Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/18/2019 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    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 !
  2. 2 points
    You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know. They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so. There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy. Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers. J
  3. 2 points
    Her white nationalism is settled consensus.
  4. 2 points
    Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?
  5. 2 points
    Second that. Partly second that. Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it. He doesn't use it indiscriminately. I'd use a different metaphor for William. Insidious poison. Slithery. Never quite coming out with a thing. Insinuating. I've seen that for some while. Ellen
  6. 1 point
    You are ruled by criminals.
  7. 1 point
    Hmmm. Conspiracy-tinged? WTF. So, in today's world, NOT coming to an immediate conclusion that no malicious intent was involved is to present a conspiracy-tinged mindset? Merely keeping an open mind and expressing hope that a devastating event was an accident is vicious? Speculating about possible causes that might be worth considering is now bad and kooky? J
  8. 1 point
    LOL... btw - Cher is getting roasted by her own peeps all over the Internet for this tweet. Michael
  9. 1 point
    Named dumb asshole spent about two years faithfully, breathlessly believing in the stupidest conspiracy theory ever. It hurts, and of course, he doesn’t deal with anything gracefully. My favorite was when he pointed his finger at me at said “at least I don’t believe in false ideas that cause harms.” Hilarious! This from the same asshole who pushes the false manmade warming conspiracy theory “the solution” to which is called mass murder. And Muh Russians! In control of American elections! Impeach! Assassinate! Hold no ideas that cause harms!
  10. 1 point
    Nice scholarship, of course, but I question the practice of triangulating a story. Snyder always annoyed me. I'm a "discovery" author. There's an outline subject to change, which it often does, because dramatic necessity flows from moments that are impossible to script in advance and which force characters and subsequent tensions and resolutions to shift. Compare 'The Easiest Thing In The World.' If I had to name the first principle of successful writing, I'd say crank out the right stuff at the right time with a network to plug it, publish it, and sell the film rights, not unlike Ayn Rand in her day, but more importantly Rowling's captive bombardment of middle grade classrooms via Scholastic and Suzanne Collins' tween blockbuster franchise Hunger Games topping Harry Potter. I can't count the number of 'help wanted' posts on Upwork seeking ghostwriters to do LGBTQ pulp novels for hire.
  11. 1 point
    Moving Illegal Alien Overflow to Sanctuary Cities This is a hoot. Here is what is happening from what I both read and infer. (We can add articles and links in the discussion.) Certain anti-Trump forces (crony establishment ruling class types) are trying to overwhelm the immigration system to create chaos and are funding massive quantities of immigrants to the US in a sudden surge. These ruling class idiots want to stop the wall and keep the borders open thinking this favors their ill-gotten globalism games and keeps them running things. So they are using a Cloward–Piven strategy. This means you overwhelm a government program (several at the same time is better), or any aid distribution system for that matter, with so many claimants and petitioners that the system collapses from lack of resources. Then you use this collapse as an excuse to completely take over and centralize the problem under the government. Essentially, it's a power-grab. Don't forget the cost of the new centralization will need to be paid for with new taxes and require new regulations, licenses, and God knows what all. That is what they are trying to do with President Trump right now. The Washington Post, obviously in on it, started the buzz with an article a couple of days ago saying that Trump was thinking of sending the overflow of immigrants at the border to sanctuary cities. Their intent was to stir up public opinion against Trump and his supporters by showing what horrible people they are. But the cigar turned out to be a trick cigar and it blew up in their faces. President Trump liked the idea and said let's do it. Suddenly, most of the local leaders of sanctuary cities are having a shit fit. Why? Because their own resources and system--not the federal government's--are going to be blown sky high paying for these newcomers and their own constituents are going to get irritated as all get-out when everything goes to shit in their neighborhoods trying to assimilate all these poor people who don't speak English. The number of illegal aliens needed to wreck local budgets and systems (especially of sanctuary cities) will not