Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page

Post 0

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Let me introduce myself, this is my first post. My name is Marcus, I have no concluded philosophical convictions I can only describe them as leanings. Among my leanings I'm quite similar to objectivism though I am ultimately mystic. I'm a libertarian with anarchist leanings. I'm also very anti-war, i'm also a oliver stone, michael moore, bill hicks, george orwell, and ayn rand fan.

I've been reading solo for a while and something that disturbs me is how pro conservative you guys are. Libertarianism isn't conservatism yet you guys seem to write bush a blank cheque on foreign policy. He can be a corrupt president with numerous provable ties to saudi companiess, and a war monger who sent young americans (dying everyday) to an unjustified invasion of iraq, the iraqi people are certainly better off without saddam but was that the way to do it.

Some of the arguments I get are:

When I say young americans have died pointlessly. The argument is war is hell, people die in wars. War is hell, people do die in wars. Are you honestly telling me that bush did everything in his power to get rid of the saddam regime peacefully, without bloodshed. From the first time we heard bush talk about the iraq regime as part of the axis of evil did he suggest we try him as a criminal in front of a world tribunal, no. The argument I usually receive for that is, oh yeah like saddam will just say ok try me as a war criminal, maybe not but at least you will have exhusted all possible non-violent solutions. And even if not you will have the support of the world. Another argument is that the soldiers knew the risks when they signed up. I have a close friend who's in the army he knew the risks before he joined up, but he thought like I naively did, that the british and american government would only risk the death of it's citizens unless it was absolutely necessary.

When I say the middle east hates the western world even more now than before. The argument is usually they hated us before, they hated our values before. We have undoubtedly made ourselves more hated now than ever before. The british and american troops handling of arab prisoners, raids, killing of innocents, disrespect of muslim rituals and cultural values, has added to more young arab men outraged by western imperialism joining a militia group. 
When I say that the war was primarily about money. Being called reactionary is usually the response. The bush family has been known to have had business ties with the saudis way before september 11th. The oil in iraq during the war was being extracted and cultivated by american oil companies that are partially owned by saudi investors family. I thought the oil was for the iraqi people to rebuild their land with bush? They may claim it's being cultivated to be handed over to the iraqi people, bush also mentions he has a bridge in brooklyn he wants to sell us. 
When I say FBI employees, Congressmen, have come forth proclaiming the corruption and lies of the bush administration. The claims are usually swept under the carpet, dismissed as hogwash. Despite high ranking government officials making these allegations.
I guess it's a hard predicament you american objectivists are in. If you vote for kerry you will give up less freedom but save the lives of many american soldiers and poor brown people who will be subjected to the bush administrations foreign policies. But if you vote for bush you keep the middle and upper class people investing in the companies who are and will profit from the war happy, lower taxes, more freedom. but on the down side you will have blood on your hands. If I was american I'd sway to kerry.

For the vast majority of objectivists, if not all, who will ignore me as a leftist in libertarian clothing, and vote for bush. Please promise to do one thing watch where he strikes next, probably palestine, watch how many young soliders die, watch how many terrorist attacks increase, and watch as thirty years down the line you realise the iraq war was unjusitified, and a black time in political history.



Post 1

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Mike Skinner says: "I'm also very anti-war, i'm also a oliver stone, michael moore, bill hicks, george orwell, and ayn rand fan. "

Ayn Rand just rolled over in her grave.

Post 2

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Mike Skinner,

I personally am critical of the Iraq war, and have made those feelings known on this website, yet even I must say that your post here is first rate drivel.  

Objectivism is based on reason, and you say your philosophy is "quite similar" to it, but then you immediately declare after that that you are a mystic.  You then go on to express admiration for Michael Moore and Ayn Rand in the same sentence.  Sounds like you need to work out a lot of contradictions in your world view before you try to speak with any credibility on an Objectivist website.

The rest of your post scratches the surface of a variety of issues, many of which merit legitimate criticism of the Bush administration, but you don't even begin to acknowledge or address the complexities behind them.

Post 3

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 1:47pmSanction this postReply

"Mysticism" according to Ayn Rand, which means a nonsensory awareness of truth without a process of cognition, is somewhat different from the popular usage (which is vague and can mean all sorts of things), and very different from the technical usage, in which 'mystical experience' means a sudden experience of oneness with the cosmos, and 'mysticism' is a spiritual tradition of practices attempting to make such an experience possible.  I am not a mystic, but mystical and religious experiences certainly have happened throughout history, and those who have them report them as euphoric events of immense consequence.  I reserve philosophical judgement on mystical experiences for the moment, but given the experiences I have had using Pagan and related practices, I do not discount them; it is bad philosophy to rule out uncomfortable facts in the name of reason.  In my view, such experiences are simply matter to be understood rationally and aesthetically like anything else, and are not connected with, and do not justify, any appeal to faith or a transcendent divine order.  Of course, I don't know how someone else is using the term.

