Trans-Atlantic Ka-booms!

On another site I used to frequent a lot there was a conspiracy theorist who saw U. S government conspiracy behind almost everything noteworthy which happened to this country. He held to his belief that 9/11 was staged in spite of huge reams of information to the contrary as well as several engineers on the forum who refuted all the information he presented on the preplanned collapse of the towers and the governments complicity in it.

It did not take too long of reading his posts to get the idea that the real problem he had was an underlying hatred for all things pertaining to the U. S. government and any action they took.

The thing that really jumped out at me was that Chris was actually cited for post # 11 on an Objectivist forum... a forum where I would want to believe evidence for a claim such as he made concerning the "phony plot" would be considered as necessary to back up such a statement. That is unless you consider that this occurring three days after Lieberman's defeat is sufficient evidence to warrant such a preposterous claim.

L W

Post 21

Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:20am

Chris - so much of your stuff is utterly disgusting and bereft of any context I hate to even begin to discuss it, because I know it is a waste of time with nutcases like you. However, let is look at dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. We are speaking about an Imperial Japan, which was KNEW it was losing the war, yet continued to refuse to surrender, and what were they doing at this time:

Using American and British prisoners as human guinea pigs for viscious experiments.
Murdering prisoners so they could not be freed by beheading them, burning them alive, and starving them to death.
Lying to their own people, so they would kill themselves rather than surrender and be treated well by our soldiers.
Starting a campaign in China (and succeeding) with the goal of destroying the rice crops so that millions of civilians would starve to death.

Only a complete lack of any objectivity would allow someone to think they should have been allowed to continue their orgy of death and not do everything to bring it to an end. You look at one side of the equation and completely ignore any context whatsoever - just vile, low, and repulsive. You are a disgrace.

Post 22

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:29am

Kurt, and all those who sanctioned his somewhat strong rebuke of Chris

What kind of a world are you fighting for?

Chris has claimed that Objectivists are less than successful sales people.

He points out a few areas in which American Government action in various parts of the world has not supported its self-proclaimed and widely advertised ideals of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

What I see is Plato's noble lie.

Shadia Drury brings its insidiousness right up to date; even for those of us who live in Canada.

Compared to Chris, what self-proclaimed, born again Christian very Junior George Bush is saying and doing in the name of the American people, is beyond disgrace.

How is it that the intelligent, well educated rational individuals on this forum take the time and energy to chastise pipsqueaks such as Chris; and say virtually nothing about George W Bush and his cadre? Perhaps I am reading and listening to different news reporters.

Are Objectivists Straussians? Is this the covert rule of the wise, right here on RoR?

Post 23

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 6:57am

Sharon,

I am fighting for a world where first and foremost the greatest dangers to humanity are eliminated. To start with, the US, despite its flaws, has been instrumental in eliminated the greatest threats in history - Fascism and Communism. Never before has even the most terrible tyrant or barbarian been able to do what these ideologies were able to do and could have continued to do had they not been thwarted. In the past, a tyrant was limited to his lifetime and perhaps the next king or ruler would not have been so terrible. In the past, a tyrant typically only needed to steal so much to be sated. With these ideologies, all that changed. They mass produced death as an industrial product. To believe that they would have died out without any opposition from the US is naivete at its worst and most destructive. To then turn around and blame the very cause of their destruction as the problem itself is worse than that, it is an inversion of morality. Nothing George Bush has or will do is even remotely close to this, and despite his flaws he has hastened what needs to be done in the Middle East. The status quo is no longer acceptable there, and it will be messy fixing it up, and mistakes were and will continue to be made - but the alternative is worse. We cannot wall off billions of people and pretend they don't exist and we won't interact with them, and they cannot remain isolated and backward without violence remaining a way of life for them.

The good news is that everything is not all horrible - the world ain't coming to an end - the US isn't the evil of the world - the process of globalization is every day making people better off and establishing trade and capitalism as the only way to gain true wealth - in other words, our ideals are winning every day and inevitably. The only question remains to reduce the inevitable backlash as much as possible - and it exists - but who is it from? It is from male-dominated cultures who fear the power of women and want to keep them as slaves. It is from rich cabals and religious leaders who hoard their wealth and power and understand their time is at an end when they allow their people to participate in the global economy, and so they use fear, anti-semitism, and whatever else they can conjure up to try to stop the process and save their evil feifdoms.

