zantonavitch

Hard to argue with any of Satan's/Pacino's speech here. God as a concept and ideal seems to be profoundly opposed to man and life and individual happiness. A life spent obeying and serving "god" seems devoid of meaning and purpose. It seems like treason and sacrilege against the real world and your human nature -- both of which are holy. Basically by "believing," or pretending to, you just resign yourself to nothingness, as you throw away your mind, and toss your sacred soul into the dirt.

You can love anything you darned please. That will not make the second law of thermodynamics go away. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf -- Reference.com defines the second law of thermodynamics as "the principle that no cyclic process is possible in which heat is absorbed from a reservoir at a single temperature and converted completely into mechanical work." The freedictionary.com defines it as "a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy." The obvious point here is that that law has nothing whatever to do with immortality. There's no contradiction here at all. Might as well say germ theory or the the third law of motion forbids infinite life. Even if one were to wildly suppose that this physical law somehow mysteriously forbids biological immortality, given the current age and expected lifespan of the universe, at best it would limit human longevity to a mere billion or trillion years. That's effective immortality.

Michael -- Thanks! I love all feedback and criticism, no matter how negative. I don't claim to be infallible or omniscient in my reasoning and argumentation. Anyone who can point out my errors, I'm grateful to. Of course, I'm always hopeful for a bit of thoughtfulness and substance in the various analyses that different people make! But anyone from Objectivist Living who posts a review of my book to Amazon will get a free copy (autographed, if you like).

To all you resignationists, defeatists, passive submitters, surrender monkeys, and death-worshipers, I leave you to your fate, and that which you choose. I love life.

Ba'al Chatzaf -- The book argues otherwise. Convincingly. You should read it!

Remarkable and brilliant new book by long-time Objectivist and transhumanist Gennady Stolyarov: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Wrong-Gennady-Stolyarov-II/dp/0615932045

Michael -- While I appreciate the helpful nature of your remarks -- which evidently had far more clarity than I realized! -- I may not be able to follow the advice all that much. I don't seek popularity per se. I write for the intellectual and moral elite. Not the masses. Maybe Ayn Rand was a populist; or at least tried to be. But I'm not, and don't want to be. My intent is to be the strongest liberal theorist on the planet. I want to out-think anyone and everyone at TAS, ARI, and other neoliberal venues. You can pretty well judge my abilities on this, and my level of understanding of nature, society, and the individual, by reading my recent book. There seems to be a fair amount of innovations and insights there. I think I know what other neoliberals know. But I don't think they know what I know.

Brant -- My thanks for the helpful suggestions regarding readership popularity. But I may not be much able to heed them. I write for my own sake. And I have the most fun seeking the truth. I have far less interest and enjoyment conveying it to the general public. Often I just keep it to myself, for my own profit and pleasure. As for persuading people that I actually have the truth -- that's far less fun still. And when it comes to successfully convincing the indifferent, ignorant, sleazy hoi polloi, average Joe, and man in the street regarding the accuracy and worth of my various intellectual claims and pursuits -- I have no interest in and derive no fun from that at all.

Michael -- A bit obscure! I think you have something to say, but your chosen words are indirect and rounbabout. Interpreting as best I can, I think truth is the most powerful force in the universe. People should always try to state the truth about various individuals, institutions, ideas, etc. They should fulsomely give their reasons and cite their evidence for their claims. If it's not overly difficult, truth-seekers and public educators should try to be persuasive and entertaining in the process. But the evil, loathsome, enemy, destructive, religious "Objectivists" -- along with their practices and beliefs -- need to be noted for what they are. It isn't really name-calling to correctly identify their nature and accurately define them.

The Randroids are evil people. They drove me out of the Objectivist movement for almost 20 years. They seek to mentally and spiritually enslave -- and ruin the lives of -- everyone they meet and brainwash. I hate their verminous guts. So, yes, I sometimes call them names, which they well deserve. If anyone thinks my descriptions of them are at all injust, immoral, or untrue they should call me out on it. I fully expect, deserve, and want to be condemned if I label or describe them inaccurately. But remember that it's equally as much a crime to fail to morally condemn those who merit such. Rand said and practiced this repeatedly.

