Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dupin

Regulars
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Dupin last won the day on September 19 2019

Dupin had the most liked content!

About Dupin

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

419 profile views
  1. whYNOT isn't stupid nor are his posts stupid. There is no stupidity to recognize.
  2. Ninth Doctor, Peikoff urged voting for the Democrat (Kerry) in the 2004 presidential election (that’s when he made his infamous “apocalyptic bad” remark) and a straight Democratic ticket in the 2006 Congressional election. I’ll add that second part to the footnote, thanks. The archive.org server hosting Peikoff.com’s 2006 page is down at the moment. This, from CapMag, will do as well: https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2006/10/peikoff-on-the-2006-elections/ Peikoff is a smart guy, but ... well, at times what an idiot. The footnote is (now was) wrong about voting a straight Democratic ticket, that was in 2006 as you point out. I fixed it, thanks a lot.
  3. Easy Truth, That alleged quote of Rand is actually a fairly good paraphrase of her off-the-cuff answer to a question at the Ford Hall Forum in 1973, long before the Hart-Celler Immigration Act (written by Norbert Schlei), which rescinded the Act of 1924, had had much effect. You can read the exact quote at Ayn Rand on Immigration.
  4. Easy Truth, You write: “... [Trump] has replaced the previous deep state with his own deep state.” Previous? Replaced? The Deep State continues to very much exist. Trump’s administration is in every way better than Obama’s. His biggest problem has been brought on by himself. Perversely, he has surrounded himself by his own enemies. Our so-called intelligence agencies are corrupt and not to be believed. I don’t know anything about Russia’s. Comparing Trump to Mao, or his actions to a Maoist revolution, is something Yaron Brook might say. It’s absurd, a prime example of TDS. “Are you arguing that Trump’s immigration promises should have been kept?” (Scare quotes around “should” in the original.) Not arguing, stating. There are good arguments on ARI Watch, and you can find others by Lawrence Auster and Peter Brimelow on the Internet. I’m in the process of packing up and moving. The computer gets boxed this evening.
  5. Easy Truth, Most Americans (excluding Third World immigrants) want a more anti-immigration stand from their government. The tough job market is one reason but only one. That Trump delivered only part of what he promised on that issue during his last campaign is a liability for him how. Though Trump has been a disappointment he has done some good things. Probably the most important is that his administration made the existence of the “Deep State” – or whatever you want to call corrupt rogue bureaucrats and those who pull their strings – public knowledge. And he has been slowly – too slowly – chipping away at it. LizCrokin.com/uncategorized/trump-takes-two-dozen-elite-pedophiles-including-celebrities-politicians As with his immigration policies, his two Supreme Court appointments were nothing to write home about but at least they were far better than what we would have gotten under Hillary Clinton. Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably won’t make it through another presidential term so a Biden presidency will affect that branch of government for a generation or two. The article alluded to in the original post is Biden Must Win or America is Doomed It quotes most of the pro-Biden speech that Brook made on his show (link in the original post).
  6. If anyone is still interested in the goings on at the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook has come out strongly in support of Biden for President: Yaron Brook Show The article “Biden is Our Only Hope” comments on this in detail. You can find it by searching on biden yaron "christian right" using Google (Bing and DuckDuckGo won’t work); “christian right” must be in quotes. You will learn that after Brook’s comments it became known that Leonard Peikoff had donated $250 to Trump’s campaign. So far Brook hasn’t commented on having once said that no “Trump apologist” should call himself an Objectivist.
  7. Just so it is clear, Strictly’s first “Dupin said” quote-box contains a quote of Bernstein, or to be precise, of me quoting Bernstein. Bernstein says that rewarding good is more important than punishing evil. Very well, but this remark is part of Bernstein’s reply to the claim that Barney is a liar and a crook. He made ii after saying that Barney’s donations to ARI and TOS etc. had greatly benefited Obectivism. It sounds like even Bernstein thought he hadn’t adequately addressed the claim that Barney is a liar and a crook, otherwise what was the point of saying it is unimportant compared to Barney’s donations? That is why I said Bernstein’s position amounted to: Maybe Barney is a liar and a crook, but look at the millions he’s given to ARI, TOS, etc. spreading goodness everywhere. (And I noted that Biddle and Bernstein received some of Barney’s money.) I was being sarcastic about spreading goodness. Strictly asks: “.... what would constitute a moral analysis and assessment of the current situation?” As if to say I hadn't done it yet. But is lying moral? Is working the government welfare racket à la Barney moral? Strictly considers the case where a man gives money to ARI and TOS, and asks if this is moral. Mostly not. The villainy of ARI and TOS should be apparent. For example, since we were speaking of Bernstein, not