Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/11/2019 in all areas

  1. Some further comment after Ellen's post ... Quoting caroljane: “... it [a vaccination ID] illustrates my point. A public health measure is not viewed [by those who object to this?] as what it is, a measure to limit the initiation of force by citizens upon each other, but as – well, what? An infringement on your sacred right to get sick, and make others sick?” The ending is sarcastic and “initiation of force” is designed to push Objectivists’ buttons. The mask orders, “lockdowns” of healthy people, limiting businesses, closing businesses, forbidding public assembly, etc. have to do with naked power, nothing to do with public health – where is the science as they say – and neither does a vaccination ID. (It would be a federally issued ID that would track your medical history and be required to use the post office, fly, eventually to use a bank, etc.) The last is monstrous even if the Pfizer’s experimental vaccine (which isn’t a vaccine) were proven safe, and it hasn’t been. It is, as I just said, experimental (link to abridged talk by Simone Gold). Let’s get real. Even without treatment a healthy and non-decrepit person’s chance of getting very sick from Covid-19 is near zero. With treatment – and there are several inexpensive ones available – it is inconsequential Life is inherently, metaphysically, risky. You engage in reasonable precautions to minimize risk. What has been going on is not reasonable precautions but a naked power grab by totalitarians. Neo-communists would be a fitting label too.
    4 points
  2. I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism. The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it. There can be no harmony with the latter's existence. The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base. Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any voluntary collective. The one leaves no one be, even those who would choose to be left alone. The latter leaves everyone alone and equally leaves them free to choose to live in whatever level of collective promiscuity they wish. The Liberal (Classical) has no place in the Leftist's world view, whereas the Leftist's would have a place in the Liberal's world, only their use of force would be impermissible. This stark contrast, this asymmetry I find fascinating and inspiring, it may be the greatest example of the benevolence of freedom as a foil in the face of naked tyranny and yet it get's little to no attention. Perhaps there are so many who only "group think", who almost always and ever consider themselves, society and government only in terms of "we" (and "them"), and never think of themselves, their lives, and their freedom's in terms of "I" or "me". There is a great mass of lost souls, adult children, so mortally terrified of solitude and independence, ... that they must annihilate any solitary minded person or any ideas of individual liberty. Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not? I suppose as long as they are not naive to the naked will to power which possesses the lost cravens who seek oblivion for all, liberty minded persons can survive. But we must be vigilant. Anyway. Why is this asymmetry not more directly spoken of? Why don't Freedom lovers tell the middle-left (non violent progressives), you could organize yourselves in our world, you just cant use guns to threaten us, or anyone?
    4 points
  3. There are a lot of things I want to say on this thread, but I just don't have the time. But here are a few quick notes. I agree about asymmetry between Marxism and Capitalism. But notice that what is called capitalism these days is not capitalism. It's crony corporatism. The pharmaceutical cartel, for example, is called capitalism, but it is a monopoly racket protected by government-enforced privilege against newcomers and often funded by the government. Ayn Rand said somewhere that any compromise between good and evil only benefits evil. Good has nothing to gain from evil. I am not in favor of regulating free speech. I don't like top-down government dispensers of rights. But I am in favor of this: This part I really agree with. Not even the government is required to provide a platform for those who threaten it and preach its destruction. Let such people do that at their own places. Michael
    4 points
  4. It is a disadvantage to tolerate the left in public. We place too much value on freedom of speech. It's like some religious dogma we have. No, sometimes speech needs regulation. Let's recognize that when a leftist advocates for socializing property, he's initiating a process of force against private property holders. Left unchecked, we run the risk of losing everything to the left simply because we tolerate them and the loot-thirsty mob that gathers behind them. It's like listening to a psycho rant about how he's going to rape a woman, and we do nothing about it. Then his psycho friends arrive and they all agree, "Yeah, let's gang rape her!" We just walk away and go home and watch TV. On the news later we find out that she was raped by that gang. The difference is that the left rapes people legally with the institutions of government power. Our tolerance of evil speakers is essentially the same, but it seems okay in the case of democratic socialists because they want to be evil with the permission of voters. This is why we at minimum need to ban socialists from the government. I would also ban them from speaking on public property. Let them buy private property and speak there, but if they threaten the government they need to be stopped. Unfortunately we have not banned them, and now they are terrorizing citizens and embedding themselves in our government.