Look at anti-semitism, and you also look at the face of anti-capitalism as well. Why? Jews were outcast in Europe and the elites there looked down on merchants and people who traded - they were land owners and made money - they felt by right - but in reality it was by theft and denying rights to their people. Jews actually made their money honestly by trade - and were reviled for it. Hence the hatred of money, people who make money, and Jews. Any Objectivist should be sickened by the entire lot of it, regardless of their views as to whether Israel is socialist or not. And make no mistake about it, there is a vast undercurrent of this in these groups - from George Soros to these people at Lew Rockwell - that is very anti-semitic.

Post 24

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:08am

Sharon,

Ultimately, the war hawks are the ones who are arguing for a dictatorship--the dictatorship of the rationaltariat. In this case, the rationaltariat is the group of people they have deemed to be rational and worthy of freedom. In their utopia, the rationaltariat will enjoy all the rights and freedoms of a free society.

The rationaltariat basically views itself as some type of higher form of human life and everyone outside it as "subhuman." Those outside the rationaltariat will simply live as second-class citizens, perhaps in slavery of some type. It's hard to tell what rights or freedoms they will have, if any. Perhaps they will just slaughter the outsiders and then have a perfect society once they are gone.

It will never achieve peace. Of course, based on my interactions with people at seminars, I know too well that some people who follow Rand don't value peace or even civility.

In the case of the Middle East, the rationaltariat has picked Israel because Israel's "leadership" largely has the same world view. The Israeli "leadership" views Israelis as some type of higher life form or "god's chosen people." Many Americans feel this way as well about America.

I'm not trying to convert the war hawks. Based on experience with Randists in other areas, I realize that such debates are a lost cause. The war hawks at ARI will never give up, in spite of whatever facts may come out. Someone like Peikoff doesn't like to deal with facts anyway--ideas are much more important to him. If a fact contradicts his idea, he throws out the fact. But there are many out there are open-minded and can be converted. My posts are for them.

Post 25

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:03am

Sharon said:

Perhaps I am reading and listening to different news reporters.

As a citizen and resident of Canada for 65 years I have some knowledge of the Canadian media. If you are not going out of your way to get alternative views from the CBC, the Globe and Mail and all the rest you are not getting a realistic view. The network TV in the US is not much better and cable news has major slants also (see my post 16). There is much to disagree with on Fox news and Matt Drudge http://www.drudgereport.com/ particularly wrt religion but at least you can see what most of the media omits.

The following is an excerpt from TED (Trade Environment Database)
http://www.american.edu/TED/borders.htm
On June 20, 1985 the Investment Canada Act was enacted into Canadian law as both a protection and stimulant for Canadian industry. Although the act encourages the investment of capital by both Canadians and non-Canadians, there are provisions in the act to maintain the cultural equilibrium of the nation, to preserve the identity of the Canadian people. These provisions call for a strict review of the investment prospecti of cultural industries comprised of:

(a) the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers in print or machine readable form, other than the sole activity of printing or typesetting of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers,
(b) the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video recordings,
(c) the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings,
(d) the publication, distribution or sale of music in print or machine readable form, or
(e) radio communication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public, any radio, television and cable television broadcasting undertakings and any satellite programming and broadcast network services (Canadian Department of Justice).

By maintaining such a quota, it is thought, by Parliament, that Canadian media will be preserved and not overrun by foreign culture, such as the American cultural juggernaut

Is it any wonder that Canadians have such a distorted view of American policy?

Please inform yourself.

Sam

Post 26

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 9:47am

Kurt

The first threat to that world you want, is the suppression of the dissenting voice. Have you forgot Ayn Rand's clarion cry, "Give me liberty or give me death" ? When you resort to ad hominums, it belies your true goal. I would expect experienced Objectivists, such as yourself, to operate at a higher level of presentation; especially on a public forum where non Objectivists may find it instructive to see how civilized discourse in an Objectivist world might manifest itself. Are you familiar with the caveat; argument weak---shout like hell! ?

