Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/01/2020 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, contained a counter-conspiracy involving a radio speech given by a man who vowed "to stop the motor of the world." On March 28, 2020, we have this speech dropped by the counter-conspiracy known as "Q", via the internet... "The entire world is watching. Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA. We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out. " Read the entire drop here: https://qmap.pub/ https://twitter.com/StormIsUponUs/status/1243987443533205504?s=20 Many have criticized Rand for Galt's speech being too long to hold people's attention, and too unfilmable for a movie. But whatever else one may think about "Q", you gotta admit, they figured a way around all that...
  2. 2 points
    Peter, People don't do conspiracies out in the open (except in America where certain conspirators have a complicit press and this still leaves me with jaw dropping ). One characteristic of a conspiracy is that it is meant to be hidden until the right moment. That's by definition. So how can one demand observed fact about something hidden? One has to dig and expose. The idea that a suspicion is loopy just because you can't see who is doing the bad stuff is a very dangerous one. You can't see a cancer cell inside you with your eyes alone. Not even doctors can. And if you ignore it, it will kill you. I don't know if you ever read some posts I made about a professor in Florida--I forget his name right now. He's a leftie. He tracked down where the term "conspiracy theory" came from. And he holds conferences at the university level where "peer reviewed" material is presented about the different conspiracies that have turned out to be true. The term "conspiracy theory" came from the CIA to quell the unrest that happened, both in America and abroad, after Kennedy got shot and the Warren commission issued it's lame report. People were having a fit in public--the press, radio, TV, speeches, and so on. There are copies of a memo by the CIA at the time. It is available to anyone who wants to see it. The CIA circulated it to the press offices and the Embassies explaining how to discredit public doubters of the Warren Report or the public version of the Kennedy assassination by smearing them as loopy conspiracy nuts. Before that time, "conspiracy theory" was a phrase used to describe serious musings on events. I can't think of an example from that time off the top of my head, but the later economic term "trickle down theory" has the kind of emotional load "conspiracy theory" used to have. Nobody today thinks a person espousing the "trickle down theory" is a flaming kook. Instead, they think the person is serious even when they disagree. Before the CIA did that little masterpiece of persuasion engineering to shut down discussion of speculations, people going overboard on a conspiracy were generally linked to the theory they espoused. For example, "red baiters" or "McCarthyites." Not even the John Birch Society people back then were called "conspiracy theorists." Lance deHaven-Smith Here... I just looked and found where I wrote about my man. The professor's name is Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. Here's a great start of a reading list if you ever get interested in historical conspiracies that were not believed at the time, but ended up being true: Also, here is a little more on Lance deHaven-Smith. First a post by William (with the snark against those who think differently than him, mostly meaning Trump supporters, removed). He posted a very good video of Lance deHaven-Smith in a 2013 talk. Then a response by me that gives some more nutshell information on Lance deHaven-Smith: I know I can dig up a lot more if I get going. But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) Asymmetrical Warfare Now that the military has openly embraced what it calls asymmetrical warfare, you can find paper after paper published by the military on conspiracy theories in the original meaning of the term. QAnon is a phenomenon that has all the marks of such asymmetrical warfare. It is intentionally designed to attract the fringe and nonfringe alike, that is, the way this project has unfolded, it is a way to inject narratives into the mainstream that are different than the ones offered but the fake news media, narratives that discredit the elitist mainstream culture. It's been a resounding success in that regard. Just think of how this has led to Epstein's fall--before, nobody believed he was trafficking in pedophilia among the superpowerful, but now everyone says he was. And he got dead and croaked and suicided as part of the show. Not even a fifty million dollar special counsel investigation into the idea that Russians elected Donald Trump through covert means worked. Nor an impeachment. Don't forget, the mainstream press deployed everything they had to support the narratives behind that investigation and impeachment, both during the leading up phase and after both fizzled. The fake news mainstream culture did this for over three years, day in and day out. Part of the reason these efforts didn't take is that the narratives pushed by the mainstream culture were not accepted by the general population. One of the reasons this happened was QAnon's skillful injection of counternarratives and doubt into the general population at places the mainstream fake news culture did not control. Back when you and I were young, this would not have been possible since there were only three nationwide TV stations, radio was mostly pop tunes and religion, and the printed press carried the day. The Internet ended that monopoly on controlling the narrative by the few. One day, after all this blows over, it will be very interesting to look at and study all the different techniques deployed on both sides. I have already identified a few, but it's still too early to write anything definitive about it. (That goes for me and others.) I'm still--we're still--observing--still gathering conceptual referents so to speak--since important history is unfolding right in front of us and hasn't wound up. Michael
  3. 2 points
    Something else: go to Google Earth, and look up the Administrative and Court Facility at Guantanamo Bay. I tried it..."the results are will shock you..."
