Hi, I'm a Communist!

[sjw]

Michael,

The natural uneducated man's response to fascism is communism (and vice versa).

It is too bad that Objectivists have been fanning the flames of fascism in America for decades, because not only do they have the moral blame for the fascism they've helped create, but they will also have the moral blame for the communism that could result and the mayhem and destruction that will result from that.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Michael,

The natural uneducated man's response to fascism is communism (and vice versa).

It is too bad that Objectivists have been fanning the flames of fascism in America for decades, because not only do they have the moral blame for the fascism they've helped create, but they will also have the moral blame for the communism that could result and the mayhem and destruction that will result from that.

Shayne

Shayne,

I think you might be reaching a little bit on this one . . .

[Rich Engle]

I thought this was kind of funny--from my violinist, Oksana. I had emailed her asking if the translation of the Russian MSK pointed out was really that bad, you know, how it is commonly taken (she's Ukranian and highly fluent in Russian , as well as a prim and proper lady). I do a lot of editing for her, she tends to get lazy with her English (she speaks 6 languages). So, she said:

Dear Rich! Yes, the translation is correct. It is very bad words! It not common to use of anyone. It is a very bad swear words. Please do not use them! Take care,Oksana.

(A good excuse to put up a picture of Oksana Melnychenko: Artist, intellectual, uber-hottie. Shown--her Eastman violin and Petrof piano, I sold her both of them for a song )

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rich Engle

[sjw]

Shayne,

I think you might be reaching a little bit on this one . . .

I wish I were.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Shayne,

I think you might be reaching a little bit on this one . . .

I wish I were.

Shayne

I'm not sure how much Objectivism has really influenced American politics, at the mega level, least of all fascists. But stranger things have happened.

[sjw]

I'm not sure how much Objectivism has really influenced American politics, at the mega level, least of all fascists. But stranger things have happened.

Ten years ago, or maybe even five, I'd have been less open to my observation than you are. It is not a simple conclusion to rationally reach, of course, it is getting simpler all the time, unfortunately.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Objectivist intellectuals could have staged a strong opposition to the encroaching big government, crony capitalism, needles prosecutions of wars, etc., but did not. In other words, a sin of omission.

In actual positive influence, I believe the support some Objectivist intellectuals provided to big-government Republicans threw a tiny amount of gasoline on the fire and nothing more.

It's kind of funny how this view leads me to the following conclusion, but there it is: Rand's ideas (due to her book and other media sales) are quite relevant to the mainstream public, but the Objectivist movement per se is irrelevant.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

It's kind of funny how this view leads me to the following conclusion, but there it is: Rand's ideas (due to her book and other media sales) are quite relevant to the mainstream public, but the Objectivist movement per se is irrelevant.

You know, that's it, really.

[sjw]

It's kind of funny how this view leads me to the following conclusion, but there it is: Rand's ideas (due to her book and other media sales) are quite relevant to the mainstream public, but the Objectivist movement per se is irrelevant.

Michael

Such speculations regarding their actual effectiveness removes zero moral blame from them. They not only didn't fight tyranny but they actively promoted it, and they slandered or marginalized those who tried to fight it (e.g. Ron Paul rendered as the symbol of death on the cover of The New Individualist vs. the total silence about Ron Paul from ARI). And they do all this while wearing the mantle of authority on individual rights. Who knows exactly what effect they had -- they drew a lot of youthful energy into their movement, who knows what that youthful energy could have done to fight tyranny if not distracted by their insidious attacks on liberty.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Such speculations regarding their actual effectiveness removes zero moral blame from them.

Shayne,

How so?

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

And, frankly, if you want to extrapolate to extreme black-and-white terms, why does it matter--to the big picture--if you are an irrelevant evil person or an irrelevant foolish person, or even an irrelevant normal person? You're still irrelevant either way.

As to the Ron Paul cover, I hold that all it did was damage the public support of the magazine within its target audience. I don't think that cover, or the article, influenced anyone to speak of. The phrase "singing to the choir" comes to mind (which is what I perceive in a lot of these kinds of efforts).

Michael

[Selene]

Shayne:

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

I always loved Ayn's take on this cite from the Bible [basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth].

Ayn asserted, "Judge and be prepared to be judged."

So are you so pure and so high on your pedestal that you can throw stones?

Adam

that is a question not an attack Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Shayne:

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

I always loved Ayn's take on this cite from the Bible [basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth].

Ayn asserted, "Judge and be prepared to be judged."

So are you so pure and so high on your pedestal that you can throw stones?

