zantonavitch

Cool new video vowing revenge for the recent Charlie Hebdo Paris massacre: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11335676/Hacktivists-Anonymous-says-it-will-avenge-Charlie-Hebdo-attacks-by-shutting-down-jihadist-websites.html

Martin Anderson was a very successful person of seemingly high-quality. I'm curious what his conversations with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. involved. Did he mention libertarianism, or try to persuade them of it?

These jihadi bastards hate images of Mo-ham-mud? Here's a ton of them! http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2015/01/07/do-not-submit-republish-the-mohammed-cartoons-everywhere/

A quick answer is this: I continued to pursue still more truth. I tried to speak it aloud as well. And I wrote a lot. Virtually no-one seemed very interested or impressed. And I sought, and am still seeking, the next Ayn Rand or ultra-insight -- the next intellectual, or otherwise, quantum leap forward. I also became a "militant" atheist, not an "intransigent" one; Rand failed this test. I condemned and fought againt the conservatives and Republicans; Rand failed this test. I condemned and fought againt the religious and cultist Objectivists; Rand failed this test.

I only really enjoy discussing and debating the issues with the intellectual and moral elite -- not the masses. I only really enjoy seeking and finding the truth for my own benefit and purposes -- not to serve mankind. My desire to "persuade" others on philosophical issues is almost always quite low. I prefer to present the truth as best I can determine and construct it, and then let others deal with it as they wish and can. I also have real contempt for those who take 10 years to learn something that takes me 10 minutes. I usually view them as being not very open to reason and not decently honest.

But I still wonder why Martin Anderson didn't explain libertarianism, which he evidently understood, to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. Why didn't he say something like: "Freedom is 100% good in theory, and 100% good in practice. It has no flaws whatsoever. The welfare state, in contrast, is 100% bad in theory and practice." Or how about: "A moral and civilized society never allows the initiation of force. You're never allowed to attack someone's person or property. We can create an economic and social utopia right now simply by outlawing initiation of force. This principle alone creates sheer, absolute, definitive, political perfection." Explaining political science and socio-economic freedom is a matter of systematic education which anyone can acquire, and not any sort of instant epiphany. As an important economic advisor, why did Anderson provide non-stop mediocre conservative advice, while never once providing a bit of ingenious libertarian advice? It's not legitimate or right to not try -- to simply assume that long-time conservatives Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. would have failed to understand. Maybe he could have enlightened them! Politics isn't rocket science. Practically the whole thing can be explained in five minutes, as above. I'm curious as to why Anderson never tried. Or at least why he never recorded their answers and criticisms after he did try. And I continue to marvel at the average person's indifference and hostility to the truth.

I converted to Objectivism in less than one day. After 18 years of virtual brainwashing I only had to hear large pieces of the truth one time to know it. And it wasn't even told very well. Who are you people? You don't seem remotely similar to myself.

News reports say America retaliated "proportionally" against North Korea's unprecedented aggression by blacking out their miniscule internet for a few days and economically desanctioning a handful of their leaders. But did their dictators even notice? Can't get more feckless, wimpy, and impotent than that, folks! America lost the war. And China, Russia, the jihadis, and everybody else noticed. Deleterious consequences are sure to follow soon.

Seems like a heck of a good guy. Rand's influence continues to grow. But if he was a close adviser to Reagan, why did he never say something like: "Freedom is 100% good in theory, and 100% good in practice. It has no flaws whatsoever. The welfare state, in contrast, is 100% bad in theory and practice." Or how about: "A moral and civilized society never allows the initiation of force. You're never allowed to attack someone's person or property. We can create an economic and social utopia right now simply by outlawing initiation of force. This principle alone creates sheer, absolute, definitive, political perfection." This is all easy enough to say. If Martin Anderson was properly schooled in Randian thought, why didn't he ever say this to Reagan?

North Korea's nuclear program constitutes an objective threat to the West, especially to South Korea, Japan, and America. It should be neutralized forthwith, i.e. terminated. In a rational and virtuous world any number of Western nations besides these three would also do so. But that's not what the world is like today. That's not what the world was like when monster-nations Russian, China, and Pakistan got their nukes either. So sad and mad! There's a price to be paid for philosophic incompetence. Call it wide and deep horror and terror.

I'd be interested in to what extent Ayn Rand learned philosophy from established classical liberal intellectuals, as seemingly existed in abundance prior to 1914 (and who persisted somewhat into the 1920s and even 1930s). I'd also be interested in learning who, and which books, specifically taught her economics, sociology, and politics, such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt.

An amazingly good "fan fiction" recreation of the original Star Trek t'v' series from the 1960s. High-quality from beginning to end. It features the actual son of Mr. Scott (James Doohan) reprising his dad's role, as well as the original villain from half a century ago (and more): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-ziTBAkbQ.

