Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/20/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  2. 2 points
    The editor of The Objective Standard, a magazine affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, has finally responded to the revelations in ARI Watch’s exposé “Who is Carl Barney?" about ARI’s largest donor. ARI Watch reviews that response in a new article Barney Tells His Story. You can understand it by itself because it quotes the TOS article.
  3. 2 points
    The Perfect Storm for a VACCINE HOLOCAUST is Now Here video, 36 minutes -- Mike Adams https://www.brighteon.com/8879b5af-59b3-4ed3-98e6-f9037f22ade5
  4. 2 points
    The Real Roots of the Internet and Social Media The following video from Corbett is quite an education. You can get the transcript and sources here: Episode 359 – The Secrets of Silicon Valley: What Big Tech Doesn’t Want You to Know If you want to know why the claim is bogus that big tech companies are private companies, therefore they should be able to freely censor whoever they please over political preference, take a look at this video. Would one ever make political preference a condition for civil service or joining the armed forces? Of course not. There is a fact that is becoming clearer and clearer to the public as time goes on. Big Tech is Big Government in the guise of private companies. But the big tech companies were and still are funded in great part by the government. And they never strayed from their real purpose, covert surveillance and influence of people in foreign lands--and ditto for American citizens. From that lens, a hell of a lot of mysterious happenings start making sense. Michael
  5. 2 points
    Michael, What you say about Q is along the lines I've been thinking, too. Sometimes Q is right, sometimes wrong, but always Q gets people questioning and poking and prying. William's supercilious negativity was what first aroused my interest. William's effective as a reverse indicator. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    I haven't read the article , so I don't know who is shilling for whom. But whenever I hear about conspiracy theories relating to tech companies becoming seemingly tech behemoths it makes me wonder whether the behemothing was orchestrated by other than market forces. Especially things tech/social/media. I get there can be tons of money chasing info /data the sellers can take advantage of for marketing and such. It would be hard to direct all that spending toward mining that data if it were spread out far and wide, fortunately the behemoths aggregate a lot of it and fortunately since a large majority of everyone uses the behemoths we are pretty comfortable using them . It's odd there is Coke and Pepsi but no Google and .., or YouTube and .., no? I get Carnegie built US Steel , but he acquired and built his way to that, bought other independent companies , integrated supply chains ect. US internet behemoths feel like they sprang from nothing to everything , did Facebook ever experience a lack of servers that limited their capacity ? Or YouTube? Did they acquire others' capacities ? How much investment is/was needed for the hardware ? I am completely ignorant of the cost structure for the industry , but I assume the price of raw computing power has decreased in at least the last decade, though I doubt Mom or Pop would be able to out compete the existing titans just on the hardware costs alone. But as I said I'm ignorant of the cost structure and perhaps that just feeds my bias toward sympathy for the idea that Big Brother helped to make sure all the lovely data and control bottlenecks seem to be limited to a few players.
  7. 2 points
    She knows shit about predators. --Brant been there, done that, smack, smack, smack if humans weren't predators, we'd have eyes on the sides of our heads
  8. 2 points
    Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop. Just to let you know: I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days. I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow. Oh, such fun. Ellen
  9. 2 points
    Jon, tks, tsk. You are a naughty child. Might be? You said, "Might Be?" So you don't know. But you are just fine saying things without any proof. How do you know Richard Branson? How do you Richard knew NXIVM? People lie all the time, and they can EVEN lie under oath or they can fool a lie detector. You lack credibility.
  10. 1 point
    William's power is only from our engagement of him. --Brant
  11. 1 point
    Notice how the spin is that the Trump allowed the meddling in the last Presidential election? Fox had a new video of Joe Biden talking about Russian and other meddling in the last Presidential election. He said something like this didn't happen on the Obama / Biden watch. But Joe? It did. You were IN POWER in 2016 and Trump didn't get sworn in until January 2017 if I have my calendar dates right. So Jobama allowed the meddling and they should be held accountable.