substantially aggravate the already horrible illegal alien problem of the US, so there's no real downside for President Trump to do this. Besides, according to the current law, the Federal Government can only hold immigrants for 20 days before they have to be released. President Trump's idea is that instead of releasing them in border cities and towns, he wants to ship them to sanctuary cities all over the US. This is a kind of Cloward-Piven boomerang. Rush Limbaugh pointed out that Nancy Pelosi called illegal aliens "Gifts of Love." Essentially, President Trump wants to ship a whole bunch of Gifts of Love to Democratic neighborhoods (including affluent ones like where Pelosi lives) and sanctuary cities to show them how much he cares. So why all the howling from Dems all of a sudden? Don't they want some love? Michael
  12. 1 point
    Ellen, The fizzle I see comes from the academic or "bearer of the sacred torch" people and organizations in the Objectivist world. Out in the real world, there are countless A-Level entrepreneurs, celebrities, experts, etc. who openly acknowledge a Randian influence on their lives, although most only do this when asked. They don't volunteer it. I don't agree if you mean the hero's journey pattern is not present enough to be a feature in Rand's fiction. I see it all over her fiction. I also don't agree that it is required for what you said, although it is one of the more potent forms of storytelling in human nature. Let's put it this way. Using the hero's journey pattern certainly helps. In fact, in many of the screenwriting books I have read, they give examples how it raised a mediocre story to a higher level of success. But there are several other patterns (boy meets girl, comeuppance, etc.) that are equally powerful, inspirational and long-lasting. But I'm not being a contrarian qua contrarian and we are certainly in no contest. I want to hear what you have to say, so please elaborate on what's in your head before I entrench. On a different note, I got to looking into a work that has strong genre parallels with Atlas Shrugged (and I can just hear the howling when I mention it ). The work interested me because I got to thinking, how do you transmit a social-ideological message in fiction that is strong enough to make people act on it? And that led me to one very strange corner: The Turner Diaries by white supremacist William Luther Pierce. (Google it and you can find a copy for free, it's in the public domain. I prefer not to link to it.) This work inspired the Oakland City bombing (which was similar to a scene in the book and the book was on Timothy McVeigh when he was apprehended) and several acts of domestic white power terrorism over the years. Well, I just read the work. (What a trip! Note: I'm not going to discuss the racism in it here. I'm focusing on something else.) I finally understand what one has to do to convince readers through fiction in a way that is far more powerful than propaganda. The plot parallels are strong enough between The Turner Diaries and Atlas Shrugged to detect the patterns. The outer plot template (of both) is the destruction of the entire social order (and the scapegoats of the insider ideology) by an initial small group of insiders (they grow over time), but the inner drive of the "good guys" (if one can call them that in The Turner Diaries ) is reverence for an ideal, a form of worship. This is true in both books. The emphasis in on reverence, not hatred as is constantly portrayed by critics. (There is hatred, but it's a byproduct, a dirty job that has to be done, so to speak, not a prime spiritual mover.) Apropos, this reverence even leads the protagonists to experience emotional states of trance-like transcendence like Dagny listening to the Halley concerto, or Earl Turner reading the semi-sacred secret book after his interrogation. In this genre (as evidenced by these two works), pure outraged hatred is reserved for those who have seen the light and "betrayed" their ideal. The "lesser aware" scapegoats are--as in ancient religions--considered more as morally unclean and subhuman than evil. Some subhumans get to the level of evil, but the vast majority are cattle and merely unclean things that need to be eliminated (or redeemed or whatever) so that the ideologically pure insiders can have and spread their utopia. Whether the scapegoats are blacks and Jews (as in The Turner Diaries) or collectivists and altruists (as in Atlas Shrugged), their story role is identical. (The violence against them isn't, of course, but that is beside this point.) The scapegoats are on one rung of hell, the unclean rung that causes disgust and repulsion more than hatred, and those who have seen the light and walked away are far lower where metaphysical hatred resides. The "betrayers of their race" get "the Day of the Rope" in The Turner Diaries and Robert Stadler gets destroyed by his own machine after becoming a virtual outcast by the good guys in Atlas Shrugged. Also, don't forget that trainload of