Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/04/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, contained a counter-conspiracy involving a radio speech given by a man who vowed "to stop the motor of the world." On March 28, 2020, we have this speech dropped by the counter-conspiracy known as "Q", via the internet... "The entire world is watching. Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA. We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out. " Read the entire drop here: https://qmap.pub/ https://twitter.com/StormIsUponUs/status/1243987443533205504?s=20 Many have criticized Rand for Galt's speech being too long to hold people's attention, and too unfilmable for a movie. But whatever else one may think about "Q", you gotta admit, they figured a way around all that...
  3. 2 points
    Peter, People don't do conspiracies out in the open (except in America where certain conspirators have a complicit press and this still leaves me with jaw dropping ). One characteristic of a conspiracy is that it is meant to be hidden until the right moment. That's by definition. So how can one demand observed fact about something hidden? One has to dig and expose. The idea that a suspicion is loopy just because you can't see who is doing the bad stuff is a very dangerous one. You can't see a cancer cell inside you with your eyes alone. Not even doctors can. And if you ignore it, it will kill you. I don't know if you ever read some posts I made about a professor in Florida--I forget his name right now. He's a leftie. He tracked down where the term "conspiracy theory" came from. And he holds conferences at the university level where "peer reviewed" material is presented about the different conspiracies that have turned out to be true. The term "conspiracy theory" came from the CIA to quell the unrest that happened, both in America and abroad, after Kennedy got shot and the Warren commission issued it's lame report. People were having a fit in public--the press, radio, TV, speeches, and so on. There are copies of a memo by the CIA at the time. It is available to anyone who wants to see it. The CIA circulated it to the press offices and the Embassies explaining how to discredit public doubters of the Warren Report or the public version of the Kennedy assassination by smearing them as loopy conspiracy nuts. Before that time, "conspiracy theory" was a phrase used to describe serious musings on events. I can't think of an example from that time off the top of my head, but the later economic term "trickle down theory" has the kind of emotional load "conspiracy theory" used to have. Nobody today thinks a person espousing the "trickle down theory" is a flaming kook. Instead, they think the person is serious even when they disagree. Before the CIA did that little masterpiece of persuasion engineering to shut down discussion of speculations, people going overboard on a conspiracy were generally linked to the theory they espoused. For example, "red baiters" or "McCarthyites." Not even the John Birch Society people back then were called "conspiracy theorists." Lance deHaven-Smith Here... I just looked and found where I wrote about my man. The professor's name is Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. Here's a great start of a reading list if you ever get interested in historical conspiracies that were not believed at the time, but ended up being true: Also, here is a little more on Lance deHaven-Smith. First a post by William (with the snark against those who think differently than him, mostly meaning Trump supporters, removed). He posted a very good video of Lance deHaven-Smith in a 2013 talk. Then a response by me that gives some more nutshell information on Lance deHaven-Smith: I know I can dig up a lot more if I get going. But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) Asymmetrical Warfare Now that the military has openly embraced what it calls asymmetrical warfare, you can find paper after paper published by the military on conspiracy theories in the original meaning of the term. QAnon is a phenomenon that has all the marks of such asymmetrical warfare. It is intentionally designed to attract the fringe and nonfringe alike, that is, the way this project has unfolded, it is a way to inject narratives into the mainstream that are different than the ones offered but the fake news media, narratives that discredit the elitist mainstream culture. It's been a resounding success in that regard. Just think of how this has led to Epstein's fall--before, nobody believed he was trafficking in pedophilia among the superpowerful, but now everyone says he was. And he got dead and croaked and suicided as part of the show. Not even a fifty million dollar special counsel investigation into the idea that Russians elected Donald Trump through covert means worked. Nor an impeachment. Don't forget, the mainstream press deployed everything they had to support the narratives behind that investigation and impeachment, both during the leading up phase and after both fizzled. The fake news mainstream culture did this for over three years, day in and day out. Part of the reason these efforts didn't take is that the narratives pushed by the mainstream culture were not accepted by the general population. One of the reasons this happened was QAnon's skillful injection of counternarratives and doubt into the general population at places the mainstream fake news culture did not control. Back when you and I were young, this would not have been possible since there were only three nationwide TV stations, radio was mostly pop tunes and religion, and the printed press carried the day. The Internet ended that monopoly on controlling the narrative by the few. One day, after all this blows over, it will be very interesting to look at and study all the different techniques deployed on both sides. I have already identified a few, but it's still too early to write anything definitive about it. (That goes for me and others.) I'm still--we're still--observing--still gathering conceptual referents so to speak--since important history is unfolding right in front of us and hasn't wound up. Michael
  4. 2 points
    Something else: go to Google Earth, and look up the Administrative and Court Facility at Guantanamo Bay. I tried it..."the results are will shock you..."
  5. 2 points
    Indeed. I may be skeptical about aspects of the story, but not the story itself.
  6. 2 points
    Pizaagate is proven true by the Epstein story alone with it’s tentacles into Harvard, MIT, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, Princes and princesses worldwide. Nothing, no list of additional disclosures of any length will bring a person away from their precious yeah buts if the Epstein story does not.
