Serapis Bey

It's all about "look how connected I am, and these nice things I do for people." When money is no object, the competition becomes exclusively over social status and who is more connected than whom.

This is an excellent point, and underscores another of Objectivism's blind spots.

(BTW, this reminds me of something I forgot to say to Greg in the other thread: Wealth may or may not be a zero-sum game -- I'm undecided at the moment -- but status absolutely is.)

I think the reason this is a blind-spot is because of Rand's semi-autistic psychology. It also explains why Objectivism seems to attract many of those "on the spectrum."

The lack of understanding about man's desire for status and it's importance leads to some spurious analyses of how power and influence work at the upper levels of society. I recall reading a report (can't find it now) showing how most of the "1%ers" voted for Obama and donated the most to him. How can this be??? Why would those noble producers vote for a tax and spend liberal, depriving them of their hard earned wealth? Because they can afford to take the monetary hit, and it is more important to them to have the "right" political beliefs in order to distinguish themselves from the money-grubbing lower classes, and fit in with the rest of their "clan."

They want higher taxes? I say give it to 'em good and hard.

An objectivist would probably look at this apparent contradiction and speculate about how "altruism" has infected the thinking of these people, and why we need better philosophy, etc. This strikes me as the Objectivist version of the progressive's "false consciousness."

The article is bullshit and you seem smart enough to know it.

Greg has his moments, but referring to him personally in connection with this sort of thing is a little much.

You're absolutely right. I would say about 53.7% of my tongue was planted in my cheek here.

I would like to hear what you consider "bullshit" about the article. (But if it's a minor point disregarding the larger context, don't bother. )

Seems to me the author presented a more nuanced view of class warfare and wealth inequality than the oversimplified morality tales presented in Rand's novels.

I think Greg has a keen understanding of these issues and has constructed a metaphysical morality that strives to plug some of the holes in egoistic philosophies. It's a welcome and needed effort and I wish him the best. At the moment I side with Nietzsche who claimed the "Truth" of an idea was less important than whether the idea is "life-promoting." I think most of us here would agree that a philosophy of rational selfishness ought to preclude the possibility of sociopathic opportunism. I think there is a germ of something important in what Greg has to say, but that's because I'm currently on this biocentrism/ontology kick.

Also, I sense another fault line in the Objectivist movement: between those who see Oism as a philosophy of personal empowerment, and those who see it as a political philosophy. Perhaps it is the case that mixing the two results in muddled thinking?

Along these lines, I speculate that those who are most drawn to the "personal empowerment" aspect of Objectivism will be those in the middle to upper-middle classes -- those who might be entrepeneurs and small-business ownwers. Outside of that socioeconomic strata, other forces apply. (Those who are drawn to the classical liberal tradtion of Oism are probably older folks with sentimental attachments to the America they once knew)

You guys spill lots of ink lambasting our sociopathic elites and their loss of noblesse oblige towards the country as a whole.

I'd just like to weigh in that I'm not one of "you guys", as I've never disparaged the "elites". Regardless of anyone else does, no one can prevent me from living a good life, because wealth is not a zero sum game.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game? We will see.

Peak Oil (and the concomitant scramble for resources) might have something to say about that.

Sadly, it seems both MSK and Greg have thrown their lot in with Da Jews:

Although none of those subsequent quotes were mine, nevertheless you're quite correct in your observation that my lot is indeed thrown in with the Jews.

Do you realize Jews have been instrumental in the de-Christianization of your country? Does your love of money blind you to this social fact? This is of no concern to an Objectivist, but it ought to give someone like you pause. Unless you have already sold your soul, that is...

There is a basic spiritual goodwill of shared moral values between Jews and Christians.

On the topic of Israel, perhaps.

Otherwise, any Christians you encounter who feel this way have already been Judeaized.

(BTW, who was that black preacher who Rand lauded...you know, the one who said the best way to help the poor was to not be one of them?)

They're God's chosen people, and I've been honored to serve God's chosen people for decades.

You're what they call a "shabbos goy"

Ever wonder why Jews tend to be generally more successful than other groups?

I certainly have. Given your quasi-karmic view of morality it is no surprise you would attribute this phenomenon to their "hard work". It is a salutary belief. Fits in nicely with the idea that people are equal and only differ based on how "hard they work".

Calvinist.

Unfortunately for you, the biological reality is not so cut and dried:

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/kim-beder.pdf

Read it and weep.

Eric,

What in hell is a "Good Jew"

Poor elocution on my part. I was pretty deep into the bottle at that point.

