Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/27/2020 in Posts

  1. Some further comment after Ellen's post ... Quoting caroljane: “... it [a vaccination ID] illustrates my point. A public health measure is not viewed [by those who object to this?] as what it is, a measure to limit the initiation of force by citizens upon each other, but as – well, what? An infringement on your sacred right to get sick, and make others sick?” The ending is sarcastic and “initiation of force” is designed to push Objectivists’ buttons. The mask orders, “lockdowns” of healthy people, limiting businesses, closing businesses, forbidding public assembly, etc. have to do with naked power, nothing to do with public health – where is the science as they say – and neither does a vaccination ID. (It would be a federally issued ID that would track your medical history and be required to use the post office, fly, eventually to use a bank, etc.) The last is monstrous even if the Pfizer’s experimental vaccine (which isn’t a vaccine) were proven safe, and it hasn’t been. It is, as I just said, experimental (link to abridged talk by Simone Gold). Let’s get real. Even without treatment a healthy and non-decrepit person’s chance of getting very sick from Covid-19 is near zero. With treatment – and there are several inexpensive ones available – it is inconsequential Life is inherently, metaphysically, risky. You engage in reasonable precautions to minimize risk. What has been going on is not reasonable precautions but a naked power grab by totalitarians. Neo-communists would be a fitting label too.
    4 points
  2. I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism. The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it. There can be no harmony with the latter's existence. The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base. Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any voluntary collective. The one leaves no one be, even those who would choose to be left alone. The latter leaves everyone alone and equally leaves them free to choose to live in whatever level of collective promiscuity they wish. The Liberal (Classical) has no place in the Leftist's world view, whereas the Leftist's would have a place in the Liberal's world, only their use of force would be impermissible. This stark contrast, this asymmetry I find fascinating and inspiring, it may be the greatest example of the benevolence of freedom as a foil in the face of naked tyranny and yet it get's little to no attention. Perhaps there are so many who only "group think", who almost always and ever consider themselves, society and government only in terms of "we" (and "them"), and never think of themselves, their lives, and their freedom's in terms of "I" or "me". There is a great mass of lost souls, adult children, so mortally terrified of solitude and independence, ... that they must annihilate any solitary minded person or any ideas of individual liberty. Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not? I suppose as long as they are not naive to the naked will to power which possesses the lost cravens who seek oblivion for all, liberty minded persons can survive. But we must be vigilant. Anyway. Why is this asymmetry not more directly spoken of? Why don't Freedom lovers tell the middle-left (non violent progressives), you could organize yourselves in our world, you just cant use guns to threaten us, or anyone?
    4 points
  3. There are a lot of things I want to say on this thread, but I just don't have the time. But here are a few quick notes. I agree about asymmetry between Marxism and Capitalism. But notice that what is called capitalism these days is not capitalism. It's crony corporatism. The pharmaceutical cartel, for example, is called capitalism, but it is a monopoly racket protected by government-enforced privilege against newcomers and often funded by the government. Ayn Rand said somewhere that any compromise between good and evil only benefits evil. Good has nothing to gain from evil. I am not in favor of regulating free speech. I don't like top-down government dispensers of rights. But I am in favor of this: This part I really agree with. Not even the government is required to provide a platform for those who threaten it and preach its destruction. Let such people do that at their own places. Michael
    4 points
  4. It is a disadvantage to tolerate the left in public. We place too much value on freedom of speech. It's like some religious dogma we have. No, sometimes speech needs regulation. Let's recognize that when a leftist advocates for socializing property, he's initiating a process of force against private property holders. Left unchecked, we run the risk of losing everything to the left simply because we tolerate them and the loot-thirsty mob that gathers behind them. It's like listening to a psycho rant about how he's going to rape a woman, and we do nothing about it. Then his psycho friends arrive and they all agree, "Yeah, let's gang rape her!" We just walk away and go home and watch TV. On the news later we find out that she was raped by that gang. The difference is that the left rapes people legally with the institutions of government power. Our tolerance of evil speakers is essentially the same, but it seems okay in the case of democratic socialists because they want to be evil with the permission of voters. This is why we at minimum need to ban socialists from the government. I would also ban them from speaking on public property. Let them buy private property and speak there, but if they threaten the government they need to be stopped. Unfortunately we have not banned them, and now they are terrorizing citizens and embedding themselves in our government.
    4 points
  5. With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kangaroo impeachments... I’m starting to feel like Ayn Rand’s overwhelming focus on altruism was slightly misguided, in the sense that it is not the evil (out there) as such, it is a misdirection and a weapon used by the naked will to power and domination by the tyrannically inclined, targeting our weaknesses to obtain obedience. But that will to power the tyrannical powers of the psyche seem now to have been unleashed in the powerful and in the sheeple. The absolute monarch, the oligarchs, the totalitarian they do not hold altruism or community or equality as principles, but as tools of control. When there are few evil doers we protect ourselves from the ideas they try to use against us, but once the evil doers become prevalent or the majority we few must protect ourselves from them not just their ideas. The primary external evil is no longer the internal moral failing of the individual, even though it may have been its primary agitator and may have derived its primary power from it in the form of a population who has fallen to and the joined the ranks of the enemies of freedom. We see the will to power using against us everything we hold dear, peace, harmony, family, our own sense of empathy and benevolence both as threat and as alms. Granted, Ayn Rand knew of these dynamics and warned us all that this might happen, but the overwhelming focus of warnings against altruism seem out of balance now. That was primarily a preventative, and not enough people listened. In her lifetime perhaps it was best to try to stem the philosophical tide toward oblivion, to warn the culture running for the edge of the cliff, but now that it or a large part has careened over, what message or warning or exhortation can be made to those few sane left, perhaps clinging to the edge of the cliff and straining with the dark insane evil mass of suffering still dangling from their feel by some sharp claw, what kind of advice can be given to them who still wish to save themselves? I begin to feel that a philosophical rejection of Altruism is insufficient now that what it focused on to avoid has come to pass... the power hungry disdain all such ideas, the masses form a new mob of the power hungry, and freedom lovers have no fight with their own ideas as they do with existential threats to their freedoms, their values, their very lives. philosophy perhaps has run its course? sigh Just starting to feel something...
