Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/07/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, contained a counter-conspiracy involving a radio speech given by a man who vowed "to stop the motor of the world." On March 28, 2020, we have this speech dropped by the counter-conspiracy known as "Q", via the internet... "The entire world is watching. Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA. We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out. " Read the entire drop here: https://qmap.pub/ https://twitter.com/StormIsUponUs/status/1243987443533205504?s=20 Many have criticized Rand for Galt's speech being too long to hold people's attention, and too unfilmable for a movie. But whatever else one may think about "Q", you gotta admit, they figured a way around all that...
  3. 2 points
    Peter, People don't do conspiracies out in the open (except in America where certain conspirators have a complicit press and this still leaves me with jaw dropping ). One characteristic of a conspiracy is that it is meant to be hidden until the right moment. That's by definition. So how can one demand observed fact about something hidden? One has to dig and expose. The idea that a suspicion is loopy just because you can't see who is doing the bad stuff is a very dangerous one. You can't see a cancer cell inside you with your eyes alone. Not even doctors can. And if you ignore it, it will kill you. I don't know if you ever read some posts I made about a professor in Florida--I forget his name right now. He's a leftie. He tracked down where the term "conspiracy theory" came from. And he holds conferences at the university level where "peer reviewed" material is presented about the different conspiracies that have turned out to be true. The term "conspiracy theory" came from the CIA to quell the unrest that happened, both in America and abroad, after Kennedy got shot and the Warren commission issued it's lame report. People were having a fit in public--the press, radio, TV, speeches, and so on. There are copies of a memo by the CIA at the time. It is available to anyone who wants to see it. The CIA circulated it to the press offices and the Embassies explaining how to discredit public doubters of the Warren Report or the public version of the Kennedy assassination by smearing them as loopy conspiracy nuts. Before that time, "conspiracy theory" was a phrase used to describe serious musings on events. I can't think of an example from that time off the top of my head, but the later economic term "trickle down theory" has the kind of emotional load "conspiracy theory" used to have. Nobody today thinks a person espousing the "trickle down theory" is a flaming kook. Instead, they think the person is serious even when they disagree. Before the CIA did that little masterpiece of persuasion engineering to shut down discussion of speculations, people going overboard on a conspiracy were generally linked to the theory they espoused. For example, "red baiters" or "McCarthyites." Not even the John Birch Society people back then were called "conspiracy theorists." Lance deHaven-Smith Here... I just looked and found where I wrote about my man. The professor's name is Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. Here's a great start of a reading list if you ever get interested in historical conspiracies that were not believed at the time, but ended up being true: Also, here is a little more on Lance deHaven-Smith. First a post by William (with the snark against those who think differently than him, mostly meaning Trump supporters, removed). He posted a very good video of Lance deHaven-Smith in a 2013 talk. Then a response by me that gives some more nutshell information on Lance deHaven-Smith: I know I can dig up a lot more if I get going. But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) Asymmetrical Warfare Now that the military has openly embraced what it calls asymmetrical warfare, you can find paper after paper published by the military on conspiracy theories in the original meaning of the term. QAnon is a phenomenon that has all the marks of such asymmetrical warfare. It is intentionally designed to attract the fringe and nonfringe alike, that is, the way this project has unfolded, it is a way to inject narratives into the mainstream that are different than the ones offered but the fake news media, narratives that discredit the elitist mainstream culture. It's been a resounding success in that regard. Just think of how this has led to Epstein's fall--before, nobody believed he was trafficking in pedophilia among the superpowerful, but now everyone says he was. And he got dead and croaked and suicided as part of the show. Not even a fifty million dollar special counsel investigation into the idea that Russians elected Donald Trump through covert means worked. Nor an impeachment. Don't forget, the mainstream press deployed everything they had to support the narratives behind that investigation and impeachment, both during the leading up phase and after both fizzled. The fake news mainstream culture did this for over three years, day in and day out. Part of the reason these efforts didn't take is that the narratives pushed by the mainstream culture were not accepted by the general population. One of the reasons this happened was QAnon's skillful injection of counternarratives and doubt into the general population at places the mainstream fake news culture did not control. Back when you and I were young, this would not have been possible since there were only three nationwide TV stations, radio was mostly pop tunes and religion, and the printed press carried the day. The Internet ended that monopoly on controlling the narrative by the few. One day, after all this blows over, it will be very interesting to look at and study all the different techniques deployed on both sides. I have already identified a few, but it's still too early to write anything definitive about it. (That goes for me and others.) I'm still--we're still--observing--still gathering conceptual referents so to speak--since important history is unfolding right in front of us and hasn't wound up. Michael
  4. 2 points
    Something else: go to Google Earth, and look up the Administrative and Court Facility at Guantanamo Bay. I tried it..."the results are will shock you..."
  5. 2 points
    Indeed. I may be skeptical about aspects of the story, but not the story itself.
  6. 2 points
    Pizaagate is proven true by the Epstein story alone with it’s tentacles into Harvard, MIT, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, Princes and princesses worldwide. Nothing, no list of additional disclosures of any length will bring a person away from their precious yeah buts if the Epstein story does not.
