Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/05/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Lo and behold, just days after Berman's being taken out, SDNY's case against Jeffrey Epstein's child victim procurer Ghislaine Maxwell finally proceeds after having been sat on for years. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/02/epstein-confidante-maxwell-arrested-in-new-hampshire/
  2. 2 points
    Jon, Just for the reader, here is a bolded headline to that link and some excerpts: Epstein Confidante Maxwell Arrested In New Hampshire [Updated] Here is the indictment if anyone is interested. Also, a video right out of the oven of the official press conference about Maxwell's arrest. This case shows AG Bill Barr's method of working. Re investigations, he's a plodder and keeps a tight ship on leaks. When the time comes he and his staff believe they have an air-tight case, they clean the path (like getting rid of Berman through political channels), then swoop in and arrest bad guys who have no idea what hit them. I bet there are a lot of Deep Staters who are observing this very process and, suddenly as their arrogance turns into bile and goes down their throats with a big-ass gulp, are contemplating a move to another country that has no extradition treaty. And, as you keep reminding readers, the people who disparaged as a conspiracy theory and a sign of warped non-Objectivist epistemology the idea that elites controlled other elites through pedophilia-connected blackmail are silent about this. Reality doesn't fit the story they keep telling themselves where they are the superior good guys. From their words and deeds, they are protectors of science and reason and defenders of decent people of prominence who don't deserve to be smeared. That's the story they tell themselves. In reality, as the investigations are now proving and later prosecutions and jail will prove, many of their public heroes are pedophiles and have been blackmailed for years because of it. Some way to do philosophy and epistemology if it blinds people that much, huh? Let's just say I'm enjoying the show. Michael
  3. 2 points
    The WHO has outdone itself in corruption. They recently started a trial of the drug hydroxychloroquine, intentionally giving patients a near lethal dose so as to – obviously – make the drug look dangerous. Meryl Nass and others saw what they were doing and exposed it. Only then did WHO stop the trial. The following articles are by Dr. Meryl Nass. Even worse than 'Recovery,' potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine study in patients near death WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant 1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose. 2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2. 3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death. 4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials. 5. The conclusions to be drawn ... ... a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors. ... b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials. ... c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more
  4. 2 points
    Cockroaches rolled over by cop car ...
  5. 2 points
    I don't know where to put the following so here is as good as any place. To me it's hilarious. I'm still laughing as I post this... LOL... Michael
  6. 2 points
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-conspiracy-theory-buffalo-protester-police-officers/story?id=71150154 OANN did a piece, as far as I know, taking apart the innocence of the 75 yr old demonstrator in Buffalo. Leaving aside the feint push. He was filmed talking with the photographer who later filmed his fall. He was waving his phone near the holstered gun of the leo. He tweeted F the police. He was on an anarchist website. His name is Martin Gugina. Heres a piece echoing OANN news. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/06/buffalo-officials-duped-by-professional-antifa-provocateur-arrest- In other news......OANN filed a defamation suit against R Madcow. An Obama appointed judge found her comment saying OANN is a communist network news, to be a personal opinion, she's not a journalist an entertainer.
  7. 2 points
    Michael, I quoted the start of your post to draw quick attention to the post. The post's length might turn people away from reading it. I VERY MUCH RECOMMEND that people do read the whole thing. Please, readers, pay extra careful attention to the central part which describes in specifics how the leftist radicals took over college education . The description is spot on, including the part about non-radical faculty members finding meetings boring, often not attending them, saying, oh, well, if you want that hire so much, ok, etc. Capitulation through ho-humness to an attrition process they didn't realize was happening. The result has been a mind-ruined generation who are now old enough to start running things. Ellen
  8. 2 points
    I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
  9. 2 points
    A ray of light in the mainstream news. Tucker has balls. Thank God. This is one hell of a nice rant. And 100% true. Also, it comes on the tail of the left trying to take him off the air. As Tucker said, if we don't push back and exercise our birthright of freedom of speech, the left will push America into becoming like North Korea. I, and many who think like I do, will not take a knee. Shame on those who do. To you who kneel before the current leftist tyranny, we will take care of the problem and carry your sorry asses so you can have the freedom to bitch about us. Why? Because we love freedom and we have to for freedom to exist. But when we look at the likes of you, it's a dirty job. It doesn't have to be, but it is. So fuck you while we're at it. Michael
  10. 2 points
    From Joshua Lawson at The Federalist: Be Courageous And Stand Firm, America—We Do Not Kneel Americans didn't kneel to British tyranny, Nazi fascism, or Soviet communism. We won't kneel for a collective guilt movement that's gone off the rails. My people. Michael
  11. 2 points
    Q said years ago we would reach the day when they cannot safely appear in public. Welcome to that day.
  12. 2 points
    A visual homage, yes exactly, and yes, they know it. His murder was a ritual and the knee now is a replaying of the ritual. They believe their god rewards them for ritualized murder and for creating mayhem, chaos, pain, death and suffering. These people really are, not metaphorically, but really, seriously sick and evil.
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    So beautiful. Know what a U.S. Marshall is? U.S. Marshalls operate independently of mayors, cops, sheriffs, councilmen, governors, etc., and they serve federal, United States Justice Department indictments and they make federal arrests not subject to any local interference. No fraudulent Russian interference investigation, no amateur impeachment shitshow, no Scamdemic and no engineered race war will stop what is coming. Nothing can stop what is coming.
