John Galt was right!

[BaalChatzaf]

Galt picked the winning ticket.  Galt hit the jackpot.  The Passive-Aggressive approach cannot be defeated.

The Strike (the original title of Atlas Shrugged)  was an exercise in showing how a Passive-Aggressive strategy can take down those who are armed to the teeth.

The heroic thing to do was not to be a hero.  Bring down your enemy by not lifting a finger to help him. 

By Jove! I think I have had an epiphany!

[SteveWolfer]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Passive-Aggressive approach cannot be defeated

The true passive aggressive only 'succeeds' by finding people he feels hostile to and arranging things so that he will generate negative emotions in them, but do it in a way that has lots of deniability.  It is becoming a parasite to those they annoy and thriving off of their anger and frustration.  That is so NOT John Galt.  The strike wasn't about taking on those armed to the teeth, it was withdrawing from them.  They were left, alone, to stew in their own juices.  That isn't a passive-aggressive approach

 

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

By Jove! I think I have had an epiphany!

Beware those epiphany feelings.  Too often they are like when the emotion that you want to follow, but in some fuzzy way, know you shouldn't, encounters a meme that hasn't been critically examined, none-the-less seems to provide a justification for the emotion and then what feels like an epiphany is just the joining of a defensive emotion to a disconnected rationalization to make a feeling of "Voila... THIS is the true path!"

Psychologically, passive aggressiveness has lots of problems, and no redeeming features.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

 

Psychologically, passive aggressiveness has lots of problems, and no redeeming features.

Not so.  It is a weapon that cannot be defeated.  The idea is to be a clever passive aggressive. 

Galt wrecked the United States of the Rand 'verse  by doing nothing.  He stopped the motor of the world by not keeping it going.  All he had to do was to stop caring for either  his enemies or the vast number of victims of his enemies.   He saved a few of his friends and let the rest to to blazes.

[SteveWolfer]

23 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not so.  It [passive aggressive behavior] is a weapon that cannot be defeated.  The idea is to be a clever passive aggressive. 

I googled for some Internet definitions of Passive Aggressive: 

 

"of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials."
[That names some external behaviors, but fails to mention the purpose of annoying the other person and fails to note that their annoyance is a secret delight to the passive-aggressive person.]

 

"A defense mechanism that allows people who aren't comfortable being openly aggressive get what they ..."
[Good that it is categorized as a defense mechanism, but not very specific about what it defends against - low self-esteem and self-anger projected out.  It does imply the fear of being openly assertive."]

 

"being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)"
[Conveys the characteristic of a kind of veiled, deniable, minor attack on the sense of well-being of others.  Good in showing that it is an attack, a desire to make other's feel bad.]
---------------

 

Here is a pop-psychology article on Passive Aggressiveness from Psychology Today:

 

Passive aggression is defined as a deliberate and masked way of expressing covert feelings of anger (Long, Long & Whitson, 2008). It involves a range of behaviors designed to get back at another person without him recognizing the underlying anger. [This is the best definition so far, and it implies the cowardice and deception involved.]

 

These 10 common passive aggressive phrases can serve as an early-warning system for you, helping you recognize hidden hostility when it is being directed your way:

 

1. "I'm not mad."

 

Denying feelings of anger is classic passive aggressive behavior. Rather than being upfront and honest when questioned about his feelings, the passive aggressive person insists, "I'm not mad" even when he or she is seething on the inside. [There is also a tactic of not showing any emotion and being all Spock-like in a situation that calls for emotion.  I've heard wives say, "He acts like he doesn't feel anything - like a robot" when what is really happening is a passive aggressive husband has found a way to stick it to his wife while pretending that he isn't torturing her.]

 

2. "Fine." "Whatever."

 

Sulking and withdrawing from arguments are primary strategies of the passive aggressive person. Since passive aggression is motivated by a person's belief that expressing anger directly will only make his life worse (Long, Long & Whitson, 2008), the passive aggressive person uses phrases like "Fine" and "Whatever" to express anger indirectly and to shut down direct, emotionally honest communication.  [There is a secret communication that says 1.) Yes, I feel crappy, 2.) It is either your fault or you should at least try to fix it, 3.) I won't admit any of this and will keep baiting you to try to fix what I'll never let you fix. 4.) My goal is to make you feel crappy but I won't admit that, maybe even to myself.]