  7. 2 points
    I think I stumbled across one of the main reasons for the intense Trump hatred among the elitists, all the way from the beginning. Relevance. From Breitbart: Nolte: We Now Know Truckers and Stock Boys Are Vital, Hollywood Is Not Nolte then gives these two example of our Hollywood royalty. And Madonna below, purposely made up ugly (at least it looks like that), and butchering fried fish, of all the goddam things to sing about. I'm gonna push the fair use thing and give the rest of the article. So what does this have to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome? I'm reminded of an observation Nathaniel Branden used to say about everybody knowing the truth about themselves when they wake up alone at two o'clock in the morning. They don't use a mask at that time, not even to fool themselves. The truth is, underneath, everybody knows what John Nolte just wrote. They know it deep in their gut. Even Hollywood royalty. Dreams are for the future, but without the present, dreams are nothing. There can be no future without the present. But look at how pathetic our dream-keepers are without their dream-enhancing trappings. Their present is worse than many of our next-door neighbors singing in the shower. They are not striving to make their dreams real. They are wallowing in mediocrity. Now think of this. Who sold the biggest dream of them all out in Hollywood and among the elites? Donald Trump did. He said go for it. And go for it, people did. They went for keeping that dream alive in their hearts. They read his books and made bestsellers out of them. The consumed the image of a big money show-off he injected into the mainstream. They put his TV show at No. 1 for years. And did Donald Trump become a dream-keeper just like everyone else? Nope. He took his own advice and went for it out in reality. He made his dream come true. And he did not need them to do it. Something none of them have the capacity to pull off. Oh, they have the reputation of being able to make dreams come true. But it's unearned. When push comes to shove, they know they are peddling a dream future without having earned a real present where that makes any kind of sense. They don't strive in their personal lives to become competent and better at real things. One can build a dream by striving for it by living on the pathway to it. Instead, they strive to be pampered and shielded from real things. I'm not talking about words or stories. I'm talking about reality. Reality-wise, these people are spiritual impostors. They crave to be worshiped for a metaphysical standing they have not earned and do not deserve. They can present a good story, but their reality sucks. Well, President Trump emerged from enormous personal striving and became President of the United States against all odds--while keeping the dream all along. He didn't sell out his dream, but instead, transmuted into reality on a foundation of merit. And by extension, he made these impostors look at themselves in the daylight, not just at two o'clock in the morning when they are by themselves. He made them realize--in full awareness--how insignificant they really are. They never forgave him for it. This applies to all elitists who hate Trump, too. Especially conservative never-Trumpers who made their careers out of selling a conservative dream but not earning a conservative present of productivity and competence in dealing with reality. They could never do what President Trump did and it galls them to no end anyone could. They know what that makes them look like--to everyone and to themselves. And now, for some goddam psychological reason I can't grok right now, these Hollyweird idiots are hell-bent on showing their public just how ugly, untalented, and insignificant they really are when they have to live the life their fans do. I can grok this much, though. They have a subconscious drive to put their hands on reality when all they've ever known is a dream. But they're not going for the gold out there in reality. They're going for the shit. That's what they want their fans to see them right now: themselves as shit. And they want this right at the time when their fans are under attack by reality. They will never forgive President Trump for making them do this, even though he didn't. Their hatred of him is projected hatred of themselves. Why do they hate themselves? Because they can't measure up and Trump can? No. Not at root. It's because they don't want to measure up and they know how wrong that is as a human being--at least they know it at two o'clock in the morning. Michael
  8. 2 points
    Jon, What accounts for the appearance of the COVID-19 virus just now in your narrative? Are you claiming that Xi had the virus bioengineered or some other way managed to get it unleashed on the world and that Donald Trump is such an inhumane bastard that he doesn't care about the deaths and misery and financial dislocation so long as he has a cover for declaring martial law and arresting his enemies list? Ellen
  9. 2 points
    Polly's terrific. She at least asks the right questions as Michael says; and if a tenth of what she interconnects is valid, it's enough. It's your minds they want. AR Never let a good crisis go to waste. R. Emanuel If you can keep your head when all about you...RK When all the cattle are stampeding in one direction, look for the men on horses. AJG There's something very strange going on, things which didn't transpire with the last serious virus.
  10. 2 points
    The ~main~ thing to be fearful of is others' paranoia, and ongoing curtailment on our freedoms. Do not accept the leftist narrative driving panic for power.
  11. 2 points
    Rand had good things to say about the American "common man." Nonetheless, her expressed views about the large majority of humankind were dismissive. Google the word "ballast" in Rand's work. Here's an example from the title essay of For the New Intellectual. This isn't early Rand. It was written after Atlas Shrugged. Ellen
  12. 2 points
    Jonathan, Do you see this as either-or? Does one negate the other? In other words, will the part of human nature that likes celebrities stop existing--in level-headed people and idiots alike--just because pro-Rand people ignore it? Fun fact. I'm too lazy to look the following up right now, so I'll go on memory. If need be, we can look it up later. In the book by Sally Hogshead, Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation (which is quite a good book despite the cheesy title), she mentioned an experiment with chimpanzees (or bonobos, I don't recall which off the top of my head). After researchers were able to determine which were higher in the social organization, they took pictures of them. And they took pictures of the other chimps. Then they scattered the pictures around at random. None of the chimps looked at the pictures of the lower chimps, but the lower chimps spent lot of time staring at the pictures of the celebrity chimps. This trait comes from evolution, not from any moral failing. (Apropos, if you have ever heard the saying that the modern attention span is about 8 seconds, in other words, that of a goldfish, that saying comes from Sally Hogshead.) One of the characteristics of Rand's approach has been to ignore (and sometimes even deny) this underbelly part of human nature that determines certain values. That doesn't mean it stops existing. It just means there is constant friction over it whenever Rand is discussed. And why is the friction constant? Because this trait will not go away by decree. It stays around no matter how much it is ignored and condemned. And it stays around in everyone, including the people who try to ignore it. So I see no problem in letting all different kinds of approaches to persuasion fly. The best ones will work. The poor ones will fail on their own. We don't have to take the extra time and effort to go around stomping out approaches that we dislike. Leave that to the Shiite Objectivists who seek obedience and conformity out of others. btw - President Trump understands the hell out of this celebrity interest trait in humans. Rather than fight it, he uses it as a tool in an Aristotelian kind of way, that is, he uses it with the right people, to the right degrees, at the right times, for the right purposes, and in the right ways. He even built a top TV show out of it. And the theme of the show? Was it gaining prizes for spinning a wheel? Guessing at words? Sleeping with this person or