JustFact

Perhaps Barbara can defend herself by replying to the content of my post. Or maybe someone else will reply to the content.

Michael, well done dodging the subject.

I'll subscribe to this topic in case someone responds meaningfully to the content of my post.

P.S. Owner, I'm also itching my chin while I write this. It's my coolest tribalist mannerism.

From the original post of this thread, "Say a kind word about George W. Bush—and you had better take to the hills at once."

This seems like saying, "Say a kind word about something Adolf Hitler did for Germans — and you'd better expect a load of anger." especially when such a statement, in relation to the U.S.A., comes from a rational person — "my worthy opponent" in this case. But wouldn't anger be appropriate when considered in context?

I understand the context of the post is not on politics, but you may have forgotten what politics is consistent with "Objectivism" because I'm sure you are aware of "The Patriot Act" and that it is not patriotic. The Bush patriarchs are filth. Thus I think the quoted statement is a very misguided example to justify your post.

Along with this, I wonder when did leaning toward the "Neo-Con" mindset become a prerequisite for any leading character of the Objectivist movement? Leonard Peikoff, now Yaron Brook, and once some infiltration by Alan Greenspan. Who's next to speak for pop. rational philosophy, Ram Emanuele!? Wow. I stand in awe of this absurdity.

[edited for the forum owner's sake]

Sean:

Welcome to OL.

Your list of links is intended to do what?

Adam

To completely restore in middle-aged, lathargic, intellectual wannabes, their child-like intellectual honesty; so that they can see the world for what it is, rather that what their life of compromising out of struggles too difficult for them to break through has conditioned them to thoughtlessly accept.

But it seems I did not succeed.

This seems to fit the thread on conspiracies. I didn't know what I was getting into when I started watching these Money Masters videos, but ... well, we're talking about 9/11, we're talking about the mortgage crisis, we're talking about Jekyll Island... and then here there is given a much wider view.

Conspiracies might be just like fractional banking: 10% is based on fact, 90% is based on speculation. But it is always good to seek facts, even amidst the mud... and for that reason I am relatively immune to the preaching... it doesn't win me over, it doesn't disgust and deter me. I find it fascinating to consider what might be occurring, and if I let my imagination go too wild, it becomes rather scary.

Anyway, for those discussing conspiracies, there is none more ultimate than that proposed in the Money Masters videos.

At this point in my life-long education, it is simply laughable to hear or read of "conspiracy theories". I'm sure you think you know why I say this, but the odds are that you are wrong because very few people are aware of the two fundamental methods of viewing historic and contemporary political events:

- Accidental. In this view, all conspicuous events are the result of disconnected individuals or groups reacting to isolated offenses. All tyrannical governments have been the product of short-sightedness and sometimes border-line insanity in very charismatic individuals. (In this view, banks are not mentioned because the transfer of money and debt between allies and enemies is inconsistent with "accidental" tyranny.)

- Conspiratorial. In this view, some people - usually especially rich and influential people - deal with others in order to gain more money. Those who have among their assets the usurped authority to print money would obviously not bother about gaining more money, but seek to maintain their authority through more influence and control. Such people and their deeds are reasonably kept in the shadows in order to succeed in raping their victims who immensely outnumber them.

Definition: con•spir•a•cy

Pronunciation: kən-ˈspir-ə-sē

1. "the act of conspiring together"

2. "an agreement among conspirators"

Yes there are "little green men" conspiracy theories. There are conspiracy theories that CIA-asset "terrorists" who couldn't fly planes were able to impact 3 out of 3 targets with precision and somehow 3 out of 3 buildings fell at free-fall speed and into their own footprint because of structural damage and fire. Perhaps if you had been at "ground-zero" that day you'd have motivated your mind to surpass your anti-intellectual mentality, and already reached the knowledge I'm presenting to you. Since you haven't, here it is:

"America: Freedom to Fascism"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

"The Obama Deception"

"Fabled Enemies"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407

"Wake Up Call"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3543161691381895251

http://www.infowars.com/listen.html

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

- Thomas Jefferson