Donald Trump

[anthony]

8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Peter,

 

Interesting that someone took issue with you via PM about "nationalism."

Calling Trump a "nationalist" is one of the big sneer/smear dismissive derogations used by the academic community.  Although I haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the Objectivish community, I gather from occasional things I hear that it's also often used by O'vishes opposed to Trump.  Your report is a bit of confirmative evidence for Michael's belief that OL is being read by onlookers who wouldn't post here.

Ellen

1

Ellen, I don't think it's over-broadening an abstraction to take a simple approach: that nationalism, properly and objectively defined, is to a nation as rational self-interest is to the individual. In fact, I'm sure this was Rand's view - for only one sample, she was vehemently against America's altruist policies with other countries, was she not? I can't figure why Objectivists would join in the smearing (and package-dealing?) of that concept.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

I can't figure why Objectivists would join in the smearing (and package-dealing?) of that concept.

Tony.

I can.

Elitism.

Some Objectivists are friggin' elitists.

To them, the world is for them and their kind and the rest of humanity is livestock (or bugs or whatever).

This is the worst sort of collectivism and it infects certain individuals of all ideologies, religions, political persuasions, ethnic groups, companies, charities, wherever groups of people have boundaries (however loose) and profess a set of common goals, understandings or beliefs. Most people will be good people and some individuals will be infected by the elitist virus. When they are super-intelligent or talented, they do a lot of damage.

It's easier to take over a single group than it is to take over the entire world in one whack. But take over the world (meaning all of humanity) is exactly what they want to do. The best characterization I can come up with right now is dictatorship by technocrats. That's what they want. Including the Objectivist elitists. And all elitists consider themselves part of that technocratic ruling class club.

They are the insiders, the masters, the ones chosen by existence itself to tell others what they can and cannot do,  and you are not. Period.

That's what they think and believe all the way down to their toes.

Sad, but true.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Yawon doesn't wike Twump. Nor does Amy (who appears to have gotten a fish hook stuck in her nose).

 

They do, however, like Rand-sanctioned art prints, and prints that look like the type of art that most of Rand's followers assume that she would approve of.

"Vermeer? I'll definitely take one of those. The other one is Romantic Realism, you say? You sure? Well, okay, then, I'll take one of that, too. But no frame. I prefer to just tack art to my wall. That's my sense of life, my sense of respect and seriousness about visual art, and even my sense of decor. I'm an Objectivist, after all, which means that I'm kind of stuck in the mindset of high school/college years. So posters is it. And just arbitrarily positioned. No thought involved. My view is that there's no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, except for sticking posters on walls. I'm not actually interested in this shit at all, but I'm just signaling with it behind me in the video frame."

J

[Peter]

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Peter,

The Lexicon's inclusion of material "by authors other than Miss Rand" is noted in the "Editor's Preface," pp. ix-x.  There are numerous selections by Leonard Peikoff, several by Harry Binswanger, and a few (if I remember right) by Peter Schwartz.  You need to check the attribution at the bottom of a quote to be sure who it's by.

Interesting that someone took issue with you via PM about "nationalism."

Calling Trump a "nationalist" is one of the big sneer/smear dismissive derogations used by the academic community.  Although I haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the Objectivish community, I gather from occasional things I hear that it's also often used by O'vishes opposed to Trump.  Your report is a bit of confirmative evidence for Michael's belief that OL is being read by onlookers who wouldn't post here.

Ellen

I agree. Nowadays, if the Fake News hears the word ‘nationalist’ they tack on the qualifier “white,” so if you are a nationalist you are implying or really saying you are a white nationalist, and that is just not so. Can you imagine someone like Seinfeld making racist jokes? Never. But is a “black nationalist’ celebrity ever attacked by the media? Hardly. See the examples below.   Peter

Samuel Jackson is a horrible racist and the LEADER of the New Black Panthers. When he was in college he took some students and administration people as “hostages.” But he is still hired to do commercials. “What’s in your wallet?”

Wanda Jackson’s old, after midnight monologues were for, and attended by blacks only and they were virulently racist.

Radar Online reported that a two-month investigation uncovered a former employee of Steve Harvey’s who claimed that he has recordings of the Family Feud host going on insane racist rants. Joseph Cooper told reporters that Harvey urged fans to “spit on white people” and “go assault old white women.” . . . . Court documents obtained by the deposition revealed that Harvey admitted the tapes contained material that was “a lot edgier” than the family-friendly jokes he tells now.

