Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[william.scherk]

Jew -invents [bad things] -acolytes of which hate-> Jews

I already was about to make a video about this but I need to refine this theory first.

I'd say don't bother, the theory has been fleshed out here and here.

Edited November 18, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

<p>

Jew -invents [bad things] -acolytes of which hate-> Jews</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I already was about to make a video about this but I need to refine this theory first.

</p>

<p>I'd say don't bother, the theory has been fleshed out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion">here</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Antisemitic_conspiracy_theories">here</a>.</p>

<p> </p>

<div id="-chrome-auto-translate-plugin-dialog" style="opacity: 1 !important; background-image: initial !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-color: transparent !important; padding-top: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; position: absolute !important; top: 0px; left: 0px; overflow-x: visible !important; overflow-y: visible !important; z-index: 999999 !important; text-align: left !important; display: none; background-position: initial initial !important; background-repeat: initial initial !important; ">

<div style="max-width: 300px !important;color: #fafafa !important;opacity: 0.8 !important;border-color: #000000 !important;border-width: 0px !important;-webkit-border-radius: 10px !important;background-color: #363636 !important;font-size: 16px !important;padding: 8px !important;overflow: visible !important;background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right bottom, color-stop(0%, #000), color-stop(50%, #363636), color-stop(100%, #000));z-index: 999999 !important;text-align: left !important;">

<div class="translate"> </div>

<div class="additional"> </div>

</div>

<img onclick="document.location.href='http://translate.google.com/';" src="http://www.google.com/uds/css/small-logo.png" style="position: absolute !important; z-index: -1 !important; right: 1px !important; top: -20px !important; cursor: pointer !important;-webkit-border-radius: 20px; background-color: rgba(200, 200, 200, 0.3) !important; padding: 3px 5px 0 !important; margin: 0 !important;" /></div>

trilingual are you now?

Showoff.

[john42t]

I'd say don't bother, the theory has been fleshed out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion">here</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Antisemitic_conspiracy_theories">here</a>.

Those theories come from those observations, yes. [EDIT: Actually most of them only what I called the primary cause, the wealth/apart/selfish bit.]

Which is probably why you believe that I'm anti-semitic.

Actually, I believe there's hardly a tradition with a similarly high heroes per head count than that of Judaism.

[Philip Coates]

> [in] various lectures and debates on strategy over the years, I always stressed the need for a "theory of leverage" [GHS, Post 54]

George, i) what ideology or methodology do you think most needs to be spread first (Objectivism?, libertarianism?, anarcho-capitalism?) and then ii) what strategy would you advocate that would best accomplish that?

Your 'obtain leverage' and my 'overcoming inertia' are good abstract principles but just how that is done is where the rubber will meet the road. Present activists and think tanks would probably claim they are diligent doing both. I don't know if you agree with me, but in my view their efforts could be -vastly- more effective.

[caroljane]

I'd say don't bother, the theory has been fleshed out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion">here</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Antisemitic_conspiracy_theories">here</a>.

Those theories come from those observations, yes. [EDIT: Actually most of them only what I called the primary cause, the wealth/apart/selfish bit.]

Which is probably why you believe...

John,

Your above typical quote exemplifies that you are a debater, possibly a chess player,second and third guessing your interlocutor, alert for body language and catchword clues...for a layabout hypocrite, a brownie point seeker (fat chance for them around here), for a sloppy thinker who will not stay on the rigid road.

You may have noticed I am no debater, and (you expected a" but" there , didn't you?) although there are many world-class debaters here, and many genuinely illuminating and fascinating debates have taken place. along with equally so feuds and riveting quarrels, the main thing that goes on here is conversation, a winding river of living water.

Relax.

Carol

just felt like butting in

[Jonathan]

How would the PFJ spread Objectivism?

[Selene]

"...you are a debater."

Relax.

Carol

just felt like butting in

Yes, but is he a master de bater...

[George H. Smith]

> [in] various lectures and debates on strategy over the years, I always stressed the need for a "theory of leverage" [GHS, Post 54]

George, i) what ideology or methodology do you think most needs to be spread first (Objectivism?, libertarianism?, anarcho-capitalism?) and then ii) what strategy would you advocate that would best accomplish that?

