Attend a Mensa event where you will encounter people with oversized brains and undersized sense and you will see what I mean. I barely qualified with an IQ of 130. Man, some of those people could eat and drink and smoke ... and it showed!  The straw to break my back came at a regional gathering where they had a psychic palm reader as a hospitality suite performer.  When she declared, "Palm reading is an art while astrology is a science," I packed my toys and left.  If you can get your hands on a Mensa Bulletin and read some of the submissions, that might be enough to dissuade you from honoring IQ divorced from objective values.

Linz's point remains valid, namely, it is what we do with our intelligence based on our chosen values that counts!

.... of over 140 - a genius or near-genius IQ!

So exciting is this revelation, that the word "Ke$ha" now includes this fact to its list of other derogatory meanings of "Ke$ha" in Urban Dictionary!

Knew you'd just love to hear this!

If we are speaking of fundamentals, then why not focus on something even more fundamental: reason vs. irrationality. Or something even more basic: objective reality vs. unknowable/unobjective reality. I can see the eyes glazing over now.

Good counterpoints, one and all. But what I am here concerned with is the self-imposed handicap of using the terms "selfishness" and "altruism" in our own way when the world understands them differently. Rand didn't write a book called "The Virtue of Freedom," she wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness." And excoriated "altruism." My argument is that we should substitute "selffulness" for the former and "sacrifism" for the latter. It's more clear to me than ever after reading Brook/Watkins that we should do this as a matter of urgency. "Selfishness-vs-altruism" is a self-inflicted PR disaster. At the same time, of course we should be touting reason-vs-irrationality etc. But on the ethical level it should be selffulness-vs-sacrifism.

No question that reason-vs-irrationality is more fundamental. We're up against RDS - Reason Derangement Syndrome. This pomo-world utterly hates reason in epistemology as much as it embraces headbanging caterwauling in aesthetics. Reason sends pomowankery into dementia. See Baade, PhD!

Edit - incidentally, the fundamentality of reason-vs-irrationality is one of the reasons we must never be seduced into letting Goblianity off the hook just because it's not especially threatening at the moment, particularly compared to Islamogoblinism. Incipiently, and existentially when it was dominant, Goblianity is/was every bit as filthy as Islamogoblinism. Just ask the folk whose feet were held to the fire or thumbs placed in screws or heads crushed in vices during the Inquisition. And Goblianity is also the religion of paedophilia, every bit as much as Islam. Just ask the millions of abused-by-Goblians kids alive right now.

All unreason is filth, and those of its followers who are not warped and disgusting are so only by dint of extraordinary compartmentalisation, aka evasion.

Above all, no goblinite has any right to speak of "compassion" while subscribing to the doctrine of eternal damnation, which is the most mega-vile invention of sub-human grotesqueries ever.

But I digress, somewhat. Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Freedom vs force doesn't cut it because it lacks fundamentality. We are looking at the moralities that underpin freedom and force.

If we are speaking of fundamentals, then why not focus on something even more fundamental: reason vs. irrationality. Or something even more basic: objective reality vs. unknowable/unobjective reality. I can see the eyes glazing over now.

I love arguing premises, perhaps because I love observing essentials. However, as noted above, premises are often "dry". That is the reason why I framed the arguement as "freedom vs. force". Most people, at least somewhat, are able to grasp what freedom and force are. This isn't to say that people aren't able to grasp your argument. I just think "freedom vs. force" has more appeal to it, especially in our current culture and political context.

However, to support your own argument, you should add that "Objectivists view the individual person as sacred". I know it is implied in your argument, but it doesn't hurt to make it explicit (In fact, I think it will be freedom's (and Objectivism's) best defense in the future).

In the future, we'll both need to establish the fundamental ideas which lead to freedom and egoism.

Right now, Objectivism needs a good PR agent.

I have differences with Neil to be sure, especially his ceaseless desire to minimize Rand. But he is right in his comment. Mainstream Objectivism is pathetic in its cultural commentary. As Michael Moeller has commented, many mainstream O'ists have a Leftist hippie element to them. Nowhere is that more apparent than with Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh. I find the two of them unreadable. (Although Hsieh does have value in her specialty - moral philosophy.)

No mainstream O'ist would ever comment on the "white Hispanic" charge or Jammie Fox's "I got to kill all the white people, how whack is that?" comment. Or the never ending assault on masculinity coming from everywhere in the popular culture (no, many O'ists thought "Hunger Games" was just a great movie instead of the Leftist, feminist anti-capitalist dreck that it was). Or the black flash mob violence and the ever growing black on white crime epidemic. Or the fact that there are more men than women in college. Or the fact that women are earning more than men in the 20s demographic. Is that healthy? Is that good for society or does it reveal a MAJOR societal problem? Well who would know? No Objectivist ever writes on these subjects. They just don't exist. All that matters to mainstream O'ism is the economy, abortion and gay marriage. And then people want to know why Objectivism is still a fringe philosophy.

The Left is a civilization destroying movement. Conservatism is not (although it is deeply flawed). Mainstream Objectivism does not get this. And it does not understand the incompatibility of Islam with the Western world. This more than anything else about the Objectivist movement frustrates me.

Who will save Objectivism from the Objectivists?

A compliment from the self-described humanity-diminisher! What did I do wrong?

I thank you for your gracious remark, Neil, and, in the same spirit of credit where it's due would add that I agree with the rest of your post. You have inspired me to strengthen the part of my review of Brook/Watkins where I take them to task for being too removed from the real world.

Excellent piece of cultural criticism, Linz. This really drives home the fact that there has been precious little good cultural commentary from Objectivists since Rand's passing. That fact is interesting in itself. As Doug Bandler noted, when you read a mainstream Objectivsts such as Ari Armstrong or Diana Hsieh, Ph.D., they sound like children compared to informed conservatives. The top song in December 2012 is a nihilistic rant by a social misfit who calls herself Ke$ha, but Armstrong and Hsieh are worried that the Religious Right is about to take over America.

As an example, have any Objectivists ever got round to talking about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman hatefest unleashed by the American news media? Are they capable of seeing the significance of the media calling Zimmerman a "white Hispanic," a term which they never used before?

I'm not sure what explains all this. Sometimes I think that Objectivists believe that human beings are "bundles of ideas," ideas which they absorb unthinkingly from philosophy professors. For example, the problems caused by Moslem immigration in Europe are only problems (to the extent Hsieh, et al. admit it) because of the welfare state, which would end once philosophy professors at Oxford and the Sorbonne stop advocating it.

One "open immigration" Objectivist wacko told me that Israel is morally obligated to allow unlimited Islamic immigration. All Israel need do to prevent an Islamic takevoer, she told me, is to have a better constitutional system that secures individual rights. What explains such madness?

Constitutionalists vs totalitarianists..

... "Sacrifism," which is less of a mouthful. Its advocate would be a "sacrificist." Selffulness vs sacrifism.

Freedom vs force doesn't cut it because it lacks fundamentality. We are looking at the moralities that underpin freedom and force.

we should recast the battle as selffulness-vs-sacrificialism

I really like "sacrificialism". It is what we mean by the word altruism but altruism may be too technical a term for mass consumption. Plus it is currently being used by the science community as in "reciprocal altruism" which is not the way we mean it (that usage really means co-operation).

Sacrifice is really what we are condemning when we lambaste altruism. But like "selfishness", the world altruism has an accepted cultural meaning. This sucks but it is not going to change. Sacrificialism is a term mainstream O'ism should start to use.

There are, of course, flaws with this (the common definition of freedom being one of them, another is mentioned above),

This is a big problem. Leftists think that "a hungry man isn't free"; ie freedom means freedom from want. Conservatives think that freedom is anarchy or "unrestrained individualism" or "radical autonomy". Sadly many libertarians, especially the anarchists sell freedom this way.

Freedom is a dangerous word unless it is given context. And that is what Rand did that no one, not even the Founders, was able to do.

