Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/05/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! --Brant
  2. 2 points
    Several years ago I did some textual research into Anthem. The different editions you can buy (Caxton, Signet, etc.) contain many discrepancies - not to mention the Project Gutenberg version. I even went to the Library of Congress to inspect the galley proofs. My conclusion was that the 1946 edition is definitive, so that's the version I republished at my website for texts in the public domain. You can read more at http://monadnock.net/rand/anthem.html and http://monadnock.net/rand/anthem-notes.html if you're so inclined.
  3. 1 point
    Interesting Q and Atlas Society happening: I follow the Atlas Society on Instagram. On a recent post I commented simply “qmap.pub” Then Jennifer Grossman, CEO of the Atlas Society, liked my comment and replied to me with “true” https://qmap.pub
  4. 1 point
    Even Brit Hume is gobsmacked. And he put it even better than I did. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand flipped the Robin Hood story upside down in her campaign against altruism. She said take from the poor and give back to the rich, but Ragnar only took from the governments that claimed to represent the poor and gave only to those who produced the wealth, not the crony corporatist rich. Bloomberg just managed to flip the myth outrageously, almost in competition with Rand but on the other side. Bloomberg wants to take from the poor--the actual have-nots who really don't have anything--and keep the money in order to keep them poor for altruistic reasons. Take from the poor to screw them. Screwing them is actually good for them, you see. That particular Robin better not go to the Hood these days. I don't think he will be welcome there. Michael
  5. 1 point
    What else is irrationality but ignoring and contravening reality? What one *knows*? Here's a mature fetus which has visibly expanding physical presence (anyone can see) moves and responds (the mother knows) has brain activity (her fetologist-doctor scans and knows) -- but somehow is not autonomous, actual, human life? Until that magical moment of birth ... somehow. Well, why the actual, natural, birth? Everybody knows by now that a birth date and time is often flexible, by necessity or choice. Is it because the baby has detached/emerged in one's plain view for the first time? That's primitive dogma. (i.e. an entity does not exist until it can be seen and touched in the flesh). And as if the fetus' environment, inside/outside, is the deciding factor of its status. By those criteria and the identity of life itself, the mother and doctor who evasively leave things to the last moment to perform a last-minute abortion, without due cause ( i.e. medical emergency) are objectively irrational and immoral. Not to add the barbarity of the procedure, which is on record from doctors themselves. Acting against the pregnant woman's rights - and illegalizing such procedures - is harder to answer (and implement). But look at it this way: A minute after birth, a baby's rights are protected; to kill him would be criminal. A day before, is euphemistically, "late-term abortion", and laudable. How much did he change in that time to merit his right to life? At least the medic should be struck off for unethical behavior. Abortion rights are consolidated in the West, and a very good thing. In a once socially repressive country I saw and heard of the shame and misery when girls and young women had little choice or recourse - such as, not often recalled from those ignorant times in pro-abortion debates, submitting themselves to arranged, shotgun marriages and certain unhappiness for her and him; apart from risking their bodies with underground abortionists. What she does with her body, mistakes included, should not be open to public judgment. So the subject would be redundant for me if not for those horrible bureaucrats and other (mostly) men who - get this - have been pushing for late-term abortion. No reason. Just because, um, "we can". Notice the pandering of male politicians displaying their hardcore-feminist sympathies. Even leftist women in the great majority, are too sensible of the value and responsibility of carrying and giving birth to actively follow them in practice. Very, very few actually need and do it. (Going by stats). I am more incensed by ARI writers who, by some twisting of her statements on rights and when life begins, try to conclude Rand would have positively approved of all abortion including late-term, therefore advocating irrational behavior under the authority of Objectivism. AND - one writer encourages, the woman should self-aggrandizingly join the Shout Out Your Abortion group of activists. Suspect that, how often where there's a Leftist cause, ARI is close behind.
