Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by writer1972

  1. "With the rising influence of Ron Paul, there are more Rothbarians and anarchists than ever, and their influence is only growing, and their scholarship is of a vastly greater quality and quantity than anything ARI is putting out." (quotiing 2046) I second this observation. I started reading Lewrockwell.com in 2007 and the Mises roster of academics. It's pages long. They definitely have their game face on and are making progress. They also make their intellectual products freely available first to generate interest in hard copy versions. It's an interesting and apparently successful strategy. The whole attack on entering politics left politics in the hands of Paul Ryan and Obama. This is why the more books Ayn Rand sells, the more statist the country gets. The idea that only libertarians would penetrate something so dirty as politics is a sort of Puritanism. The communists jumped right into politics and "seized" the day. There are opportunities, today and all the time, but some are too frigid to give that a thought.
  2. "I don't know where all this racism claims are coming from in the comments above." I wasn't implying your interest in this was racist, and it isn't, but that race realists are interested in that, too, and may have useful leads for you concerning pre-philosophical, pre-Greek answers on the origins of individualism. A simple matter is that with blue, brown, black, and green eyes, red, blonde, brown, and dark hair, and various facial hair on men, and numerous ways to style long hair, including keeping it short, you can have your own unique combination of physical uniqueness that makes individualism more easily self-evident, self-conscious, and, thus, easier to conceptualize. Indo-Europeans had certain natural variations that could have psychological effects, and aid in the discovery of individualism, that peoples without those differences would lack. A race realist wouldn't hide these facts or pretend they are not there. A race realist is not necessarily a supremacist, just as a physicist is not necessarily a fan of golf or guns. Objectivism holds that philosophy is the prime driver in history, .i.e., ideas. A "philososphy-supremacist" view would reject any pre-philosophic origins to individualism and I think that's a blind spot in the Objectivist approach to history. Robert Tracinski had some article on this chicken-egg problem. Aristotle's work was really the culmination of a secular Greek thought that had numerous pre-Aristotlean manifestations. Aristotle didn't build Greece. Greece gave Aristotle plenty to think about and conceptualize. Ayn Rand said the same thing regarding Objectivism, that without the Industrial Revolution, the evidence of the mind as man's means of survival could not be conceptualized. It would seem, then, that the origins of individualism have to start with some natural phenomenon that strongly impinges on people that could give them the basis for the concept. Even art is pre-philosophical, pre-Plato. The video is very interesting.
  3. Since Obama's re-election, I have read a lot of "race realist" material in my research on Western Civilization and its defense. A particularly important theme, from Richardo Duchesne a pro-Western historian, is the "Faustian" personality type, i.e., a fundamental in pre-history, which is said to account for the need to strive to one's limits, to climb to the top of a mountain for the sake of it, or to go around the world for the sake of it, to land on the moon for the sake of it, to run a marathon for its own sake. It is not a means to an end, but to prove one's worthiness. The end is one's own glory and sense of satisfaction that one did it, as in a need to "justify one's existence" in terms of one's accomplishments. Where else does "man's need for self-esteem" come from? Indo-Europoean warrior cults demand arete on the battlefield. The need to prove oneself on the battlefield to have social standing; one exists and survives in terms of accomplishments, not merely, existing as part of a group. People are ranked and seek rank, not equality. This Faustian personality type, would account for the popularity of Ayn Rand's heroes among descendants of Indo-Europeans, and since it tickles the heart of this personality type: the hero-worshipper and his need to identify and stand with heroes. This is not as universal as you might think. Here is the Faustian personality in detail by Duchesne: http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2012/06/explore-duchesne/ Ricardo Duchesne's book the Uniqueness of Western Civilization is reviewed here by Kevin Mac Donald. