Karl

It should be said at this point that I also read Atlas Shrugged and it made no impact on me. Indeed I believe the idea of a 'Galts Gulch' is fantasy, but then the book isn't the actual philosophy, but a simplistic illustration of it. It was too lengthy IMO and needed cutting as a novel, yet now I see what it really was. In a similar way the Bible was impractical, but it was taken up by millions. Compassion and empathy are only available to those who are free to give them. The philosophy isn't about how to give compassion and empathy, but the values, principles and actions that give the best chance of having the capacity to affording those things. It doesn't lay down what should be done, but what must necessarily be done. I always use the analogy of the passenger jet oxygen masks. The steward reminds passengers to 'put on their masks before helping children, spouse or other passengers'. It's obvious, you must first be alive and then free to give others assistance. If we are not free in mind/ body, or we are dead, then those things become irrelevant. At best we are forced to act as an authority commands us- such was the case in the worlds worst tyrannies that shepherded humans to death camps, at worst we are the recipient of a long prison sentence/a bullet in the back of the head if we refuse to comply. What is impractical ? Why don't the airlines force us to ignore ourselves, to act altruistically, look after others first, be unselfishly. That's because if everybody is acting altruistically, there is a great likelihood that the result would be an aircraft full of unconscious or dead passengers.

Can you explain what you think is the critical flaw Steve ? I'm struggling to see anything that represents an argument within the text. I will gladly answer if you will pick specifics and then I can address them. I started on a long piece which began with the obvious use of a 'clinical psychologist' employed to discredit the mad old bint with crazy ideas. She is dangerous crazy comrade, take her to the Gulag. She certainly didn't promote greed. I can answer to rational selfishness, but it's easier just to post the entire thing from the Rand Lexicon, then, any parts within it I can answer more fully ? I'm keen to answer but I can only see that it would be swapping ad Homs with the author.

I can't offer a rebuttal because I can't find the argument. It's an ad hom hatchet job. Where's the philosophical argument ? I was expecting something with real meat and potatoes. One need only read Atlas Shrugged to see that today's USA was just as Rand predicted. Few listened to her philosophy, fewer understood it and it can only be a handful that follow it. Alan Greenspan ended up as head of the Fed-an institution that fits every kind of evil Rand stood against. Peikoff (L) her heir, was asked repeatedly about Greenspans defection. After much time he answered that Rand had seen flaws in Greenspan and Peikoff very early on. Peikoff said Greenspan was a brilliant man, truly brilliant, but that he had eventually been sucked into the Washington machine. Rand had said that Peikoffs flaw was his lack of practicality (which he has worked hard to improve), but Greenspan had a moral flaw, he didn't fully understand or accept the ethical dimension of objectivism and this was why he gradually lost touch with it. So, maybe it could be said that one of her brightest acolytes eventially became part of the very system Rand had so strenuously rejected through objectivism. That's really all I can dig out of it with regard fact. I have no idea of Rand's relationship with her husband and I see no relevance in it. I don't cling to Rand, or worship her as some kind of perfect human being, she did her best like the rest of us, she had faults, she made errors of judgement and her opinions were not necessarily anything to do with objectivism. I know little of her personal life, it's of no concern to me. You have to at least attempt to seperate things. I didn't know Mozart, Beethoven, Van Gough, Issac Newton, Aristotle or a host of others who contributed great works to the world. They could quite possibly been murdering, thieving, raving loonies, but their work stands, so does Rand's.

What actually are the consequences of free speech Ralis ? That someone might be offended ? The consequences of not having free speech are far more dangerous. Speech is just speech, better words than actions in conflict, that's why we have language so we can communicate. I think free speech is dangerous to you for some reason. Did you take note that the exact title is by an Israeli Jew, in a leading Jewish publication ?

Is this all you can do, constantly try to shut down subjects you don't like ? Well dude, welcome to the real world where you can't have your cake and eat it, or get everything you want. You have the option of using the ignore button. As I've said many times I'm not a Neo-liberal, this is emotive name calling. Ralis stamps his feet because he couldn't get someone else banned, or a thread stopped because you didn't personally approve it. Get over it, or move onto another thread where you can feel all happy and approving.

