Woke NBA - Mark Cuban style

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

Inspired by the Marxist Black Lives Matter, this was predictable, I saw something like this coming our way next.

And there is almost zero overt white on black racism remaining in SA, I know (but plenty of the reverse, systemic and legal to shut whites out of the economy)

- AND all lives taken are by blacks on blacks. This is Malema of the EFF (Economic Freedom Front, sounds good? Except that it wants to nationalize banks, property and everything).

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/black-people-cannot-be-racist-effs-shivambu-ignites-blm-debate/

Tony,

Yup.

Once the Marxism in Mandela was ignored, he became a symbol of freedom. And now SA is seeing Marxism grow into full flower as the dictatorship it is. 

There's an old saying from Christianity somewhere I really like. Satan's best trick was to convince people he didn't exist.

Michael

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Lenin would have loved you. That is, until he got the power he wanted. Then he would have had you shot. He wasn't good at tolerating gotcha arguments, much less gotcha qua gotcha.  

There is it in full flower. MSK puts a smiley face on the devout Marxist and Soviet dictator V. Lenin.

Heh.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Imitation is the best form of flattery.

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here you guys go.

I found something you will like.

The Philosophy of Basketball in Relation to Capitalism, Democracy, and Socialism
By Bertell Ollman

As we all know, the installation of communism works in stages according to Marx himself. It's not an on-off switch.

BLM in basketball is one such stage. The racism in this intermediate stage exists because the oppressed basketball players are too well-paid to be the oppressed proletariat. So Marxists have to do racism instead. After all, blacks were oppressed in the US.

Now you may ask, how about the later stage after racism? Well, after a series of five-year plans of dictatorship of the racists, we will get to the end point--utopia--in the article above.

As in the wise words of Mr. Ollman when looking at the hidden meaning in the game:

Quote

To get at what it is we need only ask—what do both players and spectators enjoy most about basketball? I don't think it is the slam dunk or even the occasional circus shot. Rather, what really excites most of us about basketball is good teamwork, the times when the ball moves around between three, four and even five players, whose movements are perfectly coordinated, and the prize is an uncontested shot at the basket. Each player's skills, court sense and timing are on display, but it only "works" when the movements of each individual are transformed into the movement of a group, when the team as such rather than the individuals who compose it comes into focus. Putting our physical and mental energies into such successful acts of cooperation is very satisfying. It is also very unusual because there are few occasions in life where such intense cooperation is possible, and its fruits so immediate and evident. For players and viewers alike, it is a utopian moment, where they catch a glimpse of something wonderful, an ideal of community, that disappears as quickly as it appeared.

If basketball offers us this kind of utopian moment, why don't we hunger for more? I think we do, but for most of us it's disguised. We are not quite sure what it is that gives us this high, so we have trouble pinpointing what exactly is missing from the rest of our lives. According to this interpretation of its broader meaning, basketball is not so much a distorted education of what society is like but a utopian ideal of what it should be like.

And, of course...

Quote

Our motto? "Basketball players of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your coaches, your bosses and your landlords". Now there's a game—and a world—worth celebrating.

 

(wiping a tear of joy away...)

We didn't see it. Of course we didn't. And it's so beautiful... sniff... But this stage of racism is necessary. The truth is American pro basketball players are being molded into the correct ideology to properly develop their careers in communist China...

 

Michael

[Peter]

Tony wrote: I cannot believe how close is America for ideological takeover, in large part because of the good will and sympathy of Americans. Who else knows that benevolence and self-sacrifice are mutually exclusive, outside of Objectivism? And even there... end quote

I don’t think so. Not even if Biden and “Kamalamala ding dong” are elected and Joe dies and she becomes President, America has a solid Constitution.  I would even say our leftist party of Progressives called the Democrats contains a high percentage of patriots and decent union members and would not swallow the tripe of sending America back into the socialist era of President Franklin Roosevelt.

In the mean time we are binge watching "Victoria" and I think the setting is now in the 1850's or early 1860's maybe. I am amazed how politically civilized the Brits were back then, with a few radicals thrown in. Peter

[tmj]

I wouldn't bet on the patriotism of Progressives, the very nature of a Progressive is to change the status quo, and you can't get more status quo-ie than a written constitution. I'm frankly more concerned about the compliance of the patriots to the unconstitutional dictates of the state(s) in the current health 'emergency'.