Your 'obtain leverage' and my 'overcoming inertia' are good abstract principles but just how that is done is where the rubber will meet the road. Present activists and think tanks would probably claim they are diligent doing both. I don't know if you agree with me, but in my view their efforts could be -vastly- more effective.

Around a year ago I posted on OL an excerpt from a long unpublished article, "The Tao of Strategy," which I wrote in 1996. Although this excerpt doesn't directly address your questions in some respects, it is a good overview of my approach.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9239&view=findpost&p=108517

I just got back from a meeting of the Bloomington/Normal Freethinkers. We meet in a bar once a month, and after three hours of drinking I am not in the best shape to write anything more on this subject right now.

Ghs

[caroljane]

How would the PFJ spread Objectivism?

They would start by exposing the fundamental evil of the cheesemakers.

[George H. Smith]

How would the PFJ spread Objectivism?

[video deleted]

They would start by exposing the fundamental evil of the cheesemakers.

They would watch as Phil is nailed to a cross. Then they would give him three cheers.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

How would the PFJ spread Objectivism?

The one thing they wouldn't do is team up with the JPF.

[Philip Coates]

> They would watch as Phil is nailed to a cross. Then they would give him three cheers.

Bottoms up.

[Philip Coates]

Am I the only person on OL who has never seen an entire Monty Python film?

Are they now a requirement to be an Objectivist in good standing with the more hip and comedically-sophisticated 'reform' wing? My DVD player is not working, can i just commit suicide instead? [Don't answer that.]

[George H. Smith]

> [in] various lectures and debates on strategy over the years, I always stressed the need for a "theory of leverage" [GHS, Post 54]

George, i) what ideology or methodology do you think most needs to be spread first (Objectivism?, libertarianism?, anarcho-capitalism?) and then ii) what strategy would you advocate that would best accomplish that?

Your 'obtain leverage' and my 'overcoming inertia' are good abstract principles but just how that is done is where the rubber will meet the road. Present activists and think tanks would probably claim they are diligent doing both. I don't know if you agree with me, but in my view their efforts could be -vastly- more effective.

One way to obtain leverage is to focus on a specific issue, as the abolitionists did.

For years I have been saying that libertarians and O'ists should focus on drug laws. We are here dealing with millions of Americans whose lives have been ruined because the government didn't approve of what consumers of illicit drugs chose to ingest. If ever there was an egregious violation of the principle of self-ownership (or whatever you wish to call it), this is it.

Among libertarians, O'ist types in particular tend to shy away from this problem, largely because they view drug consumers as low-lifes. Well, how do they think blacks were viewed in antebellum America? Do they think Garrison and other abolitionists chose a respectable cause? On the contrary, the abolitionists chose one of the most unpopular causes imaginable at the time -- a crusade then enabled them to focus on the principle of self-ownership. As William Lloyd Garrison put it, "The right of the slave to himself is paramount over every other claim."

From an ideological perspective, the slavery issue was perfectly suited to stress and defend the principle of self-ownership. Slavery is the ownership of one person by another person, and this forced the alternative of self-ownership into clear relief. Abolitionists wrote entire tracts defending and exploring the implications of self-ownership, and a number of important abolitionists -- most notably Lysander Spooner -- continued after emancipation to defend other pro-freedom causes.

It doesn't take much imagination to see similar potential in a unified campaign against drug laws. If individuals do not have a right to decide what they wish to put inside their own bodies, then all other "rights" we have are nothing more than concessions granted by the government. The right to control your own body is fundamental. Without that right, no other rights are possible.

A campaign against drug laws would have the added advantage of distinguishing ourselves from conservatives, who get most of the attention in matters pertaining to economics (taxes, deficits, etc.) Libertarians and O'ists have something unique and distinctive to bring to the table when fundamental matters pertaining to self-ownership are involved. On a tactical level, a campaign against drug laws would appeal to some thinking people on both the political Right and the political Left. Once you persuade people of the crucial significance of self-ownership, then it is usually not very difficult to take them down the road to a full-blown libertarian ideology. Some of these converts might become O'ists along the way, and some would not.