that? No. The theme was getting a job building things. And celebrity interest was embedded to the hilt in it. At the end, there was even a version called The Celebrity Apprentice. This interest in celebrities is not a Peter Keating thing. This is a reality of human nature thing. The choice is not between abolishing it like Roark or succumbing to it like Keating. That was fiction to illustrate the theme about what drives human productive creativity--and this theme was its limitation for showing human nature. Within that frame of limitation, it worked, too. But the choice reality provides real human beings living within the richness of everyday life is to use it for sleazy ends or good ends, and in both cases, to be competent at it or incompetent. I'm curious, though. What is so wrong about letting someone like Jennifer Grossman role play Rand on college campuses or in videos? Is she impeding Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro? Of course she isn't. Antifa impedes them, but Jennifer? This feels like a blasphemy thing even though I doubt it is. But there is hatred and contempt present from what I am reading. When I look on that, I know it exists because it's winding people up and getting them pissed. But just like with envy, I feel nothing inside myself--no resonance whatsoever. It's a big nothing, not good or bad. Just nothing. Jennifer is not the bad guy to me. Soros is a bad guy. Bernie Sanders is a bad guy. The pedos are bad guys. Antifa and so on on. But a lady who wants to role play Rand in public? I don't get it. If I don't want to see her do that, I won't look. Done. And that is so easy. It takes no effort. So I don't get the hatred and contempt and desire to make her behave differently than she wants to. Nor even why the call to eschew a fundamental part of the brain in persuasion as something good. If people want to do that in their own efforts, fine. Their choice. But why prohibit others from trying persuasion in that manner if they so wish? Any failure will be theirs, not Rand's. I want to make a zinger using the word cult against cult of personality, but I think I will just leave that thought right there unformed. Michael
  13. 2 points
    Ellen, LOL... You definitely are not the target audience for this TAS project. But think about presenting Rand to social justice snowflakes. Like it or not, these people vote and will soon be the ones in power. The hardass no nonsense battle ax figure is not going to get a hearing with snowflakes. It's not that they will disagree. They will not even get near that. Would you prefer to see the world ruled by them after they had some positive contact with Rand to prompt their curiosity, or with them believing the caricature sold by the progressives? That caricature is their starting point, not ours. So I, for one, don't mind an image of Rand that will draw them near enough to get curious about her rather than comfortable with the default stereotype in their minds. And just to be a pain in the ass, here is something for your viewing pleasure. I even followed a like by William just now to be reminded of this. Michael
  14. 1 point
    Another screenshot from Facebook. That's Robin Williams, so it doesn't have anything to do with the coronavirus. Unless one thinks of Robin Williams being a man ahead of his times. Michael
  15. 1 point
    Prepare for some rip-righteous spin on death numbers in the press. President Trump said the peak is coming, so they are gearing up with stories about the corpse wagons and mass graves. But before you start quaking in your books and bury your head in the sand, let Candace set the table about how the press operates with death numbers. Since we are talking about Candace, she's looking into what is really happening in hospitals in NY. Be a little scared. That's OK with outbreaks of disease. And be prepared. It's wise to do the common sense things like washing your hands, covering your sneezes and so on. But do not trust anything coming out of the press. Fear and panic increase their ratings. That's all they care about. They don't care about you. They don't even care about you if your eyeballs increase their ratings. They only care about their ratings. Fear works for that, so they sell fear. I never thought I would quote FDR, but he was right on this: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Michael
  16. 1 point
    Take care Peter. I for one will miss your posts. (Back to whatever I was doing now.)
  17. 1 point
    Brant, Peter is hurting from a death in his family that looked like the coronavirus, but was not tested. And his pain is deep. I feel it in between the lines in everything he writes right now. I have learned a lot about running an online forum, but I have not yet learned what to do when other people refuse to take things like that into account and bicker with him as if he were the enemy. He's not and never will be. A man in his kind of pain acts differently than he does normally. But it's hard to detect this online and even harder to get others to see it. What to do and what to do? Hell and damnation. How does one keep the fire burning in people's souls, call for exceptions due to context at the same time, and not piss off everybody? It's not either-or. Both the fire and the exceptions are what make for a healthy environment that will not die, but keeping that balance is a bitch. From what I've seen, an imbalance in this is what killed Atlantis--that is, Wales tried to impose the exceptions from the top and mold people into his vision. The passionate fire people simply left. I bet many thought, "Fuck you," as they left, too. As I've said several times, when I was in the underworld in São Paulo, they used to have a saying. When one bandit fights with another, you always know who wins: the police win. This is the same on a forum of ideas. When members bicker to the point of driving each other off, the bad guys targeted by the forum win. On a parallel note, I agree with you that technology will play a key role in the spread of Objectivism and libertarianism. But I don't think they will be as sub rosa as you do. I see these systems of ideas more as tempering agents that will keep the world from turning into a dictatorship by technocrats or a bunch of warring countries that erupt into world wars like last century. I honestly don't think President Trump could have happened without Objectivism and libertarianism. The penetration of leftism in education and the media was so deep in America, and the thirst for power so acute among the elitists, without a strong ideological wall in the hearts and minds of the people forgotten by the power-mongers, the average people who try to be good and strive on their own for improvement, the US would have gone the way of Russia, China and several other countries around the world. But it didn't. They fell and the US didn't. Why? There was too much moral individualism in the US, whereas in Russia, China, etc., there wasn't. The bad guys couldn't pull it off in the US especially because the families and friends of the young people they indoctrinated, and the ruling class people they corrupted even more than normal, held ideas that would not go away--ideas like do whatever you want so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, like every person's life belongs to himself or herself and not to a state or a mob, like wealth can be created and not just confiscated, like how important independent thinking is to one's happiness and self-esteem as opposed to groupthink, like any individual can rise as far as his or her ability and effort can take them, and so on. These ideas come from Objectivism and libertarianism, including the historical and intellectual roots of these systems. These ideas are kept alive in the culture by stories (especially film, video, novels, songs and so on), but also by public places like OL where ideas can be discussed, examined, bickered about, and used as a draw for gathering people to interact idea-wise with each other. No indoctrination on earth can fight the individual mind when so many opportunities to cultivate it exist in our culture. And no system of ideology, religion, philosophy, politics, etc., can stifle the individual mind when other systems that prize the individual mind--like Objectivism and libertarianism--keep the flame of liberty burning in the souls of individual hearts and minds. That flame of individual independence is our job--at least as I see it. Keeping it alive is what we do. That's