We could use a little FDR, " all we have to fear is fear itself" , it seems risk aversion is the plague de jure.

We currently need to be assured of zero death, zero cases , zero negative outcomes of any kind before we can feel free to act. Risk aversion is a good guide to temper action, but somehow it has become the sine qua non of any self directed action.

[Peter]

TMJ wrote: “We could use a little FDR, "all we have to fear is fear itself", it seems risk aversion is the plague de jure.”

My parents thought FDR was wonderful, and from history, he did have his shining moments. I just think his socialistic actions were misguided and prolonged The Great Depression. Peter

[Peter]

After praising the British mid-18^th Century politics depicted on “Victoria,” I looked for some historically oriented letters about American politics and I found a few by Ghs and one by Gregory Wharton about pre-Victorian but post- Revolutionary War America. I get a kick out of the shouting and finger pointing in the British House of Commons and The House of Lords but I bet our Legislature and Senate at that time were about the same in spirit. Peter  

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Rights? Wrong! Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 14:42:00 -0500. Bob Exador quoted the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"..."

Bob wrote: "If this (so-called) Creator is the basis of all men's (so-called) Rights then what if these (so-called) truths are false? None of this nonsense is self-evident to me. Is it to you?"

And Roger Bissell replied: "[T]here's not much to deal with there, other than a simple confusion of the Declaration of Independence with Objectivism's theory of rights. Mr. Exador would no doubt benefit (in proportion to the serious interest he has in the issue of rights) from reading Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" (in ~The Virtue of Selfishness~), in which she clearly states that rights derive from human nature, whether or not you believe that nature is created by a supernatural being or arose naturally...."

Roger is correct, of course, but it is possible to view Jefferson's remarks in a more sympathetic light.

(1) Since Jefferson did not believe that rights are "self-evident" in the sense of being moral axioms that are incapable of rational justification, it is reasonable to suppose that he was merely establishing common theoretical ground early on in the Declaration. I think this is the significance of the wording, "WE HOLD these truths to be self-evident...." In other words, the doctrine of natural rights was the common ground on which most Americans (including those who opposed independence) stood, so he would make no attempt to justify it. We might call this a contextual axiom. Although not self-evident per se, the doctrine of inalienable rights was not in question, but was the fundamental principle that must ultimately decide the controversy over American independence.

(2) Jefferson, like many of his contemporaries, was a deist. The god of deism, having created the universe, did not interfere thereafter, but left it alone to operate according to natural laws, including the moral laws that derive from human nature. (Indeed, deists would often use "god" as a synonym for "nature.") The important point here is that when deists attributed rights (or anything else) to god, this did not imply that rights could not be justified by reason. Quite the contrary – the deists viewed reason as the indispensable mechanism for discerning the "natural revelation" of physical and moral laws, in contradistinction to the "special revelation" of scripture, miracles, prophecy, and the like (which they rejected).

I discuss this in some detail in "Deism and the Assault on Revealed Religion," in *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies,* pp. 131-64. In other words, I think we need to cut Jefferson some slack and take into account the intellectual context in which the Declaration was written. 8-) Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: A change of pace -- Jefferson on conscience Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:35:23 -0500. While reading once again the letters of Thomas Jefferson -- always a delightful pastime -- I encountered this famous passage, which I thought might provoke some discussion among those Atlanteans who have grown weary of the abortion debate. But first a little background:

Jefferson subscribed to a "moral sense" theory, which had numerous defenders among luminaries of the Scottish Enlightenment, such as David Hume. The key text that gave legs to this theory was *Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times,* published in 1711 by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury (usually called "Shaftesbury"), who as a young boy had been tutored by John Locke. (His grandfather, the First Earl of Shaftesbury, was Locke's patron, who made it possible for the physician Locke to pursue a career writing philosophical works.)

Shaftesbury's *Characteristics* is one of those books that exercised a tremendous influence in its own day, only to forgotten or neglected by later generations of thinkers. (Fortunately, an excellent critical edition of this substantial book was published in 1999 by Cambridge University Press.) In any case, I mention this book primarily because of the impetus it gave to the idea of *conscience,* which became a major topic of discussion among 18th century moral philosophers.

Jefferson and others used "moral sense" as a synonym for "conscience," and this latter is a subject that has not received much attention by admirers of Ayn Rand. I therefore post the following comments by Jefferson in the hope that they will elicit a discussion of conscience, which is a significant topic even for those who (like myself) do not subscribe to the technical features of moral sense theory.

