Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


whYNOT last won the day on September 13

whYNOT had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa; "Where liberty dwells, there is my country
  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

12832 profile views

whYNOT's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. But Odessa, Nikolaev, etc. would have to demonstrate their majority willingness to secede to Russia - by referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview, when the time comes. Which gives the lie to the fake Narrative that Putin only wanted "a land grab". Who would be so insane to want to forcibly occupy lands and towns filled with your mortal enemy, and a permanent guerilla conflict? (and initially with a hugely-outmanned army?) Raises that age old dilemma: "territorial integrity" v. the people's "self-determination". Created by the vagaries of recent (colonial and other) border lines that cut across traditional territories and tribal lands, leaving some people on each side of borders. No matter, since normally proper nationhood will be the antidote to the dilemma, which means all people, of whichever 'stripe' are equally included in rule of law. Kyiv governments after 2014 messed up their nationhood by their discriminatory treatment of one sector of the nation's people and will have to pay a price. They will lose these lands - and the people. From Russia's p.o.v., the gain of land, it's become most apparent, is greatly secondary to the security of the inhabitants: they have clear memories of what happens and will happen to ethnic, cultural, Russian speakers abandoned to the tender mercies and hatred shown against them by Kyiv and ultra-Nationalist West Ukrainians. The State Duma and Russia's army will not wish to have to return "to liberate" those people all over again, in the near or distant future.
  2. The trouble with the indoctrinated by Western propaganda, they can't/don't want to see that "the brutal war of aggression by Putin" - which was preceded by a brutal war of aggression by a Nazified Ukraine upon Ukrainian Russians - has been publicly used to be the convenient cover for a brutal war of defensive-aggression against Russia by the West's enthusiastic backing of Ukraine--try to get across to them that the Western powers plainly place very little humanitarian worth in Ukraine's lives (as long as their own list of 'selfish' aims, military, geo-political, economic, ideological, etc., is eventually met), as evidenced by their sabotage of possible negotiations, the urging of further wasteful offensives that the Ukr AF has zero chance to carry through with success, the blatant exposures of politicians stating exactly how and why prolonging this war is a bargain and 'good for us' - and more - yet they still can't see that ('dictatorial') Russia could be more humane by offering safe surrender terms to its opposing soldiers than has been Ukraine to its captured Russians, and much more humanitarian than the (Enlightenment) nations to its own supposed ally, Ukraine; a denial to absorb the, admittedly disturbing, truth: your leaders are anti-life and anti-freedom, altruist warmongers.
  3. The get-out-of-Hell option offered to Ukr soldiers by RF High Command, the "Volga" radio frequency. It's been active for some months and apparently gaining traction. Good: those lives count more. When fighting for one's country involves (especially, but not only) force-conscripted men fighting and being killed for high-blown abstractions - Democracy, Western Values, "Enlightenment Values" - and for others' noble feelings, they'd have to query -- "What - 'values'"?
  4. Came up earlier, how did the minority of neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and "Right Sector" come to be "the tail that wags the dog" in Ukraine's politics and military? And why did Westerners post-2014 tacitly embrace them, openly or by association, after first condemning Banderists, etc. (ah, yes: Putin, aiming to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, he's "Hitler" ) First I've seen the articulate Glenn Greenwald. 7 mins in https://rumble.com/v3l2rwp-system-update-show1-151.html
  5. Yeah, the fervency of true believers and everyone is infected. Russians are sub-human. Period. A western propagandist's wet dream, half his work on the masses is done for him. It follows, we can't ever negotiate with Russians (Appeasement!), any signed treaty is not binding, any atrocities are automatically their doings, we are entitled to treat them with deception, and with impunity commit our own/Ukrainian atrocities on them --etc.,etc.. (all actually being some of the very things and behavior by which Russia has been treated for many years and recently). I see Norway scholar Glenn Diesen has a book out titled "Russophobia", which might bring some light on the phenomenon. Ethnic bigotry or Slavic racial inferiority, deep-seated fears of the stereotype, "Russian", and so on, reinforced by decades of the Russian movie villain? Hated for their Christianity (now) or their Communism, then? Can't tell for sure, the common beliefs regarding Russian people are not rational. Social and professional dismissal and discrimination against ordinary Russians, academics, athletes, artists, employees and the like living and working in Europe (of "the Enlightenment", which Brook claims Ukraine and the West defends) is appalling, denotes the collectivist hysteria. The English lately are the most virulent Russian haters. I considered that for racist-fascists like some Brits can be, now they have an excuse to be fashionably supremacist and warmongering, to go with an English general nostalgia for the glory days of a lost Empire.
