How To Eliminate a Blogger You Want to Kill

seymourblogger's picture
Submitted by seymourblogger on Sat, 2012-02-18 23:35

It's simple. You post comments having nothing to do with a movie review but only with the reviewer. You bring a flame war from another site - objectivistliving - over here. You comment and the poster answers you on your comment instead of ignoring you and continuing to discuss the movie A Dangerous Method.

So the comments pile up, the war continues, and Lindsay steps in and deletes the entire mess. So Lindsay has been used to accomplish their purposes. Blog by the blogger deleted along with all their comments. Nice work.

The really nice thing about post modern thinking is that one learns that the enemy can be inverted to serve your own purposes. (Virilio The Information Bomb and Zizek of course.)

Very nice strategy!I applaud it! Clap clap! And this is after I have had my computer hacked from objectivist living all the way from South African "skip" sites back to London.

Then Scherk tells me to go to mediacom and the police in Springfield MO. Is he serious! To go after someone in London!

You aren't gonna get me to play the victim boyz.


( categories: )

Fair enough.

Cornell's picture

Smiling Fair enough.

cornell you will have to read my

seymourblogger's picture

blogs and comment with me for me to tell you. I have to go home now so it's a long drive. Laters baby, laters.

How did you get there?

Cornell's picture

How did you get there?

cornell I hope so

seymourblogger's picture

I came to it reluctantly but I am fully there, letting the world will me. On purpose.

Likewise. "I have accepted

Cornell's picture

Likewise.

"I have accepted Baudrillard's long meanderings on the will. The offloading of the will. The subject/object cannot be separated."

That is something I am not prepared to accept. But I suppose that is a discussion for another time.

cornell I don't go with the will to power

seymourblogger's picture

as attirbuted to Nietzsche. I have accepted Baudrillard's long meanderings on the will. The offloading of the will. The subject/object cannot be separated.

Having spent almost 25 years in the psychoanalytic profession there really is no end to what you suggest whould be done by the rational person. I think Freud did this as much as any human being I have studied or read or known. He was an exceptionally civilized man. This shows in Cronenberg's recent movie Dangerous Method. Viggo Mortenson captures this perfectly and subtly.

I am having to go to bed as I am in a medical study at the moment so I can't continue. Sorry. I've loved talking with you tonight. Such a pleasure.

I do find that in the face of

Cornell's picture

I do find that in the face of rampant self-dishonesty, the will to power with general silence becomes the most reasonable course of action. I still believe, however, that truly honest, rational people exist -- I think Jesus Christ (ironically, the most misinterpreted person in history) was the prototype of this (not proselytising, I promise). Ultimately, in order to be sure that you are exercising objectivity when interpreting the facts, you have to look inward and truthfully identify each motivation and prejudice that you have. And when in the presence of those who do not exercise this (and most do not), you must be silent and exercise your will to power.

So you are equating gibberish with silence?

cornell Baudrillard wrote this way on purpose

seymourblogger's picture

The thing about Baudrillard is that his work seems to me to be a classic example of interpreting things in a liberal manner which is completely divorced from any kind of disciplined attempt at understanding.

He refused any disciplined understanding within the dialectic. He abhorred the idea of any coherent theory. All this is authoritarian, fascist, within a Dominating Discourse. Toss it overboard. Fragmentary writing is his mirroring of Nietzsche's style. His work cannot be molded into a theory, neither can Nietzsche's. That's the beauty of it. We are protected from its falling into the wrong hands. Because theory can be used by your enemies as Delaeuze and Virilio have found out to their dismay.

Firilio is required reading in war colleges. Deleuze's Plateau book is used by a prominent Israeli general. Virilio also shows how Walter Benjamin's letters to a German General who was a Nazi gave him knowledge, and, of ocurse, we know Benjamin died by Nazi hands.

Anything you make explicit can be used in such a way as you would never ever want. Babich shows how this hapened to Nietzsche and she says he should have known better.

Well that's an interesting

Cornell's picture

Well that's an interesting take on it. Can't say as I've ever thought about it like that.

Altruism? Rand and Nietszche both eschew it. So do I...although that's more complicated than you might think.

cornell yes

seymourblogger's picture

Beware of disciples. And he disbanded them.

Well I forgot about altruism to my great dismay.

Well, I'll check out Babich

Cornell's picture

Well, I'll check out Babich when I get a chance.

The thing about Baudrillard is that his work seems to me to be a classic example of interpreting things in a liberal manner which is completely divorced from any kind of disciplined attempt at understanding.

But I'll humor you. I'll revisit it after I check out Babich.

"Words written in blood are not to be read but to be learnt by heart - Nietzsche"

Man. You gotta give it to him. He's got some great one-liners. He could've talked me into bed, and I'm not even gay.

"Rand listened to him and did what he told her."

You refer to Zarathustra's cry that people should not follow him?

Baudrillard's scholarship is impeccable

seymourblogger's picture

His presentation of it is in a challenging format. He is a Nietzschean through to the marrow of his bones and he knows it. He keeps turning Nietzsche on his head, but never directly. You have to read him through Nietzsche to get him. It is never obvious, and the more you know Nietzsche the more clear he becomes.

Then if you read Babette Babich, the great present Nietzsche scholar, it all just falls in place. Even just one essay of hers will do it.

Words written in blood are not to be read but to be learnt by heart - Nietzsche

Rand listened to him and did what he told her. Babich goes on to tell you how dangerous he is because when you take him in it is almost subliminally, you cannot argue with him, you drink him in like mother's milk. Like when you read Lovecraft. And much depends on when you read Lovecraft or Nietzsche how strong their influence is. Rand was just so young when she read him and she read him until her 40's.

That's a long time.

I can't stand Baudrillard

Cornell's picture

I can't stand Baudrillard (can't say as I've read Lacan or Rubenstein). He makes no attempt at logic whatsoever. Says things that do not follow. I'll bet he would have made a great fiction writer. Horrible philosopher.

But there is something to be said about interpretation of signals; yet, at the end of the day, there is an ultimate truth. Between metaphysics and epistemology, things often get lost in translation.

The key (which 95% of humanity never discovers) is to habitually step back and realize when things are ambiguous and when they are not.

I agree with what you said Cornell

seymourblogger's picture

It is difficult to juxtapose that against all that one has spent a lifetime learning, studying, making a career on, which is the Dominating discourse. With Foucault there is still some certainly with the power/knowledge grid. "Where there is power, there is always resistance." - (Foucault).

Then along comes Baudrillard in Forget Foucault and you lose the basis for reason when you lose the Hegelian dialectic. It is no longer open to you as a process of reasoning. Rand was a great dialectic argumenter. So what's left?

Baudrillard and Lacan.

You have to accept as axiomatic that you are receiving accurate signals from your surroundings to your brain, and that those signals indicate something which is objectively real.

And you can't because once Lacan has analyzed "floating signs" you're stuck. "Floating signs" mask, act to hide the fact that they are "empty signs", are opposite to what they seem to mean, so one cannot ever be sure. So you begin to see and process "floating signs" as Diane Rubenstein does in her This Is Not A President. The funniest one is in her essay on Hillary. When Rubenstein finishes with you all you see is that you don't know and neither does Hillary. Or does she? But this was her basic problem of why people didn't trust her. they wee processing "floating signs" that signaled contradictory information, and since they didn't know how to read them, they ended up with a feeling of distrust. When it is really Hillary who has gender confusion. You finish that essay and no you don't know, but you do know why you don't know..