Your "selffulness-vs-sacrificialism" can be easily misunderstood. Also, it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, it isn't succinct or memorable.

How about "Freedom-vs-Force"? That's a good way to frame the argument. Just make sure the statists aren't able to align themselves under the banner of freedom.

Freedom is still something people love or, at least, they profess to love it. Who will openly side with a man who is against freedom?

There are, of course, flaws with this (the common definition of freedom being one of them, another is mentioned above), however, I think this is the better choice.

The subject of Radio Liberty and Lindsay Perigo smuggled a positive mention of Ayn Rand into page 212 of the Paul Goldsmith biography of Alan Gibbs.

... has struck me forcibly and anew, reading Watkins/Brook, and it pertains to what Doug says here:

I wish that the forces of good had similar determination and moral zeal. But we know why they don't. You can't challenge socialism if you won't challenge egalitarianism. You can't challenge egalitarianism if you won't challenge altruism. You can't challenge altruism if you won't defend egoism and reason, etc, etc.. There are not enough people capable of doing this. Thus we drift ever Leftward.

We place ourselves under an enormous handicap by casting the battle as selfishness-vs-altruism, when no one understands those terms to mean what we Objectivists mean by them. To the whole world except us, selfishness means anushole-ism and altruism means kindness. Thus we are presumed by the whole world to be upholding anushole-ism and opposing kindness. This is not going to change. I have proposed that we should recast the battle as selffulness-vs-sacrificialism, and I'm more convinced than ever I was correct to do so and shall make a more concerted point of doing it myself. It's noteworthy that in his review of my book, Nicholas Dykes, not an Objectivist, singles out my Virtue of Selffulness essay for special plaudits.

What, sneakily? Creeping in under the guise of shit like Critical Theory in universities? Posing and being underhanded? Becoming greatly skilled in the ways of the bottom-feeders? Fuck that. Nothing to admire about the way they've fought. They're narcissists and neurotics... the only way they fight anything is dirty. Just like jihadists and their surripitious taqiyya. They don't do it by standing upright and living as human beings. They do it by undermining other people who seek to live as human beings and want to prevent them from being able to live that way (as human beings). They don't value, they're anti-values at the end of the day. They're prowling, drooling beasts. No wonder this culture worships Vampire stories so much.

This is true. What I meant, but didn't state accurately, was that the Left thinks that it holds the moral high ground. As a result they often have a "glow" about them. Whereas Conservatives are always apologetic when they attempt to defend liberty (which they never really do) because they are afraid of challenging altruism, Leftists, who are on the right side of altruism, proceed with no moral qualms. They don't apologize for anything. They will march and march and march in the direction of tyranny and NEVER think twice about if they are actually in the right. That is what I admire in a limited context. They have tunnel vision and they will not step aside from their goal of creating a nation dedicated to social justice.

I wish that the forces of good had similar determination and moral zeal. But we know why they don't. You can't challenge socialism if you won't challenge egalitarianism. You can't challenge egalitarianism if you won't challenge altruism. You can't challenge altruism if you won't defend egoism and reason, etc, etc.. There are not enough people capable of doing this. Thus we drift ever Leftward.

But excellent breakdown of the reality of Leftism and linking it to the drooling beast. Trenchant.

If they weren't so evil, I could almost say that I admire the way they fought for their vision.

What, sneakily? Creeping in under the guise of shit like Critical Theory in universities? Posing and being underhanded? Becoming greatly skilled in the ways of the bottom-feeders? Fuck that. Nothing to admire about the way they've fought. They're narcissists and neurotics... the only way they fight anything is dirty. Just like jihadists and their surripitious taqiyya. They don't do it by standing upright and living as human beings. They do it by undermining other people who seek to live as human beings and want to prevent them from being able to live that way (as human beings). They don't value, they're anti-values at the end of the day. They're prowling, drooling beasts. No wonder this culture worships Vampire stories so much.

Since Rosie and Richard are this board's resident religionists, I wanted to inquire about their position on fornication. I was raised Lutheran which is as close as you can get to Catholic while still calling yourself Protestant. It was hammered into my head from day one:

Wait until you are married.
Wait until you are married.
Wait until you are married.

So I waited until I was married as did the woman I married. This was good and bad from a secular position. On the good side, neither of us had any worries about the risks associated with fornication such as diseases, bastard children, and side effects of abortion. On the bad side, we were both a couple of ignorant virgins.

All that aside, I swear I think we live in a sex-addled world. Romance can be heady enough with the "caress" the Paddy Roberts song mentions. Accelerate that to full shagging and, well, what can I say? It is far too easy to do that and fall strictly into a bonding of genitals but not souls. I do adhere to the idea that true love requires soul bonding and that shagging without it diminishes our higher rational powers as human beings for that kind of deep, spiritual bond.

So I want to know what Rosie and Richard have to say about fornication:

Do you see formal marriage or merely formal commitment as necessary prerequisites for intercourse?
For those who have fornicated many times already, would a "full celibacy diet" do them good?

To tie this back to the main topic of this thread, I think it is the "mindful" approach to sex that matters rather than either the mindless "puritanical" approach of religionists or the mindless "hedonistic" approach of Airhead Americans. Still, sometimes a period of "detoxification" from the latter might make a positive difference. But even religionists often select their commandments a la carte, dismissing preachments against fornication as outmoded.

For Doug:

Have you ever dated any Latin American women? My wife is Panamanian. We have been married 21 years. Someone remarked to me recently that if you treat a Latina rightly, she will love you for life. I think there is much truth to that though I shy from generalization based on my very narrow experience. A woman from Spain with whom I once worked said outright, "American women are loose!" I do not hesitate to agree with her generalization based on my not so narrow experience. Although my sexual experience is narrow, my general experience supports my Spanish colleague's assertion.

My point is that "Airhead America" does not equal "Airhead Planet." I encourage you to look outside your damaged culture to one that is perhaps not so damaged. You would virtually be guaranteed a Catholic if you look at Latin America, but rest assured that many of them are, frankly, Catholic in name though not in practice. My wife believes in God but has no issue with contraception or even abortion. She has seen the damage wrought by too many babies born to people who do not want them. We do not attend church, either.

So if you are willing to look outside the box you might actually find the loyalty you seek if you are willing to pay the price for it. This includes a much more "old fashioned" celibate approach to romance with a long courtship lacking intimate sexual contact. Try it.

If you want to avoid the company of sluts, stop being one yourself.

the thing I can't bear most in communicating with the Comprachicoed, apart from their unearned arrogance, is:

"an impotent creature, unable to think, unable to face or deal with reality, a creature who combines brashness and fear...

This trait makes it so hard to remedy or break through... and it's a fucking act which makes them develop a truly unauthentic disposition. I find myself trying to put them at their ease, because the fear part is so plain to me, but once you do that they read it as validation/affirmation which then feeds their unearned arrogance all over again. My children are 24, 22 and 18. I like to know their friends and many of them are truly nice kids, but that fear masked by brashness is very, very destructive because it blocks them from ever putting themselves comfortably in the seat of learning. Over the years I thought maybe it was just me whom they felt nervous around, but alas no... it's a core existential nervousness. The music and art they love reinforces it all.

I had to look up "hypergamy." Wiki says:

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher looks, socioeconomic, caste or status than oneself.[1]

The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency among human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves, which often manifests itself as being attracted to men who are comparatively older, wealthier or otherwise more privileged than themselves.[2] According to evolutionary psychologists, females have evolved a preference for higher status males because they offer their prospective children both "better" genes and greater resources, e.g. food and security. Men, who invest less in their children, have less reason to prefer mates with high social status. Some have even argued that men "marry-down" to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful.[3]

Is "hypergamy" as thus defined what you're writing about, or just general sluttery?

Either way, since - to quote myself - there is no cure for women known to man, the only thing for it is to have men abandon the fashionable aberration of heterosexuality and repair to their natural born homosexuality. A select few women should, after being de-larynxed, be kept in cages for breeding purposes, which breeding should be effected by the spoon method. That would all be much more seemly, and leave the men free to frighten the horses.

