Fake News

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Let's agree that media companies in the US are widely-held corporations, just like -- oh -- cereal companies, airlines, retailers.

Wolf,

You mean like Fox Entertainment Group?

Granted,  technically, 21st Century Fox is public, but it's still under the control of the Murdochs.

In general, however, we can agree on that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

31 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Let's agree that media companies in the US are widely-held corporations, just like -- oh -- cereal companies, airlines, retailers.

No. They are corporations that widely hold the media.

--Brant

they are big that way; the other way is of secondary importance

[Brant Gaede]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Wolf,

You mean like Fox Entertainment Group?

Granted,  technically, 21st Century Fox is public, but it's still under the control of the Murdochs.

In general, however, we can agree on that.

Michael

There is Murdoch numero uno.

There are Murdochs numero dos, but they are taking over from the old man.

The old man may get pissed off.

--Brant

and kick ass

[Wolf DeVoon]

I am not reasonable or rational about this. I hold Jews responsible for destroying America financially, politically, and culturally.

[Brant Gaede]

18 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I am not reasonable or rational about this. I hold Jews responsible for destroying America financially, politically, and culturally.

You self refute.

--Brant

you have my admiration for this first step out of irrationality respecting the Jews

if the world was only Jews some would be good and some would be bad but the IQ average would still be 100 not the 110 today for them

since I'm a lot smarter than the average Jew I might as well be a Jew--I'd have a lot more fun dancing around the camp fire singing "I have no tequila!" with them than with fellow but much dumber goys

if you fuck with the Jews you fuck with me (so talk, don't fuck)

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

since I'm a lot smarter

Good. Problem solved, I'm stupid. Explains everything.

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

. The last two times I called a number I got an Indian fellow

Oh my gracious golly gosh.

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Fascism is the base of all anti-freedom ideologies some of which devolve all the way down into communist or Nazi totalitarianisms. This includes socialism.

Fascism is political force. Classical Fascism a la Italy in the 1920s into the 40s is ideological off that base too.

In this most basic sense fascism hardly qualifies as an ideology. We can say this too about freedom. Fascism is nothing to do with freedom nor freedom with fascism.

If a government is justified through practical need then force must obtain to some extent. But if the government is dedicated to freedom--its establishment and maintenance (to moving toward freedom)--it transcends fascism through application of the political-rights philosophy of individualism. This is justified because fascism needs to be transcended for government is a natural happening of human social existence. There it is here; there is is there: here, there, everywhere. The sequence is family, tribe, government.

If you can find anarchy you'll merely find a family without a tribe or a tribe without a government. Or, to put it another way, governance, governance, governance. Anarchy and governance are not compatible. Anarchy is one alone in his truncated existence. He has no social existence.

There is only one philosophy of freedom and it's a combination of moral and political. There are a multiplicity of philosophies of everything else.

Fascism is wrong and freedom is right. To say fascism is "left" or "right" or both obscures the issues. But if you do accept Bob's statement as such you'll be stuck in non-freedom land and non-thinking-things-through-properly land--that's because freedom gets buried in the semantic superfluousness.

--Brant

It basically comes down to this:  There are collectivist modalities,  and individualist modalities.  It is still possible to classify, characterize and describe collectivist regimes.   In a sense collectivist regimes  settle around a kind of religion.  There are theocracies in which supernatural gods rule and mankind collectively serves the gods. Of course Selected Priests and Prophets  will direct matters according to the will of the gods and the good of all.  

Then there are collectivist regimes  that centralize around  race or culture.  The obvious example is Nazi Germany.  Blut (blood/race)  und  Volk  became the "gods"  of the Nazi regime and Hitler was the Chosen Leader  to direct subservience to race and state.  It was Deutschegemeinschaft,  a particularly German Collectivism. The ultimate goal was the recreation of the Aryan Race, a godlike group of humans  who by virtue of their supernatural excellence are destined to rule all. So the god of the Nazis was, in the final stage,  race.

