Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/20/2020 in all areas

  1. Some further comment after Ellen's post ... Quoting caroljane: “... it [a vaccination ID] illustrates my point. A public health measure is not viewed [by those who object to this?] as what it is, a measure to limit the initiation of force by citizens upon each other, but as – well, what? An infringement on your sacred right to get sick, and make others sick?” The ending is sarcastic and “initiation of force” is designed to push Objectivists’ buttons. The mask orders, “lockdowns” of healthy people, limiting businesses, closing businesses, forbidding public assembly, etc. have to do with naked power, nothing to do with public health – where is the science as they say – and neither does a vaccination ID. (It would be a federally issued ID that would track your medical history and be required to use the post office, fly, eventually to use a bank, etc.) The last is monstrous even if the Pfizer’s experimental vaccine (which isn’t a vaccine) were proven safe, and it hasn’t been. It is, as I just said, experimental (link to abridged talk by Simone Gold). Let’s get real. Even without treatment a healthy and non-decrepit person’s chance of getting very sick from Covid-19 is near zero. With treatment – and there are several inexpensive ones available – it is inconsequential Life is inherently, metaphysically, risky. You engage in reasonable precautions to minimize risk. What has been going on is not reasonable precautions but a naked power grab by totalitarians. Neo-communists would be a fitting label too.
    4 points
  2. I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism. The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it. There can be no harmony with the latter's existence. The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base. Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any voluntary collective. The one leaves no one be, even those who would choose to be left alone. The latter leaves everyone alone and equally leaves them free to choose to live in whatever level of collective promiscuity they wish. The Liberal (Classical) has no place in the Leftist's world view, whereas the Leftist's would have a place in the Liberal's world, only their use of force would be impermissible. This stark contrast, this asymmetry I find fascinating and inspiring, it may be the greatest example of the benevolence of freedom as a foil in the face of naked tyranny and yet it get's little to no attention. Perhaps there are so many who only "group think", who almost always and ever consider themselves, society and government only in terms of "we" (and "them"), and never think of themselves, their lives, and their freedom's in terms of "I" or "me". There is a great mass of lost souls, adult children, so mortally terrified of solitude and independence, ... that they must annihilate any solitary minded person or any ideas of individual liberty. Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not? I suppose as long as they are not naive to the naked will to power which possesses the lost cravens who seek oblivion for all, liberty minded persons can survive. But we must be vigilant. Anyway. Why is this asymmetry not more directly spoken of? Why don't Freedom lovers tell the middle-left (non violent progressives), you could organize yourselves in our world, you just cant use guns to threaten us, or anyone?
    4 points
  3. There are a lot of things I want to say on this thread, but I just don't have the time. But here are a few quick notes. I agree about asymmetry between Marxism and Capitalism. But notice that what is called capitalism these days is not capitalism. It's crony corporatism. The pharmaceutical cartel, for example, is called capitalism, but it is a monopoly racket protected by government-enforced privilege against newcomers and often funded by the government. Ayn Rand said somewhere that any compromise between good and evil only benefits evil. Good has nothing to gain from evil. I am not in favor of regulating free speech. I don't like top-down government dispensers of rights. But I am in favor of this: This part I really agree with. Not even the government is required to provide a platform for those who threaten it and preach its destruction. Let such people do that at their own places. Michael
    4 points
  4. It is a disadvantage to tolerate the left in public. We place too much value on freedom of speech. It's like some religious dogma we have. No, sometimes speech needs regulation. Let's recognize that when a leftist advocates for socializing property, he's initiating a process of force against private property holders. Left unchecked, we run the risk of losing everything to the left simply because we tolerate them and the loot-thirsty mob that gathers behind them. It's like listening to a psycho rant about how he's going to rape a woman, and we do nothing about it. Then his psycho friends arrive and they all agree, "Yeah, let's gang rape her!" We just walk away and go home and watch TV. On the news later we find out that she was raped by that gang. The difference is that the left rapes people legally with the institutions of government power. Our tolerance of evil speakers is essentially the same, but it seems okay in the case of democratic socialists because they want to be evil with the permission of voters. This is why we at minimum need to ban socialists from the government. I would also ban them from speaking on public property. Let them buy private property and speak there, but if they threaten the government they need to be stopped. Unfortunately we have not banned them, and now they are terrorizing citizens and embedding themselves in our government.
    4 points
  5. With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kangaroo impeachments... I’m starting to feel like Ayn Rand’s overwhelming focus on altruism was slightly misguided, in the sense that it is not the evil (out there) as such, it is a misdirection and a weapon used by the naked will to power and domination by the tyrannically inclined, targeting our weaknesses to obtain obedience. But that will to power the tyrannical powers of the psyche seem now to have been unleashed in the powerful and in the sheeple. The absolute monarch, the oligarchs, the totalitarian they do not hold altruism or community or equality as principles, but as tools of control. When there are few evil doers we protect ourselves from the ideas they try to use against us, but once the evil doers become prevalent or the majority we few must protect ourselves from them not just their ideas. The primary external evil is no longer the internal moral failing of the individual, even though it may have been its primary agitator and may have derived its primary power from it in the form of a population who has fallen to and the joined the ranks of the enemies of freedom. We see the will to power using against us everything we hold dear, peace, harmony, family, our own sense of empathy and benevolence both as threat and as alms. Granted, Ayn Rand knew of these dynamics and warned us all that this might happen, but the overwhelming focus of warnings against altruism seem out of balance now. That was primarily a preventative, and not enough people listened. In her lifetime perhaps it was best to try to stem the philosophical tide toward oblivion, to warn the culture running for the edge of the cliff, but now that it or a large part has careened over, what message or warning or exhortation can be made to those few sane left, perhaps clinging to the edge of the cliff and straining with the dark insane evil mass of suffering still dangling from their feel by some sharp claw, what kind of advice can be given to them who still wish to save themselves? I begin to feel that a philosophical rejection of Altruism is insufficient now that what it focused on to avoid has come to pass... the power hungry disdain all such ideas, the masses form a new mob of the power hungry, and freedom lovers have no fight with their own ideas as they do with existential threats to their freedoms, their values, their very lives. philosophy perhaps has run its course? sigh Just starting to feel something...