  4. 2 points
    Indeed. I may be skeptical about aspects of the story, but not the story itself.
  5. 2 points
    Pizaagate is proven true by the Epstein story alone with it’s tentacles into Harvard, MIT, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, Princes and princesses worldwide. Nothing, no list of additional disclosures of any length will bring a person away from their precious yeah buts if the Epstein story does not.
  6. 2 points
    I think I stumbled across one of the main reasons for the intense Trump hatred among the elitists, all the way from the beginning. Relevance. From Breitbart: Nolte: We Now Know Truckers and Stock Boys Are Vital, Hollywood Is Not Nolte then gives these two example of our Hollywood royalty. And Madonna below, purposely made up ugly (at least it looks like that), and butchering fried fish, of all the goddam things to sing about. I'm gonna push the fair use thing and give the rest of the article. So what does this have to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome? I'm reminded of an observation Nathaniel Branden used to say about everybody knowing the truth about themselves when they wake up alone at two o'clock in the morning. They don't use a mask at that time, not even to fool themselves. The truth is, underneath, everybody knows what John Nolte just wrote. They know it deep in their gut. Even Hollywood royalty. Dreams are for the future, but without the present, dreams are nothing. There can be no future without the present. But look at how pathetic our dream-keepers are without their dream-enhancing trappings. Their present is worse than many of our next-door neighbors singing in the shower. They are not striving to make their dreams real. They are wallowing in mediocrity. Now think of this. Who sold the biggest dream of them all out in Hollywood and among the elites? Donald Trump did. He said go for it. And go for it, people did. They went for keeping that dream alive in their hearts. They read his books and made bestsellers out of them. The consumed the image of a big money show-off he injected into the mainstream. They put his TV show at No. 1 for years. And did Donald Trump become a dream-keeper just like everyone else? Nope. He took his own advice and went for it out in reality. He made his dream come true. And he did not need them to do it. Something none of them have the capacity to pull off. Oh, they have the reputation of being able to make dreams come true. But it's unearned. When push comes to shove, they know they are peddling a dream future without having earned a real present where that makes any kind of sense. They don't strive in their personal lives to become competent and better at real things. One can build a dream by striving for it by living on the pathway to it. Instead, they strive to be pampered and shielded from real things. I'm not talking about words or stories. I'm talking about reality. Reality-wise, these people are spiritual impostors. They crave to be worshiped for a metaphysical standing they have not earned and do not deserve. They can present a good story, but their reality sucks. Well, President Trump emerged from enormous personal striving and became President of the United States against all odds--while keeping the dream all along. He didn't sell out his dream, but instead, transmuted into reality on a foundation of merit. And by extension, he made these impostors look at themselves in the daylight, not just at two o'clock in the morning when they are by themselves. He made them realize--in full awareness--how insignificant they really are. They never forgave him for it. This applies to all elitists who hate Trump, too. Especially conservative never-Trumpers who made their careers out of selling a conservative dream but not earning a conservative present of productivity and competence in dealing with reality. They could never do what President Trump did and it galls them to no end anyone could. They know what that makes them look like--to everyone and to themselves. And now, for some goddam psychological reason I can't grok right now, these Hollyweird idiots are hell-bent on showing their public just how ugly, untalented, and insignificant they really are when they have to live the life their fans do. I can grok this much, though. They have a subconscious drive to put their hands on reality when all they've ever known is a dream. But they're not going for the gold out there in reality. They're going for the shit. That's what they want their fans to see them right now: themselves as shit. And they want this right at the time when their fans are under attack by reality. They will never forgive President Trump for making them do this, even though he didn't. Their hatred of him is projected hatred of themselves. Why do they hate themselves? Because they can't measure up and Trump can? No. Not at root. It's because they don't want to measure up and they know how wrong that is as a human being--at least they know it at two o'clock in the morning. Michael
  7. 2 points
    Jon, What accounts for the appearance of the COVID-19 virus just now in your narrative? Are you claiming that Xi had the virus bioengineered or some other way managed to get it unleashed on the world and that Donald Trump is such an inhumane bastard that he doesn't care about the deaths and misery and financial dislocation so long as he has a cover for declaring martial law and arresting his enemies list? Ellen
  8. 2 points
    Polly's terrific. She at least asks the right questions as Michael says; and if a tenth of what she interconnects is valid, it's enough. It's your minds they want. AR Never let a good crisis go to waste. R. Emanuel If you can keep your head when all about you...RK When all the cattle are stampeding in one direction, look for the men on horses. AJG There's something very strange going on, things which didn't transpire with the last serious virus.