    4 points
  5. With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kangaroo impeachments... I’m starting to feel like Ayn Rand’s overwhelming focus on altruism was slightly misguided, in the sense that it is not the evil (out there) as such, it is a misdirection and a weapon used by the naked will to power and domination by the tyrannically inclined, targeting our weaknesses to obtain obedience. But that will to power the tyrannical powers of the psyche seem now to have been unleashed in the powerful and in the sheeple. The absolute monarch, the oligarchs, the totalitarian they do not hold altruism or community or equality as principles, but as tools of control. When there are few evil doers we protect ourselves from the ideas they try to use against us, but once the evil doers become prevalent or the majority we few must protect ourselves from them not just their ideas. The primary external evil is no longer the internal moral failing of the individual, even though it may have been its primary agitator and may have derived its primary power from it in the form of a population who has fallen to and the joined the ranks of the enemies of freedom. We see the will to power using against us everything we hold dear, peace, harmony, family, our own sense of empathy and benevolence both as threat and as alms. Granted, Ayn Rand knew of these dynamics and warned us all that this might happen, but the overwhelming focus of warnings against altruism seem out of balance now. That was primarily a preventative, and not enough people listened. In her lifetime perhaps it was best to try to stem the philosophical tide toward oblivion, to warn the culture running for the edge of the cliff, but now that it or a large part has careened over, what message or warning or exhortation can be made to those few sane left, perhaps clinging to the edge of the cliff and straining with the dark insane evil mass of suffering still dangling from their feel by some sharp claw, what kind of advice can be given to them who still wish to save themselves? I begin to feel that a philosophical rejection of Altruism is insufficient now that what it focused on to avoid has come to pass... the power hungry disdain all such ideas, the masses form a new mob of the power hungry, and freedom lovers have no fight with their own ideas as they do with existential threats to their freedoms, their values, their very lives. philosophy perhaps has run its course? sigh Just starting to feel something...
    4 points
  6. Another reason to look at the goings on around the Q Continuum is to understand the psychology of others, since we do, after all, live in a society where both the leadership and voters have an impact on our direct lives, now, via lockdowns and the economy, restricting our freedom of speech and threatening worse. Conversely, it's worth it to observe the religious beliefs of those in opposition to those forces, to see what keeps them ticking, and to compare and contrast to O'ism. After all, Rand did write, in "What Can One Do?", that while it wouldn't be good to join with conservatives or libertarians, we may have to join "ad hoc committees" towards a single or multiple purposes, but without letting any one's ideals dominate to the extent that common goal is rendered moot. But still, in order to know how to work together, there needs to be an understanding of the beliefs of those "strange bedfellows..." So, here's an example: Former Secretary Pompeo, on his personal Twitter account, just tweeted out Hebrews 11-1: Hebrews 11:1, KJV: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." On the surface, at face value, it's just a bible verse about faith and hope in times of uncertainty. (Though I could go on, I guess, to analyze it against the objectivist notion of "faith", bring in Kant, etc...but I have work to do.) But "anons" believe they've found another layer: 11.3 in the Q posts, they now believe, did NOT refer to the election, but to a particular DoD war manual, and 11.3 and 11.1, when written that way, correspond to the section about foreign occupation. They are taking these Q posts and Pompeo tweets as markers. Here's Pompeo's tweet: (Btw...here's another tweet from his former official Twitter account, as shared on Gab, where he refers to the CCP in "Kill brackets", a common Q thing...at the least, it indicates a shared method of communication...) https://gab.com/Limerence/posts/105583972615447286 And here's the anon theory: https://gab.com/mysticphoeniix/posts/105614586717654154 did POMPEO's tweet ref the DoD WAR MANUAL Anonymous 01/24/21 (Sun) 22:10:30 No.12699575 "Did an anon get this part already? Pompeo Hebrews 11.1. 11.1 in the DoD Law of War is the Occupation chapter. 11.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter addresses military occupation. The GC provides specific rules for the internment of protected persons in occupation, which are addressed in Chapter X. Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory.1" And here's the link to the DoD manual: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD Law of War Manual - June 2015 Updated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 Whether Objectivists believe it god, faith, etc, is besides the point. The point is that THEY believe in it, and it intertwines in how they are fighting this fight, and demonstrates how their faith keeps them going in uncertainty. (It may be easy to scoff at government/ military men using religion as a guide, the way Rand mocked Reagan for calling in an astrologer...but then, how many military victories were won throughout history by men who called on a deity to guide them? We can chalk the wins up to strategy, or even luck, but it was their faith that encouraged them to continue.) Contrast that against those who have thrown in the towel with cries of "we're doomed!", and many of those people may even call themselves Objectivist, for that matter... This is not something to be dismissed lightly, or simply mocked away. If you look at concentration camp survivors, many of them had to find not just the strength of will, but employed faith to survive. Viktor Frankel has written about his experience there, for reference. Of course, some of them were just lucky, while others never had a chance, no matter what they believed ,through no fault of their own. More on that, in a moment. And of course, many Jews disavowed god, after that, as well, so fair enough. One could then say, like Jordan Peterson does, that maybe purpose is better than faith, because "a man “He whose life has a why can bear almost any how." That would seem to work WITH the Objectivist philosophy, as Rand had a major belief in purpose. But we can also find examples of faith there, combined with purpose. Talking about the concentration camps, I acknowledged that some survivors were simply lucky. Well, Look at WE THE LIVING. Kira's survival rested on her faith in American, and her purpose to be an engineer. She pushed herself to carry on, to escape, to get to "the promised land." The fact that she didn't, because Russia was "airtight", according to her theme, is besides the point. (But consider, if America falls to communism, will the world then be "airtight", with no America to escape to? Then it becomes a case not of flight, but of fight...and what will we put our faith in, then?) And I think even Rand said something to the effect of America may has well been a fantasy to Russians. But then, Rand herself DID escape. Now, she had help, but she was also "lucky", as were many holocaust survivors, in the sense that it all worked out. But "fortune favors the ready", as they say. And because Rand was "Ready" in mind and spirit, she was able to be "one of the lucky ones." And part of being ready required faith despite uncertainty. The idea was that she saw another way. The difference is that her vision was metaphysically possible, as opposed to say, waiting for heaven, it was earth-oriented. Rand was a Romantic REALIST, after all. But still, she had faith despite uncertainty of being able to get out, faith that it was possible, despite the odds, and she fought to get out with her dying breath. As Barbara Branden liked to quote, "Price no object." To sum up, the people currently at the forefront of this fight are have combined their religion with their military strategies. It's not unprecedented, and despite the feasibility of the religious metaphysical reality, it's their faith that gets them through it through uncertainty. It's not a "blind faith", if only because there is an earthly military practicality to it. The question for Objectivists watching/fighting along with "strange bedfellows": Since O'ists aren't in charge, do we wait for the perfect plan, the John Galt with the best strategy? Or do we work with what we have? I'll leave it with this :To quote Sun Tzu, “Weak leadership can wreck the soundest strategy; forceful execution of even a poor plan can often bring victory.”
    4 points
  7. "Don't worry; we'll pick up the slack." It's...strange. When Trump first ran, I was not a fan of his, for a few reasons. But then I saw the over-reactions from others turn into TDS. I started to see through the lies. THEN, I saw MY image of Trump change from Trump the sleazy casino magnet and celebrity apprentice shit-stirrer to Trump the American, the fighter, the patriot, etc. And today, when I heard that he had gone to Walter Reed, my heart dropped. Up until recently, I was concerned about the government protecting the citizens during the riots, etc; Now, I want to protect Trump. I thought this was going to be my "Kennedy" moment. I don't normally feel this way about politicians. But this...this is different. If you had told me 4 years ago I'd be feeling this way, I wouldn't have believed it. If anything happens to Trump, he will become a martyr. Is it too strong to say that? I hope it doesn't come to that. And maybe I'm just caught up in emotion. But he's at the forefront of something, something that years of libertarian politics or ARI trying to spread Ayn Rand's message couldn't do. Whatever happens, I really hope that people pick up the slack. God speed.
    4 points
  8. He's a child or else a very young adult. The graphic is General Iroh from Avatar: the Last Airbender an anime series that ran from 2005-2008 and is still popular today. The hand gesture Iroh is making is likely part of a kata as he often imparted wisdom to his grandson while they trained together. My 15-year-old and I loved that series and quote from it on a semi-regular basis. The very next line after the graphic, our mystery poster says, "So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source." I read him in the same way I would have read my teenage son - more mature and smarter than average, but an awkward communicator and not sure how to convey that he wants to learn something while maintaining that he knows everything. You know, like a kid would do. Your experience, MSK, led you to read him differently, and you'll get no judgment from me on that, neither in my response to the poster nor in this response to you. However, I was compelled to answer honestly his honest inquiry. No, I did not get the same impression of him as others did.