  6. https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=137202849&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNzIwMjg0OSwiaWF0IjoxNjk1MTcwNzk0LCJleHAiOjE2OTc3NjI3OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.IgbX4CmcJxdEz1v8pMRJthspP2PaKmL1NB5w_1-5VWs A look at the nuclear brinkmanship phenomena from the comments of a narcissistic Hollywood showman. Caitlin has this right. She has more guts than many. Besides, it requires Objectivist integrity (and guts) to know what you know and honor your knowledge and values against mass opinion; continuing life on this planet demands that Western leaders do NOW what they could always have done many years ago - de-escalate. Listen to the opposition. This is bigger than them. They are culpable for - knowingly - inciting this conflict. Could they cease acting like tough-guy movie heroes who always beat the opposition? "Not self, but the absence of self, is closer to the root of all evil". N. Branden
  7. "No Labels", free for all but not the individual, entrenches collectivism-statism and disappearing freedoms for everyone. Ending in groups each fighting for their ¬claims¬ and entitlements to be bestowed - or removed - by Gvt., as they do already. Of course, ad hoc cases per "grouping", is the surefire way to destroy individual rights, the unbestowed freedom of action by an individual, pushing this desired end further back. I guess that contrast is the reason you brought this item to attention, David.
  8. They meant it - "To the last Ukrainian!" What made for rousing headline copy at the time is closer. The refugees, now 'draft dodgers', are to be forced by Kyiv to go home and fight(some EU countries have refused, to their credit). In war, when you've run out of your available resources, you've lost the war and must sue for an armistice. All that one heard until lately was about the endless supply of weaponry - lethal aid - to Ukraine. As though the weapons and armor, each type a proposed "game changer", would do the job alone. How much was heard about the steady losses to Ukraine's human resources - except to massively underrepresent them? (as deception to keep up morale for their troops' losing battle, keep cash and supplies coming in and sustain public belief by far away onlookers, so more would die). Ruled by western skepticism/determinism and sacrificial sentimentality, depressingly predictable
  9. And why did NATO, at minimum, not *consider* Russian alarms about its expansion, advertised often by Putin and previous presidents, or at least enter some dialogue? Conclusion: like macho juveniles, they hubristically believed they'd "win" --without negotiations--with the large Ukraine military doing NATO's bidding and heavy sanctions to break apart the RF, politically and economically, and a vast propaganda campaign influencing public opinion in the West. All irrationally aimed at a distinctly non-hostile and conciliatory post Cold War Russia. However, now not looking good for Ukraine and NATO. The "consequentialists", in the leadership cliques and a billion followers, who looked for moral supremacy in a 'certain' triumph over Russia, and justifying the several 100's of thousands (of Ukraine soldiers) thrown at Russia and killed - and the loss of more land (than first entertained by an early treaty, as more oblasts choose to join Russia), are soon to be bitter and confused: By their ethical doctrine when Russia wins - they lose any moral high ground. No sympathy for them from me. Then there will be more of the "CYA" coming from Nato and western governments. A first crack from Stoltenberg below, admitting/bragging publicly that Putin was worried about NATO expansionism and placed a proposal for mutual security. "We rejected that". Maybe, Jens, that was the cause (and other provocations) for invasion? Not even urgent plans to discuss anything with Putin and reach a compromise? How are things looking now, buddy? Caitlin Johnstone, another fellow horrified at the senseless life lost by acts and inacts by the morally/intellectually bankrupt Western leaders who abetted and incited a conflict. And even now prevaricate, escalate and won't pull the plug https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=136866482&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNjg2NjQ4MiwiaWF0IjoxNjk0MjIzMzE2LCJleHAiOjE2OTY4MTUzMTYsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.UuTyb8mQF-Il1ZlTW7dQGa0NlDEGiO9oGdpE17E4FGs
  10. https://youtu.be/MKMxMUG4cKA?si=AoNmqP92YIagEoOn Sachs still at it, tirelessly pointing out the emperor's nakedness.