What I was trying to get at (in my inebriated way) was the issue of personal selfishness vs. social cohesion. You guys spill lots of ink lambasting our sociopathic elites and their loss of noblesse oblige towards the country as a whole. You dress up the debate in terms of "altruism", "collectivism", "reason", etc., but lets be real. The progressives (hi Carol) have your number on this point. In reality it comes down to "I.G.M." -- "I Gots Mine". Those with power will do what it takes to consolidate that power because it is IN THIER INTEREST TO DO SO. They feel no obligation to give a damn about those lower on the pecking order. The Constitution is now a dead piece of parchment, as Ba'al has often noted. What force does your "Rea$on" have in lieu of this fact?

I mention "The Jew Thang" because this clash of values has been at the heart of Jew/Gentile conflict throughout history. (Consider the debate over usury laws.) This aspect of Jew/Gentile conflict serves as an object lesson in clashing moral values. The issues I raised in my previous post need not remain abstract and untethered from reality -- we can simply look at HISTORY and place a microscope on the petri dish of two worldviews colliding. We can SEE, on the chessboard of life, how these abstruse concepts play out. That's all I'm saying. I don't mean to bang the Jew drum, but there is a tension between competing weltanschauungs that deserves a closer look. End the Fed!

(I should point out that my friend Robert Baratheon left this forum after he made a good faith effort to address the very issue of amoral oppurtunism, how it plays out in reality, and what injunctions, if any, Objectivism had to offer. For the most part, he was handwaved away, if not misrepresented. He was eager to roll up his sleeves and get down to brass tacks in order to address this moral thicket. I'm not surprised at the response here: the Prudent Predator argument is one of Objectivism's "thermal exhaust ports". Just saying.)

It seems both MSK and Greg have thrown their lot in with Da Jews:

His David DeAngelo material still sells in the tens of millions of dollars every year, drip drip drip, and for every detractor you mention, he has 100's of supporters...

A sucker is born every minute...

I don't like the PUA stuff except where the techniques transmute into busines

It doesn't matter if the product is legit? As long as it makes money?

http://scambust.org/david-deangelo-is-a-scam-heres-why/

btw - Eben is the reason I believe Nathaniel Branden has a good-sized nest egg in the sunset of his life. He got a bunch of top direct-response guru-type marketers to sell a Self-Esteem package of several products to their email lists, some of which have millions of subscribers, and those that don't have hundreds of thousands, at $600 a pop.

Oh, I don't doubt lots of money was made in the selling of "information". I'm certain those appraising their bounty "experience themselves as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and being worthy of happiness." Quite certain.

Returning now to the more significant topics in this thread, I would very much like to hear Stuttle's or Kolker's thoughts on the issue I raised a few posts back. This thought experiment is so elegant that I am surprised I hadn't encountered it -- I'm sure it originates with Searle of Dennett or some philosopher I haven't read before. Craig Weinberg elucidates it thusly:

“Consciousness allows us to do these things better.”

No, it doesn’t. It only seems that way because we are conscious. If our immune system could argue, it would say that unconsciousness is certainly superior to consciousness in every way.

Once you have conflated your own sense of human consciousness with the principle of awareness in general, it is very hard to separate the success of the human species from that misguided equivalence. Humans have a high quality of consciousness, so we have an advantage in more cases than disadvantages. That is not to say that an unconscious creature could not behave in exactly the same ways as we do, simply by making computations and without having some kind of presentation of those computations.

It doesn’t even have to be about consciousness. Let’s make it easy. A computer can drive a car without installing a TV screen inside the CPU to project images on. The computer need not render its detections of the outside world graphically. It certainly would not invent graphics or geometry to do such a thing, and we know that computers don’t do that already. If they did we wouldn’t need video monitors, we could just tap right into the computations themselves and look at them, or taste them, or listen to them. But it isn’t like that. Information processing is anesthetic and abstract. It has *no possible* means or motives to actualize itself aesthetically or concretely.

So yes, richer, deeper aesthetic qualities correlate to deeper quantitative nestings, but while you can derive quantites as a base level quality, no degree of computational complexity, in and of itself, will ever have need of a single quality. Computation is one dimensional – binary. Survival only benefits by more sophisticated programming, not by any kind of qualitative experience. Why feel pain when you can simply have a physical mechanism which enforces the behavioral logic which we associate with pain? In the end, the idea that pain can cause behavior change is circular. Why do we change our behavior because something hurts? Well, because if it hurts that means it is threatening our health. How do we know that that sensation of hurting means anything at all? Well, it’s hardwired into our brain. So why does our brain need to tell itself what the message means directly instead of converting it to an unexplained “hurt” and then converting it back into a receiver of hurt who changes the behavior which could have been changed in the first place directly by the brain? Pain hurts because hurt is painful. There’s no getting under it. There’s no reason why some signal should be felt as anything at all – it’s simply information to be classified with a high priority in the processing queue, nothing more. To suggest that consciousness offers more than unconsciousness demands that we see unconsciousness from this other vantage point. From a more neutral, scientific view however, it is clear that consciousness is functionally inert and redundant.