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Duchesne-Review.pdf The intellectual leader of this movement is primarily Kevin MacDonald. If I had to make a prediction, the race realists are a very fast growing movement and will dominate the culture in ten years, with Objectivism as a sort of side-kick. Unlike Objectivists, they have a sense of strategy and a detail-orientation. There is always news to draw on that suits their cause from Travyon to quotas to the knockout game and make their points. They just have "fourteen words" to get across, not a philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words They are very good writers and know many obscure writers who have been marginalized by the "cultural marxists" who they draw upon. They're intellectual productivity is far more than Objectivists. Where are all the New Intellectuals? The race realists are minting them by the day. They also attract libertarians and Objectivists: http://www.toqonline.com/blog/a-sense-of-life-ayn-rand/ Sooner or later, one will swallow the other. If there is one thing that can down or co-opt the Objectivist, and libertarian, and Austrian movements, it is race realism because their conception of man is different. I suppose a race realist would say Objectivism is, "true as far as it goes, but can only go so far." A major theme for MacDonald is the challenge "universalism," which for him, is "pathological altruism," i.e., the presumption that the whole planet has a right to live in the United States and other western countries. Outside of Objectivists, no one in the culture regards altruism as "pathological." For race realists, a "pathological elite" is bent on the ruination of Western societies. Kevin Mac Donald's trilogy is like the Ominous Parallels -encyclopedia version. When Objectivists talk about "transmission belts" of the irrational he is completely focused on that transmission belt via the Frankfurt School into the US. He takes ideas seriously. His thesis would explain why Objectivism is marginalized from academia, and why Mises and Rand never made it in academia, whereas armies of cultural Marxists did. Per MacDonald, a cultural anthropologist, "Western cultures have a unique cultural profile compared to other traditional civilizations: A tendency toward monogamy. A tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family. A greater tendency for marriage to be companionate and based on mutual affection of the partners. A de-emphasis on extended kinship relationships and its correlative, a relative lack of ethnocentrism. A tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science." I think this is Duchesne, under a pseudonym, discussing this Faustian personality: http://www.counter-currents.com/author/dcorbulo/ All of this would be material for pursuing the Indo-European roots of Western civilization, which for race realists is not merely a philosophy, but a personality-type rooted in evolutionary psychology, genetics, and environmental conditions of the Northern spartan ice climates. Race realism is a cultural phenomenon, no doubt. The influence of Objectivism works in mysterious ways.
  4. I appreciate the comments. A simple way to look at the problem is what do you do with a league that ignores the rules of the game? In a game, fans can stop watching, but citizens are stuck with danger and impoverishment. What are we supposed to do, move out? To where? How should we define repression? The entire regulatory state represses human progress and the ability of people to solve their problems. Public schools repress human development in the most scarring life-long ways. American cities have been devastated by urban renewal. Hundreds of thousands of people will die from Obamacare, but they won't be counted as casualties of repression. How many will die by outlawing fossil fuels, if it gets that far? The drug war isn't my pet cause, but it certainly is a form of repression, where people really get rounded up and sent to "camps" long-term. Presumably, broad repression like this would end. I recall that the Objectivist view is that you can't advocate rebellion until free speech is taken away. How can people rebel at that point? It's impossible to organize. Once the nail is in your coffin, then you can rebel? I think Peikoff is changing his view on this in his last podcast, where he said, "can you imagine the Founding Fathers starting a revolution, if King George could spy on them with the NSA? There wouldn't be a revolution." Obviously, the end of free speech is just rigamortis; at that point the body politic is dead. There must be other indicators prior to censorship. The Founding Fathers essential regarded King George's ill will to be the decisive factor. What can you do when the leadership is pathological and refuses to acknowledge and correct a long train of abuses? It is very difficult to figure out what is going on in our government, today, with numerous conspiracy theories that have some elements of truth. Our government has professionalized image-building, manipulation, focus-groups, and plausible deniability , which means we have a government that runs from accounting for its actions. GNP fixing and freezing the debt clock.are this week's examples. This conceptual chaos induces irrationality on a mass scale. How does one's impression of US military officers determine one's optimism or pessimism for a desirable outcome? It would seem everyone is rah-rah about our soldiers, but suddenly, the same soldiers in charge of nuclear weapons are no longer fit to understand constitutional versus deviant government. It's hard not to be reminded of Ayn Rand's West Point lecture in this regard, pointing towards an optimism. One coup would keep our politicians honest for 100 years. They will know their limits. Shenanigans won't be tolerated. They will tread more softly against our liberties. If people don't talk about revolution and coups, the government will think it can keep pushing the envelop, and the government will keep pushing the envelop. How far is the American middle class willing to take the shaft? The Founding Fathers had to talk about it for it to happen.