  7. 2 points
    I think I stumbled across one of the main reasons for the intense Trump hatred among the elitists, all the way from the beginning. Relevance. From Breitbart: Nolte: We Now Know Truckers and Stock Boys Are Vital, Hollywood Is Not Nolte then gives these two example of our Hollywood royalty. And Madonna below, purposely made up ugly (at least it looks like that), and butchering fried fish, of all the goddam things to sing about. I'm gonna push the fair use thing and give the rest of the article. So what does this have to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome? I'm reminded of an observation Nathaniel Branden used to say about everybody knowing the truth about themselves when they wake up alone at two o'clock in the morning. They don't use a mask at that time, not even to fool themselves. The truth is, underneath, everybody knows what John Nolte just wrote. They know it deep in their gut. Even Hollywood royalty. Dreams are for the future, but without the present, dreams are nothing. There can be no future without the present. But look at how pathetic our dream-keepers are without their dream-enhancing trappings. Their present is worse than many of our next-door neighbors singing in the shower. They are not striving to make their dreams real. They are wallowing in mediocrity. Now think of this. Who sold the biggest dream of them all out in Hollywood and among the elites? Donald Trump did. He said go for it. And go for it, people did. They went for keeping that dream alive in their hearts. They read his books and made bestsellers out of them. The consumed the image of a big money show-off he injected into the mainstream. They put his TV show at No. 1 for years. And did Donald Trump become a dream-keeper just like everyone else? Nope. He took his own advice and went for it out in reality. He made his dream come true. And he did not need them to do it. Something none of them have the capacity to pull off. Oh, they have the reputation of being able to make dreams come true. But it's unearned. When push comes to shove, they know they are peddling a dream future without having earned a real present where that makes any kind of sense. They don't strive in their personal lives to become competent and better at real things. One can build a dream by striving for it by living on the pathway to it. Instead, they strive to be pampered and shielded from real things. I'm not talking about words or stories. I'm talking about reality. Reality-wise, these people are spiritual impostors. They crave to be worshiped for a metaphysical standing they have not earned and do not deserve. They can present a good story, but their reality sucks. Well, President Trump emerged from enormous personal striving and became President of the United States against all odds--while keeping the dream all along. He didn't sell out his dream, but instead, transmuted into reality on a foundation of merit. And by extension, he made these impostors look at themselves in the daylight, not just at two o'clock in the morning when they are by themselves. He made them realize--in full awareness--how insignificant they really are. They never forgave him for it. This applies to all elitists who hate Trump, too. Especially conservative never-Trumpers who made their careers out of selling a conservative dream but not earning a conservative present of productivity and competence in dealing with reality. They could never do what President Trump did and it galls them to no end anyone could. They know what that makes them look like--to everyone and to themselves. And now, for some goddam psychological reason I can't grok right now, these Hollyweird idiots are hell-bent on showing their public just how ugly, untalented, and insignificant they really are when they have to live the life their fans do. I can grok this much, though. They have a subconscious drive to put their hands on reality when all they've ever known is a dream. But they're not going for the gold out there in reality. They're going for the shit. That's what they want their fans to see them right now: themselves as shit. And they want this right at the time when their fans are under attack by reality. They will never forgive President Trump for making them do this, even though he didn't. Their hatred of him is projected hatred of themselves. Why do they hate themselves? Because they can't measure up and Trump can? No. Not at root. It's because they don't want to measure up and they know how wrong that is as a human being--at least they know it at two o'clock in the morning. Michael
  8. 2 points
    Jon, What accounts for the appearance of the COVID-19 virus just now in your narrative? Are you claiming that Xi had the virus bioengineered or some other way managed to get it unleashed on the world and that Donald Trump is such an inhumane bastard that he doesn't care about the deaths and misery and financial dislocation so long as he has a cover for declaring martial law and arresting his enemies list? Ellen
  9. 2 points
    Polly's terrific. She at least asks the right questions as Michael says; and if a tenth of what she interconnects is valid, it's enough. It's your minds they want. AR Never let a good crisis go to waste. R. Emanuel If you can keep your head when all about you...RK When all the cattle are stampeding in one direction, look for the men on horses. AJG There's something very strange going on, things which didn't transpire with the last serious virus.
  10. 2 points
    The ~main~ thing to be fearful of is others' paranoia, and ongoing curtailment on our freedoms. Do not accept the leftist narrative driving panic for power.
  11. 2 points
    Rand had good things to say about the American "common man." Nonetheless, her expressed views about the large majority of humankind were dismissive. Google the word "ballast" in Rand's work. Here's an example from the title essay of For the New Intellectual. This isn't early Rand. It was written after Atlas Shrugged. Ellen
  12. 1 point
    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. Note: I'm not talking about who is behind this. I'm merely talking about how this spread. Trading-up-the-chain is a press strategy identified and named by Ryan Holiday. It works like this. If a person wants to get an idea (or any kind of publicity) into the mainstream press through the back door, so to speak, he starts with a small site or place with no audience. But at that site or place is a discussion of the issue in legitimate-sounding highly-informative terms, but slanted. This slant is what is really being promoted. (Whether this slant is on the side of the good guys or bad guys, whether it is more objective or totally misleading, is not the issue. The mechanics work the same.) Then the person using this strategy gets in contact with people a little higher up in the press food chain who are sympathetic to the slant and points them to this information. As these people are overworked, they don't have time or inclination to check sources. The material sounds legitimate and looks like a source, so they report it. And the people above them use their publication as a source, since they suffer from the same lack of time under a lot of pressure. And off the slant goes up to the mainstream as if it were proven fact. This is happening with QAnon and here is a very good example of how Q has reached the stage right before the mainstream. Notice that Stephen Bannon does not mention QAnon, but he does mention what Q wants in quite clear terms, and specifically naming Kissinger, Davos, hedge fund managers, etc., as a starting point. Bannon is hardly ever this explicit in threats. Before too long, expect to see this--and other things like it, maybe mentioning other targets--as regular news items in the mainstream. That's how Q has spread. Q was the starting point, but instead of going away and relying on a single push, it kept pumping out drops laden with mystique and some solid predictions. So many people started pushing it up the chain. The fringe carried it at first, then the larger alt media got on board. Now Q is penetrating into much higher-ups in the press and, like with a typical trading up the chain process, Q, being the original source, stops being mentioned up near the top. But the ideas are. And once these ideas are in the mainstream press that way, not even the coronavirus can keep them from getting into people's hearts and minds in the mainstream culture. Like Bannon said, after saying, "It's all going to come out," about Kissinger and cronies (including Davos people, Wall Street people, etc): "The world is going to stand in judgment of you." It will, too. And these people are going to get thrown into the garbage bin of history along with tin-pot dictators, Bernie Madoff and the like. Their end will be jail, being killed and/or disgraced forever throughout history as evil people who did evil things. That is how the world changes when the trading-up-the-chain process is used effectively. Michael
