Mike11

If you're reading "The Case for Israel" it wasn't bad. Obviously there is a strong bias at work in the selection of facts to emphasize and ignore as well as a debatable difference of standards for Israelis and Arabs but its about as good as it could be while remaining partisan. As for the Mufti, he was bad but not so much for his antizionism. He valued his hatred of the British and Zionists more than his people's own political and economic development. When the British pulled out of Palestine the first waves of "refugees" were the Arab upper and middle classes - doctors, teachers, mailmen - who depended on the British for their livelihoods. When the British administration collapsed they found themselves out of a job. Had the Mufti backed an Arab Agency in Palestine which the British insisted on there would have been a strong Palestinian government and society following the British withdrawal. Everything followed from there...

To Life, I don't feel comfortable answering you, I have (as many, Many here will attest) a loose grasp of the Objectivist thinking on this. That said, no one else seems to want to answer you so I'll try. If I understand your position it is something like this: Objectivism claims that ethics ought to be about ensuring one's own survival and prosperity at the expense of the survival and prosperity of others, should the need arise, despite whatever sugar coating there may be in the doctrine's wording. Arguments like the "Prudent Predator" applied to Objectivism give us no ability to see the lives of others as having a necessary value free from our own selfish exploitation. To protect others from this conflict we need a frame work which affirms the rights and worth of others despite the other's value to us. Is that what you were saying? If so I think you misunderstand a vital aspect of the Objectivist Ethic and its idea of the Self. Rand, bastard child of Marxism that she was, defined Man by how he survives, not just if he survives. In fact, from my understanding, the How was more important than the If. Looking at her fiction for example Galt was tortured, his survival threatened, but still he refused to live through the exploitation of others even if it meant his own death. In her non fiction Rand states often the idea of First and Second Handedness. To live First Handedly is to live without exploiting others, it is to live freely in the world you've made. This is Rand's (and Marx's) view of the the Self, it is known and defined by its relationship to its own productive labor. It is this "Self", clean from the sin of exploiting and harming others, Rand said we ought to have, that was her "Virtue of Selfishness". To live Second Handedly... well, just reverse everything I just said. Its parasitic and by necessity dishonest and coercive in dealing with others which it treats as tools to gain values for itself. Rand can be read in such a way that we can treat others as means, as objects to be injured in our mad quest for prosperity but doing so misses that crucial distinction she drew. In her view we do not necessarily have to treat others as sacred, simply by living on our own achievements and merit this problem of exploitation is avoided.

It might just be my current (rather exhausted) mental state but I found that post insanely hard to read.

I've always been closer - geographically, socially and culturally - to the Right Wing Zionists and their supporters. This is why most of my 'thoughts' on the Middle East are critical of Israel and the West and not of Islam. Anyway a major rally was held nearby as part of a general nation wide program to further cement the Xian/Zionist alliance. Being the kind of person I am I decided to go, hear them out, talk to them, see what's up and such. As a blanket rule the Palestinians were addressed as 'the terrorists' in Eretz Yisrael/The 'territories'/The 'Land' (a euphemism for Israel and Palestine with heavy religious connotations) The only time Palestinians were mentioned as being in Palestine was in statements like"Only the Israelis are fit to rule. Palestinians who want to live peacefully ought to realize that and give up their terrorist dream against Israel" and "Why do the Palestinians hate Israel? Is it something Israel did? No! Its their hatred of our rights and freedoms. They embrace lawlessness, poverty and Evil! They will come for you next!" I blanked out Big Time after that. The only other thing I recall was stuff about the "Sin of Moral Relativism" that sees the "Enemy as victims" Can't buy gold like that. There was a lot of support for Israel there but this sort of denial of the Palestinian narrative is thoroughly counter productive. The longer the Palestinians are seen as a group that the Israelis can and should dominate the longer the conflict will continue. NOTE FROM MSK: The original post has been replaced with the one above at the author's request.

Remember the major study that would save Health Care during Chretien's term? How it said we would have a first rate medical system if we cut all the needless waste built into the system? Funny how govt employees never mention that report these days. I agree with GS, this problem doesn't need to be brought into abstract philosophy to be fixed. America's or Canada's.

