GOP delays caucus count from Ron Paul Maine stronghold!

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

Don't be fooled. Bob gets pleasure from saying icky stuff. He likes the shock value.

Perhaps Bob and I have something in common then (as would Ayn Rand; the reason she named the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" was precisely for that reason). That said, I don't think he's entirely insincere.

I've had a combatant's blood all over my hands and face. I've seen hundreds of dead bodies. Soldiers have died next to me. Your love of war is phony. You can't love what you don't know. What you knew was a tiny sliver of what war might be about. For you the experience was positive. The family down the street with a son over seas experiencing combat first hand is not having a positive experience. It's bad form to run your celebratory parade up and down the street in front of their home honking your horn.

I agree with Brant. The vast, vast majority of soldiers do not come back from war with enlarged phalluses (spiritually speaking) and a soul filled with moral affirmation.

Bob means every word he says. As an aspie, it is not in his nature to make statements that he doesn't mean as humor or irony.

Martin,

Whilst I am tempted to agree with you about Bob's seriousness, I don't think the "Aspergers syndrome therefore dead serious" thing is true. First, Aspergers Syndrome is not neurologically detectable so we don't know if it is in fact a literal disease (i.e. an objectively demonstrable biological pathology that can be demonstrated via lesions on the corpse at autopsy). I've had an acquiantance with Aspergers and she was very funny and ironic.

To be completely honest, I think Aspergers Syndrome is really an invention of a number of emotionalist psychologists that want to define "an introverted and rational temperment" into a disease.

That said, I share your concerns re. Bob. I too think he's being quite serious and I find that disturbing.

Thank you for the courtesy of taking me at my word.

As to the last statement. It is the Muslims who are my enemies and want the Jews dead and gone, not Mexicans or black folks. I have no vital issues with these latter. Well we shall see what happens. The Last One Standing is the Winner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"The Muslims."

Ahhh, yes, "the Muslims." One giant monolithic hivemind. And of course, "the Jews," also one giant monolithic hivemind but, due to the holocaust, are assumed to be eternally innocent and if one dares suggest even one specific Jew is morally flawed, one's only possible motive is anti-semitism... [note the sarcasm!]

Bob, this is Class Analysis, a.k.a. Methodological Collectivism, and that's bad.

Martin,

I won't argue with you over this.

I have my opinion and you have yours. I merely note that often people say one thing and do another. We have to use our own judgments for when this is the case.

I've run with killers in life.

The people I knew who acted like Bob (nonchalant macho bluster to hide fear) did not kill.

In fact, if truth be told, according to my experience in life, I judge you to be the killer type. Not high-level, but cannon-fodder. Once someone got you properly lathered up, I believe you would do exactly what the latherer would tell you to do--and do it with gusto.

Michael

MSK,

I'd ask yourself and also Martin Rawdin to read this piece: http://catb.org/~esr...iller-myth.html

Apart from the author's identification of Hobbes as an Enlightenment philosopher (I disagree on that regard), I honestly consider this article the most brilliant, inspiring, and correct thing I have ever read since either Rand or Potts & Dopfer.

It was a silly war that the U.S. should not have fought. We had no dawg in that hunt and no horse in that race. I had in mind more reasonable wars to fight, such as the destruction of the major fascist powers on Earth. WW2 was not only the last war the U.S. actually won, it was a GOOD war. It had to be fought.

The activity of war brings out the best (at times). It amplifies the courage and focus of the warrior. It resonates with what we are: aggressive restless primates. Killer Apes if you will. Killing and brains is what we are about. Warriors and abstract thinkers are the best that the human race has produced. Wars have stimulated some of our best technological progress. Even when we are engaged in a non-destructive undertaking the best efforts are solicited by making the undertaking the moral equivalent or war. E.G. The Battle Against Cancer, The War on Disease etc. etc. Militaristic tropes stir the blood and get the heart beating fast and focus the mind on the goal. The greatest situation of all is a warrior battling for a righteous cause. You can't get anything better than that. Courage, focus, determination aimed at a just and righteous end. What is not to love about that? And it is high drama too. Many of the men who came back alive from WW2 regarded their military adventure as the high point of their lives. After that, things were quiet and sometimes a but dull.

