All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Here It Comes, Just What I've Been Expecting ... Disarm Israel
This guy is right on, in my not so humble opinion.
These are the moves of an anti-Christ. I'm not saying Obama is THE anti-Christ. I don't even think he'll be President next year.
However, these are the exact moves that I have always expected out of the anti-Christ were the events of the book of Revelation to actually play out in our time.
Imagine Israel cut off from American weapons (BTW think anyone over there is making plans about that?), and thus concomitantly FREE of any American restraint?
Imagine Russia then offering to make that deal of Mig35's SU-34's and SU-50's (i.e. RUsski F-22's) for IAF electronics and missiles in a frame for avionics swap one for one?
Imagine China and India buying Israeli UAV's?
Israel buying Russian nuclear subs (THEY WILL SELL TO ANYONE WHO CAN BUY) and potentially refitting others for the Russians?
Can you imagine the incalculable long term damage to American security by cutting off Israel?
INSANE.
And it will realign COMPLETELY the American domestic political picture.
Semi-Christ is a good name for him, but this is the move of an anti-Christ. If this is what he is planning on doing then he is working to defeat God's people. That is evil at work. I don't think I have to quote you the chapter and verse, Jau Jau. I'm sure you remember it yourself.
Epa, you're right, it would be disastrous.
Israel is a stone which will break the back of any nation which tries to move it.
And, every nation on Earth seems to poised to try to move it these days. So, if they follow through, expect calamity.
Hey, we'll see. You reason to your conclusion, and your reasoning is good.
I look at things with reason and reason tells me that what the Bible says about Israel is true.
Israel tried disarming itself for about ten minutes, way back in the day when it was run by mostly atheist commies from the USSR. It didn't work. Not only was the population unsafe and getting killed left and right, but there's just no argument for disarming Israel. What's the (inherently oligarchic) argument for disarmament? That only those in law enforcement and specialists should have guns? Yeah, that doesn't apply to nations in which every citizen is either in the armed forces or a veteran of the armed forces. They're all cops, as far as that argument is concerned.
Obama can't work on nuke deals with the UAE, the Saudis, and (implicitly) Iran and then ask Israel to disarm itself. It's just too obvious.
And I'm with Pasto on the anti-Christ thing. I kinda thought he was the anti-Christ for a while, at least according to the Pat Dollard method whereby it matters not if the anti-Christ is just a literary device, but it's become clear that he's just not bright enough, effective enough, or charming enough. One must necessarily lie or resort to logical fallacies in order to defend him. The anti-Christ should at least be defensible in theory. At least Stalin and Hitler were up-front about their visions of the world, but Obama can't come out and say that he's a jihadi-sympathizing Leninist, so he can't bring about the kind of change he would like, at least, not all of it, not through the back door. There are very strong parallels between Obama and the anti-Christ, Damien, but as with everything else, Obama is unacceptably inept at that, too. The thesis of 'In Satan's Footsteps' (which is an excellent read, written by Walid's Shoebat's 17-year-old son, btw) is that Satan is a deceiver. Obama is perfectly transparent, and always was. He deceives nobody. Anyone who claims to have not foreseen everything he would do is either lying because they're still keeping their Marxism in the closet, naive to the point of a complete disconnect from reality, or deluded to the point of schizophrenia. Satan had a more-than-valid case in the Garden of Eden. He told Eve that she was not made for the Garden and that God did not have her best interests at heart, which was absolutely the case, albeit an Eve-centered case designed to appeal to a narcissist. His only deception was that he appeared as a snake. Obama's arguments invariably fail to hold up to history, economics, ethics, or arithmetic. There is something very deeply wrong with anyone who bought what he was selling.
However, in order for anyone to understand your comment, I think they would either have to be religious or educated in the Mythic Archetypal theories of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.
I don't get the feeling Damien has read on those subjects. Damien is very sharp on Logic, Reason, and Ayn Rand Libertarianism.
Mythic Archetypal Theory and Religion are esoteric subjects which often elude people who are focused on Reason and Logic. That results in their discounting the Mythic Archetypal paradigm to the point that they don't recognize the psychological/spiritual dimension of our reality.
Wittgenstein attempted to reduce reality to Logical/Mathematical equations based upon the strict definition of words.