    4 points
  6. Another reason to look at the goings on around the Q Continuum is to understand the psychology of others, since we do, after all, live in a society where both the leadership and voters have an impact on our direct lives, now, via lockdowns and the economy, restricting our freedom of speech and threatening worse. Conversely, it's worth it to observe the religious beliefs of those in opposition to those forces, to see what keeps them ticking, and to compare and contrast to O'ism. After all, Rand did write, in "What Can One Do?", that while it wouldn't be good to join with conservatives or libertarians, we may have to join "ad hoc committees" towards a single or multiple purposes, but without letting any one's ideals dominate to the extent that common goal is rendered moot. But still, in order to know how to work together, there needs to be an understanding of the beliefs of those "strange bedfellows..." So, here's an example: Former Secretary Pompeo, on his personal Twitter account, just tweeted out Hebrews 11-1: Hebrews 11:1, KJV: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." On the surface, at face value, it's just a bible verse about faith and hope in times of uncertainty. (Though I could go on, I guess, to analyze it against the objectivist notion of "faith", bring in Kant, etc...but I have work to do.) But "anons" believe they've found another layer: 11.3 in the Q posts, they now believe, did NOT refer to the election, but to a particular DoD war manual, and 11.3 and 11.1, when written that way, correspond to the section about foreign occupation. They are taking these Q posts and Pompeo tweets as markers. Here's Pompeo's tweet: (Btw...here's another tweet from his former official Twitter account, as shared on Gab, where he refers to the CCP in "Kill brackets", a common Q thing...at the least, it indicates a shared method of communication...) https://gab.com/Limerence/posts/105583972615447286 And here's the anon theory: https://gab.com/mysticphoeniix/posts/105614586717654154 did POMPEO's tweet ref the DoD WAR MANUAL Anonymous 01/24/21 (Sun) 22:10:30 No.12699575 "Did an anon get this part already? Pompeo Hebrews 11.1. 11.1 in the DoD Law of War is the Occupation chapter. 11.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter addresses military occupation. The GC provides specific rules for the internment of protected persons in occupation, which are addressed in Chapter X. Military occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of invading forces, and involves a complicated, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of occupied territory.1" And here's the link to the DoD manual: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD Law of War Manual - June 2015 Updated Dec 2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 Whether Objectivists believe it god, faith, etc, is besides the point. The point is that THEY believe in it, and it intertwines in how they are fighting this fight, and demonstrates how their faith keeps them going in uncertainty. (It may be easy to scoff at government/ military men using religion as a guide, the way Rand mocked Reagan for calling in an astrologer...but then, how many military victories were won throughout history by men who called on a deity to guide them? We can chalk the wins up to strategy, or even luck, but it was their faith that encouraged them to continue.) Contrast that against those who have thrown in the towel with cries of "we're doomed!", and many of those people may even call themselves Objectivist, for that matter... This is not something to be dismissed lightly, or simply mocked away. If you look at concentration camp survivors, many of them had to find not just the strength of will, but employed faith to survive. Viktor Frankel has written about his experience there, for reference. Of course, some of them were just lucky, while others never had a chance, no matter what they believed ,through no fault of their own. More on that, in a moment. And of course, many Jews disavowed god, after that, as well, so fair enough. One could then say, like Jordan Peterson does, that maybe purpose is better than faith, because "a man “He whose life has a why can bear almost any how." That would seem to work WITH the Objectivist philosophy, as Rand had a major belief in purpose. But we can also find examples of faith there, combined with purpose. Talking about the concentration camps, I acknowledged that some survivors were simply lucky. Well, Look at WE THE LIVING. Kira's survival rested on her faith in American, and her purpose to be an engineer. She pushed herself to carry on, to escape, to get to "the promised land." The fact that she didn't, because Russia was "airtight", according to her theme, is besides the point. (But consider, if America falls to communism, will the world then be "airtight", with no America to escape to? Then it becomes a case not of flight, but of fight...and what will we put our faith in, then?) And I think even Rand said something to the effect of America may has well been a fantasy to Russians. But then, Rand herself DID escape. Now, she had help, but she was also "lucky", as were many holocaust survivors, in the sense that it all worked out. But "fortune favors the ready", as they say. And because Rand was "Ready" in mind and spirit, she was able to be "one of the lucky ones." And part of being ready required faith despite uncertainty. The idea was that she saw another way. The difference is that her vision was metaphysically possible, as opposed to say, waiting for heaven, it was earth-oriented. Rand was a Romantic REALIST, after all. But still, she had faith despite uncertainty of being able to get out, faith that it was possible, despite the odds, and she fought to get out with her dying breath. As Barbara Branden liked to quote, "Price no object." To sum up, the people currently at the forefront of this fight are have combined their religion with their military strategies. It's not unprecedented, and despite the feasibility of the religious metaphysical reality, it's their faith that gets them through it through uncertainty. It's not a "blind faith", if only because there is an earthly military practicality to it. The question for Objectivists watching/fighting along with "strange bedfellows": Since O'ists aren't in charge, do we wait for the perfect plan, the John Galt with the best strategy? Or do we work with what we have? I'll leave it with this :To quote Sun Tzu, “Weak leadership can wreck the soundest strategy; forceful execution of even a poor plan can often bring victory.”
    4 points
  7. "Don't worry; we'll pick up the slack." It's...strange. When Trump first ran, I was not a fan of his, for a few reasons. But then I saw the over-reactions from others turn into TDS. I started to see through the lies. THEN, I saw MY image of Trump change from Trump the sleazy casino magnet and celebrity apprentice shit-stirrer to Trump the American, the fighter, the patriot, etc. And today, when I heard that he had gone to Walter Reed, my heart dropped. Up until recently, I was concerned about the government protecting the citizens during the riots, etc; Now, I want to protect Trump. I thought this was going to be my "Kennedy" moment. I don't normally feel this way about politicians. But this...this is different. If you had told me 4 years ago I'd be feeling this way, I wouldn't have believed it. If anything happens to Trump, he will become a martyr. Is it too strong to say that? I hope it doesn't come to that. And maybe I'm just caught up in emotion. But he's at the forefront of something, something that years of libertarian politics or ARI trying to spread Ayn Rand's message couldn't do. Whatever happens, I really hope that people pick up the slack. God speed.