  15. 2 points
    Just for the record. Michael
  16. 2 points
    Mayor Bowser is attempting to evict the National Guard that’s protecting Washington, DC, from the hotels they stay in at night. Trump says if she keeps up with her shit then they will be replaced by police of the various Executive Branch agencies such as the Justice and State Departments and military, under his direct command. The fascists are planning to overrun the White House. Don’t get too upset if it happens. It is not real. If it happens it will only be because he allowed it to happen — they can’t really overrun him or anything of his, but they may be allowed to. Such an event would wake up more people to the danger we are in. A necessary scare event, like if it were to say, burn down. It would sharpen focus and help people understand why President Trump is going to have use all the powers of the Executive to protect the People and the Republic.
  17. 2 points
    This country is in a state of fulmination. --Brant I expect to see beautiful things before I die--the secondary death of the now zombie left that left is intellectually and morally dead RIGHT NOW Ayn Rand didn't know half of what she was up against, but she still had the left by the balls
  18. 1 point
    Text: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-building-rebuilding-monuments-american-heroes/
  19. 1 point
    What lie would they not tell? Who would they not hurt? ... to continue their hate against Trump? Previous Ambassador and Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell asks if thousands of Americans are dead only because we still tolerate a media hellbent on deception.
  20. 1 point
    We need a campaign rallying song. Below, I revved up Isaac Hayes’ “Shaft.” Can you dig it? No? Well, what are your suggestions? Peter Who's the President that's a freedom machine to all the chicks? (Trump) Ya’ damn right Who’s the man that would risk his neck for his brother man? (Trump) Can you dig it? Who's the cat that won't cop out when there's danger all about? (Trump) Right on They say this cat Trump is a bad mother... Shut your mouth I'm talkin' 'bout Trump Then we can dig it. He's a complicated man But no one understands him but his Country (Donald (John Shaft) oops I mean Trump)
  21. 1 point
    Pedo Schiff was soooo upset when pedo-protector Berman was taken out: Then Pedo Ghislaine Maxwell got arrested today, just days after Berman was taken out — funny how all of that worked out. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/02/epstein-confidante-maxwell-arrested-in-new-hampshire/
  22. 1 point
    On the near eve of the Fourth of July, here's a wonderful find - a book called True History of the American Revolution which is quoted from in Chapter V of Yarvin's "An Open Letter": https://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&printsec=toc&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false The link is to a Google books search screen. The book was published in 1902 by none other than the J. B. Lippincott Compsny, the company where I was an editor in the 1970s. Here's some of Yarvin's discussion. The Shortest-Way, which he references, was a "black propaganda" pamphlet by Daniel Defoe, full title The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters. Ellen
  23. 1 point
    When Tucker rocks, he rocks hard. In this video he came for business, not bullshit. I agree with 100% of everything he said just now. Michael
  24. 1 point
    Hahahahahahaha... Seattle Police Dismantle CHOP After Protesters Threaten Mayor's $7 Million House Mayor Jenny Durkan is a total idiot. When the heat came to her house, now she's scared and her principles were the first thing she sacrificed as she sent in the guns. I guess her summer of love came to an untimely end. LOLOL... Michael
  25. 1 point
    The Left can’t stand that our President won’t escalate their precious bloody foreign adventures. It drives them crazy that we finally have a moral President who starts the long process of cleaning the blood we have on our hands, instead of drenching us in more.
  26. 1 point
    D, Socialists tell their stories to a captive audience during their formative years. Over and over and over. Rand wrote "The Comprachicos" and focused the entire essay on the conceptual mind. But notice that she did start with a story... She also quoted an old saying about Jesuits: I say this applies to storytelling even more than concepts (although I don't dismiss or degrade conceptual development--it's very important). What's more, it carries with the same deadly effect all through education. After a decade and a half or so of growing up listening to the same stories saying who the good guys are and who the bad guys are--with peer pressure and all kinds of other covert nudges to get you to accept those stories as real life, it becomes a horrific challenge to think independently based on one's own observations. You will never reason a person out of that with reason. You have to tell a better stories--ones they resonate with. And you have to tell these kinds of stories over and over and over until they break down the inner resistance of the audience to looking at the world based on independent observation. Only a story can beat a story in the human mind. And a core story is why (for the most part) a person will engage his or her reason in the first place. Michael
  27. 1 point
    Buy cases of water now.
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    That, or possibly the opposite; that it's a "dog whistle" (as was suspected with the multiple tweets containing "13") to start some new sh*t , like new riots...or for someone to get "Killary'd"...
  30. 1 point
    Viral photo from April 2021 of Biden sniffing his Pizza BFF during intake processing at gitmo …
  31. 1 point
    Yesterday in Arizona President Trump spoke about Space Force and said they have new missiles that travel many times faster than existing missiles. How many times faster? He said "seventeen times faster."
  32. 1 point
    Folks here will likely remember something of the plight of those in Romania's "child gulags." A new Atlantic article offers a deep dive, which some might find useful to discussion: 30 Years Ago, Romania Deprived Thousands of Babies of Human Contact | Here’s what’s become of them
  33. 1 point
    I just donated fifty bucks to the one, the only . . .