While I think it is important to come to a consensus on the meaning of words, at the same time, I recognize that words are fluid in their meaning, depending upon who is using them.
Much of the power of the esoteric paradigm of the Mythic Archetypal (by the way, I don't know a better phrase for it, so I made that up) is based upon the fluidity of words, and therefore eludes Logic and Reason.
Just to clear things up, you said that I'm very sharp on logic, and reason. I'm glad you think that.
You said I'm sharp on Ayn Rand Libertarianism. I don't know if you are saying that because you think I know a lot about it, or because you think I'm one of Rand's followers. Unlike Bosch or Revere Rides Again, I am not objectivists, just to clear things up, in fact I am an admirer of Greg Nyquist, one of Rand's harshest critics. It even got me into a quasi argument with Bosch once or twice. one of the generally non War on Terror, and Jihad related blogs I like to spend time on is Greg Nyquists Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, Blog.
Damien, You said: I am not objectivists, just to clear things up, in fact I am an admirer of Greg Nyquist, one of Rand's harshest critics. It even got me into a quasi argument with Bosch once or twice. one of the generally non War on Terror, and Jihad related blogs I like to spend time on is Greg Nyquists Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, Blog.
I say: No, I did not know that. Interesting. You and I may be closer in thought than I realized.
Am I right that you are not religious and you have not read Jung or Campbell?
By the way, note that Bosch Fawstin and Revere Rides Again are two of my favorite contributors here, and yet, I don't really agree with their worldviews.
I also do not agree with Culturist John's world view, and yet I recommend his book Culturism highly ever chance I get.
I believe, wholeheartedly, that disagreement, and the process of argumentation, are absolutely necessary to the pursuit of truth, or perhaps I should say, a closer representation of the truth.
I know I have not read Jung, but I may have read something written by Campbell. However, if I did, I don't remember it very well.
As for Nyquist, I think I told you about him once before. I linked to an essay of his called "Truculent Realism," Which you mistakenly thought I might have written, but I had to tell you that I did not write it. It was over a year ago, so you probably don't remember.
Sometimes I have linked to Greg Nyquist's Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog, on few occasions when an objectivist posts an argument over here that I disagree with.
That said, I do agree with you when it comes to Revere Rides Again and Bosch Fawstin. I do think that they are excellent contributors, despite the fact that I disagree with them on a few major issues. The same is true for Culturist John. You are correct to say that argument is necessary in pursuit of the truth, but I would add to that that disagreement is inevitable in a free society. Even the founding father, who almost everyone here admires, including you and me, disagreed on some important things.
I own a book called "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America" by Steven Waldman, and it reveals that if anything, the founder's religious views were very diverse. They were nether all atheists and deists or Christian fundamentalists. That is one of the reasons that America today, is known for being a bastion of religious liberty. You might like Waldman's book, its very informative and entertaining.
You could also read Greg Nyquist's "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" book, if you ever have the time. Its very thought provoking, especially if you try to read it critically. You can also check out the blog here, if you would like.
One of the reasons I don't agree with your religious views maybe because I'm into the skeptical movement. I really admire scientific skeptics and I find the "Darwin Finches" hilarious. even though I wouldn't use their foul language, largely because I wouldn't want to mess up and use four letter words around children, and I don't want to look low class.
But I do have religious beliefs of my own. I am not an atheists, but I don't follow any holy text. I'm more of deist who believes in an after life.
Damien, You said; I own a book called "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America" by Steven Waldman, and it reveals that if anything, the founder's religious views were very diverse. They were nether all atheists and deists or Christian fundamentalists. That is one of the reasons that America today, is known for being a bastion of religious liberty. You might like Waldman's book, its very informative and entertaining.
I say: I think I would like that book, because I agree with it's premises.
Damien, You said; One of the reasons I don't agree with your religious views maybe because I'm into the skeptical movement. I really admire scientific skeptics and I find the "Darwin Finches" hilarious. even though I wouldn't use their foul language, largely because I wouldn't want to mess up and use four letter words around children, and I don't want to look low class.
But I do have religious beliefs of my own. I am not an atheists, but I don't follow any holy text. I'm more of deist who believes in an after life.
I say: That explains why you and I differ over the posting of profane imagery and words, and why you, and I agree on so many things.