    4 points
  8. Individuals, those who were in government and those working in the school system at the time need to be held accountable for their own individual actions, and all individuals or organizations in possession of any information pertaining to those crimes should forward that on to investigative authorities, so that those individuals who perpetrated any crime are brought to justice. In today's group think however, even though these are past crimes by individual people, much of the focus and blame will be on the so-called current collective "guilt" of or "stain" on Government, the Taxpayer, or Society (the polite self-effacing collectivist guilty Canadian... the "We"), simultaneously the favorite mystical scapegoats and paternal caretakers of the members of the collective mob... the subconscious premise being the straw man responsibility and guilt of the current generation ("original sin" inherited by birth perhaps?) justifies the thirst for self- or other-flagellation , self- or other-loathing and redistribution. IF that stupid culture of socialism could give way to individualism, current government officials would, for the most part, have no reason to cover any sins by past governments and other individuals, and promptly and simply stop covering it up and start investigating individuals ... but the group think of collective guilt gives them plenty of "reasons", personal and political, to thwart and distort justice into a Canadian woke circus.
    3 points
  9. A Jew speaks.... When WE were led into the gas chambers, THEY said nothing. When WE were forcibly converted, THEY said nothing. When WE were thrown out of a country just for being Jews, THEY said nothing. BUT when WE now defend ourselves, all of a sudden THEY have something to say. How did WE take our revenge on the Germans for their "Final Solution?" How did WE take revenge on the Spanish for their Inquisition? How did WE take revenge on Islam for being Dhimmis? How did WE take revenge on the lies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" WE studied our Torah, WE innovated in medicine, WE innovated in defense systems, WE innovated in technology, WE innovated in agriculture, WE composed music, WE wrote poetry, WE made the desert bloom, WE won Nobel prizes, WE founded the movie industry, WE financed a fledgling democracy, WE fulfilled the word of G-d by becoming a Light Unto the Nations of the Earth. DEAR WORLD, when You criticize us for defending our heritage and our ancestral homeland -- WE, the Jews of the world, do exactly what You did to/for us; WE IGNORE YOU. You have proven to us for the last 2,000 years that when the chips are down, animosity towards Jews reigns supreme. Now leave us alone -- and go sort out problems in your own back yard whilst WE continue our 5778-year old mission of enhancing the world we all share. -The Jews
    3 points
  10. As the kids today might say, "Imma stop you right there..." Pacifism. "The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it." [“The Nature of Government,” VOS, 146; pb 108.] Ayn Rand; Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z (Kindle Locations 7074-7076). Meridian.
    3 points
  11. I cannot speak from experience (to your disappointment I am sure), but there is a certain consistency with those who are consumed with a hatred for everything on earth including themselves to be eminently satisfied, in fact proudly self-martyred (so to speak) with that kind of self-hatred. How else can a culture of small envious people who vilify the rich or successful arise without a hatred of the good for being good... and hence at least partly... the archetype of that small wrinkled hating thing hating those good parts of the psyche within. The Canadian Liberal and the NDP might be already be worse than the Marxist-leftist wing of the US Democratic party, but darn it of those Yanks aren't doin' their dangdest to out Marx them Socialist Canucks. Any neighbor who would say "please", "sorry", and "thank you" to your face, but would have no quandry robbing you blind in your sleep to keep their party's corrupt politicians in power, squashing your right to free speech, or forcing you to risk your life with mediocre state run healthcare or at least trying to guilt you into not "jumping the queue" (as if one exists) by seeking healthcare in a freer country.. The little tyrant next door, might smile at you in the street, but would grin at the chance to have you shackled and cowed by her leftist strong men. I need not list them, they are legion. I do not know you personally, but perhaps You might have seen that tyrant in the mirror, if you ever had the secret wish to force others against their will, not because they violated anyone else's rights but because you wanted to see them suffer, because you wanted to equalize their success with other's failures, you wanted to violate the rights of those innocent not because of their incompetence and disability but because of their competence and ability, because you wanted to knock them down a notch or two, for being successful... because you wanted to eat the rich, and strike out at the good for being the good, because you wanted to lash out in your own shame... or perhaps you no longer see that tyrant in the mirror, or indeed, perhaps in fact, you are one of the lucky few who never saw it. Trust me, as a person raised in a mixed economy, semi-socialist state, rife with a culture of altruism, and dominated by progressive education over the last 5 decades, I indeed was one of those tyrants in the mirror and next door. Now I know better. I see what you did there with the politeness.... quite funny. I observe that the statement I have heard: "Canadians are polite, but Americans are friendly", as an aphorism is quite true, very much, most of the time. Not all Canadian politicians are as I allude to above, THIS guy can actually be quite impressive from time to time:
    3 points
  12. The January 6 incursion into the Capitol building wasn’t "an act of insurrection," and I wouldn’t even call the actions of the infiltrators who did such damage as was done a "riot." Planned theatrics. The incursion was: 1. a trap for the genuine Trump supporters who entered the building with the permission of the guards; 2. a ploy to derail consideration of objections to electoral slates; 3. a set-up for Pelosi to bring impeachment charges against Trump. Ellen
    3 points
  13. Karen er... Carol, What do you think about the manly man and socialist good-old-boy with his CNN badge of distinction who wants to get into his date's panties so much, he brags to her about how CNN is running a phony propaganda campaign to take out Gaetz? Is your idea of the opposite of Matt Gaetz--specifically an amoral fratboy type with dead, mean eyes and the glee in getting noticed, no matter for what., in other words, an entitled idiot, and not too bright a one at that--our formidable CNN dork who tried to brag his way into the sack with his project Veritas date about what a badass he was? Look closely because that's what the modern adult elite socialist male looks like. Scratch any one of them and that's what you get. It sure is a pretty picture, ain't it? Enough to make one develop seething admiration... Michael
