tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84363483601104869982024-03-05T15:56:00.571-05:00ObjectivishJust callin' it as I see it...Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.comBlogger273125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-10902663471029425622022-12-03T14:59:00.006-05:002022-12-04T16:12:11.996-05:00Of Elon, and Twitter, and Deep State Chicanery (and a Blank-Out from Yaron Brook)<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNk3vwA4Lmc9v1hcA43OVrS4ohm4ohp-i405i-vWvB3fSPgnxVPUa5QAHbBbo4SJutusCS7-zBfsCUTulcHMfOxPgD__tfhGi6i2Ij7kwlFg8wFz3uVUU01RAZbSoCwdNv_2G0BGMXvOyaoCF02HKbvf8Cqw0zi8E9ZZ5G1id860y4Bb_wRkxNsGAz-A/s1199/FjA1ROmXEAAjthb.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1199" data-original-width="776" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNk3vwA4Lmc9v1hcA43OVrS4ohm4ohp-i405i-vWvB3fSPgnxVPUa5QAHbBbo4SJutusCS7-zBfsCUTulcHMfOxPgD__tfhGi6i2Ij7kwlFg8wFz3uVUU01RAZbSoCwdNv_2G0BGMXvOyaoCF02HKbvf8Cqw0zi8E9ZZ5G1id860y4Bb_wRkxNsGAz-A/s320/FjA1ROmXEAAjthb.jpg" width="207" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Artwork by Bosch Fawstin</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p> "With social media, who needs government censorship?", asks Bosch Fawstin. To which, I'll add, with "friends" like "Fifth Column Objectivist" Yaron Brook, who needs fascist government censorship?<br /><br />The American Pravda propagand machine is being fully exposed, and falling apart. And yet, we're <i>still </i>waiting for Soros-fanboy<span class="r-18u37iz"> Yaron Brook</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> and his fellow supposed Objectivists at the ill-named Ayn Rand Institute to apologize for the <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2021/12/of-obleftivists-and-obfuscations-and.html?q=fifth+column" target="_blank">"Fifth-Columnist" slurs</a></span> & admit there's a </span><span class="r-18u37iz">#<a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/deepstate?src=hashtag_click" role="link">deepstate</a></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> engaged in backdoor </span><span class="r-18u37iz"><a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/censorship?src=hashtag_click" role="link">#censorship</a></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> /propaganda, as documented by the </span><span class="r-18u37iz"><a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TWITTERGATE?src=hashtag_click" role="link">#TWITTERGATE</a></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> expose, especially in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and election interference. </span><br /></p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />(Not holding my breath, though; still suffering from TDS ("Trump Derangement Syndrome"), <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/yaronbrook/status/1598454796583071744?s=20&t=HQq3Kv2v7z45sItlOUwLEw" target="_blank">they'd rather be "stunning and brave" in their one-sided denunciations of Alex Jones and Kanye West</a></span>. Not that I'm defending those two, mind you; rather, it's "one-sided" in their the turn-a-blind-eye refusal of Brook and co. to even address the machinations of the Left (who are engaging in <i>literal</i> socialist/fascist) beyond reluctant platitudes. (And George Soros, <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2020/05/yaron-brook-useful-twit-iot.html?q=soros" target="_blank">who Brook has defended against "conspiracy theorists</a></span>", <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9tKvasRO54" target="_blank">was a literal Nazi collaborator in his youth, and has no regrets about it, today.</a></span>) Anyone can go after West and Jones without repercussion, so that makes me wonder: are Brook and the ARI people just <i>scared </i>of the Left, or, and I'm just speculating, mind you, are they <i>complicit</i>? Things that make you go "hmmmm..." At any rate, it's a shame that it's up to people like Kanye West and Alex Jones to do the work that the ARI <i>should</i> be doing, but for whatever reason, just <i>won't</i>...What is Brook and co.'s response in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop story and election interference? To borrow Rand's favorite retort: "blank-out." <br /><br /><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjeocPN-_uj9yV-dUXgwElPrCTCMIExX5J5JDhguzBodHe1D80PgaBTQwYveT6o1L9GGDP1__uLTNVwrRCnSf2UvRzgm_95PYJsEzyuoJNzauJ7T9PS4ybUXOKyfWUFYx1p3jNHaocJMVFSUXxLkf6YXq9AAX1RRq7WShoRuyFlowDP03QCYbAMqguLQ/s1200/FjBN3hfXkAA9QHS.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="958" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjeocPN-_uj9yV-dUXgwElPrCTCMIExX5J5JDhguzBodHe1D80PgaBTQwYveT6o1L9GGDP1__uLTNVwrRCnSf2UvRzgm_95PYJsEzyuoJNzauJ7T9PS4ybUXOKyfWUFYx1p3jNHaocJMVFSUXxLkf6YXq9AAX1RRq7WShoRuyFlowDP03QCYbAMqguLQ/s320/FjBN3hfXkAA9QHS.jpg" width="255" /></a></div><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">But yeah...how about that Twitter expose? Remember all those blogs I did about how the government was in bed with social media in order to establish censorship, via what Rand called <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2018/04/government-by-intimidation-or-free.html?q=government+by+intimidation" target="_blank">"Government By Intimidation"</a></span>? Pepperidge Farm remembers...<br /><br /><br />Here's the direct link to the beginning of the expose, which are presented by journalist <span style="background-color: #d0e0e3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?s=20&t=HQq3Kv2v7z45sItlOUwLEw" target="_blank">Matt Taibbi's posts at Twitter </a></span>(there will be more to come, reportedly), and a link to a more readable format collecting the posts, about the backdoor censorship between the Biden administration and the Deep State and the relationships with the big-tech social media giants that Brook and co. consider "heroes":<br /><br />https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?s=20&t=HQq3Kv2v7z45sItlOUwLEw<br /><br />https://www.piratewires.com/p/readable-twitter-files<br /><br />Via <br /><br />And, and open message to Yaron Brook: If you have a shred of integrity, <b><i>now </i></b>would be the time for you to start apologizing to those you called "Fifth Column Objectivists" (even as you gave Leonard Peikoff a pass for his Trump support.) Speak now, or forever be branded as the "Fifth Column Objectivist" that <i>you </i>projected others to be, you gaslighting son of a bitch.<br /><br />Speaking of gaslighting: I'll take "Tweets that didn't age well" for three-hundred, Alex: <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc_xN9ZMkuPgPhCvk5_bu9XdEf679m-TSbeARATmbSeoOvzI7D2QuYUPak_3sQCpN8tf1r3XB83VTC3gNqeZ8XhvMXI_HgDvE78YFL9LCdngph3yv75ci4cl23UitsH_IpdkBJ4gvKv3kET2BH6jwrwMNqgJ9rMvVf6n8qBBm3rpCuC2F_ym9HuN5Phw/s1044/hunter.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1044" data-original-width="1036" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc_xN9ZMkuPgPhCvk5_bu9XdEf679m-TSbeARATmbSeoOvzI7D2QuYUPak_3sQCpN8tf1r3XB83VTC3gNqeZ8XhvMXI_HgDvE78YFL9LCdngph3yv75ci4cl23UitsH_IpdkBJ4gvKv3kET2BH6jwrwMNqgJ9rMvVf6n8qBBm3rpCuC2F_ym9HuN5Phw/s320/hunter.png" width="318" /></a></div><br />Let the fall of the "American Pravda" propaganda machine proceed. </span><br /><span style="opacity: 0; position: absolute; user-select: auto; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br />/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?s=20&t=HQq3Kv2v7z45sItlOUwLEw</span><br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /><br /></span><p></p><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-36003249808733476452022-11-01T19:40:00.010-04:002022-11-02T12:24:25.687-04:00"I Told You So": Censorship and "Government By Intimidation" Revisited<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQRlokZnrpq9vzgutiZnbSTsyBJko495vl8fg3aJNH8WAjmpN-SlU_lwquOq7xUiAIgxSCJUQNBZr3dtwrL0BNwxKu9orHZkMYRKSabPAj-xoJwsIzDq_xRdOGR5VsvaA1eqP03I4h115OAHBg8GHLRL0f_nF38bDyZTDB1PmfRQjG7eQofaXcRPN5tw/s600/censorship.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="600" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQRlokZnrpq9vzgutiZnbSTsyBJko495vl8fg3aJNH8WAjmpN-SlU_lwquOq7xUiAIgxSCJUQNBZr3dtwrL0BNwxKu9orHZkMYRKSabPAj-xoJwsIzDq_xRdOGR5VsvaA1eqP03I4h115OAHBg8GHLRL0f_nF38bDyZTDB1PmfRQjG7eQofaXcRPN5tw/s320/censorship.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />Back in April 2018, I wrote here about the U.S. government's attempt to install "back-door censorship" via social media sites:<span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://objectivish.blogspot.com/2018/04/government-by-intimidation-or-free.html?sc=1667343739563" target="_blank"> "Government By Intimidation, or, Free Speech on the Brink."</a></span> In that post, I noted parallels between our time and Ayn Rand's warnings about this potential back-door censorship in her time, when she wrote that "No, the government would not establish any censorship; it would not need to." This was met with much skepticism and rationalizations from the orgOist/ARI types out there, including Amy Peikoff (who, ironically enough, went on to work for Parlor, and see it first-hand). No, those types were insistent that people like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey were technological "heroes" and that Facebook, Twitter, etc. were nothing more than "private platforms".<br /><br />Fast forward to October 2022, where, not only are we treated to the spectacle of <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk" target="_blank">Elon Musk buying Twitter </a></span>just before the 2022 mid-term elections (and causing the left to melt down over the loss of the ability to suppress anything they don't like as "misinformation"), but actual <i>proof</i> of this "back-door censorship" that has now come to light: <br /><br /><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><br /><a href="https://thepostmillennial.com/dhs-leaks-starting-in-2020-dhs-began-meeting-with-twitter-facebook-wikipedia-and-more-monthly-to-coordinate-content-moderation-efforts?utm_campaign=64492" target="_blank">DHS LEAKS: Starting in 2020, DHS Began Meeting With Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and More Monthly To Coordinate 'Content Moderation' Efforts"</a></span><br /><p></p><p><br /><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/" target="_blank">"Leaked Documents Outline DHS's Plan To Police Disinformation"</a></span><br /></p><p>And far from being "heroes", these "tech titans" seemed more than happy to oblige, while colluding with the government to compel the hesitant: <br /><br /><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587104660355096576/photo/1" target="_blank">Lee Fang on Twitter: </a></span><br /><br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span></p><blockquote>Facebook and Twitter created special portals for the government to rapidly request takedowns of content. The portals, along with NGO partners used to censor a wide range of content, including obvious parody accounts and content disagreeing w gov pandemic policy.</blockquote>(via <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://news.yahoo.com/facebook-special-portal-government-officials-040955691.html" target="_blank">Yahoo News</a></span>): "Facebook has a special portal for government officials to request user content be throttled or suppressed for vaguely defined disinformation, report says"<br /><br /><br />and <br /><p></p><div class="css-1dbjc4n"><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1s2bzr4"><div class="css-901oao r-18jsvk2 r-37j5jr r-1blvdjr r-16dba41 r-vrz42v r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" data-testid="tweetText" dir="auto" id="id__ftd3rtshcw" lang="en"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587114424925442049" target="_blank">Lee Fang on Twitter</a></span>: <br /><br /></span><blockquote><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The emails and documents show close collaboration b/w DHS & private sector. Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (fired by</span><span class="r-18u37iz"><a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk" role="link">@elonmusk</a></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> last week) met monthly with DHS to discuss censorship plans. Microsoft exec texted DHS: "Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov't. It's really interesting how hesitant they remain."</span></blockquote><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span></div></div></div><p>https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587114424925442049<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH5VcUOsX3Us8thxvzreKAPRKK8dsLZLIiLK1gT0BdsEUZq6RndyrLeoo1-tMba_-s8g2GrfMMOOFg4D0WGARutLXJwz36KeodpXYAZR_pTgMBpJdO5wICH9eQXj89U7xZTQEy0GVgJrN4IpLTFBmRVzapnz-sWl9yqNzxcyrwWn_-OYEw8mayDslnfA/s1324/FgaQCQ4VsAA7AeG.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1324" data-original-width="709" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH5VcUOsX3Us8thxvzreKAPRKK8dsLZLIiLK1gT0BdsEUZq6RndyrLeoo1-tMba_-s8g2GrfMMOOFg4D0WGARutLXJwz36KeodpXYAZR_pTgMBpJdO5wICH9eQXj89U7xZTQEy0GVgJrN4IpLTFBmRVzapnz-sWl9yqNzxcyrwWn_-OYEw8mayDslnfA/s320/FgaQCQ4VsAA7AeG.jpg" width="171" /></a></div><p><br />To add insult to injury: It wasn't just social media sites, but financial institutions, such as JP Morgan Chase, which conjures up the spectre of "social credit scores" like those found in C hina (where a poor "social credit score" can find one cut off from their money. <br /><br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/nataliegwinters/status/1587135297208320003" target="_blank"></a></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://twitter.com/nataliegwinters/status/1587135297208320003" target="_blank">Natalie Winters on Twitter:</a></span> <br />"Representatives from JPMorgan Chase attended virtually all DHS meetings about federal government efforts to censor disinformation on social media.
Are they laying the groundwork for "de-banking" to become an (even more) mainstream strategy?"<br /><br /></span>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23175380-dhs-cybersecurity-disinformation-meeting-minutes</blockquote><br /><br />See also the recent Paypal scandal regarding a $2500 "misinformation fine" hidden in their terms and services:<br /><br />Forbes: <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilymason/2022/10/27/after-paypal-revokes-controversial-misinformation-policy-major-concerns-remain-over-2500-fine/" target="_blank">"After PayPal Revokes Controversial Misinformation Policy, Major Concerns Remain Over $2,500 Fine"</a></span><br /><br /><br />What does this all mean? That all the "fact-checking", all the claims of "disinformation", etc, have all been a joint effort between the government and "Big Tech", in an effort to "control the narratives" of the 2020 election, the pandemic, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and more. Whether one calls this fascism, treason, etc., one thing is for sure: It is an act of government to implement a system of censorship on par with that of every authoritarian state known. <br /><br /><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs xlh3980 xvmahel x1n0sxbx x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"> Well, then...What
say the ARI Objectivists now, who were defending "big tech" titans like
Zuckerberg, etc, as "heroes", and defending these sites as "private
platforms", when others were sounding the alarm a few
years ago? What of Objectivist Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia? Will they acknowledge the problem, or continue to keep their heads buried in the sand in order to continue to defy the influence of Donald Trump/MAGA (<span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;"><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2022/02/leonard-peikoff-and-canadian-convoy.html" target="_blank">while demonizing any Objectivists who voted for him as "Fifth Column Objectivists", a la Yaron Brook, contra Peikoff)</a></span>?. <br /><br /><br />Inquiring minds want to know...</span><br /><br /><p></p><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-34506705849719031402022-09-02T15:41:00.013-04:002022-09-02T19:42:40.306-04:00Biden's Red and Black "Nuremberg" Rally in Philadelphia (or, "The Rise of Branden") <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx5OMfVqvX4p7E5TmuYXrx9Uj1jjrsEFzrDTDFgaAEjGHsLIJ0LBSRo_O1NP6sIbl9gdP7K3wgnrQLrrlBo86wQiq67JDo64a7CMrHmT925lQ8_TMowaSjN8Nu2dsiqIkXDbnjmNGj2shi0CG9RPV341vvVZx-NLI1pE3MivYJ_Qs5ZJOaxs9ZfsAk1A/s1200/FbqWtMzWYAAgkmV.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="863" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx5OMfVqvX4p7E5TmuYXrx9Uj1jjrsEFzrDTDFgaAEjGHsLIJ0LBSRo_O1NP6sIbl9gdP7K3wgnrQLrrlBo86wQiq67JDo64a7CMrHmT925lQ8_TMowaSjN8Nu2dsiqIkXDbnjmNGj2shi0CG9RPV341vvVZx-NLI1pE3MivYJ_Qs5ZJOaxs9ZfsAk1A/s320/FbqWtMzWYAAgkmV.jpg" width="230" /></a></div><br />Last night, 9/1/22, during a Biden speech given in Philadelphia, PA.