  9. 2 points
    The ~main~ thing to be fearful of is others' paranoia, and ongoing curtailment on our freedoms. Do not accept the leftist narrative driving panic for power.
  10. 2 points
    Rand had good things to say about the American "common man." Nonetheless, her expressed views about the large majority of humankind were dismissive. Google the word "ballast" in Rand's work. Here's an example from the title essay of For the New Intellectual. This isn't early Rand. It was written after Atlas Shrugged. Ellen
  11. 2 points
    Jonathan, Do you see this as either-or? Does one negate the other? In other words, will the part of human nature that likes celebrities stop existing--in level-headed people and idiots alike--just because pro-Rand people ignore it? Fun fact. I'm too lazy to look the following up right now, so I'll go on memory. If need be, we can look it up later. In the book by Sally Hogshead, Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation (which is quite a good book despite the cheesy title), she mentioned an experiment with chimpanzees (or bonobos, I don't recall which off the top of my head). After researchers were able to determine which were higher in the social organization, they took pictures of them. And they took pictures of the other chimps. Then they scattered the pictures around at random. None of the chimps looked at the pictures of the lower chimps, but the lower chimps spent lot of time staring at the pictures of the celebrity chimps. This trait comes from evolution, not from any moral failing. (Apropos, if you have ever heard the saying that the modern attention span is about 8 seconds, in other words, that of a goldfish, that saying comes from Sally Hogshead.) One of the characteristics of Rand's approach has been to ignore (and sometimes even deny) this underbelly part of human nature that determines certain values. That doesn't mean it stops existing. It just means there is constant friction over it whenever Rand is discussed. And why is the friction constant? Because this trait will not go away by decree. It stays around no matter how much it is ignored and condemned. And it stays around in everyone, including the people who try to ignore it. So I see no problem in letting all different kinds of approaches to persuasion fly. The best ones will work. The poor ones will fail on their own. We don't have to take the extra time and effort to go around stomping out approaches that we dislike. Leave that to the Shiite Objectivists who seek obedience and conformity out of others. btw - President Trump understands the hell out of this celebrity interest trait in humans. Rather than fight it, he uses it as a tool in an Aristotelian kind of way, that is, he uses it with the right people, to the right degrees, at the right times, for the right purposes, and in the right ways. He even built a top TV show out of it. And the theme of the show? Was it gaining prizes for spinning a wheel? Guessing at words? Sleeping with this person or that? No. The theme was getting a job building things. And celebrity interest was embedded to the hilt in it. At the end, there was even a version called The Celebrity Apprentice. This interest in celebrities is not a Peter Keating thing. This is a reality of human nature thing. The choice is not between abolishing it like Roark or succumbing to it like Keating. That was fiction to illustrate the theme about what drives human productive creativity--and this theme was its limitation for showing human nature. Within that frame of limitation, it worked, too. But the choice reality provides real human beings living within the richness of everyday life is to use it for sleazy ends or good ends, and in both cases, to be competent at it or incompetent. I'm curious, though. What is so wrong about letting someone like Jennifer Grossman role play Rand on college campuses or in videos? Is she impeding Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro? Of course she isn't. Antifa impedes them, but Jennifer? This feels like a blasphemy thing even though I doubt it is. But there is hatred and contempt present from what I am reading. When I look on that, I know it exists because it's winding people up and getting them pissed. But just like with envy, I feel nothing inside myself--no resonance whatsoever. It's a big nothing, not good or bad. Just nothing. Jennifer is not the bad guy to me. Soros is a bad guy. Bernie Sanders is a bad guy. The pedos are bad guys. Antifa and so on on. But a lady who wants to role play Rand in public? I don't get it. If I don't want to see her do that, I won't look. Done. And that is so easy. It takes no effort. So I don't get the hatred and contempt and desire to make her behave differently than she wants to. Nor even why the call to eschew a fundamental part of the brain in persuasion as something good. If people want to do that in their own efforts, fine. Their choice. But why prohibit others from trying persuasion in that manner if they so wish? Any failure will be theirs, not Rand's. I want to make a zinger using the word cult against cult of personality, but I think I will just leave that thought right there unformed. Michael
  12. 2 points
    Ellen, LOL... You definitely are not the target audience for this TAS project. But think about presenting Rand to social justice snowflakes. Like it or not, these people vote and will soon be the ones in power. The hardass no nonsense battle ax figure is not going to get a hearing with snowflakes. It's not that they will disagree. They will not even get near that. Would you prefer to see the world ruled by them after they had some positive contact with Rand to prompt their curiosity, or with them believing the caricature sold by the progressives? That caricature is their starting point, not ours. So I, for one, don't mind an image of Rand that will draw them near enough to get curious about her rather than comfortable with the default stereotype in their minds. And just to be a pain in the ass, here is something for your viewing pleasure. I even followed a like by William just now to be reminded of this. Michael
  13. 2 points
    What I'd expect to see is "soft, pretty, make-believe Rand" and the thought of seeing that after seeing multiple times the real "hard, deadly serious Rand" makes me react like the thought of eating cotton candy - which I hate. GAAACK! My reaction is stomach-turned visceral - nothing to do with storytelling techniques, multimedia techniques, whatever. Ellen
  14. 1 point
    There is a particularly American quality that Rand identified (some speech to cadets at a military academy): "earnestness". I like seeing that in Polly (and in General Flynn, who she linked to). I seem to recall in younger days that me and many others raised in the Brit tradition rather laughed at the quality, but admiringly, some tacitly recognizing that it stood for resolve, courage and values-held. Somewhere along the line, its my belief, earnestness began disappearing in the US, replaced by "cool". Largely the second handedness of a concern of one's appearance and acts to others' eyes. With cool, followed - likely, was caused by - cynicism (about holding values, altogether). Not altogether disappeared, earnestness is even having a comeback in America, I'm pleased to see.