    3 points
  14. Objectivist leaders: Something has gone wrong when some Objectivist leaders accept the idea of supposed free trade that includes trade with tyrants, for example, trade with Kantians, Pragmatists, Muslim Iran, or Communist China. There is no free trade with tyrants which operate according to the principle of force and not by the principle of individual rights. Free trade, individual rights, and private property are not possible in dealings with tyrannical individuals or governments. Perhaps not even possible with Objectivist leaders who endorse trade with tyrants or advocates of same, including with sympathetic American politicians or claimed Objectivists. The fundamental ethical principle of Objectivism is rights, including individual rights and property rights. Objectivist leaders who support tyrannical governments by endorsing what the claimed Objectivists call free trade, including trade with tyrants, have lost the central ideas of of Objectivism. I am greatly disappointed to find that some Objectivist leaders have uncritically endorsed their support of tyrannies by means of what they claim to be free trade. Free trade, incidentally, is the action demonstration of individual rights and property rights. If you trade with those who oppose rights you yourself are denying rights. Shall I say more? Ralph Hertle
    3 points
  15. A big difference between elitists doing crud in other countries and their doing it here is the Americans (the real ones) of whom there are still an abundant number in this country's populace. American ingenuity and spirit going against elitist crooks is a whole ‘nuther thing from populaces used to being ruled by "superiors" trying to rebel. Ellen
    3 points
  16. The "conspiracy theory advocate" label for people who see it is being ramped up to "domestic terrorist." Ellen
    3 points
  17. Glad to hear people of influence or accomplishment are actually open to the ideas discussed here. I understand and respect their privacy. Rand discussed a great many things... she identified single State corruption, a swamp on a small scale... but without an inking of the technology of today could she even have in her wildest dreams thought of such a global elitist oligarchy attempting to enslave the entire world as it is today? Had she ever thought these petty technocrat busy bodies in government, big tech and the media would ever be so bold as to proclaim to all, their ideal two class system... the government-media-tech-illuminati and the quaking yet trusting sheeple whom they "tend"? The "elimination" of "property" for some while those in power keep to themselves the "right" duty and privilege to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy all things, or to exclude others from doing so... There are those who would say it has been so for many decades, others would say always, but for it to be in naked sight and as brazen as it is now... it disgusts me.
    3 points
  18. I have literally no idea what the letter who shall not be named is/was/could be/have been, but the spark I refuse to let die is the recognition that so much in the world right now is 'just not right' and that sparks draws up some anger when I feel as if no one else can see It or fails to call it out. That was always the thing that initially drew me to nameless letter the allegory of righteousness , bold righteousness in the face of all this shit.
    3 points
  19. You can't let these at war with us folks off the hook with libertarian property rights theory because we are on a de facto war footing. We Are At War. --Brant
    3 points
  20. Michael, everyone, Notice, too, the Pence-Ryan email exchange linked to from the letter: https://files.constantcontact.com/899f3f04701/106dc3d3-c645-4215-bdd3-addad65bade2.pdf Ellen
    3 points
  21. ThatGuy, Since World War II the U.S. has been in a new phase of degradation to which Rand was pretty much oblivious. Socialism vs. Capitalism, Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative is now just entertainment, like television wrestling, hiding venal, thieving, murdering Mafia-like corruption. It makes “taxing the rich” or “robbing Peter to pay Paul” look good. I wrote “pretty much” because once in a while Rand would acknowledge that something more sinister than differences in political philosophy was going on. The only example I can think of at the moment is when, in an essay, she entertained the possibility that Marilyn Monroe had been murdered (for knowing too much about the crowd she was running around with at the time, though Rand didn’t say that). Leonard Peikoff hosted a radio show in the late 90s. Trying to make the above point, here’s what I emailed to him when he asked for topics to discuss (he didn’t use it). The quality of my writing has improved, I think, since back then. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug 6, 1998 *Choose your issues* My two choices are related, so first here's the common idea. In years past, however unconstitutional and extreme the violation of our rights, laws were passed and adhered to do it -- a pro forma chipping away of freedom. America was heading toward a totalitarian state -- in a genteel manner. No longer. We're graduating into a more mature stage of fascism. Besides the pretense of respect for the rule of law we now have outright gangsterism and thuggery. Here are my two choices: 1. The unbelievable corruption within the U.S. Department of Justice. The HUD and the savings and loan scandals, to give just two examples, were all made possible by crooked judges. None of the major perpetrators went to prison, only lesser figures or even innocent fall guys. Whistleblowers, insiders who try to expose the corruption, risk being sent to prison on false charges. Rodney Stich has written several books on corruption within the government, after experiencing it first hand. The thing to be done about it now is to make the corruption known. Then dishonest judges must be punished and replaced with honest ones. (By the way, Stein & Day, the first publisher of your -- LP's --first book, was robbed of all its assets by the corrupt Chapter 11 system. Sol Stein wrote a book about it entitled *A Feast for Lawyers*.) 2. The voluntary news blackout of the mainstream media. On some subjects a government censor could hardly do a better job. And when not a blackout it's often a dimout. This is well known to those who are interested in current affairs, thanks to those bright lights the alternative press, talk radio, and the Internet. But ask the average joe about the Vince Foster murder, the execution style murder of Mary Caitrin Mahoney -- Georgetown Starbucks cafe manager and former White House Intern, the evidence of a missile shoot down of TWA flight 800, FBI foreknowledge of [now I would say participation in] the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. and you get a blank stare.