Some people lamented that this happened in "The Birthplace of Liberty", near Independence Hall. But as I pointed out in 2010, during the Obama years ,<span style="color: #cccccc;"> <span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2010/03/socialism-smell-that-surrounds-you.html?q=socialism" target="_blank">Soviet hammer-and-sickle t-shirts were already being sold side-by-side with Obama t-shirts at a comic book store just blocks from there</a></span></span><u><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">. </span>(</u>At Brave New World comics.)<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUw27AIHbovBBn26SXscYJMx5t9GYY06rTqitVFmiubDNq7m36deby6R0DELSbFz67nc_XpfLL62a9y3D3TDcrV7bsebUrmmjuGd1qlZ19NnCcezA8ZpCgiqcHD2MATe_-JOLBLtMRcIjdhLvjbDlnbsGhn9-udhZ-ZlRJ9l6-6cKr83IWt08i2pt0uQ/s400/DSCN1419.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="300" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUw27AIHbovBBn26SXscYJMx5t9GYY06rTqitVFmiubDNq7m36deby6R0DELSbFz67nc_XpfLL62a9y3D3TDcrV7bsebUrmmjuGd1qlZ19NnCcezA8ZpCgiqcHD2MATe_-JOLBLtMRcIjdhLvjbDlnbsGhn9-udhZ-ZlRJ9l6-6cKr83IWt08i2pt0uQ/s320/DSCN1419.JPG" width="240" /></a><br />Also, social media lit up in shock over the fascistic use of reds and blacks. <br /><br />Me? I've been on to that since the Obama years, when I was studying graphic design. I previously posted <span style="color: red;"><a href="https://objectivish.blogspot.com/2010/01/bill-whittle-on-dangers-of-iconography.html" target="_blank"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">this blog entry, "Bill Whittle on the Dangers of Iconography</span>"</a>, </span>back during the Obama administration, warning about the Obama administration's use of Soviet iconography, and the leftist usurping of the graphic design field, in general. At that time, I did a satirical comic book to parody Obama as a "Doctor Doom" type using the black and red color scheme. <br /> <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4ojKq7WRaqGzS_mF4l_vcBBEPNdCSmSnbSqCLkCQiV_KNNOn6NGb4SaQKVMwqfy0Q0NQ0B50H8daBjRbJfAB1OKMoK-XjFlYbBiLaWEp-yfblXhh3O-YrK0AQTLsb_JLeEMclN_LUCjjc_CRTy4p7PNFXle1TQXn5fQW6VTVe_MVeC-1W-bvFMIF-qg/s1254/d1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1254" data-original-width="972" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4ojKq7WRaqGzS_mF4l_vcBBEPNdCSmSnbSqCLkCQiV_KNNOn6NGb4SaQKVMwqfy0Q0NQ0B50H8daBjRbJfAB1OKMoK-XjFlYbBiLaWEp-yfblXhh3O-YrK0AQTLsb_JLeEMclN_LUCjjc_CRTy4p7PNFXle1TQXn5fQW6VTVe_MVeC-1W-bvFMIF-qg/s320/d1.png" width="248" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglbLWgb6YtKpHr8yD2P6eGRtAGrbKRYB6y4hQcnB3WKMTqAOk8BV0fzBiBJvYRcCzhln4WCpsARiXCAKIIqhNUY5AU2E7cw9j3pYG-2lE_l79ntqHhBStqH1RUY9PBd3FnHztoLagdPRMLun8hi51YEXEDp2SWTWDCghgjZFJ4C2Ds3tFi71by0ab3dA/s1242/d2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1242" data-original-width="970" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglbLWgb6YtKpHr8yD2P6eGRtAGrbKRYB6y4hQcnB3WKMTqAOk8BV0fzBiBJvYRcCzhln4WCpsARiXCAKIIqhNUY5AU2E7cw9j3pYG-2lE_l79ntqHhBStqH1RUY9PBd3FnHztoLagdPRMLun8hi51YEXEDp2SWTWDCghgjZFJ4C2Ds3tFi71by0ab3dA/s320/d2.png" width="250" /></a><br /><br />And I even did a music video for one of my songs, <span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJDGlsnkE60" target="_blank">"Earth In the Balance"</a></span>, using that "Red and black" motif to demonstrate the connection. <br /><p></p><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qJDGlsnkE60" width="320" youtube-src-id="qJDGlsnkE60"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p><br />Was I "psychic"? Of course not. Just a student of history. (And, of course, THIS is what Ayn Rand was warning us about for oh so many decades...WE THE LIVING, anyone? ATLAS SHRUGGED?) <br /><br />If you haven't seen photos or video from Biden's speech yet, I'm sure you will. The whole affair is already being memed into oblivion, because it was so outlandish and blatantly styled after the infamous Nazi Nuremberg rallies, so much so that one has to wonder if it was either a parody, or if they're simply announcing their intentions out loud. The red/black visual comparisons run from the Empire in STAR WARS, the fascist Italian Futurism parodied by the band Kraftwerk, and to the "Nuremberg" rally scene from PINK FLOYD: THE WALL. All that was missing is the "marching hammers"...<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yX4O3dNTFYw" width="320" youtube-src-id="yX4O3dNTFYw"></iframe><br /><br />Most disturbing are the fist-shaking comparisons between Biden and Hitler. ("Literally Hitler" is a phrase that comes to mind...) Of course, the most disturbing part is the message behind the rally, coming off the heels of Biden's "F-15 strike" threats against political dissenters, is that anyone who dares to vote other than democrat are to be delegated as terrorists.<br /><br />Here's a visual sampling of the meme-age, in no particular order: <br /><br /><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9dnprJDXZdhyt0UazeLCTk20cxA1MWkHvm2674R6lZdDCPqGL1FQDAUlcknfC5CfbPibSUA5DW77VYMU5f6a_Z55tFy5pbY_IAZspM57dmOz-iL8BZa-ZchZHiNIy8zV62NJVZgZ9So24QSu3gLFVdVQhHZJPwyW4J8UxTuu_B2Hti9tyom3TFQZA8w/s1024/Fbrd0yIXEAEXpwI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="819" data-original-width="1024" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9dnprJDXZdhyt0UazeLCTk20cxA1MWkHvm2674R6lZdDCPqGL1FQDAUlcknfC5CfbPibSUA5DW77VYMU5f6a_Z55tFy5pbY_IAZspM57dmOz-iL8BZa-ZchZHiNIy8zV62NJVZgZ9So24QSu3gLFVdVQhHZJPwyW4J8UxTuu_B2Hti9tyom3TFQZA8w/s320/Fbrd0yIXEAEXpwI.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjagfoKf4unrUMSGFuKAe2saLPT6qELx-28ttgcCZtVv7rJsI4aBuRqzcAyfbUbl1ocEUTgwWMytT2BESpEAnN64wMonun9cAXuvIKdf9Tht6IeOiUIooP4dmaFFk0scFlqys_s6v1QQmSmhm6p3zP_20PQl4f5eUhjor85MntmjsyVpEMALcvzGvO6vA/s1513/Fbn01QsXgAADA5N.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1513" data-original-width="1088" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjagfoKf4unrUMSGFuKAe2saLPT6qELx-28ttgcCZtVv7rJsI4aBuRqzcAyfbUbl1ocEUTgwWMytT2BESpEAnN64wMonun9cAXuvIKdf9Tht6IeOiUIooP4dmaFFk0scFlqys_s6v1QQmSmhm6p3zP_20PQl4f5eUhjor85MntmjsyVpEMALcvzGvO6vA/s320/Fbn01QsXgAADA5N.jpg" width="230" /></a></div><p></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifILHao1S1ZeDYmTBjk-nGyKIXiXIauSvq1m5_m2yBwosBeiQ7uNYm23uJHkuNLHzvPJBNmXxzCi9G8UvjYrHhB2z4_lFKeFVHU1cywX48l8m4sBmyc0k4TOJAW2nAgk8_XxFwDcmBqYYwEQGH_W2hETSIU3SDOzdBB_tuuKBo75Ya9pyZblntuL620Q/s1199/Fbp-gnpX0AAT16W.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="1199" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifILHao1S1ZeDYmTBjk-nGyKIXiXIauSvq1m5_m2yBwosBeiQ7uNYm23uJHkuNLHzvPJBNmXxzCi9G8UvjYrHhB2z4_lFKeFVHU1cywX48l8m4sBmyc0k4TOJAW2nAgk8_XxFwDcmBqYYwEQGH_W2hETSIU3SDOzdBB_tuuKBo75Ya9pyZblntuL620Q/s320/Fbp-gnpX0AAT16W.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Art by Bosch Fawstin<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA08r07sScvFD3XzLxBydQwm9UvtempUCCWZpcNmTs4-0TvaVPgX8XsCSw8uXp5B_6r74EHFgaLCKRk_rCL8I9LmeK4aaEW7u0lsocs1BQRonqhKeJixllEvzLEjKjr8zFtAAb4h_4BZyhcIuipJAxzYmXJSoVhnmKfdZZB2MvYR89ML7gLx0l-iQm-A/s1200/FbqWtMzWYAAgkmV.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="863" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA08r07sScvFD3XzLxBydQwm9UvtempUCCWZpcNmTs4-0TvaVPgX8XsCSw8uXp5B_6r74EHFgaLCKRk_rCL8I9LmeK4aaEW7u0lsocs1BQRonqhKeJixllEvzLEjKjr8zFtAAb4h_4BZyhcIuipJAxzYmXJSoVhnmKfdZZB2MvYR89ML7gLx0l-iQm-A/s320/FbqWtMzWYAAgkmV.jpg" width="230" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhadG8xdkMFhbQZpANg-8OHJCobW4Y1qxXU73bxHpnTwMqZLX6oSsUxYnWRtuZtiu96cqagVzT9xlhiIRULPDk5YiWCe-13g4ckYvTfzK8fBrul6e6ZFH399C7fynQZYKyUU3zzL2E2uKI1k-BBzz4rLt4lixeB6fcx_brZ3zGwPu9D1zgOPDl41LDgGQ/s840/f3944100298b173a92b476a4f297467b-1115964115.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhadG8xdkMFhbQZpANg-8OHJCobW4Y1qxXU73bxHpnTwMqZLX6oSsUxYnWRtuZtiu96cqagVzT9xlhiIRULPDk5YiWCe-13g4ckYvTfzK8fBrul6e6ZFH399C7fynQZYKyUU3zzL2E2uKI1k-BBzz4rLt4lixeB6fcx_brZ3zGwPu9D1zgOPDl41LDgGQ/s320/f3944100298b173a92b476a4f297467b-1115964115.jpg" width="229" /></a></div><p></p><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLG1A5-F8PySA8eE1rY0rson9b8HuHrX6ECvP8xYkp17nuhznAX4iBXV4b1CItlhn399zrm64Sz3aMsR0yUn7fAMeyLUOy2bDCuWxHLM1uFXDwsig5wF4DVs5lEjY9IW0W24YkR3L4GLL8Xrd0RMZjBJ0ym4zOjc5ZOOkKKNenT1PBCWj9w3XgyJrEYg/s682/uards.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="588" data-original-width="682" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLG1A5-F8PySA8eE1rY0rson9b8HuHrX6ECvP8xYkp17nuhznAX4iBXV4b1CItlhn399zrm64Sz3aMsR0yUn7fAMeyLUOy2bDCuWxHLM1uFXDwsig5wF4DVs5lEjY9IW0W24YkR3L4GLL8Xrd0RMZjBJ0ym4zOjc5ZOOkKKNenT1PBCWj9w3XgyJrEYg/s320/uards.png" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTLkspbaFE1RU8tSDh2GUjV9vdt4Cx-NkYSOuOMGIhEPinG7afmdFNv9nbEuIJH-pCg8VE605lLan4H4tae5m29RiF19coHVnHgkLotPwNJp6kc4dl3j8n3eG23e2IGZkqTXv1EqCPUCT37qL8M4p8g__GOnxwUFc2R2gGXKreCEv-OxANtqtNVCqDtQ/s1082/bidenfist.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="1082" height="103" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTLkspbaFE1RU8tSDh2GUjV9vdt4Cx-NkYSOuOMGIhEPinG7afmdFNv9nbEuIJH-pCg8VE605lLan4H4tae5m29RiF19coHVnHgkLotPwNJp6kc4dl3j8n3eG23e2IGZkqTXv1EqCPUCT37qL8M4p8g__GOnxwUFc2R2gGXKreCEv-OxANtqtNVCqDtQ/s320/bidenfist.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8UuOtIuKVdW5Q-R3ZlUAPtJZClyhnTbBcssssS-oxYGENLIO2VEKkdb54mp4zlnJ6apqYRbh7JXlpESQp5_PTvT7NvqD5_Q8iq6pDZk_fgMQRA_JGyorn7dOSrfCaL3qxdwGDXUoDWr4qG1p7aVVY67uXGPmzBwipegy8qiq4bt98z9QEevwNFQSGtw/s600/tumblr_p4x2o6trJb1ux4g9lo4_640-393687607.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="592" data-original-width="600" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8UuOtIuKVdW5Q-R3ZlUAPtJZClyhnTbBcssssS-oxYGENLIO2VEKkdb54mp4zlnJ6apqYRbh7JXlpESQp5_PTvT7NvqD5_Q8iq6pDZk_fgMQRA_JGyorn7dOSrfCaL3qxdwGDXUoDWr4qG1p7aVVY67uXGPmzBwipegy8qiq4bt98z9QEevwNFQSGtw/s320/tumblr_p4x2o6trJb1ux4g9lo4_640-393687607.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj37CGlTOAffpQe8R2M_8SiSMPqMnCNR2Pp96Gyix5OIiAi0q6UTMcDKhGa4eln7Oo-LkcdMK7vn0ooWoJqZJ1zWyr2xKevE11tpuzh02Y7HCHfmr3mCmoKBBy1zXtgRAmBBPmtlWEdg0Iv07p3h-jC7qpBSYaPjgTb9KD9a4vc0DD6KFcLWPsK0y0Wtg/s474/th-3094130858.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="474" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj37CGlTOAffpQe8R2M_8SiSMPqMnCNR2Pp96Gyix5OIiAi0q6UTMcDKhGa4eln7Oo-LkcdMK7vn0ooWoJqZJ1zWyr2xKevE11tpuzh02Y7HCHfmr3mCmoKBBy1zXtgRAmBBPmtlWEdg0Iv07p3h-jC7qpBSYaPjgTb9KD9a4vc0DD6KFcLWPsK0y0Wtg/s320/th-3094130858.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkimX3aad0kSnSOi4yGFUbemaeN757ZlpSY9X5aN6HTwYjG6lk6dM8KCJ8Nyha3SjhxxjziEmmTZ9671_v_ymW4zhyLgOxmiyv7XzMzS4jPq37JnzCcayAepFBaVt6-o9Ww57y7SC6th3_JuWt3CYVoEqstyuMRL2iaaGjGzhL8KzLZWPH23_5jV2-MA/s1024/MARINES.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="566" data-original-width="1024" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkimX3aad0kSnSOi4yGFUbemaeN757ZlpSY9X5aN6HTwYjG6lk6dM8KCJ8Nyha3SjhxxjziEmmTZ9671_v_ymW4zhyLgOxmiyv7XzMzS4jPq37JnzCcayAepFBaVt6-o9Ww57y7SC6th3_JuWt3CYVoEqstyuMRL2iaaGjGzhL8KzLZWPH23_5jV2-MA/s320/MARINES.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqDw3x4IHuKafDxqExmaxxa0Mg6iLCrCsDdofbq2hW8bFTS_2U2nppKAZb_Jyn_e8oskONGfK55H5FAKa1amwJWt8uFHE8wRP7w10LGo98axTLddjEOS4nAdTp-f3sW5Z_0zph4UvPn7y5EgqGa5ifESCo23maSz5SCD9xMMInwFOSJ64sdDi0uaDXRQ/s1038/fists.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="1038" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqDw3x4IHuKafDxqExmaxxa0Mg6iLCrCsDdofbq2hW8bFTS_2U2nppKAZb_Jyn_e8oskONGfK55H5FAKa1amwJWt8uFHE8wRP7w10LGo98axTLddjEOS4nAdTp-f3sW5Z_0zph4UvPn7y5EgqGa5ifESCo23maSz5SCD9xMMInwFOSJ64sdDi0uaDXRQ/s320/fists.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaERvFtYydBw2k2Taxzodf541Ldexe8vED7NHO89JSvSB2O2FkywPYIqb1xmwhlUE1E8mNeRwjCruULOXIOihLtlOGkwDM2vw1Hcvzcu9Wm0aHS57L6ozZpGNocr3Ns3FdkgyhUUmzG8K7QDXuo5LSnuLgHuYNWKUbJLZJcwHrbfDTst40-yQi6tp9kw/s1200/bidenhammer.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="791" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaERvFtYydBw2k2Taxzodf541Ldexe8vED7NHO89JSvSB2O2FkywPYIqb1xmwhlUE1E8mNeRwjCruULOXIOihLtlOGkwDM2vw1Hcvzcu9Wm0aHS57L6ozZpGNocr3Ns3FdkgyhUUmzG8K7QDXuo5LSnuLgHuYNWKUbJLZJcwHrbfDTst40-yQi6tp9kw/s320/bidenhammer.jpg" width="211" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqryPPX4Rvt11vo0eTEw_evCiwQ0lC8ejB01JFL3Vi5xHAa-z3p5D8R_jyli6qKmH-zy1z70JkWSSeuJOr0Msv0x5F3i-cSrnp_q7009IcSb9J5eZQAoFvnEksUzG06zBvRjF9Gp8B3ayD9-pYMhJQ4TuoJ0GEsf5NkZmIkacTIYQGjuXIu5r7elTvmw/s700/60095434_401-3584339513.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="700" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqryPPX4Rvt11vo0eTEw_evCiwQ0lC8ejB01JFL3Vi5xHAa-z3p5D8R_jyli6qKmH-zy1z70JkWSSeuJOr0Msv0x5F3i-cSrnp_q7009IcSb9J5eZQAoFvnEksUzG06zBvRjF9Gp8B3ayD9-pYMhJQ4TuoJ0GEsf5NkZmIkacTIYQGjuXIu5r7elTvmw/s320/60095434_401-3584339513.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi88uwSD9KyUiG705DS_k3YSXce6AMScfqJtwc7-66OnvvSUaGmpL8S5T4hfEOTcE_1cRzzzItDoeIn-n8kZGXajVB6KpNTmpm1FbGbAezTO_-6RGzkjS5rHhV0Q-BNyOOKK3X6oPp9SW3hPgoOhN6xV-pgzA4lxPiDAEBHn_II-7zfDUk77ozt2c-QNQ/s790/99d1b0d59acd45d92d112739e2e825e4-975932969.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="790" data-original-width="561" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi88uwSD9KyUiG705DS_k3YSXce6AMScfqJtwc7-66OnvvSUaGmpL8S5T4hfEOTcE_1cRzzzItDoeIn-n8kZGXajVB6KpNTmpm1FbGbAezTO_-6RGzkjS5rHhV0Q-BNyOOKK3X6oPp9SW3hPgoOhN6xV-pgzA4lxPiDAEBHn_II-7zfDUk77ozt2c-QNQ/s320/99d1b0d59acd45d92d112739e2e825e4-975932969.jpg" width="227" /></a></div><br /><br /><br />How did we get from "Never Again" to this? "It can't happen here"? The hell, it can't! <br />Ladies and gentleman, we have crossed the Rubicon. <br /><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-23856690392895621042022-09-02T15:00:00.001-04:002022-09-02T15:08:19.563-04:00Bill Whittle on The Dangers of Iconography (9/1/22 Biden Rally Reprise)<br />(Reprising in light of the Biden speech given in Philadelphia on 9/1/22.)<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbxvOPEUoXmsw-c9cvZft5QA6fPpOsKDXPEurwzwpqJaZebFSk3Tx_E1KOxmp3UAnSilkLNMkxHlv5wIRGeFBhHb1adWl03p0Tq1_e5FRFbrgVthWnngwmzBgaS8J_hISmuE080rKRHx05/s1600-h/icons.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427852051050967682" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbxvOPEUoXmsw-c9cvZft5QA6fPpOsKDXPEurwzwpqJaZebFSk3Tx_E1KOxmp3UAnSilkLNMkxHlv5wIRGeFBhHb1adWl03p0Tq1_e5FRFbrgVthWnngwmzBgaS8J_hISmuE080rKRHx05/s400/icons.png" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 178px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 400px;" /></a><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">An important video. Much of this I already knew; as an artist/graphic designer, I'm well aware of the use of visual propaganda in the arts and advertising, and especially aware of the left's infiltration of the field. Peruse the relevant section of your local bookstore and see what I mean. (Two to look for: </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Fists-Branding-20th-Century-Totalitarian/dp/0714848468/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263751296&sr=1-12"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Iron Fists: Branding the 20th Century Totalitarian State</span></i></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> and </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Design-Dissent-Socially-Politically-Graphics/dp/1592531172"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Design of Dissent: Socially and Politically Driven Graphics.</span></i></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">) And need I mention the "marching hammers?"</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Nazis and Communists were masters of this, of course, and the Democrats and Obama have ran with it, while the Republicans are pikers in comparison. (I appropriated a few examples in techniques in retaliation in my own propaganda piece,</span></span><i><a href="http://spaceplayermusic.com/ashowofhands.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> A Show of Hands: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile.</span></span></a></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> Interested in publishing it? Get in touch.) </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The video below is a good overview of the topic in relation to the (continuing) Obama campaign, with the ubiquitous Shepard Fairey </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">posters</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> ("Hope," "Progress," </span></span><s><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span><a href="http://obeygiant.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Obey</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span></s><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> "Change"), with some interesting observations (notice how the "rainbow O" has replaced the Presidential Seal of the United States? Hmmm....)
