Recommended Posts

On Solo, perennial favourite NotDougBandler continues his intellectual journey through nineteenth century Eugenics, and makes short work of the Asians.

The Asians ...no need to distinguish between Singaporeans and Seoulmen here, anatomy is destiny... though not as stupid and savage as the blacks, are brainwired collectivists and however much exposed to liberty will never understand it. Only white people are brainwired to understand it. White people who marry Asians and ugh, have children, are suicidally destroying their own liberty genes. How sick is that? Maybe white people are not all so smart after all.

So, heads up on the Yellow Peril, the Sequel. Just when you thought it was safe to order Chinese...

Well that is a different slant on life...

My lady is half Japanese and I love both halves so I guess that makes me an Asiaphile.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lindsay P has just distanced himself from Doug, to whom he has so frequently proposed marriage. He sternly says to take note that they are not "An Objectivist site , as such" not qua Objecivist I guess and allow everyone to debate Objectivist stuff freely, which in fairness they seem to do. So he is not endorsing Bandler.'s fascism and racism, qua whatever

Jolly weaselly done LP, qua weasel..

Link to post
Share on other sites

ARCHN has started an interesting thread on "The Future of Objectivism". They look with a jaundiced eye of course,being ARCHN, but they make good observations. Sample quote: "McCaskey's mistake was not being rich enough to disagree with Peikoff".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. Bandler's race and sex obsessions have fused, and he proclaims on Solo to all white men, that their daughters will be raped by black gangs, and in Europe massraped by Muslims, as is already happening, because white women are the most coveted of all women .Not a paraphrase.

I wish I could believe he is an anomaly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. Bandler's race and sex obsessions have fused, and he proclaims on Solo to all white men, that their daughters will be raped by black gangs, and in Europe massraped by Muslims, as is already happening, because white women are the most coveted of all women .Not a paraphrase.

I wish I could believe he is an anomaly.

What makes you think he is something other than an anomaly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. Bandler's race and sex obsessions have fused, and he proclaims on Solo to all white men, that their daughters will be raped by black gangs, and in Europe massraped by Muslims, as is already happening, because white women are the most coveted of all women .Not a paraphrase.

I wish I could believe he is an anomaly.

On the face of it, this is neo-con, collectivist raving. Nothing to do with Objectivism.

Yes, it is anomalous, Carol - and seriously why keep bringing it to our attention?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol,

As you know, I like to look underneath the message to see what's driving it.

A good start is to try to figure out what stories people tell themselves. These inner stories frame anything and everything they say in public.

Of course, you can't literally get into the head of someone else, but you can notice patterns of expression over time. And those are good indications.

One of the inner stories I see promoted on SLOP over and over is being a martyr for truth. I see that clearly in this young man's case. Perigo is melodramatic about it. You can observe others around him who appear to be driven by martyrdom. I even fell for it way back when I was under his spell. Besides, it's fun and the nonstop emotional catharsis is quite purging. :)

The problem with this inner story ("I don't care what they do to me, the bastards, I see too much to stay quiet! Oh... the blind, the blind... and the bastards, the bastards! I will go down with my soul intact!") is that it massively feeds some cognitive biases. One of them is the confirmation bias. Everything the person looks at suddenly becomes proof of the bias as he rationalizes away contrary information.

But that's not the worst part. Suppose his "truth" is just plain boneheaded (say, like James Valliant's PARC fiasco). If you are stuck on telling yourself over and over you are a martyr for truth, then one day a crack appears and you start doubting the truth you had latched on to, you will have no choice except to tell yourself you might be a fool for a delusion.

From martyr for truth to fool for a delusion is a hard, hard mental river to cross.

I don't expect the young man in question to cross it. He has already determined that the fundamental characteristic humans share is racial difference, not a conceptual mind. He has a cybernetic system on overdrive running on that "truth" as it navigates the waters of his inner martyrdom story.

In short, I don't despise him. I feel sorry for him.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question Tony, I keep bringing it up because Bandler does. This thread is about what is going on in the subculture, and the convergence between the ultraconservative collectivism you note and the Objectivish world goes on sometimes, especially politically .Remember Ron Paul and the racist newsletters he "didn't know anything about"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But to me, he's also scary.

Ginny,

You can rest easy. In my experience, PUA people are pussycats when push comes to shove.

This guy's actually got a good inquiring mind (albeit with a rotten phony-macho personality). It's a shame he boxed himself into his own story and cannot track conceptual hierarchies.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question Tony, I keep bringing it up because Bandler does. This thread is about what is going on in the subculture, and the convergence between the ultraconservative collectivism you note and the Objectivish world goes on sometimes, especially politically .Remember Ron Paul and the racist newsletters he "didn't know anything about"?

