Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/17/2021 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. "I couldn't help it!", cried James Taggart... (Reminds me of that scene from ATLAS where a low-level employee was used as the proverbial scapegoat, to take the fall for the big-wigs...and it's a common trope on tv now to have a stupid character promoted beyond their skill in order to have them take the fall, in general...life imitating art imitating life...)
    3 points
  8. They staged a false flag, pulled it off with their own people and then certified the vote at 3 am. There was not an electoral process. Its fraud and Triump will be reinstated
    3 points
  9. Funny but that Government resigned upon people storming the capital and when the " insurrectionists" stormed the capitol, Pelosi et al had a 3 am vote to "certify" the election.
    3 points
  10. D, Desmet is way cool. I posted a video of his about mass formation in the Story Wars thread last October (see here). Mass formation psychosis, though, seems especially dangerous. Especially when it is engineered by behavioral science pricks in collusion with an out-of-control government. I remember Glenn Beck talking about the same concept years ago in different words. He talked about the leftist theory of squeezing people top down, bottom up and inside out. The idea is that when things get bad enough, people want it to stop and eventually become so desperate, once a strong man comes along and says he has the remedy, they follow him blindly. People are doing this with Fauci, of all people. He's not a "strong man" in the traditional sense, but he always speaks in a tone of absolute certainty. And he always says he has the remedy. That's what people want to calm their frustrations and fears. Frankly, there is an element of this idea in the Trump movement. Trump even cultivated the "strong man" charisma. I think he is hated so much, at least by the predator class, because they know he has no a dictator aspirations like they do. He just looks like he does. So they see him as a Trojan horse for their aims. The potential for the Trump movement to turn into a mass formation psychosis is the only thing that bothers me about it. Right now, I don't see this as an issue because Trump is so grounded. But later, after he gets power once again and weakens the other side in a critical manner, I fear the ones who come after him. Humans are flawed when it comes to power. Michael
    3 points
  11. Peter, maybe two-thirds to three-quarters of a population did not HAVE to be vaccinated. (Nor locked -down...) For argument let's say one-half, to be on the safe side. Must they submit to it, despite whatever reason they don't choose to, whether they have Faith in, say, Fate or the Godly Design of the healthy human body to withstand viruses? (not entirely wrong, naturalistically). Or like others, atheists, who have made a sober and rational, benefit evaluation of their ages, health and immuno-systems, those too? If they all must. Why? Who said? I know you as an O'ist take individual freedoms seriously, but it seems you tacitly go along with these immoral, anti-rights, mandates. I'm glad you're doing well. As all others who needed it. I ask you to keep in mind that vaxxing worked for YOU. You can't abstract your individual circumstances and necessary choice onto a proscription for everybody else. We know that vaxxing has done little to nothing with curtailing the spread; so that blows away any 'argument from duty'.
    3 points
  12. "Who has written the best book or article on "the Predator Class," does anyone know?" See also Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical by Chris Matthew Sciabarra, especially, but not limited to, Chapter 12: "The Predatory State". Here are specific mentions of "the predatory state" via a Kindle search: Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical . Penn State University Press. Kindle Edition.