 

3. "I'm coming!"

 

Passive aggressive persons are known for verbally complying with a request, but behaviorally delaying its completion. If whenever you ask your child to clean his room, he cheerfully says, "Okay, I'm coming," but then fails to show up to complete the chore, chances are he is practicing the fine passive aggressive art of temporary compliance.

 

4. "I didn't know you meant now."

 

On a related note, passive aggressive persons are master procrastinators. While all of us like to put off unpleasant tasks from time to time, people with passive aggressive personalities rely on procrastination as a way of frustrating others and/or getting out of certain chores without having to directly refuse them.

 

5. "You just want everything to be perfect."

 

When procrastination is not an option, a more sophisticated passive aggressive strategy is to carry out tasks in a timely, but unacceptable manner. For example:

 

• A student hands in sloppy homework.
• An individual prepares a well-done steak for his or her spouse wife, knowing the spouse prefers to eat steak rare.
• An employee dramatically overspends the budget on an important project.

 

In all of these instances, the passive aggressive person complies with a particular request, but carries it out in an intentionally inefficient way. When confronted, he or she defends the work, counter-accusing others of having rigid or perfectionist standards.

 

6. "I thought you knew."

 

Sometimes, the perfect passive aggressive crime has to do with omission. Passive aggressive persons may express their anger covertly by choosing not to share information when it could prevent a problem. By claiming ignorance, the person defends inaction, while taking pleasure in a foe's trouble and anguish.

 

7. "Sure, I'd be happy to."

 

Have you ever been in a customer service situation where a seemingly concerned clerk or super-polite phone operator assures you that your problem will be solved. On the surface, the representative is cooperative, but beware of the angry smile; behind the scenes, he or she is filing your request in the trash and stamping your paperwork with "DENY."

 

8. "You've done so well for someone with your education level."

 

The backhanded compliment is the ultimate socially acceptable means by which the passive aggressive person insults you to your core. If anyone has ever told you, "Don't worry; you can still get braces, even at your age" or, "There are a lot of men out there who like plump women," chances are you know how much "joy" a passive aggressive compliment can bring.

 

9. "I was only joking"

 

Like backhanded compliments, sarcasm is a common tool of a passive aggressive person who expresses hostility aloud, but in socially acceptable, indirect ways. If you show that you are offended by biting, passive aggressive sarcasm, the hostile joke teller plays up his or her role as victim, asking, "Can't you take a joke?"

 

10. "Why are you getting so upset?"

 

The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."
------------

 

Sometimes you see passive aggressive behavior in people with very high levels of intelligence, but low levels of self-esteem, and some bitterness about being smarter than those around them, yet not being properly recognized or rewarded.  They develop an anger directed at everyone else, but lacking the assertiveness to express it in a direct fashion, they go passive-aggressive.  They end up focusing on the annoyance they create in others while not leaving a clear target for the victims to shoot back at.  Life becomes more about success at this sad pattern then it does about any real achievements.

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

 

 

Sometimes you see passive aggressive behavior in people with very high levels of intelligence, but low levels of self-esteem, and some bitterness about being smarter than those around them, yet not being properly recognized or rewarded.  They develop an anger directed at everyone else, but lacking the assertiveness to express it in a direct fashion, they go passive-aggressive.  They end up focusing on the annoyance they create in others while not leaving a clear target for the victims to shoot back at.  Life becomes more about success at this sad pattern then it does about any real achievements.

 

 

I propose to elevate passive aggression to a tactic or strategy.   Yes there are sad bent out of shape people who are passive aggressive, but analyze the  components of the strategy; non-cooperation,  working below the level of one's competence, being slow to respond to others.  These were all elements of Rand's Galt Gulch operation.  A philosopher who cooks hamburgers and does not philosophize for the benefit of the public.  A doctor who will not permit his portable x-ray machine to help injured folks on a wide scale.   All of the elements of passive aggression are there and used to a good purpose -- to bring the nation down into a pile of ruination.  That gets even with the bad guys  and who cares how many innocent folk are buried under the rubble?

