LandonWalsh

Its my first truly deep philosophical poem. I wanted to portray the emotional position and the end result of a rule of mysticism. The emphasis on feelings over fact, evasion over truth, and in the end the "parasite's" belief that his will should rule all of man. The poem is set at that breaking point where he the man of true guilt can no longer hide from who he is and what he has done because he has destroyed the whole of man and what it means to be human.

Note: "parishes" last line is Perishes. Also "Save" line 8 is safe. The poem is rough and I wrote it while having consumed vodka... lol

Memories of truth flash and vanish. Mirrored in darkness he sits, clinging, drinking. His hands tremble at the sight. Fright is what he feels as he holds his glass. Just a few more moments and the feeling will pass. Feeling is what he holds. It isn’t real, he’s told - Enough to conceal the look, the taste, the lie that he made. “No! It’s… “He evades. Truth filters the room, to tell, to punish, to show. Apropos, the light shines through his closed eyes. In panic he closes the blinds. He has to show them his need, their guilt. He must lead! It’s their world he built! Save within the tomb he kicks his chair across the room. His eyes dart – no one is there. “It isn’t fair” He cries as he picks up his glass of lies and drops to his knees. He tries to drink. Though the liquid gives him strength, all he does is think. The memories return uninvited, breaking the lies of the unlighted tomb, and he looks. There is nothing to drink. His lies brought to the brink shatter like the glass in his hand. Then he parishes with the victims in his land, because there was no blood left in Man. - Landon Walsh

Sounds like a personal issue. Take it with you. They have a 15% flat tax and they report their taxes on something the size of a postcard. I can handle that while the shit hits the fan here. However. I have been impressed with the growing libertarian force in the country, and I have personally converted many a Libertarian to Ayn rand. So maybe there is hope for lady liberty still yet.

HONG KONG FTW.

My grandmother sent this to me and if she gave it to me in person I might of slapped her face. This is a great example of why I HATE such a large majority of mankind. http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_r...f_serial_killer

Epic description ZSorenson! Bravo!

Here is a big list of Favs... Laissez Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfSwtQp7E7g Money and Capitalism Video illustration of John Galt's speech. (Ayn Rand) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0...feature=related "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem Storm by Tim Minchin (with text) The National Debt Road Trip SuperNews! / The Tale of The Dollar: SuperNews! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzStSU_mvAY Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One (Peter Schiff) American Samoa: The real story 60 Minutes missed (Peter Schiff) Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Texas Monthly Talks TED NUGENT (Gun control) Stossel - December 17, 2009 - Pt 1 of 7 (healthcare) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ndu_y2yLQ Stossel: Thu, Jan 7, 2010 - Atlas Shrugged http://www.hulu.com/watch/123216/stossel-thu-jan-7-2010 Greed With John Stossel part 1 of 6 Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique Why We Don't Need Socialized Medicine (Howtheworldworks Critique)

This guy pisses me off like no other. In case you didn't know, Tom Stevens is a Fame seeking, plagiaristic, libertarian that has for the last two years have been running around yelling to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, that he is an a Objectivist(which his is absolutely not) and has started a Objectivist political party. Let me give you a feel for this guy... I used to have quite a few debates back and forth with the man because I had a problem with (1) him thinking that political pull will solve anything. (2) that he was toting the name Objectivist around like a banner. In those discussions I learned alot about Mr. Stevens. You tell me if you think he is what he claims to be. Discussion: Me: "Could you explain what the Objective the objectivist party has? What is it for when the problem of our day is philosophical not political. And what you think Rand would think of that type of organization? What does the ARI think?" Tom: "The Objective is to spread Objectivism and our view of limited government and respect for individual rights. Rand would love us were she alive today. I don't know and don't care what ARI thinks. I work in the political realm. They work in the Rand Realm." ME" Wasn't it Ayn herself that said that Politics was the effect and not the cause? That the problem of our day is a philosophical one? From what i've gathered from history. Political parties are rather easy to corrupt. The mere nature of the party detail inclusivity which requires compromise which is against the ideals of objectivism. If compromise was not made, then you would have to have a closed platform not available for change. That would limit the party to a few thousand people, and what is the point of a few thousand is a majority ruled system? And who is to say I would agree with another objectivists platform?" ME: Rand would love it huh? You havn't read much from her then: "Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A" Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician? A: Rand: It certainly is not. For whom would he speak? One cannot run an educational campaign and a political campaign simultaneously. In fifty years, it might be time for an Objectivist politician; but by the time it’s possible, he practically wouldn’t be necessary. The country’s public opinion would continue in the direction of freedom and reason. Therefore, Objectivists should go to the classroom, and correct the situation there." Tom : Rand was wrong. Rand would agree with what I am doing if she were alive today. I wish you luck. I hope you wish me luck. Me: "Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)" - Ayn Rand Tom: Yet, we are not such a group. It is Ayn Rand herself who violated those principles by usually backing Republicans as the lesser of two evils. We do not have generalized, undefined political goals. You are in error. I gave up... It is obvious this guy is a libertarian... On his Facebook page (Where he does most of his political work... lol) You can find that he is a Tea Party Fan, Loves Scott Brown, Ron Paul fan(I can forgive for this)... But what he is doing is nothing but a smear job and hit hurts me to watch him continue to do it. Does the ARI have any comment on this guy? Could they sue him? Force him to change the name? Something?

