Recommended Posts

Thanks Michael. Hope you are well. The Donald sure draws real, not paid for, crowds. Lets hope that translates into votes. -Joe

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4640

  • Peter

    1447

  • Jon Letendre

    1319

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

George Papadopoulos

 

I repeat:James Clapper is currently in Australia colluding with their government to cover both his and Alexander Downer’s involvement in the most profound, and illegal, spying operation against an American and the presidential campaign he worked for in history. Bad look Australia
 
 
I don’t believe in partisan politics. I believe in the truth. Lots to come. Thank you and for the honor to come testify before Congress.
 
Can’t discuss my testimony, but after today’s hearing, this scandal is much worse than anyone can imagine.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Live from Murphysboro, Illinois!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the falsehood ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Election day in Brazil.

On 9/28/2018 at 5:21 PM, william.scherk said:
On 9/7/2018 at 2:24 PM, william.scherk said:

Brazil has what we could call "colourful" politics, along with an index of corruption that can appear foreign to Canadians and Americans. 

From an story at O Globo, a part of one of Brazil's giant fake news conglomerates: 'Não aceito resultado diferente da minha eleição', diz Bolsonaro

 

eleicoesBrasil.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump said he was a nationalist. I wonder what Ayn Rand would say about that? Would she be a critical nitpicker about that imprecise word or would she precisely say, “I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world . . . . Since the golden age of Greece, there has been only one era of reason in twenty-three centuries of Western philosophy. During the final decades of that era, the United States of America was created as an independent nation. This is the key to the country—to its nature, its development, and its uniqueness: the United States is the nation of the Enlightenment.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter said:

Trump said he was a nationalist. I wonder what Ayn Rand would say about that? Would she be a critical nitpicker about that imprecise word or would she precisely say, “I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world . . . . Since the golden age of Greece, there has been only one era of reason in twenty-three centuries of Western philosophy. During the final decades of that era, the United States of America was created as an independent nation. This is the key to the country—to its nature, its development, and its uniqueness: the United States is the nation of the Enlightenment.”

 

 

Its a tough call. The better Ayn would recognize the essentials, and cheer Trump's love of the idea of America. She'd also see the sneering of the left and it's press, the blatant lies and intentional mischaracterization, and admire the idea of one man having the balls to stand up to it, and to even taunt and mock them. She'd love that. But, then again, there was always the possibility of bitchy nitpick Rand, looking down her nose at some minor, irrelevant infraction that was more personal taste and aesthetic preference than objective evaluation. Tough call.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Its a tough call. The better Ayn would recognize the essentials, and cheer Trump's love of the idea of America. She'd also see the sneering of the left and it's press, the blatant lies and intentional mischaracterization, and admire the idea of one man having the balls to stand up to it, and to even taunt and mock them. She'd love that. But, then again, there was always the possibility of bitchy nitpick Rand, looking down her nose at some minor, irrelevant infraction that was more personal taste and aesthetic preference than objective evaluation. Tough call.

 

I was wisely informed that I quoted Peikoff by mistake in the second half of my quote. Sorry to all. I cut and pasted it from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, so I consider it a dumb mistake on somebody’s part.

And I was also informed that both quotes do not precisely display the definition of “nationalism.” Now that I look at them again I would conclude they exemplify love of country or patriotism and even a philosophical parsing of what Americans deeply “consist of or are.” Sorry again. But Rand also discussed America flexing her muscles and even nuking communist Russia . . . . but let’s not argue about it, wink wink. Peter

Leonardo, not Ayn wrote, “. . . Since the golden age of Greece, there has been only one era of reason in twenty-three centuries of Western philosophy. During the final decades of that era, the United States of America was created as an independent nation. This is the key to the country—to its nature, its development, and its uniqueness: the United States is the nation of the Enlightenment.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Peter said:

I was wisely informed that I quoted Peikoff by mistake...

 

Lenny is just about as unpredictable as Rand. Not quite, but almost. He's usually more predictable because at some point he figured out what most of Rand's followers do, which is that it's safer to piss on something than to praise it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

And I was also informed that both quotes do not precisely display the definition of “nationalism.”

Peter,

To whoever wisely informed you of that, I say, "Horseshit."

Open any dictionary on the market anywhere in the world and almost 100% of the words will have more than one definition. Dictionaries do this to try to make room for context.

When I see someone pegging a word to one definition only for all contexts, especially when that is NOT what most people think when they use that word, and castigating and correcting everybody about it (while wagging a self-righteous finger in their direction), l see someone who is not interested in the idea, but interested in propaganda.

And I only see wisdom in propaganda for power-lusters. For people who think critically, I can't think of a single good reason to turn off their brains when faced with a political agenda. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 4:57 AM, Peter said:

Trump said he was a nationalist. I wonder what Ayn Rand would say about that? Would she be a critical nitpicker about that imprecise word or would she precisely say, “I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world . . . . Since the golden age of Greece, there has been only one era of reason in twenty-three centuries of Western philosophy. During the final decades of that era, the United States of America was created as an independent nation. This is the key to the country—to its nature, its development, and its uniqueness: the United States is the nation of the Enlightenment.”

