Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/27/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Methinks the pollsters are hoping to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ellen
  2. 2 points
    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.
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    Good investigation from the BBC: How a boy from Vietnam became a slave on a UK cannabis farm
  5. 1 point
    That is a good question. First, Anthony made some charges against Rollo that were very much the same tone as the charges Rand made against Branden. Here is a video Anthony made, and it is quite silly: Here is the response from Rollo Tomassi, which includes a few others: I have not totally disavowed Anthony Johnson. There are still some speakers I would like to see at 21 Con, but I doubt I will go back. I also won't be surprised if Anthony and Molyneux have a bad break up in the future as well. There is just way too much narcissism there.
  6. 1 point
    The Rand/Branden breakup was not "silly." That implies trivialities. But what was important then is no longer now. The ideas remain. --Brant
  7. 1 point
    Part 3--without comment so far. I haven't even seen it yet. But I know it's good. I've seen Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham comment on it this morning. That means it is going to get a bigger splash audience than normal. Michael
  8. 1 point
    Long live John Galt We have taken the White House and renamed it Galts Gulch
  9. 1 point
    Emperor Trump anyone !!!!!!!!!!!! Hail, my president , my Emperor, my King !!!!!!!!!!!! I love you , Mr. President !!!!!!
  10. 1 point
    Well, the House finally presented the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The House used zero crimes and misdemeanors, two Articles of Impeachment, seven Managers to present the case to the Senate, and 30 gold pens served on silver platters for Pelosi to sign the House's articles. At least I think there were 30 pens. No one in the news is saying what the number was, but they did give a picture. So I counted the pens and there are 30. As Pelosi signed, she gave the pens away to her cronies as swag souvenirs. And the result? President Trump is still President. Generalissimo Franco is still dead. More updates as we go along. Michael
  11. 1 point
    Bernie Part 2 Dumbasses. Michael
  12. 1 point
    I predict that tomorrow, President Trump will be just as much President as he is today, and that Generalissimo Franco will be just as dead. Let's see what happens. More updates as we go along. Michael
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    "This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."
  15. 1 point
    I didn't expect the next Veritas drop to be about Bernie, but it is. Notice how the Bernie dude talks so casually about sending Americans to reeducation camps, about how Stalin's Gulags weren't so bad, etc. And notice how the other Bernie dude is salivating about Milwaukee burning if Bernie doesn't get in. The commies are really showing themselves for who they are here. Finally, there is something in the O-Land orbit in contemporary politics that normal Rand-fed O-Land people can relate to as the enemy--that is, a typical O-Land enemy acting like a villain. Despite all the nuance and controlling the narrative, the closer hardcore lefties get to real power, the more they show their fists. Michael
  16. 1 point
    Our friend Tat who is holidaying in NY made the trip to Toledo to be at the rally. Mad, of course - it's a pleasant summer in Johannesburg. Reported the "amazing logistics" before the event.
  17. 1 point
    The neo-conservatism that many Objectivists have in the past (maybe still?) defaulted to, was the slide away from objective value in favour of intrinsic value/disvalue ( --i.e. "evil" by revelation.) I remember my shock by pronouncements by Peikoff and other O'ists to "nuke" Tehran, bomb that mosque, thinking I'd arrived on a neo-con site . That was 10 years ago, when I was new to the forums and blessedly innocent of internal rifts. Rand had the clearest idea of objective value and the nature of objective evil, which I believe was superficially imitated and mashed into the appearance of neo-conservatism. (This was the tussle between intrinsicist vs. subjective values which Kelley and Peikoff accused each other of when they "split". That breakup and the loss of Kelley's intellectual influence in ARI leaving the field to Leonard alone, i reckon has had effects until today. Now I wonder if many Arians, post Peikoff, haven't defaulted the other wrong way, to subjective value and subsequent Leftism). A statement Peter presented, by one Patrick Stephens "... I believe terrorists would still target America for its citizens' support of Israel". As well as being counterfactual, concrete bound and anti-conceptual, imo here's an example of having subjective values. Ditch Israel and the troublesome Jews and "they will love us", kinda. But it's an identical intrinsicism by Iranian leaders and terrorists, from which followed their hatred for anything and anybody Western (and Jewish). That's fixed and impossible to deal with reasonably..