  6. 1 point
    Music Universals and Science Sometimes I come across something that validates my youth and leaves me seething with anger. I just came across one such thing. Here is the press-release-based article (by Brooks Hays at UPI): Music, songs from diverse cultures feature universal commonalities Here is the teaser article by W. Tecumseh Fitch and Tudor Popescu in Science, where the study was published: The world in a song And here is the study itself. Universality and diversity in human song Before anyone thinks this is a one-more-theory-presented-as-science thing, here are the authors of the study--all being scientists and/or academics: Samuel A. Mehr, Manvir Singh, Dean Knox, Daniel M. Ketter, Daniel Pickens-Jones, S. Atwood, Christopher Lucas, Nori Jacoby, Alena A. Egner, Erin J. Hopkins, Rhea M. Howard, Joshua K. Hartshorne, Mariela V. Jennings, Jan Simson, Constance M. Bainbridge, Steven Pinker, Timothy J. O’Donnell, Max M. Krasnow, Luke Glowacki. I don't know anything about most of these folks, but I do know about Steven Pinker because I have read several of his books. He's top quality in the science/academic field. I now have one more thing on my plate to study. But what leaves me furious is the sheer amount of taunting and ridicule I suffered in college for espousing the fundamentals of this study (not exactly, of course, but as the direction I wanted to go in). I was a music composition major. Along with the taunting (one composition teacher even said I wrote "Gypsy fiddler" music--and man, did that piss me off back then ), I was badgered and intimidated into learning the dodecaphonic system of Schoenberg and other avant-garde techniques. All of it sounded like shit, too. Try as I may, I couldn't learn to like the stuff I wrote, not because of any lack of talent, but because the systems I had to use were anti-human-brain. I was so frustrated, I was going to write a work about musical epistemology to force myself to study the fundamentals and prove this crap was crap and good music was good music--and why. I had recently discovered Rand and, of course, scorched earth became my style. But for practical matters, meaning money, I concentrated on the trombone because I was constantly working at gigs. And when I took an audition for a contract with the São Paulo State Symphony and was offered the principal trombone seat, I left the US just to get away from the madness, especially this avant-garde crap. (The Vietnam War was still going and that didn't help my disgust.) Oddly enough, when I started conducting down in Brazil, I became a bit famous for conducting this crappy modern music and pulling it off well. That's because I not only knew how and why it was composed, and I made sure those bases were covered correctly in the concert hall, but I went for dramatic effects in the compositions, sometimes even imposing dramatic gestures that were not in the score. In other words, I polished turds and made them shine. At least the composers and their political allies liked me and they opened lots of doors for me back then. They said I understood their music better than any other conductor. And I was doing it masochistically in a "give 'em the crap they want to eat, no, give them even more" frame of mind. How's that for irony? That's why I went off into producing pop music and songwriting, but that's another story.. Anyway, science is finally catching up with common sense about music. It's good to know--at a science level--that I was right back then and the people instructing me were wrong--maliciously wrong. To use a Randian metaphor, I was the intended man in the shape of a pot of a comprachico education system. It's a good thing I'm hardheaded and did not turn out like a pot. Still, being forced into a pot hurts like hell. That was a long time ago, but I'm still pissed. I can't get those years back from those assholes who were charged with teaching me how to compose. (On the tonal side, I did learn some useful things, like how to write figured bass in the style of Bach if I ever time travel to the 1600-1700's and need to offer my services to church organists. Bah...) Anyway, I will go through this study and comment when I get the time. I am no longer a professional musician and haven't written any music for years, although recently I have been getting the itch again. So I am intensely interested at several levels. If this topic interests you, look into the study and let me know what you think. I would love to know. Michael
  7. 1 point
    I had the same thoughts reading through the conversation. Those and thoughts of how rights are violated and also how and by who are they protected.
  8. 1 point
    Who grants individual rights? Who granted yours? Who granted mine? In fact, who owns individual rights in order to be able to grant them? These are the questions that bounce around in my head when talking about the unborn. Michael
  9. 1 point
    If at conception, then taking "the morning after" pill is (possibly)to commit murder? I argue that the right to life (her freedom to act; individual rights) stays with the mother. Until her unborn is an actual, biological, pre-cognitive human who can live apart from her. I think that serves precisely to avoid dogma and faith, either from "an embryo with built-in soul" intrinsicists or "I can do what I feel like and when I want", subjectivists.