And, of course, I am a passionate fan of Ayn Rand myself, and a Pagan as well.  And besides Rush, whose lyrics integrate similar strains, I know at least six other people from very different walks of life who have come from a Randian background and have found value in alternative spiritualities.  Specifically, one Shaolin, two Wiccans, one Thelemist, one shamanist, and one Pagan.  Of course, numbers do not prove quality, but among the persons are three people I highly respect in stature.  Whether my word means anything or is a kiss of death is, of course, for others judge themselves.

my regards,

Jeanine Shiris Ring
Pyrophora Cypriana {))(*)((}
stand forth!

Post 4

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Mike, thanks for posting. Some people will steamroll you for having what they believe to be wrong ideas. I might disagree with you but I commend you for posting and for trying to find answers for this stuff.

When I see the names Michael Moore and Ayn Rand in the same sentence I get the shakes. My advice is to look into the essence of their ideas as intensely as you can. They are very, very different. Rand is a philosopher. Moore is a protester/mountebank. Rand is searching for the truth. Moore is searching the globe for things to complain about.

Trust your own mind. You're bright enough to read real philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Rand etc.) and identify answers that make sense for you.

Do you believe there should be no government at all? That's what an anarchist believes.

Do you believe in God or some supernatural power? That's what a mystic believes.

Do you believe war is bad always? If someone throws a rock at your head do you just receive it? Do you defend yourself?

Most importantly: how do you know what you know? How does a person come to have knowledge? Answer that question to your own satisfaction and your thinking will become more clear.

Good luck!

Post 5

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
I would like to announce at this time that I will personally deliver Mister Michael Moore a dumptruck filled with piping hot, battered and deep-fried pork anuses covered in powdered sugar and with his choice of syrups on the side, if he will agree to never make another documentary, ever again.

Think about it, Mikey.  PORRRRK ANUSESSSS... MMMMMMM. 

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/29, 5:46pm)

Post 6

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply

I am also against the current war, though I hesitate to describe myself an "anti-war", both because I think there is excellence in a martial ethics and because I do not oppose war as such, only unjust or imprudent wars.  That said, I generally agree with libertarian and leftists critiques of American foreign policy, and most of your charges against the Bush Administration above. In fact, I would go farther, in that I think Bush is likely to do more evils to domestic liberties than Kerry independent of his foreign policy.

However, may I ask your reasons for admiring Michael Moore?  I have not watched anything Moore produced myself, but the opinion of my ex-girlfriend, whom I trust highly and who shares my cultural-left, libertarian politics, was that Fahrenheit 9/11 was skillfully crafted but dishonest propaganda, which did note some true facts that should be widely known but manipulated sentiments without reason.  Perhaps she is wrong, but especially as integrity and aesthetics are more importantly to me than politics (unless I have to defend myself), I would be curious to hear if you would defend Moore on these grounds.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring  ))(*)((

Post 7

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
To everyone-

I am undecided and neutral on the anarchism/minarchism debate; I am even not sure if the question could truly be answered without the experience of a far more libertarian society than the present.

But is it not possible, in a world filled with theocons and neocons, Christian rightists and hard rightists, traditionalist conservatives, progressives, socialists, multicultists, ecologists, communitarians, etc., etc., etc., that some kind of peace could be declared on this issue?  There is almost precisely the same range of essential principles on both the anarchist and minarchist side; in many cases the difference between the two positions is one of semantics.

Aren't there more important enemies with neither variety of libertarian anywhere even close to cultural or political power?  Is anyone familiar with Monty Python's Life of Brian?

Please, fight the Romans!

Jeanine Ring  ))()((
stand forth!

Post 8

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 8:32pmSanction this postReply
I must admit that I am a little shocked at the poor content on this site as well.

There seems to be so much blind hatred, racism, and Statism flying around.

I thought I would find people here dedicated to freedom - instead I find people advocating Genocide - State control of our everyday lives - Strong governments - an abandonment of reason in favour of patriotism (ie. handing over your mind to the State).

It is a shame. The worse part is that if you actually try to say something which DOES follow reason and freedom the loony brigade tends to call YOU the "collectivist", "pomo", "mystic" or whatever their favorite insult used as a substitute for rational debate is that week!

I will hang around though - in hope that the quality will improve.

Post 9

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
 To Jeannine, I say to you make your own mind up watch his films and read his books. Otherwise you'll never know yourself, and research his sources to see if their erroneous, why not surf the net for as many journalist sources you can find, of right and left, and see if saudi arabian oil ties to the bushes aren't well known. 