It is also hilariously funny.

See, here is the problem I

Cornell's picture

See, here is the problem I have with the structuralists/post-structuralists (among whom, I actually like Foucault the best). If we say that truth is a construct, then we're left with chasing our tails. You have to accept as axiomatic that you are receiving accurate signals from your surroundings to your brain, and that those signals indicate something which is objectively real. Otherwise, you have no basis from which to reason at all; all argument becomes circular.

secret

seymourblogger's picture

Your loss is my gain.

All else proceeds from this

seymourblogger's picture

All else proceeds from this premise. If there is no absolute truth, such as man is a being of volitional consciousness—if that proposition is simply an arbitrary assertion on a par with Blavatsky Barren's claim that goblins exist, or part of some arbitrary "dominating discourse"—then you can forget about freedom, civilisation and progress.

The above is just silly rote gibberish signifying nada. Just loose premises and conclusions. Stone soup.

Don't knock Blavatsky. She was amazing.

I wonder, when you say "truth is relative"—am I supposed to take that as absolutely or relatively true?

The Relative absolute. Go to that blog. He's hot.

"All history is the history of class struggle" said Marx and Engels. Foucault called it the struggle between oppressor and oppressed. So?

First of all Foucault does not use the word history in that sense. History belongs to linear time. He did not call it the struggle between oppressor and oppressed. What he did in excruciating detail was to give us the genealogy of power. Power and knowledge are in a relation. They do not exist without the other. Each feeds on the other. They are inseparable. Power/knowledge is a relation. Wherever there is power, there is resistance. You must find the area where you are that is most dangerous and resist.

For me it is the local justice system. You can force them to their knees by using their rules against them. Judo. Our legal system is great, but we need to take it back. Stop handing it over to the lawyers and judges. Learn how to do a jury trial. Use the rules against them.

Baudrillard says to end anything you drive it to excess to implode it. Do you understand that?

Foucault did not regret supporting the revolution in Iran. He regretted the consequences but they were not his mistakes.

No he did not "say sorry" the way Clinton was made to "say sorry " over and over for getting a blow job. He was not a child that you can force to apologize. He discussed the situation but I wasn't too interested I guess so I don't remember. You can google foucault + Iran + revolution + regret and see what you get.

Never mind I just did and here's the new book on it:

An excerpt from
Foucault and the Iranian Revolution
Gender and the Seductions of Islamism
Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/...

I haven't read it and don't intend to. Be my guest though since you are driven to prove Foucault wrong.

Seriously? What is your evidence for this assessment?

My evidence is Foucault himself.

The US has great relations with dictators:

Batista
Saddam since 1959 he was supported by US money
Viet Nam dictator forget his name
Hitler in the beginning - he's doing great things in Germany: Lindbergh other corporate admirers. check the
audience for the last Olympic games
Stalin - read Victor Herman's autobiography coming Out of the Ice
Stalin - Henry Ford's American Village where American auto wokers built a factory for making trucks and cars

Plenty of blame to go around. No one needs to be greedy with their dictators.

then one can certainly wager that man would be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea."

This quote from Foucault is used by Hicks to mean that Foucault regarded the downfall of man, humanity etc etc.

What it has said in the above is that the study of man that knowledge was turned towards is very recent in the history of the species. That knowledge was used for objective purposes, not for interpreting man. And when the Event comes from wherever that changes the way man is thought about, man will just go back to being a human being. All this psychological nonsense will stop and "man" will disappear i the wet sand.

This does not mean that human beings will die, become extinct, but just that all this hulaballoo will stop. All this crap of blogging , posting , commenting will stop. And people will just be people again.

As the archaeology our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.

Fools Troy

darren's picture

The wee lil bit at the end were she mentioned China holding US debt. Dumbest move in the history of the world

I see you're as ignorant of economics as you are of everything else. At least you're consistent.

Janet ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I rest my case.

Edit: dammit Janet, I can't resist. Here goes:

"Truth" is what the Dominating discourse says it is. So yes it is relative. It is not an absolute. It is "believed " to be an absolute, but that does not make it so.

All else proceeds from this premise. If there is no absolute truth, such as man is a being of volitional consciousness—if that proposition is simply an arbitrary assertion on a par with Blavatsky Barren's claim that goblins exist, or part of some arbitrary "dominating discourse"—then you can forget about freedom, civilisation and progress.

I wonder, when you say "truth is relative"—am I supposed to take that as absolutely or relatively true?

This is not the place in his thinking where Marxism is destroyed. He never fired a shot at Marxism. He just pulled the foundations out from under it.

He didn't. He just expressed it in a slightly different form. "All history is the history of class struggle" said Marx and Engels. Foucault called it the struggle between oppressor and oppressed. So?

It is the method of genealogy that destroys the continuous universe in Hegelian theory. Without linearity, continuous progression of time, you cannot have class struggle. Without class struggle, there is no Marxism because there is no progression into the utopia of the proletariat.

Pomo-gibberish. So WW2 didn't really happen because it required "linearity" and "continuous progression of time"? That's great. I wonder, if I refuse to pay my electric bill, the power company will be impressed by my saying the bill is a fallacy of linearity?

For every oppressed class there are the oppressed and those who oppress, the rulers and the "victims" . They are interchangeable when each comes to power. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is pretty good on this.

Ah! Of course it would be. How could I have overlooked Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenace?

But there is a third class that is neither oppressor nor oppressed.

Ah again! Yes, those charming ayatollahs, and Mao, and the other pin-ups of Gauche Proletarienne.

Hicks is a hack, another 35th rater.

Seriously? What is your evidence for this assessment?

Here is what Foucault said:

"IN CONCLUSION (The Order of Things)

"One thing in any case is certain: man is neither the oldest nor the most constant problem that has been posed for human knowledge. Taking a relatively short chronological sample within a restricted geographical area -European culture since the sixteenth century - one can be certain that man is a recent invention within it. It is not around him and his secrets that knowledge prowled for so long in the darkness. In fact, among all the mutations that have affected the knowledge of things and their order, the knowledge of identities, differences, characters, equivalences, words - in short, in the midst of all the episodes of that profound history of the Same - only one, that which began a century and a half ago and is now perhaps drawing to a close, has made it possible for the figure of man to appear. And that appearance was not the liberation of an old anxiety, the transition into luminous consciousness of an age-old concern, the entry into objectivity of something that had long remained trapped within beliefs and philosophies: it was the effect of a change in the fundamental arrangements of knowledge. As the archaeology our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.

"If those arrangements were to disappear as they appeared, if some event of which we can at the moment do no more than sense the possibility - without knowing either what its form will be or what it promises -were to cause them to crumble, as the ground of Classical thought did, at the end of the eighteenth century, then one can certainly wager that man would be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea."

I am not interpreting it for you because you can read for yourself. an interpreter is set up as an expert, as the domineering one. I am not that. But when you read Hicks on Foucault, why not just go to Foucault instead.

Janet, I give you permission to domineer me. Go ahead and interpret, 'cos I sure as hell can't make any sense of this pretentious rubbish. Pure Sciabarrian Polish. Though Hicks's interpretation doesn't seem unreasonable.