This is an excerpt from a letter that Jefferson wrote to his favorite nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787.

"Moral Philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a moral sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the beautiful, truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this; even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings. The writings of Sterne, particularly, form the best course of morality that every was written. Besides these, read the books mentioned in the enclosed paper; and, above all things, lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, etc. Consider every act of this kind as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties and increase your worth."

(The author mentioned here is Lawrence Sterne, author of *Tristram Shandy,* published in 9 volumes between 1760-67. This was Jefferson's favorite novel, and it illustrates his conviction that ethics can sometimes be communicated better in works of fiction than through technical works on moral philosophy.) Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re:  A change of pace -- Jefferson on conscience Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:17:01 -0500

Debbie Clark wrote: "Jefferson seems to indicate a belief that the moral sense is endowed by the Creator.  I'm not refuting that -- indeed the Bible is replete with statements about God "writing" his laws on the hearts and minds of the people --  which is quite a different thing than a person conforming to externally imposed requirements."

Jefferson was of course a deist who denied that the Bible contains any supernatural elements. His held the Old Testament in very low esteem, maintaining that it conveyed a "degrading and injurious" idea of God. Jehovah is "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."

Jefferson had a higher opinion of the ethics of the New Testament, at least as represented by the teachings of Jesus, who was "the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country." But much of his value is buried in the "rubbish" of miracles and other stories related by his New Testament biographers, so we must separate the "diamond from the dunghill." (And this is precisely what Jefferson attempted to do in his version of the New Testament -- the so-called "Jefferson Bible" --which excluded everything except the moral precepts of Jesus.)

In a letter to William Short, Jefferson declared: "I too am an Epicurean." Epicurus is "our master" who, along with the Stoic Epictetus, gave sufficient laws "for governing ourselves." The teachings of Jesus are valuable as a supplement, inasmuch as he specified "the duties and charities we owe to others."

True to the materialistic atomism of Epicurus, Jefferson flatly denied the immaterialism of God (which he castigated as "masked atheism"). Much in the manner of Thomas Hobbes, he declared, "To talk of  *immaterial* existences, is to talk of *nothings.*"

Nor did Jefferson have any use for religious faith. All "our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning" are sufficient "for all the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms." Ghs

From: "George H. Smith To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:24:02 -0500

I wrote: "Jefferson, for instance, was a vigorous defender of the free market."

And a.d. smith replied: "as seen in the Non-Intercourse Act designed to stifle trade with Europe"

During his second presidential term Jefferson prohibited trade with both England and France in an effort to keep America from becoming embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars. Some Jeffersonian Republicans were clamoring for America to enter on the side of France, whereas some Federalists wanted America to intervene on behalf of England -- and since both France and England were capturing American ships destined for the other country, Jefferson feared that an incident of this kind would be used to justify American participation in the war.

This prohibition, though undertaken for good motives, was inconsistent with Jefferson's own free-trade principles, as many other Jeffersonians  were quick to point out. If a.d. smith is making that point that politicians, including politicians with libertarian proclivities, will often violate their own principles while in office, then his point is shamelessly easy to make.

But that was not my point. We were discussing Jefferson's *ideology* -- or at least I thought we were -- and, contrary to Smith's claim, this was in no way anti-capitalistic or anti-individualistic. Nor was this true of George Mason or most Anti-Federalists. I fear that a.d. smith has embraced a theoretical perspective -- based largely on his reading of J.G.A. Pocock and similar writers -- that is badly distorted.

Smith mentions Murray Rothbard in another context (in regard to Walpole and salutary neglect); it should be noted that Murray detested Pocock's perspective and was firmly in the Bailyn camp. I recall that he once called the "civic humanist" interpretation of Radical Republicanism "pure crap" -- and though I might take issue with the adjective "pure," I tend to agree with him.

a.d. smith wrote: "Yes, but Jefferson also, somewhat contradictorily, endorsed the principle of "no taxation without representation" --- which implies that that with representation, taxation (forced purchases) are legitimate -- a powerful idea libertarians are still battling."