  34. 1 point
    Yeah Michael, I did fall for the “story line” that he wanted to kick them out, so thanks for setting me straight. In the following he is pushing some buttons. I really don’t think he is goading the lowlifes to disrupt, but that may be the effect of the message. President Trump: Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene! end quote If there are violent protesters, I hope they are arrested quickly, but does Oklahoma have the capacity to “store” hundreds of rioters? It sure does! Perhaps the hottest, driest, and most remote Indian reservations will be available for storage? Hmmm? How much will they charge per “scalp?” Peter Notes. Oklahoma Indian tribes: Cherokee, Arapaho, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Wyandot Kickapoo, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Osage, Pawnee, Seminole, Wichita, Shawnee, etc. From Wikipedia. Department of Defense Indian Incentive The Department of Defense (DoD) Indian Incentive Program, part of the Office of Small Business, provides a 5% rebate to a prime contractor, based on the total amount subcontracted to an Indian-Owned Economic Enterprise or Indian Organization To qualify, the organization must be at least 51% owned by an entity (or tribal member) of a federally recognized tribe. end quote
  35. 1 point
    Did someone say Branden? I hope nothing got double clicked, and repeated. I saw it happened once. Oh, and Nathaniel Branden stopped typing in capitals when someone told him it seemed he was yelling, Anthony. Peter From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: "R. Christian Ross" < CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800 I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited. Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals. And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: RogerEBissell CC: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:18:50 -0800. THE REASON WHY THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS POINT, I SUSPECT, IS THAT RAND SOMETIMES USED "METAPHYSICAL" TO MEAN "PERTAINING TO REALITY (USUALLY EXTERNAL REALITY), AS CONTRASTED WITH PERTAINING TO CONSCIOUSNESS, AND YOU WILL SEE THIS USAGE AMONG SOME HER FOLLOWERS. HOWEVER, PHILOSOPHICALLY, IT IS NOT PRECISE BECAUSE "MAN'S NATURE" IS AN EMPIRICAL, SCIENTIFIC ISSUE NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE, ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY HAS PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL RAMIFICATIONS. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: atlantisSubject: ATL: Objectivist metaphysics Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:55:08 -0800. In response to my earlier post in which I explained that the definition of human nature is not part of metaphysics, I have been asked to elaborate on what is included in the domain of metaphysics. It's an important question because it touches on one of the most important and distinctive features of Objectivism. Rand rightly dismissed "cosmology" as not part of philosophy, insisting instead that it was the province of science. She argued that metaphysics deals only with the most fundamental features of existence as such. She set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics"--fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed. This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality. In other words, metaphysics is concerned with that which is true "of being qua being." By this definition, the particular attributes of man or other animals are in the domain of science, meaning they are not "metaphysical." However, as I observed in a previous note, Rand sometimes used the term "metaphysical" more broadly to mean "pertaining to reality" as contrasted with "pertaining to consciousness"--, on other occasions, as meaning "pertaining to that which is given in nature" as contrasted with the "man-made." I hope this clarification is helpful. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: Michael Hardy <hardy CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Objectivist metaphysics Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:29:38 -0800 Michael Hardy wrote: >Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote that Ayn Rand set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics" --fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed. This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality. >I for one would have said the laws of logic belong to epistemology rather than metaphysics. Can anyone explain this classification? Shouldn't the nature of free will also belong to metaphysics? Mike Hardy THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE, QUA LAWS OF THOUGHT, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AND, QUA LAWS OF REALITY, METAPHYSICAL. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden To: ATLANTIS Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:33:38 -0800/ If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: Michael Hardy <hardy CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: free will & epistemology Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 15:51:10 -0800 Michael Hardy wrote: > Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote: > If volition does not belong in metaphysics, where does it belong among the branches of philosophy? Good question. I would venture to say...epistemology. >The argument you wrote that appeared in _The_Objectivist_, and which was also put forth by miscellaneous philosophers before that, and by me when I was in 12th grade, could be summarized by saying "epistemology presupposes free will", and Leonard Peikoff did put it in those words in his 12-lecture course he delivered under Ayn Rand's supervision in 1976. It has also been observed, by a much larger number of philosophers and others, that *ethics* also presupposes free will. To say that ethics presupposes free will does not mean that ethics is the branch of philosophy in which the nature of free will belongs, and the same is true of epistemology. > Nathaniel, in your 20-lecture basic course at NBI you said philosophy is the attempt to answer three questions: (1) What exists? (2) How do you know? (3) So what? Epistemology deals with the second question. Why is free will a part of the answer to the second question? Saying only that epistemology presupposes free will fails to answer this unless you also want to say epistemology is a part of ethics. -- Mike Hardy IF SOMEONE WANTS TO EXPAND THE MEANING OF METAPHYSICS TO INCLUDE "THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MAN," SO BE IT, NO ONE IS GOING TO ARREST HIM (OR HER); NO ONE IS EVEN LIKELY TO GET EXCITED ABOUT THE QUESTION, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I SUGGESTED THAT VOLITION BELONGS AS PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF EPISTEMOLOGY, IN THE OBJECTIVIST SYSTEM, BECAUSE THAT FOUNDATION HAS ALWAYS STRESSED THE NON-INFALLIBLE, NON-OMNISCIENT NATURE OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VOLITION IN THIS CONTEXT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MY VIEWPOINT ANY CLEARER, SO I AM GOING TO STOP AT THIS POINT. GO IN PEACE, EVERYONE. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: "R. Christian Ross" atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800. I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited. Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals. And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: ATLANTIS Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:33:38 -0800 If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden To: atlantis Subject: ATL: one more Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:27:05 -0800 Oh, yes, one more. Anyone who thinks AR provided rational grounds for her assertion that no rational woman would want to be President of the U.S.--doesn't understand Objectivist epistemology. Nathaniel Branden From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Man-woman relationships Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:11:10 EST I once read something that still has me laughing helplessly whenever I think of it. It was a book written by a raging feminist, and nowhere was there a hint of the possibility that any woman might react differently than she did -- except once. One turned a page to see another page that was blank except for one bold-faced line: EVERY WOMAN LOVES A FASCIST. There was no explanation and no reference to the line in the rest of the book. I thought it hysterically funny, and I knew exactly what she meant. Barbara