Why qualia, Kolker?

I don't doubt what you say Mike. I truly am a slacker. Guily as charged.

But you should know that David DeAnushole is not well regarded these days in the seduction community. He sold a false bill of goods to a lot of angry men.

http://www.puafraud.com/david-deangelo-aka-eben-pagan-loses-his-balls-admits-to-only-two-relationships-in-his-life/

http://puahate.com/showthread.php?t=73407

http://www.puahate.com/showthread.php?t=47970

Point being, he convinced a lot of nerds that they could become studs through "clever" talk alone. This idea rests on the premise that who you are, or what you have accomplished in your life is of no importance. What really matters, in his view, is how well you can market yourself. The problem is, marketing always melts in the face of reality eventually.

He did mange to make a lot of money from fleecing the desperate, however. He was a Good Jew.

I guess that makes him a good Objectivist in certain quarters...

Still a fan of Eben Pagan, Mike?

tsk tsk

I'm somewhat disappointed Greg chose not to respond to me, given that the ideas I am throwing out there so closely parallel his own. But...on second attention (see what I did there?), I think I understand.

I wonder if this reviewer of Lanza's book resonates with him on some level.

What I am sensing here is a tension between worldviews: those who extol the power of the individual versus those who value the harmonious functioning of a community. And this tension can reside in the same individual.

This is something which has been bubbling underneath the surface of Objectivism for some time now: how does one preach personal power and individualism without degenerating into sociopathic opportunism? Spare me the "rationality" rhetoric -- "reason" all to often devolves into self-serving rationalization.

My instinct tells me it was Greg's involvement with the Castaneda bunch which soured him on absolute personal power. You tell a bunch a people that they are all Gods and they invariably turn into Lord of the Flies. Only in Greg's case, the problem was compounded by the fact that those folks had an understanding of Esoteric truths. How to reconcile this? "Find Jesus" is my best guess. It makes sense and I don't begrudge it. It is no wonder he chose "moralist" as his nom de plume here. His witnessing is sincere. He senses the small seed of danger contained in certain aspects of Objectivism.

So this is where we are at. If Lanza is really on to something, we just might be seeing the convergence of "science" with what has traditionally been the domain of ritual magick or the Occult.

Man's attraction to ritual magick and science is the belief that he can "discover the Truth" AND "manipulate it according to his Will". One of these is a lie. -- C.S.Hyatt

Hence, the distinction between "Black" and "White" magick, or talk of the "Left-Handed Path", which is another way of distinguishing between monotheism (Christianity) and chaotic "polytheism" (individual empowerment bereft of tradition or morality).

In a world of feral cats, the only way of having a functioning society is to have the cats understand that any sins they commit against each other are a sin against God. This is the evolution of "moral technology." It binds people together. I am partial to this view. I take no sides....yet.

Both Satanic cults and Christian fundamentalists are closer to seeing the truth than most normal people. Something is going on, but it's not what they think. The Beast is staring out from each pair of eyes you see. Each glance in the mirror is the story of this world... -- C.S. Hyatt

One can observe the Tension in our host himself -- MSK. He is an atheist and individualist who comes down squarely on the side of personal empowerment. Yet he has a sentimental attachment to good-old-boy Americana and folks like Sarah Palin. Perplexing to most Objectivists I imagine, but I understand it. America in the 20th century was something special and represented an anamoly in history. Perhaps never to be repeated(?) But what made it special was the interpersonal communitarian values as against any greedy, individual grasping for money. This tradition honored organic, human values pertaining to family and trust and preservation of cultural inheritance. But this view is so at odds with a strain in Objectivism which emphasizes a dead-matter universe, a world of impersonal forces (and though MSK denies it), a lack of free-will or autonomy. I commend MSK for honoring his instincts and bucking certain forces in the "movement."