[Ellen Stuttle]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Ellen, I don't think it's over-broadening an abstraction to take a simple approach: that nationalism, properly and objectively defined, is to a nation as rational self-interest is to the individual. In fact, I'm sure this was Rand's view - for only one sample, she was vehemently against America's altruist policies with other countries, was she not? I can't figure why Objectivists would join in the smearing (and package-dealing?) of that concept.

Agreed, Tony, with your approach to the term "nationalism," also agreed that that was Rand's view.  Objectivists joining in the smearing and package-dealing is bloody bonkers.  A few of those doing it date way back to the early days of Objectivism, when a similar thing was done to Rand by academic and press detractors in smearing her as "Fascist."

Ellen

[Peter]

Are we freer under President Trump? Yes. He has enforced regulatory reform, mandating that for every new regulation we eliminate two. There are fewer federal regulations for starting a new job, etc.

Are we safer under President Trump? Yes. He is enforcing our borders. He is building a border wall and cutting funding for sanctuary cities. He is protecting Law enforcement. He defeated ISIS. He is rebuilding the military.
Are we better off under President Trump? the DOW Jones Industrial Average goes up and down but it has risen significantly since Trump’s inauguration. We have gone from 19,000 to 25,000 in two years. The market has gained over 2 trillion dollars in value. That’s awesome. The manufacturing index? The number of jobs created? Up. Housing sales? Up. The jobless rate is waaaay down. He dismantled Obama’s climate change bullshit.

Soooo. Why are the people who should be applauding and jumping for joy, especially Objectivists, doing the opposite?

I think Michael, Tony and others, have nailed it. Hopefully, the elites will soon notice the obvious. But in the meantime, is there something we can specifically do to improve their view of President Trump? Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

Hopefully, the elites will soon notice the obvious.

Peter,

I want to mention one nuance. I make a huge distinction between elite and elitist. (I--or someone else--might come up with a different word than elitist later that nails it better.)

Donald Trump is an elite. He's a billionaire and holds top power. He's an elite, meaning he's among the elite people of the world by an external standard. But he is not an elitist. 

Elitism is internal. It's an attitude and inner conviction that one is better than the rest of mankind just because. An elitist doesn't have to be an elite. An elitist can be poor and handicapped. Generally, though, elitists gravitate toward political power because there is where they can set gatekeepers to an insider club and get all kinds of unearned goodes. And they can punish anyone their spiteful little hearts don't like. Innocent or guilty doesn't matter to them. Someone not recognizing their superiority and acting on it is the ultimate sin.

The Mooch calls President Trump the Blue Collar President. And he is. I think he is proud of it, too. An elitist would never accept that designation unless he was being camp.

Michael

[anthony]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony.

I can.

Elitism.

Some Objectivists are friggin' elitists.

To them, the world is for them and their kind and the rest of humanity is livestock (or bugs or whatever).

This is the worst sort of collectivism and it infects certain individuals of all ideologies, religions, political persuasions, ethnic groups, companies, charities, wherever groups of people have boundaries (however loose) and profess a set of common goals, understandings or beliefs. Most people will be good people and some individuals will be infected by the elitist virus. When they are super-intelligent or talented, they do a lot of damage.

It's easier to take over a single group than it is to take over the entire world in one whack. But take over the world (meaning all of humanity) is exactly what they want to do. The best characterization I can come up with right now is dictatorship by technocrats. That's what they want. Including the Objectivist elitists. And all elitists consider themselves part of that technocratic ruling class club.

They are the insiders, the masters, the ones chosen by existence itself to tell others what they can and cannot do,  and you are not. Period.

That's what they think and believe all the way down to their toes.

Sad, but true.

Michael

Michael, you since made the same distinction I was going to reply with. Elite vs. "elitism". E.g. I consider Objectivism an elite philosophy, bar none - but -  is not elitist. (As philosophy, or individual). It is far too radical for that. All so-called "blue collar workers" are invited. That legendary Boston longshoreman will find unlimited benefits in the method of the philosophy, because its purpose is first and foremost for him to use, along with his study of it. And nobody has to be a full time scholar, or be a genius to comprehend much of the theory and apply it. The "cause" and promotion of Objectivism has value, of course, as long as its purpose remains aiming at individuals from all backgrounds. Evidently (due to ARI, it must be added), Rand is already well known in the USA and somewhat known elsewhere - so what is there left to do to convince the people, once they've read her? Horse and water, all that. My feeling is that ARI started becoming alarmed at the realization the philosophy wasn't taking the world by storm.