  36. 1 point
    Pedos Arrested Good news. Here in this thread, whenever an arrest of pedophiles becomes prominent, it can be posted. I will only post sporadically, though, because this kind of news breaks my heart when I think about the children who are preyed on. Let's start in Polk County in Florida. Judd: 17 arrested for child pornography include Disney employees, nurse, underwear ‘ingester’ Here's a video: For those who like to see these perverts going down, enjoy. But keep a tear in store for the children victims. I do both. Michael
  37. 1 point
    S, In one sense your friend is right and in another he is dead wrong. It all depends on what you are looking at. Objectivism as a sum of all the correct philosophical principles of mankind is incomplete and, of course, it is incomplete. No system is complete in that sense. Even as a summary of all the fundamental philosophical axioms that exist, it is incomplete. However, as a mental structure and anchor (and even weapon) to deal with the onslaught of all the different tugs, nudges, slams, intimidation, boneheaded thinking, true paradoxes and dilemmas, and so on in the modern intellectual world, it is totally complete. You can use Objectivism as a lens to evaluate anything--and generally from a frame different than the one you are being presented with--and your evaluation will make sense. I cannot stress how important this is for high-quality independent thinking. Even where some items in Objectivism do not make sense, you have a structure for correcting it. In that sense, Objectivism is about as complete a system for organizing your thoughts about your mind, society, the meaning of it all, life, and so on as any religion or philosophical system out there. Also, where Objectivism is right, it is really right. Existence does exist and that is more than a tautology. It is a lived experience, which the people who yell out "tautology" when they mock Rand like to blank out of the equation. (That generally comes with a sneer and asking how do you know you experience anything at all? Or something like that. And, as perfect dorks, they can't see they have to exist to even do their monkeyshines.) As for completeness, you don't get more complete for a human being than hammering existence into place as the foundation of everything else. Rand did not deal with Jung and so forth except to dismiss him, but I have found that I can build Jung into the thinking habits I learned by grounding it on axiomatic concepts and so on. I can talk about neural pathways and networks and add that to Rand's theory of concepts, even as I have to make a few corrections in her theory to align better with reality. (This is not debunking, it's more like an alignment.) Rand did not cover much about family, but I can navigate the confusion of where family is toxic and where it is nurturing and extremely high value using an Objectivist structure of thinking and evaluating. And so on. In a lot of cases, I can't make room for Objectivism, or any body of thought that changes the framework like Objectivism does, using these missing elements as the frame. But I can use an Objectivist frame to fold them into my thinking and worldview. (Oddly enough, the O-Land "closed system" fundies say the exact contrary. Man, do they like their power and unearned prestige. ) So as a frame, in my way of thinking, Objectivism is complete. And it's mostly right. And where it is not right, it can be corrected. I'm not speaking about publishing a book or something and then correcting Objectivism for everybody else. I'm talking about using this philosophy as a personal structure in my own life. War At this stage of my life, I am no big fan of Rand's approach of making everything a battle. But I can tell you, during my growth, without that framing, I probably would have not arrived at the wisdom of "existence exists." That emotional (storytelling) frame gave me permission to use my mind to the best of my ability and take responsibility for it--as an independent thinker. It cut through the bullshit of politically-driven power-mongering manipulations that have been present since the beginning of human history. I found this extremely liberating. The bad news is that this approach, the nonstop bellic metaphors, soon becomes a system of think-like-we-do or you are our enemy when it is used as glue for social cohesion. That's where Objectivism shows faults--as a collective philosophy. But then again, Objectivism is for individuals, not collectives. This was Rand's often stated intention. And this is where you have to make a decision with Objectivism if you liked it a lot at first. You have to decide to keep the frame and let go of details and make a mental box for that, or you start to nitpick the details to death, then come to the conclusion that Rand was, at least at times in important ways, full of shit, especially since she was constantly certain and quite rude about it. And you put her work into that box. I am talking about serious thinking. There is a third way, too. You can primarily focus on the bellic emotions Rand used and turn Objectivism into a life-long struggle for power, which I think is mostly mental masturbation. When I first started writing about Objectivism, I once wrote a series of articles called "The Ayn Rand Love-Hate Myth." It's early writing, so it's probably not that good (I haven't reread it in a while), but my intent, even back then, was elevated. I did not want--as my life's purpose--to save the world in the name of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand), or save the world against the poisonous dragon of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand). But the people who fall off into this myth--they line up on one side and that's all they do from there on out. (I admit, I had my phase of this, too.) The good guys Look around our society. Look and see who openly likes Ayn Rand. And look beyond these power-struggle people to those who take ideas serious enough to probe them. There is one group that only gets mentioned in passing at times, but they are the most important group for me--the high-end achievers. There are oodles of them. For just a paltry few examples, look at the people around Richard Branson, marketers and marketing gurus like Joe Polish and Dean Jackson (and the ton of high achievers they interview), and so on. Even President Trump to a certain extent. Or look in the past at people like Steve Ditko, one of the co-creators of Spiderman. There are countless numbers of these Randian heroes out there. These people acknowledge their adherence to the ideas Rand wrote about and Objectivism, but they rarely argue about it. They are too busy being awesome and changing the world for that. For them, Objectivism was complete enough to clear the intellectual and emotional garbage out of their path and it gave them a frame-like structure for using their minds without guilt--each to the extent and manner that suited their own values in life. And, frankly, they didn't have time for anything else, especially the bickering. So when I think of completeness, I think, what more could a philosophy for living on earth achieve? Syllogisms for academics to argue about? Screw that. Philosophy for individuals Objectivism is a philosophy for individuals, not collectives. When a collectivist ideology goes wrong, look what happens. How many piles of bodies does it take for people to realize that communism is evil? Rand's work is one of the driving forces standing in the way of collectivist ideology from dominating the earth. It's working, too, so it's complete enough to be an effective obstacle. I could go on about this stuff all day, but life calls. What you have above is a few comments on how I have thought through these things. And I'm happy to share these thoughts. But for your life and that of your friend, you guys have to do it your own way. Do your own thinking and I am sure you will both come to a good place for your lives. I don't want to be a rule-giver. I'm far more content to witness great achievements. So go out and achieve... I want to see it... Michael
  38. 1 point
