john42t

I'm struggling to recall how I actually meant it. Anthony brought the term in and at the time I didn't pay any attention to it might being necessary to separate the emotional connotation from the rest of the meaning. That statement by itself is probably true in both meanings - just not with primitive cultures in my case. To clarify what my stance is: In all three conflicts I'm siding with the more advanced groups, but in the case of South Africa I admit very limited knowledge. Only in the case of the middle east conflict I feel some level of emotions - and even in that case I reserve most of my contempt for the Muslim's Western leftist enablers. In case of primitive cultures outside a conflict (natives in the jungles of south america, for example), I'm indifferent. It's a bit like thinking about fascinating animal species. I don't "look down" on animals either, no matter how primitive.

The third definition is a package deal. Is it their disadvantage or it not being based on merit that is the essential characteristic? The phrase "to look down on" implies an emotional attachment. Something like contempt. I didn't mean to imply such an emotion when I classified certain groups of natives as primitive.

Ah, I see. Public and private slavery are different concepts in my head, that's why I couldn't see the connection.

Now how, precisely, would you define that phrase? Can we define it without a pejorative intent? I don't think so. When you value, that means that in your eyes some things are better than others. Applied to human beings, that necessarily implies an insult to some. The only way to avoid that is not to value human beings at all, which is amoralism.

1/2 half is the level of their relatedness, as they are all sisters (offsprings of the same queen). There are probably some exceptions, but by and large that's the way in eusocial species. Altruism is the correct (and Randian) term to use here.

Yes, the little lady that caused the unification war. "Uncle O'bama's Cabin" is an insult to Uncle Tom, I wonder how you mean that.

I find that very weird. If anything, Rand has improved my opinion of religion. After all, she shows how it's really only one drop in the ocean of irrational ideas. That puts things back in perspective. On Objectivist premises it's also easy to see *why* people like Beck are turning to religion: When virtually all atheists are also Marxists/progressives, it's difficult not conclude that religion is the good. The only thing that can keep you from such a conclusion lies deep down in epistemology where most people just don't go hunting. I think Beck's great, both as an independent mind and a likable person, and I fully agree with you on his positive influence. Thanks for the links.

I'm intrigued. Maybe you can recommend other videos/texts by her that show the Machiavellian side a bit more? :-)

Can anybody hear what Chuck's "turning point" was at 7:30?

Most anti-slavery viewpoints are simply motivated by leftism, H.B.Stove being the best example. Reason has little to do with it. Wow, that's truly gross. Didn't know that. But then you know the state of the world when the fascists are the good guys.

Is there anybody who doesn't look down upon some people or groups of people? Leftists do it, Rand did it, and I don't know of anybody who doesn't, even if to a lesser extent. You should do that, you only also should better do it right.

You are profiting from it.

Apparently not. Thanks for the whose/who's issue, it's something that escapes the spellcheckers. They didn't want to teach anybody, they wanted to *appear* as if they do. That's why a suggestion like getting native speakers in is one they don't like: It's a threat to them. Makes sense.

My first English word to learn was "color", as that was a command in the C-16 basic when I started to teach myself programming at the age of 7. Most of what I learned was in part from the public school system, but also from video games and American television, together with diligence, the joy of self-improvement and the firm belief that it's the language of the better. Of my English lessons I vividly remember reading "Ecotopia", a novel about a "utopian" society ruled by a political caste of feminist women on the soil of California. All men had to built their own homes by hand, so that they know what's good for them. On the subject matter, he didn't know words like waning and waxing, so he was just as incompetent as I've come to expect teachers to be. I used to wonder why my suggestions of getting native speakers into schools to improve quality was met with hostility by both teachers and many other adults back then. Now I know: To teach children was not their goal.