  5. Some arguments for the moral and practical benefits of a military coup: 1. swift least-bloody option compared to extended revolution or civil war 2. return to civilian government is inevitable 3. stops the madness of the pathological elite 4. constitutionally-conscious new leadership justifies the coup 5. our best option given rigged elections http://www.taxfreesociety.com/index.php/blog/defense-us-military-coup/
  6. You need a sales job to attain enlightenment, hope, and purpose. http://www.taxfreesociety.com/files/1213/5395/5642/VALUESDIAMOND.jpg I have something soon. Connect here: https://www.facebook.com/TaxFreeCity
  7. Rights are moral absolutes that identify freedom of action as a necessary component to man’s pursuit of life and happiness. Rights protect man’s humane pursuit of achievement from physical subversion. By protecting man’s humane action, peace flourishes, and violence is driven out of society. As moral absolutes, rights are based on the will to live, and demanded by life itself. Because values have a shelf-life, a man must reinvest in his values as they depreciate; he must save and improve for the future. Property rights are moral absolutes because man suffers and dies when thugs clean out his refrigerator and resources. Do not mistake the snapshot for the movie. The principle of property rights must be cherished as a moral absolute because the snapshot of being robbed $1 today fosters your want and deprivation tomorrow. The value of reason and rights presupposes a will to live; a suicidal bomber, or a socialist satisfied with deprivation and out to starve his fellow man, has no use for rights. The more mystical, collectivistic, altruistic the motive, the more present life should be sacrificed. To develop a free society we need to glorify the will to live as man's natural moral compass and first moral absolute. The value of rights then shines brightly. http://lawlimits.org
  8. A little something from the ground up; http://lawlimits.org
  9. Hi, I have a free powerpoint slideshow on arete. There is no explicit reference to arete in Objectivism; yet, I find it a very attractive concept that deserved exploration. Years ago, I met someone at a lecture, who said they liked the idea of arete, but we couldn't quiet define it. Hopefully, this fills that gap in. As you'll see, it is a larger concept than moral virtue. If it finds a wider use among young adults, it could do wonders and smother today's culture of crap. Western Civilization is based on arete and arete-selection as the guiding principle of distinctly western institutions. That method is the strength of Western civilization. This view unites those "six apps" (Naill Ferguson), and things well beyond it, into one basic method. The Western method is its strength. Section 1.5 of my free e-book discusses that. Uncorrupted arete-selection restores Western Civilization. The other methods would be to carry the past along, just because it is the past, as in the Hebrew paradigm (one god, one book, one people, to the exclusion of any new ideas, books, etc.); or the corruption of modernism/Cultural Marxism, which says there is no arete, no best or worst, just an egalitarian pile of dung. For references, see Detroit. I'd love to see any feedback from people with teenagers. Does it make sense to them? Do they reference it easily a few weeks or months later? Does it help them navigate the world? Does it widen their aspirations and ambitions?
  10. How many of these shooters are premature babies? Before they would have died; for the last 30 years or so, they are able to live. At the very least, they spend months in incubators without a mother's touch and normal socialization. What about the correlation between autism and prematurity? Obviously, if the case is that keeping premature babies alive causes a host of other problems, people will have to face the fact. I take solace in Nietzsche's view on pity. That which is beyond saving is beyond man's concern.
  11. I like your point and thought similarly. If life on earth constituted life in the universe, it is a one-shot deal and a miracle. If life is natural and can start on earth, the conditions here must be "normal," otherwise, you can question whether gravity is normal and all of physics. How do we know our laws work on other planets? We have to assume some congruence among natural processes and nature as a whole. As knowledge of what constitutes life's origins becomes known, it will seem less a privilege or miracle. I'm sure intelligent life is smart enough to stay away from our planet. They would have nothing to learn and little to gain being so far ahead of us. Who would sit in a spaceship for decades to come here, when their planet must be awesome and fun? For something to be so rare as to be impossible is invalid. For something to be so rare as to be impossible "elsewhere" is a corollary that is equally invalid, since a "second" must be "elsewhere." A true secularist seeks natural answers to natural phenomena. Just a response to this: 1. "[T]here is never only one of any type of thing" is a tautology. You need at least two instances to form a concept. Rand's treatment of concepts in ITOE rests explicitly on this insight. This would mean you can't have the concept "universe" without two universes. Obviously, we can. To invoke the "two instances" clause against life on another planet would seem to render the present concept, of life's origins on earth, invalid. The question of life on other planets is really a question of inducing and generalizing life's origin here to elsewhere. I think you can fully justify the conviction that life exists elsewhere (without specifying its form elsewhere) without having discovered it yet, just as you can fully justify that fire will burn your hand in some distant galaxy even though no one will ever be able to test that "for sure."
