zantonavitch

I don't think I exactly meld liberalism with Objectivism. I claim Objectivism is a species or type or category of Western liberalism. So too is the philosophy of Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic, Cicero, Lucretius, Horace, Locke, Smith, Voltaire, Jefferson, Mills, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. All adhere to a philosophy based on (in very simplified terms) epistemology of reason, ethics of individualism, and politics of freedom. Western Civilization has become considerably more liberal over time. But even Ayn Rand doesn't qualify as a pure liberal. She wasn't very reasonable when it came to evolution, relativity, the Big Bang, etc., and didn't allow her friends and intellectual allies to be very individualistic.

Treat others as you wish them to treat you, including with respect, courtesy, empathy, friendliness, non-criminality, and non-tyranny. This applies to low-life mass men and high-quality noble souls.

Libertarian and satirist P.J. O'Rourke defends Brian Williams: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/14/in-defense-of-brian-williams-take-it-from-me-all-war-correspondent-stories-get-bigger-with-time-and-drinks.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

Here's a different take on objective truth in news reporting. Some people think America is being crushed in the current Information and Propaganda Wars with Russia and China: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/09/how-russia-revolutionizing-information-warfare/93635/

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

News reporting, if possible, should aim at the complete and utter truth. And the truth is objective and absolute. It isn't relative and subjective. And it's certainly not a matter of dogma and faith, nor authority and tradition. Unfortunately, intelligence and insight aren't allowed today in news reporting. Weasel words and phraseology predominate. Perceptivity and ingenious comprehension are forbidden; they're regarded as bias, prejudice, disbalance, and mere opinion. I noticed this non-judgmental, amoral, "fair and balanced," ping-pong, insipid, obscure, infuriating writing-style in my late teens. The reporter generally knows the truth, or at least a lot more of it than he lets on. But he's militantly, and on principle, not telling. Glenn Greenwald notes this too in his new book No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the USA (December 2014). He isn't very philosophical or conceptual about it, so his counter-attack is somewhat weak. Still, his observations are helpful and poignant:

Pat Condell isn't an Objectivist or libertarian -- but he is a ferocious Western liberal warrior!

I hope to hell The Atlas Society makes a high-quality video of this event. It would be a crime not to.

Self-deception is remarkably easy and common in The Game of Life. I think Brian Williams probably just fooled himself. And/or he just exaggerated a bit, in the standard and almost-respectable war story tradition. People routinely tell themselves narratives. It's how they make sense of the world, and keep everything mentally organized. Sometimes these step-by-step tapestries go wrong, and gradually delve off into the realm of rather high fiction. Both when I used to sell cars for a living, and when I used to avidly study and discuss history, I would sometimes come up against issues which I didn't fully understand; but I had to say something, and so I did. Over time, when facing the same challenge, these stories and explanations became much more plausible and persuasive -- and sometimes less true. I remember once hearing some true explanation of how cars actually worked mechanically and being simply amazed at how far I had got it wrong. Similarly I occasionally read some ingenious new historian and he gives me new insights, and angles toward truth, which just shock me. My previous self-explanations and narratives -- which I actually fully believed, and which lived quite vibrantly in my mind -- prove to be massively incorrect. I don't think these types of stories and narratives constitute lying in any clear and definite sense. The current treatment and mockery of Brian Williams seems hugely unjust.

Another day, another Islamic atrocity. And another blizzard of traitorous statements from appeasers and enablers of raw evil -- from apologists for, and defenders of, Islam. These treasonous vermin say that the perpetrators of this horror are not Muslims, but rather Islamic "radicals" or "extremists" -- or even "perverters" or "hijackers" of Islam. Thus, for the umteenth time, the Islamic activists who committed this monstrosity supposedly are not Muslims. Anyone who publicly claims such a thing is a "useful idiot", and secret ally of Islam, who has an ocean of blood on his hands. http://www.thedailybeast.com/…/isis-burns-jordanian-pilot-a…

I heard this guy being interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio show the other day. He sounded like a hack, simpleton, and sleazy con-artist. Very inferior in mind and spirit to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Deanna -- This is hardly the first time, in the past 20 years, I've run across some ultra-successful singer on a popular t'v' show which I've never even heard of. I read Rolling Stone like it's a foreign publication. I remember back about 15 years ago checking out the old-time t'v' ratings and observing that nothing in the Top Twenty seemed any good, and that of the bottom 8 of about 112 network shows maybe five were my favorites. Talk about being out of touch with the current zeitgeist! And now even those are gone. I agree that Blake Shelton's voice is mediocre. So who are the great country-and-western singers of today which might appeal to an Objectivist?

