Serapis Bey

If all the anti-semitism you've encountered is knuckledragging claims about "subhuman Jewish vileness" then you are still fighting yesterday's battles...

Have you are any of your gentile friends been yoked by a Jew lately? Well, Robert Baratheon and I had our sexual roleplay "funtime" a few weeks ago where I got to be the collared slave... JUST KIDDING!!!

Here is where his thinking goes a bit awry: outperforming isn't "exploitation" per se. Exploitation has a specific meaning, which is that you are using, or especially harming, another person for personal advancement. It's an emotionally attractive position to take because it implies a simple solution (simply rid yourself of the exploiter). Well, it is the very definition of "exploitation" upon which this discussion turns. In fairness to the Birdman, he does state in his essay, "In saying this, I am not necessarily using the term 'exploitation' in a pejorative sense: I could just as well say, "The Jews are good at seeing opportunities and making the most of them."" So we are left with the question of just where "opportunism" turns into "exploitation." Or is the concept of "exploitation" an arbitrary concept in your lexicon? 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? (Note: I am not suggesting Jews have anything to do with this -- I'm just using this example to flesh out my point). Was there force or fraud involved? Is this not an example of free and uncoerced transactions among rational actors? Do you feel any sort of squeamishness about this? Personally, I will have to don my liberal "care/harm" hat here and side with Kacy in being concerned about such exploitation/opportunism. Not because I'm a bleeding heart (I'm hardly bothered by folks going to psychics for some emotional booster-shots) but because this impacts very real, very material standards of living. I suspect the libertarian response would be that such "victims" should have known better and read the fine print. Perhaps that's true, but we must keep in mind that in this rapidly progressing technological society, levels of complexity are reaching unprecedented heights and we have to wonder if all people are capable of staying abreast of it all, particularly in the realm of arcane financial instruments. The typical rejoinder would be that people need to be responsible and educate themselves, no matter what particular novelty confronts them. But this response reflects the belief that intelligence is infinitely malleable and adaptive, and all that is required is more application of the self-responsibility of free-will. Notwithstanding the recent debates here on the topic of free will, is it really true that every individual on the planet is even capable of apprehending all the relevant factors involved? But this question raises the issue of whether intelligence is evenly distributed among the population and therefore strikes at the very foundation of libertarian theory. And I suspect most here on this forum don't want to "go there", least of all Michael E. Marotta. Does "asymmetry of information" mean anything to you, RB? I'm not sure he says that Jews consciously trust each other simply because of their Jewness. He merely reports that they do, in fact, exhibit a high degree of ethnocentrism (including nepotism), while at the same time treating outgroups differently. You seem to be implying that this ingroup trust among Jews (due to factor "X") means that Jews view outgroups as lacking "X", as if ALL Gentiles are underseving of such fair treatment. Surely, many Gentiles don't, but just as many do. But the larger point he is making in this context (if you peruse his website), is that the attempt by ASP's to engender any sort of group solidarity or ethnic-consciousness has been thwarted, reviled, and systematically attacked by the Jewish intelligentsia in this country. You said: Historically, Jews were the proginetors of utopian philosophies such as Communism and Socialism which eroded any sense of nationalism or cultural patriotism. The Frankfurt School was founded by Jews and represented a concerted critique of the traditions, customs and homogeneity of Western culture. Franz Boas (Jew) attacked the scientific method, hereditarianism, and poisoned the social sciences with his denial of biological explanations for human behavior. Jews were instrumental in dissolving immigration restrictions in the U.S. Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement which enforced desegregation and forced busing in schools. Currently, Jews make up a large majority of pundits on such sites as the Huffington Post and Salon where "anti-racist", i.e., "anti-white" screeds regularly pepper their output. Susan JEW Sontag called the white race "the cancer of human history." Tim JEW Wise wrote in his notorious essay that "the clock is ticking" and gleefully celebrates the demise of whites and their nation. I could continue. I'll get to your other post after I've finished working out the details of my Final Solution. Ah, but your conceit here is in assuming Michael Jordan is uniquely great because of his "hard work". I'm quite sure serious basketball aficionados like Kacy will be the first to admit that MJ's greatness is due to his superior genetics. Notwithstanding Malcom Gladwell's feelgood pablum about "10,000 hours of practice", most folks will NEVER reach MJ's kingship. I am quite sure that you, RB, are a hard worker and consciously self-directed, but are you unaware of the research which has demonstrated that Ashkenazim IQ is literally the highest on the PLANET?