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="white-space: pre;"><object height="340" width="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GdtqtfXdR-c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="340" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GdtqtfXdR-c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="405"></embed></object></span></div></div>Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-35177960200330497582022-02-14T21:38:00.005-05:002022-02-14T22:13:32.063-05:00Leonard Peikoff and the Canadian Convoy Protests ( vs. Peikoff's "Fatwa" of 2006)<p> <br />In 2006, Leonard Peikoff infamously <span style="color: #ff00fe;"><b><a href="https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2006/10/peikoff-on-the-2006-elections/" target="_blank">made a call to "vote Democrat across the board</a></b>,</span>" (otherwise known as the "Fatwa", in order to stave off a "theocracy" by the Religious Right:<br /><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting
in this election has no understanding of the practical role of
philosophy in man’s actual life–which means that he does not understand
the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system
detached from the world.</p>
<p>If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the
Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster,
i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fast forward to 2022: Not only did Peikoff donate to the Trump campaign, contra Yaron Brook (who, in a fit of "Trump Derangement Syndrome", <b><a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/the_ayn_rand_institute_does_not_speak_for_ayn_rand.html" target="_blank">called anyone who supported Trump "Fifth Column Objectivists"</a></b>), he has now come out in support of the current trucker convoy protests in Canada:<br /></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mgsNeHDTMBs" width="320" youtube-src-id="mgsNeHDTMBs"></iframe></div><br /> <p></p><p>Whatever else one thinks about Peikoff and the whole "fatwa" debacle (and whether or not it's hypocrisy or an "awakening" to the very-real-threat of the Left, today), it's a notable 180-turn. But the bigger issue now is the schism this, and the whole protest in general (along with other examples like the Kyle Rittenhouse trial) is creating in the Objectivist community.* There are those who agree with Peikoff, and those who agree with Brook. It threatens to make the Rand/Branden schism look like...well, like the lover's spat that it was. <br /></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's so much more to say on this, more than I have time to cover, here. And it's a fair question of whether or not one thinks Peikoff is a hypocrite (who owes the targets of his 2006 comments an apology), or just saw the current situation with his own eyes, and made a course-corrected. (And perhaps he still owes an apology. That said, without putting aside the fact that he set the precedent for Brook's "Fifth Column Objectivist" comments, I will say that "hey, we all make mistakes", and there was a lot of info about the Left that was hidden then that is now coming to light.) Either way, perhaps the most salient point was already made by Andrew Bernstein, who was already bucking the Org-Oist trend of "TDS". When he was recently congratulated on Facebook for being "vindicated" by the Peikoff video, Bernstein <a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrew.bernstein.94/posts/10166261714975346?comment_id=10166263105640346&reply_comment_id=10166263245815346" target="_blank"><b></b></a><b><a href=" https://www.facebook.com/andrew.bernstein.94/posts/10166261714975346">responded</a></b> with the most <i>Objectivist</i> response one could give in this context: <br /><br /></p><blockquote> Thank you. I appreciate it. Don’t get me wrong—I have ENORMOUS respect for LP. But these issues are decided by evidence, not by appeal to authority. I don’t need a genius like LP to show me that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent, that January 6th was a riot, not an insurrection, and that the Left is a vastly greater threat to individual rights than religious conservatives. The evidence shows me that. But I am very happy that LP is coming to see these things—and in contrast to the predictions of his own DIM Hypothesis.</blockquote><br /><br />Bernstein's response is a reminder that one shouldn't just cheer on a statement like Peikoff's as an "appeal to authority" (even if there wasn't the issue of Peikoff's former "Fatwa" and change-of-heart). "These issues are decided by evidence, not by appeal to authority." As they should be. Well said. <br /><br />(*I seen that Amy Peikoff, in her comments on that Peikoff video at YouTube, and in her comments at Twitter, has come around to seeing the threat of the Left, as well, in matters of censorship and totalitarianism. <b><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/search/label/Amy%20Peikoff" target="_blank">I previously disagreed with her</a></b>, around the time of the Tommy Robinson situation, when she was denying/minimizing the existence of "backdoor censorship" of big tech, regarding the Section 230 issue, but now she is aware and speaking out against the threat of the Left. This may have to do in part with her <a href="https://www.audacy.com/podcasts/axios-pro-rata-20759/inside-the-rapid-rise-of-parler-with-its-chief-policy-officer-349940322" target="_blank"><b>new position with Parler</b>.</a> I don't know to what extent her views on that have changed, but to see her argue in defense of the truckers says enough. Given that she was a frequent guest of the Yaron Brook show, yet shares the same last name as Leonard Peikoff... one can speculate as to her change of heart, but it is a prime example of this new schism.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p>Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-36293225926963040492021-12-19T12:59:00.017-05:002021-12-19T23:45:35.597-05:00Of "Obleftivists" and Obfuscations and Omissions<p> <br />During a <b><a href="https://youtu.be/3mdHX3_Vuzw?t=1733" target="_blank">recent YouTube livestream</a></b> about the Jussie Smollet "MAGA hate-crime" hoax, Jonathan Hoenig of <i>The Ayn Rand Center UK</i>, @28:53, makes the following statement: <br /><br /></p><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">"Look, don't read <i>Breitbart</i>; don't read <i>Drudge</i>; go read Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff."<br /><br /></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Look, "Obleftivist", don't tell me what to read or do, ok? <br /><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Notice he didn't include left-wing news like MSN, CNN, etc...especially ironic considering the fact that "Dr. Peikoff" himself donated to the Trump campaign and recently dated a conservative Christian woman...<br /></div></div><p>This all just reminds me, once again, of why I am "Objectivish", and not Capital-"O" Objectivist...I'll even go so far as to speculate that the "TDS" ("Trump Derangement Syndrome") of O'ists like <span style="color: #800180;"><b><a href="https://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2021/03/peikoff-vs-ari.html" target="_blank">Yaron Brook's condemnation of Trump-voting O'ists*</a></b><a href="https://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2021/03/peikoff-vs-ari.html" target="_blank"><u> </u></a> </span>vs. the Peikovian turnabout from the<u> <b><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2010/05/peikoff-man-behind-curtain.html?q=fatwa">"fatwa" of "Vote Democrat across the board"</a></b></u> to <b><a href="https://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2021/03/peikoff-vs-ari.html" target="_blank">donating to the Trump campaign</a></b> may just cause a schism in O-Land that will make the Rand-Branden split look like a lover's spat between Archie, Betty and Veronica in an issue of ARCHIE comics... And yet, we still have OrgO'ism-wannabe leaders trying to act as if they
have all the answers when they can't even agree amongst themselves. Looks like I'm not the only one noticing this; See "<b><span style="color: #800180;"><a href="https://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2021/03/peikoff-vs-ari.html" target="_blank">Peikoff vs. ARI</a></span></b>" at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" (where even broken clocks are right twice a day), and <b><a href="http://ariwatch.com/Shysters.htm" target="_blank">"Shysters"</a></b> at ARI Watch.<br /><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3mdHX3_Vuzw" width="320" youtube-src-id="3mdHX3_Vuzw"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>[Edit, 12/19, at 1:PM: Hoenig made a snarky reply to my comment on this YouTube video, avoiding the Peikovian elephant-in-the-room, while employing substance-less snark, to which I replied. But it seems he's intent on having the final say, and deleted my final comment. Ok, that is his prerogative, on his home-turf. So I will just share my response here, as it was before he flipped the Monopoly board over in defeat:)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiUd6zC4OPS7dZyW5oYW1E2gE0y8af2jb3AgPbr96OMRwe6ZigbUuQrlYL5Z2qVY9ciViW7PT4HTY5LhcuAq2gRd-ok6VJi6NCG4qGKQBkKOik70W6MFJSkc7eSyz8xRFVUJOGZHDJ8GlKL5fpm553F5mCjvM4cbFblnIAnImNmL-MmNBt5_wh2PGhCsw=s1228" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1185" data-original-width="1228" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiUd6zC4OPS7dZyW5oYW1E2gE0y8af2jb3AgPbr96OMRwe6ZigbUuQrlYL5Z2qVY9ciViW7PT4HTY5LhcuAq2gRd-ok6VJi6NCG4qGKQBkKOik70W6MFJSkc7eSyz8xRFVUJOGZHDJ8GlKL5fpm553F5mCjvM4cbFblnIAnImNmL-MmNBt5_wh2PGhCsw=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br />*re: Yaron Brook's actual quote:<br /><blockquote><div>Those of you who are apologists for Donald Trump,
please never use the word "Objectivist" to associate it [Objectivism]
with yourself. Because you cannot be Objectivists, you are not
Objectivists, if you apologize for this guy.</div><div><br /></div><div>And
you are not doing anybody a favor by selling-out, selling-out the
fundamental ideas that we believe in. For the sake of what? Popularity,
for the sake of defeating the left?</div><div><br /></div><div>You are sell-outs, you are the fifth-column within Objectivism.</div></blockquote><div>Does that apply to Dr. Peikoff as well, Hoenig? The question was put to him on that YouTube thread. We'll see how long it stays up, but so far, as of this, it has gone unanswered. I doubt it will be. He can evade, but as Galt said to Dagny, "nobody stays in this valley by faking reality in any matter whatever." That's it, go ahead and "literally laugh out loud"; to quote Pink Floyd, "You're nearly a laugh, but you're really a cry..."<br /><br /><br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDPIGeCWZJmjAhUcREM17BSgsH_W_4UjIMUPbjUwmbOJ0aMiaZaj_46q96NhIArRgN_jZgt1qxO5fvHZSkC3rNoKFGY6ECZDVGEmg0u8xlpVEY-z8YReLkkrJNaICPzdiVxKG8p2DjBHs9jw6hFj6_WNco-4dOw2oSTIJjJrZflJXdyi7W9QsI7Jcsmw=s1208" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1038" data-original-width="1208" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDPIGeCWZJmjAhUcREM17BSgsH_W_4UjIMUPbjUwmbOJ0aMiaZaj_46q96NhIArRgN_jZgt1qxO5fvHZSkC3rNoKFGY6ECZDVGEmg0u8xlpVEY-z8YReLkkrJNaICPzdiVxKG8p2DjBHs9jw6hFj6_WNco-4dOw2oSTIJjJrZflJXdyi7W9QsI7Jcsmw=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-87971879132515660812021-11-23T09:21:00.004-05:002021-11-23T12:19:08.172-05:00"To All Innocent Fifth Column Objectivists": Kyle Rittenhouse<p> <span data-offset-key="f4h1q-0-0"><span data-text="true">"To all </span></span><span><span data-offset-key="f4h1q-1-0"><span data-text="true">Innocent</span></span></span><span data-offset-key="f4h1q-2-0"><span data-text="true"> Fifth Columnist Objectivists": </span></span></p><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="aau55" data-offset-key="fd25n-0-0"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fd25n-0-0"><span data-offset-key="fd25n-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="aau55" data-offset-key="150bo-0-0"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="150bo-0-0"><span data-offset-key="150bo-0-0"><span data-text="true">Kyle Rittenhouse never needed to ask your forgiveness, nor beg your permission. </span></span></div></div>Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-5363718417526452582021-08-28T21:57:00.004-04:002021-08-28T22:44:31.975-04:00The "Comprachicos" in the Age of Covid: "They Took A Face And Made A Muzzle"<span style="font-size: x-small;">(the following text taken from "The Comprachicos" by Ayn Rand)</span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtNBsSu-hwLaeA8JvujHT_LdUIKHWOG1r7j9a2rHEtxncGJipM5__9LnArRxce6gZkjnjVK8PjQVx0XflsMFHVjeGpsqOzvlxJX5es7WyMC7DgzzKVUtRBZWZ4I1tz7KkOR_mxVP8T1r1c/s825/comprachicos-how-a-gang-of-2.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="825" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtNBsSu-hwLaeA8JvujHT_LdUIKHWOG1r7j9a2rHEtxncGJipM5__9LnArRxce6gZkjnjVK8PjQVx0XflsMFHVjeGpsqOzvlxJX5es7WyMC7DgzzKVUtRBZWZ4I1tz7KkOR_mxVP8T1r1c/s320/comprachicos-how-a-gang-of-2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The comprachicos, or comprapequeños, were a strange and hideous nomadic association, famous in the seventeenth century, forgotten in the eighteenth, unknown today.... <br /><p><br />Comprachicos, as well as comprapequeños, is a compound Spanish word that means “child-buyers.” The comprachicos traded in children. <br /><br />They bought them and sold them. They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is a different industry. <br /><br />And what did they make of these children? <br /><br />Monsters. <br /><br />Why monsters?<br /><br />To Laugh.<br /></p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKS_JJmkOD2MI52TMUCpNx-N89pR7I5_ey7Yb-J8Pb-zFpI9qOZbIid9xcu1oWcaZkMGUG9pi6_TgTonodshrROy2KDL47vlsnq-WfeqYYsz8I7vlSiNGM6KypXxN3wR35tZmG294FUqnP/s1285/Man_Who_Laughs_%25281869%2529_v2_Frontis.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1275" data-original-width="1285" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKS_JJmkOD2MI52TMUCpNx-N89pR7I5_ey7Yb-J8Pb-zFpI9qOZbIid9xcu1oWcaZkMGUG9pi6_TgTonodshrROy2KDL47vlsnq-WfeqYYsz8I7vlSiNGM6KypXxN3wR35tZmG294FUqnP/s320/Man_Who_Laughs_%25281869%2529_v2_Frontis.jpg" width="320" /></a>The people needs laughter; so do the kings. Cities require side-show freaks or clowns; palaces require jesters.... To succeed in producing a freak, one must get hold of him early. A dwarf must be started when he is small.... <br /><br />Hence, an art. There were educators. They took a man and turned him into a miscarriage; <b>they took a face and made a muzzle.</b> They stunted growth; they mangled features. This artificial production of teratological cases had its own rules. It was a whole science. Imagine an inverted orthopedics. Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where God had put harmony, they put deformity. Where God had put perfection, they brought back a botched attempt. And, in the eyes of connoisseurs, it is the botched that was perfect....<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinjMZF_Bj5IaHuAsOuQCit_XrK_riVA8dGjtkjAleognEbNFozEjpAfq0JA16PDvLAMGY6ZHyZtOwAiZdlSMInMI2OpvrPhmeHul4b2DHE4b1AfSPHVBX3lpM0FsEPPn09jpmiWd7v8PkD/s483/the-man-who-laughs-josiana.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="483" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinjMZF_Bj5IaHuAsOuQCit_XrK_riVA8dGjtkjAleognEbNFozEjpAfq0JA16PDvLAMGY6ZHyZtOwAiZdlSMInMI2OpvrPhmeHul4b2DHE4b1AfSPHVBX3lpM0FsEPPn09jpmiWd7v8PkD/s320/the-man-who-laughs-josiana.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression...<p><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipsh7SU9JR3d8qkbq2nHYjMZT-jN_U9KZqWXhytmshpvO33RLGoA4oda_0sOfk8VKb1F-ZXLMUVwhaN_K3c8qPGyirRIof2nVawXWHiDwIEOQ-mkE7-AzAW9JGdrVpsID4_NQEWHxSMUAB/s1627/L%2527Homme_qui_rit_-_Les_comprachicos%252C_par_Daniel_Vierge.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1117" data-original-width="1627" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipsh7SU9JR3d8qkbq2nHYjMZT-jN_U9KZqWXhytmshpvO33RLGoA4oda_0sOfk8VKb1F-ZXLMUVwhaN_K3c8qPGyirRIof2nVawXWHiDwIEOQ-mkE7-AzAW9JGdrVpsID4_NQEWHxSMUAB/s320/L%2527Homme_qui_rit_-_Les_comprachicos%252C_par_Daniel_Vierge.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The comprachicos had a talent, to disfigure, that made them valuable in politics. To disfigure is better than to kill. There was the iron mask, but that is an awkward means. One cannot populate Europe with iron masks; deformed mountebanks, however, run through the streets without appearing implausible; besides, an iron mask can be torn off, a mask of flesh cannot. To mask you forever by means of your own face, nothing can be more ingenious....<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5IO40_QrN-VNLiRUnxgPt2V4dtjO3BVLRcQMI1OScIdLKSHrz_pQ22wrXlawUBYayO5AixfqHUktMsEgS_EtSFD6ugf5iVRGkd9ujqv5HX0mNKrvrEvHZV4Hi63ESUTUteuwpNSP8QlBl/s1790/msk.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1790" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5IO40_QrN-VNLiRUnxgPt2V4dtjO3BVLRcQMI1OScIdLKSHrz_pQ22wrXlawUBYayO5AixfqHUktMsEgS_EtSFD6ugf5iVRGkd9ujqv5HX0mNKrvrEvHZV4Hi63ESUTUteuwpNSP8QlBl/s320/msk.png" width="320" /></a></div>The comprachicos did not merely remove a child’s face, they removed his memory. At least, they removed as much of it as they could. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. He could remember at most that one day he had been seized by some men, then had fallen asleep, and later they had cured him. Cured him of what? He did not know. Of the burning by sulphur and the incisions by iron, he remembered nothing. During the operation, the comprachicos made the little patient unconscious by means of a stupefying powder that passed for magic and suppressed pain....<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWAtsNygQNtISDrkXNgJ9Pa6UXM3YgmHHAnxntsp-HJ0RNS7ACBztZTQx2bnFa2v4ET0C8m-uFBmpJZm5K-Gz_2OpBLFNTs_B0YhipRtd_wK-RhXOsF8r8Nd_VkQi3ixsyrZmdLHvi4ujL/s1200/frontiers-clinical-characteristics-children-covid19-non-respiratory-symptoms.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWAtsNygQNtISDrkXNgJ9Pa6UXM3YgmHHAnxntsp-HJ0RNS7ACBztZTQx2bnFa2v4ET0C8m-uFBmpJZm5K-Gz_2OpBLFNTs_B0YhipRtd_wK-RhXOsF8r8Nd_VkQi3ixsyrZmdLHvi4ujL/s320/frontiers-clinical-characteristics-children-covid19-non-respiratory-symptoms.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>In China, since time immemorial, they have achieved refinement in a special art and industry: the molding of a living man. One takes a child two or three years old, one puts him into a porcelain vase, more or less grotesque in shape, without cover or bottom, so that the head and feet protrude. In the daytime, one keeps this vase standing upright; at night, one lays it down, so that the child can sleep. Thus the child expands without growing, slowly filling the contours of the vase with his compressed flesh and twisted bones. <br /><br /><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHmn5Qo5JWUp_gghAQLNOX5maDlzpCaWY54aP5qV9LEhQTa70dniRG1q7OqIHdthBdkrAwxMiLIZ494v2MJEn3gTEEEB6-uIlnuxCICnlMWePEU4a8Pm6gBl-bIAPOp7vp6Ax9UQh7XPxC/s850/Paulson-anxiety+and+covid-19-large.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="850" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHmn5Qo5JWUp_gghAQLNOX5maDlzpCaWY54aP5qV9LEhQTa70dniRG1q7OqIHdthBdkrAwxMiLIZ494v2MJEn3gTEEEB6-uIlnuxCICnlMWePEU4a8Pm6gBl-bIAPOp7vp6Ax9UQh7XPxC/s320/Paulson-anxiety+and+covid-19-large.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>This bottled development continues for several years. At a certain point, it becomes irreparable. When one judges that this has occurred and that the monster is made, one breaks the vase, the child comes out, and one has a man in the shape of a pot. (Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs, translation mine.)<br /><br /><br /> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJY6Kr4WR-i_qeZtfyYVuXwp34TKaOjqkYkp1EipfknY_703BQrcmPE7w32zoNBly0dBmx7hybeBUu2qvt8P9wwKX4f1oU5R4sMtUkmYi9eI5-c-RQBwqJP6mdh3VX1XyAN5VgD6qo6QuT/s1286/CCHMC_KDSCN_1B_BlogImages_1286x565_WearMasks.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="565" data-original-width="1286" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJY6Kr4WR-i_qeZtfyYVuXwp34TKaOjqkYkp1EipfknY_703BQrcmPE7w32zoNBly0dBmx7hybeBUu2qvt8P9wwKX4f1oU5R4sMtUkmYi9eI5-c-RQBwqJP6mdh3VX1XyAN5VgD6qo6QuT/s320/CCHMC_KDSCN_1B_BlogImages_1286x565_WearMasks.png" width="320" /></a></div>Victor Hugo wrote this in the nineteenth century. His exalted mind could not conceive that so unspeakable a form of inhumanity would ever be possible again. The twentieth century proved him wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJlJNosGW0fSG-tmAPSb6y931gozmdo-W5PXB8ruRr23NnOX7usNo_IL1kWjb698AFE63pZJ9vNFMbzj42P6DNHQONntHpW8qwgw925vo09zQflEAWCfX5kK80j16bKkG6ykOCWF1MgXQ6/s373/masks.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="237" data-original-width="373" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJlJNosGW0fSG-tmAPSb6y931gozmdo-W5PXB8ruRr23NnOX7usNo_IL1kWjb698AFE63pZJ9vNFMbzj42P6DNHQONntHpW8qwgw925vo09zQflEAWCfX5kK80j16bKkG6ykOCWF1MgXQ6/w640-h406/masks.jpg" width="640" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0_g1Y9s8cYYGp_AyTIqaeupFQAOecaFUvKrPXaZhHypOduDFPyIHoVEl7N46bZc8FSxFkLTVP4qnfAMYSrK0JnrTnncGbbXFBycOqQf3lFEXZv98V57M3lc6O2Z6mzpLQE54RSUhc1Tm8/s500/facemaskspainting_thumb.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0_g1Y9s8cYYGp_AyTIqaeupFQAOecaFUvKrPXaZhHypOduDFPyIHoVEl7N46bZc8FSxFkLTVP4qnfAMYSrK0JnrTnncGbbXFBycOqQf3lFEXZv98V57M3lc6O2Z6mzpLQE54RSUhc1Tm8/w320-h320/facemaskspainting_thumb.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />The production of monsters—helpless, twisted monsters whose normal development has been stunted—goes on all around us. But the modern heirs of the comprachicos are smarter and subtler than their predecessors: they do not hide, they practice their trade in the open; they do not buy children, the children are delivered to them; they do not use sulphur or iron, they achieve their goal without ever laying a finger on their little victims.<br /><br />Ayn Rand, "The Comprachicos", The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 1970<br /><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiocNhXnVNklE8Zct66qCMk3koL_Xo94dzJ40Y_pa_wKZjBjIE0SzHLkWnSW0rM79d2yUEuHuLQM5c83KuI_SIUd5bGaUx2YMRTx4KIzpikdFa6tj0z_cXd1g48Wl7SDGCWv_NOJNEvE76g/s1288/a72140397387376e.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1288" data-original-width="1272" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiocNhXnVNklE8Zct66qCMk3koL_Xo94dzJ40Y_pa_wKZjBjIE0SzHLkWnSW0rM79d2yUEuHuLQM5c83KuI_SIUd5bGaUx2YMRTx4KIzpikdFa6tj0z_cXd1g48Wl7SDGCWv_NOJNEvE76g/w632-h640/a72140397387376e.jpeg" width="632" /></a></div><br /><br /><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-29404202289162876502021-08-21T12:50:00.008-04:002021-08-21T13:40:31.946-04:00Peikoff vs. Senator Rogers, or, "Religious Theocracy" Revisited<p> <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh02ezNCtW0JvTUdkBFtEmxs09S-QMwYGtia9Ni9sTQB6rk3YeL3a_QBn3_e7OnWcicYr01ZlxuTlOgb1C5RLPxKab27FrEqCXPA7wBb5UBoDEJibNTTmFaXq8Eo-0ZRO4JyqefPFVl3XnE/s450/9781101617366.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="299" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh02ezNCtW0JvTUdkBFtEmxs09S-QMwYGtia9Ni9sTQB6rk3YeL3a_QBn3_e7OnWcicYr01ZlxuTlOgb1C5RLPxKab27FrEqCXPA7wBb5UBoDEJibNTTmFaXq8Eo-0ZRO4JyqefPFVl3XnE/w213-h320/9781101617366.jpg" width="213" /></a></span></div><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />"If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner."- Leonard Peikoff, 2006
<br /><br />
Fast forward to 2021, to Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers:<br /></span><p></p><p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span></p><p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /></span></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Kids should bring Bibles and pray in school.</p>— Wendy Rogers (@WendyRogersAZ) <a href="https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/status/1429080628943900672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 21, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<p> </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <br />Peikoff took a lot of flack for his comments in 2006 for that particular prediction based on his DIM hypothesis, but it's looking prescient, to me. Rogers is the main figure behind the Arizona election audit, the major opposition to exposing the election fraud that gave us the Biden disaster. And I do hope that it IS exposed. But, when American politicians start using the word "should" in such matters, ignoring the separation of Church and State, who needs the Taliban? (That's not to say that morality is not needed, but Objectivism holds that religion has had too long a monopoly on religion, and was not even that good at it, to begin with.) And when it comes to Christianity vs. what the Left has morphed into, I know a lot of people will counter with the differences in severity between say, Christianity and Islam, and say that "I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a socialist hellhole." And hey, Christianity had a reformation, right? One that Islam didn't have. Well, I had sympathy for that view, until I started, you know...talking to actual Christians about their actual beliefs. All the reformation did was to tame it. But the darker side is still there, just under the surface, waiting. At best, Christians are riding on the fumes of the influence of Aristotle and Aquinas. But scratch a rational Christian, and you will find the other half: the belief in the supernatural, the rejection of reason and science in favor of faith (re the denial of evolution vs. creationism), the repudiation of science and logic (because that's what the "Godless Communists" believed in) and even an acceptance of genocide, as long as it's ordered by "Him". <br /><br />And when it comes to genocide and obedience, Nietzsche was right when he called Christianity a "slave morality. (What's that? You want "receipts"? I got "receipts":<br /><br /><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.03); color: #0f1419; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: pre-wrap; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">“When God says to do something, it's right...God ordered the flood. If you really have a problem with him ordering the genocide of a small group of people, boy what kind of issues do you have with him genociding the entire planet? It's his will, we are his to birth, we are his to kill.” <br /><br /></span><br />This was taken from an evangelical live-stream by DC/<i>Game of Thrones</i> comic book artist and Christian evangelist Mike S. Miller, around the 7:20 mark:<br /><br /><br /><iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/isPgcc1Dq0M" width="480"></iframe><br /><br /><div br=""><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipNL10JX9RZOosy7PWO1OrnMnpjCi0N_o29QiEedgd4kkVp54WHTFWC40Lkwr-lWGzfv-NeYfFbovDqG0CW9O1PO1sICOItnhBEprjVBI3r7wpFjt0X2rztVDifNcroIUzndQzaRDmdv4Z/s2048/81jU5UnfOIL.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1357" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipNL10JX9RZOosy7PWO1OrnMnpjCi0N_o29QiEedgd4kkVp54WHTFWC40Lkwr-lWGzfv-NeYfFbovDqG0CW9O1PO1sICOItnhBEprjVBI3r7wpFjt0X2rztVDifNcroIUzndQzaRDmdv4Z/s320/81jU5UnfOIL.jpg" width="212" /></a></div> So, then, wow long before a Christian theocracy starts to look like an Islamic one? I've read the Old Testament, thank you very much, and I know how they think the world will end...but even in the short term, I've already seen self-proclaimed Christians say things like "this is what happens when they removed bullying from schools", or, "bullying keeps the weird kids in their place." Who decides who and what is "weird", pray tell? And this all brings up the other "ominous parallels", between the Weimar Republic and its decadence, and the backlash that was part of the rise of Hitler and the Nazi's. <br /></div><br />The Christian vs. Leftist frame is a false dichotomy for America; as Peikoff pointed out, they are mis-integrated and disintegrated philosphies, and they are both why "the lights are going out in the West." Merely two sides of the same coin. Less supernatural, more objectivity and reason, thank you. Less initiation of force, more protection of individual rights. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-29355924203749190192021-07-13T20:05:00.008-04:002021-07-15T20:06:46.476-04:00Fighting "The Endarkenment": "The Consequences of Enlightenment" by Yaron Brook<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS5GiiRGCJrpQy6ecNa857X_2uQq6-0hKU1lcTICvjGj68dkjI4MyxPokv6z1F5wV8oMfF3EXMdMJdCWiYWdAMnwtRhVghbKkf8s4w_B5ZxejsbQ_QouQ6suul-OLgGy96leTLPmcgv72P/s932/H2006-L144850336.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="932" data-original-width="750" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS5GiiRGCJrpQy6ecNa857X_2uQq6-0hKU1lcTICvjGj68dkjI4MyxPokv6z1F5wV8oMfF3EXMdMJdCWiYWdAMnwtRhVghbKkf8s4w_B5ZxejsbQ_QouQ6suul-OLgGy96leTLPmcgv72P/s320/H2006-L144850336.JPG" /></a></div> I know I've been a little hard on ARI as of late, but this is good. It seems that Brook and I are finally on the same page. In the latest ARI video, "The Consequences of Enlightenment" (video below), Brooks reinforces the Objectivist idea that the future is neither Left nor Right, but reason vs. irrationality. (I'm guessing Brook's "TDS" has abated enough to see the immediate threat posed by the Left, seeing the speed at which the Biden administration has put the nation on a "rocket sled to hell"..._ So, back to the Objectivist basics: neither Left nor Right, but "radicals for Capitalism."<br /><br />Anyway, a welcome presentation of some great points. If we're going to make it out of our current "endarkenment", to quote Ayn Rand, "Those who fight for the future live in it today." <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bcXxRThVPCY" width="320" youtube-src-id="bcXxRThVPCY"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-50026774911490719712021-06-07T21:38:00.002-04:002021-06-07T21:38:09.476-04:00David Harriman: "A P.S. for my so-called Objectivist friends"<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEI_bl_Oh1LnA4wzF9hz562rssVkKYC4CzCryk9j_RydVEEQaxXwzxPNRto3rLx6AfkO14cKXRipiQq-sckEgy52OhjbK_pn8urI31h5BIVQQzncA7blpkX0fQORbNhcmfHf5b8YMxi6Bq/s800/Betrayal-Quotes-And-Sayings-on-Friendship-and-Love-4.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEI_bl_Oh1LnA4wzF9hz562rssVkKYC4CzCryk9j_RydVEEQaxXwzxPNRto3rLx6AfkO14cKXRipiQq-sckEgy52OhjbK_pn8urI31h5BIVQQzncA7blpkX0fQORbNhcmfHf5b8YMxi6Bq/s320/Betrayal-Quotes-And-Sayings-on-Friendship-and-Love-4.png" /></a></div> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.harriman.100/posts/5534657403273955">The following is a Facebook post from David Harriman</a>. (Formerly of ARI and TOS; <a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/8436348360110486998/6498213694144461024">you might remember him from such kerfuffles as "Harriman and Peikoff vs. McClosky re THE LOGICAL LEAP.</a>..")<br /><br />Anyway, he's back with a brand new kerfuffle:<br /><br /><br /><span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql oi732d6d ik7dh3pa ht8s03o8 a8c37x1j keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 d3f4x2em fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb iv3no6db jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id hzawbc8m" dir="auto">"P.S.
