anthony

Members
  • Posts

    7,213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

anthony last won the day on October 24

anthony had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About anthony

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    A. GARLAND
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

20,191 profile views

anthony's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges

277

Reputation

  1. Peter: There is no downfall in considering oneself a lifelong "student of Objectivism", as you suggest with "taboo". Since Objectivism is altogether derived from reality, any O'ist is equivalently a lifelong "student of existence", i.e. a proper philosopher. That 'student' would include all the teachers, authors and lecturers of O'ism there've been. The litmus test (imo) for each to judge alone, is how comprehensively and effectively that student ¬applies¬ and ¬uses¬ his learning to active existence. This unique philosophy is evidently and primarily designed for the benefits of personal usage in one's life. Unlike any ivory tower, wholly theoretical philosophy passed down for the people's ready intellectual acceptance, if not reverence, this one requires one's own input and output. The 'open/closed' debate is another thing, but one thing that's noticeable is the closed side have consistently been poor at relating O'ist principles and formulations to ongoing and changing circumstances (like these above). They are better at producing standard, boilerplate Objectivist articles, essays etc. and appear rigid at coming to grips with "real life" reality - as if *only* what Rand herself exactly propounded, in such 'n such a comparable context is legitimate Objectivism. That is when they become authoritarian - 'closed'. The uncreative, so to speak, inflexibility, the disconnect of ideas from actuality is due to the common, O'ist fault of rationalism which I'm most familiar with because I have been a rationalist. "The problem is that Objectivists don't think", Nathaniel Branden said once. When I got over my puzzled disbelief at hearing his claim it dawned on me I was one of them. An Objectivist often may not transfer Rand's extraordinary theses on "How man thinks" (on which many students can articulate knowledgeably), into the actual practice of his own thinking, observing, inducing and deducing of existence - is how I read NB now.
  2. First Comply, Then We'll Grant You Some Rights ⋆ Brownstone Institute BROWNSTONE.ORG The political establishment is so devoted to this cause that it is hard to see how we can extricate ourselves. Accepting the first lockdown was... corresponding to TG's recentest link. China and Gates
  3. Just let the bastards get whipped badly, just once, and they will fall apart permanently with internal squabbles splintering into small groups. I can't wait to see if my prediction doesn't pan out! In such mindless arrogance they can't see they are - daily - bringing about their own end. I'm picking up bits from contacts and reading sources that Americans increasingly across partisan lines, are quickly getting sick and tired of orchestrated self-blame, unearned guilt and manipulated rifts sold by media and academics and are wising up to who's behind it and where it's headed. Fooling all the people all of the time has never worked, I reckon least in America. The rising public dissatisfaction caused by, simply, an alien ideology that failed miserably everywhere else, but (likely) many wishfully believed "will work this time", having the wealthiest nation to start off with. My short involvement in one election and party politics in the 80's taught me to avoid frontal assault on the opposition's issues or policies. That lends them your credibility. The weight of their force brings them down, like Judo.
  4. Thanks. That's new on me and makes sense. "Objectivist" is not a label one assumes and places on oneself or others (rationalistically). As shorthand for "a student of O'ism", I'd say it remains acceptable usage.
  5. To a partial "tee"okay, but I think predator is inadequate describing the spiritual damage and destruction done and still multiplying. It relates to physical force over the body and 'things': the predator grabs and/or destroys them for his illicitly gainful satisfaction. Worse is what is being done to minds, human values, aspirations, etc.etc., by way of psychological control over emotions, guilt, fear and uncertainty. The very worst, has been robbing people's sense of reality, therefore, the confidence in their minds - as in the propaganda designed to misinform and frighten and so manipulate, and the blocking of open discourse, a few of the culprits, with the implied threat of punishment or 'canceling' hanging over anyone who dissents in order to assert his freedoms. There's the spiritual damage done to this young generation who've