I'll respond only to the extent I already thought about these questions before. In real life I play the nice guy, I almost never criticise anyone. I don't think anything comes of it. I've never seen it work, I don't believe people to be rational enough to reward honesty to a great extent. I'm honest in so far as it serves me, but not more. If somebody seems to want me to agree with him over a topic he gets emotional about, and I don't agree with him, I evade and change the subject. I won't go as far as actually faking agreement, as that would be against my self-interest, but there's no point in exposing myself and becoming the image and target of his hatred. I've made this mistake a couple of times, I've learned my lesson. There's internet forums in which one can be much more honest, real life is an irrational minefield. Rand's own story is the best example. She made such a compelling case, so utterly easy to digest, wrapped up in such spicy stories, but she didn't turn the majority around, so that means that the assumption of most men being rational is wrong. I hold one more premise not found in Objectivism: Everyone, I include myself, is rational only in very sepecific circumstances: When it suits us. I believe there's something in the human mind that keeps it from thinking camly about new information when ones self image is threatened by it. In such cases you feel anger and a strong wish about this information to be wrong. You will want it to be a lie, a conspiracy, whatever. You will not consider it. You see this in little children, in OWS protesters, in people whose occupation is meaningless, and in people who define themselves as "the good guy" rather than "the guy who is useful for something". Usually they accumulate in groups and that's where mobs come from. It has nothing to do with intelligence. This makes me come to very different conclusions than most Randians. In particular, it means that violence, keeping back with judgements, siding with evil, etc. is much more often moral than if human nature was of the kind that you can actually reason with people. Usually, you can't reason with people unless they can gain something substantial from it. Since most of the time the truth hurts, most of the time, you can't reason with them at all. You can put reason out there, like Rand did, but only a minority will pick it up and they won't pick up all of it. In particular, it's totally useless to try to reason with net-tax-receivers. They have nothing to win from the truth. Being totally honest every time and generally sticking to Objectivist virtues even if it becomes sacrifical is Kantian deontology. All that being said, I *am* optimisitic for exactly those reasons: Most people begin to feel the leash on their neck, the very leash they've supported morally for a very long time. It's no longer only rich bankers, Jews, a few entrepreneurs who have to face evil, it's beginning to be a substantial portion of the West's population. Now it's about their own sorry asses.

Jews were never hated for not being civilized enough. Anti-semitism comes from them being too wealthy, too apart, too selfish. You can see this in anti-semitism being connected with anti-ursury sentiments (today and two millenia ago). Marx' article "On the Jewish Question" shows that very well. As I said, it's usually the left who understands it better.

Fantastic, thanks for sharing!

I fully agree with you and especially want to applaud your bravery to include the south african settlers in that pattern. The left is always quicker to see the parallels. The accusation of "apartheid" in the case of Israel is correct: In both cases it's a civilized people who defend themselves against the primitive, and in both cases the left is on the side of the primitive. As I said in my other posting, it's the Zeitgeist that matters. When Americans gained a foothold there was no "international community" to use the alleged injustice against natives as a means to destroy a society of free men with moral blackmail. There was also little egalitarian superstition (few colleges too) and so the American settlers were free to deal with the natives the way they did. Good for the Jews that they don't back down. When leftism faces its end in the West, they have won.

Is this how you are using the word? Yes, I believe the meaning in English is the same as in German. I'm not sure what word Rand used for it, I think it was cultural or intellectual climate. She praised the one during the 19th century and resented the direction in which it was heading. I believe that direction climaxed in the West in the 90s and is now heading backwards towards what Rand (and I) consider to be good (elistist, heroic, pro-values, etc.). I'm optimistic for the backlash to come much faster. It's also why I don't share your pessimism about America. I think America's going to be fine.

Interestingly, the ant genes are again selfish because they work in order to increase the survival chance of their own copies in the queen. That's the only strategy those genes can pursue, as the worker ant can't herself reproduce. Individual-level (sacrifical rather than reciprocal) altruism has its root in gene selfishness (in human beings it can also be rooted in a moral code). So far, I'm fine with any biologist. It's only when they want to tell me that I have a natural desire to be altruistic to my tribe because I share genes with them when I'm beginning to object. Human beings are not eusocial and sacrifical altruism is restricted to very specific cases such mother-child relationships, where the degree of relatedness is still high. And even then I recommend any mother to have a quick check if that applies to her case (if so, she will experience an exceptional amount of that feeling called "love" towards her child), rather than to trust that net-tax-receiving biologists get it right. They have an interest in making you believe that you are a worker ant for the state that feeds them.

The majority needs a democratic/egalitarian Zeitgeist to have power. Without that, their numbers are meaningless. I don't believe that Zeitgeist to be still there in 60 years from now, it's eroding fast.

It's true. Deep down under my bitter Randroid shell I only wish to be loved. :-)

No, those snippets in brackets are supposed to be the excuses people use to rationalize why rape in those cases isn't something to get excited about. There used to be an ad over here by the copyright enforcement agencies a couple of years ago that portrayed prison rape as something to laugh about. Nobody took offence. There's pulp fiction. Nobody is offended by that. It's only adult->child and man->women rapes people are offended by. That's why I don't believe people's motives in those cases. I think the motive is tribal. They want to cry "hang him" and let themselves be cheered by the crowd. I also think that most people are rather unconscious of their true motives. From their perspective, it "feels right". I have no idea about the motives in your case and this isn't meant to be a personal attack. In fact I very much appreciate your style of discourse. This is just my sentiment about the average attitude displayed on this thread.