Now, in all seriousness, I believe in a rational culture the whole issue of social status would be risible and irrelevant. Yes, there'd be an informal aristocracy of merit, but any decent person in a "lowly" job would be esteemed for his decency and performing his "lowly" tasks well. And if the chemistry were right, there'd be no social taboo preventing a brain surgeon from being in love with him. The content of one's character and all that. I am loving reaquainting myself with E. M. Forster's Maurice currently, in which upper-class Maurice and lower-class Alec, since their love is forbidden by sexual mores (and by law) anyway, go for it in defiance of class taboos as well.

"Soulmate" is definitely the thing, and that concept has definitely been lost in the value-free babbling banality of Faecesbook, etc., but whether "soulmate" necessarily entails lifelong sexual monogamy is moot. It's natural for physical passion for one particular person, the ardor that underpins "There'll be no one but you for me, eternally" to abate over time while physical arousal remains strong toward the sexually attractive in general. Whether there's a hard-wired jealousy button that precludes the indulgence of such passions without destroying the primary, soulmate relationship is also moot. We know how destructive the Rand/Branden indulgence was, notwithstanding that it was all placed on an "adult" basis to start with and even though Frank and Ayn survived it qua couple. Others handle such situations differently. My grandmother knitted cardigans for one of my grandfather's mistresses!

A big bull and a little bull are sitting on top of a hill overlooking the herd of cows.

The little bull says in an excited voice " Dad dad lets run down the hill really fast so we can fuck a few cows before they run off!!"

The big bull says calmly " Lets Walk down the hill like we own it and fuck em all".

Be my love and with your kisses set me burning
One kiss is all I need to seal my fate
And hand in hand we'll find love's promised land
There'll be no one but you for me, eternally
If you will be my love.

vs

Young hunks, taking shots
Stripping down to dirty socks
Music up, gettin' hot
Kiss me, give me all you've got
It's pretty obvious that you've got a crush (you know)
That magic in your pants, it's making me blush (for sure)

I hear your heart beat to the beat of the drums
Oh, what a shame that you came here with someone
So while you're here in my arms
Let's make the most of the night like we're gonna die young

I wanted to add something to this discussion which I overlooked when Linz first posted this. Look at the two sets of lyrics. One was written in the 1950s before woman's careerism, the birth control pill, and the absence of slut shaming. The other was written 60 years after. Quite a difference. In the 1950s the "soulmate" concept still worked. It doesn't work now. Female hypergamy is unleashed and women have too many sexual options to settle for just one man. Throw in Facebook and social networking where women have hundreds of cyber "friends" telling them how hot they look even if they are 30 pounds overweight. Women in urban centers are going through close to 100 men by the time they are in their 30s.

And social networking makes reconnecting with your ex who just always gave you the tingles that much easier. Had a fight with your boyfriend? Well just go on Facebook and chat with your ex. Oh you'll be in his section of town on Friday. Let's meet for coffee. So much for "we'll find love's promised land." Its as dead as the 50s. This is the reality of the modern world made possible by all this technology that O'ists tout so damn much. I know, I know, its not the technology its the culture. OK, you keep saying that when you find out that your wife or girlfriend just fucked her ex-boyfriend in the backseat of his car on a "lunch date" made all too easy by modern communication technology.

Now the question is what would sexuality in a rational, value oriented but non-religious society look like? I have no idea but I bet it wouldn't be the 1950s. Female hypergamy has been proven in study after study since the 1960s. It makes perfect sense given the division of labor b/w the sexes created by evolutionary influences. Is love possible in a liberated society where there is no slut shaming and hypergamy is totally unrestrained? Is sexual exclusivity even really viable for humanity? We are not a naturally monogamous species. We're fucking apes for god's sake.

I don't have answers for the above. But I do not that the Ke$ha song turns my stomach even though girls love to have sex to that song. What I'm saying is that there is a dark side to human sexuality which has been unleashed by sexual freedom. Objectivists don't ever acknowledge that, which is kind of funny being that I have met 4 Objectivist men who have been cheated on by their wives.

Man worship? Or Alpha worship? Big difference. Remember, poor Eddie Wilers got no play. He couldn't even get a girl in the 1950s. Rand tortured that poor character. Even she had no mercy for beta males.

The Left has set things up for themselves nicely.

It only looks that way. They're as helpless as tropical fish when the power goes out. This is analogous with the scientific establishment. The conventional rules. But it will backfire. The Left will bring us all down somewhat.

Science- physics- will never make advances as long as it remains ideologically caught in government-funded conventional nonsense. Hadron collider built on a wrong premise. More billions squandered due to the banning of CFCs. Carbon dioxide- a prerequisite for life- makes it to President BO's EPA shitlist, and the world has malinvested trillions due to this ManBearPig. I'll stop there, for now.

The Left should wear green triangles signifying pro-death.

But you see, that would require a judgment-call and we just can't have that in today's non-judgmental culture, so she gets brushed aside.

At some point everyone who encounters Rand understands on some level that she requires you to make a choice and stand for something. And that something is not the counterfeit individualism of tattoo sleeves or promiscuous sex. They also realize that by accepting Rand they will stand outside modern liberal culture (or some religious community if they are in one). That means that they will be an alien in their own society. That is a very difficult path to undertake. Hell, rejecting modern liberalism is almost a guarantee of celibacy with hot young girls (and not so young too) unless you are super charismatic enough to pull it off (or are lucky enough to find a Randian chick - they're out there but not in any large numbers and they too end up going for non-Randian bad boys because they too are hypergamous women, but I digress).

Its not easy to challenge the ruling paradigm of your culture especially when that paradigm mandates moral subjectivism. The Left has set things up for themselves nicely. If they weren't so evil, I could almost say that I admire the way they fought for their vision.

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

Check out all the freedom lovers in Texas! People are willing to move there and fight Obamamarx and indeed shed blood if need be just to get back to the America as it was supposed to be! See guys? "It aint over till the fat lady sings!".  Singing " The Yellow Rose of Texas" may very well become a national anthem!

I think most philosophers in human history got far more wrong than they did right. Rand got far more right then she did wrong. That was an achievement in and of itself given how hard philosophy is.

It is amazing to me how many people have touched on Rand somewhere during their existence - and have been provoked into thought by her amazing insights, but then don't really have a "take" on her and don't want one. But you see, that would require a judgment-call and we just can't have that in today's non-judgmental culture, so she gets brushed aside. The same people will wring their useless hands about the state of the world and carry on looking for concrete-bound answers to philosophical problems.

LBE has a voracious appetite for sex ... with someone who embodies her values.

... with someone who embodies a large portion of her values.
When there's a breach, I find fierce abuse and witholding sex as effective as the next goddess.

This sentence passed me by when I read your post yesterday:

I think most philosophers in human history got far more wrong than they did right. Rand got far more right then she did wrong. That was an achievement in and of itself given how hard philosophy is.

So true!

And given that philosophy was set on falsely dichotomous paths from the get-go by Parmenides and Heraclitus, I still say she was at her greatest as a dichotomy-buster.

I venture to suspect she'd agree with my observations re two Lanzas/ two Americas, also.

I know what you mean.

I lament a moment in 2011(?) when Glenn Beck was taking off on Fox. He had Yaron on for the (second?) time and it appeared to me that Glenn was on the verge of having Yaron as his go-to guy for economics & objectivism.

Glenn popped off about religion and Yaron countered with the usual monolithic objectivist refrain. Yaron was correct, Glenn's point made me cringe. But a more agile advocate (you for instance - and this isn't sycophancy, I've ~seen~ you do this) would haven't shut the door on Glenn so forcefully - especially when the prize would have been a place on a stage in front of a regular audience measured in the millions.

I too have seen Lindsay do this as an interviewee (and as an interviewer). Lindsay also knows how to employ humour to great effect even if he is slamming a door.