learned fear from timid adults, primarily that their lives are not their own, the property of random others, and to - just obey - Authority and Other People. (Talk of a "malevolent universe premise", that's the outcome of this time of panic caused by a dumb virus, for the new generations for all but the strongest and most independent). I could go on, from only seeing or inferring how many known people are hurting materially and spiritually and divided from the continuity of their active lives, their intimates, their privacy and all the rest, which one can extrapolate to many millions of unnecessary, small personal tragedies at every moment globally. How such social divisiveness and rifts are actively encouraged by the "spiritual" destroyers in Govts., the media, some scientists and among our societies, when good people get blamed and vilified by other people. You'd say here, Michael, they are 'spiritual predators' perhaps, but in communication outside very few would understand that that's not a religious/supernatural reference.
  6. Brownstone: a J. Tucker book review. A President Betrayed by Bureaucrats: Scott Atlas’s Masterpiece on the Covid Disaster ⋆ Brownstone Institute BROWNSTONE.US6.LIST-MANAGE.COM Atlas’s book has exposed a scandal for the ages. It is enormously valuable because it fully blows up what seems to be an emerging fake...
  7. Michael, In real time and with complex events in flux, I don't pretend to have discovered a common thread to all the issues: only trying to make broad sense of it all, aided by some forthright, courageous, thinking individuals who know the science and medicine and who equally cherish mankind's freedoms. The why's and what's are clearer when one begins seeing the motives of inhuman bastards who readily exploit and manipulate human worries and suffering for their ends: not so unusual, for their simple greed; I think worse, for political domination - leading to, worst of all, for your collective 'good' - for all you people who now will meekly submit to our vision for the future after this is over -- after we've allowed it to be over. And "we, the people" have so far let them. This continues to be a lesson in keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you...
  8. https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/south-africa/ The top question: Why, happily, are fatalities staying low (while infections in most countries are rising)? I used to think the vaccinations have been more greatly instrumental, at least with preventing deaths. They no longer top my list. E.g. a low vaccination rate here in SA, while deaths have also subsided. Now the order appears to me, generally (and brutally, I'm afraid) - 1 . A great number of the most frail, elderly, ill or otherwise susceptible have already died. (Last year and this, in previous waves). 2. Many survivors achieved natural immunity. 3. The vaccines help a little further with the remainder. The coronavirus acts like natural selection, imo, taking the weakest ("lowest hanging fruit") earliest. Who is left have stronger resistance.
  9. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi5yc6Eicv0AhXVgVwKHeT_D-oQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F1254488%2Fus-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group%2F&usg=AOvVaw1SYzPAIjdlJQ43oPpEs3Dh From that graph (mortality rates by age according to distribution, in the US) how can one, an Objectivist say, find any moral and practical grounds for making anyone healthy get unwillingly vaccinated? Grounds that do not "obtain any values from others" at their loss, potential, future or actual? IOW: What's IN IT for them? The healthy 12 - 49 yo? Or -- under 12 yo? Or a fit over-69 yo? We can broadly determine from the chart what's 'in it' for the average, very elderly person. i.e. Combined groups 75-85+ comprise seven per cent of total pop. but 54.6% of fatality rate. Here the vax would be generally advisable. But where is the "mutual benefit" for all the others?
  10. Dg, Heard here and there, anecdotally, apparently people in those categories feel they've "done enough". They won't be going back for seconds (thirds, etc.). And then you get the fanatical true believers and do-gooders who will follow orders (regardless of their health status or possible need of vaccination). Some of them I was reminded today are getting unbelievably vicious at the "anti's" on Facebook, wishing them dead.