Yesterday I finally got around to reading "Loyalty Oath" Harry's piece. He writes with a helluva lot of confidence and smugness, considering what a major jackass and dirbag he is! He also mostly ignors the anarchists' true concerns and claims. So it wasn't much of an article. I also can't help but observe that the Randroid "Objectivists" and the anarchist "libertarians" really deserve each other. These are two groups of nitwit lowlifes that refuse to listen and which are thus fundamentally closed to debate. That makes both groups irrational. Both groups are pitiful cults. As for the important issue of Ayn Rand's claim that gov't rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force -- this seems mistaken. Gov't is properly the final authority on legal issues, and the dominant physical power, but in a free society many people rightfully use force in self-defense. First is the guy being robbed or beaten when no cops are around. He properly uses his fists or guns in a forceful manner. Next are all those security guards, body guards, and private protection agencies. Next are militias. Next are "deputized" private citizens under the concept of "posse comitatus." Next are civilians who make "citizen's arrests." The reality is, gov't is the principle defender of individual rights, and thus the most important user of preventative and retaliatory force; but it's far from a monopoly one. p.s. And what the hell was that Dimswanger line about how the gov't "properly, bring private guards under its supervision by licensing them..."? This guy is a clown!

Brant: My recent excursion into the world of anarchism, at least on Facebook, was amazing. I think most Objectivists and libertarians are deeply unaware of the emotional and psycho-spiritual nature and tenor of the "libertarian" anarchists. I know I was. Are you yourself an anarchist? Do you think I've mistaken the nature of the anarchist arguments? As best I can tell, the essence of the anarchist complaint against the Objectivists and libertarians is this: Objectivists and libertarians supposedly favor: 1) coercive taxation, 2) regulation of various sorts, 3) giving gov't a monopoly on force, 4) forcing you to join the gov't, 5) forbidding you to quit the gov't. All of this is false. But the anarchists -- in their Never Never Land of irrational gibberish and anti-intellectualism -- truly believe.

Libertarian anarchists are remarkable people. I recently ran across a plethora of them in a deliberately-provocative second Facebook identity I created. I was even crazy enough to read most of their perhaps number one work, No Treason, by Lysander Spooner. But ultimately they have no authorites or deep thinkers. No authoritative or seminal works. They're mostly a cult, as far as I can tell. No real contact with (political) reality. And very anti-intellectual. All their experts contradict all their others. They call libertarianism and capitalism, "statism." Amazing! They claim that a libertarian/capitalist state: 1) taxes, 2) regulates, 3) has a monopoly on force, 4) forces you to join, 5) forbids you to quit. Well, now! In that light, maybe I'll convert to anarchism myself. And no matter how much you personally bash them, nothing penetrates their thick skull. I can't even allude to some of the stuff I called them, and said about them recently! But like a lunatic, reality-untouched, Eveready Bunny, they just keep on maniacally hopping.

Remarkable video of world's longest freefall.

It's interesting and remarkable that Barbara Branden seemed to participate on this forum more than any other, toward the end. I consider her recent termination to be simply dreadful. The Grim Reaper is an evil and enemy beyond compare, and one which desperately needs to be defeated. I do think Barbara lived a long and rich life -- but her demise is still immensely sad. I don't think she was nearly as intellectually powerful or productive as Nathaniel Branden, but she often exceeded him by her far superior honesty. Their two speeches at the Cato Institute in Washington DC in 2007 are examples of this. I also think we have to note that Barbara radically helped liberate, normalize, and advance the Objectivist Movement with her 1986 biography of Ayn Rand. Without her, Nathaniel's bio probably would have come out somewhat later and been considerably less frank and accurate. And David Kelley's Institute for Objectivist Studies would likely have emerged substantially slower and weaker.

No wonder the plane crashed! Check out the names of the pilots:

It's now official. Barack Obama rules America like a dictator. And virtually no-one notices or cares. I follow the newspapers, magazines, radio, and t'v' shows a lot. Probably more than is good for me. And yet this is the only article I've been able to come across in the two weeks since Dictator Barack's decree and unprecedented power usurpation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578591503509555268.html The most important part of the Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Michael McConnell (Hoover Institution and Stanford Law School) is probably this: Basically, ObamaCare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act, was passed into law in March of 2010, but a huge part of it was somehow "suspended" by Pres. Obama two weeks ago totally without authority. In the United States, the Congress has full power and authority to make the laws, and the President has zero power and authority to repeal or delay them. And yet Obama did. How is this possible? And why the silence from everyone?