Again I repeat, Foucault did not provide support for the Islamofascists. He supported the Iranians in their own revolution. Iranians had no idea the fascists were going to seize power within the revolution. ... Foucault did not need to renounce his political support. The consequences were soon obvious. BY then they did not need his invisible support anyway, the fascists were in control. Of course he saw the consequences and while I can't go back and search for the exact quote, it was probably in a published interview that he spoke on it. The consequences of the fascist seizing power were not foreordained. They could not be predicted with any certainty. It was not a mistake to support the overthrow of the shah. Omniscience is not an attribute of the human mind.

Janet, you told me Foucault admitted his error. I asked you where. Now you're saying you don't know, but it might have been in an interview some time. Well, here's something the Ayatollah Khomeini said in an interview a few weeks after the revolution. Don't you think it might have been possible for Foucault to glean the nature of the Iranian revolution from the following:

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials.

The point is, Janet, it's extraordinary how these pomowankers, the French ones in particular, just happen to side with totalitarians so often. Name a contemporary despot and you'll find an array of cheerleaders among French "intellectuals." Coincidence?

lindsay as long as you see it as a war

seymourblogger's picture

between reason and unreason the dialectic controls your thinking and any responses to your thinking. And so Foucault is an enemy in your eyes.

Pogo: We have met the enemy and it is us.

This is much better BTW.

"Truth" is what the Dominating discourse says it is. So yes it is relative. It is not an absolute. It is "believed " to be an absolute, but that does not make it so.

This is not the place in his thinking where Marxism is destroyed. He never fired a shot at Marxism. He just pulled the foundations out from under it. Foucault was nothing if not intellectually ascetic.

It is the method of genealogy that destroys the continuous universe in Hegelian theory. Without linearity, continuous progression of time, you cannot have class struggle. Without class struggle, there is no Marxism because there is no progression into the utopia of the proletariat.

For every oppressed class there are the oppressed and those who oppress, the rulers and the "victims" . They are interchangeable when each comes to power. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is pretty good on this. But there is a third class that is neither oppressor nor oppressed.

Hicks is a hack, another 35th rater. Here is what Foucault said:

IN CONCLUSION (The Order of Things)

One thing in any case is certain: man is neither the oldest nor the most constant problem that has been posed for human knowledge. Taking a relatively short chronological sample within a restricted geographical area -European culture since the sixteenth century - one can be certain that man is a recent invention within it. It is not around him and his secrets that knowledge prowled for so long in the darkness. In fact, among all the mutations that have affected the knowledge of things and their order, the knowledge of identities, differences, characters, equivalences, words - in short, in the midst of all the episodes of that profound history of the Same - only one, that which began a century and a half ago and is now perhaps drawing to a close, has made it possible for the figure of man to appear. And that appearance was not the liberation of an old anxiety, the transition into luminous consciousness of an age-old concern, the entry into objectivity of something that had long remained trapped within beliefs and philosophies: it was the effect of a change in the fundamental arrangements of knowledge. As the archaeology our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.

If those arrangements were to disappear as they appeared, if some event of which we can at the moment do no more than sense the possibility - without knowing either what its form will be or what it promises -were to cause them to crumble, as the ground of Classical thought did, at the end of the eighteenth century, then one can certainly wager that man would be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea.

I am not interpreting it for you because you can read for yourself. an interpreter is set up as an expert, as the domineering one. I am not that. But when you read Hicks on Foucault, why not just go to Foucault instead.

Again I repeat, Foucault did not provide support for the Islamofascists. He supported the Iranians in their own revolution. Iranians had no idea the fascists were going to seize power within the revolution. It was Orianna Falacci who opened my eyes with her interview with Khomieni which she got because she had been against the shah. She was very clear about his fanatic madness. and she was afraid she might not get out of that interview alive.

Islamofascism is political and it is fascist and it is using the belief in the sacred to achieve its secular aims. It is our new enemy and we need an enemy.

Foucault did not need to renounce his political support. The consequences were soon obvious. BY then they did not need his invisible support anyway, the fascists were in control. Of course he saw the consequences and while I can't go back and search for the exact quote, it was probably in a published interview that he spoke on it. The consequences of the fascist seizing power were not foreordained. They could not be predicted with any certainty. It was not a mistake to support the overthrow of the shah. Omniscience is not an attribute of the human mind.

Think Rand for a minute. She engaged in politics when young. She campaigned for Wilkie against FDR. If Wilkie had won, what would have been the consequences with Hitler? We can never know, can we. What if they had been worse? would that have been a mistake to be attributed to Rand? I couldn't have blamed her, could you have?

Romances with avowed Marxists like Mao. So many of us were romanced and seduced by Mao. Was he better than Chiang Kai Shek our puppet dictator? Was he worse? Were they even the same? I was in China 20 years ago. It was/is an alive and vibrant can do place. Entrepreneurial, creative, spontaneous, conscientious, and much much more. Who is to say? I can't. Can you? I felt very free over there. the children are far more spontaneous and intelligent than american children in the Ozarks. This is the way I judge a culture.

In Stockholm they walk the wolves on leashes in the zoo. They pups are taken to the kindergartens to be petted. I watched children skating on an outside rink, little ones and teens. the teens were very careful not to bump the little ones, very attentive to them. I never heard children whining in public places. Stockholm is very socialistic. What I did find that made me uneasy was that the art I saw lacked an edge that I happen to prefer in art.

george it's not the discussion

seymourblogger's picture

It's the restructuring that is important. Just not for you.

A pity.

Janet

Lindsay Perigo's picture

lindsay calling Foucault a pomowanker doesn't convey anything about Foucault. Only you. How you can say he regarded truth as tyranny I can't even imagine.

The battle for freedom, civilisation and progress is a battle between reason and unreason. Pomowankery is just the latest in the long line of unreason. Calling someone a pomowanker (as long as he actually is of course) identifies him as an enemy in the battle. As Foucault is. For him, truth is an agent of tyranny. It's an artifice, a "regime" (there's no real, objective truth) created by power-wielders so that they may wield their power unmolested by the pesky oppressed. "'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it." How, I wonder, does this differ from, much less "destroy," Marxism, with its bourgeois logic, proletarian logic, etc., all designed to advance the class interests of their adherents? The only difference I can see is that Marx hoped for a happy ending. Foucault, according to Hicks, "speaks almost longingly of the coming erasure of mankind."

As a matter of interest where did Foucault renounce his support for the Islamofascists? I'm not saying he didn't; just asking. And what about those romances with avowed Marxists, including Mao, as George mentions?

Janet

George H. Smith's picture

Janet,

As I said before, Foucault's discussion of Ricardo (and the classical economists generally) is "okay, but nothing to write home about." I could easily cite a couple dozen discussions that are much, much better. Foucault's understanding of classical economics was very restricted and, in some cases, inaccurate.

Ghs

george I am not denying

seymourblogger's picture

what you have said. But it is linear development that is the basis of Marx. Marx's analysis of capital did not go to the end.

for a tight genealogy of Ricardo see Foucault's: the Archeology of Knowledge. The Order of Things was his first salvo. He did not stay the same.

Kolakowski or Louis Althusser on Marx. He and Foucault were very close and Althusser was forced to revise his thinking to deal with Foucault's genealogy of economics, Riccardo in particular. Foucault has been criticized or choosing Riccardo but I see you think he is significant also.

Janet on Marxism

George H. Smith's picture

Janet,

Your understanding of Marxism lives down to your usual standards. Have you actually read anything by Marx? If so, what?