normal people who get blown up in a tunnel while their minor betrayals are listed. In this genre, a few from the unclean rung of hell break out and become leaders of the unclean, so they are more dangerous villains in the story than most of the individuals among the unclean masses are. Sometimes they are called evil and they always need to be fought and destroyed, but the real hatred is reserved for insider believers who no longer believe. No amount of nastiness is too much for them. That premise--people of reverence blowing up the world of the unclean, with fallen apostates as the lowest of the low, not simply good versus evil--is how one conveys a long-lasting impactful social message through a novel. Of course there has to be an ideology spelled out and so on, but that premise is the workhorse that carries everything else along and ensures a social resonance with a wide audience. Apropos, notice how Rand always denigrates the power of evil in AS? That's an indirect form of saying evil is metaphysically unclean instead of potent. I wrote some thoughts to a friend in an email earlier today and I'm giving them below (with a few corrections). Note, none of what I'm saying in this post should be considered as written in stone. I'm thinking out loud, so to speak. But I know I'm on to something and it's important. I'm obviously referring to The Turner Diaries at the beginning below. That's plenty for a good brain-chew for now. I fear some people will need to chew and chew and chew to not choke on the comparison of common ground between AS and TTD. Michael
  13. 1 point
    William, The YouTube version is merely a repeat of the Periscope. I prefer YT because I have controls where I can speed it up. You can't do that live. Here's the video I saw. Michael
  14. 1 point
    I don't know why it won't embed in the post above. Michael
  15. 1 point
    Let me add to that, but apply McGrath's tweet about Hitler to Candace at Congress instead of Scruton. Michael
  16. 1 point
    NOTICE Starting tomorrow, April 8, 2019, OL will be down for a couple of days or so. Nothing to worry about. Backroom issue. Sorry for the inconvenience. Michael
  17. 1 point
    William, Yesterday on my end, they were not. Today they are (Chrome and Brave). I like your explanation of https for the reader. I don't muck around in these things with IPB because they do all that on their end and I imagine the delay was due to their proprietary encryption. But I actually pay for this service on another website (the upcoming blog). I'm thinking of moving that site to a hosting company that uses Cloudflare since it's free for Wordpress sites. Michael
  18. 1 point
    Candace knocked it out of the park in Congress today: Also, there was a kerfuffle with Ted Lieu. He played a recording of Candace mentioning Hitler--out of context, of course (and, frankly, poorly expressed in light of her normal beliefs). In her comments, she said that Lieu believes black people are stupid and will not pursue the full audio. Nadler immediately rebuked her for calling Lieu stupid--which she did not do. I think he was sleeping or something while she was talking. But now he can't do anything about it. This dumbass gaff is in the congressional records You have to see it to believe it. Anyway, for that old white male Democrat, no uppity-ass young black woman is going to get sassy with him or his friends and get away with it. The point is, "muh racists!" is the conspiracy theory the left and fake news media selected to replace the "muh Russians!" hoax. Michael
  19. 1 point
    Confucius say: If you have plan for one year, plant rice. If you have plan for ten years, plant trees. If you have plan for one hundred years, indoctrinate educate children. This is an example of the death throes of the leftwing indoctrination campaign that was inflicted on American children. It's still there, but it's dying. The idiots who planned and executed this indoctrination of American children didn't count on the fact they needed at least four generations, maybe five, to make it stick. They blew their wad with Obama and the establishment crony elitists (both sides) stepped in to help make it happen the way it was supposed to happen.(Remember Common Core?) But then Trump happened... And the fake news media happened (muh Russians!) Now I don't think they are able to indoctrinate anyone, at least not for a couple of generations or so. Not even a cat to chase mice, and that doesn't need any indoctrination at all, but these bozos would find a way to screw it up. Michael
  20. 1 point
    Interesting point about real versus faked science. In re the guy's claims in his published work, I checked in with David Gorski, and put a skeptic hat on ... ... from the blurb posted at the Youtube page Jerry posted: Passionate believers in whole food plant based diets, no chemicals, minimal pharmaceutical drugs, no GMO's. Fighting to stop climate change and extinction.
  21. 1 point
    Michael: I’m looking forward to this project of yours. Cool stuff.