I believe that there is nothing on Earth which is profane, in and of itself. I believe that all things were Created by God, and many things were corrupted by Man. I believe that if I give my Life to God that nothing is forbidden to me.
That is from the Bible, and it is a crazy idea to understand if you are not completely steeped in the Bible.
I do not believe it is ok for me to murder anyone. I do not believe it is ok for me to slander anyone. I do not believe it is ok for me to steal from anyone. I do not believe it is ok for me to set anything above God. And, I do not believe it is ok for me to betray my Parents.
And, I do not believe that if I violate any of those Laws that I am automatically forgiven. I believe I will have to pay for it.
But, other than that, words are ok, acts are ok, everything is sacred.
Impossible to understand, once again, unless you are absolutely inured in the Bible.
For a person who believes he can do anything, I live within very narrow grounds. As they say, narrow is the path ...
I guess I could say that to sum it up, I am not afraid of evil. Not in the slightest. It has no hold on me.
This is all esoteric stuff. It has nothing to do with logic. It probably doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to you.
I appreciate your response. I don't have time to debate you, and this isn't really the best place to do so, but I will say this. I think there is some truth in Christianity and Judaism. For one thing, I do think there is a kernel of Truth in the idea of Original Sin, even if there was no literal snake and no literal Garden of Edan and no Adam and Eve as described in the Bible. I think that evil is a part of human nature as well as good.
I hope you enjoy "Founding Faith!" Make sure you get the one, by Steven Waldman, because there are several other books that have those words in the title, but by different authors. Also maybe you could email after you read it and let me know what you think.
Speaking of Emails, did you get my last one? I sent you a video in it. I don't expect you to post it here, especially if you don't like it, but I would appreciate a response via another email.
Actually, just to let you know the person who made the comment about wishing Rand was dead, wasn't one of the official bloggers over there. It was someone who left a comment on one of the posts. It wasn't Greg Nyquist or the other person who posts threads over there, Danial Barns. So it wasn't a position official endorsed by the blog.
In fact there are a few objectivists who routinely leave comments over there critical of everything Greg and Danial say, and as far as I know, none of them have every received a death threat.
Complete philosophies are like Einstein and Newton trying to explain the entire of physical reality by a single theory or equation .. it's just not possible.
But as far as having a template for explaining the way humans act, she wins, for me anyway.
In science if your theory predicts reality again and again it's a theorem. When I look at what she claims (especially in Atlas Shrugs) and I apply that theory throughout history it looks like a theorem to me.
But then, I'm a guy who, if playing hearts will shoot the moon every hand .. I mean otherwise, why play?
Epa, I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.
Ayn Rand, and Machiavelli are Descriptive Philosophers.
Their Descriptions should not be taken as Prescriptions, and in fact, they are not taken as Prescriptions by a portion of societies around the world.
If Rand and Machiavelli were taken as Prescription by everyone we would not have Israel attempting to be fair with the Palestinians. We would not have Jewish and Catholic Hospitals spanning the Globe. We would not have soup lines, and homeless shelters.
I know you support those ideas.
It is, of course, called Altruism, and Ayn Rand attacked the very notion of Altruism.
She's a dumb bitch, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how brilliant she was at Descriptive Philosophy.
Rx - Take the Bill of Rights and call me in the morning.
For some people that might be a suppository.
Ms Rand managed to take her philosophy and use it to personally screw up two marriages, but at the macro level, she has it right over capitalism and freedom.
For her to actually be a successful philosopher she would have to eat her own dog food, and feed it to friends and family (and have them attest to its success) as well as write it large for society.
Israel attempts to be fair, not out of altruism (I BELIEVE) .. I think they FEAR NOT TO BE. They fear the judgment of a higher authority.
I also we believe we have soup lines and hospitals for US, and others benefit as a corollary. I believe this does NOT detract from the deed either, since it attests that we ATTEMPT to walk the razor's edge, and do right for it's own sake and not for the reward from others or ^. And I think that MIGHT be an Objectivist explanation of the true nature of altruism.
Epa, You said: Ms Rand managed to take her philosophy and use it to personally screw up two marriages, but at the macro level, she has it right over capitalism and freedom.
I say: No truer words could be written about Rand.
You said: Rx - Take the Bill of Rights and call me in the morning.
