have. You haven't tried to research this question, instead falling back on 'surmises.' That may indicate something important about the way you think on this issue -- in terms of Them, of collectives, of innate Muslim fecundity, a fecundity that cannot be and is not influenced by the societies in which they make their homes. What other facts need? You haven't given any facts. I am wondering if I should file you with Jerry as supporting "They are breeding like flies" and believing the ugly alarmism of ISLAM TAKING OVER EUROPE ! This thread should have been lodged in the Garbage Pile, in my opinion. Ignorance, prejudice and bigotry are not what I associate with Objectivist Living.
  47. 1 point
    Those guys are crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly and they deserve a kick in the ass so hard that they gotta clear their throat to fart. From: http://www.theunderg...ter-dictionary/ --- begin quote --- The Official Bankster Dictionary In the underground world of banking, doing wrong means doing right, up is down, and left is right. I happened to stumble upon a secret version of the Bankster’s Dictionary the other day when I was visiting a bank. I’ve posted some of the terms below that were contained in the Bankster’s Dictionary to help you understand bankster language. US Federal Reserve = European controlled private bank. Central Bank = Counterfeiting Ring Leader Criminal Underworld Currency Counterfeiters = Competitors that must be arrested and jailed. Savings Account = Devaluation Account, Cash Advance for Gambling Division Gambling = Banking Primary Business Line Fraud = Banking Secondary Business Line Las Vegas, Macau, Atlantic City = Model for running business operations. Inflation = Currency Devaluation through anti-free market manipulation of interest rates. Fractional Reserve System = Fractional Expansion Citizen Bankruptcy System, BSE (Biggest Scam Ever) Futures Markets = Manipulation Casino, SkyNet Three-Card Monte Scam Pablo Escobar, Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán, The Ochoa Hermanos, Yakuza = Cash Cows El Subcomandante Marcos aka Delegado Zero = Anti-poverty activist that must be wacked and shut up Independent Media = Terrorist Mass Media = Allies Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff = Occasional Patsies and Necessary Fall Guys to appease the public’s ire at us. Stock Markets = Manipulation Casino, SkyNet Three-Card Monte Scam Commercial Investment Firm Rating of “Buy” and Hold” = Contrarian Indicator to SELL! Commercial Investment Firm Rating of “Sell” = Contrarian Indicator to “BUY!” Barbarous Relic = USD, Euro, Yen Beta = Empty Statistic meant to impress naïve investors Loan = Usury USD, Euro, Yen, etc. = Fantasy Digital Idea made real by banksters to control humanity Women’s Liberation Movement = Expansion of Tax Base from only men to men AND women Income Taxes = Wealth Transfer from citizens to owners of central banks. Gold = Bankster Kryptonite Silver = Bankster Kryptonite Truth = Banker Kyrptonite Lies & Deception = Bankster Standard M.O. Free Markets = Fairytale story like Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy to be taught in business schools worldwide. Drug Lords and Underground Crime Syndicates = Provider of global banking liquidity and huge year-end bonuses Parasite = Favorite insect Capitalism = Dead system that was killed by Central Banking but false scapegoat we can blame when we cause economic crashes and despair Miscellaneous Charges = Small Monthly Charges to siphon off money from bank accounts that customers will never notice or complain about Computer = Vehicle to rig all stock markets and commodity markets with HFT programs that execute trades not possible if executed by humans and if executed in a clear and transparent market. Boom = Unsustainable price distortions caused by interest-rate manipulation and market rigging. Bust = Opportunity to make money twice as quickly as in a boom! Market Crash = Engineered event to ensure the peasants will never accumulate enough wealth to rebel against us. Rising Markets on Mondays or Tuesdays into OpEx Fridays: Ruse to sucker more people to go long in order to fleece them by the time Friday arrives. Declining Markets on Mondays or Tuesdays into OpEx Fridays: Ruse to sucker more people to go short in order to fleece them by the time Friday arrives. Presidents and PMs = Best puppet and marionette allies to be rewarded handsomely after they leave office (see Tony Blair and the current POTUS) Superior Judges, SCOTUS = Made Men War = Double Bonus! Opportunity to devalue money at faster rate than during peace time and opportunity to accumulate more wealth from interest charged on war appropriations. Universities, Colleges and MBA programs = Re-education camps to indoctrinate students into fairytales of non-existent free markets, non-existent capitalism, and lies about how stock markets, real estate markets and economic cycles really work. Economic Journals and University Tenure = Carrot dangled in front of economic professors to ensure that they repeat to the world the “official” party line. Key Economic Indicators = False manipulated statistics designed to dumb down citizens into believing economy is recovering even as we increase their economic suffering Ben Bernarnke = Shakespearean clown. Conspiracy = Best Word to Discredit Truth about the global monetary system when the truth somehow escapes our censorship algorithms and makes it to the mainstream media we control. Machiavelli = Role Model Ivy League Schools = Indoctrination Camps for media representatives and professors we will send to brainwash other global regions into believing our propaganda CNBC = The Cartoon Network. Goldman Sachs = Rookie Farm Camp for global criminal banking syndicate. World Bank & IMF = Banks used by Western countries to impose crushing debt on developing nations to stunt their growth. Bailout = Transfer of Wealth from citizens to us. TBTF = Lie used to ensure we can perpetuate fraud. Quantitative Easing = Currency Devaluation. Fiat Currency = Worst Possible Idea Propaganda = Daily Financial News Feed Compartamentalization = Process to keep good people working as cogs in the machine within the banking industry ignorant of the fact that they are inflicting massive harm upon society. If others of you have had the good fortune to stumble across this secret Bankster Dictionary like me, please feel free to post more Bankster glossary terms below. --- end quote ---