The next big war I think will be the Dar al Harb against the Dar as Sala'am. And I am rooting for the West. Think of it as the War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. We, of course, are the Sons of LIght. It will be the biggest and best war ever fought since our species arose. The demon Allah and his minions will be put down. Reason will prevail, though at the cost of blood.

Apart from the fact that the religionist-fundamentalist-Islamist types are the precise kinds of macho-warriors you seem to venerate, you are aware that in every single culture they have dominated, people like yourself and I'd argue most Objectivists (i.e. rational thinkers) are socially emasculated and degraded? Warrior-macho cultures are typically cesspools ruled by the Mystics of Muscle.

That said, I agree some wars are necessary. I am not an historian but from my untrained position, I'd agree that WW2 was a necessary war. However, the problem that I posed in my first reply to you remains;

How the living f**k are you going to get a bloodlusting, brutish, killer, macho-warrior "my phallus is inflamed by the honor of battle!!!" President to restrain his urges enough to only give into them during just wars?

My bid is to have these concessions next to Brant's popcorn concession!

I being of Northern Italian heritage will run the women and vino operations for both forces.

Fighting and dying makes you thing of sex because you may never have it again. And of course what is sex without red wine!

I don't like tannins, so pass me the champagne, bourbon and cocktails.

I'm glad you didn't swear allegiance to Bob, because then I'd have been obliged to make a Mussolini joke.

[Martin Radwin]

Martin,

Whilst I am tempted to agree with you about Bob's seriousness, I don't think the "Aspergers syndrome therefore dead serious" thing is true. First, Aspergers Syndrome is not neurologically detectable so we don't know if it is in fact a literal disease (i.e. an objectively demonstrable biological pathology that can be demonstrated via lesions on the corpse at autopsy). I've had an acquiantance with Aspergers and she was very funny and ironic.

To be completely honest, I think Aspergers Syndrome is really an invention of a number of emotionalist psychologists that want to define "an introverted and rational temperment" into a disease.

That said, I share your concerns re. Bob. I too think he's being quite serious and I find that disturbing.

Andrew,

I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area. I have no idea to what extent if any Aspergers is a "real" disease. If, as you say, it's not detectable neurologically, then it falls into the category of "mental illnesses" condemned by Thomas Szasz as not real illnesses, since they are only defined by their behavioral aspects. The reason I referred to Bob as an aspie is that he has self-identified as one many times on this list. I would never dream of assigning this label to anyone who had not assigned it to himself/herself, especially to someone I had never met before. Anyway, it's clear from reading Bob's many posts that he is very literal minded and does not use humor, irony, or metaphor in his writing or thinking. As such, he makes a very fine mathematician but a very bad poet. Whatever he writes, I take him literally at his word.

I really enjoy your posts. I think you're one of the most erudite, intelligent posters on this list. You bring some much needed sanity to a modern day objectivist movement that has largely degenerated into a mindless cheering squad for unending war mongering.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'd ask yourself and also Martin Rawdin to read this piece: http://catb.org/~esr...iller-myth.html

Andrew,

I went ahead and read it. You may not like my conclusion, but I believe it supports my opinions of both Bob and Martin. The part for Bob starts with, "To a person who feels fundamentally powerless..." and the alpha male stuff mostly applies to Martin--they have to be alphas of his particular pack, and thankfully these tend toward nonviolence--but he's an alpha male follower for sure.

As an aside (just to set a contentious tone due to my innate orneriness ), I want to mention that being libertarian does not mean an automatic commitment to nonviolence--and equating a libertarian with nonviolence is not even a good assumption to make.