Shortly after the Act was created a Canadian rock band critical of the Bush Regime named "God Speed You Dark Emperor" crossed into the States. They were stopped, interrogated and presented with their concert promotion fliers within minutes, apparently the DHS was busier monitoring punk bands than catching terrorists. There were dozens of cases as inane as this one. Maybe what they lack in competence they try to make up for in stupid/scary. As for the source of the article, I'm inclined to not believe them or assume they aren't blowing things way out of proportion. Their front page has the now e-famous "Fox/McCain" brainwashing clip from youtube, among other things

Feel free to call me out on my ignorance here, I'd actually like to know more context pertaining to what follows. From my reading of Rand and Peikoff hat a huge I always get a strong impression that a huge degree of rationalization is happening. As I said in the "Is Objectivism a Philosophy?" thread its like she had a crude Nietzshean position and than back tracked from there building shaky argument after shaky argument to cover it up. I'm not going to make any general attack on "Man Qua Man" here but criticize how it operates. I'm going to start with an analogy from another part of the movement, which I understand I do not know well enough to really make a solid claim, and then relate it to this issue. There is a tendency in Objectivism to deny the rights of those living in non western societies. Her ideas tended to stereotype other societies as primitive and barbaric while ignoring strengths they had over the West and also denied these societies had acknowledged property rights, which is absurd. Her writings about other cultures, like the "primitive arab nomads" or the moral removal of native americans, seemed to be drawn from a Victorian Imperialist play book. We can, I think, all agree that despite the ideology's opposition Objectivism has always had a strong subconscious desire to dominate the 'inferior'. I wonder how much of the views in Objectivism were about justifying an Imperialist mentality. I mean the ARI still praises Columbus for giving Reality! Reason! and Rights! to all those millions he helped exterminate and enslave. Why does she feel the need to find this distinction? Why not find another, far more accurate definition of "Man"? Honestly a lot of this just seems like, "I like meat but those "Viro" evil doers ar depressing, how can I rationalze?" I'm not saying Rand was wrong just that a bit of criticism along these lines may not be a bad thing.

My understanding has this tomfoolery going back at least as far as "Philosophical Detection" in PWNI (never mind the black and white archetypes and paranoia of her novels) when she lays out how any statement can be made a philosophical straw man with no rules as to when it can not be used.

A few months ago I said that the ARI is structurally and methodologically incapable of producing anything other than complete bull shit. I've wanted to make a post explaining this but haven't had the time. Fortunately this article demonstrated, at least partly, why I hold the ARI in such low esteem. Not only have the Cardinals of Roid-dom utterly missed the point of Just War Theory, they also appear to have never read a book (generally...) and see the "Altruist" behind every action. Its fiction, myth, dangerous stereotyping and its a mentality of ignorance, misrepresentation, and mythologizing that pervades every single thing they puke out. Moving on, Self criticism has never been a strong point of any power structure, let alone one as corrupt as Dubya's. Anyway, back about 2 years ago there was a major State Dept report on "Why 'they' h8 'us' " which looked at the Islamic world in detail and listed all its screw ups. Everyone liked it. The last report however laid most of the blame on the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. This final report was never published and I think some ADL types cried "antisemitism!!" over it. Without going into my personal beliefs about war, which are at this point pretty well Marxist, I think we can all cry "Bollocks!" on this uncritical war mongering. As for the ethics of the war and the violation of American laws that got you people into your present state all I can say is "Well, yah. Now what are you people going to do with it? I mean /b/ delivers but this is one Hell of an order." "Only the dead have seen an end to war" It will always be in the interests of an elite to bang the war drums. Unity, Profit, Power - What's not to love?

