zantonavitch

Jerry -- Thanks for the video links! The Atlas Society is very generous to make them available. Altho' that still doesn't make up for them grossly overpricing their summer seminars.

Societies generally are governed by Natural Law, i.e. the rights of man, or "liberty and justice for all." Governments rise and fall, imperfect human laws get passed and repealed, but Natural Law remains and dominates. It doesn't really matter if you violate positive law or not. That doesn't make you an objective criminal or traitor. Only if you violate Natural Law can you be a true law-breaker or treasonist. That's what George Bush, Barack Obama, etc. are.

By any rational and just standard -- and under Natural Law, which governs the entire sentient universe -- Snowden isn't guilty ot treason. Bush and Obama are. So are the top officials in the NSA, DHA, CIA, FBI, etc. So are the top officers in all those telecom and media companies which cooperated with the Nazi US gov't. They should all be tried and executed. I'm pretty sure that all these federal gov't guys swear an oath of office "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic." So Snowden was legally obligated to be a whistle-blower. He's not the criminal or traitor here. That would be Barack Obama (Executive), Keith Alexander (NSA), John Brennan (CIA), Janet Napolitano (DHS), etc. They perfectly fit the definition of constitution-destroyer, domestic enemy, and traitor.

Is streaming audio or video really available, Jerry?

Peter -- I certainly imagine freedom-fighter Snowden would prefer exile in Canada, Britain, Barbados, Bermuda, etc. -- but how realistic is this? The big Western nations would probably be legally obligated to extradite him, while the small ones likely wouldn't dare stand up to the might of the US economy and military. So countries which are enemies of America seem like his only safe haven, ironically. In thinking about this dude recently, I now wonder why he didn't stay anonymous, instead of seemingly trashing his whole existence. Is he a secret martyr or publicity seeker? Why didn't he send out tons of cool stuff to WikiLeaks (now his buddies, evidently), or to other media, and then wash his hands of it? If I was him, I would have ultra-carefully sent out the damning info to a myriad of news and libertarian groups, and then defy them to confirm or deny it. Of course, if I was Snowden, I probably wouldn't have come within nine million miles of working for the NSA or any other similar fascist, tyrannical, treasonous group in the first place...

Evidently the United States federal government is now monitoring every American bank and financial transaction whatsoever, while tapping every phone call, and reading every email. Our state Overlords know our phone, electricity, t'v', and internet bills inside out, while also being aware of every book, record, or video we borrow or buy. And, courtesy of mobile phone location transmitters, the Surveillance State now knows practically every physical step we take, and records it all in a giant, privacy-shattering databank forever. You have to wonder: Does Big Brother now also know all our favorite radio and t'v' shows, plus movies and concerts, plus clubs and bars, plus porn videos and sex clubs? Government spying on innocent American citizens currently seems to be almost without limit. It's also essentially without reason or oversight. Our personal sphere has been just about totally invaded and violated. And all of this unprecedented and fathomless evil is done to keep us "safe," and "help" us. What's ineffably sad about all this is none of these governmental Constitution-destroyers, criminals, tyrants, and traitors is going to jail. And most Americans -- mentally beaten down and spiritually crushed -- actually favor this. Evidently the popularly accepted philosophy in the US is "Bend over and take it, slaveboys!" If Jefferson or Madison were alive today they'd probably hate America. They'd do everything in their power to destroy her. They certainly wouldn't seek to somehow radically reform our wayward social system. Their goal would be to terminate it utterly -- and start over from scratch. On the one hand, Muslims are our enemy. And they're everywhere -- abroad and at home. No-one can deny this. Al Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. all seek to destroy the United States, and they have allies and supporters everywhere. This includes the vast majority of America's roughly six million Muslims. These guys basically love jihad (holy war) and sharia (legal slavery). And they ruthlessly seek to bring these Islamic political goals to a naive and poorly self-defending America. These guys also love shahada (religious martyrdom) and taqiyya (lying about Islam). Such concepts and behaviors advance their jihadi and shariaist ideals. America's Muslims give huge intellectual and moral support to the activists of their philosophy, while also donating billions of dollars a year to groups seeking to nuke America and commit genocide against us. All these foreign and domestic Islamics are true enemies of the American people, and they desperately need to be stopped. The federal government should try to prevent them from doing their Muslim thing. But on the other hand, the freedom-hating, freedom-eviscerating Executive, NSA, DHS, CIA, and FBI are also America's enemies. They seek the termination of the American Constitution, and the institution of a fascist dictatorship, as soon as humanly possible. So the question arises: How do we balance these two monsters -- the muzzies and the feds -- and keep them at each others' throats, but not at ours? There are several good answers to this, but the most important one is this: We need to recognize each side's respective natures and powers. The fact is the Muslims of today are overwhelmingly weak. They're a poor, ignorant, disorganized, and temporary menace, which mostly comes from outside. They have neither the money, nor the weaponry, nor the intellectual underpinnings, nor the moral stature to mount a credible assault. They're easily defeated thru countless simple techniques, such as philosophical refutation, moral condemnation, foreign propaganda, domestic profiling, mass deportation, retaking our Mideast oil, overthrowing the Mideast dictatorships, declaring war on the jihadi groups, etc. So the enemy Muslims aren't really a problem. But today's United States government agents are very different. They're massively strong. The American federal government is a rich, highly-informed, well-organized, and permanent menace, of seeming philosophical and moral legitimacy, which comes from within. Both groups are virulently anti-American and wildly immoral. Both hate our freedom -- what's left of it -- and work hard to savage it. But only one group is an immense danger to our privacy, liberty, way of life, personal greatness, and ultimate happiness. Only one group constitutes an existential threat.