  10. 1 point
    Supposedly, Mike is a left libertarian. Bull shit. Bloomberg is really for a “nanny state.” And he will be a smiling but vicious nanny. Mike “Bloomin’ Onions” Bloomberg’s positions. Abortion: strongly for a woman’s rights. Higher taxes. Turned NYC’s 5 billion dollar deficit into 4 billion dollar surplus. Discrimination against blacks means same against Jews. Reduce crime but with a more racially sensitive police force. (Sep 2010) Apologizing for police racial errors kept city calm. (Sep 2010) OpEd: never a conspicuous civil libertarian. (Sep 2010) Educate prisoners: build more classrooms at Rikers Island. (Jan 2008) Fewer homicides in NYC than any year on record. (Dec 2007) Reduced murder rate by focusing on domestic violence. (Dec 2007) Mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. (Dec 2006) Lock them up and throw away key, but no death penalty. (Dec 2005) No legalization; pot lowers IQ by 5 to 10 points. (Feb 2015) Stopped smoking at 30; then became anti-smoking proselytizer. (Sep 2010) Dubbed "Mommy Mayor" and "Nanny Bloomberg" for anti-smoking. (Sep 2010) You bet I smoked pot; and I enjoyed it. (Apr 2002) Smoking ban has spread from NYC to every big city. (Mar 2013) Push Voc-Ed: plumbers earn more than Harvard grads. (Feb 2015) $218M effort led to closure of 282 coal-fired power plants. (Feb 2019) America should be big part of climate solution. (Apr 2018) Direct charge over cap-and-trade, to raise cost of carbon. (Nov 2007) EPA failing to focus on clean air and clean water. (Apr 2018) Partner with World Bank: reduce traffic fatalities worldwide. (Apr 2011) Visited Israel for first time just before candidacy. (Sep 2010) Peace is fragile and democracy is fragile. (Sep 2010) Childhood home included kosher kitchen, but mom bent rules. (Sep 2010) 2008: I know foreign policy from negotiating deals worldwide. (Sep 2010) Four trips abroad in first four months of 2007. (Apr 2007) Maintains mayoral office for UN relations, run by his sister. (Feb 2008) We can never afford to replace employer-based health system. (Jan 2019) Ban trans-fats and replace with fruit & vegetable vendors. (Jan 2008) Pay-for-prevention towards goal of universal coverage. (Jun 2007) Banned trans fats in NYC restaurants. (Apr 2007) Supported building mosque near Ground Zero. (Nov 2010) 1960s: Rejected as "1Y" when volunteering for Vietnam. (Sep 2010) Social Security. Don't kick the can down the road with retirement funding. (Dec 2017) To reduce the deficit we must cut entitlements. (Mar 2013)
  11. 1 point
    My fella introduced me to a trio called The Trouble Notes. He took me to see them at a small venue in New Orleans. I wasn't expecting the musicians themselves to be greeting people at the door, so after talking to the violinist for a minute, it struck me who he was and my hillbilly self blurted out, "Oh my gosh, you're the fiddler!" (He's a classically trained former concert violinist and child prodigy.) He didn't seem offended, but my fella was mortified. What followed was a transcendent experience up close and personal in this tiny venue with brilliant music. When you say gypsy fiddler music, this is what I hear, and you can play that for me all day long.