SB, Do you have a quote or something? http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/toprabbigentilesexisttoserve.htm But this is just a minor point -- religious Jews who take the Talmud seriously are only significant in the Middle East. I only bring it up to buttress the point made by Ba'al that Jews were indeed bred to be smarter than most. Which is true, and a good thing. "The Chosen People" idea is not without foundation. If only that advanced and restless brainpower were not so often put to use in meddlesome busy-bodiedness in our country. They are all of them born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people [Jews] some day became deadly to the human race. --Voltaire

I think of this subject because I have a passion for intelligence and naturally wonder where all those Jewish brains have come from. --Brant "This land is mine, God gave this land to me" is, of course, complete bunk The van den Haag hypothesis is that the occurrence of high intelligence among Ashkenazic Jews was the accidental result of the way matches were made in the Jewish Shtetels (Jewish communities in eastern Europe). Men who mastered Talmud and Torah which involve very abstract principles were held in very high respect. They were considered proper matches with the daughters of prosperous and successful businessmen who have already demonstrated high practical intelligence. Meanwhile among the Catholic communities their brightest and best were shunted into the Priesthood and Monasteries where the chances of having reproductive success was minimal. In short Catholic culture developed a program of lowering IQ and Jewish culture developed (purely accidentally) a program for raising IQ. The rest is history. This is more or less what I have read as well. Brant, if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

High functioning Gypsies that revolutionize physics and cure dreadful diseases. Ba'al Chatzaf There is a serious question as to whether today's Jews are from the "lost tribes of Israel" or other stock. --Brant What difference does it make? Jews of all "races" are part of the Tribe. It is the values and the culture that make a Jew a Jew not who his ancestors were. There is something to this, although I do not discount a biological stratum for the pattern. After going down into the "anti-semitic" rabbit-hole, one of the more fascinating things I learned were the tales of secular jews of various races, say in South America, who at some point in their lives, after having spent their previous decades inveighing against religion and "irrationality", suddenly find themselves "rediscovering" their Judaic roots, with a newfound appreciating for the "richness" of their past, and travelling to the Homeland, etc. (I'm sure Bob is smiling knowingly as he read this). The "anti-semites" regard such individuals as "sleeper-cells", with some justification. I am friends with Robert Baratheon and have a tenuous amity with Kolker; they are both on my "Good Jew" list alongside folks like Mickey Kaus and the venerable Paul Gottfried (PBUH). But I would ask them and any other Jews reading to take a look at Birdman Bryant's "Open Letter To Jews" and his "Challenge To Jewish Readers." Stand up and be counted, Kolker. Make your voice known!

Yes, you and every other Gentile could use more chutzpah -- it will be necessary for psychological health if you live in a diverse (non traditional) society The high-trust communitarian ethos you and your father grew up with is being eroded into nothingness. The kind, deferential, polite manners of your era will be seen as cowering weakness by other tribes, and will leave you unprepared. We will have to learn chutzpah from the Jews in order to adapt to the New World Order: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-ExploitationVsTrust.html Anti-Semitism for intellectuals, pretending Jews are an even more disparaged group--gypsies. --Brant Funny you mention that. I've read elsewhere Jews being described as "high-functioning Gypsies" It ocurrs to me: KacyRay - Stan Marsh Robert Baratheon - Kyle Broflovski Seapis Bey - Eric Cartmann RB, I'll get back to your post later on. Now, if you'll excuse me...