As a "young Hegelian," Marx was influenced by Hegel to some degree. But under the influence of Feuerbach, Bauer, and some other "left Hegelians," Marx came to reject the fundamental ideas of Hegel by standing them on their head (as he once put it).

The "dialectical materialism" of Marxism (which was mainly developed by Engels) rests on an economic foundation -- a foundation that permeates every aspect of Marx's theories, including the theory of alienation defended by the young Marx and the historical determinism of the later Marx. Remove that foundation --which is predicated on the labor theory of value (in its Ricardian version) and the theory of surplus value (which was first developed by the so-called "Ricardian Socialists") --and the entire edifice of Marxism collapses like a house of cards -- most notably the Marxian theory of "exploitation."

In orthodox Marxian theory, there is no substantial difference between "socialism" (or what Marx called "scientific socialism") and "communism." The latter is merely the former in its fully developed form. All of the communistic systems of the 20th century were based, in one form or another, on the foundation laid by Marx in economic theory.

The best treatment of Marxism is Leszek Kolakowski's three-volume masterpiece: Main Currents of Marxism. Volume 1: The Founders. Volume 2: The Golden Age. Volume 3: The Breakdown. This magnificent work of intellectual history, first published in Polish in 1976, is available in a one-volume edition published by W.W. Norton & Co. This weighty tome of over 1200 pages will more than repay the time needed to read it.

troy the Chinese

seymourblogger's picture

knew exactly what they were doing. The soviets were and the Chinese are very sophisticated traders in the cyber circulating marketplace. They are well aware how stupid Americans are and how little their politicians know about anything important.

The Chinese may have their corrupt politicians, but they also have their puritan ones. And when someone goes down for corruption, they go down to death.

We are not dealing with a Christian nation. Individual rights are irrelevant to them. It is the family, the group, the tribe that is paramount. Regardless of this recent obsession with atheism, Christianity has permeated western civilization.

And now we are under the thumb of an empire that is in its growth stage while we are in our disintegration stage (Toynbee: The History of the World).

Well holy crap

Jules Troy's picture

Janet said something I agree with.  The wee lil bit at the end were she mentioned China holding US debt.  Dumbest move in the history of the world allowing your enemy to own your short and curlies.  

george like lindsay

seymourblogger's picture

you are confusing communism, the soviet union, Stalinism, with Marxism. they are not the same. Marx is the theoretical foundation, not the economic system.

Yes the Austrian economists challenged and successfully, the soviet system. They were not challenging Marxism, but the economic system developed from Marxist theory. The Soviet system was different from the Chinese system, from the Cuban system, etc. None of them are the same at all.

But ALL of them rest on MARXISM.

It is Marxism that is finished. Marxism rests on Hegelian theory. Without Hegelian theory firmly under it, Marxism sinks into the quicksand.

And if you think the Chinese bureaucrats don't understand this, you are dead wrong. They are sophisticated students of Marxist theory and philosophy. They know this. and they know Marxism is finished so they are embracing capitalism.

And if you think you know capitalism from the Austrian economists, I hope you live long enough to see Chinese capitalism. You are not going to recognize this thing you have been praising. You have no idea what's coming from Asia.

Asia will win hands down. They have us by the balls by holding our debt. Consider it on a micro level with your friendly neighborhood bank.

When you are in debt, who holds the power over you?

lindsay calling Foucault a pomowanker

seymourblogger's picture

doesn't convey anything about Foucault. Only you.

How you can say he regarded truth as tyranny I can't even imagine. It's not credible. It isn't even possible after having read him. Where in all that he wrote and said did you get that idea? I am asking. Please tell me.

As for Islam. No he did not support Islam. He did support the overthrow of the shah. You may not be old enough to know how brutal his rule was. He was a harsh dictator. Very harsh. He also did some amazing things like invite Robert Wilson to do an opera in Iran on a mountaintop in Iran.

Foucault wrote in favor of the overthrow of the shah. The Iranian people wanted muslim - not Islamic - government. Foucault was not a religionist. But he did support the right of the Iranian people to choose. He was appalled at the consequence. So was I who also supported the overthrow of the shah.

Foucault admitted he had erred. But how was anyone to know that fascism would seize the power and persecute the way they did. The Iranian people did not know either. If you see that wonderful film Persepolis the entire story is there.

......he was a repulsive, pretentious shyster

This doesn't say anything. Name calling does not convey anything except the fact that you hate him. It says nothing. It is an empty statement.

Marxism was halted—partially, existentially and temporarily—by Ronnie and Star Wars.

No Marxism was not halted by Ronnie and Star Wars. Stalinist communism and the soviet empire was halted by Ronnie and Star Wars. The real death blow came from inside the soviet union, from Alexandyr Sozhenitsyn who completely took down the soviet empire by exposing it in THE GULAG. A BOOK brought down the soviet empire. Just as ATLAS SHRUGGED, a BOOK, brought down the US bureaucracy and that of the UK. BOOKS, LINDSAY, BOOKS. Language.

Marxism, the foundation of communism, the soviet empire, all of it was brought down by Foucault. It won't be destroyed. It is destroyed! By reason. By the destruction of the Hegelian dialectic, linear progressive historical time.

Darren just gave you the biological foundation that ended Hegelianism and Darwinism. Reason again.

Chaos theory. Mathematics brought down Marxism. Foucault just cut off its head.

Marxism is over. Forget it.

In fact..

Jules Troy's picture

Atheism: The Case Against God was not the reason I became an atheist as I already was one, however it did cement the reasons as to why and to this day is one of my favorite books. Thanks for writing it George, over the years I have recommended it to many.

Janet wrote:Foucault

George H. Smith's picture

Janet wrote:

Foucault destroyed Marxism....

What garbage.

The two men most responsible for the destruction of Marxism preceded Foucault by many years. They were the Austrian economists Eugen Bohm-Bawerk (1851-1914), who wrote a withering critique of the Marxian theory of value, and Ludwig von Mises, whose pathbreaking book, Socialism: A Sociological and Economic Analysis, (1922) converted a young socialist named F.A. Hayek to free-market views.

A leading socialist economist (Oskar Lange) once said that a statue of Mises should be erected in Moscow's Red Square, because the celebrated Misesian argument (that economic calculation is impossible under socialism) constituted the most formidable critique of socialism ever written. The statue, Lange said, would serve as a reminder that Mises must be refuted if communism were to have any hope of surviving.

An online version of Socialism can be found here:

http://mises.org/books/sociali...

I have read Foucault's treatment of the classical economists in The Order of Things. It is okay but nothing to write home about.

Ghs

Lindsay

George H. Smith's picture

Foucault was also a big fan of Mao for quite a few years -- an inconvenient fact that Janet failed to mention.

Ghs

Janet

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Foucault destroyed Marxism, so why do you hate him?

I'm not sure at whom this question is directed, but I'll observe: He was a pomowanker. He, like all pomowankers, regarded truth as tyranny, which is vicious nonsense, and supported actual tyranny (Islamofascism). If that's the destruction of Marxism, how would we know? Like all pomowankers, he was a repulsive, pretentious shyster.

Marxism was halted—partially, existentially and temporarily—by Ronnie and Star Wars. Philosophically it's resurgent, aided and abetted by many of the pomowankers who regard themselves, accurately, as neo-Marxists, who have simply added gender to class. Within both repositories of PC victimhood, pomowankers fashionably repair to Foucault's power BS.