  12. 1 point
    The fundamental grounding for human rights is human nature. Brains applied to biology. Brains are biological too. Thus ideology is neither first nor second to biology; it's just using your brains. An unborn baby has no right to life according to Objectivism. I think that's much too severe. But Rand came out of Jewish culture which seems to be much more amenable than Christian to abortion. If she had an abortion herself in the 1930s, her stance may be that of obviating guilt. In any case she resorted to simplicity and abortion is beyond simplicity. --Brant
  13. 1 point
    Human rights are an ideological invention transmogrified from the ethics into considered law. The right to life is both cultural and ideological. Hence for an Objectivist it begins at birth and the social context. For a devout Catholic it begins at conception. All I can come up with is on the Federal level the woman's right to life is paramount through the first trimester and after that it's a matter of state laws. The conflict is between faith and reason with the former having the upper hand. More broadly the Conservatives are fighting the progressives. They are headed by Donald Trump. This is a cultural war both broad and deep. The age of reason is suspended and Objectivists and libertarians are finding no room at the inn. The liberals gave up the intellectual with the Vietnam War protests of the late 1960s and took up thuggery out of moral hubris. Anything can go because they are right. The same sort of righteousness powered communist and Nazi genocidal totalitarianism. They just did it, no real thinking was required. --Brant
  14. 1 point
    I tried that Microsoft Word function find and replace. Let’s see what it came up with as regards the argument below. Peter The question is sovereignty. An airline pilot has a right to life, the most basic of individual rights. A passenger on his plane, is an individual human being, and has a right to life. The plane exists in changing geographical locations where the individuals within it move about. In this sense, an airline pilot is like a state to the human passengers within his plane. The plane is the environment, where their survival needs are met. So, the airline pilot is sovereign over the passengers inside his plane. What he decides about the life of any humans within is an expression of the power his sovereignty engenders. It says so, on the airline ticket the passengers bought. In my idea, the airline pilot would rule over any individual within the plane and his sovereignty trumps the sovereignty of any individuals living within. Such state, the entity we normally call the state, only rules over an individual after it is safely separated from the airline pilot’s plane. Sovereignty is the fundamental legal grounds at the base of it all. The state protects the right to life of the airline pilot. In like fashion, the airline pilot protects the right to life of the humans within his plane. Now, does this make tossing a drunk and belligerent passenger out the door good or evil? To me, context decides. (And accidents happen, but that's another issue.) However, this is one fact that cannot be blanked out of existence. Killing the passenger is still killing. Tossing someone out of the plane is an execution. I see no reason to water that fact down and treat it like contraception. That would be an incorrect identification. And, as I constantly say, if you identify something incorrectly, how on earth can you evaluate it correctly? I am against the state punishing the airline pilot for exercising his sovereignty, even if he or she aborts the passenger for trivial or no reason at all. However, I am all for the people around the airline pilot exercising their right to free speech and, if they want to preach and reason to him that killing the passenger is evil, let them so preach and reason. Limiting the power of the pilot regarding aborting the passenger is not the same thing as declaring that abortion as good. Recognizing the sovereignty of a pilot over his plane is not the same thing as declaring what he does within the confines of that sovereignty is good. By way of similar example, protecting an individual's right to free speech is not the same thing as declaring what that person says is good. In fact, I am all for a rigorously argued case, including marketing campaigns and other forms of non-coercive persuasion, against tossing the unruly passenger out of the plane. No reply necessary. Chuckle.
  15. 1 point
    There's a story I heard in Brazil that came from one of the deity religions down there. A character exists out in reality that will end our lives, all of us. This character is individual to each of us and mostly different for each of us. But this character lives in the future, not in the present. I can't remember the name they gave, but the saying goes that this character will bring down the strongest warrior, the wisest man, the most powerful person, no matter how strong or wise or powerful, or how weak, the character is. You, meaning you the reader, have one such character that is part of your story. He or she or it will kill you. You will most likely not see this character coming, nor your own death. What's more, once the time has come, you have no control over this. None. All your future plans and dreams and achievements will be felled by such a character. It could be for the right reason, it could be for a trivial reason, it could be for no reason at all. The character that fells you could be a person, a disaster, or a disease. And you, yourself, might be this character if you commit suicide. This character will come for you and you will die. There is nothing you can do about it. You cannot stop it. How's that for a thought to contemplate right before you go to sleep at night? I believe a few of the fake news media got a whiff of this character recently. Nicholas Sandman has traces of this character, but he may be merely the forerunner and bring serious injury instead of death. Behold Sandman. He looks like a pipsqueak. Goliath, meet David: UPDATE: All Three Nicholas Sandman Lawsuits Against Liberal Media move Forward… WaPo, CNN, NBC I bet they never saw him coming. Michael