For my so-called Objectivist friends: Stop listening to the absurdities
coming from ARI and TOS. They are supporting your enemies."<br /><br />Well, <i>someone</i> had to say it...<br /><br />Anyway, here's the full post: <br /></span><p></p><div><div dir="auto"><div class="ecm0bbzt hv4rvrfc e5nlhep0 dati1w0a" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id="jsc_c_b7"><div class="j83agx80 cbu4d94t ew0dbk1b irj2b8pg"><div class="qzhwtbm6 knvmm38d"><span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql oi732d6d ik7dh3pa ht8s03o8 a8c37x1j keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 d3f4x2em fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb iv3no6db jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id hzawbc8m" dir="auto"><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span><a class="oajrlxb2 g5ia77u1 qu0x051f esr5mh6w e9989ue4 r7d6kgcz rq0escxv nhd2j8a9 nc684nl6 p7hjln8o kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x jb3vyjys rz4wbd8a qt6c0cv9 a8nywdso i1ao9s8h esuyzwwr f1sip0of lzcic4wl q66pz984 gpro0wi8 b1v8xokw" href="https://www.facebook.com/david.harriman.100?__cft__[0]=AZXOZCBB9bzBfi9wK75KJCz9GgH8jUse0e7iqgJ-IDQET2pNN1qeG5iNYrVzO2p-kohBpcN7iPwASnzyiGgZKh9B1De-0ffk3P4yMm7jkMj9iYeyfYSfGs1yvEewrechdAQ&__tn__=-]K-R" role="link" tabindex="0"><span class="nc684nl6"><span><br /></span></span></a></span></div></div><blockquote><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">American citizens need to wake up before it is too late.<br /><br />The person in the White House (called Biden) is not President. He is a feeble old man suffering from dementia. So the first question is: Who is actually President? <br /><br /></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Some say Obama. He never left DC, where he resides in a home with secure communications. So, in some capacity, Obama may still be President. <br /><br /></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">But Obama was placed in the White House. In 2006, nobody outside Chicago had heard of Obama. In 2008, he is presented as the second coming of Jesus and wins the presidency. <br /><br /></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">The question to ask is: Who is really pulling the strings here? We know about George Soros, who has a history of fixing elections. We know China did everything they could to get Trump out of office, including but not limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. The social and mainstream media, in collusion with the Democratic Party and the CCP, did everything they could. <br /><br /></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">The people running our country were not elected. Let's stop being naive. Wake up and fight back. </div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br />P.S. For my so-called Objectivist friends: Stop listening to the absurdities coming from ARI and TOS. They are supporting your enemies."</div></div></blockquote><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /><br />(Why this matters: "You see, kids, once upon a time...")<br /><div class="post-author-content">
<h4></h4><blockquote><h4>About David Harriman</h4>
<p>
Mr. Harriman is the editor of Journals of Ayn Rand and a
senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. He has worked as a physicist
for the U.S. Department of Defense and he has taught philosophy at
California State University San Bernadino. He has lectured extensively
on the history and philosophy of physics. He is currently writing two
books: one demonstrating the influence of philosophy on modern physics
(The Anti-Copernican Revolution), and another presenting Dr. Leonard
Peikoff’s theory of induction (The Inductive Method in Physics). </p></blockquote><p></p>
</div></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div>Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-38199067248493115922021-04-20T22:42:00.062-04:002021-08-21T16:03:04.521-04:00Timely Meditations: Peikoff and "Religion vs. America"- A Battle For Competition in Morality<p> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivTfcWlF47HvKAr3NK89Wf13jKFu31Gre11AAWkYQpDtiFhQhiTAzUTrKByDs8HBoyMNEw8oXrSMgWV1VIrTWJO6Yj1KtT62SsBNwNmJhJa2mtVtR6H_J3yydDgiF3zqygxhSg9M4tjClf/s1650/reagan.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1650" data-original-width="1275" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivTfcWlF47HvKAr3NK89Wf13jKFu31Gre11AAWkYQpDtiFhQhiTAzUTrKByDs8HBoyMNEw8oXrSMgWV1VIrTWJO6Yj1KtT62SsBNwNmJhJa2mtVtR6H_J3yydDgiF3zqygxhSg9M4tjClf/s320/reagan.jpg" /></a>Leonard Peikoff's essay "<a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/works/religion-versus-america/"><span style="color: #800180;">Religion and America</span></a>" (as published in <i>The Voice of Reason</i>) was primarily aimed at the rise of the "Moral Majority"/"Religious Right" in the 80's as a response to leftist amorality/nihilism. It's been 35 years, and yet, it sounds as contemporary now as it did, then...<br /><br />His opening passages are of particular interest, and present the common abstraction between then and now. Basically, he writes, it boils down to this: </p><p></p><blockquote>Is the New Right the answer to the New Left? What is the relation between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the principles of Americanism? Are Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, as their admirers declare, leading us to a new era of freedom and capitalism—or to something else?</blockquote>He starts by pointing out the legitimate concern of morality, and the Left's lack of it:<br /><p></p><p></p><blockquote>All these groups observed the behavior of the New Left awhile back and concluded, understandably enough, that the country was perishing. They saw the liberals’ idealization of drugged hippies and nihilistic yippies; they saw the proliferation of pornography, of sexual perversion, of noisy Lib and Power gangs running to the Democrats to demand ever more outrageous handouts and quotas; they heard the routine leftist deprecation of the United States and the routine counsel to appease Soviet Russia—and they concluded, with good reason, that what the country was perishing from was a lack of values, of ethical absolutes, of morality.</blockquote><br /><p></p><p></p><p>He then discusses the answer to such nihilsm from the Religious Right:<br /><br /></p><blockquote>Values, the Left retorted, are subjective; no lifestyle (and no country) is better or worse than any other; there is no absolute right or wrong anymore—unless, the liberals added, you believe in some outmoded ideology like religion. Precisely, the New Rightists reply; that is our whole point. There are absolute truths and absolute values, they say, which are the key to the salvation of our great country; but there is only one source of such values: not man or this earth or the human brain, but the Deity as revealed in scripture. The choice we face, they conclude, is the skepticism, decadence, and statism of the Democrats, or morality, absolutes, Americanism, and their only possible base: religion—old-time, Judeo-Christian religion. </blockquote><p></p><p>At one point, he adds: <br /><br /></p><p></p><blockquote>Whatever else you say about him, Mr. Reagan has delivered handsomely on one of his campaign promises: he has given the adherents of religion a prominence in setting the national agenda that they have not had in this country for generations.</blockquote><p></p><p>Now, that was written in 1986. Here, I have to bridge the past and the present. 35 years later, despite the efforts of Objectivists, it is still a battle between religion and "godless communism". Since America has defaulted to the morality of Christianity as its defender, then, what are the fruits of that religious prominence? <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1ZCm8-62vmau6BOvD2IqHjRKUmkTKtZfKG2Y0GI-8kLoxamstaVjwMkXZVmJDHxOZOVY7Mgs80fu51G43JYkbquKQVjouqkQn9XLbff0tUyINu9GYM9TkeJvssdR0kt-QZgSUAkbWnCo/s792/page7flat.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="612" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1ZCm8-62vmau6BOvD2IqHjRKUmkTKtZfKG2Y0GI-8kLoxamstaVjwMkXZVmJDHxOZOVY7Mgs80fu51G43JYkbquKQVjouqkQn9XLbff0tUyINu9GYM9TkeJvssdR0kt-QZgSUAkbWnCo/s320/page7flat.jpg" /></a>Withered. The morals of the Left have gotten worse, if that's even possible. The Left has not only grown in power, so much so that they now fear no repercussions for the nihilism. The Left openly flaunts their "Godless" communism, their belief in the initiation of force against political opponents. But worse, their sexual deviancy has now seemingly justified the religious objections to "alternative sexual lifestyles" as a "slippery slope", as reports of busted child/sex trafficking rings emerge, and many on the left now <span style="color: #800180;"><a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/09/twitter-accused-aiding-child-abuse-allowing-explosion-online/">openly advocate for even pedophilia as an "orientation</a></span>". (And I say that as an "out" homosexual; on this issue, I damn the
libertarians, and stand alongside the Religious Right when matters like
this go beyond consensual acts between adults.) Some try to deny it, but witness the defense by both leftists <i>and </i>libertarians of Disney film director James Gunn for his history of pedophiliac jokes. That's just one example.) Then their is the assault on the idea of family itself. And their embrace of racial identity politics has led to <span style="color: #800180;"><a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/woke-math-and-the-intentional-destruction-of-free-independent-thought/">an assault on reason and logic itself that categorizes such as "racist."</a></span><br /><br />And how did it get to this point? Well, bad philosophy and "Ominous Parallels", and all that. But for their part, the GOP, politically, is basically controlled opposition, either too weak or too corrupt (or both) to mount a serious attack. Even their churches are accused of having been infiltrated. And the surrender of an obviously stolen you-know-what, and the refusal of SCOTUS to even hear the cases, has shown just how weak and complicit the RINO's have been for some time, now. Put a lot of the Obama years into perspective...<br /><br />But here's the thing: Just because the political aspect of the Religious Right has faltered, it doesn't mean their voters have gone away. Just the opposite: If there's any silver lining to Trump's loss, it's that the GOP voter is now awake to just how weak and corrupt their party is. They've seen Fox News sell them out. They're angry, they're disgusted, and worse for the GOP: they no longer trust their supposed political defenders. <br /><br />Peikoff's words then also seem to predict the fall of the GOP in recent times while predicting the rise of a new kind of religious opposition: "Cue-Anon": <br /><br /></p><blockquote>Politicians in America have characteristically given lip service to the platitudes of piety. But the New Right is different. These men seem to mean their religiosity, and they are dedicated to implementing their religious creeds politically; they seek to make these creeds the governing factor in the realm of our personal relations, our art and literature, our clinics and hospitals, and the education of our youth.</blockquote>Just as Peikoff pointed out, there is a legitimate moral crisis in our culture. And the new generation of religious conservatives see it clearly, and that is why they have latched onto the idea of a certain anonymous, so-called "military operation" known as "Cue", who promised to expose the depths of the "crimes against humanity" that has been going on for sometime, including pedophila and satanic rituals. <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiadsW-BvQ0u5XpwvgA5bbF0b89tzkiqt8ZX-6-CMlwC4oSsXmUO4FHOgFBiWG0YVZx4APGVusBRIqmKij0E-GXF8kOxP6NGm-3hx41DA035hh5cNhequxTYiPDF61bLdihxidgqEBNA5F4/s792/fall.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="612" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiadsW-BvQ0u5XpwvgA5bbF0b89tzkiqt8ZX-6-CMlwC4oSsXmUO4FHOgFBiWG0YVZx4APGVusBRIqmKij0E-GXF8kOxP6NGm-3hx41DA035hh5cNhequxTYiPDF61bLdihxidgqEBNA5F4/s320/fall.jpg" /></a></div>About the latter: Now, here's the thing: I may be an atheist, but that does not mean that I do not believe in evil. There's an old saying that goes "The devil's best trick is to convince people that he doesn't exist." Well, I don't have to believe in the supernatural to understand the point. And whether or not I believe in such things as devils, it's enough that those who DO believe in them do, when they act out their satanic beliefs. Evil IS real, and does exist. <br /><br />So, in that, like Peikoff, I agree with the "Kew-anons" who want to stamp out such evil. The sticky-wicket, however, comes into the <i>how</i>. And just like the Religious Right of Peikoff's writing, ours today are offering up the same old tired religious ideas that have failed in the past 35 years. I submit they have failed because they are not geared to life on Earth, but for some Platonic idea of an afterlife, separated from reality. That cannot work. <br /><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /></p><p></p><p>Some of them have called upon the "old ways" of the 80's Religious Right (and some have revealed their own forms of "me-too socialism", as I point out in my <a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2021/04/strange-bedfellows-objectivish-and.html"><span style="color: #ff00fe;">previous post</span></a>): calls to ban porn, re-establish prayer in schools, and other means that would involve government intervention. ( Just recently,<span style="color: #800180;"> </span><a href="https://gab.com/m/posts/106103614621586034"><span style="color: #800180;">Milo Yiannopoulus called for a "state religion" to justify the First Amendment</span>.</a>) Economically, they want to limit free trade by setting price controls, tariffs, etc. Some of that may be justified, in context of taxatation ("America First' is justified if foreign aid and trade is conducted via government at the taxpayer's expense), but other ideas of theirs run counter to the free market that Objectivism proposes (like price controls on medication instead of allowing competition to drive down prices, urging to "buy local", even if it cost more, which is anti-competition ) and puts government in a position beyond the protection of the individual (police, courts, and military). Just as bad, many have turned anti-science and anti-intellectual, surrendering the fields to the Left, because they believe those fields to be "satanic" and anti-faith. (No, seriously; they believe the presence of "luciferase" in vaccines is literally Lucifer. Whatever criticism one wants to present against rushed, untested vaccines, I just can't get behind <i>that </i>one. But again, just as with actual Satanists, it doesn't matter if I believe that, it's enough that <i>they, </i>the Christians<i>, </i>do...And the use of Gematria, or "the bible code", in interpreting current events really took off under the "Kew-anon" phenomenon.) They argue against the idea of separation of church and state, and maintain that the Constitution guarantees freedom <i>of</i> religion, not <i>from</i>. That, of course, is at odds with Objectivism, but America itself. </p><p>Now, sure, there are some good things to be found. Even Rand and Peikoff gave "credit to the angels where due", re the idea of individual salvation, for one) but they are
compromised by the supernatural, anti-human, anti-this world attitude.
And, I submit, that the good aspects are either common-sense, or things
that can be separated from their religious counterparts anyway. In other
words, I stand with Rand when she challenged the religious monopoly on
morals.<br /></p><p>(In some ways, this might be seen as a good thing: when compared to the religious terrorism of Islam, Christians are pretty tame, a point made by even some Objectivish defenders of Christianity, who point out that Islam never had a reformation like Christianity did, and that's why we see so few "Christian terrorists". But that just means they're largely defanged; the epistemological premises are still the same. But that's not to discount the aggressive Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church, or the anti-abortionists who shoot doctors, or those who approve of, or rationalize biblical genocide, including children, as found in the Old Testament story of Moses and the Midianites.)<br /><br />Contrast this passive approach with the active Objectivist approach. It says that redemption is not to be found in the next world, but this one. That this world is not "Fallen", nor is humanity, but that it is a "benevolent universe" with evolving morality. The Christians would surrender this world to the next; the Objectivists fight for this one; "Those who fight for the future live in it today." The Christian believes that the purpose of life in this world is to suffer; the Objectivist, to thrive. Most importantly, because the Objectivist doesn't see any dichotomy between life and morality in this world, they do no believe in passive surrender of it to tyranny and the immoral, the nihilists. <br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIOIExNEwfHJmwqE8JKIZHcV1mn4tHLExoe1eNM0Y7HCpvFz9-GMScNz8wloQ79o-1ZCAGvgXPlPDqvqKAlD1hsEXijR1ZOYouLRz4w8kqQTtJ5Iys8Q1weWvffiOxMA2hxkNl-UndG4iR/s792/page2flat.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="576" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIOIExNEwfHJmwqE8JKIZHcV1mn4tHLExoe1eNM0Y7HCpvFz9-GMScNz8wloQ79o-1ZCAGvgXPlPDqvqKAlD1hsEXijR1ZOYouLRz4w8kqQTtJ5Iys8Q1weWvffiOxMA2hxkNl-UndG4iR/s320/page2flat.jpg" /></a></div>So, to sum up: Peikoff's words in '86 are playing out again. How it will play out is anyone's guess. But one thing is certain: if the nation is to survive what appears to be a literal takeover into dictatorship and nihilists, it can't be left in the hands of prayer and passivity. But, more importantly: whatever the fate of the American nation-state (and even if it falls, or turns into something new), if any semblence of America's<i> ideals</i> are to remain, the moral and intellectual battle cannot be surrendered to the monopoly of religion. Even if one does not put much stock in the Ayn Rand Institute, or even an Objectivist movement per se as the answer (or even in <i>Objectivism: The Philosophy and Personal Property and Trademark of Ayn Rand,</i> *All Rights Reserved, Void Where Prohibited, alone, as the answer), if one is committed to the <i>ideals </i>that Objectivism defends, then it is imperative to fight for them, today, from a rational, this-worldly standpoint, and against both the Left <i>and</i> the Right, when the latter diverges from both freedom and reality.<br /><br />With that said...<br /><p></p><p></p><blockquote> "Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but never have been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours.” </blockquote><br /><br />(Images shown are from my original graphic novel, <i>A Show of Hands: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes In Exile</i>)<br /><p></p>Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-84521942462724218192021-04-18T22:50:00.020-04:002021-05-25T20:18:28.253-04:00Strange Bedfellows: The Objectivish and the Religious Right vs. the Left in a Post-Trump America? (Or, "What Can One Do?")<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA9TWjaxA-TguD77ESm-EYEc4__C5U-GOHd121aquPsaJFhsQO7zNaQGxx2kHdMAjkpY3itpDV4C0tLeMMAt-BbE3devot5JWFJZhI2Y2JXKE6xWrvchlbNimxX1TAla2vmebaExGZP09S/s540/a-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="487" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA9TWjaxA-TguD77ESm-EYEc4__C5U-GOHd121aquPsaJFhsQO7zNaQGxx2kHdMAjkpY3itpDV4C0tLeMMAt-BbE3devot5JWFJZhI2Y2JXKE6xWrvchlbNimxX1TAla2vmebaExGZP09S/s320/a-3.jpg" /></a></div><br />It is now 2021, and the Deep State has, by all appearances, taken control of a post-Trump America. So, what's next? <br /><br />
I see many Objectivists thinking that it's a good thing, that now, the blame for the fall of capitalism will be where it belongs, with the Democrats. The logic behind that is that the Republicans, via the Religious Right, only pay lip-service to capitalism and freedom while ultimately undermining it, philosophically. I still personally balk at the arguments of Yaron Brook and the Ayn Rand Institute; I don't think they take the threat of the left seriously <i>enough</i>. And the the idea of giving the Left any kind of power via voting, even in protest, even if it means their downfall in the long run, still smacks of folly (because, to invoke Keynes, they'd bring us down with them.) That said...I get it. <br /><br />
Look, I appreciate that conservatives are loudly speaking out against socialism right now. But that's only on the surface. Scratch a conservative, and you get a "me-too socialist." Rand and Peikoff were right about that much. (And now would be a good time to suggest a re-read of Peikoff's "<a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/works/religion-versus-america/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #800180;">Religion vs. America</span>"</a>, <span style="color: #800180;"><span style="color: black;">in</span></span> <i>The Voice of Reason</i>, which can be read it<a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/works/religion-versus-america/" target="_blank"> </a><span style="color: #800180;"><i><a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/works/religion-versus-america/" target="_blank">here</a></i>.</span>)<br /><br />For two recent examples:
The first is from Christian comic book artist Mike S. Miller, a former DC Comics and <i>Game of Thrones</i> artist, who has been basically blacklisted from the industry for his pro-Trump stance. He has been been, admirably, a vocal critic of the left and socialism, which he justifies via his Christianity and apologetics. And he has mocked the Nietzschean description of Christianity as a "slave morality." And yet, in a recent live stream, he shows Nietzsche correct: <br /><br /><blockquote>
“God ordered the flood. If you really have a problem with him ordering the genocide of a small group of people, boy what kind of issues do you have with him genociding the entire planet? It's his will, we are his to birth, we are his to kill.” </blockquote><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/isPgcc1Dq0M" width="320" youtube-src-id="isPgcc1Dq0M"></iframe></div><br /><br />
And then, there's Andrew Torba, who heads GAB, the Christian alternative to the back-door government censorship of Twitter. To his credit, Torba has done exactly what Objectivists advise: created his own platform. But once again, it's an example of a pro-freedom, pro-liberty stance being undercut by Christian theology, as evidenced by<a href="https://gab.com/a/posts/106058913507826395" target="_blank"> <span style="color: #800180;">his recent comment at GAB</span></a>, as shown below: <br /> <br /><blockquote>
"The individualism on the right is what destroys the right. Everyone thinks they are the "leader of the movement" or whatever and all it does it creates division. No one wants to support other people or work together they all think they can do everything on their own. The left wins because of their collectivism. The right loses because of atomized individualism and ego."