  18. 1 point
    When push comes to shove Objectivists sleep with the neo-conservatives. True of Rand in her day. We both default to the nation-state, which is true of everyone not an anarchist. However, the basic ptactical question is freedom yes or freedom no? Then we have to know where we are to change it to more freedom or less freedom? This is not the birth of a nation. --Brant not a war-monger
  19. 1 point
    The Korean War was the quintessential "Police Action." I'd forgotten that then common nomenclature. Officially it was a United Nation's war. The Soviets skipped the Security Council meeting that authorized that and never skipped another. --Brant
  20. 1 point
    The Berkley protests and the police use of force to stop them?
  21. 1 point
    William, Rand said, "Judge and be prepared to be judged." I use this often as a guide for my life. I once produced a protest singer and songwriter in Brazil, Geraldo Vandré. In one of his songs, he said, "Que a Deus cabe castigar, E se não castiga ele, Não quero eu o seu lugar" Translation: It's up to God to punish. And if He doesn't punish, I don't want to take His place. I use that at times in life, too. Geraldo's message in the song was shoot to kill, not punish. But I have found these particular words useful for other contexts. They form a phrase that comes unbidden in my mind whenever it wants to, at the most unexpected moments, not when I want to remember it. I seek wisdom. In part, that to me means knowing which idea to use and when, including all the combinations and variations. Thank you for the explanation. Happy New Year to you. Michael
  22. 1 point
    On New Year's Eve William posted a blog entry titled (quoting from memory) "No Need to Check Facts when You [sic] Gut Tells You....." The entry and all comments (about 9) seem to have disappeared. I'll repeat the second paragraph of a post I made about 2:00 am this morning: "Larry and I went to dinner at a place we love - an historic inn, currently called 'Abigail's,' which dates back to not long after the Revolutionary War. We toasted: 'To Donald Trump's re-election.'" Ellen
  23. 1 point
    Rand's view of the United States was naive. "Never engaged in military conquest" is a complete hoot. She painted with broad brush strokes running over nuances as if they didn't exist, but in this case she dumped the can of paint onto the canvass. Her views on the military-industrial complex, whatever they may have been, would not be valuable save as ideological dressing. --Brant
  24. 1 point
    In a word, Peter: symbolism. The aesthetic imagery that an entity's or person's inner goodness and beauty is manifested by outer goodness and beauty. That's shown especially by the Left who are infatuated with the "beau geste" in these multi media pervaded times, over facts and real outcomes. Where symbolic-aesthetics entered the identifying-evaluations of Objectivists, who know that outward appearances don't make the man, is puzzling. (Cue intrinsicism and rationalism). I keep hearing of the president's "bad character" - again, that's his (superficial and public) persona ajudged by lefties who don't know "character", I've found; objective qualities under fire he has shown plenty of.
  25. 1 point
    “Whats’s” And didn’t she say no using her name for orgs? What would that imply about using her face in a cartoon? Fucking fuckwits.
  26. 1 point
    I'm calling it batshit evil. --Brant
  27. 1 point
    That mad Julia Davis, again: Russia Gloats Over Departure: ‘Trump Is Ours Again’ Her notion is that Russia is happy, Iran is happy, Hizbollah is happy, Turkey is confused, and the Kurds ... well, fuck the Kurds, they are all commies. Happy now?