Is a.d. smith unable to see any value in a political tradition unless it agrees down the line with modern libertarianism? The legitimacy of minimal taxation (preferably collected in the form of import duties) was accepted by every Lockean of that day. But the significant point is that this taxation was viewed as voluntary in principle, since it supposedly rested on the "consent" of the governed. The problem, of course, was that Locke and his followers defended a bogus theory of tacit consent (something that Spooner and other anarchists would later object to) -- but the principle of voluntary taxation, having once been established, became an essential feature of modern libertarianism.

Ideas, driven by an inner logic, tend to develop into their logical conclusions over time. Modern libertarian theory did not spring up full-grown in the head of Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand. What seems obvious to us now is frequently the result of centuries of ideological development. A pure libertarian theory -- complete with free-market economics -- would have been impossible in the 16th or 17th, or even 18th century, for sufficient groundwork had not yet been laid. It is therefore a cheap and easy victory to focus on the errors of earlier generations, as if such errors somehow make them lesser advocates of freedom than we fancy ourselves to be. It is quite possible that libertarians a century from now will view us in the same unflattering light.

The Radical Republicans did more than pontificate about freedom; they actually brought it about in many cases. If we could be half as successful as these pioneers, we would be very fortunate indeed.

a.d. Smith wrote: "My point is that Jefferson's political ideas (like those of most of the historical actors minarchists and individualist anarchists try to rehabilitate and then claim) were incredibly confused and contradictory - so our political ideas should stand on their own (rationalist and future-oriented) feet, rather than relying on the crutch of tradition. Libertarianism doesn't need to have the dates 1776 or 1689 attached to it in order to win converts and appealing to tradition will likely prove destructive in the long-run."

Who said anything about historical crutches? I was simply addressing some historical issues, and I assumed Smith was doing the same. I don't recall mentioning anything about winning converts in this context.

a.d. smith wrote:  "I would point to the fact that Jeffersonian republicanism and the belief in free-trade (think of South Carolina nullification) were strongest in the states practicing slavery and with the worst record in regards to the property rights of aboriginal agriculturalists."

And I would point out that this has nothing to do with anything. Is Smith suggesting some causal or ideological link between free trade and slavery?

Jefferson translated (or at least help to translate) Antoine Destutt de Tracy's book on political economy, a defense of laissez-faire that was widely used in southern colleges for years thereafter. Destutt (who may have coined the word "ideology") hailed from the French tradition of economic subjectivism (a forerunner of marginal utility theory) that we find in J.B. Say and his followers -- a tradition that was opposed to slavery. The same is true of Adam Smith, who denounced slavery in no uncertain terms. Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:29:56 -0500

a.d. smith wrote: "Reading original texts is an important step in understanding --but so is looking at their context and the actions of the authors (e.g., Non-Intercourse Act)--- especially since actions speaks louder than words."

As a historian, I am interested in understanding the Radical Republican ideology --complete with its internal tensions and contradictions -- rather than passing moral judgment on the lives of individual Republicans.

Jefferson acknowledged that the Louisiana Purchase conflicted with his strict constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution, and he was clearly troubled by his embargo on trade with England and France. And if we want to focus on his contradictions, then none stood out more clearly that his condemnation of slavery versus his ownership of slaves. (But I fail to understand why his position on land homesteading should be criticized.)

Jefferson was an extremely complex person who in some ways was torn between the ideals of Classical Republicanism and the newer, more commercially minded ideals of Radical Republicanism. But he never subscribed to the notion, propounded by Sam Adams and others, of America as a "Christian Sparta." There was too much of Epicurus (and too little of Christianity) in him for that. (One will often find important differences between Deistic and Christian Republicans, especially in regard to issues like virtue and corruption.)

As I said in an earlier post, Classical Republicanism (of the sort discussed by Pocock) is not an adequate model for understanding  Radical Republicanism -- with its individualism, intense distrust of political power, and its focus on personal freedom and happiness. Although some elements of Classical Republicanism (especially the concern with the corrupting influence of "luxury" and foreign commerce) carried over into Radical Republicanism -- as we see, for example, in the writings of Richard Price -- such issues tended to fade into background, or were refuted and discarded with the passage of time.