For true liberals -- true champions of reason, individualism, and freedom -- defeating the Muslims is ultra-easy. You loudly, proudly, and publicly intellectually refute and morally condemn their ridiculous and depraved philosophy. You flood their nations with t'v', radio, internet, and newspaper propaganda. You terminate all of theirs. All the while you tell the pure truth. If the dictatorships try to jam the philosophy of liberalism broadcasts, you instantly destroy the hell out of their jammers and attacking units. Then, after intellectually softening them up, and crushing their spirit, you go in and use smart bombs and commandos to kill all their gov't, police, military, and religious leaders. Then you very softly and gently tell the demoralized and spiritually broken nation to consider setting up a libertarian state. You give them almost zero time to comply. If they refuse, you bomb the hell out of them, and permanently take half their land and resources. If they still decline, you even more sweetly whisper your demands, and give them even less time to comply. Then more bombs and 90% of their stuff. Then 98%. Make them beg for peace. If they're not crying a Niagra Falls of tears, and unanimously shouting to the skies on bended knees that they'll never ever ever cast a single dirty look at liberals for the next million years, then you immediately radically ratchet up the attack until you get the desired results. The bottom line is, if Muslims decide to stop brainwashing, killing, and enslaving everybody, including their kids, they get to live in peace. If not, not. Ultimately, the liberal time, money, and lives lost to defeat Islam is essentially zero. Indeed, the profits are ginormous. You just have to know what you're doing and mean business. But there's no substitute for philosophical competence and moral goodness. You can't just say you're a liberal. You have to really be it. You have to genuinely have knowledge, truth, virtue, and morality on your side.

I bet I know ten times as many Muslims as you do. And I talk to them, ask questions, and listen. So my personal knowledge is maybe a hundred times yours. The vast majority are personally nice. So what? Their sociability isn't the issue. It's their philosophy. It's their net impact on the world. I study this too. And I enjoy similar results. Maybe you should try. Muslims have a lot to answer for. But they're not answering. No-one in the West is making them. I think our whole approach is ghastly wrong. This includes that of the Atlas Society and Ayn Rand Institute. I want to radically change the equation -- change the nature of the discussion completely. I want Muslims on the defensive. Maybe just once. Their current intellectual confidence and aggression beggars description. It's a pure gift from the West. Largely from those who embrace the terms "Islamophobia" and "racism," and many other words too. Virtually all of them are wrong. My approach would be no more kid gloves and ultra-sensitivity. They don't remotely deserve it. It certainly isn't prejudice and reaction to dispute an ideology. All Muslims should be asked if they support worldwide jihad and sharia. They do. This should be noted. They should be treated as such. There's no PC and MC with commies and nazis. Why give it to the Islamics? As for Googling something, the muzzies have many fine videos you might want to check out. Maybe you can better acquaint yourself with the philosophy and people you're defending.

Would it? Muslims constitute objective threats and active enemies of France and the West. Almost all believe in, and assist, their ideals of jihad (war) and sharia (slavery). Even when not fully engaged personally, they morally and verbally support the various Muslim activist groups like Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, etc. And they financially support them via the charity branches of the above, and otherwise. They're successfully advancing their horrific Islamic agenda inside the West. Muslims who believe in, and practice, jihad and sharia shouldn't be allowed to destroy France and the West from within. Genocide and universal enslavement aren't human rights.

Blake Shelton is definitely aware of music and culture outside of the country-and-western world, including rap. His song is probably a bit too simplistic and cliched to be called great, but I think it shows a wonderful amount of self-confidence and pride in being who you really are -- even a Southerner or country boy. It reminds me of Lynyrd Skynyrd's classic Sweet Home Alabama.

