AMERICONORMAN

Well, that's pretty harsh. But Israel is such a serious and important subject that I can understand why it could be sensitive. The whole poem rests on the idea that the PLO is in love with Israel, what if. And what if all the brutal intentions and violent actions could be transformed into acts of love. The poem makes clear that this transformation is the case. That is how I wrote it. What Netanyahu describes in that particular chapter is terrible. So I considered whether I could make a love poem out of it. That was the challenge. Please note the line about becoming one, or Katyushas of love, etc. Israel and the PLO are symbols, and I have changed the nature of the PLO to one of peace and love. Israel is one consciousness, to be conquered; and PLO is another consciousness, the conquered. In reality the PLO or an organization of the kind can never win against Israel, whereas in my poem they do. I envision to lovers in bed, they've been considering this issue for some time, and then suddenly one beloved comes up with this poem on the spot. What would be the other's reaction? I expect giant spontaenously laughter, and then a passionate kiss, along with the words, "you're so adorable". The ironic thing is that I wrote this poem for someone. Do you think that's why he's mad at me?

This poem should not be taken to suggest that I endorse the PLO or any organization or nation that threatens Israel. For many reasons, Israel deserves to be supported and defended by the West, by America and Canada especially, and America's politicians need to awaken and understand the importance of defending and encouraging the prosperity of Israel, the only Democracy in the middle-east, but more accurately, the only state that defends individual rights to a satisfactory extent, so that we can call Israel: Brother. What this poem is, is not humor too much. It can be taken humorously, but it is more in the vain of 'talking dirty to a lover', when your beloved is Jewish, and perhaps you are not, and so in the realm of romance, your beloved should be charmed, for that special moment, by this poem. Benjamin Netanyahu, in his book A Durable Peace, entitles a chapter, The Trojan Horse. He describe in it how the Palestian effort and war-action for a state WITHIN Israel, is a Trojan Horse of the Arab countries, to take that state, so to serve as a Trojan Horse as a military tactict to finally make Israel vulnerable enough, to take more of her, first diplomatically and then militarily, with the final end to wipe her out! So with that said, enjoy the sweetness of this poem: ------------------------------------- MY TROJAN HORSE IN ZION By Jose Gainza I wanna be your Trojan horse, to give myself inside of you. I wanna be your PLO and invade you, sacred Zion. I wanna liberate the me in you, and govern just this few. I wanna rule this part of you, and the rest to keep an eye on. And once I pilfer thus my state, I will terrorize the rest. Katyushas of love will launch inside your land. And thus my plot will unfold to conquer your best. Thus with my charm, with mirth, I will own your hand. The nations united will sanction my right to your state. And all the people of you will turn into mine. The riches of you will entice and abound on my plate. Your stubborn resistance will now toe my line. We’ll fuse into one and dance by the sapphire sea. We’ll build a new home of peace and compact a new way. How foolish I’ll seem in those times when I used to plea. For now by our right we violently, feverishly play.

FOR THE MAN WHO LAUGHS By Jose Gainza I didn’t know that there existed this attention, So much attention on this earth, From you to me, breaking free. How could I know, how should I know, When all I wanted were your eyes Before my eyes: Four precious eyes … For so long … For so long … For so long I want your love in words From your lips, speaking plenty. For so long I need to touch your face, And rub your beard and naked skin. For so long I need to smell your scent, Down below and everywhere. For so long I want the taste that I procure, The taste of style, and taste of flesh. For so long I’ll bear the pranks, The pleasing pranks from you. Now’s the time you want to share me with your friends; Your precious, precious friends— So close to precious, precious, precious me. You want to hear me give them joy, Like I to you, and you to me. You want to hear how they can laugh When I do jest, when I do smile: I, the man who laughs … Ha-ha-ha-ha!