what we are supposed to do. We are custodians of the flame in our part of the world, whether virtual or physical. That means we don't need to be an epic tale where we impose a philosophy on the whole world and transform it into a utopia according to the vision of Rand or Jesus or the Founding Fathers or anyone else. We don't need to be a world-changing movement in order to keep the world right. Hell, even President Trump's rise was not a movement to forge the planet into a utopia. His rise was a reaction to a deadly attack on a massive number of peaceful individuals by the ruling class. His rise was made by individuals who said, "Enough!" And he said, "You're right!" Don't think he doesn't know it. If no one believes that, imagine what would happen if President Trump turned into a typical ruling class asshole. Imagine what would happen to him personally. Not good... So I say we don't need to be molders of a new world. Not on a discussion forum. Leave that for the stories and storytellers. Epic stories are like the horizon, anyway. You use them as guides, but you never reach the horizon. You can only reach specific destinations and you can only experience that as an individual. That's just the way the world exists. It's a reality thing. But we can strive and there is great virtue in the striving. That's organic and it's growth. What's more, the transmutation of epic stories into reality where individual freedom is a core value can only be done by individuals to the extent they are able to. I am not John Galt. I am Michael Stuart Kelly. Ditto for you. You are Brant Gaede, not Galt. Even Ayn Rand was not Galt. She was Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, maker supreme of epic stories and horizon painter. Maker of Galt, for that matter. But she was still an individual, not a collective, and not a god. We don't create epic stories on OL, although I hope we can at some point. Our job at present is different by its nature. As individuals and as a discussion forum, all we need to do out here in reality is be a warm tavern on a stormy night for any traveler who wants to get out of the rain. We can do that because that fits our size. Just knowing taverns like this exist keeps many travelers going on their individual journeys or stopping to stay awhile--and that, more than anything else on earth, thwarts the authoritarians. OL can grow bigger or smaller, but keeping a flame alive in a warm fireplace for individuals when it's cold outside is one of the things we can do in practice. It's what we should do. It's our importance. We--and people like us--matter more than anyone in the mainstream ever talks about. We are the keepers of the flame, not just in story, but in reality. But there is one other thing we have to do. We have to keep from burning down the goddam tavern. Michael
  18. 1 point
    Michael quoted, “No matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it's always worse." That sounds like a “deep” generalization but taken by itself it is twaddle. For that to make sense you would need to explain what “something” is. Michael wrote: But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) end quote I skimmed it. But I will skim it again, Kemo Sabe. I saw that Rhode Island is considering a ban on New Yorkers crossing into their state. How would Ayn Rand view that? Peter Notes. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96. . . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others. end quote And in her article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote: In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." end quote Tonto called the Lone Ranger "quien no sabe" (he who knows nothing) and the Lone Ranger called his sidekick "tonto" (fool). NOTE: Tonto called the Lone Ranger "Kemo Sabe" which was actually a bastardization of the spanish "Quien no sabe". The writers were trying to come up with a phrase that meant "he who no one knows".
  19. 1 point
    Brant! I can't decide for you, laddy.
  20. 1 point
    I will stop debunking with this last word from Sherlock Holmes. Is a person epistemologically deficient if they believe much of what they read, put 2 and 2 together, and see 17? Peter An analysis of the evidence, according to the findings first published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, shows that the novel coronavirus "is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," with the researchers concluding "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." . . . . Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, supported the study’s findings, writing on his blog, "This study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19." Researchers concluded that the novel coronavirus is not a human creation because it does not share any "previously used virus backbone." It likely arose, the study said, from a recombination of a virus found in bats and another virus, possibly originating from pangolins, otherwise known as scaly anteaters. MORE: Coronavirus live updates: US now leads world with over 82,000 cases COVID-19 is 96% identical to a coronavirus found in bats, researchers said, but with a certain variation that could explain what has made it so infectious. "We know from the study of other coronaviruses that they’re able to acquire this [variation] and they can then become more pathogenic," Garry told ABC News. "This is a good explanation as to why this virus is so transmittable and has caused this pandemic." Notes. "You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?" The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890) Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)
  21. 1 point
    Oddly enough, Bob Dylan just released a 17-minute song today about the JFK assassination, "Murder Most Foul". Odd timing, since neither he nor JFK are really on anyone's minds, at the moment... from the article: The surprise track, which Dylan said only was recorded "a while back," comes eight years after his last album of original material. Little information was given about the surprise track, except for a brief statement from Dylan himself: “Greetings to my fans and followers with gratitude for all your support and loyalty over the years. “This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. “Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you. “Bob Dylan” A Dylan representative said the statement was all the information they would be releasing about the song, so whether “a while back” means a matter of months or many years remains a mystery. https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-releases-17-minute-song-jfk-kennedy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/
  22. 1 point
    Michael wrote on the Coronavirus thread: Peter has a treasure trove of archives from the old Atlantis forum. I block John La Cockroach but I read his message without logging in (since he is blocked and a block head.) I looked up the word Mason (and Free Mason) used on another OL thread and found this oldie. I seem to remember a picture of PinkCrash and she was pretty, with dark hair. Peter From: "Erik Herbertson" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:14:20 +0200. Here is an interesting article by a libertarian (Timothy Sandefeur) who have a different view on the American Civil War than the quite common among libertarians: www.zolatimes.com/V4.22/civil_war.html On www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo5.html there is the opposing view. The reason I pick this one up is partly because it deals with David Boaz (Cato Institute) article about the recent Mississippi flag controversy, partly because the very James McPherson mentioned in DiLorenzo´s article wrote a review on three books about the Civil War in the April 12 issue of The New York Review of Books. In the review McPherson writes that there are many facts (statements, articles, speeches, declarations etc.) supporting the view that the main goal of the leaders of the Confederacy in 1861 was the preservation of slavery. But after the war, many of them changed their motives in establishing a Confederacy to the issue of States rights instead. McPherson points out the fact that during the forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861 the presidents of the United States were slaveholding Southerners. At all times before 1861 a majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners. In the Congress, the Southerners were often in majority. In the House of Representatives Southerners had a disproportionate strength because of the electoral system "which stipulated that three fifths of the slaves were to be counted as part of a state’s population for purposes of determining the number of seats each state would have in the House. This provision gave slave states an average of twenty more congressmen after each census than they would have had on the basis of the free population above. The combined effect of these two constitutional provisions also gave the slave states about thirty more electoral votes than their share of the voting population would have entitled them to have."