  22. 1 point
    Today is the day after the day the United Kingdom was supposed to have left the European Union. The way forward is ... unclear. Brexit news latest: Theresa May faces calls for cross-party 'unity government' to end deadlock after deal rejected again -- from a story on the person who proposed a 'national unity government' ...
  23. 1 point
    Peter, from what modest amount I've read of some system-philosophies, it seems the very thing required of one is a broad acceptance of whatever view the philosopher-genius shows you. *He* had these personal epiphanies about existence, emanating from his own mind - they remain *his* concluding principles that you swallow and follow. His product is everything. He writes for other philosophers, later students decipher the work and pass it down to the public. However, the process which led to this product of his inspiration is a mystery one cannot or will struggle to replicate for oneself (and would likely fall apart, if one could). Which, blindly accepted this way is cultish- religious, since you have to believe a philosopher's outcomes on faith. While there was - necessarily - very much of that transcendent and authoritative vision from Rand, you may agree she places equal responsibility on one to work this philosophy-for-life out for oneself, to gradually build it from the same blocks available to her from perceptual reality, and make the vision your own. Quite, beginning with the axioms she laid down and using her methodology--but, both proving themselves by dint of and in the course of their usage. Objectivism is mostly a cohesive method. Has there ever been a philosophy such as this, that places the weight of independent effort back onto its subscriber? Here is a "DIY" system taken from real things which one needs compare with and will apply back to further real 'things'. Reality = the philosophy, and the other way round. When they don't correspond, one's made a mistake. Most critics of O'ism - of course - resent the hoi-polloi being directly presented with a 'useful', non-ivory tower philosophy which bypasses their revered authority figures, one that eventually liberates the individual even from his mentor. In fewer words, I'll second MSK.
  24. 1 point
    What do you call yourself philosophically? A fan of Rand? An Objectivist with a capital ‘O’? An objectivist with a lower case ‘o’? A Toleration-ist? An ARI guy? An Atlas Society gal? Cultish people have been called Rand-roids and other derogatory terms. Is there a “secret home of objectivists” hidden in the landscape? Is there a Galt’s Gulch in the mountains, or on an island? Of course the co-founder of Wikipedia and a former moderator of objectivist forums, is Jimmy Wales and he is a fan of Ayn Rand. Peter Some notes from: Objectivist movement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . . . . The claims of cultism have continued in more recent years. In 2004, Thomas Szasz wrote in support of Rothbard's 1972 essay, and in 2006, Albert Ellis published an updated edition of his 1968 book that included favorable references to Walker's. Similarly, Walter Block, while expressing admiration for some of Rand's ideas and noting her strong influence on libertarianism, , described the Objectivist movement as "a tiny imploding cult.". . . . Rand stated that "I am not a cult", and said in 1961 that she did not want "blind followers." In the wake of NBI's collapse, she declared that she did not even want an organized movement. Jim Peron responded to Shermer, Rothbard and others with an argument that similarities to cults are superficial at best and charges of cultism directed at Objectivists are ad hominem attacks. Objectivism, he said, lacks layers of initiation, a hierarchy, obligation, cost or physical coercion: I cannot see how a disembodied philosophy can be a cult. I say Objectivism was disembodied because there was no Objectivist organization to join. The Nathaniel Branden Institute gave lectures, but had no membership. You could subscribe to a newsletter but you couldn't join. Objectivism was, and is, structure-less. And without a structure there cannot be cult. [...] The vast majority of self-proclaimed Objectivists are people who read Rand's works and agreed with her. Most have never attended an Objectivist meeting nor subscribed to any Objectivist newsletter. In 2001, Rand's long-time associate Mary Ann Sures remarked: Some critics have tried to turn her certainty into a desire on her part to be an authority in the bad sense, and they accuse her of being dogmatic, of demanding unquestioning agreement and blind loyalty. They have tried, but none successfully, to make her into the leader of a cult, and followers of her philosophy into cultists who accept without thinking everything she says. This is a most unjust accusation; it's really perverse. Unquestioning agreement is precisely what Ayn Rand did not want. She wanted you to think and act independently, not to accept conclusions because she said so, but because you reached them by using your mind in an independent and firsthand manner. Meanwhile, Shermer, who considers himself an admirer of Rand, has tempered his judgment. Contrasting Leonard Peikoff's "heavy-hammer approach" with the "big-tent approach" of The Atlas Society, Shermer told Ed Hudgins: "If we're close enough on the same page about many things, I think it's more useful to cut people some slack, rather than going after them on some smaller points. I don't see the advantage of saying, 'You shouldn't have liked that movie because ultimately, if you were an Objectivist, you wouldn't have.' I guess it was those sorts of judgments made by some Objectiv[ists] that I objected to." end quote
  25. 1 point
    Jon, It isn't an issue of brave. It's an issue of strategy. Stealth tactics don't work if those being stealthed against know there are people onto them. Ellen PS: I'm rushed, didn't have time to do more than glance at Michael's long post. Later.
