zantonavitch

Ron Paul has no gravitas or charisma. He doesn't look formidable or presidential at all. His campaign seems like a vanity run -- for his ego or resume. Maybe this is why he's at a pitiful 1%. A devil-worshipper could get better poll numbers! And that cry above for a wildly excessive $54,000 for a few months of office space is a disgrace. By the way, has he even once reached out to the libertarian community in his current campaign?

My vote for YouTube of the week. (Strictly rated 'R')

For a bit of perspective on how our world regards fairly small, fake crimes committed by whites against blacks, versus how people regard large, real crimes committed by blacks against whites check out Michelle Malkin.

The real guilty parties here, and the ones which deserve to suffer a lot, are the 300 million politically correct, multicultural Americans who almost all say -- or strongly suggest, via their slimy silence -- that white people are mostly racist, and black people are mostly their victims. The truth is the exact opposite. This elephant-in-the-room wild claim about noble, bigotry-free white people is what lets lies like those from Nifong and that black stripper easily triumph. America is awash in Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, and practically nobody breathes a word about it, including Objectivists. This repellant racist culture has even been strongly written into law ever since about 1965 via "Civil Rights," "affirmative action," "set-asides," etc. Mindless white guilt over nothing and groundless white self-hatred dominates America. It's all part and parcel of our current irrational, illiberal, Dark Age, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-white, anti-male world culture.

This is a bit of good news. It shows the current strength of the ideology of Western liberalism versus the ideology of Islam, at least in America. Still, the world of Islam is awash in stolen oil funds and tyranny. And the American-backed slave states of Iraq and Afghanistan don't help. I think the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia (our "ally," who always hurts us) and Iran (our "enemy," who we never attack) can and will richly fund and empower CAIR and similar organizations for a long, long time to come.

Such is the nature of evil. Monsterous and horrifying, yet ridiculous and silly. Hitler was thus. You don't understand evil if you don't understand both parts.

The head of the Hadith Department in Al-Azhar University, Dr. Izzat Atiyya, [on May 25, 2007] issued a controversial fatwa dealing with breastfeeding of adults. The fatwa stated that a woman who is required to work in private with a man not of her immediate family - a situation that is forbidden by Islamic law - can resolve the problem by breastfeeding the man, which, according to shari'a, turns him into a member of her immediate family... Dr. Izzat Atiyya explained his fatwa in an interview with Al-Watani Al-Yawm, the weekly of Egypt's ruling National Democratic Front party. He said: "The religious ruling that appears in the Prophet's conduct [sunna] confirms that breastfeeding allows a man and a woman to be together in private, even if they are not family and if the woman did not nurse the man in his infancy, before he was weaned - providing that their being together serves some purpose, religious or secular... "Being together in private means being in a room with the door closed, so that nobody can see them... A man and a woman who are not family members are not permitted [to do this], because it raises suspicions and doubts. A man and a woman who are alone together are not [necessarily] having sex, but this possibility exists, and breastfeeding provides a solution to this problem... I also insist that the breastfeeding relationship be officially documented in writing... The contract will state that this woman has suckled this man... After this, the woman may remove her hijab and expose her hair in the man's [presence]... Dr. Atiyya further explained that the breastfeeding does not necessarily have to be done by the woman herself. "The important point," he said, "is that the man and the woman must be related through breastfeeding. [This can also be achieved] by means of the man's mother or sister suckling the woman, or by means of the woman's mother or sister suckling the man, since [all of these solutions legally] turn them into brother and sister... "The logic behind [the concept] of breastfeeding an adult is to transform the bestial relationship between [two people] into a religious relationship based on [religious] duties... Since [this] breastfeeding takes place between [two] adults, the man is still permitted to marry the woman [who breastfed him], whereas [a woman] who nursed [a man] in his infancy is not permitted to marry him... "The adult must suckle directly from the [woman's] breast... [This according to a hadith attributed to Aisha, wife of the Prophet's Muhammad], which tells of Salem [the adopted son of Abu Hudheifa] who was breastfed by Abu-Hudheifa's wife when he was already a grown man with a beard, by the Prophet's order... Other methods, such as [transferring] the milk to a container, are [less desirable]... "[As for the possibility of using a breast-pump, which] increases the production of the milk glands... that is a matter for doctors and religious scholars who must determine if the milk [thus produced] is real milk, i.e., if its composition is identical to that of the [woman's] original milk. If it is, this method is permissible... Dr. Atiyya also said: "The fact that the hadith regarding the breastfeeding of an adult is inconceivable to the mind does not make it invalid. This is a reliable hadith, and rejecting it is tantamount to rejecting Allah's Messenger and questioning the Prophet's tradition." Link updated at 11:18 AM Eastern time: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA35507