Adam

that is a question not an attack Shayne

Let he who is without stones cast the first sin.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

So are you so pure and so high on your pedestal that you can throw stones?

Adam

that is a question not an attack Shayne

Sure seems like an attack. People generally don't like being wrong, morally ("don't judge") or intellectually ("know it all"), and if you tell them that they are they attack you.

I don't claim to be perfect but I certainly try my best to ascertain the truth and am willing to change my views when I'm wrong. I don't have agendas or loyalties that I put higher than the truth. Which shouldn't be saying much, but evidently, it is. If this makes me "so pure and high" on a pedestal then that answers your question. If not then I wonder what requirements you think someone has to meet before they can "cast stones."

What I'd ask you is: are you so unconcerned with truth that you can't cast stones?

Shayne

[Selene]

So are you so pure and so high on your pedestal that you can throw stones?

Adam

that is a question not an attack Shayne

Sure seems like an attack. People generally don't like being wrong, morally ("don't judge") or intellectually ("know it all"), and if you tell them that they are they attack you.

I don't claim to be perfect but I certainly try my best to ascertain the truth and am willing to change my views when I'm wrong. I don't have agendas or loyalties that I put higher than the truth. Which shouldn't be saying much, but evidently, it is. If this makes me "so pure and high" on a pedestal then that answers your question. If not then I wonder what requirements you think someone has to meet before they can "cast stones."

What I'd ask you is: are you so unconcerned with truth that you can't cast stones?

Shayne

Concern with the truth does not require casting stones, in my opinion.

Furthermore, you appear to place a lot of weight on the big "O"bjectivists that I think is quite misplaced. As Michael pointed out about the Ron Paul cover, in the real scheme of events, it is not important. Irritating, yes. However, there are a number of problems with Ron Paul's foreign policy positions that deserve intelligent discussion. I like him a lot.

Adam

[sjw]

Such speculations regarding their actual effectiveness removes zero moral blame from them.

Shayne,

How so?

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

And, frankly, if you want to extrapolate to extreme black-and-white terms, why does it matter--to the big picture--if you are an irrelevant evil person or an irrelevant foolish person, or even an irrelevant normal person? You're still irrelevant either way.

Their actions are certainly not irrelevant. They wouldn't say so nor would I. You can say so if you want; I disagree.

I don't care how big their "gas can" is -- if they're trying to pour gasoline on the flames of totalitarianism then that marks them, regardless of how "relevant" their actions are in the big scheme of things.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Sorry, I just don't think the Objectivist movement had any influence on things like the War in Iraq, taxes, the economic meltdown, etc.

Hell, the Objectivist movement didn't have any influence on any election I can discern, unless you think a small group of people who can't even agree on who to vote for can influence an election.

That is what I mean when I say irrelevant.

At least, when we say "American politics" (the standard you discussed with Rich), that's the kinds of things I understand the term to mean.

And I still don't see how mentioning this irrelevance blames or exonerates anyone morally. After all, you did say, "Such speculations regarding their actual effectiveness removes zero moral blame from them."

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Sorry, I just don't think the Objectivist movement had any influence on things like the War in Iraq, taxes, the economic meltdown, etc.

I think their influence is mostly indirect, but even worse is that the reason for their irrelevance is because they have defaulted on the role they should have been playing. LewRockwell.com is far more intellectually active and culturally relevant than ARI.

And I still don't see how mentioning this irrelevance blames or exonerates anyone morally

It doesn't, perhaps I misread something you wrote.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

You guys are nothing but a bunch of . . . of . . .COMMIE PINKOS! ! ! ;)

[sbeaulieu]

You guys are nothing but a bunch of . . . of . . .COMMIE PINKOS! ! ! ;)

Stay tuned... black-listing comes next!!

~ Shane

[Kimmler]

Shayne,

Sorry, I just don't think the Objectivist movement had any influence on things like the War in Iraq, taxes, the economic meltdown, etc.

Hell, the Objectivist movement didn't have any influence on any election I can discern, unless you think a small group of people who can't even agree on who to vote for can influence an election.

That is what I mean when I say irrelevant.

At least, when we say "American politics" (the standard you discussed with Rich), that's the kinds of things I understand the term to mean.

And I still don't see how mentioning this irrelevance blames or exonerates anyone morally. After all, you did say, "Such speculations regarding their actual effectiveness removes zero moral blame from them."

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning.

Michael

Did Ayn Rand write Atlas Shrugged for nothing? Was it all in vain?