  12. 1 point
    Disrupting How Progressivism Works in America Regular Progressivism as a process of political change in America (baby steps) rarely fails, but it's slow. As shown below, there is a tonic. The jig can get blown when a Black Swan (say, a wildcard like President Trump) disrupts the ongoing progress of the ideological-political conveyor belt. The result is that, in panic, the "Progressives" who are progressing a specific agenda will freak and show their cards way too early. It's the paranoia of a liar who loses the attention of his target and thinks that means he's been busted. Here's how it works. 1. The Progressives decide on an unpopular position they want to ram down the throats of everyone, which means they get the power to do that and others not only have to take it, they have to pay for it. For example, let's say they wanted the US government to pay for the health care of illegal aliens. They know few people want that, so they first have to put in a foundation and dress it up to make it sound reasonable, even the opposite. Then, from a position of power, present the foundation to the public. President Obama did this with Obamacare. 2. After their "foundation ploy" is out in the open, they fish for displays by the opposition--they actually goad the opposition to get reactions. That way they can bash the opposition with trigger words/phrases and accusations about violating procedures of decency, yada yada yada--and they have prepared all this in advance. For example, in September 2009, Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina gave President Obama a gift when he yelled out in Congress, "You lie!" to Obama's claim that no health care benefits would be given to illegal aliens. Obama had been goading the opposition in his speech to the joint session of Congress and practically daring anyone from the opposition to say anything. Just listen to the booing-like reactions every time he said the opposition was getting it all wrong. Obama's smirk after Wilson yelled that "you lie" comment said it all, though. You can almost see him think, Ha! That worked better than I expected. Then he recovered his "serious" demeanor and went on to claim that no federal funds would pay for abortions (but that's a different issue he was ramming down people's throat using this same system, double dipping so to speak). In this post, I will only stay with the issue of illegal aliens getting US taxes in the form of free health care for the sake of making the process very easy to understand. 2. KABOOM! See the headlines at the time. The condescension and tut-tut-tutting from Progressives was as thick as a ton of cowpiles. The Progressives lived off the fallout (to that and the general wave it created) without any serious pushback for several years. Hell, ripples even extended into the next administration when McCain stopped Obamacare from being repealed in the Senate. 3. But President Trump happened, their Queen designate was not crowned, and the Progressives not only lost their power, they lost their bearings. I don't need to illustrate that. We all know what happened. The result is that their timing on the true intended outcomes of their different policy agendas went seriously haywire and they have been running around in circles ever since. 4. Now they have a shot to regain their power with another election, but they have lost all sense of how their own system works policy-wise, in other words, it is grounded on selling a bait-and-switch through patience, not hysteria or brute force. (Apropos, brute force is not out of the picture, though. It only comes in at the end if they get real power, not "checked and balanced" power. Then they start the mass killings few of them, only the insiders, realize is coming. See the several major leftie nations where mass graves exist as examples.) The video below is a perfect example of what happens when someone disrupts the Progressive process in a major way. Don't forget, Obama claimed there is no way the US will pay for the health care of illegal aliens, right? Just look. Every goddam one of those Democrats on the first night of the primary debates for the 2020 election raised their hand saying they wanted illegal aliens to get US taxes in the form of free health care. The truth is, even for Obama back then, that is what they wanted all along. The rest was bait. But they screwed up. They just gave President Trump and other Republicans running in 2020 a hell of an image for campaign ads. All because they lost their marbles when someone threw a monkeywrench in the gears of the conveyor belt they were on. They were doing the long con and got stalled by an unexpected event. Now, in panic, thinking they've been busted anyway, they are unmasking themselves on the long con thinking this is how they are going to get their power back. Jeez... Talk about discombobulated... I thought they were better as opponents... The conclusion? We need more Black Swans. We need more disruptive, but productive, people like President Trump. The Progressives will not stop building sandcastles of worship to lousy gods to mold with cement, but a good strong wave before the cement dries collapses them every time. Michael
  13. 1 point
    How many deaths can be laid on l B Johnson and Robt MacN for how they did the Vietnam War? I count five million plus or minus a million. This includes the Cambodian communist generated genocide. Now these are part of various results. lBJ and Abraham Lincoln were smart men deluded into righteousness. Woodrow Wilson did by far the most damage. No prof. should even be elected President. But the Communists and the Nazis were and are pure murdering evil. We are surrounded today by Communists in academia, the media and big Corp. media, so called msm. Most don't know who they really represent and/or are.--If they aren't stupid they aren't educated. Never mind evil. The evil is in the rest of us for not rousting them out. Then the rest of ID's salvation is hunting them down. --Brant you can vote yourself intso fascism but then you'll have to shoot yourself out (not original by me)
  14. 1 point
    Final days of Seth Rich conspiracy peddling? Kevin Poulsen has a different perspective, based on the Mueller Report itself: Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians Julian Assange repeatedly blamed Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer, for Russia’s leaks. The Mueller report shows that Assange was lying from the start. Exclusive: The true origins of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. A Yahoo News investigation.