  16. 1 point
    Somehow I didn't find this website until today. Thanks to the proprietors for maintaining an open forum for discussion of Rand and Objectivism. You can read my writings on philosophical topics here: https://stpeter.im/writings/ Because I'm very busy with my career and, in my spare time, with writing an epitome of Aristotle's ethics, my postings might be infrequent for the next few years. Please don't interpret inactivity for lack of interest. --Peter Saint-Andre
  17. 1 point
    TG, I just got it. It's on sale on Kindle for 99 cents. It's now officially on my reading list. Thanks. Michael
  18. 1 point
    This is reminiscent of an old sci-fi novel called THE NEW ADAM by Stanley Weinbaum. In that book, there's a Nietzschean "ubermensch" of sorts who literally has two brains, and there are several passages depicting his mental dual-brained interactions with himself in a similar manner. "Edmund Hall, born a mutant with too many joints in his fingers and a double mind, tries to find a purpose in a society of humans. This superman is no caped crusader fighting for justice though. Rather, he is a dual-brained super-intellect with an IQ so far off the charts that normal human beings appear as Neanderthals next to him. In this story, our evolved human is born into modern society without anyone knowing his nature. While pondering whether he's a superman or the devil, he explores pleasure, power, and passion. Slowly he realizes the differences between himself and contemporary humans, and therein lies a fascinating story. "
  19. 1 point
    Peter, I don't know if the following will be useful to you, but there are a couple of ideas I want to throw at you. (Sorry I took so long to get to this. I'm working on a Wordpress project with a shot deadline and the technical stuff is kicking my ass. ) My mind took me in a different direction on epistemology and the nature of knowledge than finding origins. First off, when I started talking about Rand online, I was soon in contact with Chris Sciabarra on the forums and I had a hell of a time understanding what dialectic meant. Saying Rand was a dialectical thinker did not make Chris many friends on the ortho side. All they could see was Hegel and Marx and red. But that story is for another context. Slowly emerging from that time, I discovered that dialectical process only meant teasing out knowledge through interaction, often Q&A and even more often, between at least two different people. In fact, much of forum life is dialectical interaction. But back then, this didn't make any sense to me. And off I went on a journey to try to understand the human mind. How is, in essence, discussing a topic epistemology? As I read and read and read, I finally came across something very interesting. It's a book by Iian McGilchrist. I want to go deep into this, but for the sake of brevity, let me just quote a couple of things I wrote about it and I am sure you will see the relevance. and this: Like I said, I believe there is a world of topic to dig into here. I, for one, will be doing so when I get the time. Here is the second idea and it is related, although it deals with induction and deduction. And with artificial machine learning. I was reading about AI writing. There is a wicked little thing called Grover developed by the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the University of Washington that, after you point it in the direction you want it to imitate and give it a topic, generates deepfake-like articles all by its lonesome. As I was reading around about this, I came across the following article by John Seabrook in The New Yorker: Can a Machine Learn to Write for The New Yorker? The passage that jumped out at me was the following: Rand's idea of concept formation was based on algebra. Even though AI is more word manipulation than developing concepts, it's getting there--also through math. This is a link I am interested in following up on when I get the time. Anywho, there she is. My two cents. My intent is not to impart knowledge, but dialectic if you find either of these ideas interesting or worth pursuing. Apropos, Roger Bissell is one smart dude. And good luck with your own investigations. Michael
  20. 1 point
    The main reason for all this is that Trump unlike previous Republicans does not back down. The left's tricks aren't working like they usually do. One example is Mitt Romney and "binders full of women" controversy. A normal person would of laughed at liberals about this and much worse. But he backed down like a little girl. The left has gotten used to these easy victories. They now don't know what to do. Like a henpecked husband who finally discovered his courage. When he ignores his wife's menacing stare she won't know what to do.
  21. 1 point
    Trump-haters aren't American. Ellen
  22. 1 point
    Here is Bill Maher telling people, "Let's all get along this Thanksgiving." However, here's the rub. Maher emphasized that at Trump rallies, Trump supporters talk about locking up their political opponents. That's misleading. MAGA people don't want to lock up political opponents in general. They do want to lock criminals up, especially criminals (like Hillary Clinton) who abused their power when in office by using top law enforcement as a secret police against their political enemies. And these criminals have manipulated the justice system to literally lock up political opponents they don't like on "process crimes" during investigations of crimes that never existed or crimes they themselves also did. The most recent is Roger Stone. To see Maher all brotherly and shit right now tells me something. He's afraid. He knows what's coming. And he knows it ain't going to be pretty this time around for his side. To me, this is a good sign. When Maher's on the winning side, he's never brotherly. In fact, he likes it when his political opponents go to jail. The term phony baloney keeps coming to mind... Michael
  23. 1 point
    Korben? You saw how the media giants squashed the Jeffrey Epstein story years before his arrest?