    4 points
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. The "conspiracy theory advocate" label for people who see it is being ramped up to "domestic terrorist." Ellen
    3 points
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Michael, everyone, Notice, too, the Pence-Ryan email exchange linked to from the letter: https://files.constantcontact.com/899f3f04701/106dc3d3-c645-4215-bdd3-addad65bade2.pdf Ellen
    3 points
  22. ThatGuy, Since World War II the U.S. has been in a new phase of degradation to which Rand was pretty much oblivious. Socialism vs. Capitalism, Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative is now just entertainment, like television wrestling, hiding venal, thieving, murdering Mafia-like corruption. It makes “taxing the rich” or “robbing Peter to pay Paul” look good. I wrote “pretty much” because once in a while Rand would acknowledge that something more sinister than differences in political philosophy was going on. The only example I can think of at the moment is when, in an essay, she entertained the possibility that Marilyn Monroe had been murdered (for knowing too much about the crowd she was running around with at the time, though Rand didn’t say that). Leonard Peikoff hosted a radio show in the late 90s. Trying to make the above point, here’s what I emailed to him when he asked for topics to discuss (he didn’t use it). The quality of my writing has improved, I think, since back then. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug 6, 1998 *Choose your issues* My two choices are related, so first here's the common idea. In years past, however unconstitutional and extreme the violation of our rights, laws were passed and adhered to do it -- a pro forma chipping away of freedom. America was heading toward a totalitarian state -- in a genteel manner. No longer. We're graduating into a more mature stage of fascism. Besides the pretense of respect for the rule of law we now have outright gangsterism and thuggery. Here are my two choices: 1. The unbelievable corruption within the U.S. Department of Justice. The HUD and the savings and loan scandals, to give just two examples, were all made possible by crooked judges. None of the major perpetrators went to prison, only lesser figures or even innocent fall guys. Whistleblowers, insiders who try to expose the corruption, risk being sent to prison on false charges. Rodney Stich has written several books on corruption within the government, after experiencing it first hand. The thing to be done about it now is to make the corruption known. Then dishonest judges must be punished and replaced with honest ones. (By the way, Stein & Day, the first publisher of your -- LP's --first book, was robbed of all its assets by the corrupt Chapter 11 system. Sol Stein wrote a book about it entitled *A Feast for Lawyers*.) 2. The voluntary news blackout of the mainstream media. On some subjects a government censor could hardly do a better job. And when not a blackout it's often a dimout. This is well known to those who are interested in current affairs, thanks to those bright lights the alternative press, talk radio, and the Internet. But ask the average joe about the Vince Foster murder, the execution style murder of Mary Caitrin Mahoney -- Georgetown Starbucks cafe manager and former White House Intern, the evidence of a missile shoot down of TWA flight 800, FBI foreknowledge of [now I would say participation in] the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. and you get a blank stare.
    3 points
  23. Maybe Trump will pardon Assange on Christmas Day. Ellen
    3 points
  24. I like Lin Wood a lot. "Onward, Christian soldiers...." I don’t care a damn that he's a flaming Christian. I like his fervor and resoluteness and direct on-pointedness. And, fact is, a high percentage of the core Americans who support Trump and who won’t put up with the fraud or accept a "Great Reset" American future are Christians. Ellen
    3 points
  25. Its a good attitude to have. Its something I'd tell my son. Mannerisms in my written way of communicating are different than my internal methodologies. When the score has me down to my opponent I haven't lost. Not while I can mount an offense. Do I deal with my morale? Of course. Its part of regaining an edge. What you said "I am so pissed at them I could spit." resonates. It is personal. Though making others targets of my animosity doesn't improve my chances of winning anything. I have so little mental space to waste on an outcome, on an occupation for feeling as if I've gained traction in a battle I can't win. So I choose battles personal to me. Making break throughs in playing guitar. Preparing my way to winning another tournament. And I bring all the fire and determination to these things that you bring to yours. I hear you. That's the reason I come to Objectivist Living. I don't come to hear you've thrown in the towel. It always good news hearing an opponent has been outed for cheating. https://theamericanconservatives.net/attention-trump-campaign-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-won-groundbreaking-case-in-october-gives-campaign-right-to-examine-voting-machine-source-code/
    3 points
  26. Have you guys been watching the press trying to frame President Trump with the white supremacy thing? Let's start with the end first, then look at the idiot press. Here is just one compilation among many out there where Trump has disavowed white supremacy, including in the debate two days ago. Also, look at Chris Wallace in the 2016 election. Note that this video is impossible to find doing a simple YouTube search. YouTube and others do not want you to see this. So you can only find it on posts of others who embed it. Compare that to Chris Wallace asking the same goddam question in the 2020 debate a couple of days ago. And just look at the NBC title. As a snafu on the dorks, they kept in Biden saying Antifa is an idea, not an organization. Now, today there was a White House press briefing with Kayleigh McEnany. John Roberts of Fox News showed his ass in the briefing even worse than Chris Wallace showed his ass in the debate. Look what poor little control freak John Roberts had to say when a huge backlash from his audience hit him hard. Poor baby. I didn't know he was part of the Deep State, but there it is. To add icing to that cake, John Roberts' own wife, who