long ago TOS published an article of his that praised Nat Turner to the skies. Yes, that Nat Turner. Strictly says that in order to judge whether giving to ARI / TOS is right or wrong we must ask, among other questions: “Do the actions, of ARI and TOS, the videos, conferences, books, scholarships etc. working to spreading Objectivism, all act to promote the man's life or not?” This is a loaded question. The load, the false premise, is that they are working to spread Objectivism. By and large they are not. Strictly asks if supporting ARI / TOS promotes life. Again, by and large it doesn’t. Besides “Valedictorians of Yesteryear” – an article on ARIwatch that analyzes Bernstein’s bizarre Nat Turner essay – read “Who Is Richard Minns?” (both easily found using a search engine), then talk about ARI / TOS promoting life! Strictly’s own answer to “Does supporting ARI / TOS promote life?” is this master statement: “That clearly depends upon whether the philosophy of Objectivism is life promoting or not.” He confidently takes it for granted that ARI / TOS promote the philosophy of Objectivism when to a very large extent they do not.
  8. dream_weaver, Thanks for bringing that paragraph to my attention. I thought it was perverse when I read it before but didn’t analyze it in detail. Bernstein spends the bulk of his essay arguing 1. When Barney was involved in (the Church of) Scientology it was a beneficial organization and movement, and 2. Barney’s college’s are beneficial too. But Bernstein seems uncomfortable with this because he ends by saying, in effect, none of it matters. In the following, ask yourself what was bad, what harmed life – and why does Bernstein refer to it in those negative terms? “... it is more important to reward the good than it is to punish the bad. That which promotes life is vastly more important than that which harms it.” In other words: Maybe Barney is a liar and a crook, but look at the millions he’s given to ARI, TOS, etc. spreading goodness everywhere. (Including Biddle’s and Bernstein’s pockets.) Bernard Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein gave millions to charity so at the end of the day they were good men? If the charity had been ARI or TOS? Apparently Bernstein’s position is this: When judging a man and his career we are to turn a blind eye to evil and see only good (he considers ARI and TOS good). According to him this is an “uplifting principle of the Objectivist ethics.” As MisterSwig pointed out, it is no such thing. The quote from Galt’s speech provided by dream-weaver supports that it is not: “... to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement.” Rather like the pithy line attributed to Aristotle: “Justice consists in loving and hating aright.” Bernstein not only withholds his contempt from Barney’s vices, past and present, he denies the vices exist. More than that, he turns them into virtues! He loves Barney, through and through. His essay is one monumental act of injustice. Denouncing evil is the counterpart of praising good; they are two sides of the same coin of moral currency. In MisterSwig’s terms, punishing evil is part of rewarding the good and vice versa.
  9. Andrew Bernstein, long on the Objectivist scene and these days a contributing editor of Craig Biddle’s The Objective Standard, posted "A Tribute to Carl Barney" on his personal blog. A friend of Bernstein, who hates the Church of Scientology, tried to get him to take it down, to no avail. If you search on the three B’s: ... Biddle Bernstein Barney using Google you’ll find a recent review of Bernstein’s tribute. (Bing and DuckDuckGo don’t have it indexed.)
  10. Appear to whom? Machiavelli would have been proud of Trump. “us” means Americans in the first instance, the U.S. government in the second. Israel may be the ally of our corrupt government but it is no friend of us.
  11. Though Trump is nominally in charge not only the Democrats but his own party do their best to undermine his immigration policies, as do rogue judges, the Kritarchy. The argument, mine anyway, is this: bad as Trump is about some things (for example Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, so far) he is fairly good in absolute terms and great compared to his opposition.
  12. I'm slow to understand. Willfully failing to enforce welfare laws is giving welfare to illegal aliens. In either case the illegal alien gets the cash. That's what he cares about, and we care that we're forced to pay for it. This reminds me of a debate back in 2003: Did Bush lie when he sold the public on invading Iraq? Con: He personally believed the falsehoods. Pro: He willfully refused to examine the evidence.
  13. Eiuol, More and more we live under what Sam Francis called Anarcho-Tyranny where the law is enforced or not to our detriment. “[W]e refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” What does it matter if on the books it is illegal for illegal aliens to get welfare when the government makes little effort to enforce the law.
  14. Trump may not be a thorough-going capitalist but viewed against Bernie Saunders and OAC he is much more a capitalist and much less a socialist than they are. This is so obvious I don’t know what to say to explain it further. Do you want your tax-deferred retirement accounts confiscated? Obama was laying the groundwork for it and OAC and friends might well go down that road. I doubt such a thing would enter Trump’s mind, crazy as he sometimes appears to be.
  15. How naive can one get? One example among many categories of fraud.
×
×
  • Create New...