    4 points
  6. Another reason to look at the goings on around the Q Continuum is to understand the psychology of others, since we do, after all, live in a society where both the leadership and voters have an impact on our direct lives, now, via lockdowns and the economy, restricting our freedom of speech and threatening worse. Conversely, it's worth it to observe the religious beliefs of those in opposition to those forces, to see what keeps them ticking, and to compare and contrast to O'ism. After all, Rand did write, in "What Can One Do?", that while it wouldn't be good to join with conservatives or libertarians, we may have to join "ad hoc committees" towards a single or multiple purposes, but without letting any one's ideals dominate to the extent that common goal is rendered moot. But still, in order to know how to work together, there needs to be an understanding of the beliefs of those "strange bedfellows..." So, here's an example: Former Secretary Pompeo, on his personal Twitter account, just tweeted out Hebrews 11-1: Hebrews 11:1, KJV: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." On the surface, at face value, it's just a bible verse about faith and hope in times of uncertainty. (Though I could go on, I guess, to analyze it against the objectivist notion of "faith", bring in Kant, etc...but I have work to do.) But "anons" believe they've found another layer: 11.3 in the Q posts, they now believe, did NOT refer to the election, but to a particular DoD war manual, and 11.3 and 11.1, when written that way, correspond to the section about foreign occupation. They are taking these Q posts and Pompeo tweets as markers. Here's Pompeo's tweet: (Btw...here's another tweet from his former official Twitter account, as shared on Gab, where he refers to the CCP in "Kill brackets", a common Q thing...at the least, it indicates a shared method of communication...) https://gab.com/Limerence/posts/105583972615447286 And here's the anon theory: https://gab.com/mysticphoeniix/posts/105614586717654154 did POMPEO's tweet ref the DoD WAR MANUAL Anonymous 01/24/21 (Sun) 22:10:30 No.12699575 "Did an anon get this part already? Pompeo Hebrews 11.1. 11.1 in the DoD Law of War is the Occupation chapter. 11.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter addresses military occupation. The GC provides specific rules for the internment of protected persons in occupation, which are addressed in Chapter X. Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory.1" And here's the link to the DoD manual: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD Law of War Manual - June 2015 Updated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 Whether Objectivists believe it god, faith, etc, is besides the point. The point is that THEY believe in it, and it intertwines in how they are fighting this fight, and demonstrates how their faith keeps them going in uncertainty. (It may be easy to scoff at government/ military men using religion as a guide, the way Rand mocked Reagan for calling in an astrologer...but then, how many military victories were won throughout history by men who called on a deity to guide them? We can chalk the wins up to strategy, or even luck, but it was their faith that encouraged them to continue.) Contrast that against those who have thrown in the towel with cries of "we're doomed!", and many of those people may even call themselves Objectivist, for that matter... This is not something to be dismissed lightly, or simply mocked away. If you look at concentration camp survivors, many of them had to find not just the strength of will, but employed faith to survive. Viktor Frankel has written about his experience there, for reference. Of course, some of them were just lucky, while others never had a chance, no matter what they believed ,through no fault of their own. More on that, in a moment. And of course, many Jews disavowed god, after that, as well, so fair enough. One could then say, like Jordan Peterson does, that maybe purpose is better than faith, because "a man “He whose life has a why can bear almost any how." That would seem to work WITH the Objectivist philosophy, as Rand had a major belief in purpose. But we can also find examples of faith there, combined with purpose. Talking about the concentration camps, I acknowledged that some survivors were simply lucky. Well, Look at WE THE LIVING. Kira's survival rested on her faith in American, and her purpose to be an engineer. She pushed herself to carry on, to escape, to get to "the promised land." The fact that she didn't, because Russia was "airtight", according to her theme, is besides the point. (But consider, if America falls to communism, will the world then be "airtight", with no America to escape to? Then it becomes a case not of flight, but of fight...and what will we put our faith in, then?) And I think even Rand said something to the effect of America may has well been a fantasy to Russians. But then, Rand herself DID escape. Now, she had help, but she was also "lucky", as were many holocaust survivors, in the sense that it all worked out. But "fortune favors the ready", as they say. And because Rand was "Ready" in mind and spirit, she was able to be "one of the lucky ones." And part of being ready required faith despite uncertainty. The idea was that she saw another way. The difference is that her vision was metaphysically possible, as opposed to say, waiting for heaven, it was earth-oriented. Rand was a Romantic REALIST, after all. But still, she had faith despite uncertainty of being able to get out, faith that it was possible, despite the odds, and she fought to get out with her dying breath. As Barbara Branden liked to quote, "Price no object." To sum up, the people currently at the forefront of this fight are have combined their religion with their military strategies. It's not unprecedented, and despite the feasibility of the religious metaphysical reality, it's their faith that gets them through it through uncertainty. It's not a "blind faith", if only because there is an earthly military practicality to it. The question for Objectivists watching/fighting along with "strange bedfellows": Since O'ists aren't in charge, do we wait for the perfect plan, the John Galt with the best strategy? Or do we work with what we have? I'll leave it with this :To quote Sun Tzu, “Weak leadership can wreck the soundest strategy; forceful execution of even a poor plan can often bring victory.”