[Kimmler]

You guys are nothing but a bunch of . . . of . . .COMMIE PINKOS! ! ! ;)

Stay tuned... black-listing comes next!!

~ Shane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_list

^^Didn't Ayn Rand like them?

From Wikipedia

Rand became involved with the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a Hollywood anti-Communist group, and wrote articles on the group's behalf.[54] She also joined the anti-Communist American Writers Association.[55] In 1947, during the Second Red Scare, Rand testified as a "friendly witness" before the United States House Un-American Activities Committee. Her testimony described the disparity between her personal experiences in the Soviet Union and the portrayal of it in the 1944 film Song of Russia.[56] Rand argued that the film grossly misrepresented conditions in the Soviet Union, portraying life there as being much better and happier than it actually was.[57] When asked about her feelings on the effectiveness of the investigations after the hearings, Rand described the process as "futile".

[Selene]

Yes, thank heaven that the marxist left in charge of most of the educational institutions in America would never stoop to blacklisting Randians, libertarians, conservatives and other members of the "right."

The Rosenberg's were guilty as we found out in the early 1990's when the Soviet archives showed the evidence.

The fact that there were embedded active communists in the Roosevelt administration from the early thirties on should of course be blacklisted from history.

Stalin was a wonderful person, only Hitler was a bad guy. And Mao, a perfect angel. Even though Mao made Hitler look like an amateur.

Please.

[Selene]

They're here!

Meet Jen Waller of the International Action Center (IAC). On October 22, she spoke at the Workers World Forum about the increasing French unrest. But she wasn’t concerned — rather, she was applauding it (literally).

As you’ll hear and see, she’s a big fan of unions, the protests of that country’s workers against austerity measures such as raising the retirement age, and the effects of those protests.

First, some quick background. IAC bills itself as and “anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist organization“ that wants to ”build a progressive movement for social justice and change.” Workers World is an overtly communist group that asks “Can’t we radically restructure the economy and put billions into solving basic human needs?”

Here‘s Waller’s description of the French unrest:

So people are really angry in France that they, um, are being asked to work longer in their lives, um, while banks are getting bailed out and while the rich people are, um, getting tax rebates. And um, it’s being linked to the larger issues of, um, neo-liberal corporate policies in the government, um, that make the workers pay and allow the rich to get richer.

Her later details of the number of protests were met by an applause. Trevor Loudon over at NZPatriot asks, “US Communists cheer on French protesters — a warning of things to come in America?”:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/young-american-communist-applauds-french-unrest/

Adam

[Selene]

FYI:

Bella Visono Dodd (born Maria Assunta Isabella in Picerno, Italy in 1904^[1]; died 1969) was a member of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930s and 1940s who later became a vocal anti-communist.

Dodd was a graduate of Hunter College and New York University School of Law. She also served as head of the New York State Teachers Union. A schoolteacher and lawyer by profession, Dodd was an organizer for the CPUSA from 1932–1948, and from 1944 to '48 sat on the CPUSA's National Council. She was expelled from the CPUSA in 1949.^[2] Ostensibly, Dodd was expelled for representing a landlord in a legal dispute with a renter—a violation of CPUSA bylaws against recognition or defense of the right to private property. However, Dodd's expulsion from the CPUSA was part of a larger purge following the ouster of Earl Browder as the CPUSA's General Secretary.^[3]

In 1953, Dodd testified before the US Senate about widespread Communist infiltration of labor unions and other American groups. On March 11, 1953, The New York Times ran a front page article entitled "Bella Dodd Asserts Reds Got Presidential Advisory Posts." The article reporting that Dodd "swore before the Senate Internal Security subcommittee today that Communists had got into many legislative offices of Congress and into a number of groups advising the President of the United States."^[4] The New York Times reported on March 8, 1954 that Bella Dodd "...warned yesterday that the 'materialistic philosophy,' [i.e., dialectical materialism ] which she said was now guiding public education, would eventually demoralize the nation."^[5]

In 1954, her book School of Darkness was published, wherein she opined that the Communist Party's structure "was in reality a device to control the 'common man'".^[6]

http://genus.cogia.net/chap3.php <<<<This is the entire book.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Did Ayn Rand write Atlas Shrugged for nothing? Was it all in vain?

Kimmler,

No.

I read it.

(That goes for others, too.)

Anyway, what logic leads you to believe that Atlas Shrugged and the Objectvist movement are one and the same thing? You have a weird way of equivocating things...

In other words, did you learn spin for nothing? Is it all in vain?

Michael