</blockquote><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhY-8t1gFTL4j48DIWng9bXRtuHb4WT9HgorBIWtZO2fxdRNl1F4266g7egFUQRTfTamWmbQvO_1cA4SIZq3oJLQkQCfN_YxHa0zbgOSpQUf1q64sXL93Sl4qRo02qXCiD7i2uT74yF3GW/s1162/torba.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="744" data-original-width="1162" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhY-8t1gFTL4j48DIWng9bXRtuHb4WT9HgorBIWtZO2fxdRNl1F4266g7egFUQRTfTamWmbQvO_1cA4SIZq3oJLQkQCfN_YxHa0zbgOSpQUf1q64sXL93Sl4qRo02qXCiD7i2uT74yF3GW/s320/torba.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /> <br /><br />
Well, then...wither the Objectivish? As the old song goes, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right; here I am, stuck in the middle with you." Honestly, I don't know how this will go down, or how to advise one to proceed; I'm still trying to figure that out, myself. This is unprecedented, and we are not in positions of significant authority. But one thing I do know: we may not be in the majority, but now is not the time to surrender the intellectual ground to the Religious Right.
Once again, it's a good time to remember Rand's warning about working alongside ideological "strange bedfellows": <br /><br /><blockquote>
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, that 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.<br /><br />
The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very vigilantly).<br /><br />
“What Can One Do?”, <i>Philosophy: Who Needs It?</i></blockquote><i></i><br />Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-16606545164169262712020-06-14T22:55:00.057-04:002021-10-20T22:48:05.297-04:00From COVID to Chaos: Anarchy vs. Minarchy and the Second American Civil War (Revised 10/20/21)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcy3TP0FfqvnID48ZWQdFJUANfReUuiY2giquy4U5CkVHO57BLsQB5lu5MqW82M3IU-QRVx8MIZkl5-qffrb5j1Zzvghnn7adz7oLOu4-ERpC9NyzQ8um9SjGwy7jEBFc42Wgm_AerzC-b/s900/external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="900" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcy3TP0FfqvnID48ZWQdFJUANfReUuiY2giquy4U5CkVHO57BLsQB5lu5MqW82M3IU-QRVx8MIZkl5-qffrb5j1Zzvghnn7adz7oLOu4-ERpC9NyzQ8um9SjGwy7jEBFc42Wgm_AerzC-b/s320/external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>"In which the author comes to terms with his personal conclusion that
there will never be a satisfactory conclusion to the never-ending, Mobius strip of an argument that is the
anarchist/minarchist debate, thus alienating himself from both the minarchists and the anarchists."<br />
<br />
From the middle of March to the
middle of June, 2020, we've gone from shutting down the country over
fears of COVID19 to near-outright civil war. Anyone who's read this blog
for a while knows I've been warning about the latter for years, and
often shared this quote from 2009 by <a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2010/04/billy-beck-man-against-state.html?q=koestler">Billy Beck: "All politics in the country is simply dress rehearsal for civil war."</a> But while I knew it was coming, I never knew if I'd see it in my lifetime. But here were are, now...and the ages-old debate between the minarchists and "anarchists"* in the Objectivish/libertarian circles has moved from theory to playing out in real life. For years, I've been lured by both sides in which way to go. But watching it play out in real-time, I'm finding both lacking as the endgame. <br />
<br />
I have a theory that the minarchist/anarchist debate is a false dichotomy. <span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql oi732d6d ik7dh3pa ht8s03o8 a8c37x1j keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 d3f4x2em fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb iv3no6db jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v b1v8xokw oo9gr5id" dir="auto">(I've personally thought "autarchy" was a better alternative to the word "anarchy", anyway.) </span>Mainly, the dichotomy lies in the idea of the monopoly of force being given to a separate group of people, civilian vs. defense. I'm not referring to a <i>voluntary</i> division of labor, but the forced delegation of authority, when ultimately, since society is made of individuals, then the responsibility falls on the individuals in that society, whether civilian or defense, to maintain the integrity of said society.<br /><br />
<br />
There's got to be a better way. <br />
<br />
Clearly, a group of people have the right to band together to act against a dangerous individual, or individuals, set on initiating force. And conversely, an individual or group of individuals have the right to act against a tyrannical state. The question comes down to <i>how</i>.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that there are <i>no</i> objective standards involved in the assessment of values as they relate to the use and governance of force, that it's down to subjective value. Just as a state has to answer for the abuse of power, so does an individual if something goes wrong: false accusations, hurting innocent bystanders, etc. "With great power comes great responsibility", and many simply aren't up to that challenge. I also disagree with the concept of "competing governments", if that means competing defense agencies with differing views on the retaliatory use of force that violate the individual and rights. <br /><br />And when anarchism is justified on the basis of subjectivism, then I strongly agree with Leonard Peikoff when, he states in OPAR: <br /><br />
<div class="page" title="Page 391">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span></span></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span><span><span>The citizens of a proper society should reply to such a
subjectivist as follows. "Don't delegate your right of self-
defense, if that is your choice. But if you act on your viewpoint—if you resort to the use of force against any of us—we
will answer you by force. Our government will answer you,
in the only terms you yourself make possible."
</span></span></span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span><span>
</span></span></span><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span><span><span>It is a contradiction to assert one's right to use force as
one chooses, while demanding that others refrain from organizing to protect themselves. Whoever breaks the laws of a
proper government, no matter what his philosophic reasons,
becomes thereby a criminal, and men are morally bound to
treat him as such.
</span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span></span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
But I disagree with Rand that a <i>government</i> should have a <i>monopoly</i> on the <i>retaliatory </i>use of force. Why? Because I question Rand's use of the word "monopoly", as well, since she allowed for the individual's use of retaliatory use of force in emergencies, so is that <i>really</i> a monopoly? And as the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away." Not only that, but Rand revealed the holes in her theory when she admitted (see <i>Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A</i>) that she didn't have a good answer to the question of gun control. So hers is hardly the final say on the matter. <br /><br />Here, I'm compelled to mention<u> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/billy.beck.18/posts/10205599990620510" target="_blank">the claim, put forth by Billy Beck, that Rand's mistake was in separating her politics from her ethics in the matter of government.</a></u> I'm also compelled to mention the argument put forth by Jeff Riggenbach in <i>In Praise of Decadence</i>, where he paints a picture of "two Ayn Rands", the minarchist, and the anarchist side as depicted in Galt's Gulch. Now, I disagree with much in that book (see my review <b><a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2009/11/review-of-in-praise-of-decadence-by.html?q=decadence" target="_blank"><i>here</i></a></b><u>)</u>. In response to such claims, Rand denied that the Gulch was an anarchist society. Still, there is an aspect to it that lends itself to that interpretation, the idea of the heroes as "outlaws", and back to Beck's comment, it would imply that the heroes in <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> integrated "their politics with their ethics" in their rebellion; for example, when Rearden rejects the court's authority to try him. But the Objectivist answer is that: a. the heroes were not acting on whim, but on objective principles, and b. it is the government in <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> that were the <i>true</i> outlaws: "A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral
prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an
outlaw." ("Collectivized Rights", "The Virtue of Selfishness". ) And yet, the heroes do exactly what Rand said shouldn't happen, when she said that "The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens." The heroes of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> at their own discretion<i>. (Especially </i>Ragnar Daneskjold<i>.)</i> It could be said that this is a matter of <i>context</i>; it was the government that was the <i>cause </i>of the dispute. But then, how to create a government that's immune to such corruption? Talk about your "Gordian Knot". I'm tempted to invoke "the consent of the governed" here as a sword to cut that knot: Per Rand, “The source of the government’s authority is 'the consent of the governed.' This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose." But even that becomes insufficient if such consent, or non-consent, is based on less-than-rational reasons. And her own arguments against "competing governments" would seem to suggest that. So, then, the argument becomes a vicious circle. The only thing that will even fray such a knot, then, is mutual trust and respect, earned and justified. Nothing less will do. <br /><br /> So, then: <a href="http://objectivish.blogspot.com/2010/01/set-watchman.html?q=watchmen">"Who watches the watchmen?"</a> Rand rejected the idea that government, while potentially dangerous, was inherently evil. Regarding the implementation of law:<br /><br /><blockquote> “Many errors and many disagreements are possible in the field of implementation, but what is essential here is the principle to be implemented: the principle that the purpose of law and of government is the protection of individual rights.” -<br />"The Nature of Government", <i>The Virtue of Selfishness</i></blockquote><br />Despite her acknowledgement that the government is the biggest potential threat to freedom, that's a question I don't believe Rand ever answered satisfactorily, her invocation of an "objective robot night watchmen" being the stuff of science-fiction. (More on that to come below.) But then, maybe it would be Utopian to expect her to be able to do so. But oddly, some anarchists who claim that government is inherently evil say that Rand was employing a "malevolent universe premise" by saying that the individual couldn't be trusted with retaliatory force, or that chaos would break out in the absence of government. This leads to a strange inversion of the idea that since government is made up of people, and if people are capable of doing bad, then it would be folly to give a monopoly on force to government (since "government is people"). If people, without government interference, can get along happily, guided by Hayek's notion of "spontaneous order" (<span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;">"the product of human action but not of human design,"), then why wouldn't government be a result of that harmonious "spontaneous order"? And again, here we go' round the Mobius strip...<br /><br />I briefly address this in my review of Riggenbach's <i>In Praise of Decadence</i>: <br /></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;">But
what place is there for reason in Riggenbach's argument? Quoting Hayek,
who defined "spontaneous order" as "the product of human action but not
of human design," Riggenbach seems to argue from a teleological
viewpoint of final causation: "the natural order of human society, with
which rulers and planners tinker at their peril." This simply replaces
the authority of "God" or "the State" with the dictates of "human
nature" (an "ecological" conception.) While there is the maxim that
"nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed," Hayek's formulation
eliminates the reasoning mind with blind action, which is no guarantee
of freedom. (A full analysis of Hayek's nuanced views on reason are
beyond the scope of this review, but one notable comparison between
Hayek and Rand and their view of reason is found in Chris Matthew
Sciabarra's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Chris-Matthew-Sciabarra/dp/0271014415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258736607&sr=1-1">Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical</a></i>.)
And although Riggenbach celebrates human creativity and technology,
"human action without human design" does not lead to innovation, but to
the retrogression found in Rand's analysis of the </span><span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Left-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011256">New Left's "Anti-Industrial Revolution.</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" face=""verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;"></span></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
I think Rand had the right impetus by saying that the use<i> </i>of <i>retaliatory</i> force should be guided by objective principle, but disagree with her implementation. It gives too much power to an elite that is hard to revoke if/when that elite grows beyond their intended scope. It also robs the ability of the individual and the citizenry, in general, to keep tyrants in check. (It also undermines their responsibility to "refresh the tree of Liberty", as may be needed, from time to time...)<br />
<br />
My understanding of Rand's insistence on a government's monopoly on the retaliatory use of force is that she is taking her cue from Isabel Paterson's arguments in <i>The God of the Machine</i>. (Paterson's metaphor of "the dynamo" involves a mechanical governance of direction of energy.) This is implied in Rand's comment from "The Nature of Government": <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws. The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.</blockquote>
<br />
Well, we don't have that impersonal robot (and I doubt such a thing is possible, let alone desirable, if science fiction has taught us anything...) In the absence of such, we are, and maybe always will be, saddled with a less-than-perfect system; such is the price of free will. But the point is valid: whim/caprice has to be checked by both the individual AND any form of government in the use of force, if there is to be mutual trust. A fool-proof method of this is probably a Utopian pipe dream. But we don't have to take Rand literally in her description of that "impersonal robot". It's the principle behind it, of objectivity, that counts. What I propose is not a monopoly of the use of force by certain appointed people, but a monopoly of the principles in guiding that force that all who employ it, if/when needed, must adhere to and answer to. If people are going to live in a society, there needs to be a partnership of all the people <i>of sound mind-and-body</i> in that society, who are dedicated to the restrictions of force under those objective principles that limit retaliatory force to self-defense and the protection of others from force. There is no other way. It has to be a joint effort, based on mutual respect and trust, or else it delves into top-down tyranny or gang-warfare.<br />
<br />
As to how this affects minarchists and anarchists: Well, if the minarchist is sincere about limited government, there should be no objection to a check on governments that abuse their role. And if the "rational anarcho-capitalist" is sincere when they say that anarchy only means "no rulers"**, and not, as Objectivists claim (see Peter Schwart's "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty"), "no rules", then they should have no problem limiting their retaliatory use of force to those objective principles guiding the retaliatory use of force, meaning not "whim-based". Both sides, then, should be able to hold themselves accountable. But: Accountable to whom?<br />
<br />
<i>Reality</i> is the final authority in ethics, is it not? The anarchists might object, saying that they are accountable to no one but their own judgement ("mind your own business, this doesn't concern you"), while the statist might for themselves that they are "above the law", or "too big to fail".) But again, "with great power comes great responsibility." ("Responsibility" to whom? Even if the private individual acts in retaliation not out of whim, but objectively, there's still the possibility of mistakes in execution of said retaliation. There are innocent people who may be affected by their actions, for starters, or their families/interested parties of the innocent who may be adversely effected...responsible for mistakes that may be made...is the person insured if they make a mistake in carrying out justice? Etc...) And even if they deny others the right to hold them accountable, the Objectivist answer to that is: "<i>Reality</i> is the final arbiter of ethics." <br />
<br />
<br />
The problem is that...well, the problem is that "reality" too often works <i>too slow</i>...and because reality doesn't give a damn, and doesn't work on our timetable...conversely, maybe more accurately, people get away with too much for too long, and evil flourishes, because of "good men who do nothing." "Sanction of the victim", and all that. Reality doesn't intervene as much as it does shrugs, grabs the popcorn, sits back, and lets the ruination play out on its own.<br />
<br />
So, then, if we don't want to die a slow death of a thousand cuts, and actually progress, we're either back to a defensive war, or back to the joint-effort. Easier said than done, right? The question, if the premise is accepted, is "how"? <br />
<br />
I will agree that "it's earlier than you think." It's a work in progress. And I don't presume I have all the answers. Hell, who has? And while I do believe what I said is on solid ground, philosophically, well, y'all ain't listening to <i>me</i>. Why would they, when Founders like Hamilton corrupted the Constitution, and the remaining good parts are being attacked, today? One can point to "checks and balances" as one method. That's a partial
method, as it still puts the power in the hands of a select few (and like there couldn't be collusion between those split powers? C'mon.) I could point to
the original concept of "well-regulated militias", but that was a concept that was
diluted over time by proponents of an all-powerful state, We're seeing
the effects of that dilution, today (though we are starting to see some
resurgence of those militias, in response). And again, while I do believe what I said is on solid ground, philosophically, well, y'all ain't listening to <i>me</i>, so...now what? <br />
<br />
Because ours is a society of mixed premises, there is no one label or group I can fully get behind. And yet, while I may <i>mentally</i> live "in the world, but not of it", I'm still<i> physically</i> in this "crazy, mixed-up world". Rand wrote that “Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.” Well, If I could, I'd take my cue from Lao-Tzu and just go climb a mountain somewhere, and let everyone devour each other 'round the ol' cannibal pot, but this has gone too global, now. (Hell, they arrested someone hiding up on a mountain for violating "social distancing" rules. WTF?) And since I still can't breathe in outer space, to quote Pink Floyd, I'm still "just an earth-bound misfit, I...". So, to the extent that I have no other choice, or recourse to solitude, "here I am, stuck in the middle with you."<br />
<br />
That said, I will take my cue from Rand's advice in her essay "What Can One Do?": "The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree."<br />
<br />
So, I'll be looking past the labels, and will be looking for those individuals or groups that have committed themselves to the goal of protecting individual liberty, while not allowing them to simultaneously undermine it in the process. But, with <i>that</i> said, if no such groups can be found? Then, good luck <i>without me. <br />
</i><br />
As to the future? To the "how" of it? If I've learned anything about progress, it's that it's rarely achieved in a straight line, but often through a series of "wrong left-turns at Alburquerque." But as a map, I will point to a quote by the late Ronald Merrill, whose sums up my thoughts exactly: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There was a time when capitalism was<i> new</i>, when representative government was <i>new.</i>
The future will hold undreamed-of ways of organizing society. They will
be as unfamiliar to us as laissez faire was to the Mercantilists. The
society of the future cannot simply evolve, though, it must be invented.
