On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 5, 12:26Â am, Malrassic Park
hotmail.com> wrote:>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 05:15:47 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>On Apr 3, 7:12Â pm,spinoza1111
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>> On Apr 3, 4:32Â pm, Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:>>
>>>>> On Apr 3, 12:10Â pm,spinoza1111
yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>> Â too cowardly to stand up for their families
>>>>>> and society.
>>
>>>>> Can ewe give an example of how ewe have "stood up" for your tribe and
>>>>> commune or what "stand up for" actually means?
>>
>>>>> Michael Gordge
>>
>>>> None of your business. Objectively (cf Susan Faludi's book, Stiffed)
>>>> it is in the interest of ruling elites that subalterned people sit
>>>> around de campfire and spin pointless and false pseudo-philosophies
>>>> that reconcile them with their shitty lives, and this is what
>>>> "Objectivism" does...far more than Nietzche's "slave morality", in
>>>> fact, since it conceals the true conditions of life from people who
>>>> use drugs and alcohol in addition to libertarianism to blind their
>>>> souls.
>>
>>>Examine the Ayn Rand web site, with its 81000.00 essay prizes and
>>>denunciation of campaign finance reform, It's obviously a well-funded
>>>effort by rich bastards
>>
>> Are bastards bad people, or just people you happen to disagree with
>> for some reason, e.g., being richer than you?
>
>The former. I do not envy them insofar as I desire a more egalitarian
>society, for to desire a more egalitarian society is not to favor a
>roughly equal distribution, but to different people. The fallacy in
>accusing liberals, egalitarians and socialists of envy lies in the
>fact that the accuser doesn't even listen to their central point that
>the redistribution should not have the same statistical mode and
>median as a sharply unjust division.
Maybe, but I didn't say anything about envying those richer than you,
only disagreeing with those richer than you.
>>
>>>to spread the false gospel of selfishness in
>>>order to divide people and fill them with the illusion that they are
>>>NEVER deserving of help...nor supposed to help others.
>>
>> Yes, Objectivism is divisive.
>>
>>>This is an evil web site. The bastards who created it are terrified of
>>>McCain and his effort to bring about campaign finance reform because
>>>they have discovered that money talks, and they can spread propaganda
>>>far more effective than old-fashioned Communist propaganda: the new
>>>Big Lie.
>>
>> I don't believe ANY politicians, or anybody who wears a different hat
>> depending on which audience he or she is addressing.
>
>Grow up.
I will if you will.
> American society (e pluribus unum) means that your
>"politician" has to adjust her message to different groups, telling
>each one how they can secure the best distribution for themselves
>while remaining fair to other groups (it's a libertarian lie that
>people, as political participants, don't altruistically want a fair
>shake for other groups).
I'm not talking about adjusting the message, I'm talking about making
opposite assertions in different social contexts.
>>>The fact is that most ordinary Americans have negative net worth and
>>>never once see more than about $2000.00 in their bank accounts.
Where is this statistic from, by the way?
>>>Most
>>>ordinary Americans die when they get sick unnecessarily because they
>>>cannot afford medical care.
>>
>>>And these pitiful excuses for Americans have learned never to blame
>>>anyone but themselves whether or not they are to blame for their
>>>problems...even when they've paid insurance premiums on time but are
>>>denied coverage all the same.
>>
>>>How convenient this is for the rich bastards who are behind the Rand
>>>cult.
>>
>> I don't see the connection of 'convenience' you're trying to make
>> between the "pitiful excuses for Americans" and the "rich bastard" Ayn
>> Rand cult.
>
>The connection was screamingly obvious in the figure of Alan
>Greenspan, whose cult membership alone would have disqualified him
>from high office had he been a member of a LEFT WING cult or political
>party, but which never was remarked upon except en passant.
I don't know any of that, do you?
>>>It is so ironic, in other words, that some libertarians and Randroids
>>>have adopted Pete Townshend's song "We Won't be Fooled Again" as an
>>>anthem. The song is all about how the generation of the Sixties,
>>>vicariously living a rock star's life (including his positive net
>>>worth) through an act of political fantasy, reject "big government"
>>>and "politics", and "won't be fooled again".
>>
>> The song was "Won't Get Fooled Again."