This, of course, can cause problems for those who do not want their reality conquered or their universe ruled. The goal is to conquer and rule over existence -- yours and nature's. Not sentient beings. That last would be power-lust and would make you a slave-master, which is inhuman and low.

Jesus lies. Moses too.

Intriguing! How about a translation, Michael?

Beautiful quote, Ba'al Chatzaf! The German intellectual Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856) knew the value and domination of philosophy.

Religion -- its silliness and absurdity has no limits. Neither does its malevolence and depravity.

Whew, I thought you typed "Save me, Jeb Bush!" Well, I tried to type that. Unfortunately I was licking the backs of tropical toads at the time -- and I misspelled.

Now I believe. Save me, Jebus!

I don't think that they do. Who and what would be examples of that?

Utter madness. It is impossible for a human with a three pound brain mass, a body mass of under 200 kg and a life span of under 150 years to rule the universe whose diameter is at least 28 billion light years. To even attempt this is insanity. Ruling the universe isn't easy. But someone has to do it! You bet your ass it is!

Thanks, PDS!

Thanks, Stephen! That book Greece, Rome, and the Bill of Rights seems especially promising.

A proper philosophy doesn't just enlighten and empower the mind -- it strengthens the heart and uplifts the soul. It develops and expands a person's interior. It beautifies the psyche and enriches the spirit. Philosophy does all this directly, thru its ethics, and indirectly, thru politics. It also does so quite powerfully via art -- especially drama and music. Philosophy makes you a higher, finer, better person. It encourages, inspires, and uplifts. Philosophy helps bring out your truest and best self. It ennobles and sanctifies your soul. A true, rational, sound, coherent, intelligent, insightful, wise, good, and great philosophy will leave you prosperous, thriving, healthy, and happy. It will make you vivacious, dynamic, heroic, and even godlike. A high-quality philosophy improves a person's nature, character, and essence. And the best philosophy has a spirituality which will show you life at its deepest, widest, strongest, truest, and best. This spirituality is lofty, noble, and sacred. It is dedicated, in large part, to the sublime, transcendent, and infinite. Spirituality of this kind provides belief in today, and hope for the future. It generates confidence and tranquility. A proper philosophy provides clear purpose and deep meaning for your unique, irreplaceable, priceless existence. Human beings, at their finest, are demi-godly creatures that live like dynamos, heroes, and legends. A truly spiritual being will at least try to have all, do all, and be all. To know, experience, achieve, and enjoy everything. To conquer reality and rule the universe. True spirituality involves genuine internal beauty. It combines a delicate sweetness and psychological loveliness with robust vigor and ferocious energy. A proper and ideal spirituality requires and involves a high level of intelligence, consciousness, motivation, desire, volition, and will. Spirituality enhances animation, energy, determination, and focus. It cheers and steels you. Spirituality is the profound unity of reason and emotion -- of powerful thinking and strong passion.

Thanks, Marc! But I can't help but be a little curious about her. Where does she live? How does she spend her days? Why doesn't she participate here, or on other Objectivist sites, or on Facebook?

I think Ms. Branden is out of contact with everyone, and for many years now. It's a shame, and I don't know why.

I think the proper social ideals here are benevolence, generosity, and magnanimity toward your fellow man -- based on empathy and compassion for him -- but not forgiveness, charity, or even kindness. Stay close to justice, and don't deviate away from morality. But it also depends on how you define these many related and confusing terms.

Not sure what you mean, Michael. Isn't extreme egoism a strong dedication to individual happiness, while nihilism is a strong dedication to the destruction of others and the self? And I'm not sure how the pursuit of ideals or the good life for the individual means being ruled by a disembodied, non-corporeal idea.

The dictator Hugo Chavez may be dead. But the idea of dictatorship, unfortunately, is still quite alive. The world needs to mercilessly kill off the idea that the Individual should somehow live, and be forced to live, for the sake of god, mankind, or the gov't. The sacred One is an untouchable and deity-like creature which should only live for his own pleasure, enjoyment, excitement, contentment, satisfaction, meaning, purpose, and happiness. So to hell with serving these extraneous and accursed god, mankind, and gov't things!

Stephen -- The books by Fred Miller and John Lewis seem promising, and probably George Smith's upcoming book too. I certainly appreciate your suggested references! One reason why I think the Romans were massively liberal in philsophy and culture is that their best thinkers -- maybe Cicero, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, and Aurelius -- all seemed to favor the Greek liberal trio of Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno the Stoic, while mostly disfavoring the principal illiberals, mainly: the Platonists, Cynics, Skeptics, and emerging monotheists. Hume seems like an illiberal disaster and destroyer to me based on such ethical beliefs as: "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason." And:"Actions may be laudable or blameable; but they cannot be reasonable: Laudable or blameable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes controle, our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason."

Many thanks for your compliments, and the thoughtful detailed critique, Stephen! There certainly needs to be far more elaboration in that essay as well as a citation of sources. Hopefully I'll do that eventually. But if yourself or anyone else thinks I'm flat-wrong about the various other claims, I'd love to hear it. I'll also try to answer one or two of the points mentioned above in the next few days.