  24. 1 point
    Okay, I get your point. The shorting has turned 10 shares into 11. The extra share disappears when the position is closed. The extra share is artificial and potentially very dangerous to the shorter. He has to buy a real share to cover. --Brant
  25. 1 point
    Exactly. They thought that they had the road cleared, permanent dominion on the horizon. And then Trump was elected. Ellen
  26. 1 point
    More crap from CNN. Crap has become the CNN default so unless it's gone through a crap filter it's crap. --Brant
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
    Brant, I don't think Rand would have understood meme culture on the Internet. She might have since I don't channel her. My crystal ball broke down a few years ago and I have had a hell of a time getting it to work again. But the real world and the fictional AS world Rand lived in was full of gatekeepers. So her entire perception of human society was one where nobody had roaming freedom--they always had to ask permission if they strayed off permitted roaming paths. At Rand's time, fully free roaming was something that existed in the past, not in the present. But in the world today, because of the Internet, free roaming is making a comeback. The rule of thumb is to sin first, then then ask for forgiveness later, rather than ask first for permission. (This got longer than I intended, so I added some headings to make it easier to read. I could improve the headings and elaborate more on each item, but this is just a post on the Internet... ) The real destroyer That inversion--not any specific ideology--is what has destroyed people in high castles (real and metaphorical). Objectivism as its own avenger against those who do not adhere to an ideological purity baseline only works in a world full of gatekeepers. How can you tell a person he or she is doomed without Objectivism when they carry access to most of mankind's knowledge in their pockets? But that fact doesn't make Objectivism--or any other set of formalized ideals--obsolete. It only makes their spread and adherence different than before. Out in the meme and Internet world, Objectivism really has become an avenging angel against the bad guys, but it now happens in a form totally different than the way Rand promoted her ideas--that is, Objectivism has become a cultural pillar in that independent thinkers take from it what they resonate with and use that part in their own lives. People could do this before the Internet, but that process was culturally insignificant. Back then, they could only get Objectivism from the culture in the slices and slants the gatekeepers portioned out. And man, did power corrupt. Look at the mess the ARI folks did rewriting Rand's own words and history because they wanted to control access. Even Rand herself did her gatekeeping fudges, for one example, when she went through We The Living to take out some of the Nietzsche she no longer agreed with, then said she didn't do that and dared anyone to say she did. How Objectivism is spread and used Today, people basically say, "Who gives a crap?" If one person is acting too authoritarian, people get their information from another. As I said, they take from Objectivism what they can get behind according to their values, not any values handed down from on high. Then they show and comment on what they believe and think, and how that is working for them. Others get to opine and interact. In other words, there is a total cultural saturation of discussion, high-fives, bickering, and so on. We can call this living Objectivism, not just being instructed on it from insiders. Lots and lots and lots of people do it this way all over the world--and that hogs the attention time away from the orthodox gatekeeper folks. After all, each person only has 24 hours each day. And here's a corollary social reality for ya', people prefer to talk to those they know rather than gatekeepers. What's more, in this way, Objectivism has become far more powerful politically and culturally than it ever was in the pure state controlled by insiders. That means it is decentralized no matter how much gatekeepers and gatekeeper wannabes howl. Unless humankind destroys the Internet, gatekeepers are never coming back as the main model of packaging and spreading ideas. Not even the tech giants are able to keep political agenda censorship alive, and, man, are they trying. Purity If anyone wants pure Rand the way she wrote it and said it, they can get that. If they want to belong to an insider group around Objectivism, they can get that, too. And if they want to check Rand's own premises or