  15. 1 point
    Jonathan, I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.) Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here). Ah... the matters of the heart... She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. Objectivism in action, that it is... Michael
  16. 1 point
    Before and after memes can get quite cute: Michael
  17. 1 point
    Peter, I don't know all that much about the Proud Buys, but I have listened to them being talked about (was it by someone on David Rubin or Joe Rogan? -- somewhere like that, and not just once). Going on what I have heard, apparently the Proud Boys came into being to protect Trump supporters at pro-Trump rallies or other anti-left gatherings like the Charlottesville thing to protest removing Civil War era statues of Confederate leaders. The Proud Boys are said to have been founded by Gavin McInnes, but I have also heard they were in existence before he got involved. Back when all this started, do you remember that some people, thugs, were being hired by the Democrats to start trouble at pro-Trump gatherings? Antifa joined in over time with gusto, carrying baseball bats. A group of people joined together, called themselves the Proud Boys, and basically said if these Antifa goons show up with baseball bats, they will encounter some serious resistance that punches back. They did, too. There are several videos I have seen where an Antifa goon(s) attacked someone who looked like a Proud Boy and got knocked on their ass. The anti-Trump press greatly favors Antifa and they have made up a lot of nasty shit about the Proud Boys, and it's so much shit that no one knows what is true or false anymore. Whenever there are rallies or voting or any event that looks like Antifa will show up, the Proud Boys tend to show up, too, to protect the gatherers. They are constantly goaded by Antifa and Antifa supporters, who found out that baseball bats give a poor press image, so they now use attack gloves, bicycle locks, fast-drying cement bricks, and anything else they can hide or or camouflage, but that draws blood. Anyway, whatever the reason, one or the other of the Proud Boys snapped a couple of times and got caught on tape pounding on an Antifarian goon with some serious pounding. The press went nuts even as they mostly ignored similar things on the other side like Antifa throwing camouflaged cement bricks at Andy Ngo and busting his head. There are so many stories like this, it's not funny. Notice Antifa goons wear masks and look like goons. The Proud Boys do not. Maybe the Proud Boys do some crazy shit now (I seriously don't know since I don't follow them), but if they do, they didn't start that way. To be frank, I don't trust anything the anti-Trump fake news media says about them (racist, incel, masturbation, etc.). This goes for Wikipedia, too. But I suspect I know why the press covers for Antifa. Whenever you see Antifa members without their ski masks on, you see they are generally white and upper class. (Not much diversity there.) So these Antifa goons may be the sons and daughters (and their friends) of serious power players among the establishment ruling class. Our fearless leaders are merely protecting their kids when their kids bloody up Trump supporters, and these fearless leaders will be goddamed if they will allow their sons and daughters to be humiliated in the press by photos and videos of them being knocked out with easy punches, even as they are armed with sundry devices like attack gloves and in goon uniform. Michael
  18. 1 point
    No need for a new thread about this. The Antifa assholes never changed. Journalist Andy Ngo just got beat up by a group of masked Antifa thugs in Portland, Oregon, and he had to go to the hospital. According to the Portland Police, some of the milkshakes thrown at him contained quick-drying cement. In other words, they were like bricks. And this... And this... Here are a few facts from leftie Heavy. The rhetoric is pretty much slanted left, but the facts seem accurate. Andy Ngo Attacked: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know This is getting the attention of major Fox News talent (including Laura Ingraham) , so I imagine it will be all over the rest of the mainstream news later. The fake news media would probably not report this in ordinary circumstances, but there are pictures of actual blood circulating, so I don't think they will be able to help themselves. Michael
