Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dupin

Regulars
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Dupin

  1. Little known and ignored among Dewey apologists, in 1928 – between the first and second editions of German Philosophy and Politics – Dewey visited Russia with a view to examining Soviet culture, especially its educational aspects. Later, apparently based on a journal he had kept during his visit, he wrote half a dozen articles for The New Republic magazine, gushing with praise for what he had seen. Later he collected the articles, along with further essays on Mexico, Turkey, and China, into a book published in 1929: Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world
  2. As I write, the video isn’t showing in my browser but I guess you are referring to Navigating Schisms in the Objectivist Movement The Ayn Rand Institute recently put up an article about the same subject: Of Schisms, Public and Private by Onkar Ghate & Harry Binswanger Quoting the article: “ARI, founded three years after Rand’s death, did not and does not pretend to be a spokesman for Ayn Rand or Objectivism.” HAH! Setting aside the name of the organization there are many examples. For example, in November 2017 they published “The Anti-Intellectuality of Donald Trump: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump” and reprinted in October 2019, re-titled “Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump.” It begins by saying no one can speak for the dead then proceeds to speak for the dead. Again: “ARI strives to maintain high intellectual and moral standards.” What then was it doing associating with Carl Barney? He was on the Board of Directors and Yaron Brook defended Scientology while he was donating to ARI, then excoriated Scientology when he stopped donating. And never a word about his trade school fraud. Why then does ARI still associate with Richard Minns? Peikoff allows him to use the trademark “Atlas Shrugged” in connection with his Atlas Shrugged themed sculptures. At any rate neither he nor anyone at ARI oebjects to it, when they should be objecting loudly and publicly.
  3. If so, their immunity from liability is toast. Two video interviews of Edward Dowd, a former investment manager at Blackrock: Short interview conducted by the gravelly-voiced Alex Jones. Longer interview conducted by Kristi Leigh.
  4. It sounds like textbook rationalism. Sure, to some extent Trump is guided by his emotions, ditto here, but do you want to say he does not think? Do you remember Rand writing that if anything saves America it will be her sense of life? And isn’t – this is me now – a sense of life in large part emotional? Though I wouldn’t attribute the best sense of life to Trump his is not bad. (We are talking about 2016 and 2020. For 2024 I hope Ron Desantis or Ron Johnson runs and gets the Republican nomination.)
  5. About how Binswanger voted in 2016, the following is from “The American Spirit”: Back in June [2016] Harry Binswanger published on his website the article “Contra Trump,” proclaiming to his followers “I will either not vote, or vote for Hillary.” At some point he made up his mind which of the two because the evening before the election (held November 8th) he posted to his “Harry Binswanger Letter” (HBL) a last minute plea for everyone to vote for Hillary. Near the end of March of next year [2017] Mr. Binswanger posted a comment about the election to the blog of Robert Paul Wolff, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts. Because he knew Rand personally he feels he can speak in her name (he has done this repeatedly – see his entry in “Who’s Who” on this website for another example). In fact probably Rand would have liked much about Trump, especially compared to Hillary. Here is what Mr. Binswanger posted, and recall that this is after Trump had nominated a conservative Supreme Court justice: “Rand (whom I knew well personally) would have loathed Trump. All the leading Objectivist intellectuals do. I voted for Hillary.”
  6. Yesterday Amy featured Leonard Peikoff on her podcast. He's late to the party but better late than never: https://rumble.com/vuv5ak-leonard-peikoff-salutes-the-truckers.html On all the issues of the title of this post he differs from the so-called Ayn Rand Institute.
  7. So far I’ve listened to about a third of the show and thought I’d write up some thoughts before they fly away. The lady’s voice provided aural variety which is good. Rand’s advice is substantially outdated. I never thought I’d live to see the out-in-the-open corruption taking place, and the police state measures that have been installed, in the last year or so. We have reached the point where being nice is ineffective against some injustices, such as “mandates.” The truckers have the right idea. Yaron Brook, on a recent podcast, said he opposed the truckers because they were violating property rights by blocking the roads. As the saying goes, I am not making this up. He realized he had a problem with the Boston Tea Party of 1773 (the Colonials involved weren’t too fastidious about property rights), maybe a listener brought up that comparison. So he blathered on about how today’s situation is different, today it’s not a question of tyrants and revolution. Well it is and it’s obvious. By the way, why insert a clip of Brook saying today is worse than years ago? We need him to tell us that? He has been helping make today worse for over 20 years. There are many examples. He claims there is no evidence of election fraud in 2020. “No evidence, zero evidence” is an exact quote.
  8. Monart, I’m a long time student of the Alexander Technique. I first got wind of it from my piano teacher years ago – it’s pretty well known among actors, dancers, and musicians – and was fortunate to have as my first teacher one who had been trained by Walter Carrington who himself trained under Alexander. And fortunate because he (my first teacher) was more intellectual than most of the subsequent teachers I’ve had. If memory serves the Objectivist online magazine “Full Context” at the time edited by Karen Minto once carried an article on F. Matthias Alexander but I can’t find it, either current or on archive.org (Internet Wayback Machine).