  26. 1 point
    That's why people's predating on children incenses you. Ellen
  27. 1 point
    I don't get drunk in company - or precisely "drunk," period. But once or twice a week I have two or three beers over the course of a few hours while pacing and thinking and listening to an overnight classical music program I like. My thoughts make phantasmic shapes somewhat like a dream tapestry but with more coherence. Where the "force" thing comes from, I don't know. I've had it since I was a young child. (And, yes, Michael, I do have a mothering thing, too, but not so strongly as some women. It tends to be more situational, activated in some circumstances.) Ellen
  28. 1 point
    Peter, We can go all the way in public the other way, too. Would a group hug help? You rock. I mean it. I love your happy-go-lucky manner Your postings of old archives are treasures you keep serving up. They are like special unexpected presents from the past, a pure delight. If you and Jon were in the military, I would see you in provisioning and Jon as a front-line warrior. To do both jobs well, different temperaments are needed. I doubt many people in these two positions in actual military situations find the same jokes funny, get angry about the same things, hang out, get drunk together, etc. But they all fight for the same side. When he trash-talks you, I see it mostly as misunderstanding where you are coming from, what you have actually read, etc. Sometimes I see him attribute you with positions I know are not yours. But you've been pretty good at clarifying over time. I don't know if the following will help, but here goes. I'm reading a fascinating book right now called The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom. Here is a quote I find pertinent. If we understand these four archetypes, alpha male, bully, joker and nerd to be tendencies that can mix and match with each other and can mix with other archetypes, meaning they are not all-encompassing delimiters, we can see them in almost all ensemble stories from TV shows like NCIS on up to superhero movies, soap operas, even love stories. Your tendency on OL is to be a good-natured joker sidekick who provides a ton of value. Jon's tendency is to be a fiercely loyal bully--and his greatest loyalty is to his principles. William went from joker keeping people honest to nerd. Everybody kicks him around nowadays. And he earned it. As to Ellen, oddly enough, I see a dose of alpha male as her animus mixed with some archetypes that are not in these four like rebel and, believe it or not, mother-figure. I'm not going to keep going, though, because I'm going to end up pissing off everybody. Michael
  29. 1 point
    Letendre is frequently trying to incite a "flame war." He should not be allowed to continue doing it, Michael and Kat.
  30. 1 point
    I don't go on William's blog or at least rarely, sometimes by accident, and I don't pay that much attention to him anyway, so I have no clue about him "not denying it" or somehow making light of pedophilia.
  31. 1 point
    Jon, The new message on the "Site down" page doesn't sound much like him, either. And if it is him, it sounds coerced or dictated by someone else. I don't think anyone is holding him in a room or something like that, but I do think there are government people telling him he will not be allowed to keep his site online, and I believe they might be threatening him with jail time. This is speculation, but it sounds about right to me. btw - There never used to be any such drivel as a Solo pledge like the one above. Not that I remember. Here are the two texts that he Perigo used for this kind of message (I got them off older copies of the site.) And this: I can't believe I am defending Lindsay fucking Perigo, but life is weird at times. And this is a time for principle. Michael
  32. 1 point
    Sometimes, those who accuse others of a crime or a psychological aberration are diverting attention from those very faults in themselves. So for instance calling someone a girl, or a homo, an asshole, or a pedophile is because of the thoughts of their crimes or aberrations MUST REMAIN HIDDEN! Is that the case with Letendre? edit. What a rotten human being.