I say: Let me assure you, I am not prescribing that Altruism should be made law. That would be a violation of Freedom of Conscience/Speech. I am absolutely opposed to that. Altruism is a choice, not a responsibility.
You said: Israel attempts to be fair, not out of altruism (I BELIEVE) .. I think they FEAR NOT TO BE. They fear the judgment of a higher authority.
Thanks, Pasto. I was thinking more of 'Paradise Lost' by Milton when I wrote that. He made Satan a fairly sympathetic character. Even Hitler and Stalin were semi-defensible, if only because their utopian visions hadn't been proven not to work at the time, but modern communists and jihadists are just perpetually trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together. In 2009 the American way has proven to be the best way in all of human history. It's not broke, so Obama wants to break it. Not only that, but he's dishonest about that. Reliapundit posed the question a while ago, "If Obama were trying to destroy America, what would he be doing differently?" I have yet to come up with an answer so I'm sure that's what he's doing.
I've read Jung, but not Campbell or Nyquist. I've also read Waldmann's book, and I disagree with a lot of it, but think he has the basic idea right. I think that Dennis Prager has a better idea of the religious views of the Founding Fathers and that they were basically Jews for Jesus who saw the US as the new Israel and themselves as the new Jews leaving Egypt.
I do like the way Damien thinks and I agree that it's very logic/reason-based. I also think that Israel should absolutely take a more objectivist approach to the Palis. The longer people help them the longer they will remain what they are. That applies to the whole Mohammedan world. They haven't been made to fully suffer the failures of Islam because we keep bailing them out. I'm not saying that altruism is all bad, but helping self-destructive people is always destructive. For the record, I think she was spot-on when it came to domestic policy and largely way-off on foreign policy. I'm more of a neocon in that regard.
You said: I think that Dennis Prager has a better idea of the religious views of the Founding Fathers and that they were basically Jews for Jesus who saw the US as the new Israel and themselves as the new Jews leaving Egypt.
I say: You are the MAN, even though you are a girl.
I absolutely agree with that statement.
As Prager always points out, the Founding Fathers repeatedly sited the "Old Testament" in their writings and speeches.
You said: I also think that Israel should absolutely take a more objectivist approach to the Palis. The longer people help them the longer they will remain what they are. That applies to the whole Mohammedan world. They haven't been made to fully suffer the failures of Islam because we keep bailing them out.
I say: Yes, I agree there.
Basically, Objectivism is a good political Philosophy, but it is a terrible personal Philosophy.
You said: I think she was spot-on when it came to domestic policy and largely way-off on foreign policy.
I say: Yeah, Libertarians tend to be Isolationists and that is simply a stupid idea in today's world.
For better or worse, we are the world's police. Someone has to keep the Straits of Hormuz open.
43 comments:
Pastorius,
When it comes to foreign policy Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.
Yeah, I might have another name for it, but I won't bother you with it.
;-)
Pastorius,
go ahead, bother me with it.
These are the moves of an anti-Christ. I'm not saying Obama is THE anti-Christ. I don't even think he'll be President next year.
However, these are the exact moves that I have always expected out of the anti-Christ were the events of the book of Revelation to actually play out in our time.
History foreshadows itself. Hitler was also a foreshadow of the anti-Christ.
Most Biblical Prophecy is related to repeating events that gain clarity each time they repeat. That is how I see it.
I know it's all fairy tales to you, that's why I offered not to bother you with it.
Disarm Israel....
GO
FOR
IT
What a lesson THAT will turn out to be!
Imagine Israel cut off from American weapons (BTW think anyone over there is making plans about that?), and thus concomitantly FREE of any American restraint?
Imagine Russia then offering to make that deal of Mig35's SU-34's and SU-50's (i.e. RUsski F-22's) for IAF electronics and missiles in a frame for avionics swap one for one?
Imagine China and India buying Israeli UAV's?
Israel buying Russian nuclear subs (THEY WILL SELL TO ANYONE WHO CAN BUY) and potentially refitting others for the Russians?
Can you imagine the incalculable long term damage to American security by cutting off Israel?
INSANE.
And it will realign COMPLETELY the American domestic political picture.
Game this out in your heads
Anyone come up with a positive outcome for us?
INSANE.