    4 points
  7. "Don't worry; we'll pick up the slack." It's...strange. When Trump first ran, I was not a fan of his, for a few reasons. But then I saw the over-reactions from others turn into TDS. I started to see through the lies. THEN, I saw MY image of Trump change from Trump the sleazy casino magnet and celebrity apprentice shit-stirrer to Trump the American, the fighter, the patriot, etc. And today, when I heard that he had gone to Walter Reed, my heart dropped. Up until recently, I was concerned about the government protecting the citizens during the riots, etc; Now, I want to protect Trump. I thought this was going to be my "Kennedy" moment. I don't normally feel this way about politicians. But this...this is different. If you had told me 4 years ago I'd be feeling this way, I wouldn't have believed it. If anything happens to Trump, he will become a martyr. Is it too strong to say that? I hope it doesn't come to that. And maybe I'm just caught up in emotion. But he's at the forefront of something, something that years of libertarian politics or ARI trying to spread Ayn Rand's message couldn't do. Whatever happens, I really hope that people pick up the slack. God speed.
    4 points
  8. And all those Spring Training games ,Fla keeps looking better and better.
    3 points
  9. From a Facebook page, support from Canadian doctors: "A Letter to the Unvaccinated By Dr. Angela Durante, Prof Denis Rancourt, and et al. Ontario Canada Civil Liberties Association August 2021 Open Letter to the global Unvaccinated You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one third of people remain completely unvaccinated. Politicians and the media have taken a uniform view, scapegoating the unvaccinated for the troubles that have ensued after eighteen months of fearmongering and lockdowns. It’s time to set the record straight. It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school. You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions. You are being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob. You are being told that you are now the problem and that the world cannot get back to normal unless you get vaccinated. You are being viciously scapegoated by propaganda and pressured by others around you. Remember; there is nothing wrong with you. You are inaccurately accused of being a factory for new SARS-CoV-2 variants, when in fact, according to leading scientists, your natural immune system generates immunity to multiple components of the virus. This will promote your protection against a vast range of viral variants and abrogates further spread to anyone else. You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. All the peer-reviewed studies of short-term safety and short-term efficacy have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit corporations; and none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies. You are right to question the preliminary vaccine trial results. The claimed high values of relative efficacy rely on small numbers of tenuously determined “infections.” The studies were also not blind, where people giving the injections admittedly knew or could deduce whether they were injecting the experimental vaccine or the placebo. This is not acceptable scientific methodology for vaccine trials. You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. Like in nature, we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that right now. Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?’ Do not be intimidated. You are showing resilience, integrity and grit. You are coming together in your communities, making plans to help one another and standing for scientific accountability and free speech, which are required for society to thrive. We are among many who stand with you. Angela Durante, PhD Denis Rancourt, PhD Claus Rinner, PhD Laurent Leduc, PhD Donald Welsh, PhD John Zwaagstra, PhD Jan Vrbik, PhD Valentina Capurri, PhD" 5
    3 points
  10. The folks who realize that the "election" was rigged are not ant-elections. Does anti vax even make sense as a term since its not even a vaccine, it's a jab. I think that these folks who are being called anti vaxxers or whatever should be called anti not going to let something be put into my body that I dont know what it is, instead, although that's pretty long
    3 points
  11. Who's fanatically anti-vax? I only know of those who've researched the information, soberly thought through their health risks and medical history, and decided to do without it. Usually protecting themselves by other means. They are completely obliging to others doing differently. I am "fanatically" against any coercion and psychological intimidation on individuals who chose they don't want it, for whatever their reasons. (Including religious 'reasons') Next time with some other matter, it will be oneself/one's 'group' that a government and 'society' goes after. "For the good of us all". There's little "anti-vaxx", that's made of straw, but there's plenty anti-"anti-vaxxers". That tells one something, how much a universal obedience is essential for many.
    3 points
  12. This morning I heard an interview with Gov Beshear of Kentucky bemoaning the fact that there are still vestiges of the American system of checks and balances in place in his state. He sees as a defect the fact that the citizenry can influence public debate via their elected representatives in the state's legislature. He lamented the fact that power didn't reside in one individual and that that individual couldn't be free to impose their will even and especially if that will was 'unpopular'. A sitting Governor in the USA on public airwaves lamenting the fact that he can't be Mussolini, wtf.
    3 points
  13. William, No. I do not find the issue of the professional qualifications or conduct of lawyers the caliber of Sidney Powel and Lin Wood debatable. Especially not when a corrupt activist judge is involved. For as much as I despise Marc Elias, I have the same professional attitude about his legal demeanor standards. He games the system and might even be guilty of bribery, being a bag man, and so on, but within the legal structure and as a lawyer, like when in court, he stays within bounds. At least from what I have seen. Disbarring him would be a political act, not a legal one. And I would not be on board. btw - I do not have the same evaluation of Andrew Weissmann, who has been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct over and over and always skirted despite his prosecutions being overturned over and over. This is one dude who should be disbarred and even thrown in prison. But being the Clinton attack dog from early on, well, we know that, even though cheating is his judicial standard, getting away with cheating is the rule until he is overturned. And then he, personally, gets away with it even when his case is lost. Rand had a good shortcut for this kind of garbage, which includes the garbage they are throwing at Sidney Powel and Lin Wood. Don't bother to examine a folly-ask yourself only what it accomplishes. As you know, that is not my normal standard. But in this case, the abuse of power is so egregious, and the corruption of the players is so obvious (they keep getting busted over and over), the details don't matter. It's like the 12 FBI agents spending months pretending to be militia to set up and entrap 6 actual militia dudes in Michigan about kidnapping Whitaker and thinking they have done something to fight crime. It's all bullshit. Can the details like color, texture, thickness, etc., of a pile of shit keep it from being shit? No. That's why I'm not interested in the details in this case. Both Powell and Wood will appeal and win. So all this is just a big waste of time as a publicity stunt to get the press pressure off of Biden's fuck-ups and the election audit steam-roller heading this way. Michael
    3 points
  14. Michael, Thanks for reminding me why I read Objectivist Living. On a side note. I listen to a podcast of Victor David Hanson. His arsenal is sets of facts that he straightforwardly (with no axe to grind) goes through whenever asked about how we got here. Its plain to see the extent of the moral crimes from the items he lays out that are self explanatory. So...just thank you.