  33. 1 point
    Calling someone a horrible name, and then saying, "Since the person doesn't deny it, then it must be true," is a fallacy of some sort but I forget the Latin term for it. Using this false logic is the product of a deranged or fill in the blank mind. Something is wrong in O'ville and it is Jon Letendre. I am not sure of William's sexual leanings but that is his business and does not invite ridicule if he is or is not homosexual.
  34. 1 point
    I saw that Patton Oswald is still working in Hollywood and on TV. IF he freely admits to being a pedophile how is this possible? It makes me wonder if the "confession" was really him bragging or someone pretending to be him on the internet, which should be a prosecutable crime. Anyone who calls someone else a prosecutable crime like pedophile, and it is a lie, they should be sued for defamation of character. And what would Tony Soprano do? "Take me out to the ballgame. Hey Hun, where's my bat?" Perhaps Patten not speaking about this incident may be because he is trying not to glorify his accusers or give them airtime. If anyone has anything verifiable on the Oswald case, I would be interested. I hope OL's management makes sure no one is called something they are not, here on OL. Were those messages from Patton Oswald that were posted on OL, or were they made up? If Smollett loses his job with Fox for alleged crimes which are now NOT be prosecuted can he get his old job back . . . or can he sue Fox? So why did Jussie pay two immigrants to attack him? I saw copies of the checks and they were real. Was it for gay sex? Damned if I can figure it out now that Smollett, if not exonerated, is still crying about his innocence. Are the two African brothers ashamed of the "possible," "rough" sex acts? That's just a theory. Peter
  35. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  36. 1 point
    Just Jussie escaping justice ...
  37. 1 point
    Am I missing something here? What's with the triple parentheses? Billy, are you accusing someone of antisemitism? Peterson and/or MSK? Or are you practicing it? WTF? J
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    Yeah, dumbass, for emotionalism. Co–conspirators are guilty of every crime the conspiracy commits. For example, if your role is to arrive in the getaway car and all you do is drive that car, you are going away for a long time for bank robbery. If one of your co–conspirators shoots a teller, even though that was against the plan, you are going away for murder. If one of your co–conspirators murders someone years later, in order to keep the robbery hidden, then you can be put away for that murder, as well. Maddow can and will be put away for any number of acts of sedition and other high crimes committed by her and her Mockingbird handlers.
  40. 1 point
    Why is Maddow going to prison? For corrupting "reason" or for overblown emotionalism?
  41. 1 point
    I agree it is odd that few people have heard of him, outside of scholars. I'd say Comte observed and approved of the sacrifice sickness always visible in society, and uplifted the concept (and named it). An idea precedes, outlives, and is larger than the thinker. Like philosophers do, he had spin-off influence on others e.g. on Marx (!) and Mill and Spencer. Robert Campbell has a very good essay in OL somewhere, on Comte and altruism, wrt Rand's take on them. He confirms she got it precisely right. Wiki: Influenced by the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon,[4] Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences. Comte was a major influence on 19th-century thought, influencing the work of social thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot.[6] His concept of sociologie and social evolutionism set the tone for early social theorists andanthropologists such as Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer, evolving into modern academic sociology presented byÉmile Durkheim as practical and objective social research.