  11. Look at the Omicron figures below by country: Millyuns and millyuns of infections (um, not quite, presently about 200). "Dozens of countries globally"... Big Om - sourced from those terrible, under-vaxxed (Q.E.D) South Africans - is coming soon to your location (carried/transmitted almost certainly by fully vaccinated travellers...) What worked the first time, therefore, repeat. The propagandist machine is frightening everyone to death, again -- with a 'new' virus. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiS8rHyisr0AhXTT8AKHba4CWIQFnoECCcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2021%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2Fcovid-omicron-variant-countries-list-cmd-intl%2Findex.html&usg=AOvVaw2aIjvIwYNvantUyE50NyLu USA: "1 case". BUT, in contradiction to those miniscule numbers "globally", one must equally accept Omicron is becoming "the dominant strain" in South Africa, fuelling a "worrying " and "exponential rise" of corona. 77 cases recorded of Omicron in SA, according to the CNN article, out of 75,900 new CV-19 cases lately reported here. Who are they trying to fool? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiS8rHyisr0AhXTT8AKHba4CWIQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2021%2Fdec%2F02%2Fomicron-variant-fuelling-exponential-rise-in-covid-cases-say-south-africa-officials&usg=AOvVaw0kBFr0ljOIBjIKuHviZtCQ Desperation is setting in, I think. A convenient diversion was needed to distract most people from the obvious fact that vaccines are singly incapable of ending the pandemic (not to mention vaxx risk factors) - but - you WILL get one now in the light of this 'new' strain.. From my WebMD today. “Early data from South Africa suggest increased transmissibility of the Omicron variant, and scientists in the United States and around the world are urgently examining vaccine effectiveness related to this variant,” Walensky said in the statement. Walensky also encouraged the 47 million adults who haven’t yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 to get a shot “as soon as possible.” She said children and teens should be vaccinated to “prevent serious illness” and protect their families. “I also want to encourage people to get a COVID-19 test if they are sick,” she said. “Increased testing will help us identify Omicron quickly.”" (See what I mean?)
  12. Michael, call it a device. From innumerable sightings and readings of her prose and fiction, I think one can be consistent to Rand's philosophy while avoiding the presumption of speaking on her behalf. I invoked - is that evoked? - Rand, in the sense, not as much what Rand 'would have done', but what I am sure her philosophical principles would deliver in application to this situation and other circumstances. She and her philosophy are alike, they run close. For instance, unquestioned altruism, by her quite unique definition, has been the basis of what we are seeing happen in resulting measures to the pandemic. It's important to identify what altruism looks like in practice, if only for one's own understanding.
  13. She would advise to rigorously research and use the best tools on hand according to your health needs. That some nostrum made in a laboratory isn't necessarily 'science' or medicine. And any in a free nation haven't any responsibility to 'society'; concern with your own life is paramount. She would be disgusted that the Motor of the World was slowed down and stilled for a naturally-occurring phenomenon. That man's life, upright, rational and independent, is the standard of value, not a quasi-existence in submission to all others and Govt. authority. For the intimidation through livelihoods by corporations and force by state bureaucrats to impose on their freedom of action and sacrifice all the able and healthy and the youth to acquiesce to locking up, and then vaccinating every individual for the "common good" that is probably not 'good' for many, regardless of his/her free will and choices and individual rights, she would call what it is, the evil: altruism.
  14. True, ivermectin's been safely taken by humans since the 80's. Which makes CV vaccines the new kid on the "alt" block. Whoever suppressed its use, superficially for invented health concerns, have deaths on their hands imo. Study reporting +/- 90% "confidence level". "A strong signal of therapeutic efficacy". American Journal of Therapeutics https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjkhPiyhMT0AhXnQEEAHXScDBEQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.lww.com%2Famericantherapeutics%2Ffulltext%2F2021%2F08000%2Fivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx&usg=AOvVaw1HTxemTXmcfnrX888RVH2s
  15. "Pro-freedom" - for whom? When Jews are in the minority, i.e. everywhere, they eventually don't fare very well. Judaism is considered an 'ethno'-religion. Especially suiting detractors of Jews. (You can take the religion out of a jew, but you can't... etc). Israelis have a large contingent of irreligious who consider themselves "Jewish" and are glad to be there despite the mildly irritating Orthodox rabbis. What you propose in all innocence, losing their demographic majority, their ethno-religious identity, and original purpose of an independent state to provide a safe homeland, will lead to the end of that people.