    3 points
  15. Individuals, those who were in government and those working in the school system at the time need to be held accountable for their own individual actions, and all individuals or organizations in possession of any information pertaining to those crimes should forward that on to investigative authorities, so that those individuals who perpetrated any crime are brought to justice. In today's group think however, even though these are past crimes by individual people, much of the focus and blame will be on the so-called current collective "guilt" of or "stain" on Government, the Taxpayer, or Society (the polite self-effacing collectivist guilty Canadian... the "We"), simultaneously the favorite mystical scapegoats and paternal caretakers of the members of the collective mob... the subconscious premise being the straw man responsibility and guilt of the current generation ("original sin" inherited by birth perhaps?) justifies the thirst for self- or other-flagellation , self- or other-loathing and redistribution. IF that stupid culture of socialism could give way to individualism, current government officials would, for the most part, have no reason to cover any sins by past governments and other individuals, and promptly and simply stop covering it up and start investigating individuals ... but the group think of collective guilt gives them plenty of "reasons", personal and political, to thwart and distort justice into a Canadian woke circus.
    3 points
  16. A Jew speaks.... When WE were led into the gas chambers, THEY said nothing. When WE were forcibly converted, THEY said nothing. When WE were thrown out of a country just for being Jews, THEY said nothing. BUT when WE now defend ourselves, all of a sudden THEY have something to say. How did WE take our revenge on the Germans for their "Final Solution?" How did WE take revenge on the Spanish for their Inquisition? How did WE take revenge on Islam for being Dhimmis? How did WE take revenge on the lies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" WE studied our Torah, WE innovated in medicine, WE innovated in defense systems, WE innovated in technology, WE innovated in agriculture, WE composed music, WE wrote poetry, WE made the desert bloom, WE won Nobel prizes, WE founded the movie industry, WE financed a fledgling democracy, WE fulfilled the word of G-d by becoming a Light Unto the Nations of the Earth. DEAR WORLD, when You criticize us for defending our heritage and our ancestral homeland -- WE, the Jews of the world, do exactly what You did to/for us; WE IGNORE YOU. You have proven to us for the last 2,000 years that when the chips are down, animosity towards Jews reigns supreme. Now leave us alone -- and go sort out problems in your own back yard whilst WE continue our 5778-year old mission of enhancing the world we all share. -The Jews
    3 points
  17. As the kids today might say, "Imma stop you right there..." Pacifism. "The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it." [“The Nature of Government,” VOS, 146; pb 108.] Ayn Rand; Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z (Kindle Locations 7074-7076). Meridian.
    3 points
  18. I cannot speak from experience (to your disappointment I am sure), but there is a certain consistency with those who are consumed with a hatred for everything on earth including themselves to be eminently satisfied, in fact proudly self-martyred (so to speak) with that kind of self-hatred. How else can a culture of small envious people who vilify the rich or successful arise without a hatred of the good for being good... and hence at least partly... the archetype of that small wrinkled hating thing hating those good parts of the psyche within. The Canadian Liberal and the NDP might be already be worse than the Marxist-leftist wing of the US Democratic party, but darn it of those Yanks aren't doin' their dangdest to out Marx them Socialist Canucks. Any neighbor who would say "please", "sorry", and "thank you" to your face, but would have no quandry robbing you blind in your sleep to keep their party's corrupt politicians in power, squashing your right to free speech, or forcing you to risk your life with mediocre state run healthcare or at least trying to guilt you into not "jumping the queue" (as if one exists) by seeking healthcare in a freer country.. The little tyrant next door, might smile at you in the street, but would grin at the chance to have you shackled and cowed by her leftist strong men. I need not list them, they are legion. I do not know you personally, but perhaps You might have seen that tyrant in the mirror, if you ever had the secret wish to force others against their will, not because they violated anyone else's rights but because you wanted to see them suffer, because you wanted to equalize their success with other's failures, you wanted to violate the rights of those innocent not because of their incompetence and disability but because of their competence and ability, because you wanted to knock them down a notch or two, for being successful... because you wanted to eat the rich, and strike out at the good for being the good, because you wanted to lash out in your own shame... or perhaps you no longer see that tyrant in the mirror, or indeed, perhaps in fact, you are one of the lucky few who never saw it. Trust me, as a person raised in a mixed economy, semi-socialist state, rife with a culture of altruism, and dominated by progressive education over the last 5 decades, I indeed was one of those tyrants in the mirror and next door. Now I know better. I see what you did there with the politeness.... quite funny. I observe that the statement I have heard: "Canadians are polite, but Americans are friendly", as an aphorism is quite true, very much, most of the time. Not all Canadian politicians are as I allude to above, THIS guy can actually be quite impressive from time to time:
    3 points
  19. The January 6 incursion into the Capitol building wasn’t "an act of insurrection," and I wouldn’t even call the actions of the infiltrators who did such damage as was done a "riot." Planned theatrics. The incursion was: 1. a trap for the genuine Trump supporters who entered the building with the permission of the guards; 2. a ploy to derail consideration of objections to electoral slates; 3. a set-up for Pelosi to bring impeachment charges against Trump. Ellen
    3 points
  20. Karen er... Carol, What do you think about the manly man and socialist good-old-boy with his CNN badge of distinction who wants to get into his date's panties so much, he brags to her about how CNN is running a phony propaganda campaign to take out Gaetz? Is your idea of the opposite of Matt Gaetz--specifically an amoral fratboy type with dead, mean eyes and the glee in getting noticed, no matter for what., in other words, an entitled idiot, and not too bright a one at that--our formidable CNN dork who tried to brag his way into the sack with his project Veritas date about what a badass he was? Look closely because that's what the modern adult elite socialist male looks like. Scratch any one of them and that's what you get. It sure is a pretty picture, ain't it? Enough to make one develop seething admiration... Michael