  42. 1 point
    I don't understand the unfunny-these-days comedy world's mocking on the Nunes lawsuit. I could understand some mockery, but what we are seeing is an orchestrated fake news media campaign. Do these people really think public mockery is going to mean anything in court? Something's going on for this to be this orchestrated. And, as usual, the campaign is decided and implemented by a club of insiders--and you are not invited into the club. Michael
  43. 1 point
    Altruism was appropriated by the totalitarians for moral justification for their idiological snarmniness and Rand countered with "selfishness" thereby justifying in her own way tyranny if tyranny be a value to whomever. The major flaw in her philosophy is its center in morality instead of politics and it's implicit and explicit morality. She was not wrong about rational self interest but she never recognized the nature of self interest in altruism. Of course, the religionists used altruism the same way the totalitarians did, to justify themselves and to control the subjugated and to subjugate. What has been obscured in this ideological warfare by its sheer bilateralism is actual human nature. The irony of the world of Atlas Shrugged is the sheer human destruction by the men of the mind going on strike is exponentially greater than anything the totalitarians have managed to achieve too date. Now I know I am mixing up my categories, fiction and non-fiction, and Rand declared she was trying to prevent a socialistic America, but Rand too was always mixing up those categories. However, man the individualist was also and always man the provider and man (man and woman, of course) the protector. Man and his (her) family. The irony is the Atlas bad boys were the heroes who let the other bad boys play just to practically illustrate in every way Rand could imagine how bad the bad boys and their policies could be to the USA. Not included, though, were anything like the Nazi and Communist genocides. Just good old Mr. Thompson and naked John Galt on the rack. That was essentially the end of her magnum opus. In her previous novel naked Howard Roark laughed. Roark led straight to Galt. This is why there is no Objectivist movement. The Objectivists are in Galt's Gulch. --Brant
  44. 1 point
    Here is how Chelsea Clinton is seen on the true progressive left: It's not pretty. Just look at the hatred. Riffing off of Rush, in Chelsea Clinton's defense, she married a Jew, thus has Jew kids--to put it in the most blunt manner possible to highlight the part her protesters don't want highlighted. In other words, a Jew going to a Muslim event like this... Guess what happens? Can anybody say bigotry meets crony corruption? Michael
  45. 1 point
    It's worth it dude if you want to spoof the world. Wayne's World. Wayne's World.
  46. 1 point
    You're not supposed to wear a hat in Congress. It takes guts to say that these days. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Treason is cruel and unusual. If you violate your oath of office by trying to overrule the Constitution that is very unusual. During a time of war traitors in the Army were shot by firing squads, and a "rebellion" would be a time of war. In modern fiction, a segment of the Army is "recruited" to fight against the legitimate government but it would not happen in real life. So where would a hypothetical leftist, rebellious army come from? A small segment of The National Guard? A private army? Now Pelosi's army might "think it" but they would not act on those treasonous thoughts. I still remember the violent 60's, black rebellion, and the protests / rebellions against the Vietnam War and that is the closest we will ever come to rebellion. My wish is that a policy of "endless war" is no longer on the agenda either. It is not on the Trump republican agenda and I don't think jokes slash serious candidates like Beto O'Rooked are going to advocate war. Is there still a military - industrial complex and conspiracy to keep fanning the flames of war? I don't see it. America has evolved. We are becoming more like our Founding Fathers wished. Four more years! Four more years! And then another eight years of someone else who is a decent, honorable, sort as Commander In Chief and we will have fewer troops abroad. Though we probably will never have zero troops abroad, since we are a part of intelligent alliances like NATO. but no one on our side will be initiating violence or foreign "take overs." We will be out of Afghanistan and other foreign ports. Perhaps out of Germany, South Korea and Japan? I think so.
  48. 1 point
    Interesting! So I Googled it: U.S. Space Force estimated to cost $13 billion in first five years: memo https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-space/u-s-space-force-estimated-to-cost-13-billion-in-first-five-years-memo-idUSKCN1LX2GZ WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force estimated start up costs for a proposed U.S. Space Force, a new military service backed by President Donald Trump, will be around $13 billion in the first five years, according to a Department of Defense memo seen by Reuters. The Air Force, the U.S. military branch that takes responsibility for space, authored the Sept. 14 memo outlining a proposal for “a lethality focused organization that will field space superiority capabilities.” [...] The memo estimated that creating a Space Force will cost in excess of $3 billion in the first 12 months with an additional $10 billion needed over the following four years. The U.S. Air Force estimated that there could be more than 13,000 people in the new “Department of the Space Force.” ________ But the Air Force already handles these responsibilities, so Donald Trump is adding an unnecessary program costing taxpayers money. What's the difference between him and a Democrat when it comes to this?