apply her thinking in ways she never imagined, and do it all publicly, they can get that all over the place. They can get Objectivism in any form they wish. Their minds are their own so they get to choose, not have gatekeepers choose for them. That doesn't mean Rand and her more ortho disciples do not have any control. They can control the fact and form of their notion of the pure version of Objectivism. They just no longer control other individuals by doing that. All they have in order to enforce their form is their own little in-group. They can keep the independents out. Big deal. So what? The only thing that accomplishes out in reality is it makes them feel good. Humankind in general doesn't care and doesn't want in. As for the rest, these ortho insiders have to persuade--and persuade on a public platform in competition with a whole lot of different individual takes on Objectivism. There's no way to shut other folks down anymore. They lost control of what they should have never controlled in the first place. Also, so long as there is an Internet, there will be memes and other communication forms to wreak havoc on control freaks, authoritarians and even copyright laws. (I'm not against copyright laws, I'm for them. But I don't like it when they are used as weapons for mind control.) Freedom There's another word for all this. Freedom. Objectivism, which includes freedom in it's set of ideals and principles, now has to exist in a world that is much more free than when Rand created her works. In other words, Objectivism now has to co-exist with freedom in reality, not just in the preaching of it. That means Objectivism will live or die on its merits, and that means, on the value it provides to individuals, not on the protection and enticements of gatekeepers. Insiders will never admit it, but they fear such freedom will kill Objectivism. I don't. I see Objectivism alive and well and growing--inside the minds and lives of individuals of all kinds of different persuasions. It's not growing much inside authoritarian structures (which are becoming more irrelevant each day), but it's going gangbusters inside the individuals out in the real world. For an easy example that is well-known, even the now-leftie Silicon Valley upended everything humans knew, and many of the prime movers did it fueled by Objectivism. In that form, I say, "Long live Objectivism!" It will, too. Live long... Michael
  29. 1 point
    A stock is an asset. --Brant
  30. 1 point
    Nice rant, Wolfo, but there is no federal debt. All that "debt" is in spent dollars which are from a sovereign (fiat) currency. If your trillion buck T-bill has matured the US Treasury will give you another--roll it over--or credit your account with a trillion dollars. Just-by-pushing-a-button. Because of inflation you don't preserve wealth in any fiat currency but in assets. --Branto
  31. 1 point
    Oooh, 'folks like yourself who see only' blah. This is gibberish to me, Adam. You have no argument, just apparent prejudice. I would ask you to flesh out your gibberish, but I don't think you can. I don't think you can connect your brief angry meta-analysis to facts. Such is bigotry and ignorance and pretension to knowledge. That you cannot seem to understand the horrors of war in Syria that have led to the 'hordes' leaving, there is no rational fruit to discussion with you. As if some unknown-to-you actor has whipped up an invasion. Pitiful prejudice and irrationality to my eyes. This is no good, Tony. You seem uninterested in challenges to the propaganda of the video. So be it. I shouldn't bother with trying to reason along with you as long as you ignore the import of my previous remarks entirely. As you seem to assume "both rates [will] remain steady" in succeeding generations, I can't get purchase on shared cognitive ground ... But, maybe this is the crux: you do not know how many children a second-generation French Muslim woman will have. You haven't tried to research this question, instead falling back on 'surmises.' That may indicate something important about the way you think on this issue -- in terms of Them, of collectives, of innate Muslim fecundity, a fecundity that cannot be and is not influenced by the societies in which they make their homes. What other facts need? You haven't given any facts. I am wondering if I should file you with Jerry as supporting "They are breeding like flies" and believing the ugly alarmism of ISLAM TAKING OVER EUROPE ! This thread should have been lodged in the Garbage Pile, in my opinion. Ignorance, prejudice and bigotry are not what I associate with Objectivist Living.