Keep in mind that I came to Rand via my early interest in freethought. I was reading freethought literature for two years before I happened to see Rand on the Carson show, and it was her answer to Caron's question about atheism that immediately made me think, "This is a sharp lady. I need to read her stuff." I went on to structure much of ATCAG in a manner that would introduce Rand to fellow freethinkers, and I have been told many times over the years that readers of ATCAG went on to become admirers of Rand.

For example, at a meeting of freethinkers a month ago, I met an older woman who likes Rand a great deal. She told me that she decided to read Rand after she read ATCAG around 1978. Before then she viewed herself as a "humanist" and had swallowed the usual misrepresentations of Rand as Scrooge in a bad mood, so she never had any desire to read her. But when this lady read ATCAG -- specifically, my application of Rand's epistemology to atheism and skepticism -- she figured that there must be a lot more to Rand than she previously thought. She was also struck by my application of Rand's ethics to the ethics of Jesus. She said she had grown weary of the sappy humanist approach of "Jesus was a great moral teacher, but...."

Many roads lead to Rome.

Ghs

[PDS]

Paul's epistles, and his obsession with Jesus, make more historic sense when one considers the not-so-slight possibility that Paul was one of those was present at Jesus' trial and execution, thus paving the psychological path for his road to Damascus experience. Wouldn't it be ironic if a very serious case of Jewish guilt led to what we now know as Christianity?

There’s no textual basis for thinking Paul ever set eyes on Jesus. It's just not part of the story.

One point I like to bring up with biblical literalists (or even run of the mill believers) is this, and it has to be carefully phrased: Did Jesus, Mary, Peter, Paul, the whole bunch, become fictional characters? If so, when? When did the inventing of fiction based on them begin? If they’re not aware of the non-biblical literature, things like the Gospel of Peter with its sky high walking talking cross, and the Acts of Peter, with it’s public magic contest in Rome between Peter and Simon Magus, all the better. Point out the dates of these creations (some have reliable, early, definitely before year X dates), then point out the dates of the earliest, highly variable manuscripts of the official canon. Guaranteed to make them squirm.

Agreed. It's not part of the story, but interesting speculation nonetheless.

As the ending of the Gospel of John expressly states, there are many things not "part of the story"...

[Selene]

Excellent post George.

Those of us who were around in the 60's might remember that it was the obscenity of the "Selective Service System," which in it's very name establishes all the dynamics one needs to expose in the statist system.

In essence, the state will "selectively" decide, who will be forced to "serve the state," and establish a corrosive and repressive "system" to effectuate it's power.

This was an excellent unifying issue for the entire political spectrum and, unfortunately, the idiocy of the break basically ham strung the ability of Objectivism to capitalize on the political movement that could not be stopped.

Adam

[Jonathan]

> They would watch as Phil is nailed to a cross. Then they would give him three cheers.

Bottoms up.

Upside down crucifixion? Now there's an idea!

J

[Jonathan]

One way to obtain leverage is to focus on a specific issue...

But that's not the Proper Objectivist approach. In the past, Phil has objected to the idea of focusing on, or organizing around, a single issue, or even a handful of related issues, because Objectivism is different, radical and special: it is an integrated whole which must be learned systematically. According to True Objectivists like Phil, one would not use lowly libertarian gimmicks such as divorcing a topic from one's entire philosophy as a means of attracting interest or "leverage." No. One would insist that anyone who wanted to learn Objectivism must do so properly: Good students of Objectivism are to show up with their tuition payment, a pad of paper and several sharp pencils, and they are to diligently take notes while being given properly structured courses by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, or by students of Dr. Leonard Peikoff who have been given his permission to teach.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Excellent post George.

Those of us who were around in the 60's might remember that it was the obscenity of the "Selective Service System," which in it's very name establishes all the dynamics one needs to expose in the statist system.

In essence, the state will "selectively" decide, who will be forced to "serve the state," and establish a corrosive and repressive "system" to effectuate it's power.

This was an excellent unifying issue for the entire political spectrum and, unfortunately, the idiocy of the break basically ham strung the ability of Objectivism to capitalize on the political movement that could not be stopped.

Adam

There is one and only one very good thing about drafting the young into the military: they get educated about how wrong that is in a right in their guts way. Now we are living with two undrafted generations--uneducated to the max.

--Brant

[Selene]

Excellent post George.

Those of us who were around in the 60's might remember that it was the obscenity of the "Selective Service System," which in it's very name establishes all the dynamics one needs to expose in the statist system.