Then there is socialism which pretends to be universal  and to represent the final stasis and resolution of the Class Struggle.  Comes the Revolution the Workers will be collectively supreme.  The Internationale  unites the Human Race!  Life  will be wonderful and we will all have sweet cream with our strawberries.  But Comrade!  I don't like sweet cream with my strawberries!   Comes the Revolution you  WILL like sweet cream with your strawberries!

Of the individualist modalities  there are two main exemplars.  There is the individualist society in which property and life are recognized as rights and being of the highest value.  Rand's idea capitalist society is of this stripe.  Then there is the anarchist society  in which there is no central power.  Each individual is a sovereign, but a rational sovereign  and individuals will voluntarily associate and cooperate so that each individual can realize his/her highest individual  good. Such a society cannot be egalitarian, but all will be equally regarded as sovereign, there being no one selected  leader or authority.  Anyone claiming this special status will be met by hostility and ridicule.  The others will say --- and what god  made YOU special?  Go away!

My guess is that a functioning anarchy is the least likely,  and any such attempt  will degenerate into Strong Man tyranny.  The politically most skillful person will organize and gang around him and do what bullies and tyrants have always done.

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

You believe the most peculiar things, seriously like a world record of oddity, as if terms have no fixed meaning for you.

The things that I find meaningful have the meanings I have determined for them.  If they do not agree with your meaning system, then so be it. 

I think for myself, and this gives me pleasure.  My  intelligence decrees,  this Right I must treasure  and all shall  see that thought is Free.

Die Gedanken sind frei!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

... destroying America financially, politically, and culturally.

My mileage varies by a lot.

When I use my eyes, I don't see America destroyed at all.

I see flourishing and growth all over the place. (Too many strip malls for my taste, but they are there.)

Hell, we even survived President Obama and elected President Trump to fix the mess he made.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Good. Problem solved, I'm stupid. Explains everything.

You're Jewish? Talk about ripping a quote out of its context.

A lot of Jews have above average Jewish brain power. A lot of goyim match up with them too.

Seriously, Wolfo, I don't get the impression you really read what I wrote. You seem to have read until you got pissed off and then stopped.

I think that happened because you wanted to have your irrationality and eat it too. You said you weren't rational about your Jew blaming.

Sin loi.

--Brant

no free passes on OL

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It basically comes down to this:  There are collectivist modalities,  and individualist modalities.  It is still possible to classify, characterize and describe collectivist regimes.   In a sense collectivist regimes  settle around a kind of religion.  There are theocracies in which supernatural gods rule and mankind collectively serves the gods. Of course Selected Priests and Prophets  will direct matters according to the will of the gods and the good of all.  

Then there are collectivist regimes  that centralize around  race or culture.  The obvious example is Nazi Germany.  Blut (blood/race)  und  Volk  became the "gods"  of the Nazi regime and Hitler was the Chosen Leader  to direct subservience to race and state.  It was Deutschegemeinschaft,  a particularly German Collectivism. The ultimate goal was the recreation of the Aryan Race, a godlike group of humans  who by virtue of their supernatural excellence are destined to rule all. So the god of the Nazis was, in the final stage,  race.

Then there is socialism which pretends to be universal  and to represent the final stasis and resolution of the Class Struggle.  Comes the Revolution the Workers will be collectively supreme.  The Internationale  unites the Human Race!  Life  will be wonderful and we will all have sweet cream with our strawberries.  But Comrade!  I don't like sweet cream with my strawberries!   Comes the Revolution you  WILL like sweet cream with your strawberries!

Of the individualist modalities  there are two main exemplars.  There is the individualist society in which property and life are recognized as rights and being of the highest value.  Rand's idea capitalist society is of this stripe.  Then there is the anarchist society  in which there is no central power.  Each individual is a sovereign, but a rational sovereign  and individuals will voluntarily associate and cooperate so that each individual can realize his/her highest individual  good. Such a society cannot be egalitarian, but all will be equally regarded as sovereign, there being no one selected  leader or authority.  Anyone claiming this special status will be met by hostility and ridicule.  The others will say --- and what god  made YOU special?  Go away!

My guess is that a functioning anarchy is the least likely,  and any such attempt  will degenerate into Strong Man tyranny.  The politically most skillful person will organize and gang around him and do what bullies and tyrants have always done.

