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:

Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group.
The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world...
the root cause is their use of enemies they create in order to keep solidarity..

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.

You have no idea about how deep one can be programmed to be Jewish. Even Jews who no longer believe in God are steeped in Jewish cultural and moral tropes. There is no such thing as an ex Jews. There are observant Jews and non-observant Jews, but no ex-Jews. Once programmed, one is Jewish for life. One can choose just how observant one is but one can never clear the ethical and cultural factors out of mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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:

Jeannie was great, but Samantha (Bewitched) was probably the better Objectivist. Certainly the smarter of the two.

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

Speaking of which. all this crap about Anglo Saxon Protestant superior this, ASP superior that, then blah blah blah, then ASP superior this and ASP superior that, then blah blah blah, then ASP superior this and ASP superior that, and so on is the same garbage.

God, I hate this crap. And I hate having to deal with it...

Michael

You're right. On a one-to-one level, it doesn't matter. People are individuals.

On the world stage, however, things are different...

To the reader, here is partly my motivation for acting the way I'm doing.

Here is something I wrote to a friend offline.

The idea with a polluter of an environment is to control the general message, specifically the topic and framing of it, not necessarily control what people think about it. If he controls the message like that, he can control the damage he wants to inflict on an environment.

For example, if you go to a place where lots of people are speaking out about shit because one person keeps being gross about it, what does it matter that most of them say shit stinks? When you go to that place, you have shit anchored to it in your subconscious. This is a place of shit and shit-related things.

That's the damage the polluter wants to inflict.

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.

I wasn't preaching racism.

Look into your heart, Michael.

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.

Here is a recent article from the NYT on the "unethical" practices of lending agencies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/business/economy/pension-loans-drive-retirees-into-more-debt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Is this the sort of thing you would condone in your libertarian Utopia?

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?

Jewish economists like Rothbard and von Mises founded the Austrian (free market) school of economics that is the sole major opponent of Keynesianism today. Milton Friedman, another Jewish economist, was perhaps the most influentional advocate of markets and small-government in the 20th century. David Ricardo, yet another Jewish economist, was laying the foundation of laissez faire capitalism back in the 1700's before neoclassical economics were even on the radar. Two contemporary thinkers who have greatly influenced me are Russell Roberts, host of libertarian EconTalk, and Jonah Goldberg, conservative author of Liberal Fascism, which examines the historical foundation of modern progressivism. Both are Jewish. I could continue...

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 don't deny Birdman seems like an intelligent chap. However, some of the craziest lunatics I encountered in my chess tournament days were Mensa members. The relationship between intelligence and utility may not in fact be linear, but instead more of a bell-shaped curve with the maximum lying somewhere around 130.

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:

He is correct that Jews have successfully established a high-trust culture among themselves (or should I say "ourselves," since many would place me ethnically within that group). He is also correct that Jews are doing a good job of out-competing most other cultural/ethnic groups because of said culture. Lastly, he is correct in concluding that this should be the end goal of other cultures that may not be performing as well.

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:

I agree that ethnocentricism (what I call racial clansmanship) is a huge cultural problem - especially if you're the one being excluded from it - but my approach is the opposite of yours and Birdman's. I want all ethnocentricism equally shamed and shunned as violative of modern notions of fairness and opportunity.

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:

Throughout his book, but particularly in Chapter 6, MacDonald deals with Jewish "strategies" concerned with responding to anti-Semitism in its various evolved forms. These seem to "cover the waterfront." Outright denial of Judaism ("crypsis"), Zionism, anti-Zionist assimilationism, adherence to Orthodox usages, appeals to universalism, individualism, and pluralism--all have been and are forms which Jews can and will assume to assure the existence of a group which, "since the Enlightenment remains fundamentally in search of a convincing rationale" (p. 275). This is not a religion; rather, a kind of organism, guided by tropisms necessary for survival and advancement.

For MacDonald, "the Jew" is indeed what Richard Wagner described such an entity as being, "the plastic demon." Moreover, as MacDonald sees it, Jews, while certainly isolated in some ways, never have been "marginalized." Indeed, due to their eugenically determined intelligence, their wealth, at least in the United States, has become extraordinary, their domination in certain fields, such as the film industry, indisputable, and their abilities as wire-pullers, unparalleled. This most racist of all peoples, at least in the Western world (following the somewhat questionable argument of J.L. Rather, who has written on Richard Wagner, Professor MacDonald sees Benjamin Disraeli as the father of modern European racism), will be able to assume a variety of strategies, defending pluralism being a crucial one. All the while, of course, Jews will be advancing their own 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.

The holocaust is inconvenient to his position, so he just pretends it never happened despite the evidence.

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

So it is claimed.

My favorite is here:

http://www.futureworldmusic.com/about.php

But I also assert Bear McCreary from Battlestar Galactica:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZvi4vcD6U

From Galactica "Passaglia" here

To him, it sounds like this:

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.

Here's the link for the Truman quote: Harry S. Truman 1947 Diary, July 21.

Friggen' Democrats...

Michael

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

6.1 on imdb.com means the movie is essentially trash. I'm not a snob about many things, but I am a movie snob, and I won't watch anything below 6.7.

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're wrong for the most part. I don't believe any of us give much thought to what the readers are thinking, but what's interesting are the different reasons each of us have for such cavalier disregard.

I have to take a moment to clear the record regarding one of Kacy's accusations...

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.

A regular Roark, your are...

"But I don't think of you."

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.

Yes, but then there is another level that I explained. The cooperation of an entire country is only necessary to the point that towns and cities can have a reasonable degree of sovereignty. This is mainly a trust issue that, like I said, I think we need to "get a feel" for.

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.

What keeps people from cooperating on a larger scale is skepticism of reciprocation. The bigger the group, the more skeptical people become as the more unfamiliar the relationships between group members become. This is where a central power comes in, but is there any other way?

Doesn't seem like it.

The cynicism that most people have of those unfamiliar to them is rooted in ignorance, and the only thing that gets rid of ignorance is information.

That's something hippies say.

This is poison. The intensely personal nature of this riposte to PDS is troubling to me. Using a bit of reduction, I could fairly say that the portly pseudonym is expecting all and sundry to agree that a dark badness infects Kacy and renders him Beyond Bad on scales of integrity and humanity.

It is ugly in a psychological way, I find. If I was a girl on the outskirts of this three-way invecta-blah, I would edge ever so carefully further away. I would wonder why the goal seems to be Negation, and why the sentence sought by Judges Girlfake and GirlFalloon is so, um, Final, punitive. I might even consider that the two Kacy-glued McPersonalBitchos are fixated on vanquishing Kacy. Not mere correcting, but a bowed head, full acknowledgement that the good girls judgement was correct and necessary.

I would probably get the impression that whatever the truth in their estimations of Kacy's argument, it is a creepy thing to expect him to submit to their psychological judgments and sentencing suggestions. This is the rough ground, when "Your argument is faulty" becomes "You. You you you. You are Bad. Bad to the bone. Admit it, or me and Stacey will make you suffer forevermore, wherever you alight."

I take it you prefer to tiptoe through the tulips?