Epaminondas,
Obama is an Ideologue, not the brightest bulb in the room.
He isn't smart enough to be an antichrist, jaco. He's a semichrist.
Semi-Christ is a good name for him, but this is the move of an anti-Christ. If this is what he is planning on doing then he is working to defeat God's people. That is evil at work. I don't think I have to quote you the chapter and verse, Jau Jau. I'm sure you remember it yourself.
Epa, you're right, it would be disastrous.
Israel is a stone which will break the back of any nation which tries to move it.
And, every nation on Earth seems to poised to try to move it these days. So, if they follow through, expect calamity.
Hey, we'll see. You reason to your conclusion, and your reasoning is good.
I look at things with reason and reason tells me that what the Bible says about Israel is true.
Six days, Bitch.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!
DISARMAMENT MAKES AS MUCH SENSE AS GUN CONTROL: THE BADDIES GET GUNS AND THEY WON'T EVER DISARM'
WE NEED COPS WITH GUNS.
AND THE GLOBAL COP HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE USA.
UNTIL OBAMA.
Israel tried disarming itself for about ten minutes, way back in the day when it was run by mostly atheist commies from the USSR. It didn't work. Not only was the population unsafe and getting killed left and right, but there's just no argument for disarming Israel. What's the (inherently oligarchic) argument for disarmament? That only those in law enforcement and specialists should have guns? Yeah, that doesn't apply to nations in which every citizen is either in the armed forces or a veteran of the armed forces. They're all cops, as far as that argument is concerned.
Obama can't work on nuke deals with the UAE, the Saudis, and (implicitly) Iran and then ask Israel to disarm itself. It's just too obvious.
And I'm with Pasto on the anti-Christ thing. I kinda thought he was the anti-Christ for a while, at least according to the Pat Dollard method whereby it matters not if the anti-Christ is just a literary device, but it's become clear that he's just not bright enough, effective enough, or charming enough. One must necessarily lie or resort to logical fallacies in order to defend him. The anti-Christ should at least be defensible in theory. At least Stalin and Hitler were up-front about their visions of the world, but Obama can't come out and say that he's a jihadi-sympathizing Leninist, so he can't bring about the kind of change he would like, at least, not all of it, not through the back door. There are very strong parallels between Obama and the anti-Christ, Damien, but as with everything else, Obama is unacceptably inept at that, too. The thesis of 'In Satan's Footsteps' (which is an excellent read, written by Walid's Shoebat's 17-year-old son, btw) is that Satan is a deceiver. Obama is perfectly transparent, and always was. He deceives nobody. Anyone who claims to have not foreseen everything he would do is either lying because they're still keeping their Marxism in the closet, naive to the point of a complete disconnect from reality, or deluded to the point of schizophrenia. Satan had a more-than-valid case in the Garden of Eden. He told Eve that she was not made for the Garden and that God did not have her best interests at heart, which was absolutely the case, albeit an Eve-centered case designed to appeal to a narcissist. His only deception was that he appeared as a snake. Obama's arguments invariably fail to hold up to history, economics, ethics, or arithmetic. There is something very deeply wrong with anyone who bought what he was selling.
Jdamn,
That is an excellent comment.
However, in order for anyone to understand your comment, I think they would either have to be religious or educated in the Mythic Archetypal theories of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.
I don't get the feeling Damien has read on those subjects. Damien is very sharp on Logic, Reason, and Ayn Rand Libertarianism.
Mythic Archetypal Theory and Religion are esoteric subjects which often elude people who are focused on Reason and Logic. That results in their discounting the Mythic Archetypal paradigm to the point that they don't recognize the psychological/spiritual dimension of our reality.
Wittgenstein attempted to reduce reality to Logical/Mathematical equations based upon the strict definition of words.
While I think it is important to come to a consensus on the meaning of words, at the same time, I recognize that words are fluid in their meaning, depending upon who is using them.
Much of the power of the esoteric paradigm of the Mythic Archetypal (by the way, I don't know a better phrase for it, so I made that up) is based upon the fluidity of words, and therefore eludes Logic and Reason.
And yet, it has power.
You and I acknowledge that.
Damien probably does not.
By the way, Wittgenstein failed, as all Philosophers do.
But, Wittgenstein's fail was epic.