works at ABC news, reported President Trump denounces white supremacy. Here is what the Deep State melting down really looks like. (Image from here. I didn't embed the tweet because Twitter might take it down.) For those who want to see the painful part of the press conference, here is a video: Other reporters were doing that shit, too. The audiences of these assholes are telling them straight up to stop the idiocy, yet they keep on. They are no longer fooling their audiences and they still keep on like zombies. Rush Limbaugh reported on this today. McEnany Handles Unprofessional Press Corps on White Supremacy Crap Here is part of the text to the John Roberts part. (Rush left Roberts' first question out, but he was the one who asked the question that prompted Kayleigh's first answer below. It basically asked--in an obnoxious overly condescending manner--for Kayleigh to denounce white supremacy in Trump's name.) I have lost all respect for John Roberts. Fuck him. If I am watching TV and he comes on, I am going to change the channel. Just like I do for Chris Wallace most of the time. In fact, I no longer watch Fox like I used to. Michael
    3 points
  27. I didn’t watch the video. As you know, I rarely watch videos. I'll take your word for it that the material is choke-upping. What I signed on to comment about was Trump's "Thank you, I will never let you down!" He means it. He's fully out to give his all for decent Americans. I think it's the deep sincerity of his commitment which is why the leftists keep accusing him of being a liar. I think that they sense that he means it and the sincerity terrifies them. You went on to add the material after "btw" while I was signing in. I don't know, Michael, about your statement "The anti-Trump people just don't see him. They don't believe he exists." They don't understand him (I'm assuming what he is from your getting choked up). But I suspect that their awareness that such people do exist is part of their terror. Ellen
    3 points
  28. The way I see it, if that certain someone was mocking me with a “haha” I was doing something right...
    3 points
  29. Deanna, I agree with the random video part. But how about a steady stream of videos glorifying Satanism and porn? That is in the culture. Haven't you noticed? Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion merely put a super-production on one. There was nothing random about it. (As I mentioned when I talked about tapping into the cultural zeitgeist.) Besides, why is this either-or? Does criticizing a video for potential damage make a claim that bad relationships are not a factor? Let me see. Hmmm... No. It doesn't. I agree with this, but with qualifications. 1. I think the steady stream of videos--not just random videos--reflects something, too. 2. Once again, here's the either-or thing on something that is not either-or. Why is a music video only a reflection and not a cause at the same time? In your opinion, is it that our brains can't chew gum and walk at the same time? (I mean cause both to happen? ) Paul Ekman and his people discovered how pleasant and unpleasant isolating and mapping facial muscles to expressions of emotions could get. One mainstream opinion at the time he started was that (1) an emotion is felt, then (2) a body reaction occurs. Not the contrary. As Ekman and company worked in front of mirrors on their own faces to isolate and map and see what that looked like, they discovered that purposely articulating muscles used in negative emotions caused them to feel these negative emotions. Ditto for positive. So if they were in a bad mood and they started working on the facial muscles predominantly used in positive emotions, their mood would lighten up a lot. And vice-versa. It's not either-or. Felt emotions cause facial muscles to articulate an expression. But articulating an emotional expression and holding if for a while causes the emotion to be felt. If you're feeling happy, you smile. If you're feeling, say, grumpy and you plaster a smile on your face and keep it in place, pretty soon you start feeling happy. It may not last depending on how intensely grumpy you are, but it does happen that way. That process happens with music and culture in general, too. Sometime a bad mentality in an individual (whatever the reason) causes bad intensely-felt cultural choices and sometimes a bad emotionally charged culture causes said individual to make bad choices and develop a bad mentality. Both can happen at the same time and in the same individual. Michael
    3 points
  30. The Smithsonian Promotes Pure Toxic Racism You have to see this to believe it. It's almost out of an Ayn Rand novel. At least this boneheaded spiteful chapter in The Smithsonian is getting bashed by lots and lots of people. Here's an article that gives an overview: Byron York's Daily Memo: 'Whiteness' and the National Museum of African American History and Culture The chart mentioned in the last paragraph is the cause of the storm. Before I show it, The Smithsonian's site took it down. Here is the webpage where it used to be. Whiteness Now here is the chart they took down. There is only one way to respond to trash like that. And Charlie Kirk did it, much to the surprise of Shannon Bream, who was trying to do her Trojan Horse gig of treating garbage as the equivalent of facts, but having a real hard time selling this particular pile of shit. Charlie outright called Leslie Marshall a racist in a tone of deep anger for defending it. Leslie, poor thing, is used to calling conservatives racist. She's not used to the racist label landing on her face like a pie. And it showed. I think the bullshit was too much even for Shannon. She wanted to sell sell the party line in a way that advances the Overton Window like she is paid to do, but this was too much. So she did the best she could at pretending pure toxic racism was a reasonable argument that should be examined in a "fair and balanced" way. But her heart wasn't in it. She just wanted it to be over. She allowed Leslie to bark back at Charlie, but Leslie sounded condescending and infantile and weirdly insecure. Shannon looked so relieved when it ended. Shannon should take a lesson from Charlie. The way Charlie did it is the only way to do it. Call evil evil. That Smithsonian poster could have easily been part of the text of "Why Do You Think You Think?" in Atlas Shrugged. Michael
