Polling our visitors!! Who are the spooks here?

Who is dirty? (That is: controlled opposition, government agent, lifetime actor, etc.?)

  • Joseph Atwill

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jerry Russell

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jan Irvin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Allan Weisbecker

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All of them and more!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
ousia,

It should go without saying, that a brief summary can't possibly catch every nuance of a much longer statement. However, I do believe my summary was correct, and captured the essence. Rand opens with the question of why to study philosophy, when so much of it is "blatantly false". She goes on to say:

Not all philosophies are evil, though too many of them are, particularly in modern history. On the other hand, at the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom—at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country—you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.
So there's that word "evil"; as well as the implication that modern philosophies are largely evil, while Aristotle was not.

As to the concept of a 'fight' for good against evil, Rand says:

That nonsense deals with the most crucial, the life-or-death issues of man's existence.... The battle of philosophers is a battle for man's mind.
Sounds like fighting words to me.

But, I agree that Rand is also writing about "making yourself impervious to the pitfalls and tactics of bad philosophy."

Based on the labels you've thrown around, wouldn't it be correct for us to infer that you believe we have fallen into such pitfalls? Perhaps you aren't sure, though, whether our problem is "moral errors" or "errors of knowledge"?

In either case, though, wouldn't it be more productive for you to discuss constructively what those errors are (and being specific) -- rather than just throw labels around, and then expect everyone to watch fifteen hours of video to puzzle out what you're trying to say, and what "evil" we're perpetrating?

This would mean a larger commitment of time on your part, though. On the bright side, it would give Richard something to work with, as opposed to speculation about what you might mean, based on the labels employed.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This would mean a larger commitment of time on your part, though. On the bright side, it would give Richard something to work with, as opposed to speculation about what you might mean, based on the labels employed.
Bingo! Thx Jerry

(o)usia has adopted a new religion, like we did before in the process of our escape from Xianty. And like us before, he is sure that this phase of his development is now the basis that he can build his approximation of (neo-Caesarian) utopia from.

I said: ..."an emotional cultural legacy from your attachment to Caesarian (traditionalist Christian) values ..."
As such, my somewhat lazy comment to him about his being a 'traditional' Christian (with Caesarean values) and his reply to it show just how sadly hypnotized and enamored he is with his new Randy religion, just the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss. Instead the following is the ignorant response which proves he doesn't have a clue to what we are talking about. Not because he is stupid, but rather hypnotized by his new cultural meme / religion. He has applied his own habitual pop cultural categorization to what I specifically clarified in parentheses as Caesarian.

My values are the very antithesis of the altruistic collectivism of christian mysticism. You seldom know what you are talking about.
Who the F said anything about 'mysticism' or 'altruistic collectivism'? That said, I certainly understand why (o)usia would come back with this retort, because this is what someone who doesn't understand, and doesn't want to risk a new reframing of his new Randy Love and so closes his 'ears', as Jesus said.

So what I call 'traditional Christian values' is not the common delusion of a sheep, but what the power brokers of Christianity (and the Caesarian imperium) intended for the benefit of the insiders.

(c)apitalism existed long before more recent (C)apitalism, and here no one disputes that it is a very effective tool, a valuable economic engine so to speak. The problem is the negative societal consequences of unrestained capitalism of which the Caesarians had their solution. And now the anarcho-capitalists do near the same, beginning with the recategorization of their former fellow slaves as lazy thieves, leeches, and such.

A design engineer (as I spent most of my time in electronics) is (normally) interested in optimizing his/her design(s). One common aspect of such designs is a need to control some process with a certain amount of precision. In order to do so one generally needs some form of feedback mechanism to 'regulate' the process to whatever precision is required.

But with the aligned interests of the monarcho-Catholics and the Randy anarcho-capitalists (hence Hapsburg / Koch sponsorship of Austrian School based Libertarianism) we have the most extreme form of Capitalism that sooner or later must inevitably lead to extreme wealth disparity. That is exactly what is being achieved thanks to such as Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Because of the traditional (cultural) interests of such elite Caesaro-Christians their Capitalism can not be held subject to any form of 'regulation' or modification to mitigate the rise of extreme wealth disparity. Any attempt to optimize the 'process', away from the Optimates, that is, is immediately labeled as some form of Marxism under one rubric or another.

And ironically which the disparities of economies globally, including from such as Marxism (serfdom in another fashion), only provide further opportunity for such traditional thinkers to exploit, hence their disdain for national and even 'state' sovereignties. Sovereignty to control their own economic environment especially.

Libertarian thinking is that if we ensure that there is no 'crony capitalism' and such that everything will self-regulate through such as 'competition', and that the courts will take care of all this for us. But history shows that judges have ideologies, and can easily be bought off.

(o)isia's hero, Aristotle was indeed Alexander the Great's mentor, and the latter was the first Western globalist wannabe. The interesting thing about globalism, ostensibly, is that it offers the opportunity to establish a level economic and legal playing field that everybody must 'harmonically' play by. Excepting that an anarchist implementation would inherently always muck things up on a locality by locality basis (and thus would not be 'globalism'). This situation is likely impossible to achieve so I mention it as purely theoretical. The opposite situation is what most everyone fears and that is globalization by a tyrannical and non-benevolent governance. But, are we really stuck between Roman Optimate notions and Romantic (appeals to the gut feelings of shallow thinkers) notions that really only benefit the same people at the end of the day?