I'll be absolutely fascinated to hear your reaction to Brook/Watkins!

And Reisman's magnum opus is cued up on my kindle. So I get that point. But it goes further than just schisms in objectivism.

I lament a moment in 2011(?) when Glenn Beck was taking off on Fox. He had Yaron on for the (second?) time and it appeared to me that Glenn was on the verge of having Yaron as his go-to guy for economics & objectivism.

Glenn popped off about religion and Yaron countered with the usual monolithic objectivist refrain. Yaron was correct, Glenn's point made me cringe. But a more agile advocate (you for instance - and this isn't sycophancy, I've ~seen~ you do this) would haven't shut the door on Glenn so forcefully - especially when the prize would have been a place on a stage in front of a regular audience measured in the millions.

Glenn is a devout mormon and a scatter brain. But he isn't the sodding Pope (i.e. the root of all that is religious), and he's 95% on our side. It was a missed opportunity to gain a powerful ally in this fight.

Would it have really have hurt to assert one beliefs less forcefully to (mostly) like minded people when it is tactically in your favor to do so? Must ~everyone~ be hit with a brickbat in these exceptionally troubled times?

I'm all for going down fighting metaphorically speaking, but I'd like to have some company if only to reminisce with when the final moment of this civilization come.

You write:

Indeed. I think Olivia is one of the 72 virgins we all have waiting for us in the afterlife if we're good!

The idea of Olivia being a virgin is as improbable as the idea of an afterlife. Not for nothing did I christen her "Lady Slapper," and not for nothing do I address her privately as "LBE" (Logs Behind Ears). (I do have her permission to say this publicly.)

Neither of these endearments, of course, is meant disrespectfully. LBE has a voracious appetite for sex ... with someone who embodies her values. Given the unavailability of moi, for reasons that are not totally mysterious, she has someone in her life who is the next best thing to moi. He weeps at Mario, and no higher compliment can be paid than that. So you, Kyrel, and Doug, must content yourselves with your Japanese toy-girls. I hope you are not Pinkertons to their Butterflies! (Operatic allusion, hopefully not wasted. )

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Yes this is brilliant and yes Olivia is giving me hope for the female creature.

The female creatures are surprisingly silent at the backward state of the world for which all of the blame can be attributed to the male failures.

Marcus switch from longevity to cloning we need 4 million Olivia's pronto!

Olivia is indeed a goddess amongst insects, I always look forward to what she has to say.

Doug writes:

"Olivia is a delight. I wish her essence would become the default for the human female."

Indeed. I think Olivia is one of the 72 virgins we all have waiting for us in the afterlife if we're good!

But that reminds me: Why the holy hell are there so few female Objectivists on the planet today? However much it may be normal and natural for men to lead the intellectual world, this still surprises and disappoints the heck out of me.

It's certainly interesting to consider the culture and life-style of Western civilization in the 1950s as Doug and Lindsay tell the tale! I think Ayn Rand would refer to these phenomena as manifestations of philosophical "sense of life." But a lot of that stuff from way back when feels out of date and irrelevant to today. I'd be interested in hearing what everybody thinks are admirable, enjoyable, inspiring singers and actors today.

"1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction."

I dislike Scherk intensely. But I think he is partially right here. I do think that Rand's views on emotions are partially wrong; not all human emotions are the product of freely chosen values. I also think she was wrong regarding language acquisition. Regarding correction, well her philosophy is what it is but future versions will correct her errors.

But none of this justifies Scherk's (and OLY's) nihilism. Further, I don't see that any of Rand's errors were fatal to the core of her philosophy. (Well, I do often wonder if the NIOF is as rock solid as Objectivistm makes it out to be but put that aside).

I think most philosophers in human history got far more wrong than they did right. Rand got far more right then she did wrong. That was an achievement in and of itself given how hard philosophy is.

Two excellent posts with many brilliant observations, especially this:

The airheads, feral teens shooting people for refusing cigarettes, Keynesian economics writ large, sexual nihilism (the 'Game'), the crystallization of the American melting pot into Balkanized immiscible layers. All of it is culmination of the life's work of the "rhetorical class" who hate individuals and individual freedom.

Excellent. The fruits of all of the anti-mind premises of post-Kantian philosophy.

This militant non-judgmentalism in our culture (from art through to everything else) is a total breeding ground for mental illness because it lets people disconnect from reality. Being unwilling to judge is a symptom of being unable to value... and if you can't value, you can't live as a human being. And if people can't live as human beings they resent other people who make it their purpose to do so - hence the hatred of the good for being the good.

Yes this is brilliant and yes Olivia is giving me hope for the female creature. She has captured here the essence of the Left's nihilism; destroying moral standards and thus the very possibility of moral virtue. If you destroy the concept of value you destroy civilization and that is why Rand was right in saying "hatred of the good for being the good". Rand saw better than anyone ever the pure destructiveness of this phenomenon known as "the Left" (communism, socialism, welfare-statism, modern liberalism, egalitarianism, etc).

Olivia is a delight. I wish her essence would become the default for the human female.

isn't in fascinating that in today's culture she'd be called morbidly obese (as would Marilyn)?

There is so many reasons for this one of them being the modern diet. The other, the birth control pill. But in essence what we have seen since the 60s is the masculinization of women and the feminization of men. If you look at women's jaw lines today and compare them to the faces of pre-70s women you will see this starkly.

Maybe we are witnessing actual biological de-evolution. There is even some evidence that humanity is getting dumber IQ wise. I don't know but it does seem that the culture is descending into insanity in more ways than you can count. Oh and then of course there is the tattoo craze. If that is worship of the primitive, I don't know what is?

And the only way I see to reverse this is to attack that problem simultaneously at all levels. Which brings me to your final observation: that Yaron etc. are focusing only on economics.

True that is their calling in life, but they appear to be excluding the possibility that a limited alliance with talented non-objectivist freedom lovers (be they conservatives, Christians, or even fiscally conservative, constitution-loving Democrats) would enable them to place the enemy in enfilade -- a prerequisite to routing the bastards before my time is at an end.

To be fair my flip comment about "books about the free market" was not fair. Their latest book, Free Market Revolution, is a ringing defence of rational selfishness as the basis of capitalism, so is focusing on morality. It draws liberally from non-Objectivists, even quoting Nathaniel Branden at one point (that must be a first! It doesn't quote Reisman, though, and that's just ridiculous). It's inspiring in many ways, but it doesn't stand a chance in Airhead America. That's not the fault of the authors, of course, but they seem blithely unaware of the problem, alluding to it only at the end when they acknowledge their chances of success are "slim."

Whether done in a great rush or by dribs and drabs.

The murder rate in Detroit, Chicago and Kansas City ought to send a chill up the spine of any rational person. Last time I checked 490 people have been murdered in Chicago in 2012 (40/month). If I were to guess, most would be due to blow-back from the "War on Drugs," and the 14-30% (depending on measurement) unemployment rate in the Black community.

And one could argue that Drug taking is itself a nihilistic act if pursued to the extent that it endangers or degrades your quality of life. But then if your life already sucks because you can't get a job because you lack work experience (thanks to minimum wage laws) or a college degree. The latter seems to have taken the place of High School graduation as the minimum requirement for many jobs. It's almost as if a collegiate guild exists for salaried jobs...
Add to that the gladiatorial nature of inner city schools -- and I use the term 'school' loosely.

What is it then that makes a sane person look at this and NOT understand that there is something wrong? Answer: the culture.

The culture exemplified by the art of our time. The culture underlined not by extreme acts nihilistic violence that we saw in Sandy Hook last Friday, but the reaction to them: "Ban guns!" "It was because of lack of public mental health!" A culture that blames anything except the pieces of shit that left those innocent children naked before the human-beasts that have ~always~ been with us. The same culture that can't call Jihadists terrorists. And on and on.