System building (organized lying) applies to all groups which spring up around dead men. Once the leader is gone his spirit does not remain for long. Sooner or later the group becomes simply "form." For example, look at the groups which have followed in the footsteps of Nietzsche or Crowley [or Rand -- SB]. They are shallow and academic, worshipping petty rules and regulations. They lack power and inspiration. Like a coffin they contain only the withering remains. -- C.S. Hyatt

In the final analysis, what I like about Weinberg's POV is that it obviates the need for most of these fruitless discussions about the "rationality" or "propriety" of this or that social arrangement. What most of us here on this particular board are responding to (whether we admit it or not) is a fundamentally aesthetic sense-of-life which is not amenable to a "rational" deconstruction. Perhaps this dovetails with Greg's "love", but I might just be drunk and overly charitable at the moment.

Consider one of Weinberg's graphics:

What this tells me is that Jonathan is the most highly-evolved member of this board. ;)

* I make no claims regarding my sanity

** If anyone wishes to understand how this all relates to The Jews, I can explain

Eric (Serapis Bey),

I'm not comfortable about you being restricted, since I believe you have a good mind.

I'm pulling the restriction.

<evil laugh>

Woe to you, O earth and sea...

Can ya' feel me where I'm coming from?

That's a serious question.

My Googling while reading the book led me to Craig Weinberg, who has been treading the same ground as Lanza but with more passion and thoroughness, it seems. He's just a hobbyist, but as I am no professional myself, I have been enjoying his thoughts.

He has a blog here and a website here.

The usual guerilla skeptics "debunked" Lanza's book here. The comment section is interesting because Weinberg mixes it up with the mob there (under the name "multisenserealism"). Here we see him sounding a lot like our very own Greg:

That’s not what I said. I DO have evidence for an Absolute inertial frame of awareness – it is evident to me. I cannot export my understanding to you however because you are projecting powerfully hostile biases against it. This doesn’t work. It doesn’t bother me, I understand completely. I would have reacted the same way only a few years ago had I heard someone yammering on about absolute inertial frames of self-nesting sensory-motor relativity. All that I said is that if you want to progress to this understanding, you will have to change your mind first, because it is only within your mind, your personal awareness, that any kind of understanding of consciousness, local or universal, is possible. Again – not because its maaagic, but because privacy is actually the root of publicity. You’ve got it switched around the wrong way (as does all of Western science). It’s like one of those ambiguous images. All I can do is to explain to you that the vase in the middle is not the only image that’s there, there are also two faces in profile flanking the vase, but you have to stop looking at the vase to see them. Many people like yourself, who are very knowledgeable and talented in left brain STEM disciplines and steeped in Western conditioning are not neurologically capable of doing this. It’s not your fault. You might be able to see the other side if you experimented with meditation, psychedelics, or have a brain trauma, etc. Your lens is so clear that you won’t know its there until it cracks. It’s up to you. Remain in your cognitive Kansas and harvest the wheat of the status quo, or invite the cyclone and have a look at Oz.

Something I've been chewing on for the past couple weeks is the issue Weinberg raises here (from the comment section):

“We have? Why do you say that? Evolution has selected for consciousness because it does increase chances of reproduction.”

I say that because we have not found any function in nature which would work better as a conscious experience than an unconscious process. If it is not necessary for our immune system to develop consciousness to perform the survival-critical function of identifying and neutralizing billions of pathogens, then it doesn’t make sense that the modest wanderings of an unremarkable hominid would demand the construction of a hallucinatory inner universe.

Human consciousness is a human quality of experience. Evolution has certainly shaped those qualities but experience itself is not something that relates to evolution at all. If you look at the efficiency of the unconscious processes which are assumed to run everything else in the universe, including those processes which generate human consciousness itself, it should be obvious that no important task would be improved by this kind of imaginary aesthetic presentation which consciousness is (wrongly) assumed to be.

Hmmmm....

(Ok Bob, let's have it)

An aside: I have been reading and enjoying Robert Lanza's Biocentrism:

http://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe/dp/1935251740

It is shoring up some of my hunches I wrote about in the Kolker/Acid thread, but more to the point, it has allowed me to appreciate Greg's perspective a whole lot more (sans his Jesus stuff, however). Recommended.

I don't agree. I have had my mind changed by the words on a computer monitor before.

And I have certainly had my mind changed by the words on the written page, which are in principle no different than a computer monitor (e.g., The Fountainhead can be bought on one's Ipad, for instance

That's the weakest, most anemic form of change. Think of the difference between surface wind blowing dandelions around and the massive but slow tectonic movement deep below the Earth's crust.

"Fine philosophies reflect more the need to _feel good_ than how anyone has lived their lives." - C.S. Hyatt

RB,

Watching the Sopranos, it bothered me that the female characters were stupid. Not that they weren't powerful, but that they weren't smart. Then again, the men weren't very smart, either. So, yeah, for me, it was the stupidity that alienated me.