(McPherson). Anti-slavery Republicans called this situation the "Slave Power" and sometimes the "Slave Power Conspiracy". This political dominance of Southerners speaks against the claim that the antebellum South was concerned with states´ rights. As long as their pro-slavery interests were secured by a pro-slavery president and a pro-slavery majority in the Supreme Court and the Congress, they did not really care about states´ rights. McPherson: "In 1850 Southerners in Congress, plus a handful of Northern allies, enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slave owners, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners. Senator Jefferson Davis, who later insisted that the Confederacy fought for the principle of state sovereignty, voted with enthusiasm for the Fugitive Slave Law. When Northern state legislatures invoked states´ rights and individual liberties against this federal law, the Supreme Court with its majority of Southern justices reaffirmed the supremacy of national law to protect slavery (Ableman v. Booth, 1859). Many observers in the 1850s would have predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states´ rights were to occur, it would be the North that would rebel. The presidential election of 1860 changed the equation. Without a single electoral vote from the South, Lincoln won the presidency on a platform of containing the future expansion of slavery. Southerners saw the consequences that would likely follow. The Union now consisted of eighteen free states and fifteen slave states. Northern Republicans would soon control Congress, if not after this election then surely after the next. Loss of the Supreme Court would follow. Gone or going was the South´s national power to protect slavery; now was the time to invoke state sovereignty to leave the Union." The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions. The libertarian historian Jeffrey Hummel has written a book, "Emancipating slaves, enslaving free men", where he supports the right of CSA to secede, but he seems to have substantial information in his book, like criticism of CSA, for example. I haven´t read the book, just looked at some pages. It seems very interesting. I´m a Swedish citizen, and no expert on U.S. constitutional law, but it would be nice if some of you could comment this and perhaps bring me even more material on the subject. I would also like to know if Ayn Rand had any discussions about this subject. Erik Herbertson Opposing viewpoint Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The Cato Institute recently joined with the NAACP and the financial scandal-ridden left-wing hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in denouncing the Confederate battle flag and calling for its eradication from public spaces. In an April 16 article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal Cato’s executive vice president David Boaz argued that the last state to include the battle flag in its state emblem, Mississippi, should scrap it. Comparing the flag to posters of the communist terrorist Che Guevara or "vulgar bumper stickers," Boaz makes the untenable (and insulting) argument that the hundreds of thousands of Mississippians who favor keeping the emblem do so because they want to commemorate slavery. Anyone who disagrees with this theory, says Boaz, is a "spin doctor of the South," in other words, a liar. That would have to include nearly every serious historian. In The Causes of the Civil War, edited by the noted "Civil War" historian Kenneth Stampp, the issues of states rights versus centralized governmental power, the political plundering of the southern states with protectionist tariffs, tyranny of the majority, a conflict of cultures, and political blundering are all cited as contributing causes of the war. Only a small band of Marxist historians claims that the war was caused by slavery alone. And David Boaz too, apparently. Boaz buttresses his hypothesis with a quotation by University of Chicago philosophy professor Jacob Levy, who believes that "when the state speaks . . . it claims to speak on behalf of all its members." So, since not everyone approves of the Confederate battle flag, it should be taken down. That’s right, Cato’s executive vice president apparently believes that when Bill Clinton, the former chief spokesman of the American state, said that our taxes were too low, that criticizing government policy was tantamount to instigating terrorism, that he did not have sex with "that woman," and thousands of other lies and deceptions, he was speaking for all of us. Rubbish. Only in totalitarian societies does the state purport to express the views of every last citizen. Indeed, the history of totalitarianism is a history of snuffing out all dissenting views with tactics ranging from censorship to mass murder. To this list should be added the rewriting of history, which is really what the battle flag opponents are up to. In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar? Many Confederate soldiers thought of the war as "the Second war for American Independence." A Texas cavalryman told his sister in a letter that just as earlier Americans had "rebelled against King George to establish Liberty and freedom in this western world . . . so we dissolved our alliance with this oppressive foe and are now enlisted in The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence again." An Alabama infantryman wrote his mother, "If the mere imposition of a tax [in 1776] could raise such tumult what should be the result of the terrible system of oppression instituted by the Yankees?" Another theme in these letters was that many Confederates believed (and rightly so) that they were fighting to defend their property and families from a hostile invading army. "We are fighting for matters real and tangible . . . our property and our homes," wrote a Texas private in 1864. Union soldiers did not believe they were fighting to end slavery but to "preserve the union." "We are fighting for the Union . . . a high and noble sentiment, but after all a sentiment," wrote an Illinois officer, "They are fighting for independence and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders." Other Confederate soldiers sought revenge for the burning of southern cities and the murder of civilians, including women and children, while others voiced a desire to "protect the fair daughters of [the South] . . . from Yankee outrage and atrocity." When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." Boaz belittles the fact that tariffs and states’ rights were also motivations from the war, but the fact is, as soon as Lincoln took office the Republican Party, which virtually monopolized the federal government for the next seventy years, enacted tariff rates of nearly 50 percent, which remained at those levels for decades, and set in motion the great centralizing forces of federal power by adopting an internal revenue bureaucracy, central banking, corporate welfare, income and excise taxation, and the demolition of the system of decentralized government that was established by the founding fathers. Perhaps Boaz believes this was all just a coincidence. By calling for the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places the Cato Institute, the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are saying that we should destroy the most enduring symbol of opposition to centralized governmental power and tyranny, a symbol that to this day is a part of secession movements around the world, from Quebec to Northern Italy. No one was a more articulate and outspoken abolitionist than the great libertarian legal philosopher Lysander Spooner of Massachusetts. But in 1870 Spooner wrote that "all these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one." The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee on November 4, 1866, that "I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. . . . I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." Disavowing the views of these great libertarian scholars, Boaz apparently prefers the interpretations of history given by Kwesi Mfume, Al Sharpton, and Morris Dees. Some 620,000 Americans died in Lincoln’s war, at a time when the population of the U.S. was about 30 million. Standardized for today’s population, that would be roughly the equivalent of 5 million American deaths in a four-year war – 100 times the number of Americans who died in the ten-year Vietnam conflict. On the other hand, dozens of other countries during the nineteenth century ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. The death of some 300,000 Southerners, most of whom believed they were giving their lives for the causes of liberty, independence, and self government, is apparently of no concern to Boaz. He is only concerned about the purported sensitivities of American blacks, but shows no concern whatsoever for the descendants of hundreds of thousands of brave men who had nothing to do with slavery and who gave their lives for what Professor McPherson characterized as "deeply felt convictions." In war, the victors always get to write the history. A century of federal government propaganda about the causes and effects of the War for Southern Independence has been so effective that even the Cato Institute has apparently fallen victim to it. April 19, 2001 Thomas J. DiLorenzo is Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland. From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Re: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:01:31 -0500 Erik Herbertson wrote: "The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions." It is misleading to say that most of America's founding fathers wanted to end slavery. Many supported it, and virtually all of those who opposed it were gradualists who took a position akin to that of St. Augustine's prayer, "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet." There was a widespread belief that slavery was economically inefficient compared to free labor, so the South would eventually be forced to abandon slavery out of self-interested motives. As far as political measures to end slavery were concerned, the original strategy (embodied in the Constitution) was to prohibit the slave trade (not slavery itself) 20 years after ratification, in the hope that a purely domestic supply of slaves would be unable to maintain the "peculiar institution." Eric is right to point out that many founding father at least had serious "doubts" about slavery. Eric, for example, quotes George Mason's polemic against slavery, but he fails to mention that Mason himself was a slaveowner who said he would never free his slaves. He also conceded this was a contradiction which he would not attempt to rationalize or justify. As for the Southern "motive" for secession, this can be a difficult thing to get a handle on, because "motives" pertain only to individuals, not to collective entities, such as states. Although most southerners did not own slaves (and many commoners resented the slave owning aristocracy), it is clear that for many southerners the issue of slavery lit the fuse that would eventually ignite the struggle for independence. Nevertheless, the official southern rationale was independence. Likewise, the official northern rationale was the argument that secession is illegitimate. Lincoln was very clear about this: "My paramount object in this struggle *is* to save the Union, and is *not* either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing *any* slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing *all* the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union....." (Lincoln went on to note that this was his *official* position; personally, he would like to see all slaves set free.) Two other things should be kept in mind. First, the Union itself contained four slave states. Second, the Emancipation Proclamation "liberated" only those slaves in rebellious states; it did not free the slaves in the four Union border states, nor in those southern territories that had been conquered by Union armies. It is was simply and solely a war measure designed to weaken the South. (For more on this, see Jeff Hummel's excellent book, *Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* which Eric also mentioned.) Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well. Slavery aside, southerners had a number of legitimate grievances, such as the propensity of northerners to impose high tariffs that benefited northern manufacturing at the expense of southern agriculture. But we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence. But whatever the motives of some southerners may have been (and they were complex, sometimes having as much to do with cultural as with political reasons), both sides agreed that the Civil War was being fought over the right of secession. There are some parallels here with the American Revolution. The physician Benjamin Rush (the guy who convinced Thomas Paine to write "Common Sense") estimated that the motives of around one-third of the American revolutionaries were less than noble. (Some, for example, wished to escape the responsibility of paying their debts to British merchants, whereas others did not like the restraints imposed upon them to protect Indians.) Moreover, the British (for military reasons similar to those later invoked by Lincoln) offered to free any slaves that fought on the British side, and it is scarcely coincidental that most Indian tribes sided with the British as well. Thus, in the American Revolution as in the Southern Revolution, the motives of individuals were often varied and mixed. Lysander Spooner dealt with this troublesome issue by clearly distinguishing the right of secession from the motives that may impel some people to demand secession. Thus, although Spooner had long been a vehement abolitionist, he defended the southern cause, claiming it was as legitimate as the American revolution had been. I agree with him on this. Slavery was sanctioned and flourished much longer under the Union flag that it did under the Confederate flag. We should therefore take them both down, everywhere and permanently. If we must have a national symbol, then let us salute the old revolutionary flag with a coiled snake and the motto, "Don't tread on me." This would be a clear indication that Americans oppose all forms of slavery, both chattel and political, and regardless of whether the tyrant prefers to be called "Master" or "Mister President." Ghs From: "Erik Herbertson" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Re: American Civil War Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 01:07:14 +0200 Thank you George, for your response. When I asked about the motives for secession, I was more interested in the views held by the leaders of the Confederacy, rather than the various inhabitants of the South, who obviously held different views. In Sandefeur´s article there is a quote by CSA:s vice president Alexander Stephens, which underscores the claim that preservation of slavery was the main purpose for the leaders of the Confederacy. But yes, not even among "leaders" was this a unifying belief. General Robert Lee was against slavery. And certainly did many hold free trade arguments against Northern tariffs. But the British Manchester liberals and free traders Richard Cobden and John Bright supported the North. Among Republicans, such as Lincoln, Union seemed to be more important than the abolition of slavery, yes. But the Republicans at least had an ambition to do something about it, by forbidding its expansion to new territories and states. They could not abolish it altogether, because of the federal structure. The Emancipation Proclamation only liberated slaves in CSA territory because Lincoln only had military authority to decide about it there, but not in the rest of the Union. At least that is what I have read. But I don´t want to be Lincoln´s advocate. He did a lot of damage. I´m just assessing who is "better" in this conflict, if that´s possible at all. I don´t think it´s possible. The old revolutionary flag George mentioned seems to be a good symbol for real freedom fighters. Erik Herbertson From: PinkCrash7 To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:25:05 EDT George Smith wrote: >Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well. According