  19. 1 point
    Starting in late July I pledge $100/mo to OL. I am quite capable of raising that if I read any more crap about how donating to OL grants anybody, including myself, any special status here. --Brant
  20. 1 point
    On Infowars: Blacklist: MSM Ignores Project Veritas Bombshell Google Exposé And there follows screenshot evidence. It's quite a show. Another quote from the end. I believe it correctly states what most Trump supporters--and even some anti-Trumpers--think about all this. But there is someone who did notice. The Google lady busted in the video: This is not how I expected Monday to go! by Jen Gennai She doesn't like it when the crap lands on her. She cried foul because people decided to do this covertly. But when you listen to the video, she likes it when it lands on others, especially when Google does it covertly. At least she said this: Imprecise language? Heh... Well done? She should know... Michael
  21. 1 point
    Michael, Nice, I see a tie-in there with what's going on now: a drawing is 'real' but not a real thing (it's a "representation" of what is real, or perhaps to be realized). That's what happens with words especially ones which hurt, and particularly online where you don't see the 'person' and physical reactions of one's respondents. So we get "sticks and stones .. but words will never hurt me". But they do, of course. To be kept in mind, certainly. The word-symbols i.o.w are unreal (abstract) and also 'real'. Goes for cyber-reality also . Keeping the connection is the trick. Like some of us wrt mechanical drawings who tend foremost to see the wheel- reality behind the representations, for whom wheel-drawings stand for the real thing, not e.g. a puzzle in geometry. Anyway, you got me on about something fascinating I've observed about different individuals. There was a 'literalness' about Rand, too - e.g. to her, visual art represented/recreates (as some artist's mind images it) the "real" - and should, or can only, be taken as such. As directly real as words, to her. Anyway thanks...
  22. 1 point
    Wow, you have been on a roll Jon. No prob, Ive been told worse.
  23. 1 point
    I don't agree that what Jon was doing is bullshit. I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter. Ellen
  24. 1 point
    “Grabs some popcorn.” hahaha?
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    Transference [trans-fer´ens] in psychiatry, the unconscious tendency of a patient to assign to others in the present environment feelings and attitudes associated with significant persons in one's earlier life; especially, the patient's transfer to the therapist of feelings and attitudes associated with a parent or similar person from childhood. The feelings may be affectionate (positive transference), hostile (negative transference), or ambivalent. Sometimes the transference can be interpreted to help the patient understand childhood attitudes. end quote A person who transfers their personal feelings into an attack on another person, attributing what they are ashamed of, to that other person, is not a good characteristic and should not be condoned. Take each instance of name calling or slander and wonder, “Is that what they are really like?” Perhaps, Ellen Stuttle may be one person with an opinion on this, but anyone, please feel free to contribute. Peter
  27. 1 point
    If a person cusses or bullies in writing, what is the possibility that that is how they act in their personal life? That sounds harsh and a bit too personal but not if someone claims they have no control over their actions. Involuntary and volitional contradict each other. Peter
  28. 1 point
    I went back to a few days (maybe two not counting today) and here is one opinion expressed. Can you figure out who said these things? Peter Hoping for a different outcome like the retard I say you are. . . . snap out of it. Now respond politely, as though that’s what I’m doing, ok? ‘Cause those are the rules of politeness in PeterLand. Or shut the fuck up with your sermons from now on. Deal? Fuck off pedophile. Fuck your light humor. I wasn’t hostile until after this shit from shithead-in-Chief. Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits such as yourself. How many coups, fucktard? Go fuck yourself, Peter, that's what happened in Dominican Republic.