Assuming we're talking about GoT the series, not GoT the novels (which I have not read), we obviously have a different perspective on what it means to be a powerful female. GoT is filled with wives and wenches, women whose very lives depend on the whims of men. Very few of the female characters have any direct power at all. They are, however, smart. They are totally aware of the precarious nature of their lives, and they protect themselves accordingly, some defensively, others offensively.

You ought to acquaint yourself with Chinweizu Ibekwe:

Chinweizu is a Nigerian critic, poet, and journalist. Though he has identified himself and is known simply as Chinweizu, he was born Chinweizu Ibekwe at Eluoma in Isuikwuato in the part of Eastern Region that is known today as Abia State. He was educated at Government Secondary School, Afikpo, and later attended college at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). While studying in the United States, during the civil rights era, Chinweizu became influenced by the philosophy of the Black Arts Movement. He is commonly associated with Black orientalism.

He enrolled for a Ph.D. at the State University of New York (SUNY), Buffalo, under the supervision of political scientist Claude E. Welch, Jr.^[1] Chinweizu apparently had a disagreement with his dissertation committee and walked away with his manuscript, which he got published as The West and the Rest of Us: White Predators, Black Slavers, and the African Elite by Random House in 1975. He took the book to SUNY, Buffalo, where he demanded, and was promptly awarded, his Ph.D. in 1976, one year after he had published the dissertation. Thus, the publication settled his disagreement with his advisers in his favor.

Chinweizu started teaching overseas, at MIT and San Jose State University. He had returned to Nigeria by the early 1980s, working over the years as a columnist for various newspapers in the country and also working to promote Black orientalism in Pan-Africanism. In Nigeria, he became a literary critic, attacking what he saw as the elitism of some Nigerian authors, particularly Wole Soyinka. One of Chinweizu's works is Anatomy of Female Power,^[2] in which he discusses gender relations.

His "Anatomy of Female Power" is in the same vein as Esther Villar's The Manipulated Man, but better, oh so much better.

His book was hard to find until a colleague scanned it and made it available to the viewing public.

Enjoy.

Now that I think about it, any new father-to-be ought to acquaint himself with this book as well. Ahem.

A similar thing although not comparable, happened to me last summer. I was passing on the street a young (to me that is, he was 30ish) tattooed black guy in a wifebeater who appeared drunk or high or both. He smiled and said, "Hey momma, lookin good! Want to spend the afternoon with me?" (It was evening actually). Though flattered I declined and he did not take offence.

This reminded me of that scene from Haneke's Code Unknown. I couldn't find the clip with subtitles, but one gets the gist:

These sorts of things can go either way.

http://www.frequency.com/video/how-not-to-defend-atheism/104372739/-/5-59812

The totally out of proportion blessings that such a tiny group of people as the Jews have brought to the whole world is no mystery to me.

They're God's chosen people.

Greg,

Or, unlike other cultures over the centuries, Jewish people valued and fostered education in practical matters,

Do you really think European gentiles did not value and foster education in practical matters? To the extent that they are vastly outcompeted by Jews? Are European gentiles really dunderheads at the end of the day?

creativity and production more than power.

Are you serious? Power-lusting is a common human failing, but it strains credulity to think Jews are uniquely innocent in this regard.

If opposing what B'nai B'rith, JINSA, AIPAC, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and many other Jewish groups have done over the years to destroy America is bigoted, racist, collectivist and anti-semitic, make the most of it.

Here is an example of horse and cart and code, trussed and immovable. It is not necessary to illuminate even one of the damned groups, nor to drop a fact or two about the damned groups and their work/aims/achievements. They are assumed to be destructive. They are assumed to be alien and threatening (to the white Us). They are damned first ... and then comes the switch.

Instead of explaining why any of us should presume that "opposing what Bnai Brith . . . has done to destroy America" is a good, and in place of arguing or proposing the actual mechanisms and activities that Bnai Brith has done to Destroy America, instead of 'showing the work,' the work is submerged in cant and hostility. By this non-argument's hidden premise, the only sane or rational response to Joo organization is presumed to be an angry opposition -- a mix of loathing, fear, other-izing, and rejection. Those who are revolted by lazy, coarse and unreflective summaries of Joo organizational perfidy would seem to be pre-damned themselves to the land of the blind, the lame and the halt -- pre-damned as PC fuzz, quislings, rectors and naifs.

The premise is this: Joo Orgs Destroy America, blargh blargh blah grrrrr.

What destruction have these organizations left in their wake? What have these dreadful and un-American groups (included the unmentioned 'other Joos') done to the USA? Where is the valid argument, and where is the reliable set of facts that leads to this wide-brush conclusion?