to Steven Yates, author of "When is Political Divorce Justified?" in the book, _Secession, State and Liberty_, edited by David Gordon (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ 1998), "the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade importing any more African slaves, and [Jefferson Davis] once vetoed a bill which he deemed in conflict with this: 'Gentlemen of Congress: With sincere deference to the judgment of Congress, I have carefully considered the bill in relation to the slave trade, and to punish persons offending therein, but have not been able to approve it, and therefore do return it with a statement of my objections. The Constitution (Art. I, Section 7) provides that the importation of African Negroes from any foreign country other than slave-holding states of the United States is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same... This provisions seems to me to be in opposition to the policy declared in the Constitution - the prohibition of the importation of African Negroes - and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of that object.' "In other words, Davis knew the institution would gradually die out as more and more slaves were able to buy their freedom or die and not be replaced. "The reason the southern states gave for secession was their desire for a self-determination they saw themselves losing in the face of both government intrusions and broken agreements - in short, to escape a federal government which had already stepped outside its bounds...." The book, _Secession, State and Liberty_ is a fascinating book containing a collection of essays about secession -- including one by Murray Rothbard ("Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State") and another by Bruce Benson ("How to Secede in Business Without Really Leaving: Evidence of the Substitution of Arbitration for Litigation"). The one that I found the most interesting is by James Ostowski, "Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President's Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession". I would highly recommend this book to Erik and to anyone who is interested in the subject of secession. Debbie From: Michael Hardy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:09:27 -0400 (EDT) I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states. The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" states that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world," and goes on to enumerate various threats to that institution. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" complains at length about the refusal of northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the harboring of slaves charge with murder or with inciting servile insurrection, etc. It states over and over and over and over that it was from the "non-slave-holding states" that the state of South Carolina wished to be separated. Why just those ones? Why not all of the other states? George, how do you answer that? Did South Carolina have various separate grievances, unrelated to slavery, against precisely those states that, by some strange coincidence, also happened to be non- slave-holding states? And did they then refer to them by means of that coincidence without suspecting that they were setting themselves up to be misunderstood as acting for the purpose of preserving slavery? The "Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union" makes much of the ""beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery." Below I quote from the official Declaration of Causes of Secession of the state of Georgia. These documents are at <http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html>. Mike Hardy << A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. C ongress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensable for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious reviling’s and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands today a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. >> From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:30:07 -0500 Mike Hardy wrote: "I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states. The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons." Mike then quotes from the Declaration of Immediate Causes from Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, all of which refer to slavery in some fashion. I never denied that slavery played a significant role in secession -- indeed, I specifically stated that "we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence." But the issue is more complex that Mike has indicated. Secession occurred in two waves. Seven slave states seceded within three months of Lincoln's election, even though, apart from his opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories, Lincoln had pledged not to tamper with the peculiar institution. The second wave occurred after the Fort Sumter incident, when Lincoln had refused to evacuate Union troops from Charleston Harbor. This was the spark that caused four additional states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to join the rebellion. The Governor of Virginia (who had previously been critical of South Carolina's actions) flatly refused Lincoln's order to muster militia for to the purpose of forcing the rebellious states back into the Union, and he accused Lincoln of starting a civil war for the purpose of subjugating the South. As Jeff Hummel puts it: "Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary union." (*Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* p. 141.) This is what I meant in saying that the motives for secession were varied and complex. But it would be silly to say that slavery was the fundamental issue that was contested during in the Civil War (even if it was the motive that caused *some* southerners to demand independence), since neither side was calling for its abolition. (As I pointed out before, slavery was legal in four border states within the Union itself.) Rather, the fundamental issue had to do with the right of secession. This is an issue that had been debated in the United States for many years. Btw, I have no sympathy with either side in that bloody and senseless war. Ghs
  23. 1 point
    Oh, thank you, Great Oz! You are the genius behind the curtain. Maybe Jon La Cockroach can start his own thread. Just sayin'.
  24. 1 point
    Jon, there are some new Q drops today, regarding Habeus Corpus, that you may want to check out...
  25. 1 point
    Your objection is noted, Peter.
  26. 1 point
    Sorry, Peter, I don't always follow your stream-of-consciousness style of posting...
  27. 1 point
    Not my observations, just passing on the theory... (I have to say, with the utmost respect, and no insult, that the Q-community really did "weaponize autism", they are obsessively and meticulously finding some serious patterns and connecting some serious dots...)
  28. 1 point
    And let's not forget a detail that reminds me of academics and intellectuals. We could never leave them out. Then they would really hate us. Michael
  29. 1 point
    Ha, my middle name is John. I was slightly embarrassed to put that among such exalted company as Rand and Kipling.
  30. 1 point
    If the current world crisis was happening in my younger years, I might have joined these elephants. They wandered onto a farm in China because the people that normally fed them were not around. The people were staying indoors because of the coronavirus (see here). The elephants discovered a huge vat of wine and got plastered. Michael
  31. 1 point
    Trump agreeing with Newsom. It was beyond impossible just weeks ago, right? Newsom hates Trump, they hate each other. But look now at the incredible turnaround in Newsom. He was glowing last week about Trump’s administration getting him everything and more they promised and how great they are. He must have a gun to his head. And “agreeing with him” is a nice touch, isn’t it? For the lefties; their Newsom made a call and Trump followed. I think Newsom must be going along with orders as a deal to be spared execution. Totally controlled man now, which is very useful and good. Trump needs total shutdown martial law in CA as the enemy is deeply entrenched in a large area there. The takedown action is going to spill into commercial areas, retail, all areas, and the least number of people will get hurt if they are motivated to stay indoors at home. Final stages now, we are very close.