Case in point: Glenn Beck. This dude has bashed George Soros to the limit, taken on Islamism and especially Twelvers to the point of calling the 12th Imam the Antichrist (i.e. Satan, which is blasphemy to Muslims)--and he was serious, blew up several major con games like Acorn, has reported and campaigned on stuff that has resulted in high-office government officials (like Van Jones) being removed from office, and so on. It's reasonable to think he would get death-threats, no? Well, he does. But he has reported that the one group that sends him the most death threats is Ron Paul supporters. The weird part is that Beck mostly supports Ron Paul. Something to think about when evaluating people...

Now on to Eric Raymond's article.

I mostly agree with it, but he is addressing a non-issue for me. The "myth of man the killer" is not part of my mental equipment in analyzing anything. So debunking it is not particularly relevant to the way the world works from my view. He does mention some interesting things along the way.

The fact that humans are not wired to fight efficiently for a deadly result in hand-to-hand combat was very interesting.

A bone I have to pick with this, though, is that it doesn't prove much. For example, cats are pre-wired to aim for the eyes. I would have to check a source to see if the following is accurate, but in the cat fights I have seen during mating, I don't recall seeing male cats going for the eyes of each other except maybe in passing. What does that say?

Another bone is that humans are the only species I know of who enslave members of their species. And worse, confine them and torture them. Shouldn't that be on the table along with a predisposition to docility? And even so, what does it prove?

To me, it proves that man can be a killer or not. He can be sadistic and peace-loving. Brutal and gentle. And so on. That is something I already believe.

Raymond relies a great deal on obedience and Milgram's electric shock experiment to show that normal people will kill in obedience to authority, and to him, this explains war between governments. He treats it as if obedience were the whole shebang. I agree that obedience is a critical component, but there are much deeper levels to probe.

Can you imagine a USA President simply telling the military as Commander in Chief that we have to kill off all the Eskimos, so we might as well get started? How would that go over? Flop? Yup. Flop, big-time. So obedience alone is not nearly sufficient.

A huge component is commitment of people to doing the right thing. That's right, their integrity. If they can be convinced that it is right to kill someone, or many someones, they will do the rest. I do agree with Raymond that the docile part of the human spirit is stronger than the violent part. Likewise, I believe the moral part is stronger than the immoral part. This is beautifully illustrated in a movie I have mentioned here on OL in the past:

... a movie called The Confession. Ben Kingsley's character, Harry Fertig, says it (and it was originally written by Sol Yurick).

It's not hard to do the right thing. It's hard to know what the right thing is. But once you know what the right thing is, it's hard not to do it.

That, I believe, is just as important in normal people killing others as obeying an authority.

And there's more--an even stronger component: perception of reality. I am rereading a very interesting book by Blair Warren called The Forbidden Keys to Persuasion. (Of all the things I have read on persuasion so far, including Cialdini, this one is the deepest in terms of human nature.) He gave a story in discussing his reasons for undertaking the study. He was quite disturbed by the Heaven's Gate mass suicide.

I was once at a party when the topic of cults came up. In particular, the Heaven's Gate UFO cult in which 39 people willingly took their own lives. I listened as people gave their various theories into how Marshall Applewhite had managed to have so much power over his followers. He used secret "mind control" techniques one person said. Another talked about the isolation of the group. One, who happened to be a nutritionist, thought that perhaps the group's strict diet made it difficult for them to reason effectively, thus making them more susceptible to suggestion. Whatever the explanation, everyone thought those in the cult had to have been crazy to have committed suicide. The discussion was going fast and furious when I asked a question, which instantly derailed everyone around me.

"What if they weren't crazy and what if they didn't commit suicide?" I asked.

"What are you talking about?" one woman asked. "Are you saying they were murdered?"

"Not at all. They clearly did what they did voluntarily. But what if it wasn't suicide? What if they simply went to the next level?"

And there you have the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody sees.

What if people--the cannon fodder--who enter war are not killing (in their minds), but instead protecting something?

Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

Do you think a suicide bomber is committing suicide or is he going to the next level in a divine game of Angry Birds?