  13. 1 point
    Re: Pastor Greg Laurie, Harvest, and Corona: Greg Laurie is an American author and pastor who serves as the senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California, Harvest Corona in Corona, California Harvest Woodcrest in Riverside, California, Harvest at Kumulani in Kapalua, Hawaii, and Harvest Orange County in Irvine, California. Wikipedia https://twitter.com/tobycovfefe2/status/1246829184971870212/photo/2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Laurie (Now, with the Wiki page bio, I'd certainly want to know if that isn't just shenanigans taking place after the fact...) [Edit: Nope, not shenanigans. It's on the the official Harvest.org page as well:] https://harvest.church/location/corona/
  14. 1 point
    The "Long Ranger"? Oh, the porno film!. --Brant
  15. 1 point
    Merlin, I would have to look it up, but I think I first heard about this on Tucker Carlson. He said at the time that the US division runs completely at a loss. This deficit is compensated by overseas, including ad hikes from CNN's airport monopoly. That didn't make any sense to me at the time, how can airport viewing prop up ad prices? But I have seen other people in the news talk about this. I smell a smokescreen. Comments in the news about CNN running at a deficit come up in the sporadic news stories that AT&T is thinking of spinning it off due to losses. This was discussed more during the recent AT&T and Time Warner merger, but it still comes up. On the Wikipedia page for CNN, you even get this comment: That is sourced to The Guardian. I'm surprised the hack political Wikipedia trolls let that one alone because there is certainly a lot more about CNN's losses that could be mentioned and sourced but isn't (meaning the trolls have been busy). For more details, I would have to do some digging if I ever get around to it. But the minutia of CNN's financials is not high on my priority list right now. I'm more interested in things like why and how a whole string of disgraced and/or retired intelligence officers keep getting pundit positions over at CNN and what kind of payoffs this entails. It seems like the ties between CNN and the CIA in particular are quite deep. So for now, just treat all this as my opinion. You'll probably sleep better at night. And add this. CNN is a cancer in our society. Michael
  16. 1 point
    More JFK Jr stuff coming up, today: JFK Jr vs. Joe Biden, 1994: "'Dear Senator Biden, You are a traitor."'Bearing the signature John F. Kennedy, Jr." https://vault.fbi.gov/John F. Kennedy Jr./John F. Kennedy Jr. Part 1 of 1 JFK Jr on the LENO show, reading a poem from a 9-year old Monica Lewinsky, where she descibes herself as a pizza (think "Pizzagate"). It's disturbing, in retrospect, how she describes herself. https://twitter.com/intheMatrixxx/status/1243920138321244163?s=20
  17. 1 point
    Mnuchin was with Goldman for how many years? Bill Barr was kinda SES and deep state, too. I can’t tell from here who was and is sincere deep state but is complying and cooperating with white hats now to stay alive, versus who was always a white hat and was simply faking and infiltrating.
  18. 1 point
    This thread speculates that Trump just "Ended the Fed" and plans to put us back on a gold standard... e
  19. 1 point
    I will stop debunking with this last word from Sherlock Holmes. Is a person epistemologically deficient if they believe much of what they read, put 2 and 2 together, and see 17? Peter An analysis of the evidence, according to the findings first published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, shows that the novel coronavirus "is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," with the researchers concluding "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." . . . . Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, supported the study’s findings, writing on his blog, "This study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19." Researchers concluded that the novel coronavirus is not a human creation because it does not share any "previously used virus backbone." It likely arose, the study said, from a recombination of a virus found in bats and another virus, possibly originating from pangolins, otherwise known as scaly anteaters. MORE: Coronavirus live updates: US now leads world with over 82,000 cases COVID-19 is 96% identical to a coronavirus found in bats, researchers said, but with a certain variation that could explain what has made it so infectious. "We know from the study of other coronaviruses that they’re able to acquire this [variation] and they can then become more pathogenic," Garry told ABC News. "This is a good explanation as to why this virus is so transmittable and has caused this pandemic." Notes. "You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?" The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890) Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)
  20. 1 point
    Oddly enough, Bob Dylan just released a 17-minute song today about the JFK assassination, "Murder Most Foul". Odd timing, since neither he nor JFK are really on anyone's minds, at the moment... from the article: The surprise track, which Dylan said only was recorded "a while back," comes eight years after his last album of original material. Little information was given about the surprise track, except for a brief statement from Dylan himself: “Greetings to my fans and followers with gratitude for all your support and loyalty over the years. “This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. “Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you. “Bob Dylan” A Dylan representative said the statement was all the information they would be releasing about the song, so whether “a while back” means a matter of months or many years remains a mystery. https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-releases-17-minute-song-jfk-kennedy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/
  21. 1 point