    3 points
  21. Objectivist leaders: Something has gone wrong when some Objectivist leaders accept the idea of supposed free trade that includes trade with tyrants, for example, trade with Kantians, Pragmatists, Muslim Iran, or Communist China. There is no free trade with tyrants which operate according to the principle of force and not by the principle of individual rights. Free trade, individual rights, and private property are not possible in dealings with tyrannical individuals or governments. Perhaps not even possible with Objectivist leaders who endorse trade with tyrants or advocates of same, including with sympathetic American politicians or claimed Objectivists. The fundamental ethical principle of Objectivism is rights, including individual rights and property rights. Objectivist leaders who support tyrannical governments by endorsing what the claimed Objectivists call free trade, including trade with tyrants, have lost the central ideas of of Objectivism. I am greatly disappointed to find that some Objectivist leaders have uncritically endorsed their support of tyrannies by means of what they claim to be free trade. Free trade, incidentally, is the action demonstration of individual rights and property rights. If you trade with those who oppose rights you yourself are denying rights. Shall I say more? Ralph Hertle
    3 points
  22. A big difference between elitists doing crud in other countries and their doing it here is the Americans (the real ones) of whom there are still an abundant number in this country's populace. American ingenuity and spirit going against elitist crooks is a whole ‘nuther thing from populaces used to being ruled by "superiors" trying to rebel. Ellen
    3 points
  23. The "conspiracy theory advocate" label for people who see it is being ramped up to "domestic terrorist." Ellen
    3 points
  24. Glad to hear people of influence or accomplishment are actually open to the ideas discussed here. I understand and respect their privacy. Rand discussed a great many things... she identified single State corruption, a swamp on a small scale... but without an inking of the technology of today could she even have in her wildest dreams thought of such a global elitist oligarchy attempting to enslave the entire world as it is today? Had she ever thought these petty technocrat busy bodies in government, big tech and the media would ever be so bold as to proclaim to all, their ideal two class system... the government-media-tech-illuminati and the quaking yet trusting sheeple whom they "tend"? The "elimination" of "property" for some while those in power keep to themselves the "right" duty and privilege to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy all things, or to exclude others from doing so... There are those who would say it has been so for many decades, others would say always, but for it to be in naked sight and as brazen as it is now... it disgusts me.
    3 points
  25. I have literally no idea what the letter who shall not be named is/was/could be/have been, but the spark I refuse to let die is the recognition that so much in the world right now is 'just not right' and that sparks draws up some anger when I feel as if no one else can see It or fails to call it out. That was always the thing that initially drew me to nameless letter the allegory of righteousness , bold righteousness in the face of all this shit.
    3 points
  26. You can't let these at war with us folks off the hook with libertarian property rights theory because we are on a de facto war footing. We Are At War. --Brant
    3 points
  27. Michael, everyone, Notice, too, the Pence-Ryan email exchange linked to from the letter: https://files.constantcontact.com/899f3f04701/106dc3d3-c645-4215-bdd3-addad65bade2.pdf Ellen
    3 points
  28. ThatGuy, Since World War II the U.S. has been in a new phase of degradation to which Rand was pretty much oblivious. Socialism vs. Capitalism, Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative is now just entertainment, like television wrestling, hiding venal, thieving, murdering Mafia-like corruption. It makes “taxing the rich” or “robbing Peter to pay Paul” look good. I wrote “pretty much” because once in a while Rand would acknowledge that something more sinister than differences in political philosophy was going on. The only example I can think of at the moment is when, in an essay, she entertained the possibility that Marilyn Monroe had been murdered (for knowing too much about the crowd she was running around with at the time, though Rand didn’t say that). Leonard Peikoff hosted a radio show in the late 90s. Trying to make the above point, here’s what I emailed to him when he asked for topics to discuss (he didn’t use it). The quality of my writing has improved, I think, since back then. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug 6, 1998 *Choose your issues* My two choices are related, so first here's the common idea. In years past, however unconstitutional and extreme the violation of our rights, laws were passed and adhered to do it -- a pro forma chipping away of freedom. America was heading toward a totalitarian state -- in a genteel manner. No longer. We're graduating into a more mature stage of fascism. Besides the pretense of respect for the rule of law we now have outright gangsterism and thuggery. Here are my two choices: 1. The unbelievable corruption within the U.S. Department of Justice. The HUD and the savings and loan scandals, to give just two examples, were all made possible by crooked judges. None of the major perpetrators went to prison, only lesser figures or even innocent fall guys. Whistleblowers, insiders who try to expose the corruption, risk being sent to prison on false charges. Rodney Stich has written several books on corruption within the government, after experiencing it first hand. The thing to be done about it now is to make the corruption known. Then dishonest judges must be punished and replaced with honest ones. (By the way, Stein & Day, the first publisher of your -- LP's --first book, was robbed of all its assets by the corrupt Chapter 11 system. Sol Stein wrote a book about it entitled *A Feast for Lawyers*.) 2. The voluntary news blackout of the mainstream media. On some subjects a government censor could hardly do a better job. And when not a blackout it's often a dimout. This is well known to those who are interested in current affairs, thanks to those bright lights the alternative press, talk radio, and the Internet. But ask the average joe about the Vince Foster murder, the execution style murder of Mary Caitrin Mahoney -- Georgetown Starbucks cafe manager and former White House Intern, the evidence of a missile shoot down of TWA flight 800, FBI foreknowledge of [now I would say participation in] the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. and you get a blank stare.