I address a lot of your questions here: http://www.liberalinstitute.com/TheWarOnIslam.html But the evil attacking the planet and the West is Islam. It's historical and current jihad and sharia -- not salafism, fundamentalist Islam, Islamo-nazism, Islamism, or some such. Almost all Muslims on the planet sympathize with, or outright support, the Charlie Hebdo mass-murderers. This is the problem. And today it's basically unsolvable. I agree with you that the intellectual raw material, such as the holy books, of Christianity is almost as bad as Islam. Jews, Christians, and other monotheists are never to be trusted, and always to be carefully watched. But these miscreants aren't nearly as true to their beliefs, or as active, as current Muslims. The most serious enemy of Western liberalism today by far is the Muslims. And they need to be put deeply on the defensive. The West needs to change its tactics about 100%. In order to avoid deportation the French Muslims need to do something or other like independently form a massive rally, march into the heart of the "no go" areas of Paris, and then scream at the top of their lungs: "We're sick to death of you camelshit-eating, goat-fucking vermin! If you god-damned towelheads don't like freedom, because you're such pathetic, stupid, slimy monkeys, then get the hell out of France now! You're a disgrace to this noble country and all of mankind with your unending, subhuman, slavery-deserving, head-chopping savagery. Knock it off already with your evil jihad and sharia nonsense, and try to act like human beings for three seconds in a row, you hideous, ridiculous, religious-freak monsters. We reject and hate your totally-twisted and hyper-destructive version of Islam, so unless you straighten up and fly right immediately, we're going to hunt you down and then joyously kill every last one of you miserable, disgusting, loathsome, muzzie mutants!" The good Muslims -- if any actually exist -- need to passionately shout something like that. It doesn't have to be exact. But if they won't say it, and don't start acting like all the other religious folks in France, then that's a secret confession to all that the Islamics are open traitors to France and Western liberalism, hence in need of quick deportation -- or worse.

This guy is new to me, but he made a nice appearance this week on Saturday Night Live.

Stephen -- Hand-grasping by extreme infants is a classical example of a human instinct. As this infant matures, and develops her cognitive abilities, she can either suppress or augment this instinct, according to will or reasoned choice. If she trains herself consistently enough, this new -- almost instant and automatic -- reaction becomes what Rand correctly calls "second nature." It functions very similarly in human behavior to an instinct but, in fact, is a product of volition or rational calculation. Instincts are tendencies or reactions given to you by Mother Nature, and which steadily decline in importance as you age. Both human nature, and your own individual nature, provide you with various instincts, usually rudimentary. Instincts are simple, basic, and general, by definition. I don't know why all those dictionaries insist on calling it complex. Pretty much only reasoned, calculating behavior is complex. Simple inborn reactions are of these types: (1) When a monkey is naturally afraid of a snake, despite never having seen one before; (2) when a young child is disgusted by and flees putrescence; (3) when a human baby is afraid of heights. These are all quick, emphatic, natural reactions which were mostly, or at least heavily, implanted by Nature. Temperament is largely inherited and so some instincts, or parts of instincts, are embedded inside it. Some babies instinctively startle sooner than others, and at different things. This is genetic, inherited, natural, and unlearned. Of course, the rational faculty comes into play quickly and thus the rapid behavioral responses to different seemingly scary situations is a hybrid of "knee-jerk reaction" and quick reasoned analysis. I haven't thought about this all that much, but I agree with the conventional view that humans have considerable tool-making instincts. Our brain power, brain configuration, hands, body, senses, etc. naturally incline toward tool-making conceptualization and creation; humans have a definite knack or gift for this. I also think people have an instinct of self-preservation which manifests itself when the mind is still fairly weak, such as around 3 to 7. And I think, generally speaking, that there is a fight-or-flight (and sometimes quick-think, catatonia, delusion, etc.) instinct which can be seen in humans in their virtually instantaneous mental and emotional reactions to perceived sudden extreme danger. It's not natural for your mind, biological drives, and emotions not to shift into sudden high gear, and of a particular type, usually well-directed toward survival. If a hungry aggressive lion unexpectedly approaches you, you have to fight many instincts to remain ignorant of, and indifferent to, your immediate future. (All the above is speculation, and an attempt to add to the discussion. Even more than usual, I don't claim it to be the final word on the subject of instinct.)