    3 points
  31. Wow, that one seventeen year old basement troglodyte really got under Twatter's skin. All four hundred pounds of ze.
    3 points
  32. Frankly I think we have entertained the irrational and fear-frozen among us for way too long. It is time to take life back. No more forced face diapers and closed schools. The frightened can stay indoors indefinitely if they want, but they have no right to shut the rest of our lives down and we are not going to take it much longer.
    3 points
  33. Lo and behold, just days after Berman's being taken out, SDNY's case against Jeffrey Epstein's child victim procurer Ghislaine Maxwell finally proceeds after having been sat on for years. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/02/epstein-confidante-maxwell-arrested-in-new-hampshire/
    3 points
  34. And Gates. And WHO. And everyone else involved in the scheme. I'm very angry about the deaths from this "dastardly plot." I'm thinking of those who died as war casualties. Ellen
    3 points
  35. The pandemics in 1957 and then again in 1968 killed roughly 100k Americans each, they were influenza viruses , I don't know of any societal wide reactions that match this one. Did we flatten a curve ? Or do curves just do what curves do? It doesn't seem like lockdowns did much other than economic damage. I mean pandemics suck , but yeah they suck. Hurricanes suck too . ? It's starting to really feel like we've been played , no ?
    3 points
  36. Classic Objectivism absolutely opposes anti-trust. What wasn't addressed back then was State charted, created, sponsored corporations. There are 50 States. Where is there the room for public corporations in the ideologic rubric of libertarianism/Objectivism or in Randianism, if you will? Basically corporations are facets of economic fascism written large by today's social media. Hit them with anti-trust as a necessary stopgap. --Brant
    3 points
  37. The single greatest advance in medicine was the germ theory of disease. It's precursor was smallpox vaccination. There is no handling flu with vaccine, just the pretense, but the pretense is a horse to ride into good doing the world. I'd never get a flu shot. The virus mutates too much too quickly. Money is a road to power. These money men, ironically, are being controlled and used by people who live in all ways high on the hogs. They aren't after a virus, but you and me through nation state destruction and globalization. Above all they must all belong to the same fraternity. If Bill Gates were a true hero he'd go after malaria with DDT advocacy. --Brant
    3 points
  38. Michael, Ghate is not stupid, true. What's been irritating to me is that while ARI authors show their expertise when they mostly stick with pure Objectivist theories, and finding new ways to re-present them - they are singularly poor at applying theory to reality (or, as you say, applying reality to the ideas, rationalistically). And to top it off, prescribing their own judgments to other O'ists with Randian authority. Surely: Identify the entire situation as it is as a conceptual whole. While also keeping high standards in mind, not what it ~should be~ in an imagined, future perfect world. Where's context? What is the hierarchy of values here? Do actions and positive results matter less than airy words, style or sweet delivery? (Kant's - the noble intention, above all - comes to mind) What is the moral character emerging under pressure (and not the conventionally conformist 'character' - the public and media persona) of the actor(s)? This is after all, raw politics, and as it's been turning out, at its low-down dirtiest, anyone in and out of the US can see. One sees a sort of naivete when ARI Objectivists, going back to Peikoff, come down to the real world, so I'm not so certain there're other motives like financial gain/power involved. Maybe. But they do sound sincere. Perhaps it is all about making Objectivism "relevant". When you've ( I think it was Elan Journo, also generally a good thinker) predicted "a Trump dictatorship" - when hardly had he entered Office - and you now see you were wrong, damn, have the grace to admit your bad judgment and personal dislike in another article.