    3 points
  22. Maybe Trump will pardon Assange on Christmas Day. Ellen
    3 points
  23. I like Lin Wood a lot. "Onward, Christian soldiers...." I don’t care a damn that he's a flaming Christian. I like his fervor and resoluteness and direct on-pointedness. And, fact is, a high percentage of the core Americans who support Trump and who won’t put up with the fraud or accept a "Great Reset" American future are Christians. Ellen
    3 points
  24. Its a good attitude to have. Its something I'd tell my son. Mannerisms in my written way of communicating are different than my internal methodologies. When the score has me down to my opponent I haven't lost. Not while I can mount an offense. Do I deal with my morale? Of course. Its part of regaining an edge. What you said "I am so pissed at them I could spit." resonates. It is personal. Though making others targets of my animosity doesn't improve my chances of winning anything. I have so little mental space to waste on an outcome, on an occupation for feeling as if I've gained traction in a battle I can't win. So I choose battles personal to me. Making break throughs in playing guitar. Preparing my way to winning another tournament. And I bring all the fire and determination to these things that you bring to yours. I hear you. That's the reason I come to Objectivist Living. I don't come to hear you've thrown in the towel. It always good news hearing an opponent has been outed for cheating. https://theamericanconservatives.net/attention-trump-campaign-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-won-groundbreaking-case-in-october-gives-campaign-right-to-examine-voting-machine-source-code/
    3 points
  25. Have you guys been watching the press trying to frame President Trump with the white supremacy thing? Let's start with the end first, then look at the idiot press. Here is just one compilation among many out there where Trump has disavowed white supremacy, including in the debate two days ago. Also, look at Chris Wallace in the 2016 election. Note that this video is impossible to find doing a simple YouTube search. YouTube and others do not want you to see this. So you can only find it on posts of others who embed it. Compare that to Chris Wallace asking the same goddam question in the 2020 debate a couple of days ago. And just look at the NBC title. As a snafu on the dorks, they kept in Biden saying Antifa is an idea, not an organization. Now, today there was a White House press briefing with Kayleigh McEnany. John Roberts of Fox News showed his ass in the briefing even worse than Chris Wallace showed his ass in the debate. Look what poor little control freak John Roberts had to say when a huge backlash from his audience hit him hard. Poor baby. I didn't know he was part of the Deep State, but there it is. To add icing to that cake, John Roberts' own wife, who works at ABC news, reported President Trump denounces white supremacy. Here is what the Deep State melting down really looks like. (Image from here. I didn't embed the tweet because Twitter might take it down.) For those who want to see the painful part of the press conference, here is a video: Other reporters were doing that shit, too. The audiences of these assholes are telling them straight up to stop the idiocy, yet they keep on. They are no longer fooling their audiences and they still keep on like zombies. Rush Limbaugh reported on this today. McEnany Handles Unprofessional Press Corps on White Supremacy Crap Here is part of the text to the John Roberts part. (Rush left Roberts' first question out, but he was the one who asked the question that prompted Kayleigh's first answer below. It basically asked--in an obnoxious overly condescending manner--for Kayleigh to denounce white supremacy in Trump's name.) I have lost all respect for John Roberts. Fuck him. If I am watching TV and he comes on, I am going to change the channel. Just like I do for Chris Wallace most of the time. In fact, I no longer watch Fox like I used to. Michael
    3 points
  26. I didn’t watch the video. As you know, I rarely watch videos. I'll take your word for it that the material is choke-upping. What I signed on to comment about was Trump's "Thank you, I will never let you down!" He means it. He's fully out to give his all for decent Americans. I think it's the deep sincerity of his commitment which is why the leftists keep accusing him of being a liar. I think that they sense that he means it and the sincerity terrifies them. You went on to add the material after "btw" while I was signing in. I don't know, Michael, about your statement "The anti-Trump people just don't see him. They don't believe he exists." They don't understand him (I'm assuming what he is from your getting choked up). But I suspect that their awareness that such people do exist is part of their terror. Ellen
    3 points
  27. The way I see it, if that certain someone was mocking me with a “haha” I was doing something right...
    3 points
  28. Deanna, I agree with the random video part. But how about a steady stream of videos glorifying Satanism and porn? That is in the culture. Haven't you noticed? Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion merely put a super-production on one. There was nothing random about it. (As I mentioned when I talked about tapping into the cultural zeitgeist.) Besides, why is this either-or? Does criticizing a video for potential damage make a claim that bad relationships are not a factor? Let me see. Hmmm... No. It doesn't. I agree with this, but with qualifications. 1. I think the steady stream of videos--not just random videos--reflects something, too. 2. Once again, here's the either-or thing on something that is not either-or. Why is a music video only a reflection and not a cause at the same time? In your opinion, is it that our brains can't chew gum and walk at the same time? (I mean cause both to happen? ) Paul Ekman and his people discovered how pleasant and unpleasant isolating and mapping facial muscles to expressions of emotions could get. One mainstream opinion at the time he started was that (1) an emotion is felt, then (2) a body reaction occurs. Not the contrary. As Ekman and company worked in front of mirrors on their own faces to isolate and map and see what that looked like, they discovered that purposely articulating muscles used in negative emotions caused them to feel these negative emotions. Ditto for positive. So if they were in a bad mood and they started working on the facial muscles predominantly used in positive emotions, their mood would lighten up a lot. And vice-versa. It's not either-or. Felt emotions cause facial muscles to articulate an expression. But articulating an emotional expression and holding if for a while causes the emotion to be felt. If you're feeling happy, you smile. If you're feeling, say, grumpy and you plaster a smile on your face and keep it in place, pretty soon you start feeling happy. It may not last depending on how intensely grumpy you are, but it does happen that way. That process happens with music and culture in general, too. Sometime a bad mentality in an individual (whatever the reason) causes bad intensely-felt cultural choices and sometimes a bad emotionally charged culture causes said individual to make bad choices and develop a bad mentality. Both can happen at the same time and in the same individual. Michael
    3 points