[SteveWolfer]

43 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I propose to elevate passive aggression to a tactic or strategy.

Maybe you can create something that is like Passive Aggressive behavior to suit some appropriate goal, but passive-aggressive behavior is neurotic in nature - at its core.  You don't so much adopt it, as exhibit it's symptoms.  You should choose another name for whatever you are thinking of.

46 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Yes there are sad bent out of shape people who are passive aggressive, but analyze the  components of the strategy; non-cooperation,  working below the level of one's competence, being slow to respond to others.  These were all elements of Rand's Galt Gulch operation.  A philosopher who cooks hamburgers and does not philosophize for the benefit of the public.  A doctor who will not permit his portable x-ray machine to help injured folks on a wide scale.   All of the elements of passive aggression are there and used to a good purpose -- to bring the nation down into a pile of ruination.  That gets even with the bad guys  and who cares how many innocent folk are buried under the rubble?

This is really just troll stuff.  Bait.  And there is a passive aggressive style to trolling... making people annoyed and enjoying frustrating them. 

Non-cooperation, working below the level of one's competence, being slow to respond to others... these are not elements of Rand's Galt's Gulch.  None of her characters stopped cooperating with others in order to enjoy their frustration.  They weren't slow to respond.  They didn't work below the level of their competence to frustrate others.  The theme of the novel is well known and it isn't about making people unhappy for the purpose of enjoying their unhappiness.   None of the elements of passive aggressive behavior are there.  Passive aggressive behavior is a neurotic defense.

"That gets even with the bad guys  and who cares how many innocent folk are buried under the rubble?"  That wasn't in the novel... is it a personal statement of your feelings? 

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Galt picked the winning ticket.  Galt hit the jackpot.  The Passive-Aggressive approach cannot be defeated.

The Strike (the original title of Atlas Shrugged)  was an exercise in showing how a Passive-Aggressive strategy can take down those who are armed to the teeth.

The heroic thing to do was not to be a hero.  Bring down your enemy by not lifting a finger to help him. 

By Jove! I think I have had an epiphany!

Might be a reason Objectivism is a dead man standing.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

One has to recognize the artificiality of life and people depicted in Atlas Shrugged for the sake of the author's art. Transliterating that into the real world has real problems. Black and white; good and evil--most people are hardly that simple: perfection in a human being is for a statue, but Rand posited it in her heroes and judged people that way. It helped create a lot of phoniness in her followers, especially in their social deportment. Going on strike and "stopping the motor of the world" is another example of artificiality, primarily by the compression of generations into merely one. In the novel John Galt sees the result of the strike. In real life he tries something else; it's not "passive-aggressive."

It's fortunate Rand's education was liberal arts deficient or she'd never have written her novels, which, frankly, are truly foundational. The deficiency equalled over-emphasis on the power of philosophy (past and present) and the gross under-emphasis on everything else. She had a big hammer and everything looked like a nail.

--Brant

[jts]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I propose to elevate passive aggression to a tactic or strategy.   Yes there are sad bent out of shape people who are passive aggressive, but analyze the  components of the strategy; non-cooperation,  working below the level of one's competence, being slow to respond to others.  These were all elements of Rand's Galt Gulch operation.  A philosopher who cooks hamburgers and does not philosophize for the benefit of the public.  A doctor who will not permit his portable x-ray machine to help injured folks on a wide scale.   All of the elements of passive aggression are there and used to a good purpose -- to bring the nation down into a pile of ruination.  That gets even with the bad guys  and who cares how many innocent folk are buried under the rubble?

That might work against Islam. As I said a few times before, the most important thing to do to win the war against Islam is to tell the truth about it. The second most important thing to do to win the war against Islam maybe is don't buy their oil. Then they go back to riding camels and are harmless.

(Figure out an alternative to oil.)

 

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

One has to recognize the artificiality of life and people depicted in Atlas Shrugged for the sake of the author's art.