    3 points
  39. There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
    3 points
  40. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
    3 points
  41. Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !
    3 points
  42. Great posts ThatGuy. When I first heard Biden say, "They are killing people," I got his message but not all the implications of him "threatening" free speech. I know there are limitations / implications on free speech when you lie or libel but this "White House Down censorship" goes beyond that. Odd. Trump is still calling people out for their bad choice of words, but I never considered him a totalitarian, just a free speech advocate. And the free speech, includes him.
    2 points
  43. 'Struth! Do you have a thread or two on this process? A good treatment can be found here: Understanding Is and Ought - A Personal View by Michael Stuart Kelly If you get around to having guests, Michael would be a good choice ...
    2 points
  44. On the "Deep State Unraveling" thread, I mentioned Rand's open letter, "To All Innocent Fifth Columnists", in regards to communist "infiltration from within", and how it related to the Q phenomenon, which is largely meant to wake people up to the same threat. As I was rereading her words, today, I found a lot of relevance to what we're going through, now. But what struck me most was her calling out the "doomers" who were ready to throw in the towel too soon, even back then. She was URGING them to get off their asses, to NOT be pacified, while calling on people to have...wait for it...FAITH, which I was already discussing in relation to Objectivists vs. Christians in today's political climate, post-Trump. And parts of it sound as if it could have even been an influence on the people behind Q. For those who've never read it, or want to reread it, it's in the link below. I'm going to post a few highlights from it, as well. If you read nothing else today, read this. It's worth it. http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/taifc.html "[T]he tragedy of today is that you — who are responsible for the coming Totalitarian dictatorship of America — you do not know your own responsibility. You would be the first to deny the active part you're playing and proclaim your belief in freedom, in civilization, in the American way of life. You are the most dangerous kind of Fifth Columnist — an innocent subconscious Fifth Columnist. Of such as you is the Kingdom of Hitler and of Stalin. You do not believe this? Check up on yourself. Take the test we offer you here. 1. Are you the kind who considers ten minutes of his time too valuable to read this and give it some thought? 2. Are you the kind who sits at home and moans over the state of the world — but does nothing about it? 3. Are you the kind who says that the future is predestined by something or other, something he can't quite name or explain and isn't very clear about, but the world is doomed to dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do about it? 4. Are you the kind who says that he wishes he could do something, he'd be so eager to do something — but what can one man do? 5. Are you the kind who are so devoted to your own career, your family, your home or your children that you will let the most unspeakable horrors be brought about to destroy your career, your family, your home and your children — because you are too busy now to prevent them? Which one of the above are you? A little of all? But are you really too busy to think? ... Who "determines" the future? You're very muddled on that, aren't you? What exactly is "mankind"? Is it a mystical entity with a will of its own? Or is it you, and I, and the sum of all of us together? What force is there to make history — except men, other men just like you? If there are enough men who believe in a better future and are willing to work for it, the future will be what they want it to be. You doubt this? Why then, if the world is doomed to dictatorship, do the dictators spend so much money and effort on propaganda? ... Don't delude yourself by minimizing the danger. You see what is going on in Europe and what it's doing to our own country and to your own private life. What other proof do you need? Don't say smugly that "it can't happen here." Stop and look back for a moment. ...Don't delude yourself with slogans and meaningless historical generalizations. It can happen here. It can happen anywhere. And a country's past history has nothing to do with it. Totalitarianism is not a new product of historical evolution. It is older than history. It is the attempt of the worthless and the criminal to seize control of society. That element is always there, in any country. But a healthy society gives it no chance. It is when the majority in a country becomes weak, indifferent and confused that a criminal minority, beautifully organized like all gangs, seizes the power. And once that power is seized it cannot be taken back for generations. Fantastic as it may seem to think of a dictatorship in the United States, it is much easier to establish such a dictatorship than to overthrow it. With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun? ... And the tragedy of today is that by remaining unorganized and mentally unarmed we are helping to bring that slavery upon ourselves. By being indifferent and confused, we are serving as innocent Fifth Columnists of our own destruction. There is no personal neutrality in the world today. ... And since you are involved, and have to be, what do you prefer? To do what you're doing and help the Totalitarians? Or to fight them? But in order to fight, you must understand. You must know exactly what you believe and you must hold to your faith honestly, consistently, and all the time. A faith assumed occasionally, like Sunday clothes, is of no value. Communism and Nazism are a faith. Yours must be as strong and clear as theirs. They know what they want. We don't. But let us see how, before it is too late, whether we have a faith, what it is and how we can fight for it. ... If you believe this, join us. If you don't — fight us. Either is your privilege, but the only truly immoral act you can commit is to agree with us, to realize that we are right — and then to forget it and do nothing. There is some excuse, little as it may be, for an open, honest Fifth Columnist. There is none for an innocent, passive, subconscious one. Of all the things we have said here to you, we wish to be wrong on only one — our first sentence. Prove us wrong on that. Join us. The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom.