According to Ibn Warraq -- world's foremost authority on Islam -- Muslims are worse than communists and Nazis. So everyone should openly hate them, just as everyone decent openly hates communists and Nazis. This doesn't mean killing them. This doesn't even mean violating their rights. That last paragraph is blazingly obvious. Even a retarded child can understand it. But if there's a single Objectivist anywhere on earth who comprehends, I'm unaware of their existence. There are essentially 3 kinds of Muslims in the world: 1) Jihadis -- who should be killed 2) Supporters of jihad -- who should be hated 3) Opponents of jihad -- who should be slapped This last suggestion is perhaps metaphorical or verbal. Group 3 "Muslims" -- maybe 5-10% of world population -- who reject jihad (war) and sharia (slavery) basically need to get a new religion. Or they need to explain themselves ten times louder and ten times longer than currently. And they need to morally condemn and openly revile their fellow Muslims in a whole new way and on a whole new level -- just as modern Christians do to medieval Christians. How hard, really, is any of this to comprehend? Ah, but I know the answer to that for Objectivists. Impossible.

Yes. But I'm really looking for George Bush, Tony Blair, or the head of the UN. Also the presidents and heads of the philosophy departments at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge. Also Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. Say it, or drop out, counter-productive surrender-monkeys! :nuke:

Chris: Michael Milken had what you have. If memory serves, he went on a radical regimen of virtually no fat and almost extreme exercise. He improved rapidly, and is still kicking 14 years later. Hang tough...

Point noted. Still-- I live for the day when someone prominent observes the above safe house and finally exclaims: "God damn it! These Muslims are absolute monsters. I really hate their guts. We should fuckin' kill the bastards!" No apologies, no qualifications. No PC, sanction-of-the-victim, appeasement, depravity about how "Not all..." An open statement of moral revulsion and visceral loathing toward the belief-system and its adherents which make Michael's pictures possible. It would change the world.

Wrong! All these "terrorists" -- as fatuous Westerners universally label them -- are jihadi suspects. Either they're guilty or they're not. Either they're Al Qaidists and jihadists or they're not. This last is determined by law and via trials. "Sympathy" or "niceness" is irrelevant and absurd. All these "terrorists" need to be savagely killed or else set free. Big difference.

Verminous religious nutjob Jerry Falwell saw what his fellow verminous religious nutjobs did on 9/11...and blamed it on the feminists and gays. :no: Guess he didn't own a mirror.

I forgot to add that this rather fascinating thinker was promoting his outstanding new book: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...79803&itm=1 The basic reference was to today's jihadis -- truly evil folk who mean him ill. P.S. I have no idea why I can't post proper links on OL any more. Nor why I misspelt "Christopher."

Michael: I appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your reply. But I would simply emphasize and amplify what I said before: This is a rich subject well worth thinking about. Current Objectivist theory in philosophy and psychology on the subject of enemies, hatred, revenge, etc. is, in my view, quite poor. And while I don't pretend I know everything about these subjects, I'm not sure how focused and coherent your reply is. Like everyone else, you seem a bit all over the place. Your arguments certainly seem to have several Christian elements in them -- which you and I have absorbed by osmosis -- but which I am very suspicious of. Still, maybe I can hazard a few general responses... Emotions like hatred and love aren't virtues or vices in themselves altho' they can indicate them if one hates and loves truly valueable and worthy things. I don't know that I'm advocating "seeking" hatred or "taking delight" in discovering bad guys, except that life is all about pain in some important senses. Humans forever "seek" or "take delight" in work. This means new jobs and new obstacles to overcome. Proper people, in my view, continually look out for new problems to solve and new enemies to defeat. Of course, from a different perspective there's never a need to look -- since pain, work, problems, and enemies come looking for you. :devil: And maybe -- brace yourself! -- you underestimate the value of defecation, urination, scratching, picking, sneezing, cleaning, combing, drinking, eating, medicating, massaging, etc. As the widest possible variety of intellectuals like to say: "Nothing human is alien to me." :devil: Some of the argument here isn't particularly fair. It implies I'm advocating "wallowing in hatred" and "emphasizing" hatred, "over long periods," at "extreme levels" etc. That isn't an accurate rendering of my claims, as anyone who reads above can see. Barbara Branden started down the right path with her speech on "Objectivist rage." But there's a long, long way to go here. Much more than people know, rage and hatred can be good. All those sloppy-idealism "Kumbaya" beliefs, and all those Jewish/Christian straw men arguments, and all that wildly inappropriate and misdirected Objectivist cultist rage and hatred doesn't change this. As Aristotle noted, anyone can be angry. But to be so at the right time and for the right reasons is hard. What Aristole failed to note -- because the evil of religion and altruism hadn't been invented yet -- is that anyone can be "superior" and decline to be enraged and hate-filled at enemies and evil-doers.