That's the nature of Objectivism - it can't appeal universally to everyone, always. The factors are well discussed already. (i.e., Atheism, egoism, capitalism, and its radical metaphysics/epistemology). 

However, one senses from ARI's pov, that the numerical advances of O'ism among the populace have been far too slow. Into the second/third generation since its founding, the sheer numbers optimistically projected aren't arriving, while in the meantime, Brook and others observe many individual thinkers (especially conservatives) springing up on the web, gaining huge followings. How frustrating is that?!

On the other end, in colleges and the dominant intelligentsia, ARI knows O'ism has not been granted mainstream, intellectual acceptance from the smug and snooty, leftist professors who smear the philosophy at every opportunity. (Naturally, the lefty intellectuals understand what is their mortal enemy). However, ARIans, I speculate, have been consciously making, um - 'adjustments' to appeal ("reach out") to the students of those professors, and to show that they too with Objectivism, can 'compete' on issues of the day: elections, etc.  But as a result, I think, they could be over-accommodating, so compromising O'ist principles, Left-wards, and into the "elitism" which is part of that ideology.

Universal acceptance, peer recognition, relevance. Some things can't be hurried or forced. Objectivism is too unique and individual-oriented to be elitist and the second-handed elements which accompany elitism's 'superiority' over the 'ordinary Joe'.

[Jon Letendre]

[Jon Letendre]

[Jonathan]

Look at this fucking psycho:

 

 

 

[Jonathan]

Threats of violence are just so damned cute and funny when the Dems do it! Tee hee hee, everybody!

 

[Jonathan]

Fuck yeah! It's been way too long since the democrats had themselves a good lynching! They're just aching to do it again.

https://fox17.com/news/local/political-dummy-hanging-from-tree-sparks-outrage-in-shelbyville

 

[Peter]

I know I am repeating myself but I think I can put a new spin on it. I once wrote about “competing governments:” . . . . An Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force *conferred upon it by the consent of the governed.* It permits various jurisdictional agencies within its territory, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. It does not permit agencies within its territory that are at variance with any provisions of the Constitution . . . . And I do have my doubts about an Objectivist Government. My doubt is that it IS Idealistic, or even Utopian. However, I think our exceptional system of government is the best we are going to get until another Reagan comes along. end quote

So President Trump is not an idealist or a Utopian, and as Michael pointed out, although he is from “the billionaire boys’ club” elite he does not fall into the mental and political trap of considering himself an Elitist. He is not a libertarian. He is a Republican in name only. He is not an objectivist though he likes “Ann” Rand.

All that being said, for our nation and for our individual freedoms, he is more fitting than President Reagan. We on the side of an American libertarian government should be rejoicing. I know I am. I said earlier, one of our jobs as libertarian/objectivists is to support the man who is making us stronger, safer, freer, and more prosperous, just by being our top cat. And one of our ESSENTIAL jobs is to convince the elites like Robert Tracinski and other conservatives that the prosperity they are seeing when they blink their eyes is very real. We the people cannot allow competing objectivist or libertarians to undercut our very real advances in freedom and the man who is leading the charge. Convince them. It's worth your time. Hail to the Chief!

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Look at this fucking psycho:

Jonathan,

In every story coming out of Hollywood that has a decent villain in it, there's always a moneyshot of the villain suddenly realizing he's no longer in control and he actually is going down. This is usually the first leg of the comeuppance scene at the climax.

Former President Obama just got the storytelling pitch perfect for that part.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

For the record, I'm an elitist on top of the heap of the elite. (It stinks below.)

I arrived via helicopter. Beats climbing up shit.

--Brant

King of the hill 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even though young voters are not as experienced in life as older ones, thus not as wise in choosing candidates, they are still endowed each with the same vote value.

So here is a little something from President Trump that might help them decide who to vote for in the midterms (if they vote at all).

Michael

[caroljane]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Even though young voters are not as experienced in life as older ones, thus not as wise in choosing candidates, they are still endowed each with the same vote value.

So here is a little something from President Trump that might help them decide who to vote for in the midterms (if they vote at all).

Michael

Hey, cool!  Now I can make up my own mind who to vote for, whoo-hoo!