Likewise for killing others. Is a person really murdering a human being or is he (in his mind) making the world safe for something he is committed to?

(This is why fanatical hatred scares me.)

To get a person to make that kind of shift is not an instant on-off switch. A person needs a long, long indoctrination for it to take root. Symbols, music, watching others do the same including outright peer-pressure, trust in the authority, a vision of the future, and so on. These are things that have to be learned over time.

And just as important, things have to be unlearned about the enemy. If a soldier has to kill an enemy and--at the same time--imagine he is the father of three little girls and had a habit of changing their diapers at night so his wife could get some extra much-needed sleep, I believe this will affect his aim. Maybe even affect his command from his brain to his finger to pull the damn trigger. He literally has to forget that this person--this enemy--is a person.

In effect, he is not killing a human being as he understands the term during peacetime. He is killing "the enemy."

His perception of the human being in front of him is altered.

These are some of the things I believe bring people to kill others, including on a government level.

I'm glad I read the Raymond article, though. Food for thought.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area. I have no idea to what extent if any Aspergers is a "real" disease. If, as you say, it's not detectable neurologically, then it falls into the category of "mental illnesses" condemned by Thomas Szasz as not real illnesses, since they are only defined by their behavioral aspects.

Indeed, I am using Szasz's critique of the notion of "mental illness" in this respect.

The reason I referred to Bob as an aspie is that he has self-identified as one many times on this list. I would never dream of assigning this label to anyone who had not assigned it to himself/herself, especially to someone I had never met before. Anyway, it's clear from reading Bob's many posts that he is very literal minded and does not use humor, irony, or metaphor in his writing or thinking. As such, he makes a very fine mathematician but a very bad poet. Whatever he writes, I take him literally at his word.

I understand. And I too tend to take Bob at his word. Generally, I do take people at their word unless there's some obvious cues towards sarcasm. Internet communication tends to make subtle cues hard to pick up.

I really enjoy your posts. I think you're one of the most erudite, intelligent posters on this list. You bring some much needed sanity to a modern day objectivist movement that has largely degenerated into a mindless cheering squad for unending war mongering.

Martin

My sincerest thanks for your kind sentiments! I'm delighted you find my posts eloquent and intellectually stimulating. I'm also saddened at seeing other Objectivists, even the open-system ones, be so enthusiastic about a "war for Enlightenment Values." They seem to force the current conflict into the plot template of an Ayn Rand novel. Rand wrote beautiful novels about Enlightenment Values, but she wrote abstract allegories rather than practical advice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway, it's clear from reading Bob's many posts that he is very literal minded and does not use humor, irony, or metaphor in his writing or thinking.

This is totally inaccurate.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen Bob say he peed his pants because of something funny.

And the countless quips.

And so on...

Michael

[Selene]

Another bone is that humans are the only species I know of who enslave members of their species.

The only "species" that I know of are ants.

Really good post though. I have not read the article yet.

[Selene]

I'm glad you didn't swear allegiance to Bob, because then I'd have been obliged to make a Mussolini joke.

Lol. My understanding from our relatives in Northern Italy is that the "Alt-Italians" [Northern Italians], who are very industrious, learning oriented and a tad superior, were savagely opposed to Ole' Benito.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The only "species" that I know of are ants.

Adam,

I'm scratching my head trying to make sense of this and nothing comes.

What do you mean?

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I'm glad you didn't swear allegiance to Bob, because then I'd have been obliged to make a Mussolini joke.

Lol. My understanding from our relatives in Northern Italy is that the "Alt-Italians" [Northern Italians], who are very industrious, learning oriented and a tad superior, were savagely opposed to Ole' Benito.

Apologies. Was merely trying to make humor. I have nothing against Northern Italy. I f**king love rissotto.

[Selene]

The only "species" that I know of are ants.

Adam,

I'm scratching my head trying to make sense of this and nothing comes.

What do you mean?

Michael

Sorry about that. My multi-tasking battery must be low this afternoon. Working. Posting too fast!