Just a side issue not addressed directly here that I think deserves some consideration. Out of everyone here I'm furthest removed, I think, from Objectivism in both my personal beliefs and tribal affiliation. I've never dared to speak to someone face to face after learning Atlas was their favorite book and would not go to any Objectivist clubs. My knowledge of Objectivism is based on other sources and my own external observations of their online communities. Those disclaimers said I think this passage really explains why there is so much petty tribalism going on. However, like all my posts, don't expect this to be coherently argued.... Roland Barthes traced the origins of the virtue of lucidity to the emerging structure of power, which used the means of law, in France. The idea that one must state, clearly and succinctly, what one believes was a way for the emerging State to understand and thus control its subjects. Now I'mot sure if this is true and I think in a legal context its obviously required but any power structure would demand this sort of thing. Whether Rand intended this passage to assist in the maintenance of the Objectivist hierarchy is beside the point, I believe it has come to function in this way and has become a major justification for it. We have, I think, all agreed Rand's instructions to be unrealistic or undesirable for various reasons. One can not be called upon to justify one's beliefs at the drop of the hat, especially not in the black and white ways Rand and the Roids seem to prefer. Because of this, in my mind, the lines become so blurred that any statement or lack of codified beliefs on any issue can be made either White as John Galt's Own Cigarette or Black as Toohey's Gallant Gallstone. Let me give an example of 2 equally likely conversations: Pope Lenny: What is your evaluation of continued beer bottle throwing along the Ontario/Quebec border? Young Roid: I don't know. I'm from there but haven't thought of it much. Lenny: *likes the cut of the Roid's jib* Well, surely the mind can not properly integrate Everything but what do you think on a preliminary basis? Young Roid: Well, it seems to me (or, "my feeling is") that Quebec has legitimate grievances. Lenny: *still likes the cut of his jib* I see your point young man. Have you read my book?....... Or, take 2: Pope Lenny: What is your evaluation of continued beer bottle throwing along the Ontario/Quebec border? Young Roid: I don't know. I'm from there but haven't thought of it much. Lenny: *Thinks the young roid is fat or reminds him of his mother* What!?! You mean you EVADE!?!?!?!?!?!?! Out with it man! What do you believe!!! Young Roid: Well, it seems to me (or, "my feeling is") that Quebec has legitimate grievances. Lenny: *Still thinks the Roid looks like his mother* Seems!?!?!? "Legitimate!?!?! The problem (since its the only thing Peikoff feels confidant thinking about and thus having this full description of his own belief on) is Quebec is a fundamentally mystical and altruist society! Would you have the Canadians immolate themselves on the fleurs-de-lis! You have done nothing but evade the issue and refuse to see the true cause of the dispute, not the mundane earthly dispute but the dispute of ideas! Now leave here! :frantics: k Joel...... cool it..... So that is how, and why, I think the idea is so powerful among the Roids. As a side note, notice I had Lenny's confidence in his ideas a factor. If having a codified belief, not actual truth and logic, is what determines one's possibilities of acceptance and expulsion than you will stick to what you know is the party line. In Peikoff's case you stick to what you "know" which is philosophy and will thus, because you're less likely to acknowledge truth outside of it, see the world only by what your capable of easily defining/regurgitating. I hope that post made sense and that it contributes.

I agree, homosexuality is wrong, bisexuality is the way to go. Double the action.

Just some preliminaries based on your comments, I only barely read the infamous article by Yaron (only so much Kill em All! Kill em All! Kill em All! I can handle in one sitting) and I don't have time right now to check out the critique (though being the troll I am any new antriroid LULZ will be read by yours truly within 24 hours of it being spoken of here). Outside of the ethical issues involved in declaring war another equal (or larger) issue for me has been the facts and framing used in the Roid's framing of the war. You touched on it, lightly IMHO, in pointing out the complicity of the States (and Britain, Israel, France, Germany etc) in supplying and aiding in the creation of the "Evil Doers". To many simply by into the myth, as the Roids do, of the clean handed Americans going against some frozen abstraction of the Bad Guys when in fact the truth of our Middle East (and East Asian) adventures are about contacting one group of Evil Doers and giving them the training, guns, and even the lighting to wipe out entire civilian populations of "Baddies" (Sabra and Shatila). To ignore the history of Western colonialism, imperialism, complicity with evil dictators, is to engage in massive self deception and moral amnesia. It also tricks us into thinking we are well liked, remember Rumsfeld's infamous "They will greet us with flowers" speech when in fact most Iraqis wanted nothing to do with us. This ties into a second point, in framing the wars only in moral terms, with economic criticism labeled as 'Marxist', we can get away with what nations always do when they go to war - steal and plunder. Only in the mind of the Roid these motivations are hidden by double think and praised as the Just actions of Galt vs Toohey in typical roidian mental gymnastics. Just some observations.

Philip Coates, I 100% agree.