  29. Mike Lindell's video, Absolutely 9-0, is now up in the Opening Post. On a different issue, I really need to get Rudy's early things up. There is a saying around Bannon's people that it all started in Gettysburg. And it did. That was the special hearing where Rudy presented the evidence of election fraud to the Pennsylvania Senate. From there he went to other state senates doing similar presentations. And now, guess what? State audits of the 2020 election are being demanded by state senates and those are going to help take down this fraudulent constitutional abomination called the Biden election. As an aside, I had a kerfuffle with an OL poster I like a lot (David, a lawyer). Back during that time, he kept trying to blame Rudy's legal strategy for the upcoming losses. But it was evident to everyone that Rudy didn't stand a chance irrespective of what strategy he chose. The election was rigged all the way up to the Supreme Court. So I saw Rudy take this path with state senates and I knew then, as I know now, it will win if all else fails. I tried to articulate that back then and probably did a bad job of it because David kept insisting that Rudy was essentially washed up and didn't have much of a legal strategy to win the court cases anymore. So, as usual, when things reach that kind of impasse, I automatically go into a more colorful mode of communication. I told him to hold his horses and called him "twinklefoot." I don't think he was amused because he has not posted on OL since. (Which is his right and privilege.) But Rudy is one of my heroes. If he screws up, OK. He screws up. I've got no problem saying that. But to call him washed up when his legal strategy back then has resulted now in actions that are scaring the crap out of the Biden people, especially as they look at the audit in Arizona and at the other audits in other states currently brewing, that judgment was premature to be charitable. I saw the real deal back then. I don't know why it was so difficult to communicate it. But it was. I don't believe it will be anymore. Without Rudy teaching checks and balances to the state senates at their level, meaning it included their own power that they were not exercising, and presenting to them (the only ones in the system he could get to listen and look, meaning he found people who made a difference who were not in on, or intimidated by, the election rigging coup) solid proof of election fraud, the Biden junta might have pulled off the abomination. Michael
    2 points
  30. 'Struth! Do you have a thread or two on this process? A good treatment can be found here: Understanding Is and Ought - A Personal View by Michael Stuart Kelly If you get around to having guests, Michael would be a good choice ...
    2 points
  31. Repeating part of that with emphasis: "...the only plan thwarted was one in which multiple challenges to states’ elector slates would force a stoppage in the proceedings." The purpose of the leftist infiltrators was to prevent the electoral-slate challenges from getting anywhere beyond hasty dismissal. Something I’ve wondered about ever since the incident is, What was wrong with Trump's intel? Did he have advance info that there would be the attempt to disrupt consideration of challenges? If he didn’t have that information, why didn’t he? Where was the failure to inform him - and was the failure deliberate - on the part of his people? Alternately, if Trump knew of the plan in advance, why didn’t he tell his real supporters at the rally, Don’t go to the Capitol building? Ellen
    2 points
  32. If one is going to stage a coup like a stolen election or military takeover, one needs a strong man or woman to lead the aftermath to consolidate power. The Biden impostors did stage a coup and pulled it off, but Biden is not a strong man and his gang live in a bubble. They constantly show they are scared to death. The following article at Gateway Pundit shows what this looks like and why the impostors are terrified. It’s Clear – Since the 2020 Election – Joe Biden and His Gang Are Scared to Death of Facing the American People The article didn't mention it, but a month after Biden took office, President Trump still leads in the headlines. This is with a press that is slobbering all over Biden. Think about it. Did Bush lead in the headlines a month after Obama took office? Did Clinton lead after Bush took office? Yet Trump leads with Biden in office. Does anyone expect this will not continue? Of course it will. And the Biden impostors get what that means. But rather then quoting text from the article, I'm going to have some fun and crib the photos. The following is Biden's Washington DC right now. Why is the military still there? Are they protecting against the Chinese? The Russians? The Mouse That Roared? No. They are protecting Biden and his impostors against the American people. The following happened before the election last year. That is what the Biden impostors fear. The following is what a typical Biden rally looked like before the election. The following was a Trump rally. From what I remember, that was a rally before the 2016 election, but still, if President Trump had wanted to do that running against Biden, I am certain he would have--even with the virus. And that is what the Biden impostors fear. The following is what President Trump's inauguration looked like. That is what the Biden impostors fear. Why do they fear it? Because the following is what Biden's inauguration looked like. The following Trump rally was not too long ago in Butler, Pennsylvania. Could Biden pull that off? Not in your wildest dreams, even with people bussed in as fake audience. That is what the Biden impostors fear. Sometimes a visual comparison makes things clear with an impact a lot of words can't. I know it made me feel good to do this post. Michael
    2 points
  33. According to Gateway Pundit - link. "This morning OANN reported that President Trump gave permission for the troops to stay at his lavish Trump Hotel in Washington DC." Ellen
    2 points
  34. TG, The following article at CNN shows it is accurate, but slanted. Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned Since this is a CNN article, I had to hold my nose and try not to vomit to read it just to see if Carmine Sabia's claim was accurate. It is. However, one part is fact with a thing left out, and the other part is a logical inference. CNN has become so epistemologically corrupted amidst its constant tangle of lies, I bet no one there even thought about this. First the fact. The article actually is all about the attack being planned. And the article is pretty strong on that point. What Sabia doesn't mention is that the article is trying to pin this attack on a rogue group within Trump supporters. It doesn't say "rogue group," but the context makes that meaning clear. Now the inference. If the attack was planned and executed by a rogue group, then it is logical that it was not inspired by President Trump, meaning President Trump did not have knowledge of it or orchestrate it or incite it in his speech. The fact is, the article doesn't mention Trump himself or the speech. So this part is pure inference. The inference is logical and correct according to propositions in the article, but it's still an inference, not a statement by CNN. Q Now why did I say rogue group? Note, the following is an addition to the article and Sabia's comment on it, but