  32. 1 point
    Those guys are crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly and they deserve a kick in the ass so hard that they gotta clear their throat to fart. From: http://www.theunderg...ter-dictionary/ --- begin quote --- The Official Bankster Dictionary In the underground world of banking, doing wrong means doing right, up is down, and left is right. I happened to stumble upon a secret version of the Bankster’s Dictionary the other day when I was visiting a bank. I’ve posted some of the terms below that were contained in the Bankster’s Dictionary to help you understand bankster language. US Federal Reserve = European controlled private bank. Central Bank = Counterfeiting Ring Leader Criminal Underworld Currency Counterfeiters = Competitors that must be arrested and jailed. Savings Account = Devaluation Account, Cash Advance for Gambling Division Gambling = Banking Primary Business Line Fraud = Banking Secondary Business Line Las Vegas, Macau, Atlantic City = Model for running business operations. Inflation = Currency Devaluation through anti-free market manipulation of interest rates. Fractional Reserve System = Fractional Expansion Citizen Bankruptcy System, BSE (Biggest Scam Ever) Futures Markets = Manipulation Casino, SkyNet Three-Card Monte Scam Pablo Escobar, Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán, The Ochoa Hermanos, Yakuza = Cash Cows El Subcomandante Marcos aka Delegado Zero = Anti-poverty activist that must be wacked and shut up Independent Media = Terrorist Mass Media = Allies Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff = Occasional Patsies and Necessary Fall Guys to appease the public’s ire at us. Stock Markets = Manipulation Casino, SkyNet Three-Card Monte Scam Commercial Investment Firm Rating of “Buy” and Hold” = Contrarian Indicator to SELL! Commercial Investment Firm Rating of “Sell” = Contrarian Indicator to “BUY!” Barbarous Relic = USD, Euro, Yen Beta = Empty Statistic meant to impress naïve investors Loan = Usury USD, Euro, Yen, etc. = Fantasy Digital Idea made real by banksters to control humanity Women’s Liberation Movement = Expansion of Tax Base from only men to men AND women Income Taxes = Wealth Transfer from citizens to owners of central banks. Gold = Bankster Kryptonite Silver = Bankster Kryptonite Truth = Banker Kyrptonite Lies & Deception = Bankster Standard M.O. Free Markets = Fairytale story like Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy to be taught in business schools worldwide. Drug Lords and Underground Crime Syndicates = Provider of global banking liquidity and huge year-end bonuses Parasite = Favorite insect Capitalism = Dead system that was killed by Central Banking but false scapegoat we can blame when we cause economic crashes and despair Miscellaneous Charges = Small Monthly Charges to siphon off money from bank accounts that customers will never notice or complain about Computer = Vehicle to rig all stock markets and commodity markets with HFT programs that execute trades not possible if executed by humans and if executed in a clear and transparent market. Boom = Unsustainable price distortions caused by interest-rate manipulation and market rigging. Bust = Opportunity to make money twice as quickly as in a boom! Market Crash = Engineered event to ensure the peasants will never accumulate enough wealth to rebel against us. Rising Markets on Mondays or Tuesdays into OpEx Fridays: Ruse to sucker more people to go long in order to fleece them by the time Friday arrives. Declining Markets on Mondays or Tuesdays into OpEx Fridays: Ruse to sucker more people to go short in order to fleece them by the time Friday arrives. Presidents and PMs = Best puppet and marionette allies to be rewarded handsomely after they leave office (see Tony Blair and the current POTUS) Superior Judges, SCOTUS = Made Men War = Double Bonus! Opportunity to devalue money at faster rate than during peace time and opportunity to accumulate more wealth from interest charged on war appropriations. Universities, Colleges and MBA programs = Re-education camps to indoctrinate students into fairytales of non-existent free markets, non-existent capitalism, and lies about how stock markets, real estate markets and economic cycles really work. Economic Journals and University Tenure = Carrot dangled in front of economic professors to ensure that they repeat to the world the “official” party line. Key Economic Indicators = False manipulated statistics designed to dumb down citizens into believing economy is recovering even as we increase their economic suffering Ben Bernarnke = Shakespearean clown. Conspiracy = Best Word to Discredit Truth about the global monetary system when the truth somehow escapes our censorship algorithms and makes it to the mainstream media we control. Machiavelli = Role Model Ivy League Schools = Indoctrination Camps for media representatives and professors we will send to brainwash other global regions into believing our propaganda CNBC = The Cartoon Network. Goldman Sachs = Rookie Farm Camp for global criminal banking syndicate. World Bank & IMF = Banks used by Western countries to impose crushing debt on developing nations to stunt their growth. Bailout = Transfer of Wealth from citizens to us. TBTF = Lie used to ensure we can perpetuate fraud. Quantitative Easing = Currency Devaluation. Fiat Currency = Worst Possible Idea Propaganda = Daily Financial News Feed Compartamentalization = Process to keep good people working as cogs in the machine within the banking industry ignorant of the fact that they are inflicting massive harm upon society. If others of you have had the good fortune to stumble across this secret Bankster Dictionary like me, please feel free to post more Bankster glossary terms below. --- end quote ---