  29. 1 point
    Um, I think something I said didn't communicate accurately to you if you think that I ever placed no plausibility on what you're saying. I've placed a lot of plausibility on it all along. My asking questions about details - and entering correctives on certain wordings you've used (such as "total control") - isn't meant as questioning the fundamentals of "Gang" existence and goals. I have no doubt of the reality of those. Ellen
  30. 1 point
    My reference was to "The Gang," Peter, as per Jon's usage, not "a gang." Read Jon for details on who "The Gang" are. LOL I don't think you're gonna get the discourse style you want - although not treating Jon as a kook would help if you want politeness from him. Ellen
  31. 1 point
    Thug life. "Fuck off, pedophile."
  32. 1 point
    I suspect that President Trump was doing a head fake by ordering, then calling off the attack. Rope-a-dope and head fakes are two of his favorite tactics. I don't see him changing this just because of scope. So we have to wait and see what happens. Based on Trump's past, I think it likely something unexpected is going to happen that will cause a big splash and probably resolve a lot. As to Pelosi and Schumer, they are funded by the war machine (military-industrial complex). No wonder they were happy. More bombs means more money in their coffers. The anti-war left (like Jimmy Dore) constantly bitch about them for this. They also bitch about CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. Notice that every time President Trump does something warlike, the leftie war-mongering press suddenly goes soft on him. Remember Brian Williams calling the 2017 Syrian strike "beautiful," saying things like "beauty of our weapons" and so on? They only go hard on President Trump when he does things like increase the prosperity of average citizens. Michael
  33. 1 point
    And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer. Ellen
  34. 1 point
    'Tis revealing, Pelosi et al's glee at the prospect of escalation. Ellen
  35. 1 point
    And you know this how? You make yourself sound like an expert but I doubt you are. You can't be trusted. Peter, headquarters and headquarters battery, seventh infantry division artillery, signing off. And remember Scouts, artillery is spelled with an e and not artillary.
  36. 1 point
    Of interest? Posting Guidelines 1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion. 2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum. 3. As Internet copyright laws are often vague (as of this writing) between what the law states and its application, we request users to use common sense in posting materials that might be copyrighted. If possible and when in doubt, posters should request permission from the owner first. Our intent is not to infringe the law and any material posted that blatantly infringes USA copyright law will be removed. (See Statement of Policy about Plagiary and Copyright Infringement.) 4. The site owners, at their discretion, may delete offensive or improper posts or parts of them, including links. Also, posts and threads may be moved on this forum from one place to another as new sections open up or if a topic is found to be more suited to a different section. Site owners and moderators may also edit posts to correct issues such as font size, typos, spelling errors, broken links, or other minor formatting issues, just as a matter of . . . .
  37. 1 point
    And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.
  38. 1 point
    Look at your sources man. RonSneaky? If you read it on the net or hear it on the telly, must it be true? Can you converse without getting emotional and worked up?
  39. 1 point
    You were viewing "What's Up With." Damn. You got scared.
  40. 1 point
    Aha! From the site, Necker Island: Necker Island is a 30-hectare island in the British Virgin Islands just north of Virgin Gorda. The island's land is entirely owned by Sir Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, and is part of the Virgin Limited Edition portfolio of luxury properties. The whole island operates as a resort and can accommodate up to 34 guests, with additional room for , , , , So, if you own a resort and Che shows up, you are a communist?
  41. 1 point
    When conspiracy theories surface I read them and listen but I withhold judgement. Show me the proof.
  42. 1 point
    I went to the Fox link about NX. The dude left wiki in 2002. This is from that article. Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons (the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote) is rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts. Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law. The first category, entitled “Pedophilia,” contains 25-30 explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. The category was created three years ago. Wiki’s response: “The Wikimedia Foundation obeys the law. In the weeks since Sanger’s published allegations, the Wikimedia Foundation has not been contacted by the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency with regard to allegedly illegal content on any Wikimedia projects. Our community of volunteer editors takes action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention. The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the Wikimedia editors who zealously work to keep the projects free of illegal material. If and when we are informed by law enforcement agencies of illegal content that has not already been removed through self-policing, we will take quick action to delete it.” Sanger contacted the FBI> So, where is the FBI? Why haven’t they swooped in and rounded the criminals up?