    3 points
  13. William, Who cares about Axios? Establishment authoritarians on the left, that's who. Maybe people with TDS. I think you need a conceptual referent. Just repeating a mantra, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, will not make it true. But with so much repetition among so much noise lacking signal, the actual link to reality gets destroyed in one's brain. So let's put it back. Reality, I mean. What does savaging look like in the political arena? Here's a good example. Watch: NBC’s ‘Saturday Night Live’ Jokes About Roger Stone’s Cancer-Stricken Wife Getting Gang-Raped Watch: NBC's 'Saturday Night Live' Jokes About Roger Stone's Cancer-Stricken Wife Getting Gang-Raped WWW.BREITBART.COM NBC's "Saturday Night Live" aired a joke about members of Congress gang-raping Roger Stone's wife, who is battling cancer. The tasteless one-liner came from "Weekend Update" anchor Michael Che, who... Dismissing a disloyal person with a "fuck him" is not savagery. Gang raping a 75 year old lady with Stage 3 cancer is savagery. And so is wishing for it. Your side is loaded with creeps. Inhuman savages. And that's being charitable. And it's worse. These are people who will turn you into a creep, an inhuman savage, if you stay around them long enough. Anyway, time to get back to reading Alec Baldwin talk about gun control. Michael
    3 points
  14. Tony, I wasn't criticizing anyone. I was merely stating my own position. If you're interested, I came to this position after watching innumerable debates going to the hostile level over what Rand would have done or thought. And the sides were polar opposites. In problem-solving mode, I wondered how this could be fixed seeing how she wasn't around anymore to shed light. The only solution I came to was to be clear about the part Rand wrote or said and my own position. That works for me. But I get why people do channel Rand, or try to. It's a human nature thing to emulate idols, then incorporate them. I will not criticize someone for being human. But for my life, I have dispensed with a huge amount of my own cognitive dissonance by simply owning my own words and thoughts. And many of them, admittedly, come from my familiarity with Rand's work. I own that, too. But, in the end, I like being me. I would hate being Rand. That means I would have had to sleep with Frank and Nathaniel and neither are my type. Michael
    3 points
  15. Woo hoo! Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted of all charges in Kenosha shooting NYPOST.COM Kyle Rittenhouse broke down in tears and collapsed in his seat as the not-guilty verdict was read out in court. He hugged one of his lawyers, who told the shaking teen to "breathe.'' Now he can sue the asses off the press for defamation and join the Covington kids as a kind of David archetype in a David and Goliath template. Michael
    3 points
  16. NOT GUILTY!!!!!!! Friday night riots tonight. Congrats Kyle!!!!
    3 points
  17. Christine Anderson, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, just did for the resistance to the vax tyranny what Patrick Henry did for the American Revolution. Steve Bannon even said her words were like the Gettysburg address in conciseness and power. Must Watch Very Powerful - Christine Anderson European Parliament WWW.BITCHUTE.COM In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political elite sincerely concerned about the well-being of regular people. What makes any of us think that it is different now. - Christine Anderson... Here is the golden phrase. This thing has gone viral all across the Internet the world over. It is awesome she said that in the European Parliament, which is about anything and everything except freedom. Here is the full text of that 2 minutes or so of her speech. Steven Bannon interviewed her this morning. Major Harassment With Propaganda Show Going On In Europe Over Vax RUMBLE.COM Major Harassment With Propaganda Show Going On In Europe Over Vax Notice that her notion of her own freedom is so strong, she is not calling the vax-bullies "tyranny" or anything like that. She is calling them "harassment." You can almost see her dusting them off her shoes as she steps onto the path of greatness in human history. Michael
    3 points
  18. Use these numbers and pro rate the entire world and you have the flu d'etat, and the plandemic. World war 4 just ended. We secured Normandy
    3 points
  19. Bannon got Trump elected. They are over the target, I would worry if I were "them", and Im not too concerned about propoganda from CNN.
    3 points
  20. From the AmericanThinker article quoted by anthony: “... the left has permanently trashed medical ethics in their quest to fundamentally transform America". The left isn’t in a position to affect the ethics of doctors. And I doubt that most doctors themselves are rubbing their hands together in private thinking “I’m fundamentally transforming America.” Just what are they thinking? That is a puzzle. It may have to do with what it takes to get into medical school. The process tends to winnow out independent and adventurous thinkers; don’t rock the boat, get straight A’s. And after medical school there is a lot of sucking up to superiors to get ahead. It all cultivates a herd mentality. They do what they are told to do. With covid and the vaccines they are acting as if hypnotized. The people at the top, though, don’t have the shabby excuse of evasion. I think they know what they are doing, and they are motivated by money, power, and the leftist mind-set. Long ago Rand recognized the fundamental nature of that mind-set. When she was writing her novels leftists talked about helping the workers. She realized the left wasn’t out to help them at all, it was out to destroy just for the sake of destruction. She called leftism “anti-life” in her novels and essays. Today we see that mentality naked and unashamed. They’re killing and maiming people wholesale, both intentionally and because they don’t care if they do. That they are going after youth and children is beyond horrible. First mass vaccination at any cost, then passports, then individually tagged digital currency – total state control of individuals, that is their desire. The totalitarianism of the early part of the 20th century in Russia and parts of Europe would be like the horse and buggy is to the modern car. We absolutely have to reverse this. The unvaxxed, the un-poisoned we should say, ought to act proud. Shame the vaxxed, the poisoned, for going along with the leftist program. Besides risking their health they are traitors. The “powers that be” can’t arrest all of us. Each vaxxed is a sell out. (This is rather off-the-cuff and rambling but I haven’t got time to compose something better.)