    Michael wrote on the Coronavirus thread: Peter has a treasure trove of archives from the old Atlantis forum. I block John La Cockroach but I read his message without logging in (since he is blocked and a block head.) I looked up the word Mason (and Free Mason) used on another OL thread and found this oldie. I seem to remember a picture of PinkCrash and she was pretty, with dark hair. Peter From: "Erik Herbertson" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:14:20 +0200. Here is an interesting article by a libertarian (Timothy Sandefeur) who have a different view on the American Civil War than the quite common among libertarians: www.zolatimes.com/V4.22/civil_war.html On www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo5.html there is the opposing view. The reason I pick this one up is partly because it deals with David Boaz (Cato Institute) article about the recent Mississippi flag controversy, partly because the very James McPherson mentioned in DiLorenzo´s article wrote a review on three books about the Civil War in the April 12 issue of The New York Review of Books. In the review McPherson writes that there are many facts (statements, articles, speeches, declarations etc.) supporting the view that the main goal of the leaders of the Confederacy in 1861 was the preservation of slavery. But after the war, many of them changed their motives in establishing a Confederacy to the issue of States rights instead. McPherson points out the fact that during the forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861 the presidents of the United States were slaveholding Southerners. At all times before 1861 a majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners. In the Congress, the Southerners were often in majority. In the House of Representatives Southerners had a disproportionate strength because of the electoral system "which stipulated that three fifths of the slaves were to be counted as part of a state’s population for purposes of determining the number of seats each state would have in the House. This provision gave slave states an average of twenty more congressmen after each census than they would have had on the basis of the free population above. The combined effect of these two constitutional provisions also gave the slave states about thirty more electoral votes than their share of the voting population would have entitled them to have."(McPherson). Anti-slavery Republicans called this situation the "Slave Power" and sometimes the "Slave Power Conspiracy". This political dominance of Southerners speaks against the claim that the antebellum South was concerned with states´ rights. As long as their pro-slavery interests were secured by a pro-slavery president and a pro-slavery majority in the Supreme Court and the Congress, they did not really care about states´ rights. McPherson: "In 1850 Southerners in Congress, plus a handful of Northern allies, enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slave owners, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners. Senator Jefferson Davis, who later insisted that the Confederacy fought for the principle of state sovereignty, voted with enthusiasm for the Fugitive Slave Law. When Northern state legislatures invoked states´ rights and individual liberties against this federal law, the Supreme Court with its majority of Southern justices reaffirmed the supremacy of national law to protect slavery (Ableman v. Booth, 1859). Many observers in the 1850s would have predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states´ rights were to occur, it would be the North that would rebel. The presidential election of 1860 changed the equation. Without a single electoral vote from the South, Lincoln won the presidency on a platform of containing the future expansion of slavery. Southerners saw the consequences that would likely follow. The Union now consisted of eighteen free states and fifteen slave states. Northern Republicans would soon control Congress, if not after this election then surely after the next. Loss of the Supreme Court would follow. Gone or going was the South´s national power to protect slavery; now was the time to invoke state sovereignty to leave the Union." The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions. The libertarian historian Jeffrey Hummel has written a book, "Emancipating slaves, enslaving free men", where he supports the right of CSA to secede, but he seems to have substantial information in his book, like criticism of CSA, for example. I haven´t read the book, just looked at some pages. It seems very interesting. I´m a Swedish citizen, and no expert on U.S. constitutional law, but it would be nice if some of you could comment this and perhaps bring me even more material on the subject. I would also like to know if Ayn Rand had any discussions about this subject. Erik Herbertson Opposing viewpoint Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The Cato Institute recently joined with the NAACP and the financial scandal-ridden left-wing hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in denouncing the Confederate battle flag and calling for its eradication from public spaces. In an April 16 article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal Cato’s executive vice president David Boaz argued that the last state to include the battle flag in its state emblem, Mississippi, should scrap it. Comparing the flag to posters of the communist terrorist Che Guevara or "vulgar bumper stickers," Boaz makes the untenable (and insulting) argument that the hundreds of thousands of Mississippians who favor keeping the emblem do so because they want to commemorate slavery. Anyone who disagrees with this theory, says Boaz, is a "spin doctor of the South," in other words, a liar. That would have to include nearly every serious historian. In The Causes of the Civil War, edited by the noted "Civil War" historian Kenneth Stampp, the issues of states rights versus centralized governmental power, the political plundering of the southern states with protectionist tariffs, tyranny of the majority, a conflict of cultures, and political blundering are all cited as contributing causes of the war. Only a small band of Marxist historians claims that the war was caused by slavery alone. And David Boaz too, apparently. Boaz buttresses his hypothesis with a quotation by University of Chicago philosophy professor Jacob Levy, who believes that "when the state speaks . . . it claims to speak on behalf of all its members." So, since not everyone approves of the Confederate battle flag, it should be taken down. That’s right, Cato’s executive vice president apparently believes that when Bill Clinton, the former chief spokesman of the American state, said that our taxes were too low, that criticizing government policy was tantamount to instigating terrorism, that he did not have sex with "that woman," and thousands of other lies and deceptions, he was speaking for all of us. Rubbish. Only in totalitarian societies does the state purport to express the views of every last citizen. Indeed, the history of totalitarianism is a history of snuffing out all dissenting views with tactics ranging from censorship to mass murder. To this list should be added the rewriting of history, which is really what the battle flag opponents are up to. In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar? Many Confederate soldiers thought of the war as "the Second war for American Independence." A Texas cavalryman told his sister in a letter that just as earlier Americans had "rebelled against King George to establish Liberty and freedom in this western world . . . so we dissolved our alliance with this oppressive foe and are now enlisted in The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence again." An Alabama infantryman wrote his mother, "If the mere imposition of a tax [in 1776] could raise such tumult what should be the result of the terrible system of oppression instituted by the Yankees?" Another theme in these letters was that many Confederates believed (and rightly so) that they were fighting to defend their property and families from a hostile invading army. "We are fighting for matters real and tangible . . . our property and our homes," wrote a Texas private in 1864. Union soldiers did not believe they were fighting to end slavery but to "preserve the union." "We are fighting for the Union . . . a high and noble sentiment, but after all a sentiment," wrote an Illinois officer, "They are fighting for independence and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders." Other Confederate soldiers sought revenge for the burning of southern cities and the murder of civilians, including women and children, while others voiced a desire to "protect the fair daughters of [the South] . . . from Yankee outrage and atrocity." When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." Boaz belittles the fact that tariffs and states’ rights were also motivations from the war, but the fact is, as soon as Lincoln took office the Republican Party, which