  28. 1 point
    Wow, The movie was vanilla to that reality. But if you click on your link you get the fuller and better story. Patton losing his command, btw, turned out to be a strategic blessing, for while he didn't get fighting again until Eisenhower gave him 3rd Army, he was used a decoy to help mislead the Nazis about where the invasion of Europe would take place, The Nazis ate it up because they couldn't believe the best allied tactical general officer in Europe if not the whole war--either side, any army--would be taken out for such a slight reason. And there is the irony that Patton himself snapped because of his own battle fatigue. --Brant
  29. 1 point
    I didn't record it. Someone called "Sp4 Malone" did. I don't think this video was meant for public distribution but for internal educational use by the army. It was originally 16mm film. The army sent soldiers with cameras out to various field situations to film. I recall one who accompanied us on a short patrol and I made suggestions on how to conserve his film when we blew up--tried to blow up--a bunker with C-4 explosive. Not a good visual. Not Hollywood by a long shot. Sean Flynn, son of Errol Flynn, came through out team in the summer of 1967. He was a free-lance photo-journalist. I didn't know it at the time, but he was all over South Vietnam putting his life on the line. The Kilmer Rouge grabbed him and a companion in Cambodia three years later, apparently held them for a year then executed them. I put this up with the story simply to dress out a small slice of what war is really about. Too often people who have never seen combat treat war too abstractly. The President Bush who never saw war ordered the Iraq invasion of 2003. I, who had, was against it at the time. I knew it would be wrong and bad but even I could not imagine how bad and that bad keeps rolling along today. His father had seen war and was more circumspect. It has just become public knowledge that he had barely evaded capture, execution and cannibalism by the Japanese who had captured eight of his companions. He knew all the time since what had happened to them. There was-were-war crimes trial in Guam in 1946 in which this information came out resulting in executions including a Japanese General who ate some liver of a murdered American airman as a delicacy. Such are some of the insanities of war. If I could do it all over again knowing what I know now I would have become the photographer I enlisted for or agreed to a four year enlistment, gone to language school for a year in beautiful California and spent my time in the army with NSA and maybe have become a CIA spook as a civilian career choice. I still remember how ardently the recruiter wanted me to do that after he saw my test scores. That's if there were a military draft. --Brant
  30. 1 point
    Reading in MYWAR: On page 260 (starting out in a context speaking of Objectivist groups around North America - Occasionally, I would hear that someone had been "excommunicated" from one of these groups because of some betrayal of OBjectivist standards. It seemed to me that some of these students were more severe than Ayn or I in their condemnation of infractions. "They're more royalist than the king," Ayn would comment wryly. "I guess all intellectual movements have to cope with one aspect or another of the 'true believer syndrome,'" I remarked once. Some years earlier, Ayn had discovered Eric Hoffer's True Believer and had recommended it to Barbara and me. "Because of our emphasis on rationality and independence," Ayn had confidently forecast, "this won't be a problem for us." I now knew that she was overly optimistic as far as our followers were concerned; I did not yet recognize that she was mistaken even about the inner circle. Interesting, in particular that Rand was at least somewhat familiar with Hoffer's True Believer. Bill P (Alfonso)
  31. 1 point
    I find it humorous that people who doubt the 9/11 story are labeled as having a crazy imagination when actually, the official story of 9/11 is infinitely more far fetched than most other explanations, especially when we take into consideration the fact that previous US Governments have drawn plans up to use terrorist attacks against their own people to justify wars and have also lied about attacks on the US to launch wars. The only difference in this case is that people seem less inclined to accept that their government has lied to them (again). The government wouldn't lie to us, right?
  32. 1 point
    #14 seems to say that conspiracy theory is an anti-concept because it illegitimately links responsible, well-evidenced accusations with the nutzoid ones on the grounds that both contain accusations of criminal collusion when, in more fundamental respects, the two kinds of accusation are different. This won't fly. Standard usage reserves the phrase exclusively for the latter, and so does my own here in this thread. Thus conspiracy theory is a well-formed concept. Point c. in #12 caught my eye because the same point had occurred to me. The current thread illustrates it handsomely: #3: There was some cooked testimony in 1990. The media reported the Jessica Lynch story incompetently at first. Ergo the 9-11 conspiracy theories are true. #7, #9: NBI Book Service once sold a book in which one of the contributors argued a Pearl Harbor coverup. Ergo the 9-11 conspiracy theories are true. #9: These books reported secret ('twas hoped) criminal maneuvers by government officials. (You hardly need to go to back issues of The Objectivist Newsletter to find this out, with the daily revelations about Solyndra and LightSquared.) Ergo the 9-11 conspiracy theories are true. #16: The Reichstag burned in 1933. Ergo the 9-11 conspiracy theories are true. And that's if you don't follow up on the links.