>>
>> We'll be fighting in the streets
>> With our children at our feet
>> And the morals that they worship will be gone
>> And the men who spurred us on
>> Sit in judgement of all wrong
>> They decide and the shotgun sings the song
>>
>> I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
>> Take a bow for the new revolution
>> Smile and grin at the change all around
>> Pick up my guitar and play
>> Just like yesterday
>> Then I'll get on my knees and pray
>> We don't get fooled again
>>
>> The change, it had to come
>> We knew it all along
>> We were liberated from the fold, that's all
>> And the world looks just the same
>> And history ain't changed
>> 'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
>>
>> I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
>> Take a bow for the new revolution
>> Smile and grin at the change all around
>> Pick up my guitar and play
>> Just like yesterday
>> Then I'll get on my knees and pray
>> We don't get fooled again
>> No, no!
>>
>> I'll move myself and my family aside
>> If we happen to be left half alive
>> I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
>> Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
>> Do ya?
>>
>> There's nothing in the streets
>> Looks any different to me
>> And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
>> And the parting on the left
>> Are now parting on the right
>> And the beards have all grown longer overnight
>>
>> I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
>> Take a bow for the new revolution
>> Smile and grin at the change all around
>> Pick up my guitar and play
>> Just like yesterday
>> Then I'll get on my knees and pray
>> We don't get fooled again
>> Don't get fooled again
>> No, no!
>>
>> Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
>>
>> Meet the new boss
>> Same as the old boss
>
>Childish horseshit.
I'd call it leftist horseshit. Good for making fertilizer, however.
>I happened to date a girl who'd been a Who
>groupie, the ex-girlfriend of the drummer and a personal friend of
>Pete Townshend. When she saw Townshend in NYC during the time we were
>seeing each other, Townshend ordered a beer despite the fact that he'd
>just published a book about "recovering from drugs and alcohol". I
>wouldn't credit a rock star on politics, any more than I'd credit Ted
>Nugent, who sat behind me in my high school homeroom and went on to
>(1) beguile thousands of fans into a wasto lifestyle and then (2) set
>himself up as a pompous conservative, decrying drugs and alcohol.
Of course rock stars are hypocrites, making the big bucks while
trashing the system that made it all possible. But who cares? Perhaps
capitalism is like a pure democracy, every time you buy something you
"vote" for that product and that company -- and that rock star. And
I'm sure we've all read theories about the potential ill effects of
pure democracy on a society.
>Like Rand, these cult leaders lead lemmings leaping off of ledges, and
>cliffs, and they laugh while raking in the bucks. They ain't no
>philosophers.
But isn't that their problem, not yours?
>>>...and then is fooled far more thoroughly than people ever were by
>>>liberalism into supporting the selfishness of others.
>>
>>>Of course, the fact that Rand is
>>
>> (was...)
>>
>>> an evil ideologue is independent
>>>logically of whether she is a philosopher. But if she was a
>>>philosopher, then Mein Kampf is a philosophy book. But, the only
>>>people that would refer to Hitler's "philosophy" in the respectful
>>>register, in claiming for example that Hitler deserves to be a part of
>>>a "Wikipedia Philosophy Project", are Hitler Youth.
>>
>> They were idealists or visionaries, not philosophers. Idealists often
>> try to make much of their struggle (Mein Kampf), particularly their
>> struggle to reshape the world or their small part of it. Idealists are
>> more practical than visionaries, the latter are also reformers but
>> they see much farther down the road then idealists. Philosophers are
>> pretty much as you'd expect them to be: like Michael Gordge, their
>> concern with the highest abstractions divorces their minds from
>> reality.
>>
>>>Randroids seek an honorific for their mad leader and for themselves.
>>>The adoption of Rand's philosophy is in fact ersatz for growing the
>>>fuck up which is why one sees it amongst college sophomores who have
>>>decided not to grow up and as a result need an ersatz and unearned set
>>>of excuses, which they wish to honor as a "philosophy", for their
>>>being incapable of the tasks of adulthood...as well as afraid of other
>>>people, who can be walled off using Rand's ready-made overdefinition
>>>of the sealed and "objective" self.
>>
>>>Hate to have to say it, but along with a kick in the pants, a couple
>>>of years in the Marines would go far in curing the Rand sickness
>>>because the "gospel of selfishness" doesn't work in the field.
>>
>> Joining some kind of service would teach them a modicum of respect for
>> others, at any rate. But are you saying you're in favor of reinstating
>> the draft?
So, are you in favor of reinstating the draft?
--
How was chirch this morning? - Michael Gordge