I will also add that I am a mystic in the spirit of Ken Wilber anyone interested in learning about spirituality or the mystic philosophical view, I suggest they read mr Wilber's book, An introductory reader, or to take up chi kung, or reiki, believe me you will have your materialist world view challenged. 

I admire Michael Moore because although he is a socialist his cultural commentary is refreshing, intelligent and insightful, libertarians and objectivists ignore this man's work and endless tries to expose America's elitist and totalitarian government, because of his political leanings.

His indication of the constant fear that mainstream media and marketing bring to us may have something to do with the countless insecure neurotics who commit terrible crimes, and ignorant insecure youth who live in poverty and crime.

We are constantly fed fear. orange alert, green alert. Can we remember having these alerts so public before 9/11. Or maybe it was to do with the fact we need to now be on constant alert since George Bush didn't bother to do anthing after he was warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack america in august. Fear as Michael Moore, Bill Hicks, Oliver Stone, and George Orwell said is used by governments to keep them in place, to not ask questions when you should be asking questions. To ask why top ranking american officials of the CIA, FBI and congress say that there was no reason to go to war. That the threat of saddam having WMD was exaggerated (found any, no? how long we been out there?), that they warned bush about 9/11 months before and he did nothing, that corruption is rife in the white house?

Or ask why there are assertions by independent vote commitees that when they recounts Gore won florida. Or ask why ten of thousands of african american votes weren't registered.
Or why the government administration and bushes family has had business and friendly relations with the Saudi Arabian government, human rights violators, maybe they need a regime change, maybe they belong in the axis of evil label, maybe they should be charged with harbouring terrorists. I doubt they will.
Or ask why Iraq who have never attacked american soil, who have never posed any real threat to us, but has considerable oil resources was attacked.

Man can support the most atrocious things when they feel threatened, we can bite off another human's nose, we can thrust a knife into another persons gut, we can drop bombs on thousands of people, and we can turn a blind eye to a government administrations corruption and lies.

If we are truly having a war on terror let's track down the arms dealers who keep supplying these terrorists, let's track those guys down, ever heard Bush or Blair say that?     

Post 10

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
On the anti war thing, I don't meant I'm anti war at all costs, pacifism is one approach to dealing with a situation and force is another way, also is communication, and also is long term planning against negative situations. There are many ways to deal with a situation with have to decide which is the correct one I think that an all out invasion was the wrong way. Track down there arms suppliers, put an end to there income, use unconventional guerilla methods to leave them powerless then capture them the US and the UK have the capabilities to do this. Like Sciabarra says the cure shouldn't be worse than the disease.

Post 11

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
I would also like to point out that we need to seriously look at who is supplying these terrorists and dictatorships with weapons. Who is behind there military capabilities, what businesses and business men legal and/or illegal are supplying them, and name and shame them, arrest them for crimes against humanity. Without guns and missiles, what they gonna use to attack us with? sticks, rocks, how about harsh words? Maybe some of them have the capabilities to build there own weapons? Where are they getting the material from? Maybe they have there own material? Where are they getting there money from? Investments, charity? I'd like to know these answers wouldn't you? Wouldn't the world?

All it take for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent in the face of it.

Oh yeah and listen to bill hicks and smile from your heart.

Post 12

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
I must have fallen through the goddamn looking glass.  My head actually hurts here.  You are actually going to give me a stroke:
I admire Michael Moore because although he is a socialist his cultural commentary is refreshing, intelligent and insightful

How is that refreshing???  Is it a refreshing change from the truth???

How is that intelligent???  Is the ability to deceive, a testimony to deviousness???

How is that insightful???  Is uncovering false facts somehow achievement???

Is Allen Funt hiding in the bushes?  Am I on Candid Camera???
Is Ashton Kutcher listening in from a parked van?  Am I being PUNK'D??? 

Post 13

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:59amSanction this postReply
"Am I being PUNK'D???"

I should hope so.

Post 14

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:36amSanction this postReply
Ok let me clear something up, yes Michael Moore viewpoint is slanted (like many right-wing journalists), yes some critics indicating erroneous or exaggerated conclusions derived from facts are justified, but his documentaries and books force us to ask questions, important questions that need clarifying. Ditto Oliver stone. His phenomenal movie JFK wasn't historically accurate, alot of the information regarding pointing to a conspiracy wasn't discovered until after the Jim Garrison Trial. Alot of the movie is based on books written in the 80's and 90's. This is all self admitted by Oliver Stone by the way. He makes no apologies for it because he says, and rightfully so, it forces us to ask why was this movie made. 

