BlackSabbath

I'm a keen weightlifter and I discovered Mike Mentzer many years ago and, more and more, I came to subscribe to his theories and, in HD2, he talked extensively about Ayn Rand and Objectivism so I picked up a copy of Atlas and it all followed from there.

How about " Against Terrorism, Against Racism, Against Socialism"? It will annoy leftie-rent-a-mob types.

Your link doesn't work. Can you please post the proper one?

A mate of mine was brought up as a Jehovah's witness and had a nervous breakdown in his teens. He left them at 21. I gave him a copy of the VOS by Ayn Rand which contained a couple of articles that applied to him. He described the religion as being like communism in a lot of ways.

For good ammo, get 'The failure of the New Economics' by Henry Hazlitt who read through Keynes and he could not find one statement in the book which was both true and original. He found that Keynes was a revival of the mercantilist economists of the pre-Adam Smith era and the 19th century 'money cranks'.

That's not without significance. Kant and Hegel are virtually impenetrable while Rand and Peikoff are excellent and dead easy to read. Marx is virtually unreadable, so much so that many marxists have never read him, while Mises, Hazlitt, Salsman and Reisman, the last two being a wonderful combination of Objectivism and economics, are very clear and concise. It's almost as if the 'baddies' need to obscure their evil ideas as much as possible.

Having read Hazlitt - who wades through the book point-by-point using liberal quotations - I find that Keynes was a half-wit who couldn't write for toffee and helped to revive the old mercantilist fallacies refuted by Adam Smith and his contemporaries.

Not read it but I'm sure that Henry Hazlitt deals with it. Given his track record, Keynes is probably about as wrong as wrong gets, outside of marxism.

Those are the words of Henry Hazlitt.

Read 'The Failure of the New Economics' by Henry Hazlitt. Hazlitt read the entire book and could not find one statement that was both true and original. What was original was not true and what was true was not original.

Read J.R.R. Tolkien and find out what happens to creatures like you when the sun comes up.

How about any prominent Socialist writer in your respective country? I recommend Jimmy Reid and William McIlvanney from Scotland. Jimmy Reid is a 70 something trade unionist who still writes revolutionary marxist columns to this day. William McIlvanney writes along the lines of " What a terrible, terrible society we are and the rubbish I have written since Winston Churchill was in power has nothing to do with it."

Dio is the better singer, hands down, and he's still in great voice. A long time since that could be said of Ozzy. At least Dio is still about the music. I've got 3 Martin Albums, 2 Dio studio ones plus 1 live and all 8 Ozzy ones plus the couple of official live albums. You'll need to have been using a heavy duty course to give me a beating btw

I love Iron Maiden and I have 13 albums by them and 16 by another band, who turn up at the Ozzfest, whose name escapes me.....

I got mine about 1 am and had to go to bed at 7am as I was too tired to read it all in a oner. I got up at 12pm and finished in in another 30 minutes. It still hasn't sunk in yet. I'm not sure if I liked it more or less than the others but the plot twist is excellent and there usually is one in each book worthy of LA Confidential or The Usual Suspects. Spoiler alert! For those who have finished it, who do you think R.A.B. is? I have a good idea and send me a private message if you think you know.

Off to get my copy now. Let's see who can get finished the quickest.

Apparently, according to Objectivism, greed is good and generosity is bad although I missed it when reading all my books and Mperkel couldn't provide a quote.

It's at times like this that you wish the Pope's parents had used a condom. Voldemort would be safe for Harry and his pals compared to the company of an average catholic priest. I love opportunities for cheap shots at the Catholic Church BTW. I'm off just after midnight for my copy. This isn't as good as the yarr emoticon.

Altruism, by definition, means other-ism and, as a code of ethics, holds that man MUST exist for THE SAKE OF OTHERS. Under such a code, the concept of gain is expunged from morality. Literal selflessness is impossible. What drawbacks? Why Socialism? Especially given that it has been proved that Socialism makes economic calculation impossible. Why could it not work without it? If man is to serve others, then what are others for?

Or it could just be that they're all thick and dishonest.

Hello, my name is Troll. Troll McTroll. I am here to troll. Troll, troll, troll! Troll, troll, troll! I can endure the sun while the will of Sauron exists. Objectivists, do not waste your time with ad hominem attacks like this. Nothing is more annoying about my fellow objectivists than their sisyphean attempts to refute trolls with posts approaching the length of the latest Harry Potter book. This emoticon isn't as good as the one that said "Yarr!"

And still you favour nothing at all.

Ask him if the state can nationalize a mind. That is more than enough. All other economic arguments are secondary to this.

The Communist victory lead to capitalism? Capitalism is red in tooth and nail? Spot the frontal assault on reality everyone. Translation: Hello. My name is Troll, Troll McTroll. I am here to troll. Troll, troll, troll, troll! Right! Off to attack Gondor in daylight while the will of Sauron endures! Please patiently refute all my rubbish in Sisyphean fashion instead of dismissing is as being an obvious troll. p.s. Pay no attention to the fact that I have favoured nothing at all and only tried to refute things. This is in no way the classic sign of a Troll.

I rather enjoyed 'Toilers'. I thought 'Ninety-Three' had a terrible ending full of altruism which had me raging.