neither talked about this. So here goes. It's hard to believe, but there is a claim circulating among left and right (including Alex Jones of all things) that the Q and QAnon movement (if one can call it that) is a massive psyop by globalists to get Patriots ginned up to the point they break out in violence, thus damaging President Trump's MAGA movement and providing justification for a harsh government crackdown by a globalist-friendly government (Biden, if he gets sworn in, and big tech and its cronies). that's the version on the right. On the left, they are essentially in agreement with this and gloating about how they fooled the Trump side. Part of the massive censorship of Q and QAnon by big tech is part of the show. It was aimed at antagonizing Q people to push them into violence, but also a check on not letting this psyop get too out of control. So now both sides can "control the narrative" and blame the capitol mess on a rogue group within Trump supporters, meaning Q and QAnon guber pea-eating militia right-wingers who are as dumb as fuck and easily manipulated according to the media narrative, but also who know how to shoot. I know the Q drops were master persuasion in creating a viral effect because I know the persuasion techniques involved. I watched the whole thing unfold and it is one hell of a great case study. But is this just one group of people pulling the strings from behind the scenes in a psyop, was it a military operation, rogue or other wise, or even some old military people who had made oaths to each other when they were younger, was it kids LARPING (live action role playing), was it crackpots, was it Deep State disinformation spooks foreign and domestic, was it even something or somethings else, or any combination of them? It doesn't matter who started the Q thing, the result is all of the above got on board as this thing spread. And I can back up all of this with links and references. But why bother since it was all out in the open for several years? But in the current iteration of the media narrative of the Q and QAnon story, it is incorrect identification to use Q as a scapegoat. I believe the people who are using it this way know they are bullshitting in order to save face, change their core public narrative, carry out an agenda, cover up actual wrongdoing, and so on. Their motives are different and even conflicting with each other, but the scapegoating is similar and it is going into high gear. Don't be fooled by bullshit. You have to identify something correctly in order to evaluate it correctly and scapegoating is the essence of identifying incorrectly. If people did something bad, right or left, don't let them off the hook and blame it all on Q. The Q thing was not consistent or homogeneous. It was all over the place. And frankly, in one of the few consistent parts that Q promoted, I think exposing pedophiles and human trafficking among the ruling class is a wonderful mission. I expect it to continue. I will certainly make my own efforts to keep that mission alive. Michael
    2 points
  35. Trump is not giving up. New administration is his new administration, without Pence et al. He has not come all this way in 6 years to give up here.
    2 points
  36. That man is a crackpot. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is a somewhat outmoded concept. It is related to the total energy E of a particle, (mrel = E / c2 )and therefore dependent on the velocity with regard to the observer. If the particle approaches the speed of light the energy and therefore also the relativistic mass increase without bound. Today we prefer to use the rest mass (the energy of the particle at rest, divided by c2), which does not increase with its velocity. It is just a different definition, the calculated effects remain exactly the same. He also seems to think that the neutrino doesn't exist, claims that it has no mass and no spin. Well neutrino's do exist, do have mass (even if it's very small) and certainly do have spin, and they can also be detected. So listening further to this man is wasting your time if you want to learn something meaningful, because he really has no clue.
    2 points
  37. Korben, I disagree, not about the reality part. Laura Ingraham's approach is not a Stockdale Paradox. It is singing the narrative her Fox News bosses want her to sing. Acknowledging the reality of a situation is one thing. Making a prediction of fact ("will be") full of qualifiers like "frankly unlikely event" is another. This is spin (narrative), not acknowledgment of a negative reality simultaneous with belief in a positive outcome. Laura has no belief in a positive outcome. She only has a half-hearted hope. She has a belief in a negative outcome. Spiritually, she is caving. That's not a Stockdale Paradox. You have to have two incompatible thoughts for a paradox to even exist. Accepting an outcome as fact while hoping for a miracle is not a paradox. Tokyo Rose Laura will win no wars. She will demoralize troops, though. Michael
    2 points
  38. In 2018 and 2019, I had the opportunity to travel to Russia several times on business. Most of my time was in Moscow, but I also visited St. Petersburg and Ryazan and a couple of other small towns in the vicinity of Moscow. Before every trip, I and my colleagues were briefed on acceptable behaviors in Russia and on what topics to avoid in conversation - the usual suspects including religion and politics. I found out on my first day in Moscow how difficult it is to avoid those topics as Russians are direct and often ask questions like "Do you go to church?" "Why are you single?" (this not in a flirty way, but in a judgmental way) "Who did you vote for in your last presidential election?" "Do you think Russians are less free than Americans?" "Do you agree that Russian hackers have interfered in your country?" They also like to debate the nature of freedom, the US constitution, who really won The Great Patriotic War, and whether the US moon landing was faked, among many other topics. I eventually stopped trying to be diplomatic in my responses, and would respond that my employer strongly discourages me from having these types of conversations. And now to the point... One of my Russian colleagues then explained that their directness is an implementation of Radical Honesty developed over decades (possibly centuries) of being in literal life or death situations where they have to ascertain quickly if the person they are interacting with can be trusted. It's not enough to see a smiling face or engage in pleasantries as the senses can be easily tricked or manipulated. It requires potentially uncomfortable interaction and the speedy collection of multiple data points to determine how safe one is in a situation. So, while there is value in the philosophical question how do I know what I know is true, there is also value in the practical question why do I need to know what I know is true. In the example of the frowning person storming out of the room (or not), if the person is a stranger to me and his presence, or lack thereof, is irrelevant... I probably don't care if he's mad, what he's mad about, or who he's mad at. However, if he's my fiance and the room he just stormed out of is the room in which we were about to be married, then I very quickly damn well figure out who he's mad at and why and I can't sit around observing stuff to get to the bottom of that.