It is a culture that is powered by the prevailing philosophy of our time - an anti-reason, anti-reality, anti-freedom, anti-human malevolent chimera. And the worst part of it is that the Bellerophons of our time are ham-strung by non-entities, nay-sayers and ninnies who are concerned about the timeliness and palatability of the message.

And to top it all off, my favorite sports teams can't knock the skin of a rice pudding right now. Fuck it's depressing.

This was very apt Linz. And a stark contrast between the America of the 1950s & 60s and the one I find myself in today.

Overt legal prejudice has been replaced with the covert variety that manifests itself in societies that are Balkanized by class warfare, welfarism, the nationalization of education and a hundred other things.

All of it powered by an infantile mentality that refuses to recognize the restraints placed on life by reality. A sophistic mentality that dismisses value judgments as prejudicial or prudish or immoral -- stolen premises all.

Thus Ke$ha, Slayer and Mario are all equal. Adam Lanza is to be excused because of his mental illness and the real blame lies in his possession of "assault weapons."

The bastards are even removing value from the vocabulary. It's gone beyond PC. For instance: just what the f**k is an 'Assault Weapon?' A weapon with which you commit an assault? As opposed to one you use to whip cream with? A weapon, by definition, is used for assault, battery, death and violence. That is it's defining feature - the meaning of the noun 'weapon'.

An 'assault weapon' is a propaganda term used to scare the populace into accepting yet more encroachment into their lives by the Federal government. That august body filled with University-trained experts qualified to make value judgments for the rest of us.

The airheads, feral teens shooting people for refusing cigarettes, Keynesian economics writ large, sexual nihilism (the 'Game'), the crystallization of the American melting pot into Balkanized immiscible layers. All of it is culmination of the life's work of the "rhetorical class" who hate individuals and individual freedom.

Culture is upstream of politics. Philosophy is upstream of culture. And all of it is now rotten.

And the only way I see to reverse this is to attack that problem simultaneously at all levels. Which brings me to your final observation: that Yaron etc. are focusing only on economics.

True that is their calling in life, but they appear to be excluding the possibility that a limited alliance with talented non-objectivist freedom lovers (be they conservatives, Christians, or even fiscally conservative, constitution-loving Democrats) would enable them to place the enemy in enfilade -- a prerequisite to routing the bastards before my time is at an end.

Scherk says Objectivism is: "1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction." I'd love to hear what his reasons for these claims are. Mere assertions aren't persuasive. We need some sort of evidence or argumentation here.

You know I once had a car that made a noise like that.

I pulled over and called a tow-truck. Turned out the oil pump had shat itself and pieces of the mechanism were rattling around inside the casing. The engine was seconds away from seizing when I pulled over.

Which goes to show you that if you are near machinery and hear something approaching that, hitting the off switch can save you money and perhaps even your life.

Being unwilling to judge is a symptom of being unable to value... and if you can't value, you can't live as a human being. And if people can't live as human beings they resent other people who make it their purpose to do so - hence the hatred of the good for being the good.

Astonishingly brilliant, except "unable to value" should be "militantly unwilling to value," as in Babsism.

I'm sure Mr Bandler will have to reassess his view of women as a result. Notwithstanding the above caveat, you have nailed it in a way any man, including me, would be proud of.

But our battle against the Adam Lanza culture remains. Did you see that indescribable filth posted by Baade here today?

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas. And what a terrifying contrast!

Patriots vs Airheads. Americans vs anti-Americans.

No, millions don't worship Adam the way millions once worshipped Mario -- but millions embrace a culture that glorifies the kind of deed Adam Lanza recently perpetrated.

Absolutely. Nihilism is everywhere. People are too committed to "non-judgmentalism" to even give a shit. The only criteria for being an artist, especially in music, is the primal need to self-express. In the case of soulless little twots like Ke$ha, their need to self-express is on a par with taking a dump, except taking a dump has more purpose.

This militant non-judgmentalism in our culture (from art through to everything else) is a total breeding ground for mental illness because it lets people disconnect from reality. Being unwilling to judge is a symptom of being unable to value... and if you can't value, you can't live as a human being. And if people can't live as human beings they resent other people who make it their purpose to do so - hence the hatred of the good for being the good.

Re Sophia: isn't in fascinating that in today's culture she'd be called morbidly obese (as would Marilyn)? Self-mortifying anorexia is the order of the day. And the thus-nutritionally-deprived end up with nothing going on between their ears. There's nothing to fuel their neurons.

Airhead America comprises a rich tapestry of vicious circles.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

... addressing Scherk here. I've removed him. His only interest is snark and schisms, not ideas. I am not a sacrificialist, and thus no more interested in paying for his insults of me than I am Leonid's or anyone else's. If, on O-Lying, he responds to your challenge in a way that proves me wrong, I'll be happy to hear about it.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Good start William, but there has to be some further fleshing out to your Objections to Objectivism. Is that it, surely not? I don't mean to compare your new work directly with Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis because he took many years formulating that one. I can understand you were responding here without access to your notes. The bane of the iPhone/iPad keyboard commandoes, to coin one of your turns of phrase. How can I counter simple assertions such as "wrong on emotion" "wrong on language acquisition"? I can only guess that "incapable of correction" refers to Ayn Rand's deceased status. I note, encouragingly, if that is your full report, you agree with the Objectivist fundamentals.

Put the full report over at the swamp for the world's edification. I usually hit O-lying's "New Content." I'll look for it there, not impatiently. I see some of you there have been amusing yourselves on the Defamation on SOLO thread, taking stabs at - to O-lying - politically incorrect and incorrect SOLO stuff. Doug needs to rein in some of his genetic slurs but otherwise his opinions are fine as his opinions.

Your head prefect MSK calls SOLO a hate site. If I get the time I'd like to turn that crap on its head. A site that hates evil, as does SOLO, is a Love-for-Humanity site. O-lying promotes hatred for those who put their heads up and try to point towards a solution, and in doing so are seen as worse than the actual evil cunts. Demonstrated forcibly again by this latest piece from Lindsay Perigo.

You are about to witness a vast exodus of the 1% out of the country, taking their wealth and more importantly their MINDS with them, which will of course make any recovery even harder and improbable.  Btw, Mother T was the embodiment of altruism so yes, by her NATURE she was a loathsome reality evading monster who exalted in sacrifice.

North America could fracture into regional divides and conflicts and then it is anybody's guess what we will get.

The Balkanization of America, that's what. And there'll be no Ayn Rand to write about it. The ARI will produce books on the free market and call for a debate.

It's over to thee and me, my friend. And sometimes I worry about thee!

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

She was evil. My loathing of her is hatred of the evil for being the evil. Care to borrow the Hitchens book?

This is not quite a propos, but as a fan of wishful thinking you might find it instructive:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

We haven't yet seen your openly violence-embracing filth truly kick in. When we do, we'll see the "civilizing process" referred to above utterly trumped. The worst is still to come. And your ilk will be defecating not just in the castles, but on the streets (and calling it art). I guess Occupy Wall St was your warm-up gig.

Exactly. OWS is a Stalinist movement in the making. When you get enough Leftists like that, you can rest assured that blood will flow.

If the Left should gain full and total power the US will become a totalitarian nightmare. That is if it survives at all. North America could fracture into regional divides and conflicts and then it is anybody's guess what we will get. The toy store will be closed I can tell you that.

As for crime rates, that is an often quoted statistic but I don't know how much merit I give it. The culture is FAR SICKER than in the 1950s. There is no comparison. Slayer and its ilk is not a cause of crime any more than the violence ridden movies of the day are. They are a symptom of deeper evils. Its Rand's Comprachicos that are the problem here. The Gramsci-ites / Alinski-ites / Marxists, etc..

Pollyanna-ism is an affectation you adopt because you think you should.

I adopt an affectation because I think I should?! What utter rubbish.

Creeps may rule and to say disparaging things for the reasons I submit does not detract from that.

And Mother Teresa?!
She was an utterly evil bitch who glorified suffering for suffering's sake.