Totally Brilliant work Diana.

YES! Thankyou! Someone else knows the awesomeness of NWN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=proX-KR1ud0

A good friend of mine has a horribly sickening theory of his that I don't know how to address. I am not very astute in the reasoning of physics. Does this have to do with Determinism? What do I need to learn to refute his assertion? (Except for the fact that it is just an assertion) Would this not fit a "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" format?

By no means would I call Tim a cynic. More of just a talented satirist. For example, his song "do you really love me" I dont think he really wants his wife to urinate in a flask for him. And I dont think he believes "not eating pigs" will bring Israel and Palestine together.

Actually, from personal experience. It is more of just simple evasion of critical questions. I never asked what the relationship was between the two. I never thought of collectivism. In fact I first started to get worried the idea of collectivism after hearing so many libertarians mention it. I don't think at that point in time I EVER asked myself what the opposite of individualism.

I've used that line on people before. Here is another one that makes me smile. If you open your mind too much your brain might fall out:

Very well said, I've thought that very thing for years. I always asked, "why would anyone want to die?" I always thought if was because people didnt know how to live.

I'm getting this tattooed on my back.

There are not many artists/comedians who put a smile to my face these days. However Tim is constantly writing rational and funny work. Here is a 9 min beat poem he wrote that cracks me up,

Not really. I just like that quote in the movie gladiator. I do know my argument is not as effective as it should be.

I have been having a debate with a socialist on medicine. Now when I start an argument I ALWAYS end it on my terms. I finish what I start. However. I am too the point where I feel like im swimming in a cesspool of stupid. I'm not going to back down, but I don't know how to get through an argument where the guy is as thick as they come. How do you get through all those levels of evasion? This guy also claims to have read all of Rands books, and compares her to Marx. AH... It never fails to amaze me about people. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=126011328594 Feel free to jump in it. I'm also curious. Am I debating him properly? Am I doing something wrong?

This seems like a big waste of time. Seriously. Why should we do this? What is the point?

Lol... Nope, im not HTWW. But im sure he appreciates it. I used to post videos like that, and I should be doing it soon for a political/ethical project, but thats not me.

A must show> Although it did not address the ethical aspects of profit as it should have. This is still a good video. I wish objectivists would post stuff like this to some of the socialist bullshit that ends up on youtube. If I had a big enough subscriber base to generate profits I would post stuff like this more often. However I don't have much time to address all the collectivist idiots out there. Not that I am doing it for them, I enjoy it. Anyway, since we understand that the progression of freedom through of objectivist philosophy has to come about by study. We gather that the best way to put forth our ideas is at the college level. However can't youtube be just as valueable of a source? Hell, when I started studying objectivism I watched XCowboy2's john galt videos at least 40 times. I also watched john stossel's segments on greed. I am not sure if I would be an objectivist if it wasnt for youtube. Shouldn't it get more attention? All of you are bright and reasoned. I want to hear some people tear into some popular leftists like theyoungturks.