  12. If you found an abandoned planet with "a billion dollars" of goodies, you "earn" it by making use of it. You make use of it by having vision for the wealth and putting it to your purposes. You can inherit any amount with no problem. Earning it after the fact is just as well as earning it before the fact. You earn it by using it well, just as the person who gave it to you would have wanted. They wanted you to enjoy life, so they gave you additional means to achieve your goals sooner. Hopefully, your goals do something to elevate mankind. There is more than one way to earn a value. A simple smile has earned many people a cut of an inheritance. An inheritence is just abandoned property, no different from landing on a continent for the first time and seeing all those trees that could be cut to lumber, or all that iron bleeding out of those rocks. Because it is abandoned, if you don't make use of it, the state will. So, that takes a value from the postive, and turns it into a negative, another reason for abolishing the estate tax and accepting an inheritence. You are keeping resources out of the hands of the state. P.S. If you have a billion dollars you need to dispose of because it is taking up space or giving you a mental burden, I can collect what you think is garbage, no problem. You have a problem, I have a solution. Thus, I earned the inheritance.
  13. What is needed is not more people to read Atlas Shrugged. Supposedly millions have and I don't see a flood of Objectivist intellectuals overrunning the world. The more people read Atlas Shrugged, the bigger the government is getting. Figure that out! What is needed are two things. 1. Young kids need an appreciation for logic. If they are attracted to logic, that things must be logical, that logical things are good, they will find Objectivism attractive. I don't mean a giant course on logical fallacies either. I mean examples across the board of logical thoughts and how one can get certainty from logic. One simple lesson from my father went a long way with me. I was shocked that you could get certainty by thinking logically. I think I was about 5 years old at the time. 2. You need more people to read OPAR and the Virtue of Selfishness. You can't get Objectivism from Atlas Shrugged. You get a story and a couple of messages. The meat and potatoes is in OPAR. So, with $1 million, I would pay people $10 bucks to read either one and take an in depth test. The winner gets a prize of some kind, like a suit of Apple products. The same could be done for OPAR, logic, VOS. 3. I would also challenge people to put Objectivism in their own words instead of being clones in style. Clone the values, not the style or verbiage, or obscure terms. Many people think of Atlas Shrugged as a gateway drug to Objectivism. Maybe logic is. Try it out. You could get a scientific measure of its effectiveness and determine where to invest your future dollars based on the results. That's just one angle you could try. There are others.
  14. Ayn Rand didn't find atheism as the foundation of communism, as conservatives do, and she didn't find God as the foundation of morality; so she didn't see a connection between atheism and gulags. Instead, it was the irrational in communism that she condemned and saw as the root of its evils. Whereas religion glorified the crucifixion of Jesus, communism glorified the crucifixion of the individual. As an individualist and someone who wanted to live in the world, she didn't think crucifying men glorified mankind. Man's productive achievements glorified mankind and displayed his potential. That takes freedom.
  15. My experience with girls who have nose or facial piercings is that they are trend followers who have no regard for their bodily integrity or their beauty.I wouldn't want them for fear of hepatitis. Same with tattoos. When they get over the trend, they have a hole or scare hanging there, a lasting mark of their foolishness. When I see someone with a ring through their nose, I see a water buffalo just waiting to be lead around. When I see a tattoo on someone, that's all that I see. The person is reduced to their tattoo. To see a woman with Twitty bird on her ankle is not cute. I sense trash. I wouldn't want that for the mother of my children. My thought is that tattoos do not present individuality, but the destruction of self. "I don't want to be scene. I want my tattoo to be scene." Branden talked about visibility as a key to human intimacy. A tattoo eliminates that entirely. Not every Catholic carries a 3 inch cross around their neck to show their devotion. If a dollar sign is too cliche to show your support for capitalism, maybe the McDonald's arch will suit you. Do you get what I mean? There's a difference between a superficiality of holding a person's natural looks against them versus the bias or revulsion towards those who knowingly and by choice foul their natural endowments, usually for the worse.