 

 

How did nationalism gain such a bad rep? Well, there were the Nazis, "National Socialists" (as is amusing reminding any socialists.)

There seems an ambivalent, contextual complexity about nationalism, reflected in this Wiki article. The first sentences cast nationalism in a most positive light by Objectivist standards - so on the basics what's wrong with it? All things to all people in different times, perhaps. Help, Ghs!

Nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
Jump to navigationJump to search
Not to be confused with Patriotism.
This article is about the ideology. For other uses, see Nationalist (disambiguation).
"National unity" redirects here. It is not to be confused with National unity government or Unionism.
 
Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty(self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern itself, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production.[3]


Historically, nationalism is a modern concept dating from the 18th century, of an ideological scope greater than a peoples' attachment to family, to local authority, and to the native land.[4]Politically and sociologically, there are three paradigms for understanding the origins and bases of nationalism. The first paradigm is primordialism (perennialism), which proposes nationalism as a natural phenomenon, that nations have always existed. The second paradigm is ethnosymbolism, a complex, historical perspective, which explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon imbued with historical meaning, by way of the nation's subjective ties to national symbols. The third paradigm is modernism, which proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that requires the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[5]Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty(self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern itself, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production.[3]

There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[6]The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[7] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[7]This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[7] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[8][9][10][11]

In practice nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual perspective. Nationalism has been an important driver in independence movements around the world, such as the Greek Revolution, the Zionist movement that created modern Israel, and theIrish Revolution. It also was a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany, and the establishment of the Confederate States of America whose stated objective was the preservation of white supremacy. More recently, nationalism became an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia. Nationalist economic policies have also been cited as causes for the Opium Wars between the British Empire and the Qing dynasty, and for the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine there's no countries/it isn't hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion, too/Imagine all the people/living life in peace.

You may say I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one/I hope someday you'll join us/and the world will be as one.

Great song by John. But I don't believe he understood human minds. "No countries", "no religion" and 'the world as one' - i.e. globalism - will not forever end conflict, as the dreamers imagine.

Also not until nearly all countries recognize individual rights can there be a free movement of peoples. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, anthony said:

Imagine there's no countries/it isn't hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion, too/Imagine all the people/living life in peace.

You may say I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one/I hope someday you'll join us/and the world will be as one.

Great song by John. But I don't believe he understood human minds. "No countries", "no religion" and 'the world as one' - i.e. globalism - will not forever end conflict, as the dreamers imagine.

Also not until nearly all countries recognize individual rights can there be a free movement of peoples. 

Other countries can do as they please--and they will. This country can only set an example. More than that exceeds any moral mandate.

There can never be a free movement of peoples and sovereign nations.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, anthony said:

Imagine there's no countries/it isn't hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion, too/Imagine all the people/living life in peace.

You may say I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one/I hope someday you'll join us/and the world will be as one.

Great song by John. But I don't believe he understood human minds. "No countries", "no religion" and 'the world as one' - i.e. globalism - will not forever end conflict, as the dreamers imagine.

Also not until nearly all countries recognize individual rights can there be a free movement of peoples. 

Thanks to Tony for the better definition of nationalism.

Michael wrote: To whoever wisely informed you of that, I say, "Horseshit." end quote

Gulp. I would not use that language in front of him or her! It was a surprising personal response, so I won’t say who it was.

I think President Trump was talking about American history and what America stands for much like Rand and Peikoff; as well as our status, globally. He was not expressing jingoism which implies saber rattling if not the actual use of a nation’s military. So, in those two quotes were Rand and P. expressing a sense of national consciousness? Not really. It was personal and intellectual.

Were President Trump, Rand and Peikoff “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations”? Of course! So in that sense, I too, am a nationalist. USA! USA! Peter

The not as good definition from “Merriam Webster,” condensed for brevity. Nationalism . . . . 1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups . . . .  

2: a nationalist movement or government opposing nationalisms

The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism: Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness. end quotes 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rand ever called herself a nationalist she'd have explained exactly what she meant by that.

Nationalism was big in this country prior to WWII and was anti-war, America First. Pearl Harbor busted it right in the chops. There was also a lot of anti-Semitism even pro-German sentiment associated with it.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Peter said:

Michael wrote: To whoever wisely informed you of that, I say, "Horseshit." end quote

Gulp. I would not use that language in front of him or her! It was a surprising personal response, so I won’t say who it was.

I think President Trump was talking about American history and what America stands for much like Rand and Peikoff; as well as our status, globally. He was not expressing jingoism which implies saber rattling if not the actual use of a nation’s military. So, in those two quotes were Rand and P. expressing a sense of national consciousness? Not really. It was personal and intellectual.

