V for Vendetta

Rosie's picture
Submitted by Rosie on Sat, 2013-08-03 09:58

A fantastic film which I could see over and over and get more from it every time is V for Vendetta - a "Must See".

It is a 2005 British action thriller film directed by James McTeigue and written by the Wachowski Brothers. Set in London in a near-future dystopian society, Hugo Weaving portrays V — a bold, charismatic freedom fighter, attempting to ignite a revolution against the brutal fascist regime led by Adam Sutler (John Hurt) that has subjugated the United Kingdom. Natalie Portman plays Evey, a working class girl caught up in V's mission, and Stephen Rea portrays the detective leading a desperate quest to stop V.

The film has been seen by many political groups as an allegory of oppression by government; libertarians and anarchists have used it to promote their beliefs. Activists belonging to the group Anonymous use the same Guy Fawkes mask popularized by the film when they appear in public at numerous high-profile events, emulating one of its key scenes.

This Review sums it up very well:

"User Reviews

This is one of the best films I have ever seen...
25 March 2006 | by LordB13 (United States)

...I am well aware that my summary line invites several retorts, and given the nature of my comment those retorts may very well be resoundingly, unanimously negative. If I say "This is one of the Best films I have ever seen..." One would think the immediate response would be, "Then you must not have seen many films in your time, dear boy." But oh I have, and it has been far too long since there has been something up on that screen in the darkened theater that I enter to leave this boring, monotonous existence that had the capacity to inspire. To see the possibilities of what might be, what could never be, and what could happen if the leaders of the world keep things going in the directions that they are headed.

V For Vendetta is just a film, yes? But it is also a wake up call of which there are not enough in this time we live in. It speaks directly to the hardship that we endure but seldom take notice of because we are distracted by things that do not matter...upon leaving the theater I saw people, teenagers mostly, the very people who should be pro-actively questioning the methodical erosion of this thing called government in the modern age, react with complete apathy. Most try so hard to be so outwardly different from the rest that they do not realize that in doing this they become just like everyone else; oblivious. We as a society do not want to see films like this, we do not want to acknowledge the atrocities going on in the world, all we want to do is play our video games, watch reality television, spend our money on clothes, jewellery, entertainment. Things that for all intents and purposes we do not need. These are the distractions that keep society from pondering in the wee hours of the night what they can do to prevent true injustice. The evils committed by those that govern are far worse than any fiction the cinema can dazzle us with these days.

Yes this is a truly great film and one that I will cherish for a long time. I can only hope that its message finds a wide audience that is open to seeing things from another perspective, in a uniquely human light. In the end that is what the film is about...being human. Having the capacity to choose whether or not to recognize the evils of society and take a stand to make things better than they are. The film of course takes this idea to extremes but for the viewing public dramatic examples are needed to awake them from this artificially induced state of being we call existence and say, "I see there is wrong, and it is my duty as a human being to do what I can to make it right." To the makers of this unique and wonderful film, I salute you."


( categories: )

And Remember Rosie....

Michael Moeller's picture

All you had to do was write this:

"I was wrong. You did not say Doug was a racist. I apologize for misrepresenting your position."

Just that -- without excuses, rationalizations, poisoned arrows slung at me, the victim card, more misrepresentations, or any of your other games. It's all you still have to do, but you refuse to do it.

No, you'd rather write copious amounts of semi-literate verbiage (while claiming you don't have time, of course) explaining why you can't properly correct the record and apologize while correctly "predicting" that I will not appreciate a non-apology that consists of nothing but pouring hot oil on my head.

Here's an adult tip for you Rosie: it is up to you to properly state what somebody else has said, and if you are caught red-handed in a misrepresentation, it is your responsibility to correct the record. Your phony niceness and the other juvenile games you've played here has been absolutely stomach-churning, but I am glad that everybody gets to the see the real you. An absolutely nasty game-player, as nasty as Goode.

For second place, you would have been better off just doing what you promised and leave the forum (what? ten times now? Religionists aren't very reliable with their promises, I guess) instead of digging yourself a deeper hole.

I feel sorry for Linz, as Rosie stooped to dragging out personal and private matters into a public forum. She really has lost it, this Goode facsimile. Apparently, Rosie's kindness is a Faustian bargain that requires one to ignore her phoniness and terrible behavior.

But Rosie promises more self-sacrifice on her part if Linz wants. Gee, I wonder what kind of strings come attached to that?!? Is she going to post his medical records next?!?