    3 points
  21. I went on a bit of a rant Tuesday in the waiting room at the eye clinic. The waiting room has one of those TVs which run health-info mini lectures. Used to be that the material was about eye conditions and treatment possibilities. Now it's mostly assurances about the (fictional) "safety and efficacy" of the Covid jabs. One of the segments pertained to pregnant women and there being "no cause for concern" about damage to the fetus. I gave a little angered speech to Larry about its being criminal to give the stuff to pregnant women. I didn’t want to risk triggering an incident, so I didn’t raise my voice enough so that I'd seem to be addressing the room at large. Just enough so that I could be heard if other persons in the room cared to listen. Ellen
    3 points
  22. ‘Error in judgement’: CBC Edmonton regrets mannequin’s use in COVID-19 news report NATIONALPOST.COM Reuters fact check: Some online users said use of the mannequin was proof that Alberta ICUs were not busy
    3 points
  23. HUGE EXCLUSIVE: New Report Reveals COVID-19 Was a Planned Bioweapon by China’s People’s Liberation Army WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Guest post by Lawrence Sellin and Anna Chen COVID-19 was a planned bioweapon of China’s People’s Liberation Army. Already in 2005, Colonel Ji-Wei Guo of the People’s Liberation Army’s Southwest Hospital, Third... Start of the article by Sellin and Chen: === Quote "Already in 2005, Colonel Ji-Wei Guo of the People’s Liberation Army’s Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China described a new type of bioweapon. "Colonel Guo rejected the clumsy, traditional biological weapons that produced mass destruction, ones that: 'depend on microbiology, especially bacteriology, which uses destructive bacteria, viruses, and toxic living bodies obtained directly from the natural world. These weapons are subject to nature, are difficult to control, and have irreversible effects.' "China would use biotechnology to create new forms of designed 'biotechnological weapons' that would be 'controllable' and 'recoverable' for which China had sole possession of the vaccine or antidote. "Such weapons would be highly contagious, but of low lethality and capable of being deployed under 'pre-war' conditions. Although artificially created, the new bioweapons would retain 'plausible deniability,' that is, could be attributed to a disease of natural origin. "Thus, spawned the PLA’s massive joint bioweapon development-vaccine production program, which incorporated China’s universities and their access to international knowledge and skills, particularly those from the United States." === End Quote Please read the rest at the link. Ellen
    3 points
  24. Here is a fascinating way to look at story wars: Mass Formation. Here is the same video on a BitChute channel for obvious reasons. Mattias Desmet - WHY DO SO MANY STILL BUY INTO THE NARRATIVE? WWW.BITCHUTE.COM Published: Sept 22, 2021 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLDpZ8daIVM&t=802s Does it sometimes feel like you’re surrounded by people who’ve been hypnotised in some way? Well, maybe you... I have a feeling I am going to like diving into the ideas of Mattias Desmet. He said there are four psychological and social conditions for a totalitarian narrative to take over society: 1. There has to be a lot of people who feel a lack of social bonds and lack of social connectedness. 2. A lot of people who feel a lack of meaning-making. 3. A lot of people who feel a free-floating anxiety, meaning an anxiety from within that is not connected to a mental representation of an object out in reality. 4. A lot of people who feel a free-floating frustration and aggression. Once people are in this state, when a source credible to them offers them a concrete object to blame for their free-floating anxiety, frustration and aggression, they already have juiced-up emotions to go along with it and plug into it. That will lead to them creating social bonds with people who think the same and the emerging group will give them a sense of meaning in the making. This is powerful shit. Desmet calls this a state of collective hypnosis. I'm going to think on this some, but off the top of my head, I now see why an avalanche of stories that attack beloved traditions and icons and beliefs are always present before a mass lunacy emerges. The way many people in O-Land try to convince others to change their minds goes something like this: 1. They find the truth in Rand's works and arguments. 2. They present this truth to people who believe the contrary and hammer it. 3. They get frustrated because they don't convince people other than those who already agree. 