That is our job. When are we going to get to work?"</blockquote>
When, indeed? It seems it's both earlier and later than we think. Still, onward.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">-----------------------------------------------<br /><br />* To be clear, I'm referring to "anarcho-capitalists of the libertarian kind, and not the stereotypical image that often comes to mind, as described in the following quote by Hayek: <br /><br /><br /><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="ecm0bbzt hv4rvrfc e5nlhep0 dati1w0a" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id="jsc_c_1ez"><div class="j83agx80 cbu4d94t ew0dbk1b irj2b8pg"><div class="qzhwtbm6 knvmm38d"><span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql oi732d6d ik7dh3pa ht8s03o8 a8c37x1j keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 d3f4x2em fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb iv3no6db jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v b1v8xokw oo9gr5id hzawbc8m" dir="auto"><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"></div></div><blockquote><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">"To the average American or Englishman the very name of anarchy causes a shudder, because it invariably conjures up a picture of a land terrorized by low-browed assassins with matted beards, carrying bombs in one hand and mugs of beer in the other. But as a matter of fact, there is no reason whatever to believe that, if all laws were abolished tomorrow, such swine would survive the day. They are incompetents under our present paternalism and they would be incompetents under Dionysian anarchy. The only difference between the two states is that the former, by its laws, protects men of this sort, whereas the latter would work their speedy annihilation."</div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">(H. L. Mencken -- "Friedrich Nietzsche", 1913; Transaction Publishers edition, 1993, pp. 196-197)</div></div></blockquote><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><br /><br /><br />**At rebirthofreason.com, during a discussion of the definitions of various and sundry "archys", </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">someone once commented on the etymology of "anarchy" to point out that there was "no such thing as an anarchon." I found the argument rather pedantic, and too nit-picky to take seriously. But, since I'm a completionist, here it is. And who knows; maybe I missed something, there.<br /><br />http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0217.shtml#5<br /><br /><blockquote>There is no such word as anarchon. An-arkh-ia is a the state of <i>no rule</i>, whether republic, oligarchy, monarchy or even autarchy - self rule..<br /><br />Are
you telling me... that your entire political philosophy is based up
faulty arguments drawn from ignorance of Greek and the actual meaning
of words?<br /><br />You need to stop preaching to minarchists that you
oppose archons, and are hence anarchists. An archon is simply a
magistrate. I am not sure whether your ignorance or the arrogance with
which you preach it surprises me more, and I wonder just how widespread
your error is.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>There is no such thing as an anarchon. There is a ruler, the Archon,
(as in the nine Archons of Athens) spelled with an omega. There <i>is</i> the <i>adjective</i>
anarchos, without a (legitimate) ruler, the neuter of which does happen
to be anarchon, but with an omicron. But this, as a word, does not
derive from "not Archon." The period without the Archons is called the
period of the thirty tyrants. A lack of Archons is hardly a lack of
rulers. That should tell you something! Confusing the two is kind of
like treating the s plural as the same as the posessive s, or the third
person s, or better yet, like equating "without a Governor" and
"ungoverned."</blockquote><br /><br /></div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-89443780205071090472020-05-31T14:37:00.003-04:002021-11-18T00:43:50.157-05:00Yaron Brook: Useful Twit-iot<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="row vg-header">
<div class="col">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Definition of <i>useful idiot</i></div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="sb-0"></span><br />
<div class="sense no-subnum">
<span class="sb-0"><span class="dt "><span class="dtText"><b class="mw_t_bc">: </b>a
naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to
advance a cause or political agenda
<span class="ex-sent first-child t has-aq sents">It is one
task of the KGB [in 1982] to apply its skills of secrecy and deception
to projecting the Soviet party's influence. This it does through
contacts with legal Communist Parties abroad, with groups sympathetic to
Soviet goals, with do-gooders of the type that Lenin once described as "<span class="mw_t_wi">useful idiots</span>" … .</span></span></span></span></div>
<span class="sb-0">
</span></blockquote>
<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/useful%20idiot">-Merriam Webster, "Useful Idiot"</a><br />
<br />
To <a href="https://twitter.com/yaronbrook/status/1266383981643272192?s=20">Yaron Brook</a>, "Grand Poobah" of ARI, as you <a href="https://twitter.com/yaronbrook/status/1266383981643272192?s=20">shill for the leftists at Twitter</a>:
You've been worse than useless in this fight, you concrete-bound
Obleftivist sell-out. You need to read between the lines, and the
writing on the wall, re: the reality of the back-door censorship by the
Deep State. But what else would I expect of you? <a href="http://www.solopassion.com/node/10691#comment-129826">Are you, in fact, enjoying Soros money? </a>At the very least, <a href="http://ariwatch.com/TheAmericanSpirit.htm">you've already dismissed any concerns about him as "conspiracy"</a>, while telling Objectivists to vote for Hillary Clinton, and therefore, have lost all credibility as an ally against the left. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #141414; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"></span></div>
<span style="color: #141414; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Mr. Brook continues, saying this election shows</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #141414; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">“...
a fundamental change in the electorate, in its attitude toward ... what
America stands for. ... I know many of you listening hate the Left more
than anything else. And many of you ... have bought into all kinds of
conspiracy theories about the Left. They’re gonna take over the world,
George Soros and all this stuff.”</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="comp article-heading mntl-text-block" id="article-heading_2-0" style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/news/george-soros-adds-facebook-apple-twitter-13f/">"George Soros Adds Facebook, Apple, Twitter": </a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp1RadRYe0OPaxfo6C0iPHkBryjtz4ekK41-e1u1FimdSyuUUE2MFI_DQRiwzsDBsWm8zR_k8mDzEP8lbZgTsv8RWY3GOAXiAr0op-Ymh7hWWbL_psaFzliU7l06nOA8xs6pTXFRqQO7TX/s1600/after-calling-social-media-menace-to-society-george-soros-now-51935729.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="467" data-original-width="500" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp1RadRYe0OPaxfo6C0iPHkBryjtz4ekK41-e1u1FimdSyuUUE2MFI_DQRiwzsDBsWm8zR_k8mDzEP8lbZgTsv8RWY3GOAXiAr0op-Ymh7hWWbL_psaFzliU7l06nOA8xs6pTXFRqQO7TX/s320/after-calling-social-media-menace-to-society-george-soros-now-51935729.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
To sum up: Yaron Brook: Useful Idiot. </div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-61141312253962110102020-05-30T15:59:00.001-04:002020-05-30T21:52:23.737-04:00Apollo vs. Dionysus Revisited: SPACE X Dragon vs. the George Floyd Protests in Covid19 America<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
An apt description of current events as any, based, of course, on Ayn Rand's comparison of Apollo 11 vs. Woodstock. <br />
<br />
(Hat tip to Jeff Falk for the observation over at Facebook. Jeff's blog,<a href="https://menckens-ghost.blogspot.com/"> Mencken's Ghost, here:</a>)<br />
<br />
(Text version here: <a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/works/apollo-and-dionysus/">"Apollo Vs. Dionysus")</a><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TIX4jCZDN_Q" width="480"></iframe></div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-68919132891838801082020-04-30T20:40:00.001-04:002020-05-31T14:46:21.349-04:00COVID 19: Adam Schiff, Ayn Rand, and "Censorship: Local and Express"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNLO9uFaMYKSThs7aKfInG8X3k3qWFWMN86GjbkLKzhjBCi9bTIkeilVw-3uzt35b5MKOk54m3sdlkZHDFdybOaEGu6deX0Eg_mox6-FLYxr53Fi9RGshmxybbLjS0O_PzLcUbRFxUxN_j/s1600/IMG_8897.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="673" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNLO9uFaMYKSThs7aKfInG8X3k3qWFWMN86GjbkLKzhjBCi9bTIkeilVw-3uzt35b5MKOk54m3sdlkZHDFdybOaEGu6deX0Eg_mox6-FLYxr53Fi9RGshmxybbLjS0O_PzLcUbRFxUxN_j/s320/IMG_8897.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Adam Schiff? Cuffy Meigs? Or Orren Boyle? </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Just a little over two years ago, I published a blog post <a href="https://objectivish.blogspot.com/2018/04/government-by-intimidation-or-free.html" target="_blank">here</a> entitled: "Government by Intimidation, or, Free Speech on the Brink." It was written about the efforts by Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc to limit or ban conservative views and speech. In it, I addressed the calls from conservatives to pass legislation for equal access, and the retorts by libertarians and Objectivists that such platforms were private, and that only governments can censor. While I agree, in principle, that private platforms should have the right to limit speech, and that alternative platforms should be created, I questioned the context of the reality, because it wasn't just social media that was being limited. There was demonstrable government interference in social media and financial platforms making it difficult for conservatives to do so. I suggested the possibility of "backdoor censorship": <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"But should full, outright censorship be permitted to happen BEFORE a
stand is taken? For all the valid points made by some Objectivists
against regulating social media, etc, I still think they are ignoring
the back-door censorship that is happening, while counting on the moral
and ideological restraints held by proponents on freedom to keep them
from acting until it's too late (i.e., once the guns are confiscated).
And, of course, they invoke Ayn Rand in doing so." </blockquote>
<br />
I was right. Two years later, it's no longer so covert. With the world upside down, and the left losing control of the narrative, the rats are trapped in a corner, and it's out in the open:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/head-house-intelligence-adam-schiff-demands-google-youtube-twitter-step-authoritative-censorship-silencing/">"Head of House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff Demands Google-YouTube-Twitter Step Up their ‘Authoritative’ Censorship and Silencing"</a><br />
<br />
"On Thursday Rep. Adam Schiff, the most dishonest and compulsive liar in
Congress, sent a letter to the CEOs of Google, YouTube and Twitter to
urge them to use their “authoritative” powers to censor and silence
voices during the coronavirus pandemic."<br />
<br />
What say you now, Objectivists?<br />
<br />
[5/30/20: To <a href="https://twitter.com/yaronbrook/status/1266383981643272192?s=20">Yaron Brook</a>, "Grand Poobah" of ARI, as you <a href="https://twitter.com/yaronbrook/status/1266383981643272192?s=20">shill for the leftists at Twitter</a>: You've been worse than useless in this fight, you concrete-bound Obleftivist sell-out. You need to read between the lines, and the writing on the wall, re: the reality of the back-door censorship by the Deep State. But what else would I expect of you? Are you, in fact, enjoying Soros money?]</div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-80375136382542865192020-04-26T23:16:00.003-04:002020-04-26T23:16:41.945-04:00COVID 19: Excerpts from Ayn Rand's "The Ethics of Emergencies"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXds7HULfXmHt2qIpkzDqCZKOW8qacLTS6ficlWt46eVGqz-qP7CxLOoMLU8WBuaVqmp2YZEvab1GDHPn3LWAmoSfm5MXxk-JP7XN57gShlro1wG8UmNCPX4jcF85QDnHaIyAq6fnlKjRh/s1600/In-case-img.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1424" data-original-width="1440" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXds7HULfXmHt2qIpkzDqCZKOW8qacLTS6ficlWt46eVGqz-qP7CxLOoMLU8WBuaVqmp2YZEvab1GDHPn3LWAmoSfm5MXxk-JP7XN57gShlro1wG8UmNCPX4jcF85QDnHaIyAq6fnlKjRh/s320/In-case-img.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The following is a selection of passages relevant to the COVID19 crisis from Ayn Rand's "The Ethics of Emergencies", as published in <i>The Virtue of Selfishness</i>. (Though I may be skirting the boundaries of "fair use", I hope that her estate will understand that I do so in the context that the country, nay, <i>the world,</i> is, in fact, in a state of emergency. Whether the real emergency is the virus, or the government's draconian interference in dealing with it, now that is another story, altogether...)<br />
<br />
"It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions."<br />
<br />
"An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.). "<br />
<br />
"By “normal” conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish."<br />
<br />
"It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh47yuVRGgjT09PyGej7Ux8vO2yZgje8b4sOjWQ28eRBD0iXadOqR0pHZEjo0cwEUmW19ComBxH07Nobeo5BOqv8LSaSGvZRDWB6c8I1V6pXfQ2gABM6Mvzbhfdfb_Sv0ifqDS2VKLBPPtv/s1600/51AQaK5Tx6L._SX309_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="311" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh47yuVRGgjT09PyGej7Ux8vO2yZgje8b4sOjWQ28eRBD0iXadOqR0pHZEjo0cwEUmW19ComBxH07Nobeo5BOqv8LSaSGvZRDWB6c8I1V6pXfQ2gABM6Mvzbhfdfb_Sv0ifqDS2VKLBPPtv/s200/51AQaK5Tx6L._SX309_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" width="125" /></a></div>
"Or to take an example that can occur in everyday life: suppose one hears that the man next door is ill and penniless. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out. But this does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one’s life looking for starving men to help."<br />
<br />
"In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune happening to others. He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human survival is impossible."<br />
<br />
"Observe also that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men’s normal existence and that they always offer “lifeboat” situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. ('What should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one?' etc.) The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats—and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one’s metaphysics."<br />
<br />
"The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental —as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence—and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life. "<br />
<br />
Ayn Rand; Nathaniel Branden. The virtue of selfishness: a new concept of egoism (Kindle Locations 863-868). Signet/New American Library. </div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-61483297501762399172020-04-26T22:58:00.001-04:002020-04-26T23:22:05.923-04:00COVID-19: "The Ethics of Emergencies", or, the ARI on Taking Government Money in the Pandemic<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This has always been a controversial topic within the Objectivist community, with both Rand's critics and supporters. Her critics have tried to smear her as a hypocrite, but they usually ignore her arguments in "The Question of Scholarships", or "The Ethics of Emergencies". In both, she presents the proper context for Objectivists to offer or accept charity, aid, and government funding. If that topic was ever timely for the Objectivist community, it's ten-fold, now...<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9yPTw1HJhXc" width="480"></iframe></div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-46014649523402231682020-04-19T01:46:00.001-04:002020-04-19T16:02:07.260-04:00Covid19- "Of Ends and Means": Peikoff vs. the "Kantian Imperative", or Contextual Absolutes<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsB9kLJIEMBSfU1X-IxI8MklcszNDTRtuaW19hj6cH0QCHFP32oR5y0egv0Se_XjDNJUB0VGgsL5GJbT7IW0OeDQjgo2sE6HwspWDwwAjCSATcUyaAGniQTIF4MC1VaaYvvmGGX-RMyQRe/s1600/99951._UY400_SS400_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsB9kLJIEMBSfU1X-IxI8MklcszNDTRtuaW19hj6cH0QCHFP32oR5y0egv0Se_XjDNJUB0VGgsL5GJbT7IW0OeDQjgo2sE6HwspWDwwAjCSATcUyaAGniQTIF4MC1VaaYvvmGGX-RMyQRe/s200/99951._UY400_SS400_.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(An Objectivish look into the government's approach to COVID19...)<br /><br />In my last post, I quoted Alexander Hamilton's advice to George Washington, where he said that one had to be prepared "to be not good." One could say that Hamilton was being Machiavellian, promoting a view that "the ends justify the means." A "devil's advocate" might defend him for having good intentions and being practical. But it's also possible that Hamilton was also not philosophically sophisticated enough to see through the dichotomy, limited by his time, and could not break through the "Kantian Imperative." To that, consider Leonard Peikoff's presentation of the Objectivist alternative...<br />
<br />
"Is honesty then an absolute?<br />
<br />
"Just as particular objects must be evaluated in relation to moral principles, so moral principles themselves must be defined in relation to the facts that make them necessary. Moral principles are guide to life-sustaining action that apply within a certain framework of conditions. Like all scientific generalizations, therefore, moral principles are absolutes within their conditions. They are absolutes-contextually. <br />
<br />
"...Virtues presuppose the processes of human growth and education; they cannot be invoked out of context, as dogmas in a void. Another example here pertains to the virtues of integrity. A man is obliged to practice what he preaches- when he has the political freedom to do it. But he has no obligation to preach or practice any idea that would invite the attention, say, of the Gestapo or the IRS.<br />
<br />
"Lying is absolutely wrong- under certain conditions. It is wrong when a man does it in the attempt to obtain a valuke. But, to take a different kind of case, lying to protect ones' values from criminals is not wrong. If and when a man's honesty becomes a weapon that kidnappers or other wielders of force can use to harm him, then the normal context is reversed; his virtue would then become a means of serving the ends of evil. In such a case, the victim has not only the right but also the obligation to lie and to do it proudly. The man who tells a lie in this context is not endorsing any antireality principle. On the contrary, he is now the representative of the good and the true; the kidnapper is the one at war with reality (with the requirements of man's life). Morally, the con man and the lying child-protector are opposites. The difference is the same as that between a murder and self-defense. <br />