A very, very good summing up.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I am not reasonable or rational about this. I hold Jews responsible for destroying America financially, politically, and culturally.

What did I do???? What did I do?????

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When I use my eyes, I don't see America destroyed at all.

In fact, I see countries like Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia, Libya and a few others as wrecked. I don't see the USA anywhere near the state of these places.

Michael

 

[Peter]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Oh my gracious golly gosh.

I know! What could be worse than their sing-song? A Jamaican!

[anthony]

I wonder if Wolf thinks Jews have any redeeming features?*

And, how 2.1% of a population can possibly control and/or bring down everybody else? (Yes, yes, I know how it supposedly works: the media, Hollywood, universities, etc.) Even assuming they have a mind to?

And, if he should not be more concerned with doings of the Progressive Left and New Socialists who by far outnumber the Progressive (predominantly secularist) Jews?

*(As I'm not an altruist or collectivist, I reject the presumption that a person, people or race have to justify to others 'their keep' and their existence with deeds and achievements for others' 'good'. But as many thousands of capable Jews, famous, lesser-known or anonymous, have been most influential and delivered innovations (etc. etc.) in many fields, it stands to reason that some would also have used their influence to negative effects).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is an item from 2014 where the current fake news process reached Ayn Rand. I have seen this article floating around Facebook for a few days, but finally Chris Sciabarra posted and linked to it. I was going to do a thing on it myself, but instead I commented on what Chris wrote. Here is the article and my comment. It's pretty self-explanatory.

One caveat, though. The Open Culture site rocks. It's a great site despite the article.

Now the fake news:

Ayn Rand Helped the FBI Identify It’s A Wonderful Life as Communist Propaganda

Now my comment. I'm not putting it in a quote box because I'm adding italics, etc. Facebook formatting does not allow that.

* * *

The 2014 Open Source article by Josh Jones has a couple of quotes that remind me of the fake news of today (like NYT, etc.) when they cite their sources in lines like "according to one source close to the issue who said he saw an email."  

Look how Josh Jones does the same thing:

"... in the FBI’s analysis—and possibly Rand’s, though it’s not clear how much, if any, of the report she authored directly—the tale of George Bailey manifested several subversive tendencies." 

"We cannot say for certain, but it’s reasonable to assume that many of these hidden FBI sources were associates of Rand."

That's just beautiful. It looks like this kind of garbage is now a fad.

And reasonable? I suppose a case could be made. But this is speculation at the most. From what I know of Rand's story with the FBI, she wanted to meet with J. Edgar Hoover, but he thought she was too unimportant. There's FBI documentation online about this. So would she be associated to "many of these hidden FBI sources" like Jones said? Like I said, it's speculation.

And as speculation, how on earth does that justify Jones's headline of the article presented as fact? Here's His headline: "Ayn Rand Helped the FBI Identify 'It’s A Wonderful Life' as Communist Propaganda".

She did, did she? 

How?

The article is pretty clear in its message. According to Jones, Rand didn't like films like Song of Russia due to the communist propaganda of portraying an idealized Soviet life in it and said so in the HUAC hearing. That, to him, means she didn't like It's a Wonderful Life because some source (whose name was redacted, but it was a "he" in the report, so it was not Rand) told the FBI he didn't like the film because communism blah blah blah. Even though Rand did not address It's a Wonderful Life, Jones thinks she should have for the same reasons as the unnamed FBI source so it's OK to pretend she did.

Jones said: "... for those like Rand and her followers, as well as J. Edgar Hoover and his paranoid underlings, no film it seems—no matter how celebratory of U.S. nationalist mythology—could go far enough in glorifying heroic capitalists, ignoring class conflict, and minimizing the struggles of 'the little man.'"

This is a perfect case of missing the point, especially about ideas. Rand wrote and meant what she wrote and meant, not what Jones wanted her to mean.

If we are to speculate, let me speculate on Josh Jones for a second. Imagine the surprise he would feel on reading the following from Rand in her Playboy interview and the logical pretzel he would have to come up with to keep pretending Rand's crusade was a knee-jerk against "the little guy" in movies because somehow she thought the image of little guys represented the core of communism.

