Serapis Bey

(Note from MSK: Bigotry garbage.) Neither conservative nor new: http://www.vdare.com/articles/thinking-about-neoconservatism #Ba'alChatzaf/twitter

Thanks for the Econotalk link. I enjoyed it, although I was already familiar with many of the concepts by way of Jonathan Haidt and Thomas Sowell. I think the most fundamental distinction is Sowell's Constrained vs. Unconstrained "visions." Basically, it speaks to the issue of Man's nature. Is Man good or corrupt? Is he "perfectible" ,or limited by his nature? Objectivism stands with Progressives on this issue, but for different reasons. I think this precarious balance in Objectivist ideology shakes out in actual practice when we see the various factions within the Oist movement. Here, more fundamentally, is the issue of free will. Advocating an "unconstrained vision" in the context of liberty requires a staunch defense of the doctrine of free will. And that topic is far from settled... Incidentally, even though you have gone some way towards qualifying your nuanced political positions, I still reserve the right to call you a libertardian.

As Albert Einstein once put it: Ginny, you have to keep in mind RB is/was something of an unruly adolescent (from what I can gather), and I think that has something to do with our friendship.

Oh, goodness. One needn't wonder why this site has been drawing racists and antisemites out of the woodwork with statements like this on display. I accept that these threads often function as springboards for broader discussions, but what the heck does this have to do with the original topic of this thread? RB, disregarding Kolker's "hardcore-ness" for a moment, you ought to give some thought to why an esteemed member here holds such a view. He is after all paternalistically looking out for his People. SB ...Bob's your uncle!

I can forgive some of Glenn's excesses because he gave props to my man Nikola Tesla. Thumbs up. Paging Ba'al Chatzaf. Edison's Medicine:

I think one's preference for Samantha or Jeannie reveals a lot about a man, much as I've noticed among folks who prefer Monroe vs. a young Madonna. Personally, I favor the sex-slave type in my heart of hearts, TBH.

I think all of us men, no matter what generation, are bound in a brotherhood of adolescent Jeannie fapping.

Enjoy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2333740/Barbara-Eden-78-reveals-secret-getting-iconic-I-Dream-Of-Jeannie-costume.html

You're right. On a one-to-one level, it doesn't matter. People are individuals. On the world stage, however, things are different...

All this skirting around Jew deceptive this and Jew deceptive that, then blah blah blah, then Jew deceptive this and Jew deceptive that, then blah blah blah, then Jew deceptive this and Jew deceptive that, and so on is precisely this kind of propaganda. It's shit and it stinks. I don't put up with this crap about Muslims or any other standard target group of hatred (like homosexuals, etc.) and I will not put up with it about Jews. OL is a philosophy forum, not a propaganda forum. Michael As always Michael, you are quite astute when it comes to group dynamics and your analysis here is accurate as always. But my post which you deleted had nothing whatsoever to do with "deceptive Jew this and deceptive Jew that". I merely made the point that settting the historical record straight would go some ways towards demystifying the way the Holocaust holds a central position in the popular consciousness. It would place that moment of history in context and bring it back down to the reality where many ethnic groups were targeted or rounded up in all sorts of nefarious ways. In short, Jews would not be percieved as the sole innocent lambs among the larger group of rapacious wolves -- EVERYONE, not just Jews, are vulnerable.

SB, I just did. You were. Michael But I am mixed race. Is ReasonMan a racist as well?

you also deleted my post in anoher thread that had nothing to do with racism

I wasn't preaching racism. Look into your heart, Michael.