Yes, you and every other Gentile could use more chutzpah -- it will be necessary for psychological health if you live in a diverse (non traditional) society The high-trust communitarian ethos you and your father grew up with is being eroded into nothingness. The kind, deferential, polite manners of your era will be seen as cowering weakness by other tribes, and will leave you unprepared. We will have to learn chutzpah from the Jews in order to adapt to the New World Order: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-ExploitationVsTrust.html

Getting rid of the Tzar seemed like a good idea at the time. The Revolution was just as much about getting rid of a reactionary ruling clique as it was about bring the "millenium" of socialism. The first happened and the latter did not increase the happiness of mankind. Meanwhile the Jews that mattered emigrated to America. In the fullness of time they added disproportionately to the prosperity of their adopted Nation. And if you disagree I absolutely insist you give back your polio vaccination. The reason why we don't leave in terror of polio during the warm summers is due to the work of two Jews, Salk and Sabin. And while you are at it, detach the USB from your computer. That was also invented by a Jew. Ba'al Chatzaf Yeah?! Did they invent the wheel? --Brant we goyim did our part Exactly Brant. It takes a certain kind of...er....chutzpah... to imply that the poor goys wouldn't manage to maintain an ascendent high-tech civilization without help from the SuperJews. Jews have done good work in the hard sciences. The soft sciences/humanities? Not so much.

Correct. This is what makes Objectivism vulnerable to the Prudent Predator argument: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=9997

Well, apart from Jesus Christ, that is.

RB, that's a refreshing take on things (at least from my perspective) But as Stephen implies, your boy's thinking is suceptible to the Prisoner's Dilemma. You can salvage your theory however by positing an instrinsic Good, of course. But that would run you afoul of Objectivism's strain of pragmatism. Would you, jewy jewy jew-boy, be so inclined to affirm a sort of "Higher Good" or "rally point" by which individuals can shape their behavior in the service of something that might be bigger than themselves (and in everybody's larger (if subconscious) self-interest?)) You would be the first. Good luck.

Ditto. It needs work. Yes, yes, we are all just one teeming amorphous mass of rational actors. Nothing to see here, move along. R U sirius? Sez you. I'm putting a stop to your mind-virus right here. SB - Achilles last stand --

Probably doing just fine. Don't get me started. Perhaps. But youse guys also funded the Russian Revolution, and by extension the (Jewish) Bolsheviks, and by further extension, the Holodomor.

Addendum: http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/03/want-to-feel-younger-more-open-magic-mushrooms-trigger-lasting-personality-change/ I'm thinking we should dose whatever water supply feeds the Orthodox Objectivism citadel...

No, I think I get the point. It seems you are most comfortable acting as Hall Monitor at Objectivist Living High School.

RB, do you think your story about that kid in your class who had spitballs launched at him and who invited further abuse through his reactions could be relevant here? Could it explain why this fellow is every troll's WET DREAM?

No, you don't need trips. But I notice you mentioned upthread how long it took for you to understand Time and its relativistic nature. You were attempting to grok Time through mathematical equations and such. I got the "gist" of it in a few hours one evening on LSD. I would also remind you of your comment about how your forte is in being a mathematical critic who can pick apart and understand OTHERS' theories, but didn't have that ineffable "intuition" in generating new theories that great physicists have. Well. I was going to tell you that if you had a change of heart, but had no access to LSD, the action of psyloscibin mushrooms are very much the same, and easily obtainable. And natural. Here's an interesting article on recent research being done on magic mushrooms. Apparently it can help with alcoholism. And it seems to be rather useful in mitigating so-called "end of life" issues, BOB. *ahem* http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/07/magic-mushroom-drug-shows-promise-in-treating-addictions-and-cancer-anxiety/ Aw, who am I kidding. I think everyone here knows the score:

Tell me if I have this right: You have acknowledged in this thread that the MSM is indeed liberal-biased. You are also an advocate of the 2nd amendment (with qualifications). Jerry was making a point about the reaction in the media towards an enjoyable bit of trolling in the form of a billboard. In spite of all this, your primary focus is on the fact that it wasn't the MSM per se that was outraged, but the people the MSM was reporting on. Okay. I know you are not a troll, but can you not see how your behavior here is considered by some as trolling? And not even the good kind of trolling?