  49. 1 point
    To those who have sent in a contribution so far, thank you. This will go to good use, that is, keeping the site running well. To those thinking about it, well... You know... Michael
  50. 1 point
    Subject: Educating the Educator in how to Educate--The Power of Story I was going to post this on the "my job" thread, but since a new thread opened up specifically about Phil, I'll do it here. When I saw the following post from over there, I cringed. I kinda knew what was coming. After all, I'm no stranger to this stuff. I am going to presume that this was not presented with malice, but with an intent to bring truth (as Phil sees it) to the eyes of the people he cited. I do not agree with these observations as stated, and I definitely know that Jonathan is not malicious (he apparently has a carbon-copy of my own BS meter and even more intolerance for hypocrisy than I have), but I don't want to discuss defending or attacking right now. I want to discuss persuasion. Agree or disagree, the Truth According to Coates is in his post. I think it is reasonable to assume that he believes it as he said it and he wanted to convey this truth--with good intent--to those he mentioned. That given, and with the reader's permission, I will tell a story (my version) from ancient Jewish culture. There was a beautiful maiden named Truth who wandered throughout a city greeting all people she passed. No one greeted her back and few looked at her for more than an instant. As she walked on, she became lonely and frustrated, so she tried to speak louder, but to no avail. People would not listen. She stood right in front of them and they walked around her. In a moment of inspiration, she thought, "I know what will make people notice me." So she disrobed and walked the entire city nude. She was stunning to look at. What a sight! But not only did people act as before, they started to shy away from her with intent. Some folks crossed the street to avoid walking on the same side she was on. Those in houses closed their windows so they would not have to gaze upon her. She was shunned. As Truth walked along dejectedly, a stranger came up and told her he had been observing her plight and could make people notice her. She asked what he wanted, and he replied, "Nothing. Merely that you cover your nakedness with this cloak. It is called Story." So Truth vested the cloak of Story and forged on. The very first person she encountered said, "How beautiful you are!" Others started gathering and praising her. Soon there was a crowd of people following her footsteps. Those in houses opened their windows and doors and invited her in. Truth was finally welcome in the city. This ties in well with the purpose of this forum (people thinking for themselves). Story is one of the main keys. Nobody likes to be ordered what to think, even if it is right, but especially if it is wrong. Each person needs to decide for himself. Story is the most effective manner to get into a person's thoughts during the choosing. A good story will not necessarily convince a person of anything, but it echoes unbidden in the person's mind whenever he ponders the problem it addresses. Story is a context that thrusts itself into a person's thinking as an alternative way of looking at something. Story is an influential handmaiden of volition. People have a choice about what they decide. But most of the time, they do not have a choice about remembering a story they heard when it is walking right alongside that choice. If you force a person to agree with you, say through intimidation or ridicule, he might say he agrees but he will not. If the person chooses to agree with you because of a story you told, you left the choice up to him. He will mull the issue over in the light of the story and come to his own conclusion. Thus, when he agrees, you will have no stronger advocate than him. Now look what Phil did. Instead of getting agreement from the very people he apparently wanted to "command to rise" (to use Rand's term), he pissed them off. Even should they agree with something he said, they will tend to close their minds to the message, simply because of his presentation. People call Phil a "schoolmarm"? Marm, maybe, but I don't see the school part. I say a good educator educates by getting through to the student. He tells stories and talks about the meaning of them. He guides a student to a choice. He doesn't ram ideas and agreement down where they are unwelcome. I want to tell another story, because this one is so appropriate to the present situation. I got it from an author named Annette Simmons, but it is my paraphrase. A person came upon a construction site. He walked up to a worker who was obviously toiling very hard and asked, "What are you doing?" The worker replied, "I am laying bricks." He went to another worker, one who looked busier, and asked the same thing. The other worker said, "I am building a wall." He saw a third worker whistling and apparently having a great time. He asked, "Why are you so happy?" This guy looked at him and smiled. He said, "Because I am building a cathedral." Taking this to Phil, I now ask him, which approach and vision do you think will make people change to suit your idea? Inviting them to build a cathedral with you or fussing at them for pissing on the bricks? You are an educator, Phil. So educate, if that is your heart's desire. May I suggest a good story once in a while? (After all, if it was good enough for Ayn Rand...) Michael