virtually monopolized the federal government for the next seventy years, enacted tariff rates of nearly 50 percent, which remained at those levels for decades, and set in motion the great centralizing forces of federal power by adopting an internal revenue bureaucracy, central banking, corporate welfare, income and excise taxation, and the demolition of the system of decentralized government that was established by the founding fathers. Perhaps Boaz believes this was all just a coincidence. By calling for the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places the Cato Institute, the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are saying that we should destroy the most enduring symbol of opposition to centralized governmental power and tyranny, a symbol that to this day is a part of secession movements around the world, from Quebec to Northern Italy. No one was a more articulate and outspoken abolitionist than the great libertarian legal philosopher Lysander Spooner of Massachusetts. But in 1870 Spooner wrote that "all these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one." The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee on November 4, 1866, that "I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. . . . I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." Disavowing the views of these great libertarian scholars, Boaz apparently prefers the interpretations of history given by Kwesi Mfume, Al Sharpton, and Morris Dees. Some 620,000 Americans died in Lincoln’s war, at a time when the population of the U.S. was about 30 million. Standardized for today’s population, that would be roughly the equivalent of 5 million American deaths in a four-year war – 100 times the number of Americans who died in the ten-year Vietnam conflict. On the other hand, dozens of other countries during the nineteenth century ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. The death of some 300,000 Southerners, most of whom believed they were giving their lives for the causes of liberty, independence, and self government, is apparently of no concern to Boaz. He is only concerned about the purported sensitivities of American blacks, but shows no concern whatsoever for the descendants of hundreds of thousands of brave men who had nothing to do with slavery and who gave their lives for what Professor McPherson characterized as "deeply felt convictions." In war, the victors always get to write the history. A century of federal government propaganda about the causes and effects of the War for Southern Independence has been so effective that even the Cato Institute has apparently fallen victim to it. April 19, 2001 Thomas J. DiLorenzo is Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland. From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Re: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:01:31 -0500 Erik Herbertson wrote: "The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions." It is misleading to say that most of America's founding fathers wanted to end slavery. Many supported it, and virtually all of those who opposed it were gradualists who took a position akin to that of St. Augustine's prayer, "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet." There was a widespread belief that slavery was economically inefficient compared to free labor, so the South would eventually be forced to abandon slavery out of self-interested motives. As far as political measures to end slavery were concerned, the original strategy (embodied in the Constitution) was to prohibit the slave trade (not slavery itself) 20 years after ratification, in the hope that a purely domestic supply of slaves would be unable to maintain the "peculiar institution." Eric is right to point out that many founding father at least had serious "doubts" about slavery. Eric, for example, quotes George Mason's polemic against slavery, but he fails to mention that Mason himself was a slaveowner who said he would never free his slaves. He also conceded this was a contradiction which he would not attempt to rationalize or justify. As for the Southern "motive" for secession, this can be a difficult thing to get a handle on, because "motives" pertain only to individuals, not to collective entities, such as states. Although most southerners did not own slaves (and many commoners resented the slave owning aristocracy), it is clear that for many southerners the issue of slavery lit the fuse that would eventually ignite the struggle for independence. Nevertheless, the official southern rationale was independence. Likewise, the official northern rationale was the argument that secession is illegitimate. Lincoln was very clear about this: "My paramount object in this struggle *is* to save the Union, and is *not* either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing *any* slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing *all* the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union....." (Lincoln went on to note that this was his *official* position; personally, he would like to see all slaves set free.) Two other things should be kept in mind. First, the Union itself contained four slave states. Second, the Emancipation Proclamation "liberated" only those slaves in rebellious states; it did not free the slaves in the four Union border states, nor in those southern territories that had been conquered by Union armies. It is was simply and solely a war measure designed to weaken the South. (For more on this, see Jeff Hummel's excellent book, *Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* which Eric also mentioned.) Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well. Slavery aside, southerners had a number of legitimate grievances, such as the propensity of northerners to impose high tariffs that benefited northern manufacturing at the expense of southern agriculture. But we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence. But whatever the motives of some southerners may have been (and they were complex, sometimes having as much to do with cultural as with political reasons), both sides agreed that the Civil War was being fought over the right of secession. There are some parallels here with the American Revolution. The physician Benjamin Rush (the guy who convinced Thomas Paine to write "Common Sense") estimated that the motives of around one-third of the American revolutionaries were less than noble. (Some, for example, wished to escape the responsibility of paying their debts to British merchants, whereas others did not like the restraints imposed upon them to protect Indians.) Moreover, the British (for military reasons similar to those later invoked by Lincoln) offered to free any slaves that fought on the British side, and it is scarcely coincidental that most Indian tribes sided with the British as well. Thus, in the American Revolution as in the Southern Revolution, the motives of individuals were often varied and mixed. Lysander Spooner dealt with this troublesome issue by clearly distinguishing the right of secession from the motives that may impel some people to demand secession. Thus, although Spooner had long been a vehement abolitionist, he defended the southern cause, claiming it was as legitimate as the American revolution had been. I agree with him on this. Slavery was sanctioned and flourished much longer under the Union flag that it did under the Confederate flag. We should therefore take them both down, everywhere and permanently. If we must have a national symbol, then let us salute the old revolutionary flag with a coiled snake and the motto, "Don't tread on me." This would be a clear indication that Americans oppose all forms of slavery, both chattel and political, and regardless of whether the tyrant prefers to be called "Master" or "Mister President." Ghs From: "Erik Herbertson" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Re: American Civil War Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 01:07:14 +0200 Thank you George, for your