(of course the adherent of racialist presumptions about The Joo can also turn table on questioners ... to reject the complex of unwarranted conclusions and non-rational valuations offered is to be part of a different Them, a cohort of folks who cannot face up to facts as assumed).

Me, I find no understructure supporting such a wide antipathy to Joo things -- except for racial prejudice and thinking-in-groups.

Mark, your lines above appear disturbingly prejudicial and void of argument. Do you really want OLers to take as fed the large meal of hatred, to swallow whole the notions that each of these Joo Orgs has committed 'destruction' of America? Do you take it as given that Bnai Brith has (through its actions) 'destroyed' something? Do you take it as given that the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has 'destroyed' something over its century of existence, something which you (I/We) mourn? Do you believe that both AIPAC and JINSA have (in some way or in some part) destroyed America? If you answer to yourself yes to these queries, how would someone who does not share your racial antipathy gain traction on your beliefs and prejudices and presumptive conclusions?

Tell us. Tell us how The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society served to destroy. Tell us what exactly was destroyed, or is significantly damaged or in the process of destruction. Tell us how you arrived at your judgement. Please do not assume that your judgement is common currency.

You blowhard. Your logorrhea isn't fooling me. You know damn well that MSK is not allowing that kind of discussion here. He has deleted at least 6 of my measured posts in the service of Righteousness. To his credit, he allows nips and bites on OL, but the second we Evil Ones attempt to buttress our claims -- WHOOSH -- down they go into the circular file.

That is fine -- I understand he doesn't want a family blog to be poisoned by fringe kooks. But I will not stand by and allow you to

portray this seeming silence as our inability to answer your claims. You poof.

Quote

A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.

LOL. So predictable. Spare me your lachrymose version of history. As I asked RB, have either Mark or myself advocated any course of action? No. We IDENTIFY before we EVALUATE. But it seems this identification as such is upsetting to certain people.

Need I remind you that eugenics was a science first endorsed by your Progressive forebears? (Looking at you Carol):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2698847

Going off topic for a moment, I have to address MSK's claim that Blacks and Mexicans would "fuck me up" for saying the things I do.

He is right for the most part. They would not like what I have to say. Not one bit. And the reason they would "fuck me up" is because the only means they have at their disposal are their fists. They are, for the most part, disenfranchinsed. But they understand force, and they employ force as the last resort to correct what they see as oppression. OK. I get that.

But where MSK errs is in thinking that Jews ALLOW me to say the things I do because they are not willing to "fuck me up." That is not true. Unlike poor Mexicans and Blacks, Jews live higher up on the food chain and have no need of fists. They use their minds and positions of influence to enforce censorship in the intellectual realm, and when that fails, they can simply ruin the apostate's life or career. Just look at Rick Sanchez. "Jews don't run the media! And we will CRUSH you for saying so." LOL

If you want to know where the power lies, then ask whom you cannot criticize. --Kevin Strom

When it's only widespread political correctness that keeps people silent or hypocritical about Jews*, I say -

the hell with it.

Bring it on! Do your damndest - let's hear your worst.

That's the spirit!!!

I seem to recall you are Afrikaaner, right?

Any thoughts on Jewish culpability in the Boer War?

The swamp monster is surfacing again, only this time it can confronted, early and publicly.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much. The Jewish community is two steps ahead of you. They know things are getting hot here in the States and are contemplating pulling up stakes and setting up shop in the East:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/07/china-first-india-next-japan-last.html

I have to take a moment here and say that I am sincerely grateful for the presence of SuperJew Kolker on this forum -- he is the only one here who keeps me on my toes.

The rest of you guys are limpwristed nancyboys living in bubbles of ideology. Kolker knows the score.

"tikun olam" is Hebrew for "jihad", right?

;)

There wasn't a bigotry problem until the three Stooges rode in on their lame horses. Each of their bits of ignorance ends up in the garbage. Why not just eliminate the middle man.

It's true. We end up in the garbage. Better to eliminate the middle man. We have nothing to contribute but garbage.

You're Jewish, right?

The urge to censor is strong in you...

Arguing antisemitism with an antisemite is as useful as arguing Christianity with a Christian. You can't defeat with logic an ideology that isn't based in logic in the first place.

I never realized my views on Jews constituted an "ideology". I thought I was simply pointing out facts about Jewish behavior. Have I advocated any normative prescriptions? I don't think so. If my facts are wrong, feel free to correct me. All I have seen on this forum are character assasinations and calls for censorship. Very few have chosen to engage me on the merits of my argument.