Marxism—and all other forms of tyranny—will be "destroyed" only by a rebirth of reason.

ross what's the point of reading it

seymourblogger's picture

if you are already in agreement. So you can convince others? What if you don't want to proselytize?

smith? lindsay

seymourblogger's picture

Michael Stuart Kelly is a sick puppy. Babs was a pretty woman who married Branden, a man on the way up through Ayn Rand. She decided to go along for the ride. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The sick puppy is just another 45th rater clinging on to Ayn Rand for some semblance of authenticity. Most of these people are silly and vicious.

And I am not finished with them, although I am here unless they follow me to stalk me. I will zap them back from time to time at objectivist living, that site that forbids you to say anything negative abut Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden or Barbara Branden. The site that tears apart Leonard Peikoff for carrying out Rand's wishes for her estate. The site that harbors terrorist hackers that come for your computer in the middle of the night to destroy it.

Too bad I can't tag so the google search engine can pick up on this.

But I know a place where that idea of mine will be facilitated.

Foucault destroyed Marxism, so why do you hate him?

Regardless....

Ross Elliot's picture

...of the current debate, I'd implore all who have any interest in rationality to read George's seminal work, Atheism: The Case Against God.

It's a tour de force and a blow-by-blow deconstruction of faith. In fact, it's a reference. Salute, George.

I imagine ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the anti-Rand Popperian is Daniel Barnes, pomowanker par excellence. O-Lying would be as much his "spiritual home" as his own anti-Rand site.

Also, the idea of that thing that calls itself MSK, as though it were on a par with some historic figure like JFK, being taken seriously, is beyond risible. The thing ingratiated itself with Babs on SOLO and ultimately lured her away to O-Lying where she would never be criticised and they could indulge their mutual admiration of the pedo-publisher Peron, banned from NZ for his pedo-publication Unbound. Worse than evil, and good riddance to them both. But I thought Smith had more intellectual and moral substance.

What you say could be true George..

gregster's picture

..and let's say it is - but it's still down there in the Branden shrine.

Janet wrote: as I found out

George H. Smith's picture

Janet wrote:

as I found out to my astonishment. No negative. Absolutely none.

There has actually been quite a bit of criticism of the Brandens on OL, e.g., by Peter Taylor.

I tried reading the rest of your post, but the sucking sound became so loud and annoying that I had to stop.

Ghs

Gregster: I have defended the

George H. Smith's picture

Gregster:

I have defended the "positives of Objectivism" many times on OL, and in considerable detail -- e.g., with the Popperian (I don't recall his name) who runs that anti-Rand website. (You will find that most of the frequent posters on OL have defended Rand's ideas with considerable passion.) I also defended Harriman's book in at least one lengthy thread.

There is a great deal of respect for Ayn Rand on OL, but if reverence is what you are looking for, then you are right not to venture beyond the confines of SOLO. Better safe than sorry.

Ghs

lindsay it's still forbidden

seymourblogger's picture

as I found out to my astonishment. No negative. Absolutely none.

Typically Barbara Branden to think of demanding that. She's a 35th rate intelligence who has been riding on Rand's skirts all her life. Every penny she's made came from her association with Rand. She even took alimony for years from Nathaniel until he negotiated a stop to it or a lower rate. Sorry don't remember just that I was shocked to read that. Even before I went to Obj lectures I didn't want alimony from my ex.

You seem to hate POMO and I don't think you really know what that kind of thinking really is. If you knew then you wouldn't. It is far more on your side than you dream.

Sorry they follow me here to yell and get threads trashed and posts trashed. They are vicious people. That translates to very frightened. Of what? I can't figure it out.

Yes I can. They are becoming extinct.

olivia hope you feel better

seymourblogger's picture

now that you've got that off your chest.

Good George

gregster's picture

Thank you for your sincere invite, but I don't have the time or the inclination. And it's not the kind of enterprise I'd lend support to. The crocs feast on Rand's polemic already. Although it's possible I'd succeed, it would require an inordinate effort. Much like The Prof's inordinate, ultimately dismally failed efforts against PARC. You see, I don't see the worth of debating with you boys down there. I'd debate the positives of Objectivism, rather than Branden-Bashing, and counter the cynical spectacle of Rand-diminution down there, with some occasional exceptions. I do take a look down there, but I don't enjoy the sinking laughter and lack of reverence.

Olivia wrote: It's just full

George H. Smith's picture

Olivia wrote:

It's just full of low-lives with nothing to inspire or counter-act it.

And how would you know? Perchance do you lurk in The Swamp from time to time?

You or anyone else on SOLO is perfectly free to counteract the lowlifes on OL. That should be no problem for your virtuous self, for we all know that evil is impotent. We would welcome you with open jaws. Just bring some hip boots and a sense of humor.

On second thought, that is obviously asking too much, so just bring the boots.

Ghs

Oh!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

George, your memory is much better than mine. Did I ask you if you'd read PARC? I don't remember. Neither do I remember your answer. Was there one, and if so, what was it? I hope you did read it, and took on board the abominable nature of the behaviour of your pin-ups.

And there are no Bibles around here save those of the Goblians, whom you fault me for allowing on here. Well, again, it's part of that pesky debate process to which Roids are so averse. Goblians, pomowankers, Randroids, Brandroids, even O-Liars—all are welcome. Radical I know. O-Lying an open forum? To anyone prepared to worship mindlessly at the shrine of the Brandens, I expect. If I recall correctly, which I quite possibly don't, criticism of the Brandens was explicitly forbidden at one point. That's what Babs wanted SOLO to be when she was here. It was never intended to be such a thing. Never will be. Sorry to disappoint.

Lindsay wrote: I see the

George H. Smith's picture

Lindsay wrote:

I see the battle lines are being drawn. The author whom I admired turns out to be an emperor without clothes. "Full of swamp-life" is different from "full of human life." But it's all coming back to me now. Smith is an unreconstructed Brandroid. Roidism doesn't get much more arid than that.

The battle lines were drawn long ago.

So OL is "full of swamp-life," whereas SOLO is "full of human life"? That's pretty lame. At least you haven't asked me again whether I have read PARC. Is that still the Bible around here?

Ghs

No Mr. Smith.

Olivia's picture

One good thing about a swamp is that it is full of life

It's just full of low-lives with nothing to inspire or counter-act it.

It should be obvious enough

George H. Smith's picture

Lindsay wrote:

It should be obvious enough that SOLO is the antithesis of pomowankery. But it's also an open forum, on which pomowankers are free to post. I'm surprised that the astute and acute author of Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies, which has pride of place on my bookshelf, doesn't or can't make that distinction.

The distinction you make is perfectly legitimate. OL is also an open forum. Like SOLO, we get pomowackers from time to time, but I frankly think we deal with them better. We ridicule pomowackers until they want to leave.

Ghs

Oh dear!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

One good thing about a swamp is that it is full of life. I will take that over an arid desert any day.

I see the battle lines are being drawn. The author whom I admired turns out to be an emperor without clothes. "Full of swamp-life" is different from "full of human life." But it's all coming back to me now. Smith is an unreconstructed Brandroid. Roidism doesn't get much more arid than that.

Olivia: One good thing about

George H. Smith's picture

Olivia:

One good thing about a swamp is that it is full of life. I will take that over an arid desert any day.