;-)
Pastorius,
Just to clear things up, you said that I'm very sharp on logic, and reason. I'm glad you think that.
You said I'm sharp on Ayn Rand Libertarianism. I don't know if you are saying that because you think I know a lot about it, or because you think I'm one of Rand's followers. Unlike Bosch or Revere Rides Again, I am not objectivists, just to clear things up, in fact I am an admirer of Greg Nyquist, one of Rand's harshest critics. It even got me into a quasi argument with Bosch once or twice. one of the generally non War on Terror, and Jihad related blogs I like to spend time on is Greg Nyquists Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, Blog.
Although I did defend Rand once over there, when one of the commentators, said he was glad she was dead.
And sometimes I do agree with her.
Damien,
You said: I am not objectivists, just to clear things up, in fact I am an admirer of Greg Nyquist, one of Rand's harshest critics. It even got me into a quasi argument with Bosch once or twice. one of the generally non War on Terror, and Jihad related blogs I like to spend time on is Greg Nyquists Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, Blog.
I say: No, I did not know that. Interesting. You and I may be closer in thought than I realized.
Am I right that you are not religious and you have not read Jung or Campbell?
By the way, note that Bosch Fawstin and Revere Rides Again are two of my favorite contributors here, and yet, I don't really agree with their worldviews.
I also do not agree with Culturist John's world view, and yet I recommend his book Culturism highly ever chance I get.
I believe, wholeheartedly, that disagreement, and the process of argumentation, are absolutely necessary to the pursuit of truth, or perhaps I should say, a closer representation of the truth.
Pastorius,
I know I have not read Jung, but I may have read something written by Campbell. However, if I did, I don't remember it very well.
As for Nyquist, I think I told you about him once before. I linked to an essay of his called "Truculent Realism," Which you mistakenly thought I might have written, but I had to tell you that I did not write it. It was over a year ago, so you probably don't remember.
Sometimes I have linked to Greg Nyquist's Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog, on few occasions when an objectivist posts an argument over here that I disagree with.
That said, I do agree with you when it comes to Revere Rides Again and Bosch Fawstin. I do think that they are excellent contributors, despite the fact that I disagree with them on a few major issues. The same is true for Culturist John. You are correct to say that argument is necessary in pursuit of the truth, but I would add to that that disagreement is inevitable in a free society. Even the founding father, who almost everyone here admires, including you and me, disagreed on some important things.
I own a book called "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America" by Steven Waldman, and it reveals that if anything, the founder's religious views were very diverse. They were nether all atheists and deists or Christian fundamentalists. That is one of the reasons that America today, is known for being a bastion of religious liberty. You might like Waldman's book, its very informative and entertaining.
Pastorius,
You could also read Greg Nyquist's "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" book, if you ever have the time. Its very thought provoking, especially if you try to read it critically. You can also check out the blog here, if you would like.
One of the reasons I don't agree with your religious views maybe because I'm into the skeptical movement. I really admire scientific skeptics and I find the "Darwin Finches" hilarious. even though I wouldn't use their foul language, largely because I wouldn't want to mess up and use four letter words around children, and I don't want to look low class.
But I do have religious beliefs of my own. I am not an atheists, but I don't follow any holy text. I'm more of deist who believes in an after life.
Damien,
You said: "disagreement is inevitable in a free society"
I say: Yes, indeed, it is.
Damien,
You said; I own a book called "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America" by Steven Waldman, and it reveals that if anything, the founder's religious views were very diverse. They were nether all atheists and deists or Christian fundamentalists. That is one of the reasons that America today, is known for being a bastion of religious liberty. You might like Waldman's book, its very informative and entertaining.
I say: I think I would like that book, because I agree with it's premises.
Damien,
You said; One of the reasons I don't agree with your religious views maybe because I'm into the skeptical movement. I really admire scientific skeptics and I find the "Darwin Finches" hilarious. even though I wouldn't use their foul language, largely because I wouldn't want to mess up and use four letter words around children, and I don't want to look low class.
But I do have religious beliefs of my own. I am not an atheists, but I don't follow any holy text. I'm more of deist who believes in an after life.
I say: That explains why you and I differ over the posting of profane imagery and words, and why you, and I agree on so many things.