There is no place for racism or bigotry, but that must apply equally. This piece was written by an Israeli Jew (in a leading Jewish magazine) to highlight the lionisation of Jews which has made it almost impossible for people to criticise their own part in historical atrocities. This sets an equally dangerous precedent in every group, race or culture. Once a group is liberated through victim hood, they are free to act in ways that often encourage a blind eye through the suppression of criticism. It was a hard hitting title, I balked and wouldn't read it, but it was the actual title from the pen of a Jewish writer (I don't know if you can be exactly racist against ones own race ?). I think it asks important questions that require light. I thought it was just another hideous Jewish hit piece by an anti-Semite, but it isn't. I even had several fairly heated discussion with Sionnach by PM in which we disagreed, so, it wasn't some casual thought process. I still don't like the title, but, that wasn't Sionnachs fault. Shutting down free speech on tough subjects is, itself, racist, if it denies the truth that every class, creed, race, religion, group, sex, colour or sexual orientation contains good and bad eggs. We cannot exclude any group or individual form historical and ethical analysis, or those that get their mouths sown shut are the victims of inverted racism. Instead of simply having a knee jerk PC reaction to someone's opinion, why not open it out, make fun of the bigots and racists, show them up for what they are by all means, but slapping a gag and handcuffs on dissenters gets us no where. Why not ask Sionnach what he means, why he posted, get a dialogue going, don't go looking for the dungeon and rack the moment your fuse is tripped. I believe this is why the mods allowed it to continue, but I don't think we can let it continue if it's just going to be calls for punishment. If you say you like to use critical thinking then debate it fairly and calmly.

Yes, but what's for tea ? :-)

Totally correct. Rand would have said so her self in a most emphatic way.

I'm going to have to write a rebuttal by the looks of things-more bloody work. :-) I will need to do this properly with footnotes and all so it's will be necessary to transfer to a PC and take some time to ensure the points are covered. Contrary to what you may think, I welcome an opportunity to set the record straight. I had read the article previously, it's wrong, but, hey, even so called objectivist get objectivism wrong so that isn't a surprise.

It's not nice to attack any peaceful people regardless. In this case it isn't aimed even at Zionists, it just puts things into an historical perspective. There are bad and good eggs everywhere. This particular piece was written by an Israeli Jew in a leading Jewish publication, this was a Jew that called out his own people for their hand in the atrocities under Stalin. The title wasn't Sionnachs, it was that used in the publication.

Thank you Kar3n and your team for taking the time and trouble to reopen this thread, as a former mod I know how time consuming/tricky it is to find a balance and then take the trouble to reconsider the inclusion.

The mods had locked the Topic despite there being no racist content in the thread, but it had a title which was somewhat misleading IMO which included 'jew'. The title didn't reflect the content of the thread except historically it was accurate, but gave an impression that it might have ulterior motives in promoting anti-semitism (which it didn't). It contained nothing offensive unless someone was an offended Marxist so, sans the title which could easily have been changed, why has it it been removed without an option for the OP to modify the title ?

In other words we will create division in order to stir up hatred and oppression, then we will use that to get into power and do whatever the hell we like. I've seen it written on this forum several times about 'silver spoons' the 'undeserving rich' the 'robber barons'. This is vindictive racism/classism and needs exposing for what it really is in order to prevent groups gaining power on the back of that manufactured conflict. It's what Hitler, Stalin and Mao did by creating disharmony in its population. The way to treat it is to open it up to the light, to expose it. This is why free speech is vitally important. By shutting down criticism of one group whilst adopting a blindness to the criticisms of another this creates, not resolves conflict. It festers and it allows those that are using this strategy to win elections/ gain control of the strings of power unopposed. That's how tyrants come to power, not by free speech, but by denying it.