In essence, the state will "selectively" decide, who will be forced to "serve the state," and establish a corrosive and repressive "system" to effectuate it's power.

This was an excellent unifying issue for the entire political spectrum and, unfortunately, the idiocy of the break basically ham strung the ability of Objectivism to capitalize on the political movement that could not be stopped.

Adam

There is one and only one very good thing about drafting the young into the military: they get educated about how wrong that is in a right in their guts way. Now we are living with two undrafted generations--uneducated to the max.

--Brant

No argument from me on that statement. You are completely correct.

[George H. Smith]

One way to obtain leverage is to focus on a specific issue...

But that's not the Proper Objectivist approach. In the past, Phil has objected to the idea of focusing on, or organizing around, a single issue, or even a handful of related issues, because Objectivism is different, radical and special: it is an integrated whole which must be learned systematically. According to True Objectivists like Phil, one would not use lowly libertarian gimmicks such as divorcing a topic from one's entire philosophy as a means of attracting interest or "leverage." No. One would insist that anyone who wanted to learn Objectivism must do so properly: Good students of Objectivism are to show up with their tuition payment, a pad of paper and several sharp pencils, and they are to diligently take notes while being given properly structured courses by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, or by students of Dr. Leonard Peikoff who have been given his permission to teach. J

Then we are doomed....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Jonathan,

One of the essays I included in The Lysander Spooner Reader was "Vices Are Not Crimes." This was published anonymously in 1875 in Prohibition: A Failure, by the physician Dio Lewis, who attributed it to "a lawyer friend."

I am convinced that Spooner wrote this piece because of the coalition that had previously comprised the abolitionist movement. Some abolitionists, such as Spooner, were hard-core natural right libertarians who condemned slavery as a monstrous crime against human nature. But other abolitionists were Christian pietists who condemned slavery primarily because it was a sin.

After emancipation some of the pietists joined other reform movements that sought to abolish other kinds of "sin' (or vices). Chief among these movements was the temperance crusade, which started out largely as a voluntary movement but quickly turned to advocating legal prohibition.

Spooner clearly saw the problem here, and I think this is probably why he believed that the distinction between vices and crimes was so important at the time. 1875 was around the time that a bunch of these reform movements took off, and the fact that his essay appeared in a critique of prohibition speaks for itself.

Ghs

[caroljane]

In related news, the King James Version abovementioned, 400 years young, is at #4 on Yahoo "trending now", just below Demi and Ashton.

Maybe the end really is nigh.

[Xray]

Fundamental views don't have to be valid: that's what we mean when we say something is a fundamental error.

Religions deal in fundamentals in three central areas:

a) what kinds of reality are there or what kind of universe and causality do we live in (metaphysics: there are two domains or worlds - this natural one and another sphere in which supernatural forces or beings exist or supernatural places - heaven, hell)

b) how we know things and the standards of certainty (epistemology: we know things not just by reason but by faith, revelation)

c) how we should live (ethics: we are a servant of something or someone outside of ourselves - god, charity).

Doesn't get much more fundamental than that.

Many religions have turned out to be fundamentally wrong about objective facts. Which is not surprising, since at the time they were founded, these facts could not be known.

Therefore many religions are fundamantally wrong on points a), b), and c).

[Brant Gaede]

Fundamental views don't have to be valid: that's what we mean when we say something is a fundamental error.

Religions deal in fundamentals in three central areas:

a) what kinds of reality are there or what kind of universe and causality do we live in (metaphysics: there are two domains or worlds - this natural one and another sphere in which supernatural forces or beings exist or supernatural places - heaven, hell)

b) how we know things and the standards of certainty (epistemology: we know things not just by reason but by faith, revelation)

c) how we should live (ethics: we are a servant of something or someone outside of ourselves - god, charity).

Doesn't get much more fundamental than that.

Many religions have turned out to be fundamentally wrong about objective facts. Which is not surprising, since at the time they were founded, these facts could not be known.

Therefore many religions are fundamantally wrong on points a), b), and c).

They aren't fundamentally wrong if there is a deeper premise of correcting for new knowledge and truth. Usually there is no such thing. When there is it usually is a scientific endeavor.

--Brant