Ellen -- A shame that the audio tape of that conference, listed on Amazon, seems unavailable. The main thing neoliberals can learn from religion, in my view, is to have consistent weekly or semi-weekly meetings which are fun and upbeat: light moral instruction, mixed with lots of humor and dance music, followed by snacks, chatting, and flirting.

Ellen -- I'm flattered that you would think of me, but I really don't think I was there. My first ginger foray back into the world of neoliberalism, after two long decades, was a low-pressure visit to the New York State Libertarian convention in the Summer of 1999. I met Roy Innis, a hero to me, and Robert Bidinotto, who I challenged with two tough questions regarding classical liberalism vs. Objectivism. His answers were quite good and very reassuring, altho' not brilliant or innovative. And I still have a high opinion of Bidinotto -- the first normal, healthy, rational Objectivist I ever met. That conference you mention, however, would be right up my alley. What can Objectivism learn from religion? Be more aggressive, energetic, and hopeful? I wonder if audio or video tapes of this event are still available. And what did you think of the conference, especially the speeches by Branden and Kelley?

This lunatic is a rabble-rouser. Too bad he isn't a thinker. Every now and then in life you need to think. He has a hazy idea about what's wrong with the current gov't; but not a clue about what would be right. Some people in Eqypt like Morsi, some don't. Some like the Islamic Brotherhood, some don't. But everyone there likes democratic tyranny. Everybody favors majority-vote slavery, with all their heart and all their soul. And the politically idiotic and depraved population of America is virtually identical. Maybe 1% here seriously understand the difference between freedom and democracy. Why majority-vote enslavement is morally and politically wrong is an utter mystery to 99% of the peoples and intellectuals of America.

Kyrel, Had you been subscribed to any of the WTL lists before 9/11? Ellen Ellen -- No, nor to any other Objectivist organization. I dropped out of the Objectivist Movement from about 1980 - 1998. The public libraries of New York City started to make computers available in large quantities around 1997 or so, and I finally got around to using them in about 1998, and almost immediately checked out the libertarian and Objectivist websites. I was simply STUNNED to learn about the creation of the Institute for Objectivist Studies/Atlas Society and non-cult Objectivism. Still, after such a long while, it took me some time before I got back into it. By July of 2001 I bought my first computer and "lurked" on WeTheLiving.com for a few months before posting my first internet comment on 9/11.

C'est moi! Perhaps I became a bit more user-unfriendly or defiant. I dropped my old nickname on the internet, and in real life too. My official legal name is tough and odd, both first and last, but I'm sticking to it. Interesting first post from me you added, Peter!

Reading this discussion about Atlantis reminds me of my first ever comment on the internet, on that forum, on 9/11: Take their gas And kick their ass. Nuke 'em till they glow! Perhaps if I had been of greater wisdom or nobler soul I would have said: Reject the philosophy of Islam, religion, and irrationality, with all its consequent personal misery, and social destruction, as we saw today. Embrace the philosophy of reason in epistemology, individualism in ethics, and freedom in politics, with all its consequent pleasure, greatness, and happiness!

Ellen -- I participated on, and subscribed to, WeTheLiving/Atlantis forum, and a few others there, but certainly didn't save any discussions. Your history in post #7 is great, but some of what you say doesn't accord with my memory of it, so it'll be interesting to hear if anyone can amplify the WTL history, especially of Atlantis. I thought it was the absolute best Objectivist forum at the time, and it was a shame when it died out. Much of the censorship and banning, which so bedevils all past and current "Objectivist" discussion forums, was missing (except for the end). The fact is no-one should be occasionally or permanently "moderated" unless they're grossly off-topic or engaging in extreme ad hominem. One thing I do remember from long ago: then as now whenever someone was censored or banned the supporters of this anti-Objectivist monstrosity were legion, while the advocates of free discussion were close to non-existent.

Peter Taylor -- Great blast from the past! Where in the world did you get all this? I thought the archives to WeTheLiving.com were lost long ago in some ghastly computer foul-up.