  48. 1 point
    William, I would never want you to change a comma of what you write, not even when you bash me and/or get it all wrong. Let 'er rip. You do it like no one. I have been a fan of your style ever since way back when you showed up on SoloHQ. Remember those times? The best you got from folks back then was, "Huh?" But at the beginning, I was commenting. You usually ignored me. But I even took on your expression for a while, "the ick factor," which you used when discussing lack of empathy in the Objectivist world. You should see some of the good things I have written about you offline over the years. (I won't say more about that, though, because I don't want it to go to your head.) I merely pointed out a spiritual thing about looking down your nose. I believe it is possible to condemn something or blast it with satire--even bitingly--without comparing ones inner self to the object of scorn and ridicule. If you screw this up and allow yourself to feel haughty as you clobber, you are actually stooping. You are competing in a spiritual game you say you scorn. This is something l learned from a Brazilian author whose advice I do not follow enough, Nuno Cobra. (He's a famous Brazilian kingmaker of sports champions.) He wrote in "A Semente da Vitória" (The Seed of Victory) the following (my translation): He was quoting a woodsman named Pedro, his own mentor. (A woodsman wouldn't talk like my translation, though. I was simply trying to keep the form, but the more I mess with it, the more dorky it sounds. A colloquial way of saying it would be, "Don't fight people you despise. That way you don't stoop to their level.") That sounds like snobbery, or even Roark's "I don't think of you," but when you look deeply into it, it's the opposite. You have thought of a person you dislike. You thought about him enough to make a serious considered judgment. That's why you walk away (when you can). You're not in competition with that person anymore. You have nothing to gain by beating him. But you do fight a person you respect underneath and that's a good fight. It's very tricky to do satire in that spirit and I believe you pull it off (most of the time). To be clear, your lampoons usually transmit goodwill and a desire for the person to improve. So you actually are equal to the person so far as moral possibility goes. This is not fighting in the sense of trying to destroy--which I did, say, with Perigo and Valliant. This thought popped up and it suddenly got interesting, so let me probe a second. I didn't try to destroy them, just their credibility for spreading a toxic agenda through their attempted leadership roles in the Objectivist subcommunity. They tried to destroy people I love and admire, so I stood up. I fought. I also did satire, but I'm sorry to say that I didn't give a damn whether they improved or not--nor do I. I'm working on it, and God knows I've tried. I just can't feel anything but disdain for those individuals. So, after they were discredited--through my efforts and those of others--I simply stopped fighting them. I don't lower myself--inside myself--to a moral level I reject as sleazy. Should they say bad things about me in the future, I'm not sure if I would ever counter with anything anymore. And I think that's sad. I don't like feeling that way about any human being. Back to conceit. I believe the root of vanity and the root of religiosity are the same. Maybe not identical, but there is certainly a large overlap if you represent them by circles on a Venn diagram. The quote below is a typical "looklng down your nose" attitude of the kind I'm talking about--one with the same root. It's standard Objectivish snark in lieu of a comment based on correct understanding, but it could just as easily be satire. The point is that this is not in the same spirit as your benevolent satires or my tough love encouragement. But I am discussing and it is not pitiful at all. That comment is a great example of one of the pitfalls of a religious attitude bolstered by vanity. Phil looked down his nose at me at that moment, but he lowered himself to what he believed was my level in order to snark at me. That's not what happened in reality (meaning I was not in reality lower than him), but even on the level of perceived reality qua the snob's perceived reality (where he thinks I'm lower), it's a contradiction. There is no spiritual growth involved, nor victory, nor any value for anyone outside of Phil. And he can only get value from it by demeaning himself to himself. By stooping inside. And that's not a true value according to his professed philosophy. I believe that is the message Nuno Cobra's wise words convey. Anyway, my warning to you against conceit was in this sense. Certainly not in the sense for you to tone it down. And there's more. If I did not hold you in high regard, I would not have wasted my breath. (That's something Phil could think about someday. It seems I deploy a lot of breath on him.) Michael
  49. 0 points
    All of the unobserved readers listen to one or another of us. They are unobserved readers. 😀
  50. 0 points
    So Q been snuffed out for good, then , huh retard? I’m shattered. 😀 I do wonder why this is so wonderful to all you morons who have always “known” it was just a punk kid in his mom’s basement, anyway. Why so much celebration over shutting down one punk kid in his mom’s basement? Something isn’t adding up.