    2 points
  45. Incidentally, during the lead-up phase to voting day, has anyone noticed that I rarely talk about the political opinions of anti-Trump luminaries in the Objectivist subcommunity? I just noticed this myself and wondered why. Then it hit me. Their opinions are irrelevant to the election. If there were something they say or do that would affect voting, I would be agreeing with them or rebutting them, but I forgot they existed when I have thought about the election. I'm not ignoring them. I literally forgot they existed. Seriously. Michael
    2 points
  46. Peter, You mean conscience? No matter, I prefer conscious because they do seem braindead. Here is what they are afraid of: The RNC. The DNC laid a turkey egg with the public. The RNC is going to kill it. The reason was very well articulated by Rush Limbaugh yesterday. The gist: not only is President Trump's bond with his supporters unbreakable by the Democrats, but he has an extraordinary ability to say what he means for the future in a form his followers--and others--can see in their minds. Transcript: Trump’s Inaugural vs. Biden’s Bromides To highlight Biden's emptiness, I, actually, like another passage in his speech--part of the summary near the end: Doesn't that sound like a High School Valedictorian graduation speech by a not-so-talented kid? Platitudes with rah rah rah... Seriously, think about it. The Trump supporter hears The President say that the elites have had victories and have not shared them with the American people. Instead they gutted the American people. And the people look at the mess the country is in, including their own jobs, and how the elites did that, but also how well off the elites are while they suffer, and they feel glad they voted for President Trump. Since then they have seen President Trump making his victories their victories, meaning money in their pockets from realizing their professional dreams and taking care of their families in style. Not to mention wiping the Caliphate out and things like that. And they have seen the elites lying their asses off to attack President Trump, even staging an impeachment on bogus charges. There is no way in hell they will vote for anyone but him for a second term. Now imagine someone undecided and going crazy from the shutdown hearing Biden say, "... love is more powerful than hate. Hope is more powerful than fear. Light is more powerful than dark. This is our moment. This is our mission." Like Rush said, this might sound good to a Washington insider, but out there in America? Imagine the person thinking, Damn, that sounds like a lot better deal than what Trump offers. I can pay down my mortgage with it and tell my boss or customers that we should not worry about the lack of work or lack of money. We can replace all that with our love, hope and light, which is more powerful than hate, fear and dark. I feel it, I feel it. This is the solution to all my problems. I want to savor this Biden moment. I want be a part of this Biden mission. I think I'll vote for Biden. When do you think that will ever happen? Like maybe never? That difference is what the legacy press is afraid of. And they think they can sever the bond between Trump and his supporters, while fooling folks into ignoring Biden's shortcomings, by lying. The problem is aggravated by the fact that everybody, including Biden supporters, know the mainstream press lies by default. But they lie anyway. That's all they've got left to feed their craving for power and the unearned. So they embellish their lies with more lies and hope that works. Michael
    2 points
  47. Six or so years ago, I wouldn't have agreed with that idea myself. Climate-dispute-related experiences which I'd rather not have had have been unpleasantly educative. Whether or not Barney is a thorough con, I can't be sure, but his history sounds to me as if he is. At any rate, I think that there's enough evidence to be sure that he isn't the "profoundly good," misled-in-youthful-innocence person Biddle presents him as being. Ellen
    2 points
  48. Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop. Just to let you know: I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days. I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow. Oh, such fun. Ellen
    2 points
  49. One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
    2 points
  50. A mere three years? When government secrecy classifications routinely last ten, twenty, even fifty years, if indeed they're ever lifted at all? That's entirely unrealistic. Ye gads, Lyndon Johnson put an entire category of background sources for the Warren Commission under embargo until 2063. Disgorging such records can take generations. Many such exposés thus become timely whenever they're released. Fortunately, the Net and electronic infiltration tools are opening up more such archives, formal and informal, than ever before. Julian Assange of Wikileaks — now openly stalked for assassination by U.S. "Defense" Department operatives — is one of the true heroes of our time.
    2 points