  15. 1 point
    Peter, I wish I knew--for you--how to preserve the way the mainstream media used to be, but I can't. They disgraced themselves. They discredited themselves. They didn't tell one too many lies. They told tons too many. Day after day over years. It's like when war breaks out. There's no going back to the way things used to be. The mainstream media are liars and I don't trust them--not even to give the date correctly. What's worse, they show no signs of wanting to change or to rehabilitate their reputation. They want to be taken on faith and daring people to say they are wrong. So I have no respect for them. None. Sometimes I watch a few mainstream news people. Tucker's OK. Judge Janine. Lou Dobbs. Some people like that. But I still don't trust them. That was creepy for me at first, too. I know how hard it is to look at an entire institution like the mainstream news and think, they can't be that corrupt. They never were that way before. Why can't things be the way they were before? Imagine what a person feels like when he is going about his day to day and his country gets invaded right in front of him. Then his own house gets taken from him. Ayn Rand knew that feeling when she was young. She watched it up close and personal. Until 9/11, most Americans never had an inkling of what that felt like. And even then, most of the country watched the 9/11 attack over the news, not in front of their very eyes. A feeling of invasion taking something away from me in my own home is what I felt when the truth of the mainstream media finally hit me in the "they are purposely practicing evil, they are a clear and present threat, and there's no turning back from that" way. The final straw for me was the plethora of unnamed sources the mainstream media used in attacking Trump with made up claims, the information from those alleged sources being debunked over and over, and the mainstream media's insistence on continuing one round after another as if nothing happened. It sucked and any adult knows doing that is wrong, but the mainstream media is still doing it. So they suck. I can no longer get news from people like that and accept it as credible. Not even about the coronavirus. And it bothers me that I can't. So I empathize strongly with your resistance to entertain this notion. It's not the way life is supposed to be. I know it made me feel insecure as all hell at first. But they did that. I didn't. Nor did you. And they did it because they wanted to do it. They knew what they were doing and they loved--and still love--crapping all over all of us. I wish there were words of serenity I could include with this situation so I could say them to you. Maybe they exist, but I don't have them. I'm finding my way to deal with this situation just like others are. But I wish serenity for you. May you walk in deep peace. I mean that all the way down. Michael
  16. 1 point
    More JFK Jr stuff coming up, today: JFK Jr vs. Joe Biden, 1994: "'Dear Senator Biden, You are a traitor."'Bearing the signature John F. Kennedy, Jr." https://vault.fbi.gov/John F. Kennedy Jr./John F. Kennedy Jr. Part 1 of 1 JFK Jr on the LENO show, reading a poem from a 9-year old Monica Lewinsky, where she descibes herself as a pizza (think "Pizzagate"). It's disturbing, in retrospect, how she describes herself. https://twitter.com/intheMatrixxx/status/1243920138321244163?s=20
  17. 1 point
    Trump just said "ready reserves" "those are two big words" and then repeated it "ready reserves". Go google "Ready Reserves". Look at Google Maps. Look at the address. #64 https://twitter.com/JemeleWilliams/status/1244012286882336769?s=20
  18. 1 point
    From Rolllng Stone. Coronavirus Is Spreading — And So Are the Hoaxes and Conspiracy Theories Around It The government introduced the coronavirus in 2018, and Bill Gates was also somehow responsible. There is a vaccine or cure for coronavirus that the government won’t release Coronavirus originated with Chinese people eating bats When it comes to major world events, it’s not uncommon for enterprising sleuths to dig deep into fictional sources to find a premonition, however tenuous it may be. (Remember when people thought that Back to the Future II predicted the Cubs’ big World Series win? Or Trump?) In that same vein, last month a screengrab of a passage from author Dean Koontz’s 1981 novel The Eyes of Darkness went viral on Twitter, as the passage appears to allude to the creation of a deadly virus known as Wuhan-400, named after the city from which it originated. Aside from the reference to Wuhan, however (which didn’t even appear in the first edition of Koontz’s book), there are no similarities between Wuhan-400 and COVID-19. Unlike COVID-19, which has about a 2% fatality rate, Wuhan-400 kills 100% of its victims, mostly by creating a “toxin that literally