    2 points
  39. Here is a transcript from today's Rush Limbaugh radio show. Rush is still fighting an ultra-aggressive lung cancer. So I especially treasure specific Rush Limbaugh shows when they are top notch. This show (November 18) is top notch. It does not move the needle much except in the sense of morale, but he gives a great overview to let everyone know the Kraken in on the way. (He didn't mention Kraken, though. ) I could comment, but on this one, I will let Rush speak for himself. I'm pushing fair use, but this is worth reading. Do You Really Think Sidney Powell and Lin Wood Would Pull an Al Capone’s Vault? Michael
    2 points
  40. Wanna see one of the Kraken's tentacles soaring out of the sea and getting ready to crash down? It comes from the sea of the past -- 2012 to be exact. Wait until people who worked on that election (most likely from Dominion or Smartmatic) flip and say what really happened and give proof. The USA will have had at least one term of an illegitimate president. No wonder there was such hunger for the Obama Deep State people to spy on Trump and get rid of him once he took office... How's that for raising the stakes? I don't even know the remedy for that. Annul all of the laws and papers Obama signed and put them up for consideration again by the newly sworn in President? And the money?... How about all the money taken from the US Treasury? And the people jailed for breaking laws Obama signed? And on and on... This tentacle, if it comes crashing down, will be a mess. Michael
    2 points
  41. My God! President Trump simply walked right around a huge chunk of the military part of the swamp, took them out of the game and sent them to the locker rooms. What an exciting time to be alive and witness this major history in the making. Michael
    2 points
  42. Holy shit! Remember on the thread about the 2020 elections when I talked about Rudy's comments on Dominion? I mentioned that the voter data for Dominion's voting machines was stored on servers in Spain, Germany and Canada. It looks like the US Army is not amused. And that's just for starters. This thread has 17 tweets in it, but I found a copy of all 17 on Thread Reader here. To keep the risk of monkey-business to a minimum, I'm copy/pasting the contents below without reformatting it. (The RazorFist tweet above already went down right after I posted this.) This is one hell of a read. I bet this--or part of it--is the "good stuff" Scott Adams talked about and the big drop from Trump people keep referring to. Note, this is not official stuff, just a series of tweets. But it looks like stuff that will be credibly sourced as the scandal erupts. Wow! Michael
    2 points
  43. Here's something interesting regarding PA counting shenanigans. At 1:49 am this morning (11/10/20), AP reported the following figures for PA: Biden 3,365,846 Trump 3,330,510 At 1:44 pm (11/10/20), they reported: Biden 3,369,963 Trump 3,322,207 They've reduced Trump's tally by 8,307 !?! Ellen
    2 points
  44. Michael's post pertains to change of address votes in Georgia - way more than the about 10K by which Biden is (supposedly) leading. TO WIN, Trump needs 1) to get Georgia; 2) to have PA reversed; 3) to have some other state - any other state - reversed. OR alternately, for there to be at least 2 "faithless" electors. Biden is currently reported as having 290 electoral votes. If PA is reversed, that would bring his total down to 270. If Trump got Georgia (along with North Carolina and Alaska, which he looks sure to get), his total would be 268. I.e., he would need 2 more going to him and subtracted from Biden's count to win. Looks likely to me that the needed adjustments will be made and Trump will win. Ellen
    2 points
  45. I forgot to include this '16 and '20 take. Take a look at his energy levels. See how vociferous he becomes while 4 yrs later hes saying, "Sure". And then gobbledegook, "stand back and stand by." I'm not anti Trump by a long shot. Gotta leave room for me seeing things differently, I guess.
    2 points
  46. Well, the guy is in pieces sure, but can you really say murderer? That lumps in a justified hacking death , categorical dissonance? and how big is the handle, could be a hatchet ? ( some people call it a sling blade , hmmm)
    2 points
  47. The yellow press fake news media is out in full force over a bogus article in The Atlantic: Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’ That article is pure fake news. Made up shit. Even John Bolton refutes it and he hates President Trump. btw - There's an excellent overview of the article and context on Breitbart: Pollak: The Stunning Synergy of The Atlantic’s Anonymous Attack on Trump Anywho, that's what the Biden side is doing. Meanwhile, this is what President Trump has been doing, over and over and over. I don't know where this particular video happened or when, but there is a lot of footage of stuff like this out there. Also, there are a lot of times where interactions like this wasn't recorded. They are simply remembered by average people, some of whom tell the press about them when asked. President Trump does not do this for show. It's the way he is all day every day. This is his normal. This is a strong part of the bond he has with his supporters and no silly made up story screamed out by the fake news media can break it. They couldn't break it pumping hard a Russian hoax for over 3 years including a special counsel investigation, they couldn't break it with a half-assed impeachment that was an embarrassment to Congress, they couldn't even break it with a port star who's lawyer is now under house arrest and looking to be in the slammer after sentencing for a long, long time. They can't break that bond because they have no clue about what that bond is. Michael
    2 points
  48. Here is one of Scott Adams's more instructive videos about visual persuasion. He's analyzing the visual persuasion of the RNC as opposed to the lame persuasion of the DNC. One of his most important insights was, since actual visual persuasion in this format is hard to set up for a political convention, they used mental visual images to great effect starting with the language. (For example, DT Jr's characterization of Biden as the Lochness Monster of the Swamp lurking around in the bottom. And other things like that.) They also did mental images by wedding recent news stories that had strong visuals embedded in them to the people speaking at the event--like asking the McCloskeys from St, Louis to speak about their ordeal where they tried to defend their home by arming themselves and going out to face down a BLM mob. The public already has that image in their minds and it is a powerful one. And for fun, after Scott qualifies the following by saying he doesn't believe in this stuff, he weds Biden to Satan symbolically in a manner similar to the way QAnon people do symbols. He found 666 all over Biden and Kamala Harris. He asked who lives underground? Why Satan. And Biden in his basement, of course. Biden says he will bring light to the dark. Satan does similar, but always includes a catch. So here's the catch. Houses and buildings are burning down to provide that light. And on and on he went. That was really fun... Scott didn't mention it, but the RNC is killing it in the ratings compared to lame-ass ratings for the DNC. Michael
    2 points
  49. Stay the fuck home, Fascist Shitbags trying to impose on the healthy and thriving. Keep your frail, infirm and frightened selves away from us and the children. Rand had that right, the children should not have to see things like you, it is abuse. (She said 'the disabled", and that is what you are.)
    2 points
  50. Sure sign you are talking to a fascist. They are unbothered by treason to eliminate a duly-elected President of the United States if they did not vote for that President. Despite all the lip service they simply do not embrace any democratic ethos.
    2 points