Peter,

Horseshit smells just as bad everywhere no matter whose horse it comes from.

:) 

The reason I react like this is there is a silly little game being played in the media to attribute nationalism ONLY to Hitler, Mussolini and the like--then claim this is what President Trump means, always, everywhere, forever and ever amen, in all contexts and this is what is deep in his heart as he is dog-whistling to the KKK..

It's horseshit.

:) 

That's not what Trump means. He means he is not a one-world-government globalist. He believes in individual sovereign nations who govern themselves and make treaties between each other, not some higher government power run by elitist ruling class crony jerks.

The friggin' elitists keep trying to propagandize everything, especially when they know they are lying. And they need to be called on it. Otherwise their message seeps into the consciousness of normal good people through sheer repetition.

I don't mind so much when anyone bashes President Trump for something he stands for, but for crony elitist idiots to make up shit, intimidate everyone using a PC language bludgeon over their made up shit, then bash Trump for it is garbage.

It's horseshit.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go further.

The premise behind the people who are fervently against the word "nationalism" is that Nazi Germany and the USA are morally equivalent. So we have to ban the word nationalism to reshape the USA into a globalist image, thus save it before it becomes Vietnam-War-era Cambodia.

They are not morally equivalent. (Can anyone seriously imagine Ayn Rand accepting this premise? Heh...)

They never were morally equivalent and they never will be.

I suggest the haters of the term nationalism as President Trump uses it do a little moral hygiene cleanup in their own souls before they preach to the rest of us with finger-wagging and try to mind-control people.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

(A refresher for me of the elegantly, hierarchical system you have).

DEM-CONTROLLED HOUSE  By Walter Williams

Published Oct. 31, 2018

 

    

Democrats are hoping the coming election will give them a majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans and much of our nation dread that prospect. My question is: What would a House majority mean for the Democrats? Let's look at it.

To control the House of Representatives, Democrats must win at least 218 seats, which many predict as being likely. To control the Senate, Democrats must win enough seats to get to 51, which many predict is unlikely. Let's say the Democrats do take the House. If they were to pass a measure that Republicans in both houses didn't like and President Donald Trump didn't like, either, he could use his veto pen.

To override Trump's veto, Democrats would need to meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that they muster a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives (290 votes) and a two-thirds vote in the Senate (67 votes). Neither would be likely.

It's quite a challenge to override a presidential veto. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the veto king, with 635 vetoes. Only nine of them were overridden. President Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 congressional measures and was overridden only seven times. If the House Democrats were to do all that they promise to do and if President Trump were to marshal the guts of Presidents Roosevelt and Cleveland — both Democrats, I might add — the next two years would be a sight to behold.

 

But wait! Democrats are pushing for the elimination of the Electoral College and having presidents chosen by majority rule. Might they call for the same for all political decisions? That way, it would require only a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds, to override a presidential veto.

The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for majority rule. They saw it as a form of tyranny. In addition to requiring a supermajority to override a presidential veto, our Constitution has other anti-majority provisions. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to vote for it.

On top of that, it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Election of the president is done not by a majority popular vote, much to the disappointment of the left, but by the Electoral College.

Having two houses of Congress places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. As mentioned earlier, our Constitution gives the president veto power to thwart the wishes of a majority in each house of Congress. It takes two-thirds in each house of Congress to override the president's veto.

 

The Founders recognized that we need government; however, they also recognized that the essence of government is force and that force is evil. To reduce the potential for evil, they thought government should be as small as possible. They intended for us to have a limited republican form of government wherein human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Ordinary citizens and government officials are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud; it does not intervene in cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

For those Americans who see majority rule as sacrosanct, ask yourselves how many of your life choices you would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process? What about decisions as to where you live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink? I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these decisions should be subject to a democratic process wherein majority rules, we would deem the person tyrannical.

James Madison wrote, "Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

 

Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, anthony said:

Published Oct. 31, 2018

Where? 

Here: https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/10/18/democratic-controlled-house

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Peter said:

I was wisely informed that I quoted Peikoff by mistake in the second half of my quote. Sorry to all. I cut and pasted it from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, so I consider it a dumb mistake on somebody’s part.

 

 

And I was also informed that both quotes do not precisely display the definition of “nationalism.” Now that I look at them again I would conclude they exemplify love of country or patriotism and even a philosophical parsing of what Americans deeply “consist of or are.” Sorry again. But Rand also discussed America flexing her muscles and even nuking communist Russia . . . . but let’s not argue about it, wink wink. Peter

 

 

Leonardo, not Ayn wrote, “. . . Since the golden age of Greece, there has been only one era of reason in twenty-three centuries of Western philosophy. During the final decades of that era, the United States of America was created as an independent nation. This is the key to the country—to its nature, its development, and its uniqueness: the United States is the nation of the Enlightenment.”

 

 

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

  • Like 1
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