  43. 1 point
    Does anyone know of any new legal charges being brought to bear? When I searched for NX I saw Goldie Hawn of all people had pulled out of a speech she was to give there, after an article about the group appeared. I tried to search for people who had been to parties at NX and went to a NY Post story and my computer when thud and I had to reboot. The UK’s Daily Mail has a story that two “wild parties” were held on Branson’s island. However, A Virgin Management spokesman said that 'there is absolutely no association between Sir Richard and the Nxivm group or its leader.' Branson reportedly denies even knowing the group or any supposed activities on his Necker Island. Most of the news sources that pop of with these stories appear to be fringe, fake journalism. Wikipedia is not hiding facts about this group as far as I can tell. I still do not see a tie in between NXIVM and Jimbo, or Branson. Is it possible as with the Goldie Hawn case, people are duped into attending something also attended by NX members? Or they do not know who these NX people are, at all? Why are major reputable news sources NOT running with this story? there are a few names mentioned below. Peter From WIKIPEDIA: NXIVM (/ˈnɛksiəm/ NEKS-ee-əm) is an American multi-level marketing company[2] based near Albany, New York, that offered personal and professional development seminars through its "Executive Success Programs". The company has been described as a cult and a pyramid scheme, and has also been alleged to be a recruiting platform for a secret society (variously called "DOS" or "The Vow") in which women were branded and forced into sexual slavery. In early 2018, NXIVM founder Keith Raniere and his associate, actress Allison Mack, were arrested and indicted on federal charges related to DOS, including sex trafficking.[3] Others associated with NXIVM were also charged with federal crimes. As of April 2018, five people associated with NXIVM—Mack, NXIVM co-founder Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Seagram heiress Clare Bronfman, and bookkeeper Kathy Russell—had pleaded guilty to various charges.[4][5] Raniere's federal trial began on May 7, 2019. On June 19, 2019, he was convicted of sex trafficking and racketeering.[6][7] Notable members[edit] NXIVM was founded by Keith Raniere (born August 26, 1960).[89] In March 2018, Raniere was arrested and indicted on a variety of charges related to DOS (a "secret sisterhood" within NXIVM), including sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit forced labor.[3][53] His trial began on May 7, 2019.[90] In 1998, Keith Raniere met Nancy Salzman, a nurse and trained practitioner of hypnotism and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The two founded "Executive Success Programs", a personal development company[8] offering a range of techniques aimed at self-improvement.[9][10][11] Barbara Bouchey was a client of Nancy Salzman, having been referred to her in 1988. Beginning in 2000, Bouchey dated Raniere. In 2009, Bouchey and eight other women ("The NXIVM Nine") confronted Raniere with concerns about abuse within the organization. That year, Bouchey left the group and later went to law enforcement.[91] In 1991, Raniere was pitching his business "Consumer's Buyline" when he met Toni Natalie.[92] Natalie and her then-husband became top sellers for the organization. [92] Natalie recalled that she was able to stop smoking after a two-hour session with Raniere.[92] Within a year, Natalie and her son had moved to be near Raniere; her marriage ended shortly thereafter. Natalie and Raniere dated for the next eight years.[92] In the mid-90s, Raniere and Natalie operated a health-products store.[93] In 1999, Raniere's eight-year relationship with Natalie ended. Natalie would subsequently claim to have been the victim of harassment.[94] In a January 2003 ruling, federal judge Robert Littlefield implied Raniere was using a legal suit to harass Natalie. Wrote Littlefield: "This matter smacks of a jilted fellow's attempt at revenge or retaliation against his former girlfriend, with many attempts at tripping her up along the way"[95][92] In 2011, Natalie filed documents in federal court alleging that she had been repeatedly raped by Raniere.[92]Sara Bronfman is the daughter of billionaire Seagrams chairman Edgar Bronfman Sr who was introduced to NXIVM by a family friend in 2002.[88] She in turn introduced her sister, Clare Bronfman to NXIVM. Clare Bronfman was arrested by federal agents on July 24, 2018 in New York City and charged with money laundering and identity theft in connection with NXIVM activities. She pleaded not guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn. She was released on $100 million bond and placed on house arrest with electronic monitoring. [96] On April 19, 2019, Bronfman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conceal and harbor illegal aliens for financial gain and fraudulent use of identification. She faces 21 to 27 months in prison and has agreed to forfeit $6 million.