Ghs

Gregster: Janet never left

George H. Smith's picture

Gregster:

Janet never left OL; she was merely limited to five posts per day. This proved too confining for her expansive genius, so she decided to bless SOLO with the overflow.

I decided to post some replies to Janet on SOLO because she seriously misrepresented what had happened to her on OL. I actually wrote those posts in a friendly spirit; I wanted to give SOLOists an indication of what to expect.

Over the years I've noticed that a number of OLers post occasionally on SOLO. But I don't recall that SOLOists trek over to OL. I would therefore like to extend an invitation for you to visit The Swamp. Give us something really good -- maybe some hysterical Branden-Bashing sprinkled with some second-hand Randian polemics -- and we will see how long you last before you get eaten by the crocodiles. Of course, my invitation applies to any SOLOist who is not too busy responding to Burnsy and his Merry Band of Trolls.

Ghs

Really Janet!

Olivia's picture

It's not enough that you come here full of incoherence and exactly the kind of post-modern jargon sprinkled shit I hate - which is one of the reasons why I never visit Objectivist Lying. Then you have to bring your fucking problems with Objectivist Lying and lay them bare on Solo. I absolutely can't stand your lack of style, substance or prudence.

You belong over there in the swamp.

Know Thyself!

scherk the correct URL of that particular blog

seymourblogger's picture

IS the URL in my profile. In the signature it was a typo. I have said my monitor is low tech, unlike my apple desktop much beloved monitor that died two months ago. A happening of contiguity that emphasizes Guthrie's Theory of Learning.

As for dancer's clinical evaluation of me, interesting. Yes, I think I am paranoid. But sometimes paranoia is the veridical response to reality. As far as a paranoid complex encapsulating a string of connecting dots, that also is interesting.

As for the police: Did they cause you financial damage? No. They are in London? Yes. Well that's a long way from Springfield, lady.

I guess this sort of crime would be a real priority for the Springfield police and the feds. Like they don't have more serious crimes involving all sorts of nefarious dealings that they have on the front burner? That this would be so important that the Greene County prosecutor would go after it.

Let me explain about prosecutors. They only pursue cases they think they can win. That look good on their resume. They are career conscious, very career conscious. In the show me (and it's not that's so great please show me. It's folded arms, mouth closed tight, legs spread apart, fuckin show me type of mentality.)

No prosecutor is so stupid that he's going to investigate a case in London. That's for the fed boyz, not the locals. And the feds have much more serious things occupying their minds and budgets than a hacker. Don't you know any law at all? Nope. I guess not.

If someone broke in and stole it I would get about the same amount of concern. We'll take a report lady. The end.

I have no intention interacting with so many vicious people. Have I been vicious? Perhaps. I have been cruel in telling Michael Stuart Kelly that he can't write anything but cliches. That's cruel. For god's sake, don't hang your vulnerability on the clothesline asking someone to read your work and give you an opinion if you can't take it. Yes I wounded him. I'm not sorry about what I said, I am just sorry I had no idea he was so vulnerable that his narcissistic rage cannot let him stop writing about me.

Let it go MSK. It was just a silly story. I write silly stories all the time. They're silly. So what if someone says it's silly.

If people are so impoverished about something to write that doesn't condemn me or lacerate me, tat's a shame. I'm not worth that. This is Rand's paranoia and sickness you are dealing with and projecting. Her entire non-fiction philosophy is a paranoid complex rationalization. Sink your teeth into that dancer, it's worth it. Rand may have been paranoid but she was not mad. Why? Because she produced a work of art. I go with Foucault's determination of who is mad and who is not. Even Freud would never have written the sick piece you wrote about me dancer. You are a person who has been educated beyond your ability and there are many like you. I used to be in that domain. A lot of damage is done there. And you should feel guilt and shame. I doubt that you will but that's indicative of sociopath behavior.

By George!

gregster's picture

I'm sure I speak for all OL members when I thank you guys from the bottom of my heart.

Two blatantly hard-up-for-entertainment showmen, yourself and Scherk, trek from the swamp up to SOLO. I can only blame the creator of Janet's avatar, Darren, for its Venus Fly trap effect. I couldn't call it a honeys trap.

Just down-page are two invitations to the denizens for the inveterate veteran. From William of Scherk and your writerly self. William even went to the trouble of creating an electronic pheromone in the colour of cupcake-pink.

I sincerely hope Janet takes you boys up on the invites. I know she has been excited down there. And we here can only hope her new friends follow her down.

How very odd

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Janet seems to have found her spiritual home on SOLO. I'm sure I speak for all OL members when I thank you guys from the bottom of my heart.

It should be obvious enough that SOLO is the antithesis of pomowankery. But it's also an open forum, on which pomowankers are free to post. I'm surprised that the astute and acute author of Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies, which has pride of place on my bookshelf, doesn't or can't make that distinction.

Gregster wrote: Hop on over,

George H. Smith's picture

Gregster wrote:

Hop on over, make the most of the five. It'll force more focus.

Janet seems to have found her spiritual home on SOLO. I'm sure I speak for all OL members when I thank you guys from the bottom of my heart.

I looked over some of the posts by Burnsy and his Batty Band of Believers. It would appear that Janet is the least of your problems. As Don E. Klein so eloquently put it earlier today on another thread:

What's all this business doing on an Objectivist site? Between this and all the god talk this place is really gone to hell.

A perpetual fountain of Foucault, Derrida, God, and Jesus -- think of all the exciting conversations that await SOLO members! I can barely stand to leave all this excitement, but it is time for me to return to Planet Earth.

Sticking out tongue

Ghs

They miss your five a day Janet

gregster's picture

As with George, this will be my last comment to SOLO on these matters.

Hop on over, make the most of the five. It'll force more focus.

Crime is crime

William Scott Scherk's picture

Please, Janet, we are all moving over to the new off-site blog totally concerned with you. It is called "Nontelleckchewal Terrist," and I just set it up on blogger at http://nontelleckchewalterrist....

In setting it up I discovered two things. You are right, and Adam has some splaining to do, perhaps -- it is by no means an "enter your email" and voila you are a new blog-owner. You have to enter more information. Point to Janet.

Re: the hacking -- Janet, I abhor the kind of activity that you describe. It is criminal, it is malicious, and it bears reporting. That was my advice to you then, and my advice to you now. Michael Stuart Kelly is bound to cooperate with a hacking investigation, whether it came from you or it came from George.

In his earlier attemtps to help you, Janet, he made a few mistakes -- in speculation and in spelling-check. We all missed that it was your own signature line that commenced the worries and misinformation.

The hacking is a different matter. I agree with you there. But George's and my advice to you is still sound. If you were the victim of a criminal intrusion your best allies are the police forces set up to deal with this kind of crime.

None of us here are investigators. So please use your common sense. Do not threaten people murkily. Tell the police that you have the IP address and network node address for the hacker. Identify them by name if you have the name. Identify the Twitter account. Make a complaint to Twitter. Twitter has excellent liason with law enforcement (and Twitter does not tolerate accounts linked to criminal activity).

Giving you this advice is by no means charging the rape victim for her swabs. Please do not insult people who actually are trying to help you.

As with George, this will be my last comment to SOLO on these matters. See you on OL or see you at Nontelleckchewal Terrist, when I have made you an administrator.

bye george

seymourblogger's picture

You came over here to harass me. I didn't go over to objectivist living to harass you.