Earlier today on National Public Radio and the Leonard Lopate Show, Christofer Hitchens said: "I hate my enemies, and think the enemies of civilization should be killled." Clear, correct, honest, healthy, rational words from a dynamic, heroic, "new liberal" thinker.

Some of these animal rights extremists need to be legally declared a chimp.

Everyone assumes love is a universal good and hatred is a universal evil. They also assume hatred constitutes a personal failure and is a personal destroyer. Hatred "eats you up" supposedly. You're weak and defeated when you can't "rise above" this allegedly illegitimate emotion. All wrong, in my judgment. But even most Objectivists, as far as I can tell, fall for the religion-based, altruism-based rubbish above. Then they repress these "negative" emotions. Then the emotions control and warp them, but from a secret place. Now this is an example of being "eaten up" and having a personal failure/destoyer. Bingo! This subject is well worth thinking about, in my view. Off the top of my head, I would say sometimes hatred is the best response to evil and sometimes indifference is. There's only a limited amount of pleasure in attacking and defeating social evil. But there is some. And it's very sweet, in my view. It's also a pleasure for which there is absolutely no equivalent or substitute. Your life is significantly impoverished without this feeling and these experiences. James Bond, Jack Bawer, and superhero comic books don't cut it. You have to know this victory from real life. It's not as if today's world lacks for enemies and evil-doers that really need to be hurt.

You Tube seems to have the full show in 3 sections. Part 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BeB7OS-hL8

Michael: Where in the name of Galt did you get all those quotes in Post #24? :shocked:

Poetic justice. :devil:

Seemingly a great guy and genuine hero. But, as always, you have to wish to holy hell he was a private astronaut and cosmic explorer. Government ruins everything.

In case it isn't readily apparent, this brief article was inspired by another one I wrote about a month ago called Enemies and Evil-Doers. That piece considered various fundamental elements of the proper and best way to respond to bad guys. It essentially argued: Kick their ass energetically and laugh in their face while you do it. For me, this seems like common sense and simple logic. But the article, rather surprisingly, generated a lot of negative and anguished replies. People were all over the place -- but basically a lot seemed to say I wasn't considering the full picture. And indeed I wasn't. I thought that was clear. That first article mostly dealt with major aspects of how to deal with external enemies, and thus falls into the category of social morality. The article above mostly deals with major aspects of "the enemy within," and thus falls into the category of personal morality. I can only hope the above article answers most of the direct and indirect questions raised. I also think it's interesting to note that altho' I confined myself above to the topic of "good vs. evil," and didn't explicitly intend anything otherwise, nevertheless the above essay could also be seen as a not-all-that-contradictory, rational, liberal alternative to the rational, liberal ethics of Objectivism. Orthodox Objectivism claims that the key to happiness lies in the virtues of rationality, productivity, pride, honesty, justice, independence, and integrity. This is the Objectivist moral code. An alternative list of virtues, and recipe for happiness, posited by myself above, could be summarized as: 1) Aim for your own happiness -- your own pleasure and flourishing -- at all times. 2) Aim for rationality at all times. 3) Try to work hard -- the active essence of your life. 4) Try to work smart; don't just "put your nose to the grindstone," but also be clever and slick. 5) Be as honest as you can be; try to see yourself as you really are. 6) Be as brave as you can be -- especially in confronting your weaknesses and failures. 7) Leave plenty of time for Play, such as recreation, sports, and games. And for Fantasy, such as imaginative, heroic, and sexual; And for Rest, such as meditating, drifting, and feeling and enjoying. Which moral code and guide represents the best formula for fun and success? I think there's room for debate. But I don't think the seven cardinal virtues of standard Objectivism are necessarily the final answer. At the least, it still seems worth while to also consider the rational, liberal ethical systems of Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic, and various Enlightenment liberals.

In general, men like watching mindless churning sports events (and action-adventure movies) that don't ultimately go anywhere, while women like mindless churning soap operas and Harlequin romance novels that don't ultimately go anywhere. B) I wonder if AR liked soap operas?

The original article dealt primarily with my understanding of good vs. evil as a social phenomenon. For those interested in this issue as a personal phenomenon -- as an aspect of personal ethics -- they can go here. It should be obvious to all Objectivists that personal morality (how you deal with yourself) is more important than social morality (how you deal with others). Indeed, personal morality is the foundation of social morality. (Note from MSK: I corrected your link.)