"Another bone is that humans are the only species I know of who enslave members of their species. And worse, confine them and torture them. Shouldn't that be on the table along with a predisposition to docility? And even so, what does it prove?"

[Selene]

I'm glad you didn't swear allegiance to Bob, because then I'd have been obliged to make a Mussolini joke.

Lol. My understanding from our relatives in Northern Italy is that the "Alt-Italians" [Northern Italians], who are very industrious, learning oriented and a tad superior, were savagely opposed to Ole' Benito.

Apologies. Was merely trying to make humor. I have nothing against Northern Italy. I f**king love rissotto.

You know that there are two (2) styles of risotto, right? There is the yellow saffron type which is my family's favorite and the "white" more moist style which is served on most restaurant menus. But I love both.

As to have sex with the risotto, hmmm I would suggest wearing an asbestos condom...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I'm still confused.

You don't think human beings should be included within the standard taxonomic classification?

Did I get that right?

Or is there something else?

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

I'm still confused.

You don't think human beings should be included within the standard taxonomic classification?

Did I get that right?

Or is there something else?

Michael

Michael:

Now I am confused.

Humans enslave members of their species. And ants, also enslave members of their species, e.g., South American soldier ants enslave the conquered mounds inhabitants.

Therefore, I was adding ants to humans as species that enslave members of their own species.

Whereas, you were saying that humans were the only species, as far as you knew.

That was my only point. lol.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Duh...

(Thanks...)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

No one could exult in killing except a sadist [...].

I don't think that's true. Killing doesn't equal the enjoyment of inflicting pain.

[...], and I cannot believe Baal to be that.

I don't get any feeling of sadistic inclinations from Bob K. On the other hand, I agree with those who think that he means his extolling of the warrior ethos. For instance, look at all the stuff he's posted about ancient Sparta. You could find a lot doing a search.

Ellen

[caroljane]

No one could exult in killing except a sadist [...].

I don't think that's true. Killing doesn't equal the enjoyment of inflicting pain.

[...], and I cannot believe Baal to be that.

I don't get any feeling of sadistic inclinations from Bob K. On the other hand, I agree with those who think that he means his extolling of the warrior ethos. For instance, look at all the stuff he's posted about ancient Sparta. You could find a lot doing a search.

Ellen

Yes, I was inaccurate. I certainly enjoyed the Scots killing the English in Braveheart, though I could not watch the actual gore.And Grampy Kolker did not spend his youth setting fire to the tails of cats, I am sure.

I hope this will stop future internet-fuelled speculations that might arise from researches into his life and work." Aspersadism: When Physics get Physical."..."Did Baal Bomb the Bail-Bond offfice in Baylor, TX?"--no, no, this must not be.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I hope this will stop future internet-fuelled speculations that might arise from researches into [bob K's] life and work." Aspersadism: When Physics get Physical"..."Did Baal Bomb the Bail-Bond offfice in Baylor, TX?"--no, no, this must not be.

LaughedOutLOUD! Oy!

Ellen

[Mark]

I don’t usually read Chatzaf/Kolker’s posts but was reading gulch8’s and read this reply by C/K claiming among other things the non-reality of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars:

I think he [Ron Paul] would be a disaster for the United States if we had to fight a real war. I want a President with a killer instinct ... We are heading towards war and I want a Killer in charge.

where in the ellipses he mischaracterizes Andrew Jackson as some sort of butcher and (assuming his characterization) prefers such a president for the war he obviously wants, with Iran.

Ellen: on HPO he once wrote:

http://groups.google...f68536441d77a16

and there are many others worse. (Somewhere online he relished twisting off the arms of Palestinian children, but I couldn’t find it in five minutes.) An armchair psychopath. Where your taxes go (or at any rate once went).

It’s not just the reveling in cruetly, it’s the complete unconcern with reality.

A psychopath isn’t a man plus he’s a man minus. There’s something missing in a psychopath. Read an interesting interview with Andrzej M. Lobaczewski. Unfortunately the interviewers seem to be leftists intent on squeezing his ideas into their own mold.