    3 points
  29. Maybe Trump will pardon Assange on Christmas Day. Ellen
    3 points
  30. I like Lin Wood a lot. "Onward, Christian soldiers...." I don’t care a damn that he's a flaming Christian. I like his fervor and resoluteness and direct on-pointedness. And, fact is, a high percentage of the core Americans who support Trump and who won’t put up with the fraud or accept a "Great Reset" American future are Christians. Ellen
    3 points
  31. Its a good attitude to have. Its something I'd tell my son. Mannerisms in my written way of communicating are different than my internal methodologies. When the score has me down to my opponent I haven't lost. Not while I can mount an offense. Do I deal with my morale? Of course. Its part of regaining an edge. What you said "I am so pissed at them I could spit." resonates. It is personal. Though making others targets of my animosity doesn't improve my chances of winning anything. I have so little mental space to waste on an outcome, on an occupation for feeling as if I've gained traction in a battle I can't win. So I choose battles personal to me. Making break throughs in playing guitar. Preparing my way to winning another tournament. And I bring all the fire and determination to these things that you bring to yours. I hear you. That's the reason I come to Objectivist Living. I don't come to hear you've thrown in the towel. It always good news hearing an opponent has been outed for cheating. https://theamericanconservatives.net/attention-trump-campaign-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-won-groundbreaking-case-in-october-gives-campaign-right-to-examine-voting-machine-source-code/
    3 points
  32. Have you guys been watching the press trying to frame President Trump with the white supremacy thing? Let's start with the end first, then look at the idiot press. Here is just one compilation among many out there where Trump has disavowed white supremacy, including in the debate two days ago. Also, look at Chris Wallace in the 2016 election. Note that this video is impossible to find doing a simple YouTube search. YouTube and others do not want you to see this. So you can only find it on posts of others who embed it. Compare that to Chris Wallace asking the same goddam question in the 2020 debate a couple of days ago. And just look at the NBC title. As a snafu on the dorks, they kept in Biden saying Antifa is an idea, not an organization. Now, today there was a White House press briefing with Kayleigh McEnany. John Roberts of Fox News showed his ass in the briefing even worse than Chris Wallace showed his ass in the debate. Look what poor little control freak John Roberts had to say when a huge backlash from his audience hit him hard. Poor baby. I didn't know he was part of the Deep State, but there it is. To add icing to that cake, John Roberts' own wife, who works at ABC news, reported President Trump denounces white supremacy. Here is what the Deep State melting down really looks like. (Image from here. I didn't embed the tweet because Twitter might take it down.) For those who want to see the painful part of the press conference, here is a video: Other reporters were doing that shit, too. The audiences of these assholes are telling them straight up to stop the idiocy, yet they keep on. They are no longer fooling their audiences and they still keep on like zombies. Rush Limbaugh reported on this today. McEnany Handles Unprofessional Press Corps on White Supremacy Crap Here is part of the text to the John Roberts part. (Rush left Roberts' first question out, but he was the one who asked the question that prompted Kayleigh's first answer below. It basically asked--in an obnoxious overly condescending manner--for Kayleigh to denounce white supremacy in Trump's name.) I have lost all respect for John Roberts. Fuck him. If I am watching TV and he comes on, I am going to change the channel. Just like I do for Chris Wallace most of the time. In fact, I no longer watch Fox like I used to. Michael
    3 points
  33. I didn’t watch the video. As you know, I rarely watch videos. I'll take your word for it that the material is choke-upping. What I signed on to comment about was Trump's "Thank you, I will never let you down!" He means it. He's fully out to give his all for decent Americans. I think it's the deep sincerity of his commitment which is why the leftists keep accusing him of being a liar. I think that they sense that he means it and the sincerity terrifies them. You went on to add the material after "btw" while I was signing in. I don't know, Michael, about your statement "The anti-Trump people just don't see him. They don't believe he exists." They don't understand him (I'm assuming what he is from your getting choked up). But I suspect that their awareness that such people do exist is part of their terror. Ellen
    3 points
  34. "Fauci vs. Ayn Rand": Q: "Should the government require inoculations against diseases, or the quarantine of people with communicable diseases?" Rand: "Requiring inoculation against disease is definitely not a job for the government. If it is medically proven that a certain inoculation is desirable, those who want it will take it. If some disagree and don’t want it, they alone are endangered, since the others will be inoculated. Nobody has the right to force a person to do anything for his own good and against his own judgment. "If someone has a contagious disease, however, against which there is no inoculation, then the government has the right to quarantine him. The principle here is to prevent diseased people from passing on their illness to others. Here there is a demonstrable physical damage. In all issues of government protection against physical damage, before the government can properly act, there must be an objective demonstration of an actual physical danger. [emphasis mine]To quarantine people who are ill is not a violation of their rights; it merely prevents them from doing physical damage to others. [APM 62] Q: "Should the government license physicians and dentists? " Rand: "The government has no right to pass judgment on the fitness of professionals. So, what would protect us from quacks in a free society? The free judgment of individual men, and the professional organizations and publications that report to its members or subscribers on the standing of various practitioners. Government licenses and medical school diplomas do not protect us from quacks. We must still exercise our judgment in selecting a physician, which is what we would do in a free society. Government licensing protects us from nothing, but could be used to keep better people out of a controlled profession. [APM 62]" Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 13). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
    2 points
  35. Oh, it's shining. The problem is getting through the clouds. The really bad things are yet to come but even those will be transcended as humanity lumbers into its future. We are in an acceleration of history, mostly thanks to technology and that in itself is thanks to the Enlightenment. --Brant buckle up
    2 points
  36. It makes no sense except for sweeping the problem under the table, if that. And that would be all in the head. Governments don't give a shit regardless. It's much more about the USA than China. We might as well nuke DC. --Brant now that I think about it . . .