Total phony Goode-like creep.

And She Just Keeps On Digging

Michael Moeller's picture

Yes, who can forget Rosie's "sincere and accurately worded apology". After I called her out on her initial phony apology, she went and dug up comments from an old thread in order to rationalize her misrepresentation of me, and finished with this comment:

I will accept your apology, naturally.

Yes, Rosie will accept my apology for her misrepresentation of me, naturally.

I am overwhelmed by her sincerity, but one does have to wonder about her definition of "sincere". Apparently, in Rosie's book of illogic, she can misrepresent you all day long and bears no responsibility for it. Even after you tell her she has misrepresented you, you still must meet her demands. Rosie simply cannot take responsibility.

One of those demands being that you "gracefully" accept her non-apology replete with poisoned arrows, including:

"I would have thought that any one employing half a brain and who knew the first bit about me would have understood, known and seen that what I wrote was a sincere apology as was my explanation also. AND that your logic, OTT uprising to my apology and the fact that you went on to provide many times more deliberately incorrect or very stupid misrepresentations of my words, Mr Moeller, (so stupid, in fact, that I had to wonder whether you were actually serious) would have been apparent that this was entirely absurd and to be dismissed as such."

Yes, Rosie demands you accept her rationalizations for misrepresenting you with "grace" as she drops a boulder on your head. Here is more from feed-and-quench-the-thirst-of-your-enemy Religionist Rosie:

"There were other misrepresentations - lies and twisting - too. But I can't be bothered listing them all. To me, this sort of conversation is infinitely more puerile and infantile, (thank you Lindsay) than my own deflection from getting embroiled in it in the first place."

At least she gets "deflection" correct, even if she doesn't acknowledge her real deflection. Here is turn-the-other-cheek Rosie again:

"If I had answered you, as I am now doing, seriously, (and the response you strictly deserve had I been defending another person rather than myself) I know from the past to predict that your response would be to go completely berserk and OTT even moreso so that a whole lot more of your nasty invective would pour forth because you are so concerned about being right and trying to prove others wrong. And guess what? I can't be bothered wasting time arguing bullshit."

There were so many quotes full of venom in that post I simply can't quote them all. At least she now admits that this venom is "the response you [Michael] strictly deserve". After watching her multiple personality disorder manifest itself from post-to-post, I believe that this venom is truly the only sincerity from Rosie. I give her points for finally being real, as grotesque as it may be.

And Rosie just cannot understand why I would not accept a phony apology that consists of nothing but hot oil poured down on me.

This lesson is instructive, however. Religionist Rosie's shabby facade of "warmth and caring" and turn-the-other-cheek Christianity will get the wrecking ball even for something as simple as asking her to correct a misrepresentation.

You can put lipstick on a Goode, but it is still a Goode.

Michael

Rosie's picture

My prediction about you 100% fulfilled.
My charges of your poor communication skills vindicated also.

Try reading what I wrote with accurate precision in your thinking rather than the emotion you claim to detest.

And learn to accept a sincere and accurately worded apology, given what you did not say, with the grace it warranted rather than the wrongful, mistaken and petty inclinations you repeat in order to have a quarrel. Who but the witless and graceless would respond to an apology as you have.

I had no time as I explained. I have today off and intended to respond to you when more important urgent work was done ; time and work more useful and of more benefit than talking with a man who sees worth in arguing with an apology he receives, an explanation for my words AND the full answers to the questions he asked of me. I have done all that is required of me absent your saying that you do/did not think Doug a racist. (which you still do not say!)

But you are incorrigible and can not read with any discernment of logic or understanding of what I have told and explained to you.
That is now indisputable.

Maybe one day you will understand. Some people who are devoid of empathy (men usually) have to be in the same position before they ever can.

PS To incur one's righteous wrath is not sociopathy nor is it mutually exclusive to the possession of qualities of love, kindness or compassion etc.
However, to the undiscerning mind, that when one is defending oneself against unrighteousness, instead of having one righteous person act on one's behalf, this is perhaps less obvious to comprehend. And where there is injustice, I am no shrinking violet. Which is why I am successful in court defending the wronged.

Rosie Goes Off the Deep End

Michael Moeller's picture

Last time Rosie was here, she called me "silly" and claimed she was just joking with me. She also said she wouldn't come back (about five times now), and again reminds us that she has no time.