Ok I'm clearer now. Actually this is something that I was similarly close to posting during a discussion about homosexuality. It's really bound up in 'cultural marxism, I call it that because I have no other sense of what is going on in modern society/political correctness/demonising white male heterosexuals and lionising small groups in what is clearly racism in reverse. I could equally have said to remember just how many homosexuals were serial murders/rapists. The reality is of course that this is true of every group, but there is a sense, if we take the Jews as an example, that they are the victims, that they are close to angels who are persecuted/mass murdered and historical fact is hence, expediently rubbed away. So, what's going on ? It's clearly true that this is happening. No one is allowed to forget the hollocaust-quite rightly, but the mass murdering Jews of Russia are expunged. Same with the massacre of homosexuals in the recent night club shooting, it is hardly mentioned that one of the shooters appears to have been a homosexual, or that homosexuals have some terrible murdering individuals amongst them. Black lives matter ignores the fact that the majority of black men are killed by black men, not by white policemen. Somehow equality doesn't apply here. No one bats an eyelid at 'pale, male and stale'. Feminista scream for men to be taught not to rape women, yet there are many women rapists and men raping men. Do 'black lives matter' more than white lives ? Then why is it that slavery is considered the province of whites, yet it has been practised by all races throughout history-the Turks were taking Christian slaves only a few hundred years ago. Why is it OK to criticise British imperialism, but to forget the African/American Indian tribes that practised genocide against other tribes ? If oppression is a bad thing-obviously-then it must not lionise one group over another. If it's Non PC to attack blacks, homosexuals, Jews or any other group, then it must be equally non PC to attack white male Christian homosexuals. Let's have equality if we shall have it. No more allowing threads criticising Christian republicans, or British Imperialists, white slavery, Nazi genocides, or let's open up the possibility that ALL groups and all people are and have participated in horrendous acts of oppressive coercion against their own race/group as well as other groups. I have been quite shocked at the reaction by some young people following the UK referendum and at the tone of the press generally. Brexiteers are branded racist, xenophobic, muddle minded, uneducated, white, old extremists. Even in the House of Commons it's acceptable to utter the words 'male, pale and stale' without any attempt to apply PC rules, in fact the opposite, one after another the male eunuchs stand up to agree that there need be more women, more ethnic minorities, more homosexuals and act as if the entirety of the older White male Christian heterosexual groups are unpardonable sinners of the worst kind-and everything wrong in the world is their fault, but everything good is black, female, homosexual and young, is brilliant and untainted except, of course, by the oppression of that white group that made them act badly in a small minority of cases. Where has the balance gone ? Is this 'cultural marxism' or is it simply racist oppression gone too far ?

The stream of time doesn't seem to matter to google.

That's because you are alive.

Clikileaks no I mean Wikitons well one of them anyway.

But it is a discussion, surely not a censored subject ? I don't agree with you Kar3n in that respect, but your the mod, so I have to accept the verdict. I hope you apply that censorship equally.

Only that both did. Leave it there anyway, I really just wanted to why the thread vanished. No I'm very confused about why it vanished except for the obviously potentially inflammatory title.

What does it mean 'calling out one group over another' . Does that mean no one can be criticised, or no group can be criticised ? It seems pretty grey as we are arguing hells teeth over Clinton vs Trump. These are all opinion pieces surely ? I'm most confused.

Try defining them and then discussing the workings of each and their isn't a spit of difference. Mussolini was a relatively soft dictator compared to Hitler and Hitler killed less people than Stalin or Mao. I shudder at the thought of living under any of them.

Same beast different colour. It's all collectivist ideology that subverts the freedom of the individual to that of the state/common good or any other ideal. It was the economics that used to provide the marginal difference. Facism (we have that instead of laissez faire capitalism) has the means of production (nominally) in the hands of private enterprise, but it is in fact governed by the state, or in modern terms it's impossible to see who governs who as corporatism and state are pretty much the same thing. Communism has the means of production (nominally) in the people's hands, but it's the state that determines everything. Facism probably gets the nod as the better economic model, but it's really only a matter of degree and timescale. Had it been the USSR instead of Germany that had set out the conquer land mass, then for certain history would now have the communists/progressives/ liberals/ socialists as the beasts and fascism would be considered an annoyance. It's only semantics after all. They are identical in my eyes, as they are in every philosophical sense.

I did that to me for certain. I've had a number of emails between myself and Sionnach regarding my own dislike of that title. If I thought it were OK by the mods to do so, then I would suggest we aired the issues. They are very complicated and there are a lot of ill defined terms. People bandy around terms like anti-Semitic, Zionism, Islam, Muslim, Christian, Arab without thinking through what the meanings are and how they apply.

I doubt that. It was certainly correct IMO to do something about the word 'jew' used in the title. I've made this point to the OP in a PM. To be Jewish is to belong to a race of people and isn't a choice, so to take the attitude that Marxism-in all its forms (one of which is facist) is purely a Jewish invention would be wildly incorrect. Rand was a Jew. She opposed both Collectivism and religion equally. We really shouldn't need to go through this, but it appears people still don't understand the difference between race, religion, political ideology and culture. The best thing to do is to educate, not remove a thread because it may be deemed offensive without explaining to the OP and participants exactly why it was offensive.

Yep, I agree, I was kind of worried that it was a racial thing, but it isn't so the title could do with altering IMO. It's really about murdering Marxists, but the name of communism has been steadily evolved to include progressive and liberals. I doubt you will be happy about its contents, but you should make yourself aware. If Marxism does get itself ensconced in any Western country then you can wave goodbye to all those 'rights' you thought you had.