Blame the victim.

Prove you were victimized. Let's get you a rape kit girl. That'll be 50 bucks to prove you were raped hon.

Janet wrote: Evidently

George H. Smith's picture

Janet wrote:

Evidently Peikoff isn't the only one who scrubbs and purges what he doesn't want seen eh?

What the hell are you talking about?

Okay, so your computer was hacked. That's a crime, a violation of your property rights. You should turn over the information you have to the authorities in London, if that is where you think the hacker lives. But what do you expect anyone on OL to do about this? It was not some kind of grand conspiracy, even if the hacker turns out to be an OL member (which I doubt),

My computer has been hacked a couple times over the past decade, but I haven't had any problems for the past six years, since I started using reliable protection.

From now on, if you have anything to say to me, say it on OL.

Ghs

george so it was scrubbed

seymourblogger's picture

Evidently Peikoff isn't the only one who scrubbs and purges what he doesn't want seen eh?

A quick rundown because I have to go:

My mediacom access was hacked. My email account was hacked. I am not sure if only the emails to and from were seen or if the contents were opened and read.

My passwords were scrambled and now I have to renter and change them all. ALL OF MY FUCKING PASSWORDS. At least the ones I care about protecting. I have to run to my bank and fix it there. In the car!

My hard drive was fragged.

How do I know this. Because my bios were run and that shows exactly where he went. It also gave him access to my other computers.

My hard drive had to be scrubbed clean. Firewalls had to be put up. 3 fucking hours!

With a little more time he could have taken everything down on all my computers. Now that would have shut me up, wouldn't it?

I hope he had to burn the good computer he did it on. It was an apple.

My miss typings are due to the "fact" that I no longer have my apple desktop monitor. Oh how I miss you my darling. I am using a low resolution screen, not a flat HD. Difficult to go back to lower tech isn't it?

It's all recorded on a hard drive. But gee George, I could have photoshopped it couldn't I have? I could have made up all those numbers screening down the screen.

If you think I am going to try to prove to you that I was hacked, you are living in Mistakenville. Now I am not going to repeat this again. Even if your efforts to get this thread trashed work in your favor.

Janet, I asked you a simple

George H. Smith's picture

Janet,

I asked you a simple question, namely: What was done to your computer as a result of hacking?. I have no interest in searching through a bunch of your old posts for the information. If you don't wish to answer, that is your business. I frankly don't believe you.

Nor do I have any interest in doing "damage control." I simply wanted to clear-up the misunderstanding, especially after you suggested that the mix-up of links was not coincidental. In fact, you were the one who posted the incorrect link.

I did a "location" search for OL members who live in London. I got only one hit. The guy is an attorney who, when he joined OL in 2006, was attending LSE. There is no indication of any expertise in computers. Moreover, the guy has not even logged on to OL for nearly 4 years.

I don't know what your problem is, but a problem you surely have.

Ghs

george I have explained more than 3 times what was done

seymourblogger's picture

to my computer.

You are doing great damage control BTW. Good on you.

No the fake site was not hacking. Even this silly old lady knows that!

The hacking began very soon after my last post over there that day. Exactly when I got home and turned on my Hackintosh, at 1:57 pm, which I had already said that I had publicly.

The hacking was separate from the fake site. I repeat. They just occurred together. Contiguity. Learning theory. It's called Deterrence - distraction to you.

How do you take an illegal Hackintosh to your local apple dealer to fix? How do you go to a computer fix it store to get it fixed? Who will be discreet and who will report you?

I could give you the unique identity number of the computer that hacked me. But if he is a good hacker, and I think he is, he would trash that computer. Burn the hard drive. Maybe drown it first and then burn it to ashes.

Who me? Come on in and search fellas. I don't know what you are talking about. Here's my computer. I can give you a copy o my hard drive. Want me to download it now for you?

Yeh right. Turn the problem over to the authorities.

The hacking was done by an apple.

I didn't know of any objectivist living posters from London either.

Pull up the list of members.
Go to the search bar.
Type or paste London in the search bar.

Voila! 2 members with excellent credentials for doing hacking work. A coincidence? Two and only two? Two experts in the ability to hack? You do the probability math. I passed stats long ago. And even taught it. Why I don't gamble. Baudrillard tells me I'm wrong though in my thinking.

What was done? Search my posts and you will see if you are that interested. Do you know how to search? Do you need a lesson?

Janet,I don't know what you

George H. Smith's picture

Janet,

I don't know what you expect me to "explain." I have no idea who set up that fake blogsite. It could have been anyone. You need to keep in mind that one needn't be a member of OL (or SOLO) to read posts. Anyone could have accessed your posts, followed the incorrect link, and set up that fake site. In fact, if you look on the main OL page, you will find that the number of anonymous online "guests" typically outnumber the number of online members. These "guests" could be anyone with a computer and Internet access. In any case, the lame joke of setting up a fake blogsite is not an instance of hacking. It seems like something a child with too much time on his hands would do.

You say, in addition, that your computer was hacked by someone in London. I don't know of any OL members from London, but even if there are some it would be a grave injustice to accuse one of them without evidence. Again, the hacker could have been anyone. Did he get the idea to hack your computer from reading your OL posts? Possibly, but he might have also read your posts on SOLO or on some other site. As I said before, anyone in the world can access these sites without signing up as a member, so you should be very cautious about hurling accusations.

So what, exactly, was done to your computer?

Ghs

George thank you for

seymourblogger's picture

commenting rationally, explicitly, logically and even rather nicely. I will fix the link. Not that anyone there will click on it. Nothing wrong with that.

Selene didn't make a fake blog. He clicked on it and the pp up asked for an email, He put in the email and was taken to ntellectual, already set up.

Set up by whom? Who? Lindsay I forget!

I await for you to explain ths part.

However you cannot explain the hacking from objectivist living. In 10 minutes Anonymous had him. Then Anonymous took me back to the beginning of the journey across continents, pointing out the computer's number, screening down the screen in streams of numbers all the way to London.

Anonymous: Who do you know from there who lives in London? Whom? Who? Shit Saussaurian (sp?) flux.

Me: wide open eyes, blank look.

Anonymous: Then we do a London search there.

Me: (looking at the screen) Oh.

Anonymous: Now we go to twitter. This one is no challenge.

Then repairing the bridges took a lot longer.

Janet,In case you didn't

George H. Smith's picture

Janet,

In case you didn't follow the explanation on OL, here, in a nutshell, was the problem....

The correct link for your blogsite is:

http://intellectualterrorism2....

This link still works, and it always worked. But you gave the wrong URL link in your OL signature. In fact, the mistaken link is still a part of your OL signature (I suggest that you correct it), and it differs by a single letter from the correct link; i.e., you mistakenly typed "t" (terrorist) instead of "m" (terrorism). Here is the fake link, as it appears in your OL signature:

http://intellectualterrorist2....

These are two separate blogsites.

Someone -- and I have no idea who it was, unless the name "Selene" (i.e., Adam) is authentic-- obviously followed your false link and, finding no blog at that URL, set one up (with a different but similar name) as a joke. I don't understand the reason for this -- it's really not much of a joke -- but in no way was your blogsite hacked.

Again, I suggest that you correct the link in your OL signature. After that, no one will be taken to the fake blogsite.

Ghs

The Roots of State Education: The Spartan Model
http://www.libertarianism.org/...