Radical Republicans were not automatons who mechanically recited some kind of  Republican catechism; they did not have the benefit of reading Pocock, so perhaps they did not understand what they were supposed to believe. They were individuals who often had substantial differences. But individual freedom was their polar star, and all of their discussions of virtue, corruption, and the like, were animated by their concern with how freedom can be achieved and sustained. It was this belief in the inestimable value of freedom that united them, whatever their disagreements may have been. And it was this belief that fundamentally distinguished them from Classical Republicanism, which typically stressed the good of society or state over the good of the individual. Ghs

From: Gregory Wharton To: objectivism Subject: RE: OWL: The Roots of Peace Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:04:17 -0700. Christopher Baker regales us with the words of Thomas Jefferson, warning against entangling alliances and European intrigues.  This is presented by Baker as prima facie evidence that we should not be in any way involved in foreign affairs, with Baker extending this argument to cover the present situation in the Middle East.

Baker quotes Jefferson out of context.  In fact, Jefferson's own actions as President support international interventionism rather than undermining it.

In the first term of his Presidency, Thomas Jefferson engaged in a decisive military intervention in the Middle East (well, along the Barbary Coast: Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco to be precise).  Barbary potentates had been extorting money from us and interfering with American shipping through privateering for years.  Jefferson sent the US Navy and the newly-formed Marine Corps to Tripoli to put a stop to this.  The covert Marine mission to Tripoli was spectacularly successful, capturing the principal city of Derna. The military intervention led directly to the signing of a new treaty which freed the United States from claims of tribute and gave US ships unrestricted access to the Mediterranean.  So, if we are looking for precedent for interfering (even militarily) in Muslim nations to protect American interests, Jefferson is your man.  I, for one, am glad to see that we are following his example in this.

(This, by the way, is why the Marine Corps hymn starts out: "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

Later, in his second term, Jefferson tried to keep the United States from becoming embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars wracking Europe.  The method by which he attempted to do this was a shipping embargo combined with a position of official neutrality.  The embargo, of course, was a colossal failure and severely tarnished Jefferson's otherwise sterling reputation. Of course, despite our attempts to stay out of the Napoleonic Wars, and Jefferson's futile attempts to keep us neutral, the fight finally came to us with the War of 1812 (including the sacking and burning of Washington, DC by British troops).

Interestingly, that was the last time the United States made a consistent effort at neutrality in foreign affairs, and was also the last time the United States was invaded by a foreign army. On a side not, Jefferson was also the one who signed the United States Military Academy at West Point into existence. ~g

[Peter]

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

Just one more compilation? I went looking for quotes from Objectivists and fans of Rand that mention Thomas Jefferson. Peter

Excerpt from Objectivism and Rage by Barbara Branden, A lecture presented at the TAS 2006 Summer Seminar, July 4, 2006, Chapman University, Orange, CA. One cannot avoid recognizing that we live in a very angry age. At one time, people spoke to “My worthy opponent” when addressing someone who disagreed with their views. That attitude of respecting differences has long disappeared. Today, in discussions of politics, of religion, of environmentalism, of war and peace, of abortion—of all the issues that concern and often divide us—we hear little but raised voices and enraged insults coming from all sides of every issue. Speak to an opponent of the Iraq war and suggest that it might have been a good idea—and a torrent of abuse washes over you. Say that Israel is morally superior to the Palestinians—and statistics about Israel’s supposed “atrocities” of the last 2,000 years fly furiously at your head. Say a kind word about George W. Bush—and you had better take to the hills at once  . . . An idea, like an emotional reaction, is not a moral agent. Only men and woman are moral agents; only they can be good or evil. And the overwhelming majority of them are not wholly one or the other. Stalin was evil; your next-door-neighbor, who may believe he ought to be his brother’s keeper, is not. Thomas Jefferson, despite owning slaves, was basically a good and honorable man; the historical revisionists who focus malignantly only on his errors in order to “cut him down to size,” probably are not. Actions can be good or evil. Ideas cannot. To think something cannot make a person evil, just as it cannot make a person virtuous.

Robert Tracinski. The Perils of Populism . . . . None of them was a political outsider. They had all come up through the ranks of Colonial politics. From 1776, for example, Thomas Jefferson had served in Virginia's House of Burgesses, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, as governor of Virginia, as a delegate to Congress under the Articles of Confederation, as Secretary of State, and as Vice-President. So before he became president, he had been a fixture in Virginia and national politics for 25 years. This also means that the Founders all knew each other very well, having worked together for many years before and after the revolution. That was a very new thing, for men from Massachusetts and New York to have extensive political dealings with a bunch of Virginians. So they were definitely a connected elite in that sense.