That is the only example of hatred of the good for being good I have ever heard. You have proved me wrong.

But I am very, very shocked and sorry that it was you who could be the person to do so from your own mouth.

By "not on the level" I meant "not authentic." Pollyanna-ism is an affectation you adopt because you think you should. You have said many things in private to me that show you know such a stance to be an artifice. Creeps rule, and you know it.

As for Mother Teresa, *I* despise her, and have probably written to that effect. If I haven't, I should have. Christopher Hitchens despised her and wrote a whole book about her to that effect. You're welcome to borrow it from me. Objectivist Robert White despised her and wrote an article in the FreeRad to that effect which I can probably dig up for you. She was an utterly evil bitch who glorified suffering for suffering's sake.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Nice try, and typical Baadean shifting of the argument, but it won't do. There is no inconsistency between my thesis that your filthy Slayer culture encourages murderous rampages and the fact that the overall homicide rate (which was never my topic) is the same now as in 1950. You should actually read the stuff you so feverishly google in your "gotcha" quest. You might find it agrees with me about culture's influence:

Culture: Over the centuries, westerners increasingly came to feel that violence was uncouth and distasteful. Historians refer to the “civilizing process,” a phrase German sociologist Norbert Elias used to describe how the royal courts of Europe suppressed bloody feuds among lords. The repression of violence spread to the bourgeois who, in turn, taught it to the working classes – or forced it on them through, for example, schooling. Over time, hitting, knifing, and shooting came to seem (to most people) as vulgar as smelling from body odor or defecating in the castle hallway.

Here, I'll make a prediction, Baade. The triumph of your ilk and your filth is recent, historically speaking. It rode on the coat-tails of a Marxist advance that was specifically pacifist and stealthy (Gramsci et al). We haven't yet seen your openly violence-embracing filth truly kick in. When we do, we'll see the "civilizing process" referred to above utterly trumped. The worst is still to come. And your ilk will be defecating not just in the castles, but on the streets (and calling it art). I guess Occupy Wall St was your warm-up gig.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Rosie's not-on-the-level Pollyanna-ism notwithstanding, it barely exists.

"On the level" according to the slang dictionary means honest.

So what do your words mean? That you think I am dishonest and have a naive optimism because I don't believe that people despise the good for being good? But instead I believe that their disparaging words arise from envy, jealousy, unmet expectations, disappointment, attempting to be superior in some way and/or fear/self-loathing rather than because of the person's talent/goodness?

Again I say to you, if you can show me someone or something written by someone who despises Mother Theresa (who had no "worldly" possessions or looks or social/political position that people might envy or be jealous of i.e., she was pure goodness in an other-worldly way) only then will you begin to convince me that I am wrong, Lindsay.

Sorry to bother you again with those pesky "facts of reality," but on the face of it your claims simply don't stack up.

Here is a graph showing the American homicide rate since 1900.

Notice that the homicide rate today (Adam Lanza's America) is roughly the SAME as the homicide rate in the 1950s (Mario Lanza's America).

Death metal and rap music became popular in the early 1990s. It is surely no coincidence that the homicide rate in the U.S. has plummeted since that time.

I find it telling that the "drooling beast" quote, which I have permanently displayed in a prominent place on the front page, has attracted so little comment in the time it's been there. It is, as I say, the Quote of the Century, except the beast is not now merely "prowling," it is galloping. This is what Objectivists are in denial over, apart from Peikoff and a handful of others, including that guy you unearthed today.

The quality we are looking for, Doug, in other human beings, is that of being on the level. Rosie's not-on-the-level Pollyanna-ism notwithstanding, it barely exists.

But we must never lose sight of the likes of Freddy, and Geneva, not to mention her parents.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Actually, he looks just like most youngsters I see around the streets of Wellington, except he's not attached to an ipod. Exudes a kind of diabolical obtuseness, of Ayn Rand's drooling beast unreachability, similar to the sub-human female who does the voice-overs on UKTV. By today's standards, Adam Lanza looks entirely normal to me.

Yes, you have a point. Far too many people have that "drooling beast" look. That it is that common shows how far civilization has fallen.

I was aware, Baade, that you'd immediately go hunting for an instance of a rampaging psycho from that period whom you could brandish at me in a "gotcha" moment. It seems you found one. I congratulate you. But he doesn't undermine my thesis at all. This man, a paranoid schizophrenic deemed insane and unable to stand trial, was always going to be insane regardless of cultural influences. The point is, his behaviour was incongruent with the then-prevailing culture, which, as the presence of Mario at the top of the charts shows, was life-affirming, romance-embracing and benevolent. The string of such episodes in recent times is congruent with the current culture, which, as the unconscionable filth you posted on this thread earlier today shows, is life-hating, anti-romantic and beyond malevolent, not to mention indescribably vile. It is not my thesis that the culture causes this behaviour; it's my thesis that the culture, by glorifying it, encourages it - and probably tips otherwise-borderline cases over the edge. Of course you don't "get" this. You don't want to. Your agenda is to justify and glorify the kind of excreta you posted today, and you will never cease.

Another thing strikes me here: Doug posted a photo of Adam Lanza and said, look at the guy's face, you can tell he's not normal. Actually, he looks just like most youngsters I see around the streets of Wellington, except he's not attached to an ipod. Exudes a kind of diabolical obtuseness, of Ayn Rand's drooling beast unreachability, similar to the sub-human female who does the voice-overs on UKTV. Reminds me of the young man who used to be on this site who announced one day he was going to "suspend" his libertarian principles for the time being and root for Obamarx. By today's standards, Adam Lanza looks entirely normal to me. He'd pass muster as a "hipster," I believe.

You can relax, Baade. You and your ilk have won the cultural battle. Knock yourself out.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Three generations ago, in 1950 ...

There is no record of psychotic young men going on murderous rampages at this time.

Actually, there is.

In 1950, the United States was still reeling from Howard Unruh's killing rampage which took place in September 1949. In fact, "Unruh is considered the first single-episode mass murderer in U.S. history." Somehow, it just was "that sort of cultural milieu"—to the extent that culture had anything to do with it.

from a psychotic culture you will get psychotic outcomes.

Where's your evidence that the culture is, in fact, "psychotic" and is, in part, responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

We are witnessing the climax of cretinism, the zenith of zombie-ism, the apogee of airheadery, precisely because of the concerted attack on [the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses] from all sides.

I still don't get this.

Find me any modern actress that has the same glamor that Sophia Loren had in this picture taken in 1959. Look at her face, her body, her entire persona. She was charming, pleasant and demure. And FEMININE. And there is NO narcissism in her face. EVERY actress or celebrity exudes narcissism today. That is modern nihilistic culture. The 1950s was a different universe. And it doesn't matter what her sex life was like. I am talking about this picture and what it conveys. This picture was pre-60s. Marilyn was caught in the 60s counter culture takeover. Had she been born 20 years earlier, she would have been born into a different world. And she would not have been the same type of troubled woman.

Do you consider sexual loyalty or fidelity "prudish"? Do you consider sex is nothing more than "sport"?

No. That is my point. But at the same time, typical traditionalist conceptions of sex are based on a religious ethics. Objectivists often struggle with what a non-religious, non-anti-sex sexual morality would look like. For me personally, knowing what I know about evolution psychology and true human (especially female) sexuality, I am very conflicted about what an objective, non-nihilist, non-religious sexuality would look like. For example, I am increasingly becoming of the opinion that humanity is just not wired for long term sexual exclusivity. But I have no hard answers.

But Objectivists are pro sexuality and not prudes.

Do you consider sexual loyalty or fidelity "prudish"? Do you consider sex is nothing more than "sport"?

You can be pro-sexuality - we are all fundamentally sexual beings - but, like everything, to squander your sexuality and give it away without the deepest consideration to whom you are giving it, is to cheapen it. The spin off is to cheapen your self and lose your soul. There is absolutely no self respect in that sort of behaviour. Sex is a very deep and very clear expression of your self.