By the way, the reason you can't "defeat with logic an ideology that isnt based on logic" when it comes to Christians is because Christians make claims about the supernatural realm. Resurrection, the Holy Trinity, turning bread into wine, all that shit.

I'm an atheist and I deal in facts. Do me the favor of not lumping me into that group.

As we saw in the threads that were removed, the typical mode of argument is to cherrypick a laundry list of "Jewish" malefactors from throughout all of history. Compile your own equally long list of Jews who have positively contributed to the human condition and they're routinely written off as "exceptions" or their contributions are downplayed.

I don't recall that being the modus operandi here. You are completely mistaken if you think pointing out Friedman was a libertarian speaks to my (or Mark's) concerns. We are not engaged in some childish tit-for-tat debate over which ethnic group has more "points." If that were the case, you would be justified in listing "Good Jews". To my knowledge, no one on this forum has put forth the absurd proposition that Jews are ALL BAD. Mark has pointed out repeatedly that we are not speaking of Jews in totality. I would like to think this doesn't need to be spelled out (apparently it does). So your desperate pointing out of counter-examples misses the point.

Neither are we saying that on balance, Jews are a net negative (although I'm sure Mark could give you a good argument). I think I can speak for Mark when I say our beef lies with the outsized influence the organized Jewish community has relative to their numbers in the population. Mark and I are concerned with Organized Jewry and the leaders of such organizations. Kolker might prefer to focus on scientific discoveries, but Mark and I are thinking of Organized Jewry's influence on society and government. A very different thing.

The basic problem is not bigotry but general lack of individualism.

Does individualism prevent one from noticing patterns in nature? A rose by any other name is...some "stuff" by another name? Do I vitiate individualism when I note the Japanese are more introverted than Westerners? That the Italians are more exuberant than Scandinavians? That West Africans are better sprinters than Mexicans? Heaven forfend! I never knew that individualism meant I had to take every instance of reality before me as born anew each second from the head of Athena, fresh and unsullied by biological and historical circumstance.

I kid, I kid.

Brant, do you consider the fact that African Americans vote in favor of affirmative action over 90% a sign of collectivism? Does it make you a collectivist to notice that phenomenon? Perhaps each one of those African Americans did their best to reason their way to their position, and every single one of them, by way of poor logic, came to the exact same wrong conclusion.

Or does it make more sense to assume they were voting in favor of what they percieved to be their racial self-interest?

Don't let Principle cause you to miss the (collectivist) forest for the (individualistic) trees.

I should take a moment here to expound on the concept of individualism. Individualism is an idea inextricably bound to a certain time in history (19th-20th century), in a certain place (America), among a certain population ("ASPs"). Individualism is an historical anomaly. Let's give George H.Smith his due and note that individualism is also tied to a Christian tradition where each soul is considered sacred. That is a revolutionary concept in history.

You should familiarize yourself with Robert Putnam's work I have referenced in another thread. As a liberal, he was crestfallen when his research showed that diversity and pluralism resulted in the OPPOSITE of individualism. The strife produced by clashing mores in a pluralistic society led to people hunkering down into their respective clans. I believe he called it "turtling", in the way turtles draw their limbs inward under thier shells.

The reality which you Objectivists are loathe to accept is that individualism can only flourish when there is already a baseline of homogeneity and trust in the population. When diversity rises to a certain level, that trust is broken and we no longer have the phenomenon of exceptional individuals standing on the shoulders of their "brothers" to accomplish novel things -- people are too busy defending themselves against perceived threats.

Bringing this discussion back to THE JEW:

The lack of individualism amongst Jews and strong Jewish identity even with individualistic trending Jews is the result of a minority being put upon by a dominant majority through the centuries in forced ghettoization de facto and de jure even to the point of expulsion, terror and genocide.

Well it seems you have made my point for me. The ethnocentrism of Jews is considered by them as a necessary defense in a hostile world, but it is that same clannishness which causes them to advocate for pluralism in the societies in which they reside. If you bothered to read the article on neoconservativism I posted, you would have noticed the statement by the CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: "The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are." That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

In case that that doesn't register, this quote from Earl Raab (executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council) should drive the point home:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible …

It is quite understandable why the Jewish community would want to mold American society in a way that makes America more comfortable for Jews, but have they really given any thought to how their machinations effect the native population? Not likely.