And if he doesn't keep his promise to give me free weed, I know how to deal with that, thanks to your helpful ad on where I can carry my gun underneath your helpful advice post!

Thanks, objectionable living!

-Young but wise voter

(

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Hey, cool!  Now I can make up my own mind who to vote for, whoo-hoo!

And if he doesn't keep his promise to give me free weed, I know how to deal with that, thanks to your helpful ad on where I can carry my gun underneath your helpful advice post!

Thanks, objectionable living!

-Young but wise voter

(

 

[Jonathan]

On 11/3/2018 at 11:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

In every story coming out of Hollywood that has a decent villain in it, there's always a moneyshot of the villain suddenly realizing he's no longer in control and he actually is going down. This is usually the first leg of the comeuppance scene at the climax.

Former President Obama just got the storytelling pitch perfect for that part.

 

Michael

It really looks desperate.

Heres more of classy, civil Obama:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/obama-unhinged-mocks-hillarys-emails-ebola-trump-migrant-caravan-in-under-90-seconds/

Remeber when ex-presidents had the dignity to fade from view, and then only occasionally return to elegantly deliver a few sage observations? Heh.

Not Barry the agitator. Can't control himself. And he can't get beyond his favorite tactic of lying about his opponents via straw men. "They're saying that if our plan to make X happen succeeds, then the consequences will be horrific doom Y and Z. Fear mongering! Th th that th th that's all they've got is f f f fear-m m m mongering."  ("Intellectual stammer," as the left press dubbed it.) And yet no one has ever made the statements that Barry claims. Rather, they are just the fear-mongering smears that he has invented about Them.

Jumping around, sweating and stammering. Stumbling and bumbling. And the leftist media wishes us to believe that Barry is the ultimate in calm, deliberate sensibility, where Trump is the emoting, gesticulating infant throwing tantrums.

 

[Jon Letendre]

“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government...”

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This never happens to President Trump and he does more rallies than anyone I know.

Out of shape pic.twitter.com/lY5zzgQEfy

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) November 5, 2018

Like Obama said, he can only do so much...

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is Rush Limbaugh introducing President Trump at his last pre-election rally.

The best line in his entire 10 minute speech was this:

Quote

You'll never go to the library and find a book, Great Moderates in American History or Great Committees in American History. Donald Trump wants America to be great again and it's not a slogan, it's an objective.

Right on...

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

https://qmap.pub/

THIS IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA

Q post #2436

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI6 Nov 2018 - 1:44:13 AM

The entire world is watching.
Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA.
We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out.
Remember the battles of Lexington and Concord - "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
For far too long we have been silent and allowed our bands of strength, that we once formed to defend FREEDOM and LIBERTY, to deteriorate.
We became divided.
We became weak.
We elected TRAITORS to govern us.
We allowed EVIL to prey on us.
Those who claimed to represent us gave us false hope, made false promises.
The evil and corruption only grew.
——————————
This is more than party politics.
This is about restoring OLD GLORY.
This is about saving our land and our people from those who wish us harm.
This is about preserving our REPUBLIC.
This is about preserving our SAFETY.
This is about restoring our STRENGTH.
This is about LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
This is about PROTECTING our children.
THIS IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA.
We are all God's children.
We are, FATHERS.
We are, MOTHERS.
We are, DAUGHTERS.
We are, SONS.
We are, BROTHERS.
We are, SISTERS.
We do not look at race.
We do not look at skin color.
We are UNITED in these STATES OF AMERICA.
We are, and will always be, PATRIOTS.
WE MUST RISE AGAIN.
WE MUST UNITE AGAIN.
WE MUST FIGHT AGAIN.
FOR GOD & COUNTRY —- PLEASE ANSWER THE CALL & VOTE.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
WWG1WGA!
Q

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

https://qmap.pub/

THIS IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA

Q post #2436

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI6 Nov 2018 - 1:44:13 AM

The entire world is watching.
Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA.

[....]

This is more than party politics.
This is about restoring OLD GLORY.
This is about saving our land and our people from those who wish us harm.
This is about preserving our REPUBLIC.
This is about preserving our SAFETY.
This is about restoring our STRENGTH.
This is about LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
This is about PROTECTING our children.
THIS IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA.

Greenpeace says it's about saving the planet (from Trump and the Republicans):

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/11/05/eve-midterms-americans-urged-vote-planet-depends-it-because-it-does

Ellen