eats away brain tissue,” rendering victims without a pulse. So while it may be tempting for proponents of the COVID-19 as bioweapon theory to point to Koontz’s book as a harbinger of events to come, it appears the parallels between the two are tenuous at best. Still, there’s no shortage of other works of fiction for armchair COVID-19 detectives to point to, up to and including… The Simpsons predicted the coronavirus Because The Simpsons has been on the air for more than 30 years, there’s been no shortage of elaborate plotlines for internet sleuths to point to as harbingers for various world events, to the degree that “The Simpsons predicted it” is now more of a meme than anything else. Case in point: screengrabs allegedly from the 1993 episode “Marge in Chains” about an outbreak of a mysterious illness, with one appearing to show a newscaster delivering a report about a “corona virus.” Although the episode in question is legit, it focuses on an illness called “Osaka flu” (with Osaka obviously being in Japan, not in China), and the screengrab, which is from another episode entirely, actually reads “Apocalypse Meow,” not “coronavirus.” So chalk this up to Photoshopping and morbidly wishful thinking on internet commenters’ parts. A “miracle” bleach product can cure coronavirus. In one of the most sickening examples of conspiracy theorists taking advantage of the panic surrounding coronavirus to sell a product, supporters of the elaborate far-right conspiracy theory QAnon have been telling people to drink Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), a bleach-based product that has been touted by anti-vaxxers for years, as an effective means of warding off coronavirus. The product contains toxic chemicals and can result in vomiting, diarrhea, and acute liver failure if ingested in large amounts. (Horrifyingly, in the past some mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder have been known to administer it to them as a “cure.”) Although YouTube instituted a ban on videos promoting MMS last year, as Rolling Stone reported in January, it was not difficult to find such content on the platform, illustrating the immense difficulties platforms have faced in attempting to curb the spread of COVID-19-related misinformation. The country will be placed in a nationwide quarantine effective immediately. If you can’t hold your breath for 10 seconds without coughing, then you have coronavirus. Vitamin C can help you ward off coronavirus Coronavirus will go away by summertime.
  19. 1 point
    Michael quoted, “No matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it's always worse." That sounds like a “deep” generalization but taken by itself it is twaddle. For that to make sense you would need to explain what “something” is. Michael wrote: But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) end quote I skimmed it. But I will skim it again, Kemo Sabe. I saw that Rhode Island is considering a ban on New Yorkers crossing into their state. How would Ayn Rand view that? Peter Notes. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96. . . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others. end quote And in her article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote: In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." end quote Tonto called the Lone Ranger "quien no sabe" (he who knows nothing) and the Lone Ranger called his sidekick "tonto" (fool). NOTE: Tonto called the Lone Ranger "Kemo Sabe" which was actually a bastardization of the spanish "Quien no sabe". The writers were trying to come up with a phrase that meant "he who no one knows".
  20. 1 point
    Oddly enough, Bob Dylan just released a 17-minute song today about the JFK assassination, "Murder Most Foul". Odd timing, since neither he nor JFK are really on anyone's minds, at the moment... from the article: The surprise track, which Dylan said only was recorded "a while back," comes eight years after his last album of original material. Little information was given about the surprise track, except for a brief statement from Dylan himself: “Greetings to my fans and followers with gratitude for all your support and loyalty over the years. “This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. “Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you. “Bob Dylan” A Dylan representative said the statement was all the information they would be releasing about the song, so whether “a while back” means a matter of months or many years remains a mystery. https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-releases-17-minute-song-jfk-kennedy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/
  21. 1 point
    Jon, there are some new Q drops today, regarding Habeus Corpus, that you may want to check out...
  22. 1 point
    Your objection is noted, Peter.