    I think this quote was supplied by REB and I think I once posted it about 10 years ago on OL. Peter Some Aspects of Prenatal Parenting by Thomas R. Verney/ Many people think of birth as marking the beginning of a person's life. To them a baby is not alive until he takes his first breath and utters his first cry. If you stop to think about it, you quickly realize how false this popular notion really is. We need to understand that one hour, one day or several weeks prior to birth, a child is not significantly different mentally from what she is at birth. The mental apparatus of a baby is not suddenly thrown into gear with birth. All the complex tasks associated with living outside the womb--like breathing, sucking, swallowing, touching, smelling, looking, listening--are the end result of mental work begun long before birth. Prenatal Mental Development We know that by the fourth month after conception, the fetus will suck if his lips are stroked. If a bitter substance like iodine is introduced into the amniotic fluid, he will grimace and stop swallowing liquid. At the same age, if a bright light is shone on the mother's abdomen, the baby will gradually move his tiny hands up towards his eyes, shielding them. At five months, if a loud sound is made next to the mother, the unborn child will raise his hands and cover his ears. By the sixth month, the hearing system of the baby is perfectly developed. Because water is a better conductor of sound than air, the baby in the womb can hear very well, although with distortions. Recordings of the baby's brain waves at the beginning of the last trimester demonstrate that during sleep the baby exhibits REM (Rapid Eye Movement) motions. In adults REM sleep is almost always associated with dreaming. It follows, therefore, that babies must be dreaming by the seventh month. Studies of expectant mothers show a correlation between their feelings about their pregnancies and the ease of their labor and delivery. The health of their newborn infants is also connected to their attitudes towards pregnancy. Because the unborn child is a feeling, sensing, aware and remembering being from the sixth month after conception (if not before) and because of the intimate connection between her and her mother, everything that happens to the mother also, in a sense, happens to her baby. Extensive studies leave no doubt that interaction between mother, father and the unborn, with all the consequences that has, for personality development, begins well before birth. Fetal Perception and Memory Anthony DeCasper, professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, has been researching fetal perception and memory for the past ten years. DeCasper has demonstrated that newborns can pick out their mothers' voices from among other female voices (DeCasper and Fifer 1980). Infants were tested with a non-nutritive nipple, hooked up to a tape recorder, to see if they preferred listening to a taped maternal heartbeat and a taped male voice. (By changing rhythm of their sucking, the babies could switch the taped sounds.) The majority of babies favored a tape recording of the heartbeat (Kolata 1984). A group of pregnant women was asked to tape record their reading of two different children's stories. During the last six and one half weeks of their pregnancy, half of the group was asked to read story "A" twice a day, the other half story "B". When their babies were born, the researchers offered the infants a choice between the two stories. Within a few hours after birth, eleven of the twelve newborns adjusted their sucking rhythm to hear the familiar story as opposed to the new one. This data provides the first direct evidence that not only does the newborn hear and recognize his mother's voice but also, surprisingly, remembers the words! What does this research mean for expectant parents? Simply this: they should talk to their unborn baby as much as possible, whenever they feel like it, in a soft voice. Partners and other members of the family can join in since what they say is not so important as how they say it. They should feel free to read children's stories, nursery rhymes or poems, avoiding violent subject and overly dramatic readings. After the birth of their child, they can experiment to see if their newborn, like those in the study, prefer the familiar tale to a story never before heard. Prenatal Touch By the seventh week after conception, the baby responds to tactile stimulation. At twelve weeks he can kick, turn his feet and curl his toes. At sixteen weeks he begins to suck his thumb. This sense of touch is necessary to the well-being of the baby. He uses it to explore his aquatic universe as well as to comfort himself. Thus, thumb-sucking not only calms the baby but also helps him develop coordination and strengthen jaw and cheek muscles. Like all living beings, babies like to be touched. Expectant parents can discover this for themselves after their baby grows big enough for mom to feel her kicks. At this point, by stroking the abdomen gently from underneath the naval, moms will quickly observe that their baby will stop kicking and relax. By about the seventh month of pregnancy, the expectant mother will know the positions of her baby's head and feet. She can be encouraged to stroke firmly and repetitively from baby's head toward her toes, which is thought to accelerate the development of the baby's peripheral nervous system. More importantly, this massage helps the pregnant woman (and her partner) to make contact with the baby, enhancing the baby's feeling of being loved. Music in the Womb Mothers have known about the effect of music on unborn children for generations. Scientists, however, are just beginning to discover it. Experiments with animals and human fetuses have clearly shown that sound is transmitted through body walls and amniotic fluid with about a thirty decibel loss in intensity (Armitage, Baldwin and Vince 1980; Bench, Anderson and Hoare 1970; Bernard and Sontag 1947). Human infants respond to sound by six months after conception, because babies move in rhythm to the music and their pulse rates react. Hundreds of women have told me about their experiences with music during pregnancy. The one common denominator to these accounts is that the songs played prenatally provoked a very positive reaction in their babies after birth. The familiar music seemed to capture the attention of the infants and relax them, particularly when they were cranky, over tired or feverish. Donald Shetler, professor of music education at the University of Rochester, has been studying the effect of music during pregnancy on infant development. He has found that infants exposed to music while in the womb show a remarkable ability to imitate sound and respond to it after birth, in comparison to babies who have not had "prenatal musical stimulation" (Shetler 1985). Pregnant woman can be encouraged to play music that they like during pregnancy, music that is calming rather than exciting. The only types of music that should be avoided are hard rock, acid rock, heavy metal, etc. Childbirth educators can urge expectant mothers to establish a daily routine of listening to music ten minutes or so twice a day, making sure they are sitting comfortably or reclining in pleasant surroundings. They will enjoy a number of benefits. First, by reserving two ten-minute periods for doing "nothing but listening to music," they will have planned time for relaxation, enhancing the stress relief that good music brings. A second benefit is that it will stimulate the baby's mind. Lastly and most importantly, the music serves as an emotional bridge between the mother and her unborn child. This occurs because while she listens to the music, the pregnant mother will try to "see" the baby and will accompany this picture with thoughts or spoken wishes for the health and well-being of her unborn child. With each day she will grow closer to her baby. You can also recommend that the women play their tape of pregnancy music during labor to help them and their birth attendants relax. After the baby is born, they can continue to play the music to him when they want to calm him at bedtime, for example. Conclusion / In summary, the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in favor of and shows a new appreciation for the mental and emotional development of the unborn child. The evidence indicates that the unborn baby certainly, from the sixth month of intrauterine life on, is a sensing, feeling, aware and remembering human being. Consequently he or she is eager and in a rudimentary way quite capable of responding and benefiting from prenatal parenting communication. Tom, MD, D.Ppsych, FRCP(C) is author with John Kelly of The Secret Life of the Unborn Child (available from the ICEA Bookcenter). He is president of the Pre and Perinatal Psychology Association of North America and editor of the PPANA Journal. His latest book is Parenting Your Unborn Child, published by Doubleday Canada.