  16. Per the Institute's Founding Charter, he has absolute veto power over everything ARI does.
  17. I'm saying the similarity is worth investigating. It's a hunch, not a concept. The flow of the electricity through space is braided and if electricity is a component of the formation of DNA, then molecules may be formed in some way related to the flow of electrical energy when thousands or millions of amps are involved. Sure, it's speculation, a superficial observation perhaps, but it may bear fruit later. It is something to be mindful of. It is interesting that there are very few prominent Objectivists in science. I wonder how much self-inflicted damage Objectivists do to themselves in destroying their creativity by the quirks of Objectivism. I'm sure you're referring to the "encircle" story in OPAR illustrating the schizophrenic mind. Thanks for that. I try to avoid these boards, but I did find it important to mention Senapathy's theory since it is an alternative scientific theory that virtually no one knows about. The idea of life starting from a single event is implied by the whole theory of evolution as it is currently taught. You hear about the tree of life, not the forest of life; you are told about branches whose origins go back to some common root, rather than multiple trees with their own roots.
  18. The Independent Birth of Life by Periannan Senapathy, Ph.D. He was with the NIH. He had a book out which I bought, and I hoped that Steven Speicher would have read it to get his thoughts on it. http://www.mattox.com/genome/ I found the book very good metaphysically. Truly secular. It's worth noting that the Origin of Species is not the same question as the Origin of Life. These questions are often confused. Of course the latter question is more interesting. What I liked about Senapathy's theory is that it addresses my observation that everything natural happens multiple times. There are many examples of mountains, deserts, lakes, planets, comets, stars, lightning, and so on. Why should life be any different? The idea that the conditions that start life happened only once billions of years ago on this planet alone seems preposterous. Indeed a miracle. (I brought this up to Dr. Binswanger years ago when I was on his list. He dismissed this thought.) Senapathy shows how life generates in primordial ponds which can exist for brief moments ~4 million years. This would explain the Cambrian explosion and the Burgess Shale finds, which were unique forms of life that do not seem to have analogues to previous life forms. It also explains how different species like mice and men share vast amounts of similar genes. They came from the same pond at different times. I like the Electric Universe theory too. Forget Big Bang. I'm sure there is a connection between Electric Universe Theory and Senapathy's. Electricity is braided and so is the double-helix. If you can get his book go for it.
  19. Here is what you can do to make it difficult for this professor. Go to your school newspaper and find someone interested in this topic. I think it would make an interesting story for a black to defend whites against racism fomented an Indian professor. It might even be a national-type story that would give a boost to your career, especially, if you end up writing books. Quite a number of writers used college controversies to launch their careers including William F. Buckley, Danish D'Snusa, and Peter Thiel. You should milk this for whatever it can get you. This is your Joe-the-Plumber moment. The point is that bringing your situation to light via a newspaper article will show courage on your part and show your professor that you are not an ant to be stepped on. So, he will have to think twice to be sure you really are a failure, as he thinks you are. Remember that the smallest minority in the world is the man with his own opinion. As to those who think it's your tough luck for taking this professor, really, everyone deserves a fair playing field and the university should ensure that. So anything that brings to light the lack of "procedural justice" in this guy's class actually does the university and his fellow students a good deed. That angle will only doom his reputation in the eyes of other students, and the university in general if it fails to provide such justice. If that doesn't work, I would just be more and more participatory in class with the right ideas to challenge his propaganda. Get him to explain himself more and more. Let him dig his own hole until he his foundation is exposed as being mystical. If you are doomed to get an F you are actually free to speak your mind. You should feel relieved. Besides, you aren't loosing a 4.0. That would suck. Best of luck. Lorenz
  • Create New...