  33. 1 point
    Well, if they weren't called "conspiracy theories" they'd be "conspiracy facts." Conspiracy theories don't give me "food for thought" - except to wonder about the psychology of the theorists themselves. What makes them so badly WANT to believe? Some comments about conspiracy theorists: a.They believe that it is only they who have the 'Gospel' on inside information, while everybody else is a naive dreamer (nope, at least 50% of people I've met personally are "theorists", so they are as guilty of being sheep too) ; b. believe one "theory", and they are inclined to believe most, or all of them; c. if just one component of a "theory" is shown to be factually correct, then, QED, the whole conspiracy must be correct; d. for some strange reason, the more intelligent they are, the more they "believe" (a failure of common sense?) e. their common accusation to a doubter is "paucity of imagination", when all they are doing is regurgitating someone else's Hollywood script, so, they are the ones lacking vision and imagination. (I have enough imagination to make up my own dark plots, thanks very much: in fact, send me $5, and you'll get the real low-down on 9/11.) The real truth is mostly obvious and self-evident (what you see, is what you get), and often also extremely complex - requiring historical perspective, analytical powers, constant checking of sources, and non-stop thinking. (Anyway, who is claiming, too, that Government/Big Business, etc does not attempt to cover up some things, sometimes?) "Theories" are enticing and exciting - but mostly provide one a convenient package for avoiding hard thought. A bleak view of the world and humanity, lack of independence in their own cognition, the suspicious 'us' and 'them' mentality, and a childish desire for simplicity - that is the composition of regular conspiracy theorists for me. Tony
  34. 1 point
    More psychologizing. One more QED. The books you mention deal with documented history, not conspiracy theories. They have nothing to do with the case you're trying to make. I'm not surprised to see that you elide the distinction. You fail to mention the Illuminati, the Insiders, the Elders of Zion or the Homintern (an international network of homosexuals bent on controlling entertainment, fashion and the arts) - not to mention the reports that the Duchess of Windsor was a female impersonator. I wonder how well you know even the stuff you're peddling.
  35. 1 point
    An apt analogy: That some people can’t deal with the extent of their own government’s corruption is like a man in a state of denial over his fatal disease. The psychology might well be the same. Many people who allege a conspiracy – in the legal sense of the term – were unhappy to discover the conspiracy. Like most people they would rather their government be honest. Some people want so much for their government to be honest that they just tune out when you try to point out the evidence that, for example, Vince Foster was murdered, or there was a lot more to the Oklahoma City bombing than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, or that Edgar J. Steele (a free-speech attorney who defends unsavory characters) was framed, or the CIA and DEA engage in cocaine smuggling, or that the Underwear Bomber was facilitated by the feds. But the analogy doesn’t cover another important factor: peer pressure, the tendency to mindlessly go with the perceived crowd. Ayn Rand not publishing a review of a book promoted by NBI hardly negates her implied endorsement. Other old-timers have told me that NBI sold several "conspiracy" books but so far I haven’t been able to find out what the titles were other than Perpetual War by Barnes. Ayn Rand published favorable reviews of the following books which describe acts by government personnel that were criminal even by the government’s own alleged standards and which the government tried to keep secret: East Minus West = Zero: Russia’s Debt to the Western Worldby Werner Keller. The Objectivist Newsletter, November 1962. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Roosevelt Mythby John Flynn. The Objectivist Newsletter, December 1962. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Roosevelt’s Road to Russiaby George Crocker. The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1964. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917-1930by Antony C. Sutton. The Objectivist, January 1970.
  36. 1 point
    There is always more to conspiracy theories than is in the news. Crackpots start where the facts leave off.