Of course she does come back and unleashes a torrent of nastiness at me.

Does this woman have multiple personality disorder?

After phony apologies, multiple misrepresentations, feigning the victim, phony niceness, Rosie is now back to blaming me for her behavior. Rosie seems to be nailing every stage of sociopathy.

All I did was ask her to correct the record. She had no time to do that. No sireeeee. But she has plenty of time to write mile-long posts trying to rationalize why she misrepresented me, to offer a phony apology, to play the victim, to play little cutesy pretend-nice games, and now to blame me for her misrepresentation of me. Funny how that limited time thing works.

And all she had to say from the very beginning was: "I was wrong. You did not say Doug was a racist. I apologize for misrepresenting your position." That would have taken all of 1 minute.

And it would have been over. That would have been the end of it. But since she cannot admit fault, apologize, and correct herself, apparently I am "very nasty or very stupid".

Look at this woman's logic and consistency. Apparently **I** am to blame because Rosie will not offer a simple correction and apology, and instead goes on a long-winded wild goose chase that involves trying to rationalize why she did it, a phony apology, playing the victim, misrepresentation of a previous thread, phony niceness towards me, and finally a barrage of anger and contempt directed at me.

Will the real Rosie please stand up? I am not sure which of these personalities to believe, but if I had to take a guess, it would be the one that just went mad and sprayed me with all kinds of venom. So much for Brian's "warm and caring" Rosie, and so much for Rosie's turn-the-other-cheek Christianity -- that thin veneer was wiped clean rather quickly.

I can't wait to see which personality -- and excuse for not doing the simple and right thing -- pops out next. It sure is interesting to watch, though.

Baade faith writ large. Like attracts like, which is why Rosie and Goode are just perfect for each other.

Finally Time to Reply to this BS

Rosie's picture

Rosie, the self-proclaimed purveyor of justice, gets busted misrepresenting me and then SHE demands an apology. Amazing. Truly amazing...... Rosie is a saccharine phony. .... I kind of hoped she had improved, but it seems she has gotten worse. ..... I was just wondering if Rosie was a different person when dealing with her face-to-face.

FFS. What an absurd load of bullshit.

I answered your question "Where did I say Doug was a "racist"? " and "How does that equate to me calling him a racist?"

My apology and my answers were sincere and in good faith. You only asked me where did I say you called him a racist, show you the quote? and why did I come to that conclusion from your disagreement?
I state quite clearly you fell short of calling Doug a racist. You got your apology from me. The "if" was deliberately placed for accuracy only because you did not actually say that you did not think Doug was a racist.

I said you fell short of calling him a racist and went on to explain why with one quote (from the first search I did). By analogy to my rationale, if Goode were to say he didn't find Slayer unmusical and you stated definitively "Slayer is unmusical", it is not unreasonable to imply from this that you would thereby consider Goode to be unmusical. I did not spend nearly 6 years training at one of the top five law firms in the world not to have learned something about precision in what people say or don't say, and some degree of logic and reasoning.

My last comment was a bit flippant I grant you but where some people might choose to ignore your nonsense by not answering you at all, i.e., silence, (e.g., Linz) I chose to ignore it and illustrate my contempt for its absurdity with a little bit of humour (infantile or otherwise) . My mood at the time was only jovial and excited because the Court of Appeal Judgment from an important case that I had been waiting for and expecting had just arrived while I was writing my reply. (This then led to a whole lot more work, including communication to concerned/interested parties etc and an urgent application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the points we were not granted in the CA - hence my delay in responding here til now. This final appeal case is very likely going to be the entry of medicinal marijuana to NZ. It is all-engrossing and very interesting.)

I would have thought that any one employing half a brain and who knew the first bit about me would have understood, known and seen that what I wrote was a sincere apology as was my explanation also. AND that your logic, OTT uprising to my apology and the fact that you went on to provide many times more deliberately incorrect or very stupid misrepresentations of my words, Mr Moeller, (so stupid, in fact, that I had to wonder whether you were actually serious) would have been apparent that this was entirely absurd and to be dismissed as such.

e.g. "You're trying to substitute your thoughts for mine, and are pretending like they came from me."
No, as I said I was answering your question why did I think that you thought he was racist. Period.