  39. 1 point
    Tony, You are not going to square the circle. Just because empathy, rage, love, boredom, etc., can be used for manipulation, that does not mean they don't have a specific nature grounded in biology. Imagine if empathy was merely learned according to chosen values and nothing more. That means warlords would be able to cultivate empathy for chopping off heads. At times I think you are more certain of Rand's propositions about emotions and cognition than she ever was. She even called ITOE a theory and nothing more than a theory. I'm not going to hammer you on this, but I will make a suggestion. I suggest you look at stuff I am almost certain she would have had she remained alive to see it. And, here's a poke in the ribs. Rand once told NB that she was content to leave the swamp of the subconscious to him. By logical extension, this mean humans, by being born with a subconscious, that is, a swamp, are doomed to immorality unless cured by reason, which they are supposed to acquire by choice. In other words, man is born immoral by his very nature and must redeem himself. This is Original Sin. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Peter, The worst of what was said about Jane Fonda is an urban legend, it isn’t true. And what little was true she came to realize was a huge mistake on her part, and she admitted it publicly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Visit_to_Hanoi Contrast Fonda with John McCain. He wholeheartedly collaborated with the Vietcong throughout his captivity then later pretended he was a hero. That was news to me until I read about it in an article by well known investigative journalist Sydney Schanberg: John McCain and the POW Cover-Up
  41. 1 point
    Here is some advice from Polly on not taking a knee in everyday life. Her advice is to stand up to bullies in the moment they are bullying. Even in small places like supermarkets. The left's army of bullies are trying to win the culture war using death by a thousand small cuts. Polly (who does not use this metaphor) says do not tolerate even one small cut from a bully. Appeasers follow strength, so be stronger than the bullies and show this as the bullying is happening. Bullies always back down when confronted with strength. Then the appeasers will follow you. Michael
  42. 1 point
    One other thought about "war" in this context that crossed my mind: the blurred distinction between civilian and combatant, in the sense that the civilians are not mentally prepared as the soldier is. If combat gives even seasoned warriors PTSD, what of the civilians watching their streets being taken over in a scene they've ever only seen in movies? Watching their business get looted and burned down. The economic hardship that came with the unemployment of the shutdowns was bad enough to cause "suicides of desperation". They weren't psychologically prepared for this. Hence, my concerns about strategy crossing over into sadism. I know, life isn't "fair". And far worse happens overseas in middle eastern countries to civilians. Still, for most of these people, they've been sheltered from that kind of "life during wartime", and I worry about those "suicides of despair" among people unprepared for this. (It can be said that they SHOULD have been prepared. But still...I'll make moral allowances for the uphill battle most probably faced in this culture to do so. ) That's the most heartbreaking thing to me of all. (It also angers me that this infliction of despair is the goal of these terrorists in response to injustices experienced by others, out of a perverted sense of justice.)
  43. 1 point
    TG, I agree. Sometimes reality is a bitch to swallow. But swallow it we must. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. And one reality is that a war is far more important to win than any single battle for solidifying a system of government. In our system, a crime must be committed before it can be punished. The people who voted for their local governments in the current trouble spots in America elected assholes who crapped all over the police. No wonder they are walking off the job or doing things half-assed. The only way to fix that is let the crimes be committed, make all due appropriate legal cases and paperwork, then go in and clean it up without mercy. Then make sure everybody knows what the rules are for there on out, and make sure they know bad things will happen to them if they try to infringe those rules to harm others. You and I, for as much as we feel for the innocent victims in these situations, are not the ones who commit the crimes. The criminals are. So feel bad, if you must. I certainly do when I see distress signals of the innocent. I think I have an oxytocin overload inside me. I can turn into mush on a dime. But never guilty. Never feel guilty for something wrong you did not do. Accept the reality that in a situation like Seattle, you did nothing wrong. If you accept that frame, and you believe in law and order based on individual rights, you will opt for permanent solutions, not temporary appeasements and gestures that are easily undone just to stop the suffering of someone you did not attack, but someone else did. Michael
  44. 1 point
    The Trader Principle ... There is another way I understand Q--in essential terms. I've talked about this before. It's called " trading up the chain." In mainstream press terms, the QAnon phenomenon has been a variation on this. This looks like some fairly effective "trading up the chain" ... Nice try and, I admit, there is a similar pattern. From an anonymous author at a conservative blog ... ... to an OANN (One America News Network) video cast ... ... to the Real Donald Trump Twitter account ... I think I understand that -- although you earlier stated that trading up "starts with a small site or place" with "slanted" discussion -- and that the slant is "what is really being promoted." And you went on to say: And that seems to be that. Of course, the whole "objective" issue is as always available for reasoned analysis, reasonable disputes and interesting differences of opinion.