I discovered Marc Anthony first with his romantic slower salsa songs. I am totally in love with this guys voice. Jennifer Lopez is a fortunate woman. This song is from Zorro. What a wonderful treat when this song came out. It is one of those times in life when accident creates a very solemn experience: Zorro AND Marc Anthony!? I Want to Spend My Lifetime Loving You

I fell in love with this song when I was thirteen. It is certainly one of my favorites to sing. Hmm. That gives me an idea.

Here are links to two I was pleased to pick out of the used bookstore: http://www.amazon.com/Orthometry-Versifica...3501&sr=1-8 http://www.amazon.com/Art-Poetry-Florence-...606&sr=1-18 I haven't studied either though as I'm not ready yet, mainly due to commitment.

It's hard to believe he would be so stupid. All he is really admitting though, from the transcript, is that he had an ideology for 40 years, and it was wrong and it didn't work. That doesn't mean Objectivism is wrong. He hasn't been implementing an "Objectivist" economic model for the last 40 years. Anyone who has studied Objectivism has to know that. He is not speaking to us. He is speaking to a congressman who has never studied Objectivism, and believes that Greenspan has been applying Objectivism. Yes, Greenspan should fight the implication. He's a strange, strange man, this Greenspan is.

Actually this is interesting you brought this up: though Machiavelli seems to accept the Christian morality as something as a moral standard, there is a contradiction implied in him, an implied admiration for the moral virtues of the men of the Roman Republic--from what I've read so far, the first book of his discourses. It is also interesting, that what Machiavelli believes has not yet been stated in this thread, which is one reason why I returned it to our attention.

That's only because few people have been taught evolution properly. You can only know it to be true if you have performed the induction, and I would imagine it would be very near to have studied Origin of the Species. I've never read it but I get the idea and it is a much better alternative to 'god'. And you don't need to know evolution to be true to deny the validity of a concept such as 'god', though it would help enormously. .

Here's to high hopes: I would say that the world needs more Objectivist Machiavelli's--at least in this sense: we need more men willing to look at the history of the modern world, with a special emphasis on the goodness of America, and the impact of America on the rest of the world (economically and militarily); a man willing to accept the Objectivist moral code, and willing to endorse it in his history; who is willing to look at the trends of history and to criticize the altruist-collectivist or Machiavellian codes, in contrast to rational egoism, individual rights and Capitalism; able to unearth the crimes of our politicians and the gems who made a vital difference; able to report of how states rise in power, in our industrial-technological civilization. Our Machiavelli would embrace wealth creation and trade as a noble endeavour for power. He would have to look also at the espionage of our time and how the republics of the world acquired nuclear power, our ultimate power, the tactics of deception and being clandestine, how the evil states acquired such power, and how and why the good republics let them. Our Machiavelli would teach us of how today's game is really played, behind the scenes--and he would give us the prescription of how to fight it to achieve a truly noble republic. Our Machiavelli, in singing his song to us, would awaken us to this aspect of our dawning new renaissance.

I decided at 20, I would learn philosophy to the greatest level possible to me. 40 is going to be a good year. I could certainly be in a relationship with a non-Objectivist, so long as this person is coming along over time. But eventually, if there is evasion in why this person holds on to bad premises, then the relationship will end. I understand how hard it is to understand Objectivism and apply it in this Machiavellian world, so I'm much more accepting of non-Objectivists than I was at the very beginning. At this point I find something very sexy in a "teacher"/"student" type of relationship, where one is guiding the other along to understand PHILOSOPHY first hand. The evil of Altruism is not that hard to understand. Over the years, it has to be given up. When and under what circumstances? I don't know. But it will have to end. Atheim is like a nice cherry but it is certainly not enough. Though Christianity is very unattractive, one has to find out why this person is a Christian? Sense of life is key. A Christian sense of life is simply unacceptable. So a person with Christian metaphysical value-judgments is possible, but those values need to change over time. In my experience, I have found Jews more compatible than Christians. So I'm very interested in Jews right now. Disclaimer: I don't like to judge other peoples' romantic relationships because there is so much involved that is none of my business. So if you're in love, good for you. I have never been in love.