4. They complain about the world going to hell. The correct sequence would be to: 1. Choose the truth they want to persuade others to adopt. 2. Analyze their target audience and filter for ideas (contrary or otherwise) that contain emotional loads of anxiety, frustration and aggressiveness. List and study these ideas from this lens. 3. Present stories and scenarios that cause people to doubt and dislodge from those ideas, but keep their anxiety, frustration and aggressiveness high and in a free-floating manner. 4. Present a new villain that can be easily seen and/or imagined as a cause for their anxiety, frustration and aggressiveness. 5. Then appeal to reasoned arguments about the truth they want to tell that solves everything. Obviously, this villain has to be one that opposes, or is incongruent with, the truth they want to tell. But the sequence in a simplified form--and in vastly different language--is create floating unhappiness and misery in people, get them to blame a scapegoat for it, then lead them to the promised land. It has to be in that order, otherwise it doesn't work. Hell, from a different angle, this is a plot-line for a friggin' novel. Off the top of my head once again, I see this pattern is in Atlas Shrugged. Rand got the anxious, frustrated and aggressive parts of her fictional world disconnected from concrete causes and let them float ("Whos is John Galt?"), she then scapegoated altruism and presented a lot of concrete examples of how it caused anxiety, frustration and aggression, then off to the reason-based promised land (after a massive "this is why altruism sucks" speech). Obviously this analysis needs a little work. But still, the big parts are there and in the right order. I think that is part of why her novel is so persuasive. She didn't just get the reasoned arguments right. She nailed the emotional sequence of authoritarian takeovers of society (and then used it to shake off authoritarianism). More later as I learn. But watch the video. I only gave a small part of the goodness in it along with my brainstorming. Michael
    3 points
  25. Is an insurrection something that is orchastrated by one side and then call in Congress in the middle of the night ( by the same side) to certify the election right as the speaker knew that Sydney Powell was going to go to the courts after documents were served? We are in the midst of a civil war, not just in the US, but world wide.
    3 points
  26. NOT "because of Covid", instead because of compelled interventions. Because of - the anti-science, unnecessary, sacrificial, one size for all, policy of lockdowns etc. thrust on everyone in a supposed causation from Covid. What's human-constructed (or -forced) did not 'have to be'. What's metaphysical, a virus, "had to be". I was considering if there isn't some detectable Categorical Imperative behind 1. universal lockdowns and 2. universal vaccinations. A universal law. *Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it become a universal law*. I.Kant From one to all. Isn't that maxim what we see going on?
    3 points
  27. Actually, some of us - I'm one - can, and I did, have alarm bells ringing loudly immediately upon reading a description of how these mRNA experimental "jabs" (not, properly speaking, vaccines) work. I'd no more willingly comply with the experiment than take up juggling with lit sticks of dynamite for a hobby. The way things are going with results, my immediate "no way, short of at gun point" reaction looks more and more justified. And we haven’t gotten to long-term damage yet, or to what's being done to fetal development. There have been a good number of miscarriages. What will be the results for pregnancies brought to term…?? I think it is terrible to give the mRNA jabs to children. Reckless endangerment of the child's future development. The situation is nothing like protecting a child from deadly or crippling diseases. I'm no way opposed to vaccines against polio, smallpox, rubella, diphtheria…. I had polio, before there was a vaccine. Would that there had been a vaccine and I'd gotten it. I'd have been spared life-long physical troubles which are worsening (post polio). I am not an anti-vaxxer. But: I think that these mRNA things are proving to be a medical catastrophe - along with being a statist's bonanza. Regarding the latter - Tony, I think that you've been doing a really good job of spelling out the difference between rational self-interest and service to the collective. Bravo. Ellen
    3 points
  28. I'm a capitalist I like products from companies when they are liable for defects or negligence. I like medical products that are proven safe, not proclaimed. I'd throw all that out of the window if I were afraid fro my life.