  45. 1 point
    This is a screenshot of the above tweet: I will change the <meta> information to update the image and text in the Twitter Card. What will happen to the body of the tweet just capped? <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"> <meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer"> <meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image"> <meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter to insert an image, video, audio or an app within the body of the tweet."> <meta name="twitter:image" content="https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/A47KF/images/IntheMatterOfQ_JL-cap.png">
  46. 1 point
    Q and QAnon having a bit of a ruckus over Obama.org and modern Twitter-enabled website coding. Q-Watcher Feminist Proper Gander wraps up the story in a series of tweets: The kerfuffle started with this Q drop (screen cap from the site Qanon.pub) : "Reconcile" ... Next came drop 4437 ... Some QAnon folks were critical, some were gyrating wildly to explain away the error. The kerfuffle rests on a misunderstanding of how Twitter Cards work their magic in a few lines of HTML code in the 'head' portion of a website. <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"> <meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer"> <meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image"> <meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter to insert an image, video, audio or an app within the body of the tweet."> <meta name="twitter:image" content="https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/Q3/q4436.png"> These lines in the <head> of an HTML document "fill in" a tweet from the particular page: The <meta> code on the web page can of course be changed, especially if the body of page itself is updated. If you change the code to insert a new Summary Card with Large Image, then the change will propagate on Twitter's servers. The next time you tweet from the same page, the image may be different than it was at an earlier point. So ... what does this have to do with the kerfuffle ongoing in Q-World? Well, because Twitter itself delivers the image from its own servers (rather than merely 'passing through' the URL of the image file on your server), previously posted Tweets are themselves updated. This can appear to show some kind of chicanery -- if the image rendered in an old tweet shows a 'new' image.
  47. 1 point
    Here's another curve ball, one that I find hilarious. Awhile back, James O'Keefe through Project Veritas invaded the Bernie campaign. He got several hardcore communist Bernie people to admit that if Bernie did not win the nomination, they would burn cities down and, if I remember correctly, they would start with Minneapolis. They literally said they were going to do this. They said it several times through several different people. Helloooooo... (Hat tip to Styxhexenhammer666 for this. If you want to see his video, go here. I highly recommend it.) In other words, these race riots might not be Stage 2, but instead two power-hungry authoritarian factions (the Big Vaccine globalists and the communists) getting in each others way. The more I think about it, the more I think this is true, at least partly. The protests and race riots blew the pandemic scare (social distancing, etc.) out of the water. Now the globalist reaction is going to happen and I think Big Vax is not amused. But I also think the other things I talked about is true, including the Obama race riot machine. So if I'm right, it looks like all the bad guys started scrambling for a piece of the American Pie once the shutdown happened and now they're playing demolition derby with each other. This is turning out to be one big fat mess instead of one big-ass deadly attack--all with the fake news mainstream media yapping and barking like junk yard dogs and chasing their tails in public. Outside of keeping damage to a minimum, I think President Trump may be looking at all this, letting it run and laughing. These idiots are all self-destructing when they are not destroying each other. They are doing President Trump's job for him and putting themselves on camera to boot so the clean up for law enforcement will be easy. btw - That silly Defund the Police crap is reality TV posturing as news and nothing more. If a local government gets stupid enough to try it for real, we will get quite a show as they get run over by gangs and the only thing that will spread across the country is the sound of people laughing their asses off. Michael
  48. 1 point
    You think it funny that respected men in suits own the cartels and not the short fat thin-mustached greasy guys with no shirt who "eluded the police of the world for decades" who were the actual billionaires behind it all? I laugh at your warrantless claim.
  49. 1 point
    My wife had a conversation yesterday with a woman who has been living with TDS for the last three years. Both of her sons are state troopers, both have desk jobs but are now assigned to protester looter control and she was terrified for them. One of them had to come to her house to calm her down and reassure her that police departments and law enforcement were not about to be defunded. Part of what he told her was that they knew the President has their best interest at heart and all this will be over soon. After he left, she and her husband did what they never do and turned on Fox and she could not believe they were for the police and sanity, I'm not sure what she expected to see and hear, but since she reflexively refused to ever watch their content prior to that, she must not have either . And although she says she still hates the President , the person, she now sees his administration as the only choice and hope for civility and a push back against the violence and lunacy of the far left. And that it was obvious to her now that CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the MSM are aiding and abetting the far left. Obviously an anecdotal one off, and it should be pointed out this story should be taken with a grain salt, considering it may, hypothetically , have occurred between two criminals , as it may have occurred in a salon that is currently illegal to operate. Now I doubt you will be seeing Jean Doe at a rally, but I guarantee in the privacy of a voting booth there will be only one lever she'll be looking for.