And if you think that is prudish, I am very happy to be called a prude. But I know that anyone who has been in a relationship with me would never describe me so. (All 500,000 of them! )

I will admit that there are nutters found on every Objectivish forum. OL has Jerry Story. You have Doug Bandler. That may be the price of freedom. Perhaps you do not host any more nutters per capita than elsewhere, despite appearances.

Dude, you're a fucking coward. You won't even debate any position you hold and the few times you have engaged a smart mind you get crushed; ie the way Michael destroyed you over the Gitmo stuff. You hide with kindred souls over at OLY. Hell, go to ROR and debate Wolfer or Thompson and they'll bitch slap you.

You're a nihilist Scherk. Even in my most flawed moments I have a soul. You can't even spell the word.

... take your snide snot and snark back to Lying. It's not welcome here. If you ever acquire the quality of good faith, reapply.

I suggest you listen to her album Warrior

Ain't gonna happen.

Ke$ha is insipid pabulum, the musical equivalent of white bread, leached of all that is wholesome and good.

The perfect antidote to such blandification is, of course ... SLAAAYYYER!!!

I suggest you listen to Slayer's entire discography, but here's Killing Fields, a track whose lyrics are germane to the present thread.

You know the feeling
When adrenaline takes control
Can't beat the rush
That leaves a suicidal hold

Instinct spares no one
Destroying the human heart
The taste of blood
Can rip your soul apart

Devils that drive us
Do not discriminate
A state of mind
That becomes the ultimate end

Action reaction
Blood line is not immune
To the depth of human nature
Inside of me and you
A sociopath with empty eyes
and no soul
Paranoid psychotic heart of stone
My blood runs cold

Evils of passion
Can drive reason to extremes
Love, hate and murder
Temporary insanity

On the edge of a
Demented personality
Emotional
Pain is a deadly reality

A sociopath with empty eyes
and no soul
Paranoid psychotic heart of stone
My blood runs cold

A choice is made of free will
Just like the choice to kill
Decisions to lose control
My self-destructive rationale

A choice is made, made of free will
Just like the choice, the choice to kill
In the speed of a moment
Life stands still now you're standing in my killing field

A choice is made of free will
Just like the choice to kill
In the speed of a moment
Life stands still now you're standing in my killing field

My Objections to Objectivism:

1) wrong on emotion
2) wrong on language acquisition
3) incapable of correction

Nobody really cares about my Objections to Objectivism in the present context of SOLO's man of the hour, Doug Bandler, and his shoddy intellectual goods.

I will admit that there are nutters found on every Objectivish forum. OL has Jerry Story. You have Doug Bandler. That may be the price of freedom. Perhaps you do not host any more nutters per capita than elsewhere, despite appearances.

I do not believe in such a thing as hatred of the good for the good. That is far too cynical a belief to hold for even a moment. But it is an interesting idea.

No. It is the psychological essence of the consistent Left. They are not motivated by benevolence. They are motivated by hatred. Rand was right about this. She learned it from the Communists she observed in her youth. She saw their malevolence.

Regarding Monroe. She was at a turning point. The 60s. Beauty was beginning to be destroyed by Leftist nihilism. So was femininity. Marylin had a pre 60s innocence in the post 50s increasingly malevolent, corrupted, nihilistic world. But this brings me to the Ke$ha video.

It's sort porn with a malevolent, nihilistic message of promiscuity. It spits at all higher values like everything the Left stands for. Its Airhead America at its essence. Linz chose his representative video well. But when I watch it I get conflicted. A Conservative could easily say it is decadent. But Objectivists are pro sexuality and not prudes. Yet this is the problem I have with rejecting Leftist culture. I don't know what a secular value oriented culture would look like. It would not revert back to traditionalism. But would it look like Ke$ha's nihilistic, promiscuous garbage? No. But what would it look like? I don't know. No one knows. And we won't know because there will be no Randian revolution in our lifetimes. We are stuck with the Left and Ke$sha and the rest of them until modern Liberalism burns its out. What's left after that is anyone's guess.

And this is all tied to the destruction of objectivity brought on by Kant and Hume and all the others. If you can't know the "real world" then you can't have objective moral standards or any other type of standards. When a society believes that as the West now does, it is doomed. Immanuel Kant is the ultimate music producer of Slayer, Ke$ha and Dunham's "Girls" and everything else. And if he knew it, it would break his Pietist heart.

Lastly regarding "anarchist soccer mom". Yeah, she may not of been an anarchist. But she was warped and so was her son. He should have been institutionalized and he would have been prior to 1960. But in our non-judgmental world that would be considered mean. This is yet another symptom of skepticism. See, no right or wrong. Only FEELINGS. Don't hurt anyone's FEELINGS unless that person is a white, heterosexual, non-Leftist male; ie the Devil. Yes, this is how modern liberals think.

.....I was going to add to my post but someone has obviously pushed reply so I couldn't edit it....

If people a hundred years ago hid the horrible words they were thinking, I would say they did so because they had the insight to realise that what they were about to say only illustrated the envy, jealousy, fear that they were feeling about this person they were about to bad mouth and so restrained themselves. Probably, if the great or good person had never harmed them in any real way, that person had simply hit a button that made them recognise something in themselves that they lacked and wanted.

I do not believe in such a thing as hatred of the good for the good. That is far too cynical a belief to hold for even a moment. But it is an interesting idea.

I don't believe in it either, but I know it exists. And if you think Ayn Rand was merely "exploring" an "interesting idea" when she wrote this, or anything at all, you don't know Ayn Rand!

Didn't you tell me you were reading the Hicks book on pomowankery I lent Sam? No sign of your having absorbed it!

Are you the same Scherk who promised not to post here again until he'd written and posted the "Objections to Objectivism" article I challenged him to write, years ago? If so, have you finally concluded it's as impossible for you to do this as I predicted? If you have, is that yet an excuse for breaking your promise?

I love Ayn Rand's imagination and the way she feels and writes so earnestly and really puts her whole self in to the idea she is exploring. I do that too which is why I understand what is going on when she writes, I think. But sometimes it is just that - an exploration of an idea only and that idea is not always correct. I think this is the case here with Ayn Rand as I think it was also the case when she went off on a flight of fancy over the character of that young boy who was a murderer I think and appeared in the newspaper and she decided to take the opposite view of the masses and see something wondrous about him and capture that in writing - do you recall that? But she was and wasn't "right" about him. Here, I think she has done a similar thing.

People adored Marilyn Monroe. They adored, pitied and exploited her but did not despise her. Laurence Olivier directed her in a play and she and their relationship and all the relationships that surrounded that event were written in to a book that recently became a film. Have you seen it? I saw it about a month ago. It was a very, very interesting account.

People say bad, unrighteous, malicious things when they are either hurt or let down by someone or if someone makes them feel fear. Not because the person is good. Take a look at Mother Theresa and if you can come up with an article that hates her, I will reconsider my view.

I do not believe in such a thing as hatred of the good for the good. That is far too cynical a belief to hold for even a moment. But it is an interesting idea.

Pick Up Artist and SOLO man of the month Doug seems to read the signals right, and says this:

Her blog's name was "anarchistsoccermom". My guess, an anarcho-Leftist. Probably not a Rothbardian. Laughtner was also influenced by anarcho-Leftist themes. If its not Muslims rampage killing, its probably anarchists. Its been that way for over a century.

Her presumably means Adam Lanza's mom. Doug seems to be thinking that blog Anarchist Soccer Mom is the blog of Nancy Lanza. Maybe.

But.

On Sunday, an essay titled “I am Adam Lanza’s mother” began to receive viral attention. The piece, first published on Blue Review and later reposted in full by the Huffington Post and Gawker among many others, was written by a Boise-based mother struggling with the challenge of living with a son with serious mental health problems. She compares her 13-year-old boy to the gunman who shot dead 20 children and six adults in Connecticut last week.