response. When I asked about the motives for secession, I was more interested in the views held by the leaders of the Confederacy, rather than the various inhabitants of the South, who obviously held different views. In Sandefeur´s article there is a quote by CSA:s vice president Alexander Stephens, which underscores the claim that preservation of slavery was the main purpose for the leaders of the Confederacy. But yes, not even among "leaders" was this a unifying belief. General Robert Lee was against slavery. And certainly did many hold free trade arguments against Northern tariffs. But the British Manchester liberals and free traders Richard Cobden and John Bright supported the North. Among Republicans, such as Lincoln, Union seemed to be more important than the abolition of slavery, yes. But the Republicans at least had an ambition to do something about it, by forbidding its expansion to new territories and states. They could not abolish it altogether, because of the federal structure. The Emancipation Proclamation only liberated slaves in CSA territory because Lincoln only had military authority to decide about it there, but not in the rest of the Union. At least that is what I have read. But I don´t want to be Lincoln´s advocate. He did a lot of damage. I´m just assessing who is "better" in this conflict, if that´s possible at all. I don´t think it´s possible. The old revolutionary flag George mentioned seems to be a good symbol for real freedom fighters. Erik Herbertson From: PinkCrash7 To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:25:05 EDT George Smith wrote: >Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well. According to Steven Yates, author of "When is Political Divorce Justified?" in the book, _Secession, State and Liberty_, edited by David Gordon (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ 1998), "the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade importing any more African slaves, and [Jefferson Davis] once vetoed a bill which he deemed in conflict with this: 'Gentlemen of Congress: With sincere deference to the judgment of Congress, I have carefully considered the bill in relation to the slave trade, and to punish persons offending therein, but have not been able to approve it, and therefore do return it with a statement of my objections. The Constitution (Art. I, Section 7) provides that the importation of African Negroes from any foreign country other than slave-holding states of the United States is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same... This provisions seems to me to be in opposition to the policy declared in the Constitution - the prohibition of the importation of African Negroes - and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of that object.' "In other words, Davis knew the institution would gradually die out as more and more slaves were able to buy their freedom or die and not be replaced. "The reason the southern states gave for secession was their desire for a self-determination they saw themselves losing in the face of both government intrusions and broken agreements - in short, to escape a federal government which had already stepped outside its bounds...." The book, _Secession, State and Liberty_ is a fascinating book containing a collection of essays about secession -- including one by Murray Rothbard ("Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State") and another by Bruce Benson ("How to Secede in Business Without Really Leaving: Evidence of the Substitution of Arbitration for Litigation"). The one that I found the most interesting is by James Ostowski, "Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President's Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession". I would highly recommend this book to Erik and to anyone who is interested in the subject of secession. Debbie From: Michael Hardy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:09:27 -0400 (EDT) I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states. The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" states that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world," and goes on to enumerate various threats to that institution. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" complains at length about the refusal of northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the harboring of slaves charge with murder or with inciting servile insurrection, etc. It states over and over and over and over that it was from the "non-slave-holding states" that the state of South Carolina wished to be separated. Why just those ones? Why not all of the other states? George, how do you answer that? Did South Carolina have various separate grievances, unrelated to slavery, against precisely those states that, by some strange coincidence, also happened to be non- slave-holding states? And did they then refer to them by means of that coincidence without suspecting that they were setting themselves up to be misunderstood as acting for the purpose of preserving slavery? The "Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union" makes much of the ""beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery." Below I quote from the official Declaration of Causes of Secession of the state of Georgia. These documents are at <http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html>. Mike Hardy << A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. C ongress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensable for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious reviling’s and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands today a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. >> From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:30:07 -0500 Mike Hardy wrote: "I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states. The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons." Mike then quotes from the Declaration of Immediate Causes from Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, all of which refer to slavery in some fashion. I never denied that slavery played a significant role in secession -- indeed, I specifically stated that "we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence." But the issue is more complex that Mike has indicated. Secession occurred in two waves. Seven slave states seceded within three months of Lincoln's election, even though, apart from his opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories, Lincoln had pledged not to tamper with the peculiar institution. The second wave occurred after the Fort Sumter incident, when Lincoln had refused to evacuate Union troops from Charleston Harbor. This was the spark that caused four additional states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to join the rebellion. The Governor of Virginia (who had previously been critical of South Carolina's actions) flatly refused Lincoln's order to muster militia for to the purpose of forcing the rebellious states back into the Union, and he accused Lincoln of starting a civil war for the purpose of subjugating the South. As Jeff Hummel puts it: "Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary union." (*Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* p. 141.) This is what I meant in saying that the motives for secession were varied and complex. But it would be silly to say that slavery was the fundamental issue that was contested during in the Civil War (even if it was the motive that caused *some* southerners to demand independence), since neither side was calling for its abolition. (As I pointed out before, slavery was legal in four border states within the Union itself.) Rather, the fundamental issue had to do with the right of secession. This is an issue that had been debated in the United States for many years. Btw, I have no sympathy with either side in that bloody and senseless war. Ghs
  22. 1 point
    Jon, there are some new Q drops today, regarding Habeus Corpus, that you may want to check out...