And you are the investigative reporter whose job it is to expose what she sees...?

I know very little about the poster, except for reading a piece of his years back, and thinking that he had a fine mind and wrote well. If he's become a bit weird I believe that's a great pity.

I don't cruise the forums anything like you do, but my objection is how representative you make such crazy excesses appear.

There is a huge quantity of good, original and honest thinking around O'ist circles. Granted that in that quest to truth, we are all guilty sometimes of rash or ludicrous statements, does the observer ridicule our anomalous remarks as indicative of the individual, the totality of his mind and of all Objectivists - and further, of Objectivism itself? I shouldn't think so. Unjust and too easy: like shooting fish in barrel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm scary.

 

Brant,

 

I tremble.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

 

 

I    WE Robots...

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrMq9ClXCXberg8I_d2_J

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1gWAZvkdc0s7_3q4wcgA

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhJpQO9pYT3x6CT2srYwn

Link to post
Share on other sites

New Books of Interest to Objectivists.

1. Dr. Diana Hsieh, Ph.D, Responsibility and Luck (A revised version of her doctoral thesis for which Diana earned a Ph.D.)

2. Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand. (Doesn't appear to have been revised, contrary to what Amazon says. I purchased it and it's the 1986 book with a 2013 new introduction. For example, typewriter story is still there.)

3. Edith Packer, Lectures on Psychology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is entirely possible that if someone were to put a gun in my mouth and turn the safety off I would still refuse to read a book from Dr. H about luck and whatnot.

And Edith Packer, bless her soul, is more commited to recycling than a hairy-legged enviromentalist. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

New Books of Interest to Objectivists.

1. Dr. Diana Hsieh, Ph.D, Responsibility and Luck (A revised version of her doctoral thesis for which Diana earned a Ph.D.)

2. Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand. (Doesn't appear to have been revised, contrary to what Amazon says. I purchased it and it's the 1986 book with a 2013 new introduction. For example, typewriter story is still there.)

3. Edith Packer, Lectures on Psychology.

Neil,

I'm glad to see this, irrespective of what I think of the different authors (with love to Barbara as always). And I wish the best for all three. I have an enormous amount of respect for people who write books.

I had a thought the other day. I believe the single most important person to education in America is Jeff Bezos (the founder or Amazon).

I believe Bezos has done more to make America read (and love reading) than all the public campaigns and school efforts combined--and he did it using the profit motive and developing the biggest online shopping store to boot.

When I feel depressed about education in America, I think of him and I automatically feel better.

Each of the authors above certainly owe a debt of gratitude to him, as do their readers.

May all be successful and make money.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question Tony, I keep bringing it up because Bandler does. This thread is about what is going on in the subculture, and the convergence between the ultraconservative collectivism you note and the Objectivish world goes on sometimes, especially politically .Remember Ron Paul and the racist newsletters he "didn't know anything about"?

And you are the investigative reporter whose job it is to expose what she sees...?

I know very little about the poster, except for reading a piece of his years back, and thinking that he had a fine mind and wrote well. If he's become a bit weird I believe that's a great pity.

I don't cruise the forums anything like you do, but my objection is how representative you make such crazy excesses appear.

There is a huge quantity of good, original and honest thinking around O'ist circles. Granted that in that quest to truth, we are all guilty sometimes of rash or ludicrous statements, does the observer ridicule our anomalous remarks as indicative of the individual, the totality of his mind and of all Objectivists - and further, of Objectivism itself? I shouldn't think so. Unjust and too easy: like shooting fish in barrel.

Tony, I take your point and understand your concern, but I think it is unfounded.

Even the newest of newbie browsers on the internet soon notices that some posters are barking mad, and do not reflect upon the various ideologies they espouse or discuss.

Bandler himself says he expects to be considered a madman, and that the Objectivist world rejects his racist views.

When fish like that swim to the top of the barrel I expect I will still shoot them,old habits die hard. But nobody reading any such posts would ever infer that OL, let alone Objectivism in general, endorses the barking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is entirely possible that if someone were to put a gun in mouth and turn the safety off I would still refuse to read a book from Dr. H about luck and whatnot.

And Edith Packer, bless her soul, is more commited to recycling than a hairy-legged enviromentalist. :laugh:

Wow, Diana has a Ph.D. !!! Who knew? I thought she was just a cute little doctor's wife with some hobbies.

I like the sound of that Edith Packer and I think I will read her book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now