Thanks god for page 2 of this discussion. I ended at the end of page one and made a comment, which I have now edited out, because--woo!--there is a page 2.

In the movies people can be made to look older and younger. Look at Benjamin Button. And some old people look younger. I'm thirty and I still look 16.

Now about Francisco. Someone said, sometime ago, I think it was a female poster, that she liked Adrian Grenier (of Entourage) as Francisco. Physically, certainly. He does seem to be a talented actor and has great promise. So I would agree with this. Right now, I cannot go back, look for the suggestion, and quote it. (Or was it in the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans?) Oh well, so Adrian Grenier could play Francisco. But right now, I would like to make official, that James Franco is my current ideal Francisco. We'll see who I choose two years from now, as it used to be Jude Law at one point--but it is now too late for him. Then it was Wentworth Miller, but I need to see him in something other than in Prison Break and with long hair to make my choice, to see how his face changes with longer hair.

I could agree with this; I really admire Blanchett. However, I presently prefer Kiera Knightley. And I think also that now Kat Winslett has now become sufficiently sexy, so she is too a candidate. Also, I think Jessica Biel is tremendously beautiful and a talented actress.

It is interesting that there is an attitude of humor involved, amidst the violence and pain (Dominique), from the more integrated one of the two in each relationship. FH: Roark is certainly amused, though hurt, by Dominique (though she laughs in a significant way but not in the same way as Roark). Dominique, though in great pain and anger, is appropriately amused at Wynand. Dominique's amusement in regard to Peter is not significant here; it's not what I mean. Atlas: There is a very benevolent amusement from Frisco to Slug from the early days until Atlantis. There is an amusement from Dagny to Rearden. And of course, Galt to Dagny. Roark rapes Dominique. Dominique hurts Wynand by loving him. Frisco has assert his privilege of slapping Dagny in their adolesence, and later, Frisco hurts Dagny by joining the strike and posing as a playboy. Galt takes away all the people Dagny loves and gives her the most violent ecstasy in the tunnel ... so that Dagny will eventually kill for him. Finally Dagny says--paraphrase-- "things did not have to be this way." Dominique says something similar. All the inferior halves of the relationship must reach this state in some form. The violence seems a natural expression of the frustration that the superior one has to live with, and the violence, when it is of a physical kind, is acted upon the inferior half; it seems an expression of the pain that should not be interfering with love. I would say that what Dominique does to Roark (by marrying Peter and Wynand and being stubborn for so long), when he is already living in bliss, is worse than a beating he could be given by his beloved. But actually all of Ayn Rand's violent sexual scenes, I think are justified by the context of what came before them; so, really, there is no violence, or NEGATIVE violence. So in reality, you should know the person quite well, and if you're beloved does not press charges, and continues to couple with you, then you have not committed a grave violence but an act of conquest. In fiction, the inferior beloved is inescapably causing great pain to the superior beloved, and so those few times we witness a rare act of violence. In reality, there has to be a moment of great and intense reproach, unless you have reached a "perfect" stage of mutual understanding where no words are necessary--you'll probably just do it tenderly at that point. As for Frisco causing Dagny pain, it is worse in intensity than what Dagny is causing him or Galt, because she has not reached Atlantis yet. But what is Dagny doing? She is in effect their biggest enemy and threat to their cause to which they are all personally committed; she is necessarily a candidate for suffering, or suffering by violence, until she joins them.

I am glad that he ended his discussion with REAL Hope.

I hope you keep this up. I had no clue what you were saying. But it was still so fascinating, like music to my ears. I am sure one day the concepts you are using will begin to make sense to me. Thanks.

Someone should write a book about him one day.