  23. 1 point
    Perhaps we should ask Alice when she's ten feet tall. No replay expected. Sniff.
  24. 1 point
    Your objection is noted, Peter.
  25. 1 point
    Sorry, Peter, I don't always follow your stream-of-consciousness style of posting...
  26. 1 point
    Not my observations, just passing on the theory... (I have to say, with the utmost respect, and no insult, that the Q-community really did "weaponize autism", they are obsessively and meticulously finding some serious patterns and connecting some serious dots...)
  27. 1 point
    Trump agreeing with Newsom. It was beyond impossible just weeks ago, right? Newsom hates Trump, they hate each other. But look now at the incredible turnaround in Newsom. He was glowing last week about Trump’s administration getting him everything and more they promised and how great they are. He must have a gun to his head. And “agreeing with him” is a nice touch, isn’t it? For the lefties; their Newsom made a call and Trump followed. I think Newsom must be going along with orders as a deal to be spared execution. Totally controlled man now, which is very useful and good. Trump needs total shutdown martial law in CA as the enemy is deeply entrenched in a large area there. The takedown action is going to spill into commercial areas, retail, all areas, and the least number of people will get hurt if they are motivated to stay indoors at home. Final stages now, we are very close.
  28. 1 point
    There is no danger of pandemic, if there is any bug at all. This is the inevitable mass takedown many of us have anticipated. When you strike at a King, and all that. They tried to destroy our Republic, did you really think DJT would not create or exploit the perfect cover for all takedown activities, complete with huge quarantine centers in his enemies’ strongholds? Many of us will see things in the coming weeks that we would unmistakably and immediately recognize as a mass takedown event, under normal circumstances. But most people, enough people, have been rendered incapable of the correct identification of what they are about to see, and will instead call it “fighting coronavirus.” It is genius beyond comprehension. How do you keep a population calm while you round up the people they have been voting for all their life? You will see how in the coming few weeks. This is also the financial reset. Again, the collapse of the dollar Fraud Reserve is inevitable, has been since 1913. When did you think it would collapse? How much longer did you really think it could go? There will be no UBI, no socialism, no expansion of social support systems, but they will flood everyone with money to spend so that activity remains healthy through The Storm, I mean the coronavirus, and so that the people are safe and comfortable. People’s incomes will cease as they are forced to stay inside week after week. There would be desperation and unrest and violence and death. So everyone will be flooded with comforts. There is no other way.
  29. 1 point
    Are we really marching toward Universal Basic Income (UBI)? I mean, I'll take the money if it comes, but isn't this a major step toward Big Brother with a very nasty outome in the end unless one is an insider? And would I feel guilty about taking the money? No. That's because I know it won't last. Not for me. I know for sure I wouldn't be an insider for long. Michael
  30. 1 point
    Why didn’t you post Moby Dick, Peter? Then, you could have noticed that it is not relevant. Then, you could have told us it stays regardless, because, well, someone might want to read Moby Dick. The Bible, Peter! Someone might want to read the Bible. Post it.
  31. 1 point
    What happens to the letters O at about 0:22 — 0:23 ? Are you enjoying the show?
  32. 1 point
    The impending disaster was we were going to become fully and irretrievably enslaved by the elites. Not a left-caused collapse and tears for all. An elite-engineered collapse followed by total technotronic control of the masses by a extremely tiny generational elite. The Trump Train stopped them. This is the takedown. No collapse. Beautiful world coming.
  33. 1 point
    See what I mean? You keep getting it wrong. I'm not the poo-poo head. You're the poo-poo head.
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    T, I'm just giving my impression of what little I have seen of him on this issue. But it's true, this has attracted and built audience for him. (Honey attracts flies, but so does shit. ) When the issue of race comes up on a Stefan video, I generally turn it off. I don't see all that many Stefan videos as it is. God knows, I have trouble enough navigating the crazy crap in my head. I don't need to try to navigate the crazy crap in someone else's head. To be fair, I would probably disagree with Stefan on this, and in quite clear and strong terms, if I ever did a deep dive. The post of mine that you liked was pretty clear on how I see human potential and I doubt there is anything Stefan could say that would get me to change my mind. (I've put my life where my mouth is, too. The mother of my kids in Brazil has some black blood in her. So my kids have black blood in them. I'm not proud of that or not proud of it. Back then I didn't see race as anything important and I still don't. Well, in casting a play or movie its important, of when groups or individuals get so riled up about racial matters they want to fight. Things like that. But otherwise, I really am an individual merit kind of guy. With one caveat. When I was much younger, I was down on clarinet players to the extent of bigotry. But this was because my girlfriend was a clarinet player and she betrayed me with another clarinet player. She left me for that idiot. So even today, I kinda think clarinet players suck. ) There is a young guy over in Hawaii who's interested in Rand. He made an online crusade of bashing Stefan over his views on race for a time. I can't remember his name right off the top of my head, but I would know it if I saw it. I only saw him do this crusade on Facebook, but he was quite active and vocal and he kept it up for months. He's a good kid. I got the impression he was so invested, he was letting his own dreams slide. But it was his life and his choice. So I know Stefan has irritated the crap out of some people on this. That's OK by me. Let them fight about it. They care. Me, not so much. Michael
  36. 1 point
    Jon, When poor standards are used, it's easy to make anything like anything else. Of course Hillary Clinton and Ayn Rand are just alike. They're both women. And that means Ayn Rand is totally not like Donald Trump. One is a woman and the other is a man. Or, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are completely alike. Both are authors. Need I go on? Maybe a little more relevance in the standards would help. But think of the gotchas one could play doing it with poor standards. Michael
  37. 1 point
    Thank you for taking the time to write this, Michael. It could serve as a decent rebuttal to arguments made by Stefan Molyneux regarding I.Q. and his claims about "reversions to the mean" in certain demographics.