"And when I said: "Yes, Doug, it was racist...", I was referring to the newsletters, not to Doug himself. (Please see pronoun "it", Rosie.) Obviously, Goode rubbed off on Rosie as she is trying to make it sound as if I called Doug racist when, in fact, I did not. Rosie is really stooping low at this point."
WTF? You pretended that I thought when you said "it was racist" I was attributing that as a comment about Doug??!! and not the newsletter??!! WTF? This was the basis of my very rationale and the explanation by analogy. I.e., the very essence of my explanation provided. Absolute pretence and bullshit, MM. Not even you, let alone me, would refer to a person as "it". Although Linz does this, I do not recall others doing so.

There were other misrepresentations - lies and twisting - too. But I can't be bothered listing them all. To me, this sort of conversation is infinitely more puerile and infantile, (thank you Lindsay) than my own deflection from getting embroiled in it in the first place.

Michael, I think that you are either a twister of words or a very nasty man or a very stupid man (outside your knowledge of Objectivist epistemology) . I think poorly of your very poor communication skills, your bad motives towards me and your complete lack of charm or grace. You are repeatedly full of unnecessary and infantile invective towards me, a seemingly terrier-like attitude, you employ false and desperate argument that doesn't equate with my own position and seems to be without any kind of honesty at all. What is more, the way you write, as though talking to a crowd instead of the one person you are addressing, you remind me of an intellectual bully who is somehow in your imagination attempting to persuade oa jury that you are "right" by use of personal abuse of what you see asyour opponent (but I did not see myself as your opponent at all or the way you represented me because I was sincere in what I said if I had got it wrong that you did not think Doug was racist).

This was all so completely foolish, out of line and out of perspective too to take your kind of approach to it - what to me was absolutely and ridiculously stupid nonsense - seriously.

If I had answered you, as I am now doing, seriously, (and the response you strictly deserve had I been defending another person rather than myself) I know from the past to predict that your response would be to go completely berserk and OTT even moreso so that a whole lot more of your nasty invective would pour forth because you are so concerned about being right and trying to prove others wrong. And guess what? I can't be bothered wasting time arguing bullshit. So I just ignored it and tried to good humoured. I could have said, "Where did I demand an apology from you? Where did I say that my quote for explaining why I thought you thought Doug racist were my thoughts? you misrepresent me" etc for the truth is it was the reference to Doug's grandfather and that quote that made me realise Doug wasn't a racist! So quite the reverse of your own foolish statements.

Had you said in black and white, I do not think Doug is a racist, then you would have received a full apology without the "if". Without that clarification from you, my apology was quite correct.

As for Linz's horribleness and disloyalty to me, after all I have done for you readily, willingly and freely, and always ready to drop anything I was doing to come to your aid with your health stuff, as well as your lack of equity in saying "No one sings on Saturdays" then expecting me to psychically know that you meant "When I said, no one sings on Saturdays I didn't mean every Saturday, just that Saturday", I can't stand all this nonsense about spaghetti monsters but belief by you AND Terry that I am f**king PSYCHIC. You really hurt me with your horribleness. But if you are in trouble again and need to be urgently taken to the doctor, I am always here for you.

In the meantime, I have employed the advice of a friend, a true one, and gained some perspective on the sorts of people who one would hope for as both friend or acquaintance in one's life to put some perspective on things; not least by knowing that there are others whose experiences of utter disloyalty, foul motives and lies have been a far worse experience than my own trivial encounters here (by comparison but certqainly doesn't excuse them). e.g., my latest client, Patrick O'Brien. (See http://obrien.wordpress.com/me... for his story about bad motives, lies, deception, twisting of words, and overall betrayal in all its many shapes and forms and, now, no sooner has the truth, and thereby justice, been given an opportunity to restore past wrongs, we have the police force, Privacy Commissioners and staff hiding behind sections and subsections of the Privacy Act in an effort to cover up and hide these foul police practices and injustices instead of providing transparency in police tactics which Mr O'Brien has exposed at great personal cost and seek to compensate wrongs done, souls poisoned by deceit and improve police practices for the future. Terrible stuff. )

Greg

Michael Moeller's picture

There is some value in George's practical advice, although I'm afraid it would be of practical use against him. He reminds me of a friend's crazy uncle that did too many drugs and drove around in his jalopy hooting at hookers. I'm not sure why, but he does.

Michael

gregster's picture

I came across this on one of my smart drives, after seeing your comments here to Rosie today. It's by George H Smith from a speech in 1976, How To Defend Atheism.