George H. Smith, author of “Atheism the Case against God:” When Paine says the deceased signer of the Constitution, “has no longer any authority in directing,” the living, I say he is defending the right for people to always fight any future tyranny! Those were cautionary words. *Multigenerational Contracts,* *Ownership,* and one of Thomas Jefferson’s favorite causes, *Inheritance* were all hundreds of years old common law, and UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CONCEPTS during that era. They did not live in the moment!

No, I must disagree with Paine. They set no time limit within the Constitution. It did NOT have a sunset clause. They created something to last longer than their own life times.

Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy by Chris Matthew Sciabarra "The tree of liberty," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." And so, when I saw those startling images of a liberated Iraq-those first photos of fellow New Yorker, Major David "Bull" Guerfin of the U.S. Marines, ripping down the poster of Saddam Hussein in Safwan or that riveting footage of fellow Brooklynite, Marine Cpl. Edward Chin, helping jubilant Iraqis in Baghdad's Firdos Square to topple Hussein's 20-foot statue-it seemed to me that Jefferson's remark was as true as ever. The blood of that tyrannical regime-and the blood of patriotic American soldiers-had been shed, becoming what Jefferson had once called the "natural manure" necessary for the full flowering of human freedom. Liberty and eternal vigilance against despotism go hand-in-hand, after all.

PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: ATL: In-Your-Face Radicalism -- Boon or Hindrance to Objectivism? Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 04:15:56 EDT. . . . Had Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry been able to travel through time and ask each of us: "Do you want us to fight for our freedom which, if we are successful, will also benefit you?," who among us would not say, "Yes, go, fight those Redcoats!" Who among us would want to take a chance with our own continued existence? (Remember, this is a science fiction thought experiment, OK?) That being so, by the rational, Objectivist virtue of benevolence, it behooves us to emulate those who made our freedom possible, by extending the same efforts here and now!

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:24:02 -0500. I wrote: "Jefferson, for instance, was a vigorous defender of the free market."

And a.d. smith replied: "as seen in the Non-Intercourse Act designed to stiffle trade with Europe"

During his second presidential term Jefferson prohibited trade with both England and France in an effort to keep America from becoming embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars. Some Jeffersonian Republicans were clamoring for America to enter on the side of France, whereas some Federalists wanted America to intervene on behalf of England -- and since both France and England were capturing American ships destined for the other country, Jefferson feared that an incident of this kind would be used to justify American participation in the war.

This prohibition, though undertaken for good motives, was inconsistent with Jefferson's own free-trade principles, as many other Jeffersonians were quick to point out. If a.d. smith is making that point that politicians, including politicians with libertarian proclivities, will often violate their own principles while in office, then his point is shamelessly easy to make.

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Stealing? Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:12:27 -0600.  I wrote: "If record producers and musicians want to keep their music to themselves, then they should keep it to themselves, perhaps by playing in a garage with no audience. There is no such thing as a "right" to income from people who do not care to purchase your product."

 Michael Devault wrote: "By this logic, then it's okay for me to "borrow" a car from an automotive manufacturer without paying for it and even, I guess, "borrow" money from the guy whose Master card you found on the street. No, George, there is no "right" to income from people who do not care to purchase a product. However, there is a right--and an absolute right at that--to expect payment for the product of your labor from *those who intend to use* either your labor or the product thereof. In the case of the musicians, they have produced music for the enjoyment of *those who choose to pay* them for it...not for those who download their cd off napster and don't pay for it."

The automotive manufacturer has a right to loan you a car, if he wishes, without asking you to pay for it. Likewise, if I own a CD, I can loan it to anyone I wish (or give it away) without asking them to pay for it.

You are overlooking the difference between material goods and so-called "intellectual property." To use Thomas Jefferson's metaphor, which he used to oppose the notion of intellectual property, one candle flame can light many other candles without in any way diminishing the original flame. Given my brief remarks, you surely understood that I was calling the concept of "intellectual property" into question. Your example of the motorcycle is therefore beside the point. We have property in material goods because the use of such goods by one person necessarily prohibits or circumscribes their use by another person. This is not true of "intellectual property," including music.

[merjet]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here you guys go.

I found something you will like.

[blah, blah, blah]

Oh, my. OL’s king of snark and logical fallacies posts one of the stupidest essays I have ever seen.

The first six paragraphs suffice to establish that. I won’t try to guess MSK’s whim to not quote them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

52 minutes ago, merjet said:

Oh, my. OL’s king of snark and logical fallacies posts one of the stupidest essays I have ever seen.