  11. Not suggesting anything new to you, you know your Rand, but that "stubborn holdover from religion in a society" has been, in an increasingly secular world, a replacement of religion - for Society. Not "a God" watching you any longer, but yet a semi-mystical ''Society''. If one can make sense of many people's subjectivism, the 'metaphysical' unit is the societal hive existence, in which individual humans play a role--since even they can't dismiss the self-evident, biological autonomy of a single individual. For the rest, no recognition of the objective metaphysics of man's nature, no to the individual's autonomy in (volitional) cognition and evaluation, no to his essential, self-interested ethics to guide his acts, no to self-made character virtues to gain his values, no to one's value-derived emotions. Humankind is reduced to deterministic, meaty matter with animal instincts - society and the State are transcendental. What remains, a collective 'blob'; all "watching" and checking all others (in the secularist 'congregation') for their sacrificial righteousness, and an immediate atonement - I'm thinking those abject apologies on social media - demanded for their sins against society. (At least imo the religious primitive philosophies allowed some free will, because of the individual 'Soul' being judged by God, and resulting ideas of some self-responsiblity to somewhat alleviate their collectivism). The deepest fear of most everyone is the existential ¬aloneness¬ of his/her being, from which most other philosophies are drawn, I think. One is, essentially (and happily), solitary in one's private thoughts and emotions. Because probably they may have vague notions of its importance, I agree they do "pay lip service" to independence and personal judgment/opinions, but as a sort of styled, superficial simulation of the genuine thing, to impress and appear ¬cool¬ to other eyes.
  12. There are several things that come to mind, a mundane one is, you will have found, that apathy drains one's energy. Thereby, dedicated physical activity - "application and implementation" - which follows and must follow effortful thought will be lesser or halted, (so disturbing one's mind-body equilibrium ); one's essential "self-efficaciousness" will be blunted too. A way past that is to DO something physical, preferably routine, repetitive and not of major significance or even payment, at first. Even the minor activities can open new avenues and possibilities or a full time career. Errors of thinking or action- such as they might be seen - are fitting to the pursuit of discovery. Ultimately you are the judge, "no one is watching" and judging your every move and outcome - not 'God', which I observe even from ex-religionists (nor AR, to be fatuous) - not that you suggest any of this. "I set out to do this simple task, it is done and well done". For me the fictional Howard Roark exemplified this pride in his achievements. I'd caution that his works are described of such a high caliber that the attempt in any field to emulate them immediately could end in disappointing non-success. I think it is true to Rand and art, that it is Roark's virtues which the reader takes away for personal application to other purposes. In short, it's mistaken to over-literally compare Roark's doings and triumphs with one's own, although eventually they well might be comparable, but to elicit for one's own use his good objective qualities that ~determined~ his output. Pessimism ( I know about it) seems to me the final declaration: What's the use? So much to do and so little energy and time and motivation. The first and last lesson of objectivity: existence exists, independent of your consciousness - but is accessible to any mind - AND - once identified, that "mind" is capable of modifying (etc.) and adding value - to existence ... with actions.
  13. An "Egoistic foreign policy" [Salsman] is a useful concept, going ahead. The Morris' on song below: "Not us!"--is never rationally egoist, despite Romney and Graham's utterances on money well spent, paying others to perform the terrible work on 'our' behalf.
  14. Richard Salsman, Atlas Society, briefly weighs in. The word "sacrifice" (of Ukraine) features often and surprisingly among those dissident anti-war conservatives, soft socialists, etc., I read, unsaid by Oists who have the unique grasp of and right to it and to the corresponding (Western/global) self-sacrifices. .
  15. https://youtu.be/l3oiVRwiC0g?si=nbSBou4dN8PSDCki
  • Create New...