  50. 1 point
    Robert, I've left the battlefield where people fight over the split. Ever since then, I've been able to see clearly that it generally boils down to money, sex and power with humans, including Objectivists. On another thread, Neil Parille just stated that ARI lost a major donor: Ayn Rand Institute Having Financial Problems. In the past, major donors have migrated from ARI to TAS, so maybe this is what is happening. Maybe Brook is pissed ARI lost a lot of money to TAS. So there's the money angle. TAS has hired a new set of faces for the organization and, from what I've seen so far, they are far more media-savvy than the ARI folks. The fact that some are pretty women like Alexandra York and Jennifer Grossman helps, too. It's not PC to say things like that anymore, but I don't care. Adding pretty faces to a message has enhanced its marketing appeal since the dawn of capitalism. That's a fact that is, was and always will be. I imagine the success of TAS galls the ARI folks, who consider themselves to be a superior life form. More elitism. which is the power angle. TAS has its own issues with elitism (snobs are everywhere and TAS is no exception), too, but they are not nearly as severe as those of ARI. There's also a toxic personal vanity thing re relationships. The entire ARI-TAS kerfuffle stems from Rand excommunicating the Brandens for feeling they rejected her. So she rejected them. Peikoff never knew of Rand's affair with NB while she was alive. When he discovered proof in her papers after she passed away (he was her legal heir), he had a heart attack. Literally. It almost killed him for real. Although he has never said so, this is a form of rejection and I imagine it screwed with his emotions bigtime. Like or dislike Peikoff, a brush with death is an impactful event in the life of anyone. Also, both Barbara and Nathaniel never hid their low opinion of him--they always called him some variation of crazy, so with the discovery of the affair and the terror of almost dying over it, I think his hatred of them went into white-hot mode and has burned steadily ever since. Notice that almost all major sins of the principals in O-Land in this split boil down to people refusing to hate the Brandens. In other words, the issue is not ideological. They all say it is, but it isn't. It's about relationships and rejection at root. If it were ideas only, the disagreements would be more civil and rational. You don't see a deep level of hatred of communism in their demeanor, for example, even though all self-respecting Randians consider communism to be evil. But notice how people involved in this inter-subcommunity fight get overly-emotional, mischaracterize the work of each other, etc. That comes from something other than ideas. From the way I figure, it comes from rejection by a loved one, and for the followers of that person, feelings of protection of someone who has suffered such rejection. People fight and the seed produces its toxic fruit. Thus, taking sides has become a precondition to making friends and this has nothing to do with the issues dealt with in Objectivist thought. Also, there are variations on this theme shot all through O-Land. For example, there's a site, Solo Passion, that bashes the crap out of Brook, but blames everything wrong in the world on the Brandens. See this post as an example. Why would that be? Well, I was part of the history of this one, so I know from seeing it up close. Perigo and Barbara Branden used to be tight. And Perigo always dreamed of being an Objectivist leader. With her endorsement, he was part way there. They ended up falling out (mostly vanity issues) and she ultimately rejected him. When a book critical of the Brandens came out, he embraced it and has been on a crusade against the Brandens ever since. Oddly enough, this guy supports Trump like I do. But I don't want President Trump to wipe every last vestige of the Brandens off the face of the earth and I imagine he does. (That's a quip and I make that qualification for the idiots reading this. ) Also, Brook agreed to debate Perigo recently about immigration. Brook bowed out when it became clear Perigo would insult him to his face in public. So Brook rejected him and he has been on a nonstop rant against Brook ever since. From what I have read (and I don't read a lot of this stuff), some of the reasoning is justified. (I could go into it, but that's not the point of this post.) But much of it is just emotional hate-baiting based on being rejected. In the end, all this rejection stuff is about power. Public rejection and waging war over it is a power-play. War is all about power, right? I wish there were some intellectual depth to all this, but there is very little, mostly none. The ARI folks demand that Objectism be only what Rand wrote and, I agree, it is reasonable to make a classification of what she wrote as being what it is. But they want to erect an establishment out of this where they can control the speech and thought of others. They feel threatened when someone who doesn't think like they do calls himself or herself an Objectivist. Ultimately, they don't trust individuals to do good thinking on their own. That's the main reasoning behind ARI's current hostility. (Although I believe the driver is money, sex and power, but not all that much sex. They need to get laid more. ) People who disagree with this think they have the right to absorb Rand's vision and do things with it filtered through their own life, their experiences, reading and thinking. They claim the right to call themselves Objectivists and still have disagreements with Rand, ARI, whoever. Should they be able to do this? Let's look at it. The intellectual part of the issue boils down to a dictionary, believe it or not. Open any dictionary and you will see that almost every word in it has more than one meaning. When ARI folks use the word "Objectivism," them mean only what Rand wrote and don't want there to be a second definition. They claim they have the right to demand this. When others use the word "Objectivism," they mean using what Rand wrote as a starting point for their thinking as they go off in their individual directions. (So, yes, Virginia, there can be two meanings for the same word and people have a right to use words .) I belong to this second group, although I rarely refer to myself as an Objectivist these days. It's not because I want to avoid unpleasantness with the fundies (fundamentalists ). And they do ladle on unpleasantness if you get close to them. But I'm not competing with them so we generally stay distant. It's because I don't want the general public to confuse me with the fundies. I think it's embarrassing to demand other people use the language in one meaning only. Human language constantly morphs. It morphs slowly, but has done so since humans began to speak. Also, I disagree with the worshipful rigidity of the fundies and, ultimately, don't think a society of people like that was what Rand was after at all. I know I don't want to be that--I don't want to be a fanatic or disciple within a closed-off tribe. I'm my own man. However, my philosophical foundation was formed by reading Rand's works over a lifetime. I can't undo that even if I wanted to. Nowadays I disagree with Rand on some things (mostly scope), but that doesn't mean I disavow what I do agree with. And it doesn't mean that what I do agree with isn't foundational in my thinking. It is. Like all humans during all of human history, I need a label for something important, a label others can understand that doesn't require long explanations everytime I use it. This is just simple communication. Outside of the fundies, most people get what I mean when I say I follow Rand's thinking without being a fanatic. In that sense, I'm an Objectivist. Michael