Rand said: "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism ... I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naïve and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas."

Or her quote about the film Marty by Paddy Chayefsky in her essay, "Bootleg Romanticism." Rand wrote: "For example, consider one of the best works of modern naturalism—Paddy Chayefsky's 'Marty.' It is an extremely sensitive, perceptive, touching portrayal of an humble man's struggle for self-assertion."

I'm normally not one to "defend Ayn Rand's honor" and all that bloohooey that goes on in O-Land when disagreements are called "attacks against Rand" and so on. But this case is pretty insidious as misinformation and disinformation. It's a smear, plain and simple. In my mind, the technique of using anonymous sources couched to look like who they are not in order to attribute something to Rand that she did not do makes this article take a seat of honor among the fake news of today. It's a real beaut...

* * *

That's what I wrote. It occurs to me that Josh Jones published this too soon. Right now, it would be a perfect article for The New York Times.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

56 minutes ago, anthony said:

I wonder if Wolf thinks Jews have any redeeming features?*

And, how 2.1% of a population can possibly control and/or bring down everybody else? (Yes, yes, I know how it supposedly works: the media, Hollywood, universities, etc.) Even assuming they have a mind to?

And, if he should not be more concerned with doings of the Progressive Left and New Socialists who by far outnumber the Progressive (predominantly secularist) Jews?

*(As I'm not an altruist or collectivist, I reject the presumption that a person, people or race have to justify to others 'their keep' and their existence with deeds and achievements for others' 'good'. But as many thousands of capable Jews, famous, lesser-known or anonymous, have been most influential and delivered innovations (etc. etc.) in many fields, it stands to reason that some can also have used their influence to negative effects).

Jews are few in number.  Maybe 30 million in a world with a population of over 7.5 billion.   So any effect that Jews have had on the societies in which they dwell is not  by dint of number or by "muscular/physical"  means.  Jews have made the biggest "dent"  in the world  by virtue of their brain work.  This is both for good and for bad.  Jews have made a disproportional  contribution to science and mathematics.  Even allowing  for the bad effects of having nuclear weapons  this is primarily a good effect.  Some Jews have proposed political ends which are not all that good for humanity.  Out of a misplace Jews preoccupation with justice and injustice,  some Jews have promoted socialism and collectivism which, on balance, have had a bad effect on society.

Even some of the Jews who rejected the left,  the very persuasive neocons  have produced some political damage. The intellectual preeminence of Jews has two edges.  When Jewish, top of the line thinkers,  put their mental talents on the side of bad,  some very great damage occurs.  Other Jews such as Bernie Madoff,  a financial genius,  became corrupt and the worst sort of swindler.  He destroyed the preparations that many made for their old age. Bernie has wrought more harm  than a looney shooting a crowd.  Shame on him!  Why am I so annoyed with Bernie?  Because he knew better!!!!!!!!

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What did I do???? What did I do?????

You made it seem as if Wellington had lost the battle of Waterloo then turned around and bet big the other way and made a fortune.

It's been downhill for the Jews and the world they made ever since. Maybe it has something to do with entropy.

--Rant

[Brant Gaede]

8 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Jews are few in number.  Maybe 30 million in a world with a population of over 7.5 billion.   So any effect that Jews have had on the societies in which they dwell is not  by dint of number or by "muscular/physical"  means.  Jews have made the biggest "dent"  in the world  by virtue of their brain work.  This is both for good and for bad.  Jews have made a disproportional  contribution to science and mathematics.  Even allowing  for the bad effects of having nuclear weapons  this is primarily a good effect.  Some Jews have proposed political ends which are not all that good for humanity.  Out of a misplace Jews preoccupation with justice and injustice,  some Jews have promoted socialism and collectivism which, on balance, have had a bad effect on society.

Even some of the Jews who rejected the left,  the very persuasive neocons  have produced some political damage. The intellectual preeminence of Jews has two edges.  When Jewish, top of the line thinkers,  put their mental talents on the side of bad,  some very great damage occurs.  Other Jews such as Bernie Madoff,  a financial genius,  became corrupt and the worst sort of swindler.  He destroyed the preparations that many made for their old age. Bernie has wrought more harm  than a looney shooting a crowd.  Shame on him!  Why am I so annoyed with Bernie?  Because he knew better!!!!!!!!