Humans do indeed have instincts, i.e. natural, inborn, inherited, unlearned tendencies of reaction in thought, emotion, and action to various different situations, phenomena, and stimuluses. Evolution makes us thus. Usually these instinctive tendencies are healthy; they should often be trusted in reality-evaluation and decision-making. Some instincts are quite strong. But usually they can be defeated by rational volition. Instincts are important in analyzing human behavior. They seem to manifest themselves rather differently in an industrialized Big City relative to out on the savana while living in a tribe. But free will is far more important in determining behavior and how humans react. Will dominates instincts. This is progressively less so in low-order animals.

Many unanswered questions come quickly to mind here. Hopefully insipid, serpentine, torturous, monkey-brain Mankind will eventually address most of them. 1) Why weren't the balls inflated to the right pressure in the first place? If 11-pounds-per-square-inch is really the best, why use a bloated, slippery, rugby-like, 13-pound ball to begin with? 2) Why don't both teams use the same balls, like in all other sports? 3) What named persons, of what official positions, have custody of the footballs between the inspection 2.25 hours before kick-off and game-time? 4) Why aren't Bill Belichick and the Patriots conducting their own investigation of this? 5) Can we punish New England by making their balls 2 pounds overinflated in the Superbowl?

The French are grossly philosophically incompetent. As evidenced by recent mass rallies and magazine covers, they simply don't understand what's going on inside their country. They face serious problems to which they have no real answers. France, like all Western nations, is currently under attack by Islam. The massively false, evil, and barbaric philosophy of Islam is aggressively seeking to infect, subvert, destroy, and conquer the relatively rational, liberal, and civilized nation of France. Yet a horde of Muslims and Islamic leaders was invited to France's largest-ever postwar rally on Sunday, January 11th, in Paris. That was fatuous, depraved, lunatic, and utterly suicidal. The fact is the infamous ideology of jihad and sharia is the absolute enemy of France. It needs to be intellectually refuted and morally condemned. It needs to be ruthlessly philosophically crushed. And the Muslim enemy inside France, which actively supports this conceptual monstrosity, needs to be deported. Muslims inside France, like virtually everywhere else, are quite confident and open in their ferocious desire to hugely alter the current French lifestyle and culture, which is largely based upon the Enlightenment values of reason, individualism, and freedom. Islam and Muslims hate these. Two weeks ago, on January 7th, Muslim activists brutally slaughtered 12 innocents, and defenders of Western liberalism, at the Parisian magazine Charlie Hebdo. Yet the current front cover of this publication -- so ignorant, amoral, unprincipled, and appeasing -- features a cartoon of Mohammad saying "All is forgiven," and "I am Charlie". But this is putting false and ridiculous words in the Muslim founder's mouth. It's all a French delusion. No actual Muslim in real life is saying this. Not in France, nor anywhere else. Muslims around the world are amazingly philosophically consistent and unified. They know what standards to uphold, and which behaviors in others not to tolerate. Thus virtually every follower of Islam in France, and in every other nation on this earth, rejects and violently opposes the portrayal of Mohammad in visual imagery. Still more do Muslims hate it and fight it when you criticize their belief-system. Yet these are all activities which a socially and politically liberal France tolerates routinely, and which Charlie Hebdo does repeatedly and quite crudely. Something has to give. If France genuinely hopes to live in decent peace and civilization, and no longer have its free speech and individual liberty threatened, it needs to get to work and start to attack the truly loathsome philosophy of Islam. It needs to vastly cut it down to size. France also needs to pay attention to political and demographic reality, and work to strip the traitorous, anti-Western Muslims of their citizenship and residency. The truth is: France and Islam are inimical. They have no important philosophical ideals on which they can agree. Like two scorpions in a bottle, they are irreconcilable deadly enemies, and eventually only one of them is going to survive.

Now that the Green Bay Sissy-Boys shockingly defeated themselves, l hope the regular-guy Seattle Seahawks win out over the New England Cheaters. I'm a fan of "Darth Vader" Bill Belichick and "pretty boy" Tom Brady, but I think the Patriots significantly delegitimized themselves with Deflate-gate.

Pat Condell on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N46mIHEGHN0.

Ah, well I just came across it on Facebook today.