The first six paragraphs suffice to establish that. I won’t try to guess MSK’s whim to not quote them.

Merlin,

I thought it was clear I disagreed with the essay.

Funny you missed that since it was obvious...

But, that's what you always do.

Nobody does it better.

 

For the reader: We don't have to agree with something or find it intelligent for it to be dangerous. We only have to know others believe it and are motivated by it.

For example, I have made peace with Merlin's petty obsessions and context-dropping. That's because I understand him and he's not dangerous. He thinks I am the enemy, not Marxism. Er... OK... shrugging shoulders... But all he wants to do is bitch about it. So no biggie. Maybe it gives him meaning in life or sumpin'...  

But I do think Marxism is as dangerous as all get out, especially right now. We have about a generation and a half indoctrinated with it that are ending their young years and starting middle age. And some of them are already being herded into rioting while things we used to like, say, like pro basketball, are selling out to the communist Chinese lock, stock and barrel.

Michael

[anthony]

On 9/9/2020 at 8:34 PM, Peter said:

Tony wrote: I cannot believe how close is America for ideological takeover, in large part because of the good will and sympathy of Americans. Who else knows that benevolence and self-sacrifice are mutually exclusive, outside of Objectivism? And even there... end quote

I don’t think so. Not even if Biden and “Kamalamala ding dong” are elected and Joe dies and she becomes President, America has a solid Constitution.  I would even say our leftist party of Progressives called the Democrats contains a high percentage of patriots and decent union members and would not swallow the tripe of sending America back into the socialist era of President Franklin Roosevelt.

 

Peter, I'd like to be reassured by your positivity ;0. I've seen more than enough of the unbelievable nihilism of the US Left to be persuaded. What I remember reading of FDR's period, this is not to be his 'soft', one might say good-willed Socialism - wrong-headed as it was - now is a different context. They want nothing short of totalitarian control. Socialism, the down trodden and poor, equality, and so on is their moral pretext. That their objective won't be accomplished due to Conservative/patriotic resistance is not much help. In the effort of power, the Leftists will do maximum damage. I never am far from a reminder of the dictum "It's your minds they want". 

[merjet]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I thought it was clear I disagreed with the essay.

Funny you missed that since it was obvious...

[blah, blah, blah and more hogwash]

I missed nothing. Your mind-reading skills are pathetic.

I saw very clearly you were making another straw man. I said nothing about whether you agreed or disagreed with the stupid article. Funny how you missed that. Regarding your saying "I found something you will like", you want others to believe that "you" does not include me, but does include others for whom you didn't make the straw man? 

 

[anthony]

There's no edit function. But to add, Peter, the nihilists and cynics who would force society to be 'good', would be useless without numbers of followers: the fervent true-believers, sundry feel-gooders and useful idiots.

[merjet]

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

There's no edit function.

Click on the 3 dots near the upper right corner of the post (within 24 hours, I believe).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

I missed nothing. Your mind-reading skills are pathetic.

I saw very clearly you were making another straw man. I said nothing about whether you agreed or disagreed with the stupid article. Funny how you missed that. Regarding your saying "I found something you will like", you want others to believe that "you" does not include me, but does include others for whom you didn't make the straw man? 

To the reader,

Isn't he cute when he's angry?

  

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

Click on the 3 dots near the upper right corner of the post (within 24 hours, I believe).

Last I knew, it's 48 hrs.

--Brant

the original time stricture was 24 hours

[anthony]

On 9/9/2020 at 1:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Yup.

Once the Marxism in Mandela was ignored, he became a symbol of freedom. And now SA is seeing Marxism grow into full flower as the dictatorship it is. 

There's an old saying from Christianity somewhere I really like. Satan's best trick was to convince people he didn't exist.

Michael

Michael, At that stage of the game, with fears of conflict in the air, it was important for SAfricans (and the international community) to believe the fairy tale of reconciliation - the past is forgotten and we are all free and equal now. Hell, that's what I believed. Mandela was excellent in that role of statesman and race reconciler keeping hidden his personal (mostly private) dislike of whiteys. A pragmatist, he said that obviously the country needed the Whites, their finance and abilities and foreign investment to succeed. He would have been appalled at the ANC today, the elite looters have enriched themselves, made a wealthy country broke and lost much of its skills and are enacting payback on the whites, while the people have got poorer than under apartheid. To many Blacks then, the EFF and a more extreme Marxist 'redistribution' and elimination of any existing capitalism, is the attractive answer to the ANC's corruption and unkept, impossible promises.