She needed to compress the broadest of abstractions - the role of man's mind - into a story that because of the theme had to show the place that a philosophy - individualism - a philosophy that arises from the proper understanding of the nature of man, his mind, and its role in his life - would have in politics, morality, epistemology, economics, romance, and art.  And it had to be done in the form of a novel where a story line presented conflict between opposing value so as to represent the philosophy in opposition to altruism/collectivism.  And it had to do so in a way that held excitement and resolved the conflicts.

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Black and white; good and evil--most people are hardly that simple: perfection in a human being is for a statue, but Rand posited it in her heroes and judged people that way. It helped create a lot of phoniness in her followers, especially in their social deportment.

I don't agree with most of that.  She believed that art was a selective recreation of reality and she believed that people such as she depicted were possible (she was the best example that she was right).  She didn't show them as perfect - we saw their struggles.  She didn't do anything to demean her heroes which modern literature's standards would require.  But that is nearly all that I need to know about modern literary standards.  I don't want to have the artist find a wart to present on what is otherwise a beautiful woman. 

There are a lot of reasons for problems in her followers.  There are some built in pressures on those who are above average in intelligence to start with, and then finding the clarity of Objectivism, combined with its celebration of intelligence, and the permission to feel passionate... well, it was too heady a tonic to take for many without them losing their way a bit.  Branden once said something about Objectivism was about more than the principles, but also the ability to apply them intelligently.

Objectivism taken full on, at an early age, should have come with a bit of wise counseling... but who knew back then.  And back then there wouldn't have been anyone who could have counseled as needed.

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

The deficiency equalled over-emphasis on the power of philosophy (past and present) and the gross under-emphasis on everything else.

We disagree on their being a deficiency such as you mention.  I think she was dead on as to the power of philosophy - today's society is made of puppets dancing to yesterday's ideas.

[Brant Gaede]

There is the power of philosophy, which I don't deny, and there is the power of many other factors which deserve their due.

Thank you for your considered comments. You remind me of why I miss Nathaniel Branden.

--Brant

"Hasta luego!"--his last words to me as I left his home (2012)

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, jts said:

The second most important thing to do to win the war against Islam maybe is don't buy their oil.

 

Some of the evils we see and endure today, have roots that go back a long way.

 

Our government, along with Great Britain and others, allowed thug-like governments to nationalize oil fields, equipment and structures that were the private property of publically owned companies.  Most of the shareholders were American or Brits.  The immediate loss was to the share-holders, the next and on-going loss was to the rule of law as an example was set with the early instances, and the final loss is still being accounted for as the thugs spend money to terrorize their citizens, retain power, and in some cases fund terrorism against the rest of the world.

 

Here is a list of the countries that used guns to steal their on-going oil revenues by nationalization.  The dates are not to be taken too seriously because there have in some cases been multiple instances of nationalization in a given country, and in many countries it wasn't done all at once:

 

- Soviet Union (1918)
- Bolivia (1937 and 1969)
- Mexico (1938)
- Iran (1951)
- Brazil (1953)
- Iraq (1961)
- Burma (1962)
- Egypt (1962)
- Argentina (1963)
- Indonesia (1963)
- Peru (1968)
- Libya (1970)
- Kuwait (1975)
- Saudi Arabia (1980)
- Ecuador (1992)
- Venezuela (1996)
- Nigeria (1999)
- Russia (2000)

 

Look at all the horrors that have been finance with stolen revenues.  All the deaths.  All of the money that would have been in the free market, providing jobs, satisfying desires, providing capital, and doing research instead of flowing to people like Stalin, Khomeini, Chavez, Muammar Gaddafi, etc.

 

If ever there was a proper use for the Marines, it is to send them in to retake any stolen oil fields with a notification to the country that was trying to nationalize them that any further attempts would be seen as an act of war.  Between letting government thugs take private property of our citizens and then taxing our sentences to send them foreign aid makes us culpable in a history that is far more oppressive and bloody than it would have been.

[SteveWolfer]

28 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thank you for your considered comments.  You remind me of why I miss Nathaniel Branden

You are welcome... I miss him too.  Among the significant regrets in my life is that I didn't spend more time with him.