[97]Allison Mack is an American actress known for her role on the series Smallville. In 2010, Mack was reported to have been recruited to the Vancouver chapter of the multi-level marketing organization NXIVM, along with her Smallville co-star Kristin Kreuk.[98] Mack was arrested in Brooklyn by the FBI on April 20, 2018, on charges of sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and forced labor conspiracy in relation to her role in the NXIVM organization. Mack pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in April 2019, and is currently awaiting sentencing in September 2019. Sarah Edmondson is a Canadian actress. After leaving NXIVM in early 2017, she publicly denounced the organization, claiming that she was invited into "DOS," a substructure within NXIVM operated by Keith Raniere and Allison Mack, and was branded with Raniere's and Mack's initials at Mack's Albany home.[99][100][101] Edmondson showed the brand in a New York Times expose of NXIVM.[99]India Oxenberg, daughter of actress Catherine Oxenberg, was introduced to the group in 2011. [102] At Raniere's trial, a witness testified that India had spent a year on a 500-calorie-per-day diet.[103] In May 2017, India admitted to her mother that she was among those who had been branded.[104] India left the group in June 2018, after Raniere's arrest.[105] In August 2018, Catherine Oxenberg's book Captive: A Mother's Crusade to Save Her Daughter from a Terrifying Cult was published.[106]Mark Vicente, a filmmaker known for the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?, began involvement with the group in 2005. Vicente testified against Raniere at his 2019 trial.[107]
  44. 1 point
    after a search of a few minutes, Jimmy Wales an objectivist who resides in London, seems to be a straight shooter and has had no hints of sexual perversion. Richard Branson? He seems like a decent “rich” sort and I could not find any real scandal after a few minutes of searching. He bought Necker Island, in The British Virgin Islands and his house was destroyed by Hurricane Irma in 2017. From Entrepreneur online. Richard Branson's 8 Keys to Happiness and Success. It boils down to family, friends, fun, purposeful work and money -- in that order. 1. Don’t measure your success by the amount of money you make. 2. Unplug and focus on face-to-face conversation. 3. Have fun in everything you do. 4. Find a hobby that gets you outside. 5. Dream big. 6. Learn as you go. 7. Be fearless in trying new things. 8. Make happiness a habit.
  45. 1 point
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  46. 1 point
    Tony and Korben, Both of your comments treat the Golden Rule as a primary. A contextless rule for all occasions. And that's the fallacy I see in all the criticism coming from our neck of the woods. It's like saying selfishness is a moral good without saying we are speaking from a Randian perspective underneath it. For those who think selfishness is simply taking stuff from others and trampling over babies if one feels like it, they could equally say they had bad experiences with selfish people or there is a logical fallacy in the moral concept, there is a misused mean in the root, and so on. The Randian ethics of selfishness is not a primary. It rests on Randian fundamentals like the axiomatic concepts, reason, productive achievement heroism, etc. Yet there is a form of selfishness that is legitimate (just open any dictionary) and it is bad. Does this mean selfishness qua selfishness is simply a subjective moral concept? That it is invalid? Or does it mean it is a subordinate moral concept? I say subordinate. As to the inconveniences of how religious folks use the Golden Rule, the problem ain't in the rule, but in what their religion means to them. That's the fundament. The Golden Rule is simply a form of implementing it. It's more a process standard than a value standard. Anyway, I happen to think it's a great idea for a person to use the same moral standards for others that he adopts for himself. Think about it. Is there a word one can use to describe employing a different moral standard for others than for oneself? Does the word subjective come to mind? Michael
  47. 1 point
    You have made this claim before, and I have already shown why it is fallacious. Taxes cannot be shifted forward to the consumer through a raise in the price of a good without affecting demand for that good and consequently revenues. Suppose, for example, that under our current version of "American Capitalism," the legislature doubles or triples the gasoline tax. Not a problem, you say. All the entrepreneur has to do raise his prices accordingly. But if the price of lumber (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many homes be built? If the price of bus travel (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many tickets be purchased? The effects of taxation are real and involuntary. This is not Magic Pink Pony Land.
