zantonavitch

That guy evidently has the heart of ten lions. And a ton of mental control too.

You think this is crazy? Take a look at whack-a-doodle lunacy on the grand scale: http://harddawn.com/leonard-nimoy-seize-control-of-illuminati

You will never defeat an enemy you are too scared to name.

Exactly. Too scared and too philosophically ignorant to correctly name. The enemy is Muslims. Especially the activists and jihadis. Most of these "terrorists" don't engage in much terrorism. They engage in soldiering and military service, like with ISIS. To call the fighters "radicals" or "fundamentalists" or "militants" grants a huge moral sanction to our evil enemy: the Muslims.

The New Yorker magazine (Nov. 19, 2012) hopefully states that: "In high school, Ted became involved with a group known as the Free Market Education Foundation, which introduced him to the writings of conservative economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat, and Ludwig von Mises." Cruz is also a friend of the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Tea Party. And he once called Ayn Rand "one of my all time heroes."

Republican, Texan, Hispanic, 44-year-old, two-year, Senator Ted Cruz announced he was running for President of the United States yesterday at the private, selective, Christian school of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

I think Ted Cruz is super-intelligent, very ambitious, mostly principled, and rather crazy. He's a quasi-libertarian in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, but also a religious nut in the tradition of Sarah Palin. He advocates "a simple flat tax" so that we can "fill out [our] taxes on a postcard," and is committed to "repealing every word of ObamaCare." He wants to protect gun rights and promote private school vouchers. But he's opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

Cruz thinks America -- historically and currently -- is "great," "indispensable," and "a shining city on a hill." He rejects Obama's largely-successful attempt to "fundamentally transform America" into a nanny state and Big Brother of do-gooder fascism and socialism. He attacks Obama's recent immigration amnesty for 4-5 million illegal aliens as "lawless" and "unconstitutional."

Unfortunately he foolishly thinks "our rights don't come from man. They come from god almighty." Cruz says he wants to "protect us from radical Islamic terrorism" and to "call it by its name." But its name is "Islamic activism" or "jihadism."

Overall Ted Cruz seems relatively good, but Republican, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul seems better.

speech transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/23/ted-cruz-announces-presidentia

speech video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?324979-1/ted-cruz-presidential-campaign-announcement

Can you know there are no vampires, witches, and ghosts? Not absolutely. But all the serious and sound evidence indicates there are no such things. It's scientific and logical to conclude that "god" is 100% fiction, as are the three creatures above.

I marvel anew at the stupidity and depravity of the religious and traitorous pseudo-Objectivists: http://peterschwartz.com/snowden-and-the-nsa/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-to-return-us-115697.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3TL1EXcAd

Snowden is innocent of any crime. During all his many private investigations, evidence-gathering, and publicizing of gov't tyranny, he emphatically lacked criminal intent. Indeed, he was desperately trying to obey "the law of the land" i.e. the US Constitution. He was desperately trying to get others to do so as well, including the heads of the White House, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. But all his good efforts failed. He was unendingly told by every supervisor in gov't to "Mind your own business," and "Shut up, and do as you're told." So he had to become a whistle-blower and dissident in order to expose all that unprecedented and stunning spying and Big Brotherism. What else was he supposed to do? In he receives anything like a fair trial he will be found innocent. As for the the heads of the White House, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. -- they're guilty as hell! They're criminals and tyrants almost to infinity. They're the opposite side of the same evil coin as ISIS.

Private property rights and freedom of association guarantees the right of group or gov't succession. Indeed, even the individual may secede from a given gov't at will.

People who believe in god, or who pretend to, have done terribly evil things since Day One. Same thing if you openly or secretly think Ayn Rand is a type of god.

What terrible things has Isaac Newton done from Day One?

People who believe in "god" inevitably seek to dement the minds and blacken the souls of innocent, defenseless children, as well as to slaughter the non-believers. Thru verbal support and passivity in action, I imagine he had a lifetime role in those.

Objectivism in action is driving people away from Objectivism leaving behind the dregs on dreg Internet sites. This has been going on since the 1960s. The primary responsibility belonged to Branden-Rand then Rand then Peikoff with Harry Binswanger making noise from the sidelines.

The roots of Randroidism and cultism belong to Ayn Rand herself. She and Nathaniel Branden got it started. Rand unjustly excommunicated many good people who were truly loyal to her personally and intellectually. But they showed occasional loyalty to their own individuality, ideas, and happiness. Thus as a partial non-zombie they were summarily tossed out. This still happens at ObjectivsmOnLine.Net and 4AynRand fans.com. Banning and censorship is very normal in the ARI/religioso part of the world.

Michael -- I'm understated everywhere, compared to what I really think, and want to say.

People who believe in god, or who pretend to, have done terribly evil things since Day One. Same thing if you openly or secretly think Ayn Rand is a type of god.

Michael -- I self-censor as much as possible over there. But at some point my idea gets lost -- the question or comment becomes so anodyne as to become meaningless. So I have to give at least a hint of what I mean, or why participate? But the pretenders, insects, monsters, and vermin over there relentlessly censor anyone or anything good. Even the tiniest hint of truth, virtue, or authentic Objectivism sets off their cultist alarm bells. So they "moderate" me right away. 4AynRandFans is even worse. Any real live Howard Roark, Francisco d'Anconia, or thirty-year-old Ayn Rand would hate their guts and refuse to participate.

More Objectivist nanny lunacy at OO:

A few of the anonymous moderators over there have been having fits again recently about my participation. One moderator, "softwareNerd," posted his opinion that "libertarianism does not have much of an underlying philosophy." I asked him which works by which libertarian philosophers he has read, and my doing so apparently really pissed off members of the anonymous moderating team.