<br />
"...In discussing integrity, I said that to be good is to be good 'all of the time.' I can be more preciese now. To be good is to obey moral principles faithfully, without a moment's exception, <i>within the relevant context</i>-which one must, therefore, know and keep in mind. Virtue does not consist in obeying concrete-bound rules ("Do not lie, do not kill, do not accept help from others, make money, honor your parents, etc."). No such rules can be defended or consistently practiced; so people throw up their hand and flout all the rules. <br />
<br />
"The proper approach is to recognize that virtues are broad abstractions, which one must apply to concrete situations by a process of thought. In the process, one must observe all the rules of correct epistemology, including definition by essentials and context-keeping. <br />
<br />
"This is the only way there is to know what is moral- or to be honest."</blockquote>
<br />
Leonard Peikoff, Chapter 8, "Virtue", <i>Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand</i></div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-52522773108489760462020-04-16T20:29:00.001-04:002020-04-19T16:02:38.906-04:00Covid19-"Of Means and Ends": Rand vs. Machiavelli, Hamilton & Nietzsche<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
(An Objectivish look into the government's approach to COVID19...)<br /><br />“Hamilton’s advice to Washington (February 13, 1783) was that ‘ the claims of the army urged with moderation, but with firmness, may operate on those weak minds which are influenced by their apprehensions more than their judgements.’ Rather than disapprove of the army’s efforts to gain redress, Washington should ‘take the direction of them.’ This however must not appear: it is of moment to public tranquility that Your Excellency should preserve the confidence of the army without losing that of the people. This will enable you in case of extremity to guide the torrent, and bring order perhaps even good, out of confusion.’ The end Hamilton had in mind was ’the establishment of general [central government] funds, which along can do justice to the Creditors of the United States (of whom the army forms the most meritorious class), restore public credit and supply the future wants of government.’ In effect, Hamilton’s advice to Washington was that the interests of the state required him ’to be not good.’” <br />
<br />
-American Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the U.S. Foreign Policy, John Lamberton Harper, pg. 33<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyT04frJFhXnNbP7_NKsNow1kAcBECLAt51Jin0uChUithfPV4ZHiEFay-xy1dYvDr0GxUkxZ2LxBS3AQMVn06qv7q9vh5Cs1mq4pKw5U5974lcjjQlfPKZnmwxTmk3EEITZQabVZxRRL8/s1600/220px-AynRand_WeTheLiving.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="220" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyT04frJFhXnNbP7_NKsNow1kAcBECLAt51Jin0uChUithfPV4ZHiEFay-xy1dYvDr0GxUkxZ2LxBS3AQMVn06qv7q9vh5Cs1mq4pKw5U5974lcjjQlfPKZnmwxTmk3EEITZQabVZxRRL8/s200/220px-AynRand_WeTheLiving.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>
“I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one’s right, one shouldn’t wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them. Except that I don’t know, however, whether I’d included blood in my methods.”<br />
<br />
“Why not? Anyone can sacrifice his own life for an idea. How many know the devotion that makes you capable of sacrificing other lives? Horrible, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
“Not at all. Admirable. If you’re right. But are you right?”<br />
<br />
We the Living, original passage, 1936<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8YT4HhZGUqDwHzMb9KFpH1pvqyY8nEJwYUYZptOTQ7kdDKca9kRu4QgrvAYlgFleMc3DcvW70XOE_Il5EK7RnSQ00h_SVh2PoEP6XoIVPG3XTCIdsoqXV_ZmKL6MMHPj_Iefz3QR16wws/s1600/9780452278875-us.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="328" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8YT4HhZGUqDwHzMb9KFpH1pvqyY8nEJwYUYZptOTQ7kdDKca9kRu4QgrvAYlgFleMc3DcvW70XOE_Il5EK7RnSQ00h_SVh2PoEP6XoIVPG3XTCIdsoqXV_ZmKL6MMHPj_Iefz3QR16wws/s200/9780452278875-us.jpg" width="131" /></a></div>
“...Since the majority are second-handers by nature, will they necessarily and always destroy a free system by starting with voluntary collectivism? If the prime movers are clear on the idea that there must be no state interference, but the second-handers are the majority with the political power, then is every civilization only to have a very brief period (such as Greece’s 150 years and America’s 150 years) before the second-handers unavoidably destroy it? Just a brief period of magnificence once in many, many centuries—and then destruction? Is that the inevitable fate of mankind? Is it basic and eternal—a small group of prime-movers feeding the rest and being destroyed by those they feed? <br />
<br />
"Or are second-handers in the majority? That, perhaps, is the heart of the question. Maybe not. Maybe Pat is right—the fault is in men’s thinking, not in man’s nature. (Think, think, think on this point.)<br />
<br />
"Granted that collectivism and statism are brought about by minorities—as [Ludwig] von Mises proves. What can the minority of prime-movers do about it? Are the collectivists’ methods open and proper to prime-movers? Won’t the majority always follow the collectivists if given a clear choice? (No, I think.) Isn’t it actually true that even among collectivists and statists it is always a prime-mover off the track who does the real damage?—so that the world is destroyed by the Wynands, not the Tooheys? (I think so.) ...But if so—can it ever be stopped? What can stop prime-movers from going off the track for one reason or another? I suppose the answer is: Nothing. There is no automatic fool-proof and error-proof [way]. If there were, there would be no free will. Nothing can ever replace man’s necessity to make a free, conscious choice—the necessity of an effort of reason. All we can do is indicate the right way, the proper principles—and then fight, fight, and fight for them. That a man knows the right idea is not enough. He must still act upon it. There are, then, two acts of the free will: the will to know the truth and then the will to act upon it. The first does not lead automatically to the second."<br />
<br />
Ayn Rand; Leonard Peikoff; David Harriman. Journals of Ayn Rand (Kindle Locations 5122-5126). Plume. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEaLdUZJjMpOAUzePr7kaBPk2dzafbXMURfQrHM_2doVhGocERbGoNjMjscCS9HL2yq_bk3zLROdHk6tde3VAWMS9GhY45lmJnZoqDmDcGXRwAB1pUtp4g_TQmrVW72IMVxzO4NVblho_-/s1600/104331.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="284" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEaLdUZJjMpOAUzePr7kaBPk2dzafbXMURfQrHM_2doVhGocERbGoNjMjscCS9HL2yq_bk3zLROdHk6tde3VAWMS9GhY45lmJnZoqDmDcGXRwAB1pUtp4g_TQmrVW72IMVxzO4NVblho_-/s200/104331.jpg" width="119" /></a></div>
“I loathe your ideals.<br />
<br />
We the Living, revised passage, 1959<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-92193595069281637892019-09-21T17:42:00.001-04:002019-09-21T18:29:57.637-04:00Strange Bedfellows: Kant, Conservaties, and Duty<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very vigilantly)."<br />
<br />
Rand, Ayn. Philosophy (p. 203). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. </blockquote>
<i>Very</i> vigilantly. Case in point: <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9tJe8IQPW14hXnInt53oWR5SajHX0Kv4TZjR_IsWT1UhT_czTUYvR5NFziUiQMj_kE_tApcDodU6dDS7GmzUx8o8yuwTT2yeQkRH0TTJ2tv58I1RcAtOOPfbmN9iUyjBDbYvFaPsU_Msy/s1600/JP+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="678" data-original-width="1184" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9tJe8IQPW14hXnInt53oWR5SajHX0Kv4TZjR_IsWT1UhT_czTUYvR5NFziUiQMj_kE_tApcDodU6dDS7GmzUx8o8yuwTT2yeQkRH0TTJ2tv58I1RcAtOOPfbmN9iUyjBDbYvFaPsU_Msy/s320/JP+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBTTtlJbA5OClPsnBoV4rnPj2vYmIf53GA9I3Oe5Et09ZgMXqPJMtsFDvxNaWnkpNN2Uo-Rw2exabNQSWKYi35KpeSdcWD4y1T0dvCjVVlIi9nHP3yVovxkBJ_xYFBflEL6d6bNe8or8pm/s1600/JP+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="1208" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBTTtlJbA5OClPsnBoV4rnPj2vYmIf53GA9I3Oe5Et09ZgMXqPJMtsFDvxNaWnkpNN2Uo-Rw2exabNQSWKYi35KpeSdcWD4y1T0dvCjVVlIi9nHP3yVovxkBJ_xYFBflEL6d6bNe8or8pm/s320/JP+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Uh..."cognitive dissonance much", Jack Posobiec? I shouldn't have to explain it to the objectivish, but for others who can't see it, here's a crash-course:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/duty.html" target="_blank">Ayn Rand Lexicon: "Duty"</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The meaning of the term “duty” is: the moral necessity to perform certain
actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without
regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.<br />
<br />
It is obvious that that anti-concept is a product of mysticism, not an
abstraction derived from reality. In a mystic theory of ethics, “duty” stands
for the notion that man <i>must</i> obey the dictates of a supernatural authority.
Even though the anti-concept has been secularized, and the authority of God’s
will has been ascribed to earthly entities, such as parents, country, State,
mankind, etc., their alleged supremacy still rests on nothing but a mystic
edict. Who in hell can have the right to claim that sort of submission or
obedience? This is the only proper form—and locality—for the question,
because nothing and no one can have such a right or claim here on earth.<br />
The arch-advocate of “duty” is Immanuel Kant; he went so much farther than
other theorists that they seem innocently benevolent by comparison. “Duty,” he
holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a
reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only moral motivation, he
holds, is devotion to duty for duty’s sake; only an action motivated
exclusively by such devotion is a moral action . . . .</blockquote>
<br />
Look, I appreciate that conservatives are loudly speaking out against socialism right now. But it's a good time to remember Rand's warning about working alongside ideological "strange bedfellows": <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span dir="ltr"><span class="_3l3x">"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, that 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."<br /><br />“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-20039733247860902892018-08-08T10:35:00.002-04:002018-08-08T10:35:46.631-04:00Tommy Robinson is FREE! (No thanks to Amy Peikoff)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN_W5rflC6cS_xUE3R8EfJfA4BAv-utsvjBqAnHhuIFGCs4-Ffv9e_lAsdWhwWt8fezCX0St3seQkJN8LQxyqMITkOIs0A3emGYH-lw-mU_cKPmUq4GpBytWTdb_Bk8vpuQ6OeRka-6oCW/s1600/free-tommy-robinson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">s<img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="764" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN_W5rflC6cS_xUE3R8EfJfA4BAv-utsvjBqAnHhuIFGCs4-Ffv9e_lAsdWhwWt8fezCX0St3seQkJN8LQxyqMITkOIs0A3emGYH-lw-mU_cKPmUq4GpBytWTdb_Bk8vpuQ6OeRka-6oCW/s200/free-tommy-robinson.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Tommy Robinson is free. No thanks to Amy Peikoff:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He's been released only because of a substantial procedural error. The opinion implies that the underlying charge was justified and lawful, and that it could likely result in imprisonment for more than the four months he already served. <a href="https://t.co/RTWWAjSiXs">https://t.co/RTWWAjSiXs</a></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
— Amy Peikoff 🇺🇸 (@AmyPeikoff) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmyPeikoff/status/1024744715843919872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-35918094940385094262018-08-07T14:19:00.002-04:002018-09-09T02:18:56.884-04:00Jordan Peterson on What He Has Recently Realized<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Peterson discusses some things he realized after his debates with Sam Harris, re: deriving facts and values (around the 9:30 mark.) Peterson says he understand the idea of connecting values to something "objective" vs. relativistic, "revealed truth", but still struggles with it, because of the "difficulty" of doing so, because of the "infinite number of facts" vs. by necessity, a finite number of values. He says now that he can articulate better, now, the following: <br />
<br />
"...that you look at the world of facts through a hierarchy of values, and that hierarchy of values is substantiated [instantiated?] in your nervous system, and simultaneously, a social construct, because you pay attention to things of value that you and everyone else have established as valuable through a process of social negotiation. And you need to pay attention to what you think that's valuable that everyone else thinks is valuable, because otherwise you wouldn't have any basis for shared attention, and you wouldn't have any basis for trade with other people. ..So now I've figured out that you reduce the infinite world of facts to the finite world of values by viewing the world of facts through what's essentially a dominance hierarchy of value. And that exists both out in the social world and neurologically, at the same time. And so, that's been unbelievably useful to figure out, too, and part of a mystery that I've been trying to untangle for about three decades."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DtGEGJgZKsk" width="480"></iframe>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
This is vague enough that I'm sure this could be spun different ways. To
me, it sounds like he either hasn't read ITOE, yet. But if he has, that
he's either not a fan, or, if he has read it, he's still missing
something. It does seem like there's some overlap with Objectivism in
the talk of a "dominance hierarchy of values". But what I notice in the
above is that in talking about "social constructs" and
neurological/bioligical structures is a glaring ommision of the
cognitive/conceptual faculty. Peterson has long been critical of
objectively derived values; to me, it still sounds like he wants to
"limit reason in order to make room for faith." And if the religious
aspect weren't enough, Peterson STILL holds the conservative views of
limiting progress and innovation to preserve tradition and hierarchy,
unless absolutely necessary.<br />
<br />
To be fair, the first part of the
video is full of optimism about how life can be better, which is a
pleasant contrast to his usual "doom and gloom". But then, it's just
another contradition with Peterson; while he celebrates capitalism and
individualism, it's of the utilitarian variety. (When I read his Twitter
feed, and his pro-capitalism/individualism/techonology quotes, I
sometimes can't believe it's the same person.) At any rate, I'm still of the mind that it's great that Peterson's
fighting against nihilism, authoritarianism, etc, and that there's some
good in Peterson's ideas, but that same good can already be found in
Objectivism.</div>
</div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436348360110486998.post-35628697407953559092018-07-08T17:40:00.000-04:002018-07-09T00:48:38.730-04:00In Memoriam: Steve Ditko 1927-2018<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBSBhebvs6lcevYqTQN5USjZ0Hv8yJc-OJhSfUAERrNaXWmKNaJ2V5CVJZMREicjml0vXOHJvGLrsgAfsi0kfqNiKsgav2EptNVFaKO5GSSVasSTm0Aw31wHDUWVwEA4y-QuXOwnTAfcBo/s1600/ditko+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1219" data-original-width="1600" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBSBhebvs6lcevYqTQN5USjZ0Hv8yJc-OJhSfUAERrNaXWmKNaJ2V5CVJZMREicjml0vXOHJvGLrsgAfsi0kfqNiKsgav2EptNVFaKO5GSSVasSTm0Aw31wHDUWVwEA4y-QuXOwnTAfcBo/s320/ditko+2.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
It was just announced that comic book artist Steve Ditko has died, at the age of 90. Many of the Objectivish already know that Ditko was the co-creator of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. But in addition, he was a devotee of Objectivism, as seen in his characters Mr. A and The Question. All that is important to me, of course, as was his fierce and unusual integrity. But Spider-Man was where it all started for me, when I was 4 years old, and that character influenced me in a personal (and possibily life-saving) way. Without that, the later Rand-Objectivism connection to Ditko would mean nothing. And of course, it was just so much fun! And Ditko was an influence on my art and drawings, as well. <br />
<br />
So, here's to Steve Ditko. Thank you, sir. Rest in peace. <br />
<br />
<h1>
<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/steve-ditko-dead-spider-man-creator-was-90-1125489" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;">Steve Ditko, Spider-Man Co-Creator and Legendary Comics Artist, Dies at 90</span></a> </h1>
<h1>
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><a href="http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/soapbox/118945139174676.htm" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;">Ditko Shrugged (Part 1): Ayn Rand’s Influence on Steve Ditko</span></a></h1>
<br /><span style="font-size: small;"><br />The Question and Mr. A, Ditko's ode to Objectivism. And Ditko's the only comics artist who made a hero in a suit (The Question) that looks visually cool, to me...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjznzBULWiz-JuXREuKHcmKc_ouGGy9-QtfIX6-_utSSvOXbZHWLmbTd3ESULUH-aCG01sw9XYoEIc-1PdWTe-JluXSyxokBNaIlUvTv4qvFwsTSdvR1Ar4J5jAydEDTcZKuZoxsOx8nG6l/s1600/q+and+a.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1036" data-original-width="1600" height="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjznzBULWiz-JuXREuKHcmKc_ouGGy9-QtfIX6-_utSSvOXbZHWLmbTd3ESULUH-aCG01sw9XYoEIc-1PdWTe-JluXSyxokBNaIlUvTv4qvFwsTSdvR1Ar4J5jAydEDTcZKuZoxsOx8nG6l/s640/q+and+a.png" width="640" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /><br />Me, at four years old, doing my best Spidey-pose...</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0rFEcwiwO392qKrP6tsv-q_VKswrFEpH6ucEu9s-jD0TUCWTzUkdQuqDIgrk43CB-d-CbcgSn1XXBPUsS38ybiLivPm2Dgu40uqiTtJqzwQdfTcTtXSsEPCI7RQT3L3r3IQbwy8F4SJMp/s1600/me2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="231" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0rFEcwiwO392qKrP6tsv-q_VKswrFEpH6ucEu9s-jD0TUCWTzUkdQuqDIgrk43CB-d-CbcgSn1XXBPUsS38ybiLivPm2Dgu40uqiTtJqzwQdfTcTtXSsEPCI7RQT3L3r3IQbwy8F4SJMp/s320/me2.jpg" width="147" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />And, for fun, my drawings of Ditko characters Doctor Strange and The Question.</span><br />
(I know, I know, Dr. Strange is supernatural, and therefore, not very Objectivish. I don't care. He's fun to draw. I wish I had done a better job on that Eye of Agamotto, though...irks me every time I look at it...)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisLsUQrxLw9450evWexgal5okzOdOgk7_MImye5zbyebfRTAZGUphHOoRpO5EM-BYeMYZoqVro9siD768DXntSOU7CBaeiX0XEPEZ8p7JNvQEws3WcZeCTsGCOsHOlPjx-aZTbeZbpR5_O/s1600/ditkos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="439" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisLsUQrxLw9450evWexgal5okzOdOgk7_MImye5zbyebfRTAZGUphHOoRpO5EM-BYeMYZoqVro9siD768DXntSOU7CBaeiX0XEPEZ8p7JNvQEws3WcZeCTsGCOsHOlPjx-aZTbeZbpR5_O/s320/ditkos.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
Joe Mauronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.com2