I believe that there is nothing on Earth which is profane, in and of itself. I believe that all things were Created by God, and many things were corrupted by Man. I believe that if I give my Life to God that nothing is forbidden to me.
That is from the Bible, and it is a crazy idea to understand if you are not completely steeped in the Bible.
I do not believe it is ok for me to murder anyone. I do not believe it is ok for me to slander anyone. I do not believe it is ok for me to steal from anyone. I do not believe it is ok for me to set anything above God. And, I do not believe it is ok for me to betray my Parents.
And, I do not believe that if I violate any of those Laws that I am automatically forgiven. I believe I will have to pay for it.
But, other than that, words are ok, acts are ok, everything is sacred.
Impossible to understand, once again, unless you are absolutely inured in the Bible.
For a person who believes he can do anything, I live within very narrow grounds. As they say, narrow is the path ...
I guess I could say that to sum it up, I am not afraid of evil. Not in the slightest. It has no hold on me.
This is all esoteric stuff. It has nothing to do with logic. It probably doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to you.
Pastorius,
I appreciate your response. I don't have time to debate you, and this isn't really the best place to do so, but I will say this. I think there is some truth in Christianity and Judaism. For one thing, I do think there is a kernel of Truth in the idea of Original Sin, even if there was no literal snake and no literal Garden of Edan and no Adam and Eve as described in the Bible. I think that evil is a part of human nature as well as good.
I hope you enjoy "Founding Faith!" Make sure you get the one, by Steven Waldman, because there are several other books that have those words in the title, but by different authors. Also maybe you could email after you read it and let me know what you think.
Speaking of Emails, did you get my last one? I sent you a video in it. I don't expect you to post it here, especially if you don't like it, but I would appreciate a response via another email.
Damien,
I know you sent me a bunch of Mad TV video links, but other than that, I don't remember.
I get an awful lot of email every day and I spend as much time as I can reviewing it. Sadly, I don't get through all of it.
I try.
I think those Mad TV links need to be posted at IBA.
But, as you can see with the Birmingham story, sometimes it takes two or three days for me to get to something.
And, sometimes, frankly, I forget entirely.
That's one of the reasons it is great to have Midnight Rider here.
He usually spends as much time online as I do.
But the past few days, he has not been able to.
We are falling behind.
Pastorius,
Thanks, I understand, but my last one had nothing to do with those Mad TV videos.
I sent you a video critical of the Department of Homeland Security's right wing terrorist profiling.
Well you've convinced me to get Nyquist's book contra human nature
Rand was only right about one thing and it's consequences...
HUMAN
NATURE
as were some guys around 1789 who built a govt based on human weaknesses instead of altruistic bullshit (which is an IMPULSE not nature)
And now I will withdraw the stick from the cage
Epaminondas,
Actually, just to let you know the person who made the comment about wishing Rand was dead, wasn't one of the official bloggers over there. It was someone who left a comment on one of the posts. It wasn't Greg Nyquist or the other person who posts threads over there, Danial Barns. So it wasn't a position official endorsed by the blog.
In fact there are a few objectivists who routinely leave comments over there critical of everything Greg and Danial say, and as far as I know, none of them have every received a death threat.
I think Rand sums herself up very well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
She is a brilliant, but flawed, systematic Philosopher.
All systematic Philosophers are flawed, because Systems do not work in reality.
That's why my favorite Philosophers are Nietzsche and Hume. They were not Systematic Philosophers.
Complete philosophies are like Einstein and Newton trying to explain the entire of physical reality by a single theory or equation .. it's just not possible.
But as far as having a template for explaining the way humans act, she wins, for me anyway.
In science if your theory predicts reality again and again it's a theorem. When I look at what she claims (especially in Atlas Shrugs) and I apply that theory throughout history it looks like a theorem to me.
But then, I'm a guy who, if playing hearts will shoot the moon every hand .. I mean otherwise, why play?
Epa,
I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.
Ayn Rand, and Machiavelli are Descriptive Philosophers.
Their Descriptions should not be taken as Prescriptions, and in fact, they are not taken as Prescriptions by a portion of societies around the world.
If Rand and Machiavelli were taken as Prescription by everyone we would not have Israel attempting to be fair with the Palestinians. We would not have Jewish and Catholic Hospitals spanning the Globe. We would not have soup lines, and homeless shelters.