    2 points
  37. Peter quotes Rand Paul three posts above: I'd like to emphasize this sentence: "We can't let government tyrants and media fear mongers push us into accepting this terrible idea that we need their permission to go back to our lives." Ellen
    2 points
  38. TG, Now you are beginning to see it in all its glory. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And then the argument always boils down to: An instinct is an instinct unless it isn't. Or the corollary: An instinct isn't an instinct unless it is. And here's the kicker. A concept is supposed to boil down in the end to observation, right? Well in this case, that proposition is the foundation. That's the premise. That's the primary conceptual referent for each example. We can call it the Eeny-Meeny-Miny-Moe protocol. Everything else is mutable in the arguments. (Talk about a festival of rationalizations, too.) Look around. You'll see that over and over and over with Rand's blank slate instinct thing, both in her writing and in that of those who adopt this line. And, for readers who are uncomfortable with Rand fudging this, just let go of the "Rand is perfect" or "Rand is always right about these things" premise. Her achievements are great enough (they really are) without needing you to fudge for her when she fudges. Michael
    2 points
  39. Drs recommend it not because they see the affects of the "vaccine". But relief. Fear is the compelling factor, once sparked it can't be put out, not like fire. I will lie about it. What I see are eyes registering fear because I cant see disapproving faces. I'm going to lie because folks can be nazi like in their zeal for feeling protected. They don't ask for proof, they want submission. As long as I display submissive behavior its acceptable. A couple of weeks ago I was early to pickleball. Lacrosse hadn't yet let out and as we assembled en masse suddenly I was called out for being mask-less. I ignored them until the most confident among them waved a mask in my face. Substituting my shirt was not enough. Its easily my favorite past time. I can't turn on them and I won't submit. Not to bs, and certainly not bullies. So for now I put a mask to my lips and discard it after 15 steps into the gym where surprisingly all masks come off. 25-30 heavily breathing mouths accept the concept of freedom for 2 hrs is more important than mandates. Those same folks then move to their cars in masks. Symbolism at its worst. When asked its an array of concerns for others not themselves. Mostly abiding to "rules" when in public. I go everywhere the same way I always have. Early on 1 man commented "get away from my wife". I told him to shove it. I put up with arbitrary rules, until I was 14, from a parent, a snake eater. A man who once likened children to mice in mazes. Unbelievable what these people get away while in medaled uniform. Its not dissimilar to how people react with Drs. As news of 15 mandate free states travels (more than 25% now) folks register new feelings about their own lock down states. It will be based on envy, which is as bad as any other emotionally based argument.
    2 points
  40. Texas and Mississippi decided to end mask mandates. Biden was not amused. As he opened borders to let in countless illegal aliens with COVID-19 infection, he said the following about the Texas and Mississippi decisions: See here and here. And the experts? What say they? Michael
    2 points
  41. Here is the first interview with General Mike Flynn in a while. It was conducted yesterday (Feb. 5, 2021) by Doug Billings for a show called The Right Side. The sound from Gen Flynn is not great at times (it sounds like sporadic tinny VOIP degradation), but it is so good to hear from him, it's worth putting up with. DOUG BILLINGS / GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN INTERVIEW Here's an article on Centipede Nation. It used a YouTube video, which I preferred not to embed. But the comments are the things I was going to mention. I believe the timings will line up with the BitChute version I posted, or at least be close. If you want to see the YT version, go to the link. General Michael Flynn Interview With Doug Billings… In other words, to the chagrin of a lot of Q people and similar Patriots, President Trump did not sign the Insurrection Act and there is no "plan," but something covert and strong is cooking... As a practical issue, I believe there are many things happening with different factions, including a possible "plan." But I hold Gen. Flynn way high on the credibility scale, so if there is one, it is probably being run by a much smaller group than insinuated by rumor. Michael
    2 points
  42. On the "Deep State Unraveling" thread, I mentioned Rand's open letter, "To All Innocent Fifth Columnists", in regards to communist "infiltration from within", and how it related to the Q phenomenon, which is largely meant to wake people up to the same threat. As I was rereading her words, today, I found a lot of relevance to what we're going through, now. But what struck me most was her calling out the "doomers" who were ready to throw in the towel too soon, even back then. She was URGING them to get off their asses, to NOT be pacified, while calling on people to have...wait for it...FAITH, which I was already discussing in relation to Objectivists vs. Christians in today's political climate, post-Trump. And parts of it sound as if it could have even been an influence on the people behind Q. For those who've never read it, or want to reread it, it's in the link below. I'm going to post a few highlights from it, as well. If you read nothing else today, read this. It's worth it. http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/taifc.html "[T]he tragedy of today is that you — who are responsible for the coming Totalitarian dictatorship of America — you do not know your own responsibility. You would be the first to deny the active part you're playing and proclaim your belief in freedom, in civilization, in the American way of life. You are the most dangerous kind of Fifth Columnist — an innocent subconscious Fifth Columnist. Of such as you is the Kingdom of Hitler and of Stalin. You do not believe this? Check up on yourself. Take the test we offer you here. 1. Are you the kind who considers ten minutes of his time too valuable to read this and give it some thought? 