Someone once wrote that many objectivists sound like conservatives who don't go to church when it comes to foreign policy: let's get in there and blow the hell out of em, I say I have to agree. I think it's sad that it's usually only leftists who are so cautious about risking soldiers and innocent civilians lives via war. A few independent objectivists are the only ones who seem to realize that bushes treatment of Iraqi prisoners is unjustified, and violates individual rights, most of whom haven't been charged. That going into the middle east and dealing with the Saddam Regime the way we did will invariably create more hostility for us and the western world. I would have hoped for a more intelligent approach, but expecting that from a man who can't say the word subliminal, and has trouble with his english, was based on the objectivist definition of faith.   

Post 15

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:48amSanction this postReply
But then again I am a Saddamite, that's it call people ominous labels, then they will change there minds and respect you as intellectual, benevolent and insightful individuals. BTW an attack on Bushes foreign policy isn't an attack on objectivsm, it isn't an attack on western enlightenment era values, it's an attack on Bushes foreign policy.      

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:42amSanction this postReply

Yeah - You have fallen through the looking glass.

Not only does Moore make things up - the whole premis of his documenteries are contradictions.

EG - in "Bowling for Colombine" Moore wants you to accept two things at the same time:

(1) Guns are the problem (when talking to Heston in the USA)
(2) Guns are not the problem (when talking to canadians)

... when in Canada he pretty much supports the NRA view that guns when handled by reasonable members of society are not a problem... then he drives back over the border and changes his whole argument.

OR in "Faranheit 911" ... he spends half of the film harrassing Bush and Co. for doing too much to fight Terrorism... and the other Half of the film harrassing Bush and Co. for NOT having done enough to fight terrorism.

Even if he was not a lier (which he is) and a did not make up facts (which he does) and alter documents (which he probably does) his documentaries would be self contradictory messes.

How is it that intelligent people (on the surface) see this guy as a 'genius'?

Well I guess he is a genius isn't he? He has fooled millions and made millions. I bet he spends the whole night masterbating whenever he hears about a new masacre or disaster thinking about all the money he can make making another documentary showing us who is to 'blame'.

Post 17

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Mikey, I hate to tell you this, but I don't see the Objectivist community writing Bush a blank cheque for war. Truthfully, I wish they were, at least moreso. The majority of voices I've heard thus far in the Objectivist community, from my standpoint, seems to veer a BIT too far to the left. I think they partially give the Liberals a tad more of a free pass than they do Conservatives, but that's just from my perspective. In fact, many "Objectivists" say they're voting FOR John Kerry- and then give every reason for hating Bush. That, IMHO, is not objective in any way, shape, or form, and due to many of the things I"e heard from the community over time, I've slowly been turned off from the community- not entirely, but enough that I definitely don't consider myself a full-fledged objectivist, anymore.

Now, you like Michael Moore, and...so how is it you like Ayn Rand, then?

Post 18

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Martin, in Bowling for Columbine, he does show that the NRA conclusion that guns in the hands of responsible people aren't a problem when he reviews Canada. But he doesn't switch his view when he returns to America and speaks to Charlton Heston he shows how fear and guns are a bad mix. Charlton says he keeps a loaded gun in the house to make him feel safer, Moore points out that he lives in an upper class neighbourhood where the chances of needed to use the loaded gun he keeps in his house is near to zero. He also shows via that poor little girl who got shot and the terrible event of Colombine and the staggering murder rate of America that America isn't a responsible gun owning country, when children can get there hands on such weapons.

In Farenheit 9/11 he criticizes the bushes administrations chosen way of fighting the war on terror, and reasons for the 'war on terror'. He also criticizes there lack of viglance in keeping America safe when the FBI had informed bush that bin laden was determined to attack America, when the FBI gave him a document entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack America'.
I advise you to watch Moore's films again.

Russell when I refer to the objectivist community I'm referring mainly to SOLOites, the ARI and TOC staff. I believe they are very pro conservative. Which is strange because Conservatism is, like liberalism, a mix of fascism, socialism and capitalism, it's I think that may possibly have to do with that they are closest to your economic views, and admiration of American values.

 'It annoys me when Military guys say Gays shouldn't be allowed in the military, it's immoral. Excuse me but, AREN'T Y'ALL HIRED KILLERS!?
'Is that a village of women and kids, where's the napalm?! BOOM! I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm killing kids.' - Bill Hicks 


Post 19

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
I admire Ayn Rand because her philosophy aided me in overcoming the philosophical and perspective blocks that adhering to a 'new age' idealistic philosophy brings. She aided me in adopting a philosophy that I believe is leading me to the truth, I consider myself a mystic in the spirit of Ken Wilber, if you would like to explore the mystic philosophy of Ken Wilber I suggest start with Ken Wilber an Introductory Reader. Now I don't pretend to agree with or understand everything Ken says but his books are the closest thing to articulation of my philosophy. I also found Rand's cultural commentary insightful. 

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page

User ID Password or create a free account.