Junior Bush's bullying, in combination with the lack of strong dissenting public voices in the American Government and its citizenry, are creating a major threat to civilization. Why have large numbers of people in the rest of the world found it necessary to demonstrate against US decisions and subsequent action in the Middle East? Please show me where marches in favour of US intervention have taken place. Do American's think that their leaders are unable to make poor choices?

IWhat subversive messages are being transmitted through American commercial television? I haven't watched television for 12 years, so I have no idea of what's going on there. Have Americans become the unwitting victims of their own governmentally controlled corporate media ?

Few are against capitalism Kurt. It's global corporatism that is scorned. How is support of a war promoted by US corporative interests, an Objectivist ideal? My interpretation of Objectivism calls for a minimization in the powers of government. Letting government into bed with business, has maximized the influence of government on all of our lives; regardless of what country we are citizens. Where have Objectivists spoken up against this use of force against the individual?

Muslims will be won over by education; many already have. Many live(d) in Iraq, and the goals they once set for themselves, have been completely destroyed. Saddam Hussein was only partly destroying them. George Bush has completed the task for many. Muslims are not brain dead. They developed their fierce repressive ancient tribal traditions, to ensure survival in the hostile desert climate. Already, education is bringing Muslims into the 21st century. There are always holdouts to change; Muslims are merely following a grand tradition. Human rights along with "science advances one funeral at a time". If Objectivists hold a benevolent view of human nature, why are some of them supporting the use of destruction, to solve a problem that has its roots in ignorance?

In the west, women have gained personhood, only recently. Proclaiming the suppression of women as one of the reasons to fight for Iraqi oil is pretty scurrilous. In the past, hasn't education been the successful upliftment technique for females, and other suppressed people, including children?

As for the Jews. Who are they? Are they defined by their religion or not? If they are; why do some Objectivists support one irrational group over another? If they're not, why do Jews not rename themselves. I smell perpetual war here.

Supporting Andre's frustrations with more war in the Middle East requires mixing too many premises. Palestine existed before 1900; before 1800 , and earlier. Is all that irrelevant? Is this in reality, just colonial war against another First Nations People?

Sharon

Post 27

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 10:08am

"Give me liberty or give me death"

I believe this belongs to Patrick Henry.

If Objectivists hold a benevolent view of human nature, why are some of them supporting the use of destruction, to solve a problem that has its roots in ignorance?

Most of them don't hold a benevolent view. With the war hawks, everything is a moral issue. If one is ignorant, therefore, one must also be evil.

As I have said on another thread, this war presents a unique opportunity to re-align the movement. Those who support the war can go to ARI. Those who don't will ultimately need to start a new organization.

George Bush has completed the task for many.

It also apparently destroying the Assyrian culture there, which had managed to survive just about everything else.

Post 28

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:21am

Chris,

You made the following statement in post # 24:

I'm not trying to convert the war hawks. Based on experience with Randists in other areas, I realize that such debates are a lost cause. The war hawks at ARI will never give up, in spite of whatever facts may come out. Someone like Peikoff doesn't like to deal with facts anyway--ideas are much more important to him. If a fact contradicts his idea, he throws out the fact. But there are many out there are open-minded and can be converted. My posts are for them.

In this post you accuse Peikoff with the following: "If a fact contradicts his idea, he throws out the fact". Yet you yourself in post # 11 make this statement about the plot uncovered last week:

"People need to speak up. Since the phony plot was uncovered Thursday, I have been quite vocal about my beliefs."

As I brought up in my last post, where are *your* facts to back up what you call a "phony plot"? I have yet to read them.

L W

Post 29

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:08pm

As I brought up in my last post, where are *your* facts to back up what you call a "phony plot"? I have yet to read them.

If George Bush says it, I don't believe it.

There is also no credible evidence which says it was real. There is definitely a motive for them to stage such a plot. The motive, of course, is to terrorize the American and the British people.

It's not working. This alleged plot has probably made them look even worse and lose even more credibility. Even my roommate (a ramp agent for Continental) thinks it could have been staged.

Amazingly enough my confidence in the American people right now is at an all-time high.