  37. 1 point
    You can find a transcript of the video, with explanatory links, at The Corbet Report - 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory Without endorsing any particular conspiracy theory – some of which are loopy – Corbet makes the point that there's a lot more to the conventional 9/11 conspiracy than we are being told in the conventional news. To appreciate parts of his video you need to know a bit of history. For example, that girl tearfully testifying was testifying before the U.S. Congress in 1990, claiming that Saddam Hussein’s soldiers were snatching premature Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and leaving them to die. Her testimony was used by senators and the president as a reason to back the dictatorship of Kuwait against that of Iraq in the Gulf War – which the president wanted to do anyway. It later turned out the girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. Her speech before Congress was a theatrical act, a "public relations" stunt thought up by the firm of Hill & Knowlton working for the "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" – the free referring to a dictatorship as brutal as Saddam Hussein’s. The mainstream media repeated this fraud uncritically. Also the Jessica Lynch fraud, etc. Corbet’s point is that maybe they aren’t doing very well on 9/11 either. For some interesting articles about what happened on 9/11 see http://ARIwatch.com/Links.htm#9-11
  38. 1 point
    Tough question. Ideally I'd want schools run on a mixture of Montessori and Summerhill methods, foster a culture where the individual (NOT the "School Community" (or the tribe or the pack or the group or the master race or the brotherhood of the proletariat or the nation state)) is seen as the fundamental unit, there's no "school spirit" and no religion, and there are absolutely no rules EXCEPT "do not start force/fraud/coercion/bullying." Run classes like a University. No coerced attendance, lecturers have expertise but not authority (observing Sharon Presley's distinction between the two). No uniforms. In other words, treat children like human beings rather than pack animals. As a consequence, they'll be less likely to act like pack animals themselves (i.e. bully others and create conformist cliques). Authoritarianism CREATES and PERPETUATES bullying; the military is full of 'hazing' but there's almost none in universities (some fraternities are an exception but they're basically structures that exist for those that gravitate towards pack-animalism). Montessori schools are basically bully-free, authoritarian schools are full of bullies. More freedom, less bullying. Some people might say some kids "need" structure and control, but I say that people naturally thrive under freedom. I certainly did and I'm not Superman. Call me a social darwinist if you will, but those that "need" structure and control strike me as malformed examples of human beings. My daughter went to a Montessori pre-school and is now in a Montessori elementary school. She will be entering sixth grade, the final year of her Montessori elementary school. I cannot say enough good things about her school. It is truly a wonderful, nurturing place. All of the Montessori values are strongly emphasized. In addition to a first rate academic education, the entire educational experience is beautifully balanced. The focus is on the development of the total child, not just academically but socially and ethically. Needless to say, kids are strongly encouraged to be nice and to respect each other's rights. This is an integral aspect of the school's culture. Bullying is absolutely not tolerated. And there are no school uniforms. The idea is most definitely not to prepare the kids for a regimented, soul-destroying life in the military or anywhere else. Maria Montessori was definitely a woman way ahead of her time. She was a true heroine. Martin
  39. 1 point
    Tough question. Ideally I'd want schools run on a mixture of Montessori and Summerhill methods, foster a culture where the individual (NOT the "School Community" (or the tribe or the pack or the group or the master race or the brotherhood of the proletariat or the nation state)) is seen as the fundamental unit, there's no "school spirit" and no religion, and there are absolutely no rules EXCEPT "do not start force/fraud/coercion/bullying." Run classes like a University. No coerced attendance, lecturers have expertise but not authority (observing Sharon Presley's distinction between the two). No uniforms. In other words, treat children like human beings rather than pack animals. As a consequence, they'll be less likely to act like pack animals themselves (i.e. bully others and create conformist cliques). Authoritarianism CREATES and PERPETUATES bullying; the military is full of 'hazing' but there's almost none in universities (some fraternities are an exception but they're basically structures that exist for those that gravitate towards pack-animalism). Montessori schools are basically bully-free, authoritarian schools are full of bullies. More freedom, less bullying. Some people might say some kids "need" structure and control, but I say that people naturally thrive under freedom. I certainly did and I'm not Superman. Call me a social darwinist if you will, but those that "need" structure and control strike me as malformed examples of human beings.