I'm beginning to think Doug Bandler over at SOLO-P has it right when he bemoans how the Objectivist community has been hijacked by the Progressive borg. This renders them impotent as they blah blah blah over minutia in the face of very real, very powerful forces amassing around us. "Look where all this talking got us, baby." In lieu of this, I find it useful to both NAME and IDENTIFY exactly WHEN and WHERE such progressive tendrils make inroads into Objectivist thinking -- for example, by dissecting some of Kacy's thinking online for all to see. (Well, that's only part of it. The other part is my "wicked" impulse and glee in getting people to lose their shit by pointing out their blind spots in abstruse philosopical theory. )

You've missed MSK's point. He doesn't reject such tribal associations since he regularly identifies progressives for what they are, and analyzes their methods. How wonderful it would be if we could just eschew all these labels and focus on our common humanity...."are they oblivious, to this quality....EQUALITY" Too bad you're wrong. And not just about that Rush lyric. You are missing the significant characteristic we are discussing in this thread. You are right that it would be imprecise to characterize a libertarian as a liberal because he is for the legalization of drugs, just as it would be imprecise to characterize a libertarian as a conservative because he is against gun control. What distinquishes a libertarian is their fundamental approach to the role of government as such, and your suggestion here about regulating psychics speaks to that very issue, and it probably isn't the libertarian one.

Everybody is emotionally vulnerable. Being exposed to small shysters is an inoculation against big shysters. Next, are we to protect people against that anti-Christ--the Pope in Rome? --Brant My guess is that Kacy would probably point out that there is no material transaction involved in listening to the Pope, although I suspect that can be debated. But I would draw your attention to something Kacy said earlier: Note: he admits there is no ethical or legal way to get what he "wants", so he views the use of regulation as a mere tool to achieve his objectives. It is not a principled advocacy of free voluntary trade (necessarily), but rather a means to "get" those psychics whom he has stated he "hates." One can see in this example the machinery and gears which go on in a progressive's mind: they have their own personal vision of the True and the Good, and are quite amoral and ruthless in using the machinery of State to pursue their aims. I'm not saying Kacy is a hardcore Progressive, but this example is illustrative. The overarching idea being that "it's all fair" because it is in the service of the True and Good. All "philosophy" eventually becomes dictatorship. -- Hyatt

You're not thinking about this the right way. For example, "care/harm" is not meant to imply that liberals favor care and conservatives favor harm! LOL. No, that's just one of the 5 "foundations" (or modules if you will) that are scored. Liberals score highly on this particular measure, whereas conservatives might score moderately. Since most people here are probably nerds, think of the way characters are created in Dungeons and Dragons, with various traits being weighted along a spectrum. Hope this clarifies. I agree, but note that the consequences of such beliefs/motivations are not at issue. Yes, very often an undue concern for "care/harm" leads to unintended consequences, as we all know. However, it is a bit of propaganda I think, to assume that liberals are always operating with these consequences in mind. Haidt's studies focus only on intimate, immediate psychological motivations -- he is not a political theorist or strategist. You'd probably be better served by reading his recent book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

You shouldn't be shocked. I've been telling you for some time now you are a liberal, but in your stubborn obstinancy have avoided any self-reflection on the issue. What you have done over the years is get offended at my characterization to the point of demanding that I cease and desist because in your view, it is a baseless charge and I was "disrespecting" you for continuing. Imagine if I had acquiesced to your demands? You would have gotten what you wanted and this aspect of your thinking would have gone unexamined. No -- I value my independent judgement far too much to worry about other people's self-concept in this regard. But notice what a clever way your "respect" epiphany can be used to silence dissent (if I had kept my mouth shut). Very similar to progressives. Oh, of course not. What I've learned over the years is, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it will get mad at you for calling it a duck."

Oh, I agree completely. But what do you think the odds are of him doing that? As our combined experience has shown: you can bring a Kacy to wisdom, but you can't make him think.