2. Are you the kind who sits at home and moans over the state of the world — but does nothing about it? 3. Are you the kind who says that the future is predestined by something or other, something he can't quite name or explain and isn't very clear about, but the world is doomed to dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do about it? 4. Are you the kind who says that he wishes he could do something, he'd be so eager to do something — but what can one man do? 5. Are you the kind who are so devoted to your own career, your family, your home or your children that you will let the most unspeakable horrors be brought about to destroy your career, your family, your home and your children — because you are too busy now to prevent them? Which one of the above are you? A little of all? But are you really too busy to think? ... Who "determines" the future? You're very muddled on that, aren't you? What exactly is "mankind"? Is it a mystical entity with a will of its own? Or is it you, and I, and the sum of all of us together? What force is there to make history — except men, other men just like you? If there are enough men who believe in a better future and are willing to work for it, the future will be what they want it to be. You doubt this? Why then, if the world is doomed to dictatorship, do the dictators spend so much money and effort on propaganda? ... Don't delude yourself by minimizing the danger. You see what is going on in Europe and what it's doing to our own country and to your own private life. What other proof do you need? Don't say smugly that "it can't happen here." Stop and look back for a moment. ...Don't delude yourself with slogans and meaningless historical generalizations. It can happen here. It can happen anywhere. And a country's past history has nothing to do with it. Totalitarianism is not a new product of historical evolution. It is older than history. It is the attempt of the worthless and the criminal to seize control of society. That element is always there, in any country. But a healthy society gives it no chance. It is when the majority in a country becomes weak, indifferent and confused that a criminal minority, beautifully organized like all gangs, seizes the power. And once that power is seized it cannot be taken back for generations. Fantastic as it may seem to think of a dictatorship in the United States, it is much easier to establish such a dictatorship than to overthrow it. With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun? ... And the tragedy of today is that by remaining unorganized and mentally unarmed we are helping to bring that slavery upon ourselves. By being indifferent and confused, we are serving as innocent Fifth Columnists of our own destruction. There is no personal neutrality in the world today. ... And since you are involved, and have to be, what do you prefer? To do what you're doing and help the Totalitarians? Or to fight them? But in order to fight, you must understand. You must know exactly what you believe and you must hold to your faith honestly, consistently, and all the time. A faith assumed occasionally, like Sunday clothes, is of no value. Communism and Nazism are a faith. Yours must be as strong and clear as theirs. They know what they want. We don't. But let us see how, before it is too late, whether we have a faith, what it is and how we can fight for it. ... If you believe this, join us. If you don't — fight us. Either is your privilege, but the only truly immoral act you can commit is to agree with us, to realize that we are right — and then to forget it and do nothing. There is some excuse, little as it may be, for an open, honest Fifth Columnist. There is none for an innocent, passive, subconscious one. Of all the things we have said here to you, we wish to be wrong on only one — our first sentence. Prove us wrong on that. Join us. The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom.
    2 points
  43. "Onward, Christian soldiers,...." Lin Wood on 1/24/21 - link: In a series of subsequent posts - starting here - Lin talks about his plan in November 2019 to semi-retire and how that changed. Earlier on the thread, Lin excerpts - here - from a Catholic writer named Garret M. Ziegler. I’ve just started looking at Ziegler's Telegram account. He's college age, energetic and eloquent. One of the Objectivism-connected people with whom Larry and I are still in contact has said multiple times over the course of the last eight or so years, "It’s going to be Jesus who saves us if we’re saved." I think that there’s metaphoric truth in the quip, Ellen
    2 points
  44. Things are looking bleak. Based on this tweet and some other indications, rather than focus on keeping Trump in, we should start focusing on destroying the impostors. And breaking up big tech. There are certain indications that this is doable and the pushback will be massive (it's already starting), so I will keep contributing about this on this very thread until the Deep State unravels--or better, gets unraveled. I want to keep hope alive for OL readers to stay inspired that President Trump will be sworn in next week, but reality is what it is, not what I want it to be. So a fundamental reframe is in order. This fight is not about one election. It is about draining the swamp and facing down Communist China and the globalists. And getting President Trump back in as soon as possible. Look what he was able to do in one term without being an insider. Now he knows what's what and who's who. Once he gets back in, he will be seasoned at swamp draining. Regardless of what happens, I'm in. Michael
    2 points
  45. Trump isn’t going out. Ellen
    2 points
  46. Korben, I disagree, not about the reality part. Laura Ingraham's approach is not a Stockdale Paradox. It is singing the narrative her Fox News bosses want her to sing. Acknowledging the reality of a situation is one thing. Making a prediction of fact ("will be") full of qualifiers like "frankly unlikely event" is another. This is spin (narrative), not acknowledgment of a negative reality simultaneous with belief in a positive outcome. Laura has no belief in a positive outcome. She only has a half-hearted hope. She has a belief in a negative outcome. Spiritually, she is caving. That's not a Stockdale Paradox. You have to have two incompatible thoughts for a paradox to even exist. Accepting an outcome as fact while hoping for a miracle is not a paradox. Tokyo Rose Laura will win no wars. She will demoralize troops, though. Michael
    2 points
  47. TG, Hear it from Rudy himself. btw - Don't mind the munching sounds. That's just Rudy snacking on moral and legal douche-bags. (I love Rudy, but no accounting for taste. He also smokes cigars. ) Oh... and some more cuts to add to the thousand, too... Michael
    2 points
  48. Here is a man of total sanity when the world is going crazy. Mexican President: Imprudent to Congratulate Biden Before Election’s Legal Issues Resolved Michael
    2 points
  49. There is no official winner until Jan 6 as the EC has to meet twice. Any state can then object and the House and Senate get together to consider the objection. If that state's electors are withdrawn from Biden . . . Trump could win a second term in a legal coup. Why could thus happen? Joe Biden gets criminally indicted. --Brant
    2 points
  50. Rush reported something else today, too. Why this campaign about white supremacist all of a sudden? I know I was wondering that. But I was pegging it to the idiocy of a group of people who would run Russian hoax in the mainstream for 4 years. Rush gives it away in the headline to the transcript. Why the White Supremacy Hysteria? What If Biden’s Bleeding Black Votes? Yup... that does 'er for me. Dem internal polling probably shows black vote bleeding out the wazoo. And the Dems are panicking. These guys are losers and not just political losers. They are spiritual losers. They don't have a shred of integrity. Michael EDIT: Rush also said Trump's rally in Deluth, Minnesota last night was full of Democrats and non-voters who are interested in voting this go around. That's probably scaring the crap out of the Dems, too.
    2 points