[BaalChatzaf]

15 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

 

"That gets even with the bad guys  and who cares how many innocent folk are buried under the rubble?"  That wasn't in the novel... is it a personal statement of your feelings? 

That it is.  It is  how I see it.  

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That it is.  It is  how I see it.  

All my life I've cared about "innocent folk" starting especially with the children.

Of course, by the time they're teenagers they aren't so innocent any longer, nor are they supposed to be.

Innocent adults have something physiologically wrong with their brains so true moral choosing is beyond them in terms of third party disapprobation.

Qua adults--includes everybody actually--it's not the bad or wrong in people it's the good still there which naturally tends to predominate or the human race wouldn't collectively be so successful. People even manage to live on the South Pole. Someone down there just got sick and had to be evacuated in the middle of the winter. A special and major operation was mounted using airplanes. Humanity qua humanity in action.

Since Bob doesn't care "how many innocent folk are buried under the [revenge] rubble" he imagines, he expects us to honor him as a moral agent and force?

Why is a statement of evil less just for its honesty? Isn't the opposite what happens?

I see three possibilities here plus many variations using the mixing of them together in various combinations: stupidity, something physiologically wrong with the brain and evil in descending order of likelihood. If the order were reversed we could dispense with pity. We would have to.

--Brant

only on OL (and only in America)

 

 

 

[SteveWolfer]

7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I see three possibilities here

What I see is the consequences of ideas.  If you don't think anything exists but physical matter and energy and there is no such thing as volition, then how does one take seriously issues of morality, innocence, life or death.  Just shifts of protons... right?

I think that hard determinism will always lead not to a better understanding of reality, but to a divorce from reality and to a mental/emotional distancing - to seeing life as a floating abstraction - something less than full real.  There is a loss of meaning.

[BaalChatzaf]

41 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

All my life I've cared about "innocent folk" starting especially with the children.

Of course, by the time they're teenagers they aren't so innocent any longer, nor are they supposed to be.

Innocent adults have something physiologically wrong with their brains so true moral choosing is beyond them in terms of third party disapprobation.

Qua adults--includes everybody actually--it's not the bad or wrong in people it's the good still there which naturally tends to predominate or the human race wouldn't collectively be so successful. People even manage to live on the South Pole. Someone down there just got sick and had to be evacuated in the middle of the winter. A special and major operation was mounted using airplanes. Humanity qua humanity in action.

Since Bob doesn't care "how many innocent folk are buried under the [revenge] rubble" he imagines, he expects us to honor him as a moral agent and force?

Why is a statement of evil less just for its honesty? Isn't the opposite what happens?

I see three possibilities here plus many variations using the mixing of them together in various combinations: stupidity, something physiologically wrong with the brain and evil in descending order of likelihood. If the order were reversed we could dispense with pity. We would have to.

--Brant

only on OL (only in America)

 

 

 

Morality is opinion.  Form your own....

[Brant Gaede]

33 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Morality is opinion.  Form your own....

We can accept that's merely your opinion for that's what you've stated. (Go ahead and try to objectify it.) Everything you state here is by your own metric (that isn't simply math and science) just your "opinion." The rest of us have out own opinions about what you call "opinion."

BTW, what is your "morality" aside from "might makes right"--aside from math and science, of course?

--Brant

no one gets any free pass here, including me (but I don't read most of what is posted--no time to)

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

We can accept that's merely your opinion for that's what you've stated. (Go ahead and try to objectify it.) Everything you state here is by your own metric (that isn't simply math and science) just your "opinion." The rest of us have out own opinions about what you call "opinion."

BTW, what is your "morality" aside from "might makes right"--aside from math and science, of course?

--Brant

no one gets any free pass here, including me (but I don't read most of what is posted--no time to)

My main rule is do not do to (neutral) others  what I do not want others to do to me. 

I prefer avoiding conflict.  Conflict is an inefficient use of energy.

And might does NOT make right.  Might produces results.  But then again, among reasonable people,  reason produces results too. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

All my life I've cared about "innocent folk" starting especially with the children.

Solid first principle, defense of innocent liberty.