  23. 1 point
    Also...Polly talks about 2018 and pandemics, and Event 201...well... January 11, 2017: "Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is 'no doubt' Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency." https://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/emerging-diseases/news/online/{85a3f9c0-ed0a-4be8-9ca2-8854b2be7d13}/fauci-no-doubt-trump-will-face-surprise-infectious-disease-outbreak
  24. 1 point
    Larimer County Colorado just announced stay at home restrictions in effect until April Q, I mean 17th.
  25. 1 point
    For some reason, these Hollywood dorks remind me of the following detail from the painting, Metamorphosis of Narcissus by Salvador Dalí. Michael
  26. 1 point
    “Keating, where’s your courage? Aren’t you capable of a sublime gesture on occasion? They all work so hard and struggle and suffer, trying to achieve beauty, trying to surpass one another in beauty. Let’s surpass them all! Let’s throw their sweat in their face. Let’s destroy them at one stroke. Let’s be gods. Let’s be ugly." -Lois Cook Ayn Rand. The Fountainhead (Kindle Locations 5152-5155). Plume. (The "Pizzagate" scandal may or may not be true (but in the realm of possibility), and the "Moloch"/ "andrenochone" conspiracy theory maybe even less so [too "Woo" although plausible that THEY may believe it], but damn if it doesn't make for an apt metaphor. Look at all these "beautiful people" deprived of their supply of children's blood to replenish their withered souls...or if that's too much for you, let's go, then, with the portrait of their true selves in the attic reclaiming their souls, a la THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY...)
  27. 1 point
    "Doesn’t sound like “fighting the coronavirus” does it? Because that’s not what it is." I had to re-read "Doesn't sound like 'fighting the coronavirus' does it"...missing comma? "Doesn't sound like 'fighting the coronavirus', does it?" That makes your implication clearer. I went down that "rabbit hole" last night. Interesting, intriguing, even, but I'm not quite sold on that. That said, no, it doesn't sound like it...
  28. 1 point
    Ha, my middle name is John. I was slightly embarrassed to put that among such exalted company as Rand and Kipling.
  29. 1 point
    If the current world crisis was happening in my younger years, I might have joined these elephants. They wandered onto a farm in China because the people that normally fed them were not around. The people were staying indoors because of the coronavirus (see here). The elephants discovered a huge vat of wine and got plastered. Michael
  30. 1 point
    Are we really marching toward Universal Basic Income (UBI)? I mean, I'll take the money if it comes, but isn't this a major step toward Big Brother with a very nasty outome in the end unless one is an insider? And would I feel guilty about taking the money? No. That's because I know it won't last. Not for me. I know for sure I wouldn't be an insider for long. Michael
  31. 1 point
    What happens to the letters O at about 0:22 — 0:23 ? Are you enjoying the show?
  32. 1 point
    This song is about “halo’s” but it isn’t sad. I liked the song in a Chanel commercial and the person doing the elegant dancing, so I looked it up. It’s Margot Robbie dancing and Beyonce singing. Margot is beautiful and so is Beyonce. Peter From WWW. Chanel Gabrielle Essence Commercial – Margot Robbie, Halo – Song by Beyoncé Once Upon a Time in Hollywood star Margot Robbie is the face of this new TV advert for Chanel Gabrielle Essence perfume. The ad campaign sees the Australian actress Margot Robbie performing some elegant and flowing movements while dressed in a white and gold gown.
  33. 1 point
    The impending disaster was we were going to become fully and irretrievably enslaved by the elites. Not a left-caused collapse and tears for all. An elite-engineered collapse followed by total technotronic control of the masses by a extremely tiny generational elite. The Trump Train stopped them. This is the takedown. No collapse. Beautiful world coming.
  34. 1 point
    I joined the Church of Scientology when it was a beneficial enterprise and left when it got loony. — that’s Carl Barney’s story and he’s sticking to it ! New on ARIwatch: Barney’s Big Lie
  35. 1 point
    But you didn’t criticize Mises for misidentifying the real producers. Go back and see. You objected to him simply for his saying that high producers are the better people, a correct identification of one of the messages in Rand’s work.
  36. 1 point
    Now do the stupidity of Ludwig Von Mises for finding the same message in Rand that Epstein finds.
  37. 1 point
    Not to throw fuel on the fire, but -ah, screw it; burn baby, burn: "Rand’s influence on American political thought has been acknowledged by Martin Anderson, Reagan’s chief domestic and economic adviser; Hillary Rodham Clinton; Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve; John Hospers, philosopher and one-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate; perennial GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul; Charles Murray, author of Losing Ground; Robert Nozick, Harvard philosopher and National Book Award winner; and Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the Supreme Court." Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical . Penn State University Press. Kindle Edition. “High-achieving women from Billy Jean King to Hillary Clinton have testified to their Ayn Rand “phase”…” Judith Wilt, “The Romances of Ayn Rand”, Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, pg. 195, note 2
  38. 1 point
    Let's mock some more. Who needs ideas? This is fun.