  38. 1 point
    Jon, I don't understand what you are talking about. It's a nice challenge, but a challenge to do what? Where is anyone discussing Rand's feelings of anxiety? Michael
  39. 1 point
    You two seem distraught about this. Who recorded Rand’s distraught reaction to that major hero of hers so deeply misunderstanding her work? Where can I read about it?
  40. 1 point
    Mises saw many of the same things that writer sees, even using the same words, e.g., “better people” ... “better than you” My bolds January 23, 1958 Mrs. Ayn Rand 36 East 36 Street New York, N.Y. Dear Mrs. Rand: I AM NOT A professional critic and I feel no call to judge the merits of a novel. So I do not want to detain you with the information that I enjoyed very much reading Atlas Shrugged and that I am full of admi- ration for your masterful construction of the plot. But “Atlas Shrugged” is not merely a novel. It is also—or may I say: first of all—a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled “intellec- tuals” and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devastating exposure of the “moral cannibals,” the “gigolos of science” and of the “academic prattle” of the makers of the “anti-industrial revolu- tion.” You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you. If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, it still is the truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State. I warmly congratulate you and I am looking forward with great expectations to your future work. Sincerely, Ludwig Mises LM/ms https://cdn.mises.org/21_4_3.pdf
  41. 1 point
    To get this thread back on target, which is to present weird versions and misrepresentations of Rand in the mainstream, I found this beauty from March 2018 in The Washington Examiner by one Ethan Epstein: How Hillary Clinton Is Like Ayn Rand It's a short article, so here it is in the most part. It's so muddled, it's hard to take an excerpt and make it stand alone. I've seen Rand misrepresented a lot and in a lot of ways. But this... But this... I stand in awe. Michael
  42. 1 point
    See? It’s the Rand Paul Society. Every single day they push his book. To my knowledge they have never. I will break it up So that it hits. They have never. Never. They have never mentioned Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Nor George Reisman’s https://cdn.mises.org/Capitalism A Treatise on Economics_3.pdf I wish I was criticizing people for the way they promote Ayn Rand’s ideas, even if poorly. I wish I could agree that that is even what they try to do.
  43. 1 point
    They reposted, it’s fixed now. They used months instead, and got it right: “A BILLION (their all-caps, they do it a lot) months ago, the dinosaurs still roamed.” Eighty something million years ago, they still roamed, that’s correct.
  44. 1 point
    Jonathan, Tell that to the fan clubs. In fact, that's kinda where I put Jennifer's shindig. A fan club approach. And I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. It's a perspective. (And there are fan clubs galore in schools, including in institutions of higher education.) Kat is a huge Beatles fan. I've always been on the artist side of the stage during a huge chunk of my professional life, so I had to learn the fan perspective over time. Observing Kat do her Beatles thing among her Beatles friends has helped me understand it. (She's quite active where her Beatles are concerned. ) The fan perspective is not a great fit for me, so I'm kind of a buzzkill with she and her friends want me to participate. I'm even that way with Rand stuff (remember all that play-acting at activism over on RoR?--I never resonated with it because, to me, this was the wrong side of the stage although I didn't have the words for it back then.). But at least now I can see what is going on when I'm with a fan of someone and we talk past each other. And, of course, there is quite a lot of bands that role play the Beatles in their shows. This corresponds nicely with what Jennifer is doing. Groking this perspective is probably why I am not down on Jennifer. I see where she is coming from. At least, based on her actions, I think I do. (I bet she's a good person, too, but that's another issue.) I'm more than fine with that. Cool. It's all good. Michael
  45. 1 point
    “CEO” is incorrect. A CEO is chief of all the other executives, but I am not aware of any other named executives at Atlas. Same as if Michael started calling himself CEO of OL. Ok. But why not President and Commander-in-Chief? Cosplay, ya’ll!!! Woohoo!!
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    Sense and intelligence against cult of personality.
  48. 1 point
    Get past that, exactly. What does scatter-brain do, instead? She attempts to literally resurrect the personality. They do zero talking Jonathan, on Instagram. At most Jennifer will pop in to like all the comments by the retarded collectivists their postings have attracted. She’ll comment, “I know, right?” to the stupider comments. Nothing intelligent or corrective ever issues from her or the account manager. You have to see it to believe it.
  49. 1 point
    Ellen, As it should be. I even share your reaction in part and I think I know one component of it (the uncanny valley thing above). I like to think out loud at times when something grabs my attention. This was an instance. Also, I wanted readers who might like Jennifer's shindig to know they will not be tarred and feathered should they ever say that here. I agree with this. As to my own thoughts, Jennifer is trying something different and I like people who do things. Even at 30k, she's generating a small audience. To paraphrase an old sentiment, if, among that number there is just one snowflake, and that one becomes a world leader, and a seed of Randian reason gets planted in that snowflake's mind through her efforts, she will have helped make the world a better place. I don't predict much success for her Rand "coplay" project (precisely because of storytelling issues, that is, lack of story, much less one relevant to college audiences), but who knows? It might grow. So I wish her well. Michael
  50. 1 point
    Disrespectful and bizarre - as if she could imitate the real Rand (and is she going to attempt to imitate some of the famous Rand explosions?). People would come from distant places and line up for many hours to get into a real Rand Ford Hall Forum appearance. The performance was worth the travel and the wait. I wouldn't go to see Jennifer Grossman try to imitate Rand if she were doing it next door. Ellen