Janet screamed:STRAIGHTENED

George H. Smith's picture

Janet screamed:

STRAIGHTENED OUT! Who the fuck do you think straightened it out!

objectivist living? No you idiot. Someone from Anomymous Hackers was called in to fix it. Not a pro, a super pro. It still took all evening. If I had had to pay it probably would have cost close to $1000 you sons of bitches.

Fixed what? Your blog site was always accessible. Whoever set up the fake site with a similar look and URL obviously did so as a joke, but your site was never affected. At one point you gave the wrong URL link on OL, and someone then set up a fake site with that mistaken URL.

All this was explained on OL, so take your meds and calm down.

Ghs

The Roots of State Education: The Spartan Model
http://www.libertarianism.org/...

greg now objectivist living

seymourblogger's picture

is tainted as a site that tolerates hackers, even befriends them, and blames the victim.

How's that for perpetuity. How does that work for you?

I'm not finished either.

Button down men? Firewalls in place? Forward march. We got a job to do.

She is correct

gregster's picture

there are those who didn't know and who don't care

Janet

Brant Gaede's picture

You are right.

--Brant

george

seymourblogger's picture

Oh the URL links got mixed up at some point. Ah, that sounds so mice.

Do you know what you have to do to start a blog on blogspot. To decide that the background is going tobe black.

To change the name so it DOES get mixed up with the one you want to screw.

Just a little bitty accident of a URL screw up, right. NOT.

Speculation by Michael before it got straightened out,eh.

STRAIGHTENED OUT! Who the fuck do you think straightened it out!

objectivist living? No you idiot. Someone from Anomymous Hackers was called in to fix it. Not a pro, a super pro. It still took all evening. If I had had to pay it probably would have cost close to $1000 you sons of bitches.

But I was up and posting so soon it couldn't have been that bad, could it, thinks George. Your comrade at objectivist living just thought he was dealing with a lonely little old lady who would just find that her computer got slower and slower everytime she tried to do something, go somewhere, send an email until it froze up. Poor thing. I feel so sorry for her.

And Michael saying google deleted it. the URL got corrupted. It wasn't objectivist living's fault. It wasn't. Really it wasn't. It was your fault. You probably misspelled something. When Michael pasted it or typed it into his own comment. That is the kind of thing that happens when you print one thing and the link goes somewhere else.

In case you don't know how this happens:

When you post a blog on blogspot there is an icon for L_I_N_K. You type here or there, or whatever you want a name maybe. Then you select it and click on link. A pop up appears with your word on the upper bar and the lower bar is for you to pate in the link you want.

That's the easy way. The other way is to go into the code part and twinge it there since there is no link icon. Maybe there is at OL but I never used it. The first thing I saw on the fake site was selene's name. I immediately emailed him about it. He said he clicked on it and a pop up came that said to entr an email address. So he did. No one has to enter an email address on any of my blogs unless they choose to do so. They are all on disqus. So someone at objectivist living put that in the code. It didn't just fly there on the orders of Jesus.

Do you think I am that stupid?
BLAME THE VICTIM! And the amount of memory reconstruction you are doing is beyond belief. I call it mind-fucking. There are those that were in on it, there are those who knew who did nothing, there are those who didn't know and who don't care, and where is anyone who is calling you on the destruction of private property, an act of aggression because you couldn't shut me up. But that's because you're too stupid.

And don't tell me Michael Stuart Kelly is innocent either! It was on his comment. And it was just on that one blog. Have you read it? You will understand why that one was targeted.

Just keep out of my way.

Janet, Your blog is still up

George H. Smith's picture

Janet,

Your blog is still up and accessible, is it not?

My understanding is that someone started a blog with a name similar to yours, and that the URL links got mixed up at some point on OL. As of two days ago I was able to access your blog with the correct link.

It is also my understanding that some of the speculation -- e.g., that by Michael -- was made before this matter got straightened out.

So what is the problem? If your computer crashed -- and if it did, it didn't seem to have prevented you from posting to either OL or SOLO -- it had nothing to do with any of this.

As for why Lindsay Perigo deleted your thread, his reason was probably similar to the reason that Michael limited your OL posts to five per day, viz: You are a lunatic. I am frankly surprised that you have not been booted from either list as yet.

Ghs

scherk I believe you have made yourself

seymourblogger's picture

clear on this. How many more times do you want to say it?

Keep commenting and this one will go into the trash. That's what you want, isn't it? (Rand taught me to read things in the opposite.) But I must somehow prove that I have been hacked. And of course when I do, someone will say I have photoshopped the evidence. And then I will somehow have to try to defend myself that I didn't photoshop the evidence.

There are two posters at objectivist living from London. You pull up the list of posters and type London into the search bar. Two names come up. Look at the profiles unless they have been scrubbed in the past few days. Read the profiles. Go into the twitter accounts. Which have also probably been scrubbed.

And you all blame Peikoff for scrubbing Rand's Journals and Letters? Humpf. Hypocrites.

Not to mention Michael Stuart Kelly's rationalizations that google deleted me, that somehow the link was corrupted.

A virus? How does a virus put up a fake site:ntellectualterrorist2 or nintellectualterorism2 a fake site with selene's name in it?

Tell me. I'm waiting.

And crash my computer at the same time, mess up my passwords, scramble my mediacom access, read my emails and react according to what I said in them.

And then the administrator of objectivist living Michael Stuart Kelly comes up with silly rationalitions about google getting rid of me.

And you think the police will do anything?

Hon, this is the Ozarks. People kill people and feed them to the pigs so there will be no body as evidence. If you know nothing about where I live I suggest you see Winter's Bone as it is a perfect mirror of Ozark culture. Million dollar Baby isn't bad when her parents come in the hospital to see her. Theodosia locals were furious at that movie. It cut too close to the bone.

If it smells like a fish, lives under murkey water, and garbles like a fish, I think it is a fishy tail.

Meanwhile back at the ranch you all uphold property rights as inviolate in all your posts and comments.

Except the property of someone's computer, that is. If you can't convince them, persuade them, get them off your site, why then, it's all out war. Let's crash her computer. (Steal the horse. Steal the car solution.) That'll shut her up by God.

I told you when you challenge the Dominating Discourse you provoke rage and killing. Real killing. Galileo.
Rand on Hickman.

At the risk of marking this thread for recycling

William Scott Scherk's picture

Janet, a few points to help you:

-- the flame-war was imported to SOLO by none other than you, via large and unsightly copy/paste splodges.

-- you made accusations that were not true, here on the pages of SOLO.

-- you repeatedly name folks from OL (Stuttle, Gaede, Scherk ...) and refer to things you believe they have done to harm or misdirect or deceive you. Some of these people have responded here to your crazier accusations.

-- I suggested to you that your ISP be informed of your purported hacking (no, I do not believe you were hacked. I believe you were infested by malware/spyware). I further suggested that if you feared a directed attempt to retrieve your personal information from your computer -- that you contact police; that police are very interested in tracing any attempt at ID theft.

That you distort what was written in the black-bagged threads -- this tells me that you are peddling nonsense, fancies, confabulation and really shitty reporting.

As for the mumbo-jumbo about London, murky references to names you will not name: this is craven, cowardly, inane.

blogger killing strategy

seymourblogger's picture

you ignore until they starve to death. Boo hoo.

Comment viewing options

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