Sorry, I dropped a catch phrase and hoped someone would get my point. Which they did surprisingly, let me explain more what I meant... Without getting into the specifics I think we can all agree there are aspects of Rand's writings which lend themselves to frenzied denunciations as well as uncritical and absolute praise of people, groups or ideas. This passage in my mind is one of them. It encourages us to overly moralize and, maybe even worse and far more widespread, encourage ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge. I almost don't know where to begin as so much of Objectivism's main problems (by which I basically mean all the fun things that swim around in a randroids 'brain' as well as the philosophy itself) can be seen in this passage. 1) It stereotypes what rationality is. I read a definition of "whim" (I think it was in PWNI) which meant something like "any inclination whose cause is not consciously known" and this eventually mutated into some chaotic land beyond reason. Well, 99% of our thinking occurs on the level of "whim" or on a level that does not "know clearly, in full, verbally identified form" our thoughts and opinions. Aside from problems like what that "fully" exactly encompasses it should be clear that in our daily interactions we do not consciously think of what we are doing. On one level I am not consciously thinking about the other people in the library, or even what kind of response I will get from this post. On a more important level we simply can NOT know in the way Rand wants us to, to consciously go through every decision in such a way would mean that a marriage proposal would take 25 years. Just think of how little interaction and thought actually appears between characters in Atlas and The Fountainhead, everything seems to be more about glances and tones that words themselves. Rand can mean that Practically and contextually we should be conscious and thorough but to take that and make it a theoretical extreme simply can't be done. 2) It tricks people into thinking that their level of certainty in themselves is certainty about issue in particular. If someone takes the attitude of, "I know, in full consciously articulated form what I know about X" the less likely they are to be self critical. Its not a direct causal thing but there is a tendency for this certainty in one's formation of a view and inability to accept the possibility of fault. I can not count the number of times I've gotten the following from a roid, "What!? In saying that Global Warming is happening you are undercutting my certainty and thus my reason and you are evil and Kant and blah blah blah" I think this passage from Rand contributes to that. It seems to me in the process of learning we are too busy in challenging and expanding our beliefs to freeze frame our beliefs and spend time verbally codifying them. I can not tell you right now what I think of Israel and Palestine in a verbally codified form but it seems to me that if I did take the time to do so I'd be wasting time I could have spent reading and questioning my beliefs. And we all know how much Roids pontificate and how little they read. 3) It encourages wild denunciations or self deceptive praise. If you need some absolute black and white moral evaluation of everything based on limited evidence what else would you expect? For example, I can tell, obviously from the grin and slight downward angle of MSK's face, he is mocking me, enjoying the fact that he is corrupting us all. K, that was all badly written, do you see my point though?

Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.

I think Michael is right. For every one person I've met who is an ardent pro-Rand fanatic I've met dozens who are positively affected but not lobotomized. I have also met an equal number of antirandians.

On a slightly different topic as you all know the world is experiencing a major food shortage, at the same time the Canadian govt ordered the destruction of livestock as we are experiencing over production. Something tells me that with more food than our overweight society wants here and with far less food than they need to live over there, there is a solution to at least part of the problem.

You'll like it here. This is the best Objectivist board on the interwebs.

:lol:

Fascinating story.

Phew! I thought you were being serious. I liked the sculpture and review.

I've never had the pleasure of speaking to her personally but that is the impression I have from her writings. A while back someone posted her exchange on an Objectivist forum (I think it was the HBL) in which she burns the ARI for its closed minded approach - the exact same approach she has now. I don't know about how she was treated by Objectivist groups before her ARI conversion but I assumed she converted mainly for, as you said, pragmatic reasons; the perceived inability of the TOC to match the 'progress' and visibility of the ARI. Do you have any sources of her possible mistreatment at the hands of the Brandens, Sciaberra (etc)? I'd like to read them. For that matter, since it is on topic, if anyone has sources on her online would you mind posting links?

Did God simply skimp on the the Levitical laws because people would "get it" with the first ten? Did Armstrong simply stop when he left Earth's gravity? Did Anon stop with the first DoS attacks? Did Seinfeld stop with the Pilot? The LULZ MSK, we care because of the LULZ.

LOL Thought you were being serious for a bit.

I've been avoiding commenting about this for a while but ... That sentence expresses why I doubt the honesty of the whole of Objectivism. "X could be true but that would be, depressing. I think I'll rationalize instead, far better for my ego."