Oh my goodness. I was originally hoping to set the record straight in this thread, but it appears *I* am the one who has been set straight by the collective efforts of you all. I do believe I have some egg on my face. With each halting effort to type out a defense of my position, I found myself set back on my heels by the sincere outpouring of feeling I find here. I am not yet prepared to accept the charge of "spite" and "hatred" MSK has imputed to me, but it is clear that I have some biases to overcome. What really floored me was the unison voice among former enemies here: the anarchist and the socialist, men and women, Jew and Gentile, American and Afrikanner. As a fan of the movie Independence Day, I was reminded of how ALL Americans in that film overlooked their petty differences and united in their common cause to defeat the alien enemy. I always found that touching. It is clear I have some soul searching to do...

SYKE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCUpiI1MSA

Now, on to business...

I would like to preface my remarks with a full disclosure: my journey to the "Dark Side" began solely with my frustration as a citizen of Miami. For those who don't know, Miami was inundated with Cubans ever since the Mariel Boatlift in the early 80's. As of this writing, Cubans constitute a majority in the city. As someone who grew up during this demographic transformation, I can tell you: it SUCKS. (Details available upon request.) The point here is that while Cubans have much to recommend them, the sturm and drang involved in the clash of cultures is an object lesson in demographic replacement. I lived it. I understand it on a very intimate level. I know what happens when the proportion of immigrants in a given region reaches a critical mass and no longer assimilates because they have the numbers on their side. Unlike those eeeevul Muslims, Cubans are for the most part productive and hardworking. NEVERTHELESS, there are negative externalities associated with demographic replacement, to the point where Tom Tancredo once referred (rightly) to our local government as a "bananna republic." Corruption is rife and reflects the mores of Latin American countries.

I suspect the readers here who do not live in South Florida or Southern California are scratching their heads. They are too far removed from the gritty reality. It's all abstract at this point...for now. But give it time. Consider those two locales to be canaries in the coalmine of what will be playing in a theater near you if open immigration is left unchecked. I should point out that I am no Hitler Youth -- I am half white and half-hispanic. More interestingly, there are a plethora of immigrants from various South American countries in Miami and they ALL grumble under their breath about the dominance of the Cubans in the city. For the record, I would limit immigration to any given city to no more than 15 or 20 percent -- any more than that and a self-perpetuating cycle is started.

All of this is to say that when you begin to investigate the nature of immigration policy in America, you cannot but help encounter the hand of THE JEW in these affairs. I have linked elsewhere to Kevin MacDonald's classic essay on the matter. And so this is where I began my descent into the world of...

THE JEW

[to be continued]

I don't have a problem with Jews per se, although I can understand why some here have that impression. As a critic/cynic, I pretty much have problems with everyone. ;)

Growing up, I never gave Jews a second thought, and my only education about their history revolved around the Holocaust. In the past few years however I have gone down the "rabbit hole" and absorbed loads of information I would never have known about otherwise. I find the whole "Jewish Question" fascinating on a purely intellectual level -- ethologically, psychologically, politically, etc. The appeal to me is only amplified by its taboo nature. As someone who prides himself on his critical thinking, it was very much an enjoyable "puzzle" to suss out.

As for why I seem to single them out on this forum: the discussion of various ethnic groups and their behavior always has at least some relevance to political discussions, and there are places in Objectivism-Land where such discussion takes place. For instance, the topic of African American social pathology and their elevated rates of violent crime has been noted elsewhere, and we see the hotheads over at SOLO-P kvetching about the Muslims. But nowhere do we find a similar discussion about Jews. That topic seems to be off-limits EVERYWHERE. I figure it is only fair to shine a spotlight on the one group who seem to be above reproach -- especially since their influence is one very significant force-vector (among many) on the world chessboard.

I don't feel nearly as squeamish talking about Jews as I do when discussing, say, Blacks or Mexicans, and that is because the latter groups are not frequently in privileged positions. Jews on the other hand are very often standing at the levers of power and living quite comfortably. They can (or should be) able to take the heat.

In addition, there is an ornery part of my nature that when told to "shut up," merely doubles down on its efforts.

As far as I can tell, Jews (on balance) have made positive contributions to the societies in which they dwell.

I think the question of that balance is a valid topic of discussion. Others don't seem to think so. Mark has noted the major negatives in his "Recrud" post.

As an Objectivish person, I certainly don't share the common human failing of feeling envy at successful people in society (one of several reasons for anti-semitism), but when you look at the historical record:

...the "yur just JEALUS" defense starts to wear a little thin.

Something else is going on there.

Robert Baratheon, Ba'al:

Come at me bros. I have no fear of your Jew Claw!!!!

This post headed to the garbage pile in 3...2...1...

truth hurts

Could it be a numbers station?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station

Yep... Definitely the Illuminati.