  39. 1 point
    You mean the voices in your head? (That was too well set up to resist. ) Michael
  40. 1 point
    I smell a rat and a big one. Somebody on the dark side is using this virus in a targeted manner. The Iranian lawmakers (10%). CPAC attendee. Etc. Oh, and there's this. Has anyone heard anything about Hong Kong protests? Hmmmmm... I could go on and on about the political games being played with this flu. And there's this. Bloomberg spent over half a billion dollars to run in the Dem primaries to take down Trump (i.e., take down people against the Deep State and globalism). Isn't it possible for Bloomberg to have gazillionaire friends who think the same way? So what if they lose a little money as they put their media toadies spreading panic over a virus? A little market manipulation here. Fake news there. It all adds up. Maybe this shot will take down the Trump. That's what the rat looks like to me. The virus is real. The size of, and danger posed by the problem given in the mainstream news isn't. Michael
  41. 1 point
    I am sensitive to the multitude of issues around race and IQ. It is fraught with potential abuse because of what we are. I also think that attempting to erase a truth, paint over it, block it out, because someone might abuse it, is potentially the most lethal way to proceed, on any issue.
  42. 1 point
    Von Mises didn't misunderstand her. Think what the story is, and the implication - that the masses can't cope when "the men of ability" (of whom there aren't many) stop carrying the world on their shoulders. Everything falls into shambles. Ellen
  43. 1 point
    Yeah, I get it. It's fanboy/fangirl stuff. Firing up the choir. I'm probably as big of a Beatles fan as Kat is, or close to being. If someone did an interview paying homage to John Lennon by doing a sincere, heartfelt imitation of him in a bad wig for a few minutes, heh, cute. 42 minutes? Enough already. Youtube? Overkill. History tour? Milking a dead cow. It looks like aesthetic vanity, absence of aesthetic self-awareness. And, again, nothing against Grossman. Generally she seems much cooler as a person than the past generation at TAS. I'm just offering up the honesty of an aesthetic cringe, not a judgment of her and everything she's ever done. J
  44. 1 point
    They reposted, it’s fixed now. They used months instead, and got it right: “A BILLION (their all-caps, they do it a lot) months ago, the dinosaurs still roamed.” Eighty something million years ago, they still roamed, that’s correct.
  45. 1 point
    Jonathan, Tell that to the fan clubs. In fact, that's kinda where I put Jennifer's shindig. A fan club approach. And I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. It's a perspective. (And there are fan clubs galore in schools, including in institutions of higher education.) Kat is a huge Beatles fan. I've always been on the artist side of the stage during a huge chunk of my professional life, so I had to learn the fan perspective over time. Observing Kat do her Beatles thing among her Beatles friends has helped me understand it. (She's quite active where her Beatles are concerned. ) The fan perspective is not a great fit for me, so I'm kind of a buzzkill with she and her friends want me to participate. I'm even that way with Rand stuff (remember all that play-acting at activism over on RoR?--I never resonated with it because, to me, this was the wrong side of the stage although I didn't have the words for it back then.). But at least now I can see what is going on when I'm with a fan of someone and we talk past each other. And, of course, there is quite a lot of bands that role play the Beatles in their shows. This corresponds nicely with what Jennifer is doing. Groking this perspective is probably why I am not down on Jennifer. I see where she is coming from. At least, based on her actions, I think I do. (I bet she's a good person, too, but that's another issue.) I'm more than fine with that. Cool. It's all good. Michael
  46. 1 point
    Ellen, As it should be. I even share your reaction in part and I think I know one component of it (the uncanny valley thing above). I like to think out loud at times when something grabs my attention. This was an instance. Also, I wanted readers who might like Jennifer's shindig to know they will not be tarred and feathered should they ever say that here. I agree with this. As to my own thoughts, Jennifer is trying something different and I like people who do things. Even at 30k, she's generating a small audience. To paraphrase an old sentiment, if, among that number there is just one snowflake, and that one becomes a world leader, and a seed of Randian reason gets planted in that snowflake's mind through her efforts, she will have helped make the world a better place. I don't predict much success for her Rand "coplay" project (precisely because of storytelling issues, that is, lack of story, much less one relevant to college audiences), but who knows? It might grow. So I wish her well. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Brant, I had never seen Jennifer Grossman's impression of Ayn Rand before, not even this video (which I reposted here to be a brat ), so I just now watched about 10 minutes of it. Like you, I'm not enthralled with the result since I have seen so many Rand videos (and even saw her live once), but I think it was something worth doing for people who enjoy it. I mean, I doubt this will have any lasting cultural influence, but as entertainment for people who know little of Rand, I can see them liking it. And if you look at the comments for YouTube video, some people gushed over it. I refuse to be a party-pooper for those folks. I refuse, I say! Anywho, how did my 10 minutes go? What can I tell you about them? Hmmmm... As I watched the video, I got a creepy feeling, not so much from Jennifer at first, but from Jeffrey Tucker. Whaaaat?... Why?... Of all things... That made me curious, so I did some introspecting. Then I realized I had to pop myself out of the uncanny valley if I was going to watch it without an unpleasant prejudice. The uncanny valley is a feeling of unease you get when something looks human, but not quite. There are subtle things that are off that makes your subconscious believe the thing is an imposter and to be avoided--icky and possibly dangerous in an unknown way. This feeling disappears when similarity to a human becomes more distant. A scarecrow, for example, does not give you this feeling. The image below does for most people (photo from here). That sweet spot (or I should say sour spot ) between human and imitation of human is the uncanny valley. I think this feeling developed over human evolution to help healthy people avoid sick or mentally unstable people (for obvious survival and reproduction reasons). Unwanted creepiness has been a real problem with 3D animation. Movie studies have put in a lot of time, effort and money to counter it. You can even get a gist of this uncanny valley feeling with certain kinds of mannequins, or with animatronic figures like Disney's Hall of Presidents when a President you have seen and heard moves and speaks. This feeling bleeds over to close-but-off impersonations when you know the person being imitated or you can easily imagine a historical person being presented. For an extreme example, think of John Wayne being miscast as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror. How's that for a cringe? As I got to thinking about this, it occurred to me that both Jeffrey and Jennifer had odd bits and pieces of others cobbled together that helped prompt this feeling in me. So I tried to put words to it and this is what I came up with. Vincent Price as Phil Donahue interviewing Trish Regan in costume and speaking in a Zsa Zsa Gabor version of a Russian accent. Wow... Just pick any random point in the video and see what you think through that lens... Once I meditated on that image a bit (and burst out laughing, of course ), I crossed the uncanny valley with no problem. Now I can see the video without the creepy feeling. This may not work for you, but it did 'er for me. And if you ever become more interested in this thing, here is an article by Jeffrey. That Day I Interviewed Ayn Rand He called what he and Jennifer did cosplay to slap a fancy word on it and make it sound cool and shit. But the fancy word didn't make it any better--or worse, for that matter. Just snooty. Also, here's a Blog Talk Radio discussion between Jeffrey and Jennifer (which I haven't heard yet). Jeffrey Tucker on Interviewing Ayn Rand I suppose there's more I can dig up. But it's late. And that's about as far as I want to go tonight. Michael
  48. 1 point
    Disrespectful and bizarre - as if she could imitate the real Rand (and is she going to attempt to imitate some of the famous Rand explosions?). People would come from distant places and line up for many hours to get into a real Rand Ford Hall Forum appearance. The performance was worth the travel and the wait. I wouldn't go to see Jennifer Grossman try to imitate Rand if she were doing it next door. Ellen
  49. 1 point
    This actually started tonight, at George Mason. Tomorrow at George Washington is also scheduled. A comment posted just now by Alex Mironov on Atlas’ Instagram: ”Ms Grossman gets the Toohey award for single-handedly killing any interest in Objectivism any George Mason student might have had tonight. Her crazy, erratic behavior was characterized as whacky by the students.”
  50. 1 point
    I started looking around on Twitter for some news articles on Rand. Guess what I found? When I type "Ayn Rand" into Twitter's search engine, I get about 95%+ leftist crap and snark. See for yourself: "Ayn Rand" I'm tempted to post some of those things here, but I don't want to call attention to trolls. There is one troll I want to mention, though. She's a bonehead who Tweets like rabbits humping, She chose the handle of AynRandPaylRyan, so she gets the "Ayn Rand" keyword luv from Twitter. She spends a lot of her posts bashing Rand. Also, curiously, some radical feminists seem to want to punch Ayn Rand in the face. They get passionate about it. Weird... There is lots and lots and lots of snark. Then add some more snark. This tells me Ayn Rand is scaring the crap out of them. I see more than this, though. I see an audience. Do you want to know why organized Objectivism is not spreading too well? Where are the tweets from ARI or TAS? They shrugged, I guess. They walked off the field and just left Rand's very name to those who hate and fear her. A Rand meme project is waiting--right there--for a talented meme maker. (One who is truly funny, not just a preacher.) From what I see, the market exists. I might think about this one myself. Michael