Our Jews--USA and Israel--are better than--oh, wait, can't be German Jews!

--Brant

[anthony]

44 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Jews are few in number.  Maybe 30 million in a world with a population of over 7.5 billion.   So any effect that Jews have had on the societies in which they dwell is not  by dint of number or by "muscular/physical"  means.  Jews have made the biggest "dent"  in the world  by virtue of their brain work.  This is both for good and for bad.  Jews have made a disproportional  contribution to science and mathematics.  Even allowing  for the bad effects of having nuclear weapons  this is primarily a good effect.  Some Jews have proposed political ends which are not all that good for humanity.  Out of a misplace Jews preoccupation with justice and injustice,  some Jews have promoted socialism and collectivism which, on balance, have had a bad effect on society.

Even some of the Jews who rejected the left,  the very persuasive neocons  have produced some political damage. The intellectual preeminence of Jews has two edges.  When Jewish, top of the line thinkers,  put their mental talents on the side of bad,  some very great damage occurs.  Other Jews such as Bernie Madoff,  a financial genius,  became corrupt and the worst sort of swindler.  He destroyed the preparations that many made for their old age. Bernie has wrought more harm  than a looney shooting a crowd.  Shame on him!  Why am I so annoyed with Bernie?  Because he knew better!!!!!!!!

Fairly and well said. It is the tacit expectation of a standard of perfection (or else!) which is too often placed on Jews' shoulders. On no one else, is it. 

I feel there's always a back-handed compliment paid to Jews, by those who accuse them of conspiring to take over the secret functions of the world (originally, as Jew Capitalists - The Protocols - now as Lefties, or who knows what. You can't win). As if they could. As if they want to. As if, and you'll know, two Jews are ever in agreement long enough!

I agree with their - understandable, given their history - "preoccupation with justice", but which leads some Jews down suspect moral/political roads as arbiters upon Society. And now they're discovering that their obsession with social justice isn't being applied back to them by fellow Lefties.

[BaalChatzaf]

19 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Our Jews--USA and Israel--are better than--oh, wait, can't be German Jews!

--Brant

That reminds me of an early nuclear  age joke.  How was it that the U.S. beat the Germans to getting a working atomic  bomb even though the Germans started out 3 years earlier than the U.S. in that quest???  Answer:  Our Jewish physicists were better than their Jewish physicists. 

Which is barely a joke.  It turns out that in the early days,  utilizing nuclear fission was a Jewish cottage industry.  Otto Han the the German chemist was the first to detect  the decomposition of a uranium atom into atoms of different elements.  In short Otto Han was the first to produce nuclear fission in a controlled laboratory experiment.  But it took Lisa Meitner,  a Jewish associated of Hahn who was forced to flee Nazi Germany  to realize that this  fission would produce a vast amount of energy. (E = mc^2)  Then it was Leo Szilard,  a Jungarian Hew  (reference to a Jose Jimenez, Bill Dana joke),  to figure out  how to use a slow neutron chain reactor to get weapons grade energy out of U-235.  It was also Szilard who convinced Einstein to send a letter to FDR to warn FDR that the Germans might be working on an atom bomb.  This was enough to trigger off the Manhattan Project.  The rest is history. 

[jts]

13 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I am not reasonable or rational about this. I hold Jews responsible for destroying America financially, politically, and culturally.

Not Jews. Muslims. Not only America, the world.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

32 minutes ago, jts said:

Not Jews. Muslims. Not only America, the world.

 

If you got immunization against polio,  I -demand- you give it back.  It was invented by two Jews,  Salk and Sabin. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Other Jews such as Bernie Madoff,  a financial genius,  became corrupt and the worst sort of swindler.  He destroyed the preparations that many made for their old age. Bernie has wrought more harm  than a looney shooting a crowd.  Shame on him!  Why am I so annoyed with Bernie?  Because he knew better!!!!!!!!

Bob,

Did you lose money with Bernie?

Michael