Post 30

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 2:48pm

Sharon, the only dissenting voices being stilled are those in the oppressed nations of the middle east and similar countries elsewhere. Here, people don't even go to jail for what would have been treason at any other time and in any other country (such as exposing counter-terrorist operations). I hardly call that suppression, what a joke. I have limited time to argue every point with people so clearly off the deep end, and only so many outrageous statements are needed for me to see the truth behind the person. Ask yourself, do you have to argue point by point in a rational manner when someone already advertises their naked hatred and fever swamp polemics to you up front? Does the jew rationally argue with the nazis advocating his extermination? Does a black man need to rationally argue against a KKK racist? No, he doesnt.

Most people don't have time to demonstrate, and most demonstrations are orchestrated by left wing radicals. For example, during the 1980s, the "nuclear freeze" protests in Europe were funded directly by the KGB. Most reasonable people have to work, they don't have time to protest - I know I don't - and not when I think things are ok either. The protesters are in most cases worthless dregs with nothing better to do (at least, most here in the US and Europe - I don't paint people in oppressed countries with the same brush).

In what way is there any "global war in support of corporatism" that is pure bullshit leftist claptrap - no evidence of this at all. If conditions are made safe for trade - it is everyone who benefits not just the corporations. I certainly don't see stocks going insanely high as they should if somehow all this effort were just for them - its not.

Women have had and continued to gain more rights than any muslim country has now in the US since it started - suffrage was close to a century ago - to say it was "recent" is a non-argument. All these primitive societies brutalize and treat women as chattel. Without even considering conditions for the men, already 50% of the population is in bondage - the truth is, 99.9% of the people are slaves to the elites - they don't control their own destiny, and dissent is extinguished with sheer brutality.

As to Jews, I am not a Jew but they do define themselves in a collective manner from their religion/ethnicity it is one and the same to them. Whether or not that is valid, others seek to kill them for that reason, therefore it rather reinforces the concept does it not? After all, if they come to kill me and I am an atheist former jew - they don't give a shit, into the gas chambers I go either way - what I believe is moot.

You can't get an education if you and your family get murdered - which was your lot under Saddam - the US could have just bought his oil if thats all we cared about - like the scum French did.

Post 31

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:15pm

Sharon said:

Palestine existed before 1900; before 1800 , and earlier.

Huh? Can you check your history? As far as I know, Palestine had never existed as an independent country, nor had Jordan before British set it up after WWI.

Post 32

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:29pm

Sharon also asks:

As for the Jews. Who are they?

Perhaps you should ask their persecutors. The Spanish Inquisitors, the Nazis, and Soviet officials didn't seem to have any problem identify Jews.

Post 33

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 4:55am

Sharon said:
Palestine existed before 1900; before 1800 , and earlier.
Huh? Can you check your history? As far as I know, Palestine had never existed as an independent country, nor had Jordan before British set it up after WWI.

Right, where did you come up with that?

Post 34

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 8:42am

Right, where did you come up with that?

From Leon Uris? Serious though, anyone who's arguing about Israel and Palastine issues should at least acquaint themselves with basic historical facts of the region.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 8/15, 9:20am)

Post 35

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 9:42am

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963624202/ref=wl_it_dp/104-8703525-5614341?%5Fencoding=UTF8&colid=1DOMKHJ3GK1X5&coliid=I1SDGKYHMDFHAV&v=glance&n=283155

A good book to peruse is this one....

From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine (Paperback)

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/15, 9:44am)

Post 36

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 5:11am

Kurt

The penny has dropped finally, and all has been revealed. The reason that I fail to make you understand any point of view other than your own; is the naked truth that you, Kurt claim to be an Objectivist; but the first criteria is to possess a benevolent view of humanity.

Chris is correct in his charges of elitism; and a malevolent view of humanity is at root cause. As long as you unjustly view the first nations peoples as less than human; you are operating from a closed mind.

First nations people are tribalists. All of us alive today have tribalists in our genes. Some can trace their ancestors back 20 generations. This knowledge gives a deep history of humankind that puts everything into that context of which Robert is always reminding us.