In regards to fighting for this earth, you need to understand what I mean, and how I mean it: I mean fighting for our rights and security; when a "free" country has to defend itself, or even free another nation sometimes, then it is fighting for the earth. Living on earth can only mean living in a free enough country, otherwise you are not living in the proper sense. In terms of Canada's military involvment in the world, I refer to its attitude in the last few decades, including the Vietnam War. A free country should fight against Communism. No, we should not have gone into Vietnam, because of the way it was fought, but we should have participated in a type of warfare that promised to be successful. But the Vietnam War is just a bad consequence of not fighting a different type of war, alongside America, in the beginning of the 20th Century. Canada's military should be big enough to potentially participate in many more wars world wide. The fact that Canada does not have a large and "robust" military, is their default on their responsibility. It should be larger than it has been. In fact, Canada as a country, should resemble the American Ideal more, every nation should--that's part of their default too. Instead Canada has underfunded its military to pay for its large Welfare State, and enshrine the defining characteristic of Canada: Socialized Medicine. So that is what I mean. But I really don't think that Canada will build their military in the future in any substantial way, at least, I don't think the voters want that, and many politicians. I don't think we will get a majority Conservative government that will last eight years. The Liberals do not want to expand the military, certainly not the New Democrats. We don't want to be like America. The majority of Canadians don't want to be involved in war as if it is unnecessary in this magical modern world. A more relevant point, Canada should be actively involved in hunting down the Che Guevara's of this world. We should be helping the United States. We should grow in population and wealth and industry. We should create more major cities and exploit our resources. We should change our constitution and be a freer country. Canada is bigger than the United States, and I don't think that climate is the essential reason why Canada has such a comparatively and substantially smaller population. Why hasn't a country so close to America been more like America? The true history of Canada has not been written. I think it will be a history of evading its responsibility to itself. And Canada does not do enough to defend the rights of its citizens. Our judicial system and police are way underfunded. The Charter of Rights does not enshrine property rights.

The theme of an early essay could be: Che versus Frisco (Francisco D'Anconia): Who is the greatest Argentinian crusader? (As an aside, I strongly doubt that Ayn Rand even knew of Che's existence when she was creating Francisco. It's amusing and makes Che seem stillborn).

Actually, my position isn't clear in the above, in one moment I am not favour of the draft and then with "too pacificistic" I imply that Canada should draft, and drafting is good. What I mean exactly is that Canada hasn't seemed to be against the draft because of reasons pertaining to Individual Rights and Limited Government, but they rather not believe in war, i.e., having to take on the responsibility of fight sworn enemies and threats. I sometimes wonder if Canadian Politicians actually wanted to pass on the burden of self-defense to a stronger state, trying to avoid the burden of fighting for this earth.

He he he he he ... First I have to learn more about America and Capitalism. But I guess I am on my way. I'm in the middle of Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto, which is indispensible. Then accordingly, I have to look into the lives of some of the great industrialists, understand The Enlightenment, which will lead to The Age of Reason and The Renaissance, and of course play closer attention to Economics. It's a mother load! I like how you used the word "draft" coz it is a war. However, I'm glad I therefore live in Canada coz we don't draft--we're too pacificistic. We're Canadian that way.

This is a good topic. I wish an Objectivist would right a book or a really great essay on Che's philosophy and his evil mission. Something like that needs to exist. Consequently, it is on a long to do list of mine. If you've ever gone to South America (I've seen Ecuador and Venezuela) you will soon discover that it is a very beautiful continent, paradise on earth, the climate, the landscapes, the fertile land, the lakes and ocean beaches, the mountains, the food, the people, etc. And yet it is drowning in an orgy of Altruism. In addition to speaking the beautiful Spanish language, the spirit of the people is strong, capable, and passionate--and yet they glorify Marxism. I would like to one day read the history of Latin America, from Bolivar on down, and discover how and why exactly Latin America did not have the opportunity the United States had to be the first nation in history to be completely genial to the life of man, and why they never chose her as their model. Who led them astray, who was the Ellesworth Toohey, and that ignored the model of America and led them into the mess that it is today? Well, I'm sure America is much to blame too--for not recognizing and asserting her own moral righeousness--for not doing away with the application of an enemy political philosophy into a position of state power, in the form of Soviet Russia, and actually assisting her in her own survival and industry. Geesh!