Speaking of Andrew Jackson, out of all the candidates Ron Paul is the closest to (the real) Jackson, who favored a limited, small, federal government.

Keep up the good work, gulch8.

　

　

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

You wouldn't be Randzapper, would you?

(Just joking... I think he/she's a leftie )

Michael

[GALTGULCH8]

Mark,

I appreciate the positive feedback. As you can tell I am sufficiently dedicated to the cause that nothing will stop me. IF I weren't of necessity working full time I would do more than I do. But it is reassuring that my efforts here are read and of value to you.

We are at a crossroads and this election just might be something of a last chance to get the ship of state back on course while that can still be done without having to deal with more horrific obstacles in the future.

I have the opportunity to talk with ordinary people who are largely uneducated and who do not read the kinds of books all of us here have read. The principles which we advocate are not over their heads if things are explained to them in detail. I spoke with one young man today who asked me many questions just to help him understand the meaning of many words with which he was not familiar.

Another fellow yesterday told me that he grew up in a particular town which was Democratic and of a certain ethnicity which always voted Democrat. He mentioned how his mother was at the voting booth in 2008 and tried to vote for Obama but told him that try as she might "I just can't do it!"

We know that the books exist and the videos but still 40% of the largely ignorant masses will pull the lever to reelect our president while another 40% will vote for the opponent based on some superficial or mystical basis, probably more to remove the president than out of any real in depth understanding of the issues the country faces.

Who knows what will sway the other 20% who will determine the winner?

And what is the best way to reach enough of them to add reason, principle and sound theory to the brew? Something like that needs to overcome the message of the MSM (main stream media.)

[Selene]

Gulch that 40% 40% 20% paradigm is only valid when you have two (2) candidates that have no clear, fundamental differences philosophically with the ability to clearly draw the distinctions.

70% of the prime voters self identify as "conservative/libertarian."

[caroljane]

For instance, look at all the stuff he's posted about ancient Sparta. You could find a lot doing a search.

Ellen

I am a big fan of good Alternate History scifi. I think Sparta would be a nice place for fox-stealing visits, but I wouldn't want to get gnawed to death there.

[GALTGULCH8]

Selene,

I was thinking of the final election, not the primaries. I think the ones who fall in the 40% on either side constitute those who will vote Party Line without regard to any thought. Perhaps it is only the 20% who stop to think at all about issues, character, philosophy, etc.

I am not a firm believer in the above. There are some who just vote based on beliefs that the Democrats are for the working man and Republicans stand for big business or some such nonsense.

Maybe that is changing because of the various movements and the internet and word of mouth. Hopefully the more rational ideas will win out. No thanks to the public schools, the colleges and universities or the media.

gulch

[Selene]

Selene,

I was thinking of the final election, not the primaries. I think the ones who fall in the 40% on either side constitute those who will vote Party Line without regard to any thought. Perhaps it is only the 20% who stop to think at all about issues, character, philosophy, etc.

I am not a firm believer in the above. There are some who just vote based on beliefs that the Democrats are for the working man and Republicans stand for big business or some such nonsense.

Maybe that is changing because of the various movements and the internet and word of mouth. Hopefully the more rational ideas will win out. No thanks to the public schools, the colleges and universities or the media.

gulch

Gulch:

So was I. I was not talking about the primary campaigns.

Not since Reagan Carter has there been a distinction between the underlying philosophy of the two (2) candidates/parties.

Hence Reagan's convincing first election and absolute slaughter in the re-election, 49 states to 1.

In between, we have had the weasel moderates of both parties with no significant difference between the two.

If it is Santorum vs. O'biwan, there will be a stark difference.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

You know that there are two (2) styles of risotto, right? There is the yellow saffron type which is my family's favorite and the "white" more moist style which is served on most restaurant menus. But I love both.

Actually I did not know that. I've only ever been exposed to the white type of risotto, unfortunately! Thanks for the information.