BLM is what gives Malema and his supporters ideological encouragement (i.e.: if even -Americans- can cave into intimidation and race-mongering, we get the go ahead and licence to copycat). He has referred to BLM explicitly. This hair product episode has caused a huge fuss locally, the appeasing White Lefties as usual  siding with this petty and quite innocent advert as being 'racist' and offensive while the EFF burned a few stores. Because there are almost no white police left, and non-existent White cop on Black civilian brutality, all that was left was a "capitalist product" to make hay with. So the manufacturer of TRESemme stopped production, all department stores have pulled it off their shelves, and Malema got his way. The only thing I'm glad of, they had the integrity to refuse his demands for the names of the advertising team which passed the ad.

"Racism is violence, so we will return violence with violence". Thanks - Black Lives Matter! You have set back race relations everywhere your racially-disingenuous message went.

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But I do think Marxism is as dangerous as all get out, especially right now. We have about a generation and a half indoctrinated with it that are ending their young years and starting middle age. And some of them are already being herded into rioting while things we used to like, say, like pro basketball, are selling out to the communist Chinese lock, stock and barrel.

YES, very dangerous.  Likewise, even more so, in Europe. (And, as I've said, an important ChiCom long-term goal of Covid is accelerating their power hold on Europe.)

I’ll recommend a book to Merlin, who seems not to get the Marxist undergirding and deliberate employment of gender, gay, and race studies and "empowerment."  I think you've recommended this book yourself, Michael:

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

On 9/9/2020 at 12:56 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here you guys go.

I found something you will like.

The Philosophy of Basketball in Relation to Capitalism, Democracy, and Socialism
By Bertell Ollman

Note the website link:

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/basketball.php
 

Yep, NYU.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

31 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 I think you've recommended this book yourself, Michael:

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray.

Ellen,

No, I have not recommended this one and I didn't even know who Douglas Murray was until now.

I just searched and read around and am going to get it. Looks fascinating.

The book I always recommend with a similar title is Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay, written in 1841. That link is the Wikipedia page. You can read it for free here: 

Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Here is the Amazon link in case anyone wants a print copy.

Material from this book constantly appears in modern books and lectures on economics due to Mackay's discussions of bubbles like the tulip madness in the early seventeenth century, the South Sea Bubble (1711–1720), the Mississippi Scheme (1719–1720), and several others. There are also discussion on non-economic crowd lunacies like witch persecutions, the Crusades, dueling, alchemy, and so on.

I love this book.  

But your recommended book is more relevant to the current discussion. I think I am going to enjoy it.

Thank you.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

48 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Note the website link:

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/basketball.php
 

Yep, NYU.

Ellen

At first, I thought you were linking to Chris Matthew Sciabarra, as his NOTABLOG is also nyu.edu/projects. (Wasn't Ollman his mentor?)

[ThatGuy]

On 9/9/2020 at 3:27 PM, Peter said:

TMJ wrote: “We could use a little FDR, "all we have to fear is fear itself", it seems risk aversion is the plague de jure.”

My parents thought FDR was wonderful, and from history, he did have his shining moments. I just think his socialistic actions were misguided and prolonged The Great Depression. Peter

“Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men’s well-being. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In the light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism’s advocates.”

“The Monument Builders”, Ayn Rand, 1961

FDR missed his window for an excuse.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, anthony said:

 

Thanks for the pointer merjet.

[ThatGuy]

Speaking of aggressive "Fact-checking":
Facebook is flagging a picture just  shared by Q that calls out the similarity between the "defund the police" movement and Hitler's removal of police in order to enable his "brown shirts." Flagged as "false" within seconds. (Ironically, when I tried to click on the info as to why, I only got an error message...hah...)

Q responded within minutes with a fact-check of their own, calling out Facebook:
 

4651

 

Link to New Q Drop

Q!!Hs1Jq13jV6 10 Sep 2020 - 5:42:08 PM

https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-gestapo.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gestapo
'Fact' checkers installed [misleading-misinformation][deliberate intent to deceive re: anti-narrative]?
Truth about history attacked-altered-reformatted?
Why?
System of information control?
Narrative-population control.
Events then.
Events today.
Reconcile.
Q

https://qmap.pub/read/4651