  48. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.
  49. 1 point
    That which I think has been most harmful to the Objectivist movement: Objectivists who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety, that it is a perfect, integrated system, and that to disagree with any "essential" aspect of it is to reject Objectivism, and, therefore, to become an "enemy of Objectivism." This view seems to cause people to behave in self-limiting and self-destructive ways. It causes them to publicly declare things like, "If you're not purely Objectivist (as defined by us), we don't want you, we don't need you, so fuck off." (Attractive slogan, no?) Those who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety often seem to think that it also must be promoted in its entirety, which means that formal educational programs must be the primary means of spreading Objectivist ideas. It seems that even conversations must come as close as possible to resembling a lecture: an Objectivist Crusader usually can't discuss, say, a current political event or a work of art without mentioning Objectivism, quoting Rand, quizzing his opponents on their knowledge of Objectivism, and making suggestions about how they might study Objectivism better. One can't "leave them hungry and begging for more" - one can't be clever and original in an argument, inspiring his opponents with new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and wait for them to ask what his intellectual influences were. No, in all intellectual discussions, a proper Objectivist Crusader must tie the issues and arguments to the whole of Objectivism immediately. In effect, he must change the subject of every conversation to Objectivism. (And from what I've seen, he must also lecture his opponents about Objectivism even after they've repeatedly told him that they are bored out of their freaking minds, no longer listening, and sick and tired of his intrusive, pompous, condescending behavior.) Since no two people will ever agree precisely on what is "essential" to Objectivism, I think that the "Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety" approach is a major cause of the movement's extreme sectarianism and sycophancy. Objectivists often seem to see everyone beyond their insular little cliques as attacking Rand and Objectivism (even strictly personal conflicts are treated as attacks on Objectivism). The movement is full of petty, abusive and manipulative behavior, lies, "airbrushing," public excommunications, denouncements and betrayals -- usually over minor, esoteric differences or purely personal issues -- and ridiculously overblown senses of self-righteousness and self-importance. All of it very public, all of it in the name of "defending" Objectivism, and all of it seen as highly heroic only by those indulging in it. J PS - This (which I've posted elsewhere a few times) is what I think that radio commercials would sound like if businesses borrowed the Objectivist movement's theory of marketing: "The McDonald's on 3rd and Maple is evil. They don't understand or practice the true McDonald's methods and recipes. They are false friends of McDonald's. For one thing, they don't correctly arrange the reconstituted onions on their Big Macs. And their Special Sauce applicator is totally inconsistent. Sometimes the amount of sauce it squirts out is too much or too little by up to 8 percent! If you want a ~real~ Big Mac, eat at our McDonald's out on Highway 18. We are the only true defenders of Ray Kroc's vision. Be forewarned that before ordering, we will expect you to sign an oath that you will never eat at the evil 3rd and Maple McDonald's. They are piece of shit lying scumbag fuckheads who are trying to destroy the purity of of the McDonald's name. We will not sanction your sanctioning them."
  50. 1 point
    Barbara, I have to disagree even that it's "an intelligent and valuable argument." The one point she makes which is important to try to make is that if the energy restrictions desired by the AGW (anthropogenic global-warming) proponents are instituted, this would mean severe consequences for the quality of living of multitudes, and literal death for many -- the exact consequences and figures are speculative, but they'd certainly be draconian. However, she goes so far over the top in her demonizing of liberals, she loses credibility even on the nugget of truth in what she's saying. And I think "embarrassing" isn't the word for what her views on evolution make her look like in scientific circles. There's no way I'd even bring up that article, let alone recommend it as "worth reading," to any of the scientific types I know. And the problem it presents from Larry's standpoint is that the scientists he's trying to persuade to look more carefully at the scientific issues pertaining to AGW are only too likely to hear of the article (not from him) and to bring it up in just the vein Brant described, as indicating that only "the freaks and nutcases" are taking the anti-AGW side. Ellen ___