  9. Monart Pon, Yours is a well written description of the problem most people have, though they don’t know they have it. But the solution developed by F. Matthias Alexadner is difficult to describe in the few words of a post. Here are two series of videos that might help people understand: Videos of Walter Carrington Videos of Marjorie Barlow As you know, John Dewey wrote introductions to some of Alexander’s books. This website defends Alexander: The Unknown Dewey
  10. It looks like the Southern Illinois University Press leaves out Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world ("and the revolutionary world" is not capitalized on the title page). The first six chapters, the ones about Soviet Russia: Impressions of Soviet Russia
  11. The late John Ridpath might have been interested in joining such a movement.
  12. Great preliminary analysis by Rudy Giuliani: The Rally and the Riot: What Really Happened On January 6th (uploaded to BitChute after techtotalitarians removed it from YouTube).
  13. Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman, trespassed on what people who go in for hypocrisy call “the sacred temple of democracy” (Wesley Widmaier). For this misdemeanor she got what she deserved, shot through the neck and killed. It was just and right.
  14. No. "Idiots" is vulgar. I ought to have written: His detractors call him "authoritarian" when his problem was that he wasn't authoritarian enough.
  15. The time and place for riots was the day or so after election day at each separate state capitol. States are responsible for their elections. It is the state legislators who allowed the 2020 election to be stolen and who should have been the target. In D.C. on January 6 what could the protesters have hoped to accomplish? Without agent provocateurs – Antifa and perhaps deep state actors (probably there’s overlap between the two) – if enough protesters had occupied the Capitol building they might have delayed the event indefinitely, and given the public time to realize the election had been stolen. There were two problems. The existence of agent provocateurs within their ranks. That was easily foreseen. Their purpose was to make the occupation look bad. The other problem was that Trump was not on the protesters’ side. He could have ordered Capitol security to leave the protesters alone but he did nothing. All through his presidency Trump doesn't seem to have realized that he was president. Idiots call him "authoritarian" when his problem was that he wasn't authoritarian enough. Before the election all he did about mail-in ballots was tweet. Could he have made mail-in ballots illegal by executive order? I don't know, but he could have made some real effort instead of just talking. The same goes for the other methods of election fraud. Anyway, too little too late. Events should not have been allowed to reach the point they did.
  16. merjet, Duh! But what is the relevance of your remark? Have you read any of my references regarding the evidence? How much proof do you need? I'm not here to read them for you. You don't even need my references, you can use the Internet as well as I can. Don't be like Yaron Brook and Gregory Salmieri.
  17. DonAthos, “Trump is an authoritarian and a statist.” Even if partly true Trump still looks great compared with Biden/Kamala. “He has been searching for a way to overturn the election for months ...” Overturn? Trump and many others claim that Biden/Kamala’s victory was due to massive election fraud. There are many links to articles about this at the end of Theft of the U.S. Presidency. The most articulate are Bill Whittle, Scott Adams, and Paul Craig Roberts.
  18. Wrong in the tactical sense, not the moral. They should have known it would play bad visually and that Antifa would make it look even worse.
  19. I listened to part of Trump’s speech, as much as I could stomach. He threw loyal supporters under the bus. It was all right to say that storming the Capitol was the wrong thing to do but then he should have said that he understood their feelings and motivation. And he should have described, at length, the role of Antifa. Not only did Trump concede, worse, his use of the past tense sounds like he has given up trying to get election fraud acknowledged in the courts. He has dropped all election challenges in Georgia according to this article.
  20. From today’s New York Times: Chief Steven A. Sund of the Capitol Police ... defended the actions of the officers as “heroic,” despite widespread criticism over how easily they were overrun by the mob of Trump supporters. ... In a pair of videos ... a woman who has a Make America Great Again flag draped around her can be seen stepping up to a ledge next to a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, a long hallway with portraits of former speakers of the House. As soon as she steps up to the ledge next to the door, a loud bang can be heard, and she falls to the ground. ... ... Chief Sund said his agency had placed the officer who shot Ms. Babbitt on administrative leave and that the officer’s police powers had been suspended. He did not identify the officer.
  21. You can figure out who killed her from: CBSnews.com: “A woman was shot by a plainclothes Capitol Police officer after breaching the Capitol and attempting to enter the House chamber, according to acting Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee. She was transported to a local hospital where she was later pronounced dead, Contee said. The shooting is being investigated by MPD's internal affairs unit, which is responsible for investigating all officer-involved deaths in Washington, D.C., even those involving other agencies.” Woman, unarmed, trespassing. A trigger-happy plainclothes policeman?
  22. Eiuol, It’s not arbitrary, even without the evidence provided by Tracy Beanz on Twitter. Biden had everything to gain from this spectacle and false flagging is what leftists do. See also https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3920775/posts Speaking of “arbitrary” see Mouthpieces for Election Riggers
  23. Brook’s views on the vote count controversy are reviewed here.
  24. Yaron Brook thinks he got what he hoped for but there are many anomalies in the election. He came out November 5th or 6th saying that his “educated guess” is that there will be no “provable” vote fraud. He meant fraud either by those who want the Republicans to win or by those who want the Democrats to win, he sees the two groups as equally likely to engage in fraud. His arguments are ridiculous, see: Yaron Brook Show (starts at 9:44)
  25. Tucker Carlson may cover this but it looks like Fox News in general has gone over to the dark side.
×
×
  • Create New...