Scandal du jour: Audio tape reveals White House using NEA to push its health care agenda

Adam Gold's picture
Submitted by Adam Gold on Tue, 2009-09-22 02:45


Your tax dollars, well spent.


( categories: )

Ian Grant

Kasper's picture

1) A pastor.

2) Marriage councellor.

3) Effective strategies to bring up teenagers.

He is the auckland 'guru' who runs parents inc. One would have thought you would know of him quite well. Anyone that listens to Leighton Smith or has been in christian circles would have come accross him at some stage.


Rosie's picture

I'm sorry, Gregster, I should not have been so mean. I have been thinking that maybe Hitler was a mystic after all. But because he had no "connection" with God, he was an evil mystic. You see, my idea about mystics is that they are disillusioned with what they see about them, remove themselves from society and think. During their thinking they realise that they can't isolate themselves from the world and either, say in the case of Francis of Assisi, because of his way of living (simply and in harmony with nature) drew people to him so that, before long, quite against his anticipation or want, he had a "following". Hitler may well have been the same except it was through his writing Mein Kampf. In Hitler's case, he presented his thoughts resulting from his disillusionment with society by way of a book (and before that in articles to the newspaper which led to invitations to talk). Suddenly he found himself with a following. Because he was not connected to God/goodness in any way, he became overcome by his power and then it all went awry.

Anyway, I just wanted to apologise to you for my rudeness.

P.S. Who is Ian Grant?

And I rest my case, like Hilton

gregster's picture

You have no idea what you're dealing with. This is SOLO, not Ian Grant's happy clappy hour.


Can't be bothered, sorry

Rosie's picture

If you think that Hitler is a mystic then you must be nuts.

But that's right! Words change their meanings under the (unpublished) Rand dictionary, and all universally agreed definitions are thrown out as soon as one starts talking to someone who adopts this language, so that all communication becomes impossible and completely meaningless. Mystic according to Rand means controlling, power hungry person who behaves like Rand.

Can't be bothered.


gregster's picture

most people have been and are mystics. That's why the world is in its present state.

Hitler's a famous example.

Your idea of a lot of things will be different because you've made the decision to short circuit your mind.

I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind—a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence. And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: “It’s so, because I say so,” will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later. Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics: it does not matter whether one rejects the mind in favor of revelations or in favor of conditioned reflexes. The basic premise and the results are the same.

AR Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World

Gregster - Mystics

Rosie's picture

I think my idea of a mystic may be something different from your idea. Mysticism is partly synonymous with a "creative insight," "intellectual vision" or "intuitive perception." Such experiences are not contrary to reason. Tillich called the mystic's experience "ecstatic reason". Who from history would you say was a mystic?

So you say

gregster's picture

I get that too, of course, but you can't get away with the expression in the context of your religious advocacy.

If you were to use your own reasoning which discounted the pantheism of Egypt, prior to Akhanaten moving to monotheism, you would too, discount your god.

You are only one god away from atheism. Nearly there!


Rosie's picture


Keep an open mind means to read or listen to something without judgement until it is complete. To consider it without pre-conceived notions, with a fresh mind. To open your mind to consider something without all that chitter chatter that goes on in your head (preparing arguments etc) before the person has finished speaking or before you have finished reading. It is a tool that all people should employ in any conversation. Until someone learns this skill, he is unable to communicate effectively.

I can tell it is not employed by some people on SOLO because they will ask a question or say something that is already revealed in the post or an article within the post. I.e., they have not finished reading the post before they are emotively aroused to rush in to a response.

So, in fact, when I say keep an open mind, ultimately I am asking someone to use reason and not emotion in the response. I am asking the person to forestall his or her emotional response until he or she has heard or read it all.

I've read your book, it's crap, try mine

gregster's picture

I have said here that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mystic is quite different from mystical.

It simply means one who uses feelings instead of reason.

They take on many forms but share a divorce from reality. Otherworldliness for sure. I know that you would aspire to that which is not of this world.

And as when you said, “keep an open mind,” (alarm bells), that really means “believe whatever you want.”

Goode also mistakenly calls me Randroid when Randian would be what I aspire to.

Mystics are the enemy of reason, mind, humanity.


Richard Goode's picture

'Mystic' - coming from the mouth of an Objectivist - is like 'altruist' or 'intrinsicist' - it's more a general term of abuse than anything else.


Rosie's picture

Well I hardly suspect that Mr Gold is a mystic from what he has written.

Nor do I think it correct to assert that all creationists are mystics.
Nor do I think it correct to assert that anyone who defends my arguments is a mystic.

(The incomprehensible gobbledy-gook of some other writers on SOLO (notably Kasper) is far more "mystical" - in tone if not in content. )

What are your reasons for your lack of respect for mystics?
And what do you think a mystic is?


Richard Goode's picture

Greg suffers from hyper-Randroidism.

There's a lot of it going around.

Less Rosie

gregster's picture

I don't respect mystics. It's not whether I agree on other things.


Rosie's picture

If he backs your 'position,' I have no truck with him.

Why not?

That seems a little absurd. You liked his comments on Economics.
Do you suffer from Ayn Rand's complaint of having no "truck" with anyone who disagrees with you?
Even if only on one issue?

Even Rosier

gregster's picture

"We should be in a different "room" to discuss this!"

Look, try all you like, I won't be tempted.

If he backs your 'position,' I have no truck with him.


Rosie's picture

We should be in a different "room" to discuss this! (It seems wrong to sabotage Mr Gold's post in this way.)

But no. I am not agreeing that to advocate creationism is not smart. I am merely saying that my take on Mr Gold's replies is that, although he has defended my arguments (or my position would be more apt), he has not actually advocated creationism. It could be that he thinks I need defending and a little help!

So Rosie

gregster's picture

Are you thereby agreeing that to advocate creationism is not smart?

If so, we're getting somewhere.


Rosie's picture

He is smart. And he has not advocated creationism. From what I can make out he has refuted Darwinism.

He's not smart

gregster's picture

He advocates creationism. And he's been here four days.

His economics post was very good though.


Rosie's picture

This is much the best photo of the three you have been playing about with. Perhaps your own preoccupation with your photo makes the fact that Mr Gold has not put up a photo within one day of his joining remarkable to you. It certainly does not affect whether he is smart. And he is clearly, clearly, clearly MUCH smarter than you. Be grateful that he has not put up his photo for, until he does, at least you can have a few days where you can argue that the inference to the best explanation is that you might be better looking!

P.S. How about saying something about his post rather than your not-so-witty one liners? Smiling

Ms Purchas

gregster's picture

The guy doesn't put up a photo, he sounds like one of your creationist ring-ins, and that's not smart.


Rosie's picture

I am amazed that no one has posted replies of horror and dismay to your post. If it were the NZ government using tax payer's money to provide PC badges for schools (see earlier post when this actually happened) or to employ arts groups to support unpopular policies such as folic supplements to bread or anti-smacking laws there would have been a huge outcry on SOLO. Parochialism is clearly the order of the day. Either that or the people on this site are very shy of a newcomer. Particularly one who is so much smarter than they.

Anyway, what a scandal. Will this become so public and damaging to Obama that it will prompt the White House to retract its request for national service (!) from the NEA, do you think?

One thing is sure, Bosch Fawstin will not be likely to be engaged for his artwork!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.