I was shocked to hear you say that you consider the franchise to be women's last battle for human rights. Do you know about the history of women's struggle for birth control Kurt? In the USA women still have struggles over abortion rights. In Canada, women only became recognized as "persons" under the law, in the 1928. That's living memory for my mother. 250 years is recent for me.

Open up your heart Kurt. If you don't see fascism American style; you are privileged indeed. The silenced voices of which I speak are right in America. Your attacks on me, are an attempt to silence dissent. George Bush is merely the mouthpiece of those who pull his strings. He has a limited script which he repeats endlessly, verbatim. How did someone who cannot think on his feet become leader of the country that is hanging now by a thread, to its once admirable reputation as the greatest country in the world? I smell that noble lie again. Its roots are a malevolent view of humankind

I have a benevolent view of humanity Kurt; it's the first criteria for building an Objectivist world. Anything less, leads to a corruption of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I see the underwear of Objectivism, sticking out here and there; and some of it is soiled with malevolence. It is the same malevolence that stains all organized religions.     We're perfect, but not you. This is the same malevolence that stains Judaism.

Objectivism is more than stating platitudes. Get to looking with benevolent eyes, first on yourself, and then on others. A benevolent heart is the first thing to cultivate. The intellect falls easily into place after that.

Thanks for helping me to give my head another shake Kurt. I couldn't have done it without you. And thanks also to Joe Rowlands who permits me to think out loud, and on my feet.

I think I hear a pony whinnying.
Sharon

Post 37

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 6:59am

Sharon, you are a very strange person. I don't know where you get half of what you say.

I do have such a benevolent view of humanity - I am the one saying that 1) Most people in the nations described are good, and oppressed by small elites of people who are evil and 2) The US government, for all its faults and even evils, is not some terrible, conspiratorial evil and every action it has taken is not immoral. Which view is more benevolent - responding to that terrible and unjust view of the US, seeing that for what it is - an evil and non-productive view - and naming it, or holding that narrow and misinformed view?

Your comments on tribalism make no sense. Your insinuations that I despise or look down on the people of (does first nations mean the third world? - I call it the Gap regions - areas of the world where there is terrible suffering and marked by, essentially, disfunctional governments and societies) the Gap or anywhere else (China, India) could not be further from the truth.

I care for these areas a great deal - I want to see the people there unchained from their ignorance, unchained from their bondage, unchained from the evil elites who rule and manipulate them, unchained from the malevolent philosophies that make them bless their overlords.

I did not say that suffrage was the "last battle for human rights of women" but how can you even begin to compare the record of rights for women in muslim countries with that of rights afforded to women in western nations for the last several hundred years, where the record is one of progress, not regress? There is no comparison whatsoever - that is my true point.

Your attacks on me, are an attempt to silence dissent.
This is uncalled for and unjustified. I have made no attacks on your nor called for your being silenced. Similarly, your views on Bush are also unjustified and franky - they are what I would qualify as a malevolent view of a person. Saying that "Judaism is stained with malevolence" is a similar such statement.

Post 38

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 7:46am

Sam

You should spend more time in Canada. We can read the world online now. You'd be amazed at the number of journalists writing from all parts of the world. We are free to access them all.

Satellite radio is also available here. Having lived all my life in Niagara, I grew up with US news and culture; from three commercial TV networks. More recently, I have taken to listening to American National Public Radio, The British Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Netherlands, and South African Broadcast News, in addition to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Radio journalism sends me to other voices and more in depth views, online.

That legislation you quoted was necessary to prevent the mouse from being squashed by the elephant. Without it, very few Canadian voices would have been seen in print or broadcast from various media.. Canadian children would have continued to have been "educated" with texts that carry a US corporative bent. In my childhood, school readers and math texts were illustrated with the Stars and Stripes on every drawing of a flagpole, and George Washington's profile on coins; even US MAIL boxes and stamps were the only ones I saw in print.

I look on that legislation as the treaty after a paper war. Canadian voices won; that time.

I've been trying to inform myself all my life. Information isn't always knowledge. If my sources are not eclectic enough, please direct me elsewhere. I still have a few unscheduled hours.

Sharon

Post 39

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 8:18am