  40. 1 point
    Andrew, Woah thar pardner. That's not what I said. Teaching self-discipline is not authoritarianism--not in my sense. Don't forget, you are talking to Mr. Big Honking Authority Issues in life. The following is a true story. I once walked into a meeting of Brazilian and Paraguyan generals at the Itaipu Hydroelectric Dam (which is called Itaipu Binacional in Portuguese). I was putting on a show on the premises on the Paraguyan side and my show got canceled at the last minute. Well, it is true that I was producing a Brazilian protest singer, Geraldo Vandré, so the thing was very controversial. This was right in the middle of Brazil's military dictatorship--the one where they jailed and tortured political prisoners. I was livid and just stormed on in. The generals were seated at a meeting table. They looked up surprised and asked who I was. I said: "Sou gringo do Brasil binacional, quem são vocês que cancelem meu show?" (I'm gringo bi-national of Brazil, and who the hell are you to cancel my show?) I could have disappeared at that very moment and nobody would have uttered a peep, not then, not down the road. But I was lucky. I think they liked my spunk or something. (Latin American military leaders like macho displays, but I don't recommend doing what I did if you think things like breathing are of some value to you. It's like petting a rattlesnake for amusement, then whopping it on the side of the head to watch it jump.) The general in charge was surprisingly polite to me, although a couple of the others looked miffed--dark clouds forming over their heads. He was almost fatherly, though. He didn't solve my problem, but actually gave me some information that I later used to get the restriction released. That was back when I had more courage than sense. Would I do it again under similar circumstances? Probably. But I'm getting too old for that crap. The point is, you are not talking to an "authoritarian" in the sense you described. Not even in the ballpark. Now you know one of the main reasons I am not attracted to the fundy version of Objectivism. Too many authoritarian games with the head folks getting off on power trips. But self-discipline? That's another topic. Self-discipline is a skill just like any other skill. It can be learned--and, I agree, many folks screw up teaching it. Some kids have a knack for it and others don't, so I have no qualms with teaching it to kids who don't have it. (I'm not a fan of the Prussian model of education we currently use. I'm more into teaching life skills, including entrepreneurship as kids get older, but that's another issue.) Frankly, I wish someone had taught me the self-discipline skill when I was in school instead of laying an authoritarianism trip on me. I later had to figure it all out on my own right when I most needed to rely on it. Even today I fight with this. If I had been taught self-discipline when I was young, it would have spared me years of grief. Michael
  41. 1 point
    I picked three years out of generosity. None of the cases in which a conspiracy theory has been shown true (e.g. the crimes of the Nixon and Clinton administrations) has taken nearly that long. The time has come to apply the classic open-and-shut test of empirical seriousness: under what circumstances would you be willing to conclude that time has run out on Those Claims about Pearl Harbor, 9 11 or the Kennedy assassination and that they have been proven false? To anticipate the obvious: some circumstances (not necessarily the only ones) under which I would conclude that burden had been met are: - corroborated public admissions by the perpetrators; - corroborated handwritten admissions. Corroboration could be court-admissible documentation of the contacts among the perpetrators, the plans they made and the means by which they carried their plans out.
  42. 1 point
    The objections to my 3-year criterion (see 7 - 9 above) employ two classic charlatans' techniques (I didn't say you are charlatans, merely that charlatans like to argue the same way you do). One is to make one's claim unfalsifiable; the other is to shift the burden of proof. The observation that some of the material is still classified points to both. Much of the material is not classified, and it hasn't supported the theories in all the years people have tried to prove said theories. If the conspiracy theorists were confident that the suppressed material supported their claims they'd try to get it unclassified. They might succeed, and if they didn't they'd at least attract up a serious audience for their insinutations, as they have failed to do. In the first few generations of Christianity the faithful believed that Christ would return any day. When that didn't happen, the church fathers told them all we said was that it's going to happen; we didn't say when. When communism took hold in the USSR, Marxists around the world thought that worldwide revolution would happen within a decade. The Stalin regime came up with a similar answer. When global warming predictions didn't come true, the meaninglessly broad phrase "climate change" got abroad. In all three cases, the defenders switched from a testable, falsifiable prediction to one that was neither. When the Pearl Harbor, Kennedy assassination and 9-11 conspiracy theories came up dry, they were rephrased in ways that defined away any possibility of disproving them. As for burden of proof: when you say that particular individuals made particular plans and carried them out, you accept a responsibility to name the individuals and to document the plans and their execution. In Kennedy's case, plenty of people tried for years to do this in the media, Congress and the courts. The media patiently took up the 9-11 claims and just as patiently refuted them. The Pearl Harbor conspiracy was a favorite of lowbrow conservatives circa sixty years ago. To go on saying that as long as new knowledge might come to light, these notions have a claim to truth is an instance of what Rand called a demand for omniscience.