    3 points
  29. And all those Spring Training games ,Fla keeps looking better and better.
    3 points
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. TG, I was not making a rebuke. I want that to be clear since facial expressions, body language, etc., are not part of the normal message. We only have written words and, at times, images and videos. I want to elaborate on a few points since my purpose is to establish bridges of communication. 1. I start from the position that most people are good and want to be good, to do good. I think if they can see a problem without pegging it to a strongly slanted/bigoted core story, they will opt for the most reasonable conclusion and that will tend to be good. So when I try to convince someone, I am not trying to make him or her think as I do. I am not trying to get immediate agreement with me. I am trying to get them to see what I see as I see it, irrespective if they agree or not. Once they do that, I trust them to make use of that information as best they can. This is more complicated than just trying to get them to agree with me. It means trying to get them to step out of their core story, even if only for a few minutes, so their critical brain can gather raw information. That's probably the hardest persuasion thing of all to do--to get people to identify something for a few minutes without judging it, especially a hot button issue. This is too long to go into here, but it is critical to making lasting change for the better to the world. 2. Like I said, forum communication is limited, being mostly words without body language. I have little doubt that often I do not get a correctly inflected message from those I disagree with because of this missing information. Ditto for them re me. That is and always will be an important part of context for reason to prevail. As I keep saying, how can one evaluate correctly what one does not identify correctly? 3. Canada is huge and this is critical when talking to Canadians about socialism. For example, they grok piles of dead bodies abstractly, but their day-to-day living does not allow them many conceptual referents for what that would look like as it develops. Oh, they sometimes see the photos, but that--even the possibility of that--has nothing in common with what they have lived all their lives. Those photos belong on a different planet to them. They belong to some noumenal realm or other, not to reality as they know it There's just way too much land with few humans on it. So, even in reality, when their government gets too tyrannical, they mostly shrug because they can ignore the nasty part of the ramifications of oligarchical dictatorship with a technocratic flavor. As a short way of saying it, law enforcement is few and the territory is enormous. That makes for low tension. 4. Like it or not, the way people communicate--the stuff you complained about--is the main form of the only world we've got. We either learn to convince people in that world, or we turn them into enemies at the drop of a hat. (I'm not saying evil deadly people don't exist. They do. The scary thing is that, nowadays, they run social media companies, work leading health care organizations, etc.) So if we want to change the minds of people, we have to convince them in the manner they speak. Otherwise, we are not on the field. And there's this. When I look at O-Land people, I see good people in general, not bad. Even with the more boneheaded ones. The following applies to the wrongheaded, but often applies to those more clear-thinking. I don't see their public expression setting a path that leads to evil people. Theoretically it could, I suppose, but I don't see any real-world impact from them. Hell, a lousy quarterback kneeling during the National Anthem has been more relevant to the world than all of them put together. So, instead of a s path to evil, I see them setting a path to their own irrelevance re important issues in the world. That's why I made my comment about calling them traitors and so on. I don't see them as the kind of people who overturn governments and I don't even see them influencing enough people to make any kind of change in the world. They simply don't convince anyone and don't want to. To be fair, in O-Land, people exist on a continuum, going from mostly harmless snarky control freaks to really good intelligent people. I dearly want to see a correlation between the ideas they profess and their character, but I don't see it when I go into identify-only mode. I mean, there really are bad ides. If implemented on a large-scale they really do give rise to evil deadly people in power. So it would be great if good ideas meant good character. But that's not the way humans work. I will cut a good person with bad ideas a hell of a lot more slack than I will for a bad person with good ideas. Anyway, I believe it is important to include all this (and other things I did not write about here) as potential context to look at when condemning someone. I consider those who defrauded the election last year as traitors. Human traffickers are real enemies, and so on. Not a person within O-Land regardless how outrageous something is he or she may say. (At least most of the time. ) That's what I see. (btw - You are one of the good guys with great potential for making good-guy changes in the real world. Not just here in O-Land. That's why I'm talking about all this.) Michael
    3 points
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. The "conspiracy theory advocate" label for people who see it is being ramped up to "domestic terrorist." Ellen
    3 points
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. What a joke. After avoiding 'Nu' in the Greek alphabet, they've hopped past the ensuing "Xi" to get "Omnicron". For fear of giving offense to Xi, that is quite certain. I demand this variant be appropriately named Xi!! WHO Appears to Make Massive Move for China in Naming Newest Variant: 'If the WHO Is This Scared of the Chinese Communist Party ...' T.CO Cruz called out the World Health Organization after it picked a name for the new COVID variant that seemed less likely to offend China.
    2 points