A bit of good news from these Islamic State jihadi mutants: http://theuspatriot.com/2014/05/28/islamic-suicide-bomber-trainer-accidentally-blows-up-his-entire-class/

In 1962 Nathaniel Branden wrote: No, this is the mentality of the honestly philosophically ignorant dealing with a non-obvious and difficult series of ideas. Branden's is the mentality of the religioso and cultist who attempts to intellectually intimidate and silence the innocent and good by wildly unjustly calling them "mystics" and "savages". Branden is immorally attempting to cut off discussion and debate in mindless and malicious fealty to the cultist version of the philosophy of Objectivism. And even 52 years later, and from the grave -- he's doing a really good job of it.

This Wall Street Journal column is a relatively slick scam by the experienced religious con artist Eric Metaxas. I read thru over a hundred of the comment letters, and not one of them persuasively refuted his essay. I find the astronomically-unlikely/miraculous "Goldilocks" theory of life and existence, which he posits, to be relatively interesting intellectually. I hope real scientists, physicists, and cosmologists will address this idea soon, especially as he presents it here. But if he wants science to seriously come to the aid of religion he's going to need a few more miracles.

Hard as hell to argue with that!

Post #5 is an amazing blast from the past. My thanks to Peter Taylor! It's a ton of fun to see the long-past views of old Objectivists, and especially to see my old posts -- what I still think, and what I've changed my mind about. I only wish much more of the archives of that website (WeTheLiving.com) were available. My understanding is all was lost, save for a bit from archive.org.

Here's a really brief appearance by myself from yesterday on New York City cable access t'v' promoting my book. I'm on from about 12:08 to 16:33. http://www.bronxnet.org/tv/bronxtalk/viewcategory/7/bronxtalk

North Korea threatens a new 9/11 and America retaliates with a nine-hour outage of their microscopic internet/intranet? Pathetic. Even 3 or 4 cruise missiles sent to their nuclear weapons facilities would be a radical improvement. The raw evil of the term, standard, and ideal of "proportionality" stands revealed. Israel has been "proportional" to the Arabs for over half a century now. The noble Jews never once tried for a true victory. And you know what? They never got one. All their appeasement of evil and tyranny, and all their niceness to their enemies, has been entirely counterproductive. A single clear victory over the Arabs would have changed things radically for the better, for both sides. Take their money, natural resources, and land! Kill all their leaders! How hard is this for Western Civilization (sic) to understand or do? Ours is a world of stunning philosophical and political ignorance. A true irrational illiberal Dark Age.

Your statement above is false, my friend. How so? As far as I can tell, in America and Western Europe, white racism and male sexism ended in the 1960s, except for tiny, isolated, and culturally impotent groups. They were replaced by odd but virulent varieties of black racism and female sexism. Hence, virtually all the bigots today are black and female. They're backed by well-established philosophy and law, and enjoy broad and deep cultural power and influence.

Civil warriors and freedom-destroyers Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill de Blasio, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama love to fan the flames of racism -- the only real racism which even exists any more: anti-white racism.

Civilization never defeated barbarism "proportionally." Good never defeated Evil "proportionally." This dreadful word indicates an upcoming tit-for-tat-, Israeli/Arabic-style appeasement. It means no victory in this war against North Korea will be forthcoming. The life of man qua man demands triumph.

New York City's mayor Bill de Blasio recently said that young black males need to be very careful around the police; and that the cops tend to be racist. However the truth -- which virtually no-one admits -- is that the politically correct, multicultural police need to be very careful around young black males; and that the indoctrinated, professional-victim, young black males tend to be racist.

Hollywood is evidently populated by nothing but amoral unprincipled surrender monkeys: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/george-clooney-talks-sony-hack-north-korea-cannot-tell-us-what-to-do-20141912.

Obama and his spokesman, this past day or so, keep referring to a "proportional response" to this act of war. That isn't victory. That isn't defeating tyranny and evil. The North Koreans stole hundreds of millions of dollars of unreleased movies, and threatened a new 9/11. They need to be punished. If possible, large amounts of money, natural resources, and land need to be taken from them in retribution. Justice needs to be triumphant. The North Korean government should to be overthrown, and their leaders executed, on general principles. But now it needs to be done much more. America and its allies should do this. If humanly possible, America should liberate the morally-gray people of North Korea for a profit. These folks are both the victims of the dictatorship, and the current victimizers and threateners of Sony and America. The strongest war theorist I know is the late John David Lewis (1955-2012). In a private discussion I had with him in about 2007, he agreed with me that North Korea was America's hardest foreign policy problem intellectually. Unfortunately, neither one of us had good answers then.