  43. 1 point
    No, I haven't read the book, but I can't get worked up about the notion that somebody has found some new data or insight after all these decades in which the attack has been one of the most thorougly examined events in history. My policy is to give coverup and conspiracy stories three years to prove themselves, after which they become crackpot territory. The Watergate coverup and the charges against Alger Hiss pass the test. Pearl Harbor, 9-11 and the JFK assasination fail.
  44. 1 point
    I was unaware you'd both read the book and sifted through all the evidence and competing theories. Have you also read through Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit and Thomas Fleming's The New Dealers War?
  45. 1 point
    All the more amazing, when five of the folks that Mr. Perigo is trying to summon have been banned from SOLOP: Barbara, Jonathan, Neil, WSS, and yourself. Chris Sciabarra may not have been given the boot, but he's never coming back. So Mr. Perigo wants Brant and me to mix it up with him? ;) Robert Campbell He must be lonely. He kicked out the most lucid, properly focused, incisive mind there--Billy Beck--in order to keep in Amy Peikoff's good graces, but she's disappeared along with a lot of others. I think they have, but don't know for sure, for I've stopped reading most of the SOLOP threads. SOLOP and OL share one important commonality, however: too many posters seem purblind to what's going on in the world and how bad it's going to be. Our own government is acting for the destruction of this country and our enemies will soon be able to do an incredible amount of damage with a small amount of effort. In 10-20 years the US we know today may hardly even exist. --Brant
  46. 1 point
    Bill: "Oh - I've fallen into the patterns Hoffer talks about more than once. Including AFTER reading Hoffer, so I can definitely sympathize with your note about selective blindness. I suspect you can sympathize." You couldn't be more right. It's remarkahle what the human mind can do to protect itself from unpleasant realizations. Barbara
  47. 1 point
    This is not true. Either sentence. Care to elaborate? Since I've read about the theory, I've kept my eyes open and seen situations where it seemed to fit. Judith Hazing is group sanctioned bullying. There use to be a lot of it in Fraternities and the military academies, archetypically West Point. General MacArthur stopped the worst of it over 80 years ago. The idea is you are an outsider until bullied (hazed) then you are an insider and get to bully the to-be-initiated. In the U.S. military discipline and group training does this job. When hazing gets out of hand and into the news the brass step in to stop it. I have no doubt in many foreign armies extreme hazing goes on but it has nothing to do with combat readiness and having one's back protected. For instance, in the Soviet army hazing went so far as to include homosexual rape of newly drafted recruits. In my three years in the army I never experienced hazing. True, I was not in a regular combat unit, but I underwent basic training and advanced individual light weapons training and jump school at Ft. Benning. In Special Forces I was with senior non-commissioned officers, all highly trained specialists. Hazing simply means that the hazed is going to be looking for revenge. You don't want someone like that watching your back. Young, unmarried males with guns are the most dangerous creatures on the planet, aside from their political leaders. --Brant
  48. 0 points
    Rand's thing was "non-initiation of force" and Rothbard's NAP defined "aggression" as initiation of force. If someone puts their money down for a second and I snatch it when they aren't looking, then how do I run afoul of either of those two? Here are other things that don't involve force initiation: Hacking. Trespass. Dumping garbage onto someone else's property. Breach of contract. Murdering someone by dropping poison into their drink when they aren't looking. Not paying for the food you eat at a restaurant. An honest reading of "initiation of force" would permit the things listed above. It could even allow taxation if the tax collectors were surreptitious about it! (They come in the middle of the night and take a few dollars out of your safe.) So why does anyone continue to use that word choice? Other movements don't try to act like all of their positions can be spun from a single sentence. It would be better to accept that trying to do it that way leaves a lot of openings through which undesirable policies can slip through.
  49. 0 points
    They think they can keep this satanic piece of shit alive with just $500,000 a year? 🤣 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7881493/Canada-offers-pick-Harry-Meghans-500-000-security-bill.html
  50. 0 points
    Hi Glen, It is because of the criminal bloodliners who have ruled over us for so long. Their aim is total slavery over us. Real change and real freedom can come after Trump finishes them off, them and their privately owned Federal Reserve and every other structure they have enslaved us with. We won the battle of ideas a long time ago.