I know you support those ideas.
It is, of course, called Altruism, and Ayn Rand attacked the very notion of Altruism.
She's a dumb bitch, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how brilliant she was at Descriptive Philosophy.
Something missing in that soul.
By the way, for most people, Libertarianism is merely a Prescription for Chaos.
Rx - Take the Bill of Rights and call me in the morning.
For some people that might be a suppository.
Ms Rand managed to take her philosophy and use it to personally screw up two marriages, but at the macro level, she has it right over capitalism and freedom.
For her to actually be a successful philosopher she would have to eat her own dog food, and feed it to friends and family (and have them attest to its success) as well as write it large for society.
Israel attempts to be fair, not out of altruism (I BELIEVE) .. I think they FEAR NOT TO BE. They fear the judgment of a higher authority.
I also we believe we have soup lines and hospitals for US, and others benefit as a corollary. I believe this does NOT detract from the deed either, since it attests that we ATTEMPT to walk the razor's edge, and do right for it's own sake and not for the reward from others or ^. And I think that MIGHT be an Objectivist explanation of the true nature of altruism.
;)
Epa,
You said: Ms Rand managed to take her philosophy and use it to personally screw up two marriages, but at the macro level, she has it right over capitalism and freedom.
I say: No truer words could be written about Rand.
You said: Rx - Take the Bill of Rights and call me in the morning.
I say: Let me assure you, I am not prescribing that Altruism should be made law. That would be a violation of Freedom of Conscience/Speech. I am absolutely opposed to that. Altruism is a choice, not a responsibility.
You said: Israel attempts to be fair, not out of altruism (I BELIEVE) .. I think they FEAR NOT TO BE. They fear the judgment of a higher authority.
I say: You say, "Fear". I say, "Revere".
Thanks, Pasto. I was thinking more of 'Paradise Lost' by Milton when I wrote that. He made Satan a fairly sympathetic character. Even Hitler and Stalin were semi-defensible, if only because their utopian visions hadn't been proven not to work at the time, but modern communists and jihadists are just perpetually trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together. In 2009 the American way has proven to be the best way in all of human history. It's not broke, so Obama wants to break it. Not only that, but he's dishonest about that. Reliapundit posed the question a while ago, "If Obama were trying to destroy America, what would he be doing differently?" I have yet to come up with an answer so I'm sure that's what he's doing.
I've read Jung, but not Campbell or Nyquist. I've also read Waldmann's book, and I disagree with a lot of it, but think he has the basic idea right. I think that Dennis Prager has a better idea of the religious views of the Founding Fathers and that they were basically Jews for Jesus who saw the US as the new Israel and themselves as the new Jews leaving Egypt.
I do like the way Damien thinks and I agree that it's very logic/reason-based. I also think that Israel should absolutely take a more objectivist approach to the Palis. The longer people help them the longer they will remain what they are. That applies to the whole Mohammedan world. They haven't been made to fully suffer the failures of Islam because we keep bailing them out. I'm not saying that altruism is all bad, but helping self-destructive people is always destructive. For the record, I think she was spot-on when it came to domestic policy and largely way-off on foreign policy. I'm more of a neocon in that regard.
Jdamn,
You said: I think that Dennis Prager has a better idea of the religious views of the Founding Fathers and that they were basically Jews for Jesus who saw the US as the new Israel and themselves as the new Jews leaving Egypt.
I say: You are the MAN, even though you are a girl.
I absolutely agree with that statement.
As Prager always points out, the Founding Fathers repeatedly sited the "Old Testament" in their writings and speeches.
You said: I also think that Israel should absolutely take a more objectivist approach to the Palis. The longer people help them the longer they will remain what they are. That applies to the whole Mohammedan world. They haven't been made to fully suffer the failures of Islam because we keep bailing them out.
I say: Yes, I agree there.
Basically, Objectivism is a good political Philosophy, but it is a terrible personal Philosophy.
You said: I think she was spot-on when it came to domestic policy and largely way-off on foreign policy.
I say: Yeah, Libertarians tend to be Isolationists and that is simply a stupid idea in today's world.
For better or worse, we are the world's police. Someone has to keep the Straits of Hormuz open.
China and Russia will not do it.
Post a Comment