“I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me,” wrote Liza Long.

Might be that Liza Long is the writer, wasn't Adam's mom, and so Adam wasn't raised by an Anarchist. Not that Doug need deviate from his Those Bitches Are Responsible line.

I would have been a better fit for the 1950s.

Maybe so but all that means is that things may have been easier for you.

But, because the reality is that you are a product of this generation, why not set yourself apart proudly as a man of "old fashioned" values? There are still plenty of decent women with "old fashioned" values and like attracts like (usually). You may find it useful to join various clubs (tennis, opera, bridge, there are millions of clubs for every interest under the sun or start one yourself - the Right Atheist Rands!) and do things where you will meet like-minded people. You could also ask your friends to introduce you to single female friends from work etc who presumably will have similar values. Keep optimistic! It is a big world!

Brilliance and a high sense of life are always admired.

If only!

You said that you could tell that what they were saying was rubbish, musically speaking, and so I would say that they simply did not appreciate his voice at that time.

They did. And they hated him for it. And for the fact that millions loved him for it.

Here's Ayn on Marilyn:

A happy child who was offering her achievement to the world, with the pride of an authentic greatness and of a kitten depositing a hunting trophy at your feet--who found herself answered by concerted efforts to negate, to degrade, to ridicule, to insult, to destroy her achievement -- who was unable to conceive that it was her best she was punished for, not her worst--who could only sense, in helpless terror, that she was facing some unspeakable kind of evil.

How long do you think a human being could stand it?

That hatred of values has always existed in some people, in any age or culture. But a hundred years ago, they would have been expected to hide it. Today, it is all around us; it is the style and fashion of our century. [My bold - Linz]

Where would a sinking spirit find relief from it?

The evil of a cultural atmosphere is made by all those who share it. Anyone who has ever felt resentment against the good for being the good and has given voice to it, is the murderer of Marilyn Monroe.

Full essay: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

They despised Mario for his brilliance and his sense of life.

I don't believe that people despise other people for those reasons. Jealousy or envy perhaps but not hatred. Brilliance and a high sense of life are always admired.

You said that you could tell that what they were saying was rubbish, musically speaking, and so I would say that they simply did not appreciate his voice at that time. Appreciating a good voice is like appreciating a good wine - an acquired taste.

I sincerely hope you aren't serious when you blame Kesha's song Die Young.

I don't believe Lindsay is blaming the music of Ke$ha or anyone else for the killings.

The arts are usually a good representation of the culture of the time and Lindsay is properly observing that what was the top of the pops in the 1950s vs what is top of the pops today are significantly different. Lanza's music is optimistic, projects values of love and loyalty and is uplifting and his voice is beautiful; Ke$ha's music is desperate, projects non-values of animalistic promiscuity and disloyalty (you came here with someone else but let's have sex with each other anyway) and is depressing and her voice is nothing special. The attendant video with each piece of music represents the same qualities.

It is a sad indictment of the times.

And not so very long ago these nut cases or, to put it more charitably, antisocial personalities, like Adam Lanza, were institutionalised , medically treated or very closely supervised within their family and community. Since about the 1960s through to the 1990s (is this a coincidence with the onset of all these nutcase killings?) deinstitutionalism became financially beneficial to the state and, socially, communities became more tolerant as it was considered that this was more humane and community health services took over from institutions. Although deinstitutionalisation has been positive for many patients, it also has had severe shortcomings. Expectations that community care would lead to fuller social integration have not been achieved; many remain without work, have limited social contacts, and often live in sheltered environments.

This is informative. Thanks.

Deinstitutionism has been a disaster and is directly responsible for many of these rampage slaughters. Its interesting. The welfare state has made institutions too expensive to run. So a legitimate function of government is abandoned in order to make room for more parasitism. The answer is always the same. Its just another version of 'Atlas Shrugged'. Rand was a genius and her book, whatever your view of her writing, captures the essence of the PoMo Leftists assault on Western Civilization.

They despised Mario for his brilliance and his sense of life. For them, Slayer and similar filth, on a par with their own filthiness.

This is the entire youth movement of the last three decades. This is Post Modern sketpicism embodied in the nihilism of the Left. Its everywhere in today's culture. The music, the "hook up" culture, the art, the movies, everywhere.

If you are a normal value oriented person in today's world, you are at a disadvantage. Especially if you are an Objectivist. If you are a Christian valuer you can find Christian communities. But if you are a non-Leftist atheist Randian?

I used to like Barry Manilow as a kid. Not Mario Lanza I know but his music was not nihilistic. It was melodic in its own way. I was tortured as a kid. No young girls fawning all over me. But the pot smoking dudes into the pop music of the time got the chicks. And there was no PUA community back then to teach young dudes the realities of post 1960 women.

I would have been a better fit for the 1950s.

I sincerely hope you aren't serious when you blame Kesha's song Die Young.

The song is actually about living life to the full because we never know when our time is going to be up and to party and have fun. It's not about going out killing people. Only those with mental health issues kill people.

You've also taken Kesha's music out of context and sound ill informed. I suggest you listen to her album Warrior (which in context is actually about a break up and Kesha's healing through that) and then post again.

Blaming music is just ridiculous.

Bingo!

Improving philosophy will save the world. Not derivative pop culture or politics. Philosophy is the foundation and driving engine of society. The epistemology of reason and ethics of individualism will save us.

He is clearly not normal.

Clearly not.

And not so very long ago these nut cases or, to put it more charitably, antisocial personalities, like Adam Lanza, were institutionalised , medically treated or very closely supervised within their family and community. Since about the 1960s through to the 1990s (is this a coincidence with the onset of all these nutcase killings?) deinstitutionalism became financially beneficial to the state and, socially, communities became more tolerant as it was considered that this was more humane and community health services took over from institutions. Although deinstitutionalisation has been positive for many patients, it also has had severe shortcomings. Expectations that community care would lead to fuller social integration have not been achieved; many remain without work, have limited social contacts, and often live in sheltered environments.

New community services are often uncoordinated and unable to meet complex needs. Children like Adam Lanza are left to be looked after by their mothers alone when, as in this case, the fathers desert their responsibilities. ( I would speculate that in this case it was probably because the child took up all the mother's time and energy and the father would have willingly walked out, disgruntled and fed up with a life that revolved around this demanding child and all the attendant associated battles between the parents and their social lives as a result).

Is it any wonder they led "reclusive lives", Doug?

Would you invite a child like that in to your home causing trouble and upset to the entire family, hitting your kids, breaking things and generally causing chaos so that a fun night turns in to a traumatic occasion for everyone and talked about by the children for weeks afterwards as they try to get over it all?! (No impression without expression.) I have had children like that in my home and around my family and I can tell you it is not easy. The only way to prevent the hideousness of its behaviour was for me to give him (it was a boy) my 100% attention and sacrifice my fun (and to be able to do this I had to rationalise it to myself that as their hostess I was doing my duty in giving the poor parents a break so they could have a conversation for the first time since its birth!), for if I turned away for a minute the child would do something bizarre.

Although I am not a fan of institutions, they are, I think, a necessary thing for some families/people.

Mario Lanza came from a different era where there was still beauty in America. It's hard not to despise the post-1960s West. It's ugly, cruel, and nihilistic. Mario was everything that was opposite to that.

Quite so. And so is SOLO. It's taking some folk quite a while to catch on.

In my youth, I regularly encountered adults who attacked Mario with a viciousness I couldn't begin to fathom. I was a musical youngster, and knew that what they were saying, musically speaking, was rubbish. Only decades later, thanks to Rand, did I understand that they hated the good for being the good. They despised Mario for his brilliance and his sense of life. For them, Slayer and similar filth, on a par with their own filthiness. Read Rand's article on Marilyn Monroe, and substitute Mario Lanza, and you have it. The Baades of this world are responsible for the premature deaths of them both. That's what they do. They glorify death-merchants and sardonically, smarmily disdain life-affirmers. Lowest of the low.