I was told that my post was "not on topic," and therefore in violation of the forum rules. Your read that right: after a moderator brought up the topic of libertarianism not having much of an underlying philosophy, I was publicly warned of having strayed off topic when I responded to a topic of his choosing which received no such warning!

It gets better. In discussing the issue further, I received warnings, from "SapereAude," a moderator who was participating in the discussion with me, that she would not tolerate my further breaking of the forum's rules.

Her judgment of my participation seemed to be quite emotional, irrational and exaggerated. She seemed to be taking everything too personally and as an "attack." So I politely suggested that I thought it would be a good policy at OO that moderators should not be acting as moderators on threads on which they are participating. They shouldn't have the power to delete discussion opponents' posts, but that such actions should be left up to neutral moderators.

She responded by saying, publicly, "I do not take moderator action when I am personally engaged in an argument."

She then proceeded to immediately remove my next post from the thread! She removed it so quickly that I thought it was a software glitch and I reposted it, only to have her remove it again just as quickly. She removed both so quickly that she could not possibly have had time to read the post in its entirety and comprehend and weigh the arguments and evidence that I had provided (in my post, I provided a link to this OL thread -- the one that you're currently reading -- as a typical documented example of how my posts have been removed by moderators at OO despite their not containing anything offensive, insulting, impolite or untrue, and despite the fact that they accurately present and defend Rand's views).

Then she sent me a private message in which she tried to rationalize her action and claim that it didn't technically count as her taking a moderator action on a thread on which she was participating! She explained that she only removed my post from the thread, but that she didn't delete it. It still existed, somewhere, and she would leave the decision to delete it to another moderator! She believed that her moderator action of merely "removing" my post didn't qualify as a moderator action!

When I pointed out the dishonesty and faking of reality of her position, she stated that she was tired of listening to my crazy talk.

Remember that we're talking about a person who professes to believe in and practice Objectivism, a philosophy which focuses on honesty, adherence to reality, etc.

This is the current and future face of Objectivist activism.

J

They've banned me to death over there. Their main technique -- since I'm relentlessly polite, thoughtful, and understated -- is to avoid an honest ban, and merely "moderate" all of my posts. They maliciously make me wait many days or even weeks before allowing something thru. And once under "moderation" -- by censors with only the tiniest amount of my intelligence, knowledge, virtue, spirit, human quality, and loyalty to Objectivism -- only the most innocuous and brief of my posts pass muster. Maybe 20%. But it's beyond hopeless to try to "reason" with them, or to waste time documenting what Jonathan correctly calls their "lunacy".

Religion provides current comfort and solace regarding the sacred Individual's knowledge of his eventual oblivion.

Religion was invented because no-one wants to die. Monotheism solves an otherwise unsolvable problem of super-massive import. When reason was invented in 600 BC, life became remarkably good and great -- amazingly sweet and pleasurable for the rational. Death, in turn, became unusually painful and awful. So man created "god" in order to live forever.

Ever since the classical Greeks, people have massively pretended to be ignorant about the impact of monotheism upon the education, liberty, happiness, and progress of mankind. But religion seems to be at the heart and root of every evil on earth, today and always. Even the atheistic communists. Certainly the Randroids.

People take leave of their senses and rationality, as well as their decency and morality, by turning to some charismatic prophet or commanding guru. When reason, philosophy, and science first started to go bad, 2550 years ago, the bad guys converted to Pythagoreanism and the Eleusinian mysteries. These seem to be the genesis of every cult -- from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and ISIS to Leonard Peikoff and ARI.

I must confess I had the urge to kill ALL of these bastards. Not some. All.

My urge is that of killing every single person on the planet who believes in "god", or who ever says a single word of good about religion. All theists seem complicit and semi-responsible for this horror. They are the de facto allies and supporters of this true sacrilege and rawest of evils.

...Peikoff doesn't deserve this making it crap.

Hasn't Peikoff damaged the hell out of the Objectivist Movement by treating the philosophy as a religion and promoting cultism? Haven't all his excommunications and rewritings of history hurt the spirit of the private adherents, and made Objectivism a type of public laughing stock? Hasn't Peikoff and his allies slowed the progress of man via not allowing this vivid philosophical alternative to monotheistic-based right-wing conservatism and collectivist-based left-wing progressivism to show itself in a more normal, healthy, appealing, charming light? How does Peikoff not deserve this short story?

There's no substitute for professionalism. Isn't Objectivism the philosophy that highly values competence?

Barack Obama is fundamentally anti-American. It's as simple as that. He rejects and despises America's basic philosophy and culture. Obama's a European socialist at heart. Or a traditional dictator. Like Robert Mugabe.

Half of this story is copied from Edgar Allan Poe. The rest is updated to today and modern Objectivism. Like Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness (1899) adapted to Francis Ford Coppola's film Apocalypse Now (1979).

An interesting short story I just ran across. God knows who wrote it or why: http://leonardpeikoff.tumblr.com/

I experience the Golden Rule from the other side...

...in that the world treats me as decent as I am.

So whenever I have a complaint about how I'm treated by the world,

it only means that I haven't yet discovered how I gave it my permission.

Kyrel, I took a look at some of the excerpts from your book and this caught my attention.

"A thing is itself, is equal to itself, is the same as its definition... "

As I see it, love is not the same as a word that defines it... but is rather a direct personal inner experience of the reality of its existence.

Altho' your approach is generous, individualistic, and self-empowering, I don't think it's always true. For example, I don't think you gave the world permission to inflict its welfare state upon you.

Even tho' you have to have an insightful and clever definition at times, I think the verbal/intellectual and physical/material worlds ideally match up, one-to-one. So the feeling of love and its definition are the same, at least intellectually.

Thanks for checking out my radical new book, Greg! Maybe post a review or analysis of it sometime. I'm always looking to improve and correct my arguments!