I know it's not directly on topic, but if we're going to discuss the above story in terms of emotional leanings, I have a profoundly difficult time feeling sorry for the Greatest/Boomer generations who enjoyed a relatively higher standard of living than my generation can ever hope to have. I'm glad you acknowledge this doesn't directly address my question, but I do agree with you. My generation and your generation are eating a shit sandwich, no doubt. But apart from your questionable invocation of the internet as the solution to information asymmetry, would you care to expound at greater length on the topic, by say, reading the article I posted as having nothing to do with public pensions? I genuinely appreciate your list of Righteous Jews, but I'm afraid your effort is wasted in light of the fact that you yourself admitted that Jews skew leftist/liberal in the vast majority of cases. Do we see that sort of skew among the gentile population? Nope. Why do we see this pattern among Jews? There are several theories, but one in particular which I favor is that high intelligence is associated with the psychological trait of novelty seeking. Such an impulse can be a source of Good, but it can just as often (if not more often) be a source of disruption and chaos. As you said in another post: I agree. There is no necessary connection between high IQ and Good Sense. The Birdman has characterized Mensa as "High IQ/Low Morals." It seems this would apply to our ruling class as well. Here is a good discussion on the topic: The Stupidity of Intelligence But I'm more interested in something else you wrote. If you'll recall, you originally said this: But when I raised the possibility of fostering White "racial-consciousness" as a way of competing with the ethnocentrism of out-groups, you then changed your tune: This reads like standard Objectivist boilerplate. At the risk of stretching an idea too far, I would submit that your about-face is an example of what "anti-semitic" professor of psychology Kevin McDonald has termed "jewish crypsis." That is to say, there are certain ideas promulgated by Jewish intellectuals which seem salutory at face value, but work in practice to undermine and deactivate the gentile immune system in the face of foreign threats, while at the same time serving Jewish interests: It should be no surprise then that Ayn Rand nee Rosenbaum and Nathaniel Branden nee Blumenthal advocated for a species of extreme individualism which sought to strip away the warp and weft of personality tied into organic folkways developed over time. Daunce (Carol) asked some time ago how U.S. immigration policy differs from that of Canada. Canada utilizes a form of means-testing in which immigrants are evaluated according to certain criteria. What she didn't know is that we have no such criteria in the U.S. And why is that? Because the minute anyone deigns to enforce standards as to who is "in" and who is "out", such an individual is immediately met with howls of execration from the usual (jewish) quarters, along with accusations of "racism" and "xenopobia" and how the individual in question is but a hair's breadth away from being a HitlerWhoWantsToGasSixMillionJews. So, for example, we encounter this subconcious Jewish hypocrisy when they, almost to a man, advocate for a pluralistic society including intermarriage while at the same time ensuring their genetic cohesion through websites like JDate. Or, we see Jews frequently in favor of open borders and unlimited immigration in the U.S. until the topic of Israel comes up -- then they are all of a sudden in favor of strong borders and exclusion. Not quite. Holocaust revisionists don't claim the Holocaust "never happened", but rather that it has been highly exaggerated due to wartime propaganda. Growing up, I was educated with the Orthodox version of events: Hitler was a horned Devil wearing a black hat while twirling his mustache and who held an irrational hatred of Jews. On this version, Hitler was no different than someone who had arachnophobia and who lashed out in spastic fear upon encountering the objects of his hatred. The truth is a bit more complex. Hitler had a fascistic concern for his people and his nation. He subscribed to a form of paterfamilas for his people and sought to elevate the country as a whole. The Jews, who traditionally never assimilated to their host nations, felt no common cause with him. In fact, they often economically supported his enemies. They were in effect a subversive element in his country. For example, if I were starting a rock band, and the girlfriend of the roadie was secretly taping our jam sessions and leaking them to a competing band, it would not be "hatred" for me to exclude her from our jam sessions. From my admittedly limited perusal of the revisionist literature, the main takeaway points appear to be this: - the six million number is a myth. It is closer to 1 million, if not less - Jews were not uniquely targeted during the war. Many other ethnies died as well - there was never any executive order to "exterminate" Jews. Any talk of the "Jewish Question" was in regard to how to isolate them and reduce their influence. - the Germans were desperate for labor, and the camps were forced-labor camps. There were courts set up to adjudicate disputes over the mistreatment of prisoners. The photos we see of emaciated bodies are those who died from starvation after Allied bombing destroyed supply routes to the camps -- the so called "gas chambers" were simply delousing chambers meant to disinfect new prisoners. Zyklon B was not used to kill people, but to reduce the spread of typhus (which many prisoners died from) I'm no historian, but these points seem reasonable. Why do I raise the issue? Apart from my taste for taboo subjects, I find it useful to demystify one of the biggest bugaboos in recent history. Disregarding for a moment the guilt-tripping and shakedowns to garner more money for yet another Holocaust museum ("there's no business like Shoah business"), the Holocaust has served as a "get out of jail free" card for the Jewish community for far too long. It is understandable that victimology is a fine way to deflect criticism from one's group. I believe this is the impetus for so much Holocaust hyperpole. But Gentiles are FAR too sensitive and good-natured. The moment they even _suspect_ Jewish malfeasance, a cybernetic program in their minds sweeps it under the rug in the service of "sensitivity" towards the historical travails Jews have suffered. I believe the time has come to pull that curtain back to allow the Jewish community to be just as subject to criticism as the rest of us.

In keeping with the religious theme: pop artist Peter Gabriel did a great job with his soundtrack for the Last Temptation of Christ. Apart from the religious element, I think the music here would be admissible into the Objectivist theory of art/Romanticism (please don't crucify me for that statement) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPFZSuVydrk

Those were nice, Mike. Here are a couple from one of my favorite Morricone soundtracks: This next one was uploaded at low volume, so crank your speakers up. Absolutely sublime. 2:22 = pure orgasm. Both of these are from "The Mission" -- a movie all Objectivists would do well to see at least once.

Truman wrote: Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes. His annoyance was of a general nature, but in this instance aimed at Jews. I wonder if Abe Foxman and his ilk are capable of such nuance? Rhetorical.

It seems JFK knew the score. As did Harry Truman before him: "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog." And Mel Gibson too. I'm off to take part in a parade tonight. TTYL

Not a fan of the Atlas Shrugged movie, I take it? (5.5)

At the risk of sounding trite, the book (by Irvin Yalom) was FAR better: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062009303/ref=redir_mdp_mobile There are surely challenges in bringing a book full of intellectual dialogue to the screen (we're talking therapy sessions between a shrink and his patient) and this film shows it. The film is very light and schmaltzy. If you are a man who has ever suffered from a deep and obsessive love affair, the book is a must read. The author's understanding of Nietzsche's thought is only fair to middling though. But good enough to make the story enjoyable for the philosophically minded.

You are "taking the moment to clear the record" for whom? For Kacy. The irony was just too rich for me to ignore. Trust me, I could have corrected any number of other misinterpretations of his, but this one was too much to let pass. Oh, I do think of other folks on the forum. I have a certain online reputation to protect after all. What I don't worry too much about are other people's feelings.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone. His research focused on social cohesion and the impact of "diversity." Much to his dismay, the statistics show that increased diversity leads to lower levels of trust and community involvement. Bear in mind, Putnam is a card-carrying liberal, so his conclusions have the extra force of admission against interest. Doesn't seem like it. That's something hippies say.

I take it you prefer to tiptoe through the tulips?