Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/01/2021 in all areas

  1. I consider the following a victory for MAGA. Russell Brand, a famous young British leftie, is now being red-pilled. He is coming around to Trump (although he doesn't openly say so, and he is totally disgusted with the extent of the Russia hoax as propaganda. He talks about how he used to believe it and how he can no longer trust anything coming out of that side. But Russell still has a long way to go. Besides, he tries to look too much like Jesus. Michael
    1 point
  2. Australia has been suffering mightily from it's own Deep State and invasion from China. (It sure could use a Second Amendment, too.) So it's good to see a backlash. This is not much, but it is certainly in the right direction. BREAKING: Tyrannical New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian RESIGNS in Disgrace Following Corruption Probe #LockHerUp WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Tyrannical New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced her ‘difficult decision’ to resign as on Friday. The news comes after a corruption watchdog announced it was looking into her conduct... And this shows pushback, too. The police and authorities are actually afraid of the Aussie citizens. Aussie Police Urge Government to Issue No-Fly Zones Over Melbourne So People Won't See How Massive the Anti-Government Protests Are (VIDEO) WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Gideon Rozner, the Director of Policy at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, joined Tucker Carlson on Thursday night to discuss the Gozner says the police urged the government of Victoria to issue a... Michael
    1 point
  3. Haha Pfizermectin. Yours for only 250/pill. To be taken 6times/day until rectal bleeding stops. Pre-Pill Pfizerlube sold separately…
    1 point
  4. MS, I don't have much an opinion at all on Bidinotto's views on Objectivism. He's entitled to his opinions and, frankly, they will not influence much in O-Land. (It is funny, though, to see a person with a strong dogmatic streak in his personality point the finger at others and call them dogmatists. ) On the good side, I honestly think his views on fiction writing have and will have a substantive impact (especially seeing how this area in O-Land is so weak). As to the Objectivist movement concept, I know this is important to you and Scott. So let me give you a couple of points to chew on. 1. As you know, I use the "identify correctly to judge correctly" process for deep issues. So I see fishing around for an external cause to blame the meager spread of the Objectivist movement on as a problem of misidentification. The problem is not external. It's mostly internal--meaning the ability of the ideas as currently presented to satisfy what humans long for. For example, it's easy to say dogmatic leaders have spoiled the Objectivist movement. But did they? Not really. Dogmatic people are everywhere and in highly successful movements. I certainly don't see dogmatism impeding the spread of Marxism. The misidentification I see is selling an Objectivist movement as a savior of mankind movement. The scope is way too big. I'll deal with this more in the second point, but the truth is Rand's view of human nature is way too limited for Objectivism to ever replace religion on the world stage. I know this gets the dander up when I say it, as it used to for me, but if the problem is ever going to be fixed, reality has to be faced and correctly identified. 2. So what needs to be fixed for Objectivism to replace religion? Just off the top of my head the following is missing: rituals for celebrating birth and providing comfort on death, a form of strengthening family or replacing it, a form of praying, rituals for fellowship, missionary guidelines and training, funding of movement organizations that work universally rather than just relying on deep-pocketed donors (for example, tithing in religion), and so on. All of these elements involve human nature--the parts of human nature Rand sets aside as non-essential. In Rand's definition, man is a "rational animal." She usually gives lip service to the "animal" genus, then discards it as she focuses most of her attention on the "rational" differentia. Her insights within that area are profound, but when she tries to use this to replace the rest of human nature, people turn off. They go elsewhere. In other words, for one example, when her scope is narrow and she is developing the personal and social conditions for rational volition (reason) to develop and provide goodness to a person's life and humanity in general, her identifications are correct and deep. When she reifies this to replace the parts of human nature she sets aside, her identification of human nature is incomplete and, in some cases, wrong. I'm not just talking about the "animal" genus either. There are specific human things that cannot be satisfied by reason or even explained by it except by, maybe, the Law of Identity. Prayer is one. Humans pray and they have always prayed in one form or another--both personally and in group. This practice is so deeply and universally ingrained, one cannot turn it off like with a switch and then expect mankind to follow. Ditto for birth and death rituals. And so on. One cannot find these things in the formal processes of reason (the differentia) or in the genus (animal). So they fall outside of Rand's definition of human being. But they are not only universal to human beings, they are found nowhere else in nature. How can one make a widespread social movement out of that? One can make an Objectivist movement out of something targeted like capitalism and so on. But one cannot chop off fundamental parts of human nature and then call the body of work behind doing that "a philosophy for living on earth" and expect to make a successful movement to save mankind out of it. Those are just two points and I probably could articulate them better. But for this context, I think they are clear enough. And there is more, but I don't have time to go into it all right now. (And to not exclude Bidinotto, I doubt he would agree with what I wrote. He wants to punish dogmatists too much for fucking up Objectivism. ) For me, if there is ever to be a successful Objectivist movement, it must either become more narrow in scope and become several targeted Objectivist movements, or if one insists on building the movement on the rock of saving mankind, provisions and ideas have to be made and become integrated with Objectivism that deal with the parts of human nature that got left out. There are two areas that already do this successfully to different degrees. The first is when there is a huge attack by authoritarians against individuals in general. People who push back often go to Objectivism for intellectual ammo (to use Rand's term) and they simply integrate it into their lives as needed. They don't go deeper. After all, who can give up a fundamental part of human nature and still fight and win a war? So they just don't bother with the cognitive dissonance. Instead, they piggyback off of religion, use religious foundations of family and so on, and put Objectivism on top of it to fight for individual rights within the threat context. And Objectivism is a powerful weapon against such threats. But once the threat goes away, they generally go back to their normal foundations in daily life. The second is in fiction. Rand herself dealt with a lot re human nature in her fiction that never got into her nonfiction. And we can see Objectivism penetrating a lot of great fiction by people who are not necessarily Objectivists. Terry Goodkind is a wonderful example off the top of my head. His fiction absolutely does deal with wide swaths of human nature that are not in the official Objectivist nonfiction canon. (And, yeah, Bidinotto, too. ) That means the door is wide open to improving human existence through an Objectivist lens to whoever wants to walk through it. Those, to me, are examples of an Objectivist movement in practice. But they are not organized. Food for thought... Michael
    1 point