(o)isia is saying IMO that he has correctly rejected the Roman Optimate option and gladly taken the Romantic 'pseudo-liberty' substitute, and like Jesus, he says the poor leeches and thieves will always be with us. But F them, and now he can wash his hands of it all. Because if they don't thrive in the new and perfect regime, then its their own damn fault.

But those that thrive the most (and likely started off the new regime in a lot better capital position) will soon become scared of the leeches and they will gladly employ their own paramilitaries to protect themselves. No doubt, we will have retained the 2nd Amendment, and as Joe correctly stated in the recent podcast, they and their militias will be able to afford such as nukes, labeled unequivocally and unqualified as 'arms'.
 

ousia

Member
It should go without saying, that a brief summary can't possibly catch every nuance of a much longer statement. However, I do believe my summary was correct, and captured the essence. Rand opens with the question of why to study philosophy, when so much of it is "blatantly false". [...] So there's that word "evil"; as well as the implication that modern philosophies are largely evil, while Aristotle was not.[...] As to the concept of a 'fight' for good against evil
Sounds like fighting words to me.
My point is based on extensive knowledge of Rand's philosophy. Objectivism holds that philosophy and any value, is fundamentally first person, for the individual. Objectivism rejects the "polemical approach" to philosophy. That means the benefit must be primarily about attaining value and not "fighting evil". That is a side effect, derivative issue. My purpose in quoting that, is to motivate self interested people that there is a personal value to learning this erroneous and evil philosophy. "Fighting evil" is only a value in as much as the individual stands to gain from it.


Based on the labels you've thrown around, wouldn't it be correct for us to infer that you believe we have fallen into such pitfalls? Perhaps you aren't sure, though, whether our problem is "moral errors" or "errors of knowledge"?
Whether you hold the philosophy you profess morally or immorally, doesn't matter to me as much as the personal benefit I get from showing that the philosophy is both evil and false. That holds regardless of the condition of your virtue (the truth of how you came to hold it)...


In either case, though, wouldn't it be more productive for you to discuss constructively what those errors are (and being specific) -- rather than just throw labels around, and then expect everyone to watch fifteen hours of video to puzzle out what you're trying to say, and what "evil" we're perpetrating?

This would mean a larger commitment of time on your part, though. On the bright side, it would give Richard something to work with, as opposed to speculation about what you might mean, based on the labels employed.
First, I don't cater to intellectual laziness, or what Oist call "second handers". If someone doesn't want to watch the videos, they could simply ask clarifying questions. What you are saying above is that the laziness of my dialogical opponents is a warrant for them thinking shallow and talking loud! That is treating a lack of knowledge and understanding of a persons communications as a warrant for wild speculation and arbitrary claims. This is the reason for your constantly having to try to play good cop and pry Richards foot from his ignorant mouth, his method for dealing with his own lack of justification....

Now, since Richard has expressed a connection between the issues here and the newest article from yall, I will wait to demolish the errors he made here until I finished reading that article....(which, so far, already makes the same mistakes he iterated here)
Edit:
Unless the Racism,Cultural Degradation and Misplaced Paranoia article is not the "next one"? I don't know if you posted here prior to publishing that article the same day? (that is a clarifying question...) The last article I was aware of before today was the "fortunate Scions" one.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
My point is based on extensive knowledge of Rand's philosophy.
I myself have more than a passing familiarity with Rand's philosophy, having read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. And I believe that she was very interested in Fighting Evil, not just as a matter of personal growth for the individual, but also as a political and social matter.

First, I don't cater to intellectual laziness, or what Oist call "second handers".
The amount of books, papers, video and audio available on the Internet and in the libraries of the world is basically infinite at this point, compared to the amount of time and space available to any individual person. Therefore I am offended by anyone who complains that because I don't find the time to embark on any particular recommended project, therefore I am lazy.

I don't go attacking your video series as ignorant, EVIL, and so forth, without watching it. As to asking clarifying questions, I feel that I've done that in the past, and not had much luck getting answers.

This is the reason for your constantly having to try to play good cop and pry Richards foot from his ignorant mouth, his method for dealing with his own lack of justification....
If it would help, you could consider that Richard is attacking certain viewpoints held by others who throw about labels similar to yourself. Rather than calling Richard names (and he is certainly not "ignorant"), you might consider explaining how your views differ from what he is criticizing.

I will wait to demolish the errors he made here until I finished reading that article...
We have been waiting for months for you to have any serious criticisms of what we're saying here (as opposed to name-calling) -- I would welcome it if you could follow through on your numerous promises to say something substantive.

Unless the Racism,Cultural Degradation and Misplaced Paranoia article is not the "next one"? I don't know if you posted here prior to publishing that article the same day? (that is a clarifying question...)
Yes, that's the article Richard was referring to.
 
Top