  32. 1 point
    There is no danger of pandemic, if there is any bug at all. This is the inevitable mass takedown many of us have anticipated. When you strike at a King, and all that. They tried to destroy our Republic, did you really think DJT would not create or exploit the perfect cover for all takedown activities, complete with huge quarantine centers in his enemies’ strongholds? Many of us will see things in the coming weeks that we would unmistakably and immediately recognize as a mass takedown event, under normal circumstances. But most people, enough people, have been rendered incapable of the correct identification of what they are about to see, and will instead call it “fighting coronavirus.” It is genius beyond comprehension. How do you keep a population calm while you round up the people they have been voting for all their life? You will see how in the coming few weeks. This is also the financial reset. Again, the collapse of the dollar Fraud Reserve is inevitable, has been since 1913. When did you think it would collapse? How much longer did you really think it could go? There will be no UBI, no socialism, no expansion of social support systems, but they will flood everyone with money to spend so that activity remains healthy through The Storm, I mean the coronavirus, and so that the people are safe and comfortable. People’s incomes will cease as they are forced to stay inside week after week. There would be desperation and unrest and violence and death. So everyone will be flooded with comforts. There is no other way.
  33. 1 point
    I knew about it, but it isn't a method favored by the particular plotters who are my focus. Look at the results with this COVID-19. It's getting globalists too and mucking up their money sources and communication routes and freedom to travel. Ellen
  34. 1 point
    You keep getting it wrong. I'm not the poo-poo head. You're the poo-poo head.
  35. 1 point
    No one knows what she would think? (About someone “Living History” getting up on stage as her for a Q&A in 2020?) Yes, you do.
  36. 1 point
    Jon, That's an opinion, I guess. Here's another. You're just wrong. So there. Nice chat... Michael
  37. 1 point
    I wasn't focused on whether he misunderstood her. I don't really care if he did. You have to take these two giants separately re their ideas, orientations and differing ages and backgrounds. Rand had a lot more time than Mises' to transcend her European background. They were both elitists. The masses in Atlas Shrugged were really Russians. For Mises', Germans. They were not championed nor protected by the masses as such so I guess they returned the favor. --Brant
  38. 1 point
    I don’t recall where she said that, do you? I can’t say I think I know what she means and I don’t recall any context.
  39. 1 point
    I’m not playing gotcha, you are just wrong about that person misrepresenting Rand’s message.
  40. 1 point
    Jon, When poor standards are used, it's easy to make anything like anything else. Of course Hillary Clinton and Ayn Rand are just alike. They're both women. And that means Ayn Rand is totally not like Donald Trump. One is a woman and the other is a man. Or, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are completely alike. Both are authors. Need I go on? Maybe a little more relevance in the standards would help. But think of the gotchas one could play doing it with poor standards. Michael
  41. 1 point
    I smell a rat and a big one. Somebody on the dark side is using this virus in a targeted manner. The Iranian lawmakers (10%). CPAC attendee. Etc. Oh, and there's this. Has anyone heard anything about Hong Kong protests? Hmmmmm... I could go on and on about the political games being played with this flu. And there's this. Bloomberg spent over half a billion dollars to run in the Dem primaries to take down Trump (i.e., take down people against the Deep State and globalism). Isn't it possible for Bloomberg to have gazillionaire friends who think the same way? So what if they lose a little money as they put their media toadies spreading panic over a virus? A little market manipulation here. Fake news there. It all adds up. Maybe this shot will take down the Trump. That's what the rat looks like to me. The virus is real. The size of, and danger posed by the problem given in the mainstream news isn't. Michael
  42. 1 point
    Jon, That Mises quote is disgusting. Seriously. It implies that superiority in some specialized productive area is the same as being a superior life form, including innate moral superiority. The elites and the livestock of humanity. I rant about this attitude constantly. Rand showed signs of being on board with this in that sense, too, in her earlier Nietzschean days. But later she developed a nice healthy respect for average working people. See her essay on Woodstock, for instance ("Apollo and Dionysus"). Hell, even in The Fountainhead, there was Mike the construction worker who was Roark's friend. Still, would Mises have confused Hillary Clinton with Ayn Rand? Michael EDIT: Come to think of it, my repulsion about the Mises quote is that he treated this as a class issue (the masses), not an individual issue (people within the masses). The implication in his quote is that if you are in "the masses" you are automatically an inferior human being. Not an inferior industrialist or scientist or whatever. An inferior human being. That's about as collectivist on an epistemological level as it gets. Thank God Mises was inconsistent on this point.
  43. 1 point
    More #YoUDoYou #Motivation. My two cents? It needs a comma. At the end. And then: You Lazy Fuck!
  44. 1 point
    I added to that post. Judging by the constant pushing, and I mean everyday for weeks now, of Rand Paul’s new book, (and of Chip Wilson, founder of Lululemon and nearly a god doncha know,) I gather that they stay afloat by taking donations to do specific things. After all, Dinesh D’Souza also has a great new book out about the perils of socialism yet Atlas has not once mentioned it, compared to many dozen praisings of Paul’s book. I have no inside grounded knowledge or even rumors about anything going on inside.
  45. 1 point
    Jon, Ditto. And you go get her. Michael
  46. 1 point
    Jon, False dichotomy. There is no cult of personality I detect in this discussion so far. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Very Proud Cultist here, in the newly conceived cult against cult of personality.
  48. 1 point
    Disrespectful and bizarre - as if she could imitate the real Rand (and is she going to attempt to imitate some of the famous Rand explosions?). People would come from distant places and line up for many hours to get into a real Rand Ford Hall Forum appearance. The performance was worth the travel and the wait. I wouldn't go to see Jennifer Grossman try to imitate Rand if she were doing it next door. Ellen
  49. 1 point
    This actually started tonight, at George Mason. Tomorrow at George Washington is also scheduled. A comment posted just now by Alex Mironov on Atlas’ Instagram: ”Ms Grossman gets the Toohey award for single-handedly killing any interest in Objectivism any George Mason student might have had tonight. Her crazy, erratic behavior was characterized as whacky by the students.”
  50. 1 point
    Then they re-posted, with different posting text ...