The first thing I want to point out is rather depressing to some people. Since reasonableness is a habit to be learned, not everyone is capable of conducting a good argument. For that matter, not everyone is capable of arguing in an intelligible sense at all. Argument is also a skill that has to be learned and practiced. What this means is that, for the most part, you are probably wasting your time if you argue with many religionists, for the simple reason that many of these religionists are incapable of arguing well. It's almost like you have to educate some Christians before you can persuade them to atheism. You have to first convince them that they should be concerned with what's true and what's not. They should be able to distinguish between rational and irrational argument. And so on and so on. And then two months later, you might be able to say to this person that if they carry this out, it will lead them to atheism. But unless you have a lot of personal interest in this person, unless they are personally significant to you, you will probably not want to waste a lot of your time educating or re-educating this person to the principles of reason. What do you do? Some people just give up on the person. Some people, you have to. Some people you might refer to books. This is where books play a crucial role in education, that if a person sits down with a book he is able to glean a lot of information that you are not able to communicate in a short period of time.

This leads me to a second area of practical advice: take religionists at their word. If they say they are not interested in reason or truth, then cease the conversation possibly, making the remark, that it is impossible to communicate with someone who, by his own admission, is not concerned with rationality. In other words, if you understand the importance of reasonableness and what it signifies, you will understand that you must back up your conviction in practice. You must make it clear to your adversary that you are not willing to waste your time and energy with him if he is not even willing to concede the fundamental principles of reason. It's like you are talking in two different languages with no means of translation. All you are doing in situations like this is giving yourself a headache. I think it's important to make religionists totally aware of the consequences of their irrationalism. It will irritate religionists to no end if you simply refuse to speak to them after a certain point because they undoubtedly wish to convert you. But if you make it clear that you are unwilling to discuss the issue until he is willing to concede the basic fundamental principles of reasoning, then I think you will impress upon him in a very practical sense how important you take reason to be. What happens when you don't do this is that you suffer from his irrationalism. You end up with a headache or frustration because he refuses to be rational.

To modify George's words; Rosie, a person who believes in one god, is very close to being an atheist. She is only one step removed from atheism. She's just a hairline away from being an atheist. All I have to do is get rid of that one last god and she's made it over the line.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"It is: "She who extolls faith will practise bad faith." Faith, after all, is just a license for wishful thinking. "It is absurd, therefore I believe it," "I believe it because I want to," etc. You can't expect anyone who promotes it to be honest or authentic; rather, he/she will deride sincerity, reason, reality-orientation and so on, and behave like a cornered rat (no sign of Goblian "compassion," "forgiveness," "turn the other cheek," much less "love," whatsoever) when confronted with his/her inconsistencies and infantile nonsense."

Great point. I thought it bizarre that she gave me this long runaround instead of just doing the simple thing and correcting her mistake.

And no apologies are necessary. I was just wondering if Rosie was a different person when dealing with her face-to-face.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The games and phoniness just makes my skin crawl. Reminds me so much of Goode.

I believe I've discovered a new truism on the strength of recent controversies here, a paraphrase of "He who believes absurdities will commit atrocities." It is: "She who extolls faith will practise bad faith." Faith, after all, is just a license for wishful thinking. "It is absurd, therefore I believe it," "I believe it because I want to," etc. You can't expect anyone who promotes it to be honest or authentic; rather, he/she will deride sincerity, reason, reality-orientation and so on, and behave like a cornered rat (no sign of Goblian "compassion," "forgiveness," "turn the other cheek," much less "love," whatsoever) when confronted with his/her inconsistencies and infantile nonsense. I'm sorry that I misled you to expect something better from one of the faithers. I'm sorry that I misled myself to expect something better from that same faither. Won't happen again.

Still, all very instructive. Grist for the mill of "authenticism." I'm convinced now the primary animus against Rand was not because of her attack on socialism, religion, etc., but because of her call for "life on the level" from which the rest flowed. The #1 sin in the world, including among Orgoists: "On the level."

Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

No, I don't find your misrepresentations of what I have stated "funny". Something tells me you don't appreciate somebody misrepresenting you either.

What is really appalling, though, is that you refuse to correct the mistake. A simple correction that costs you nothing but doing the right thing and setting the record straight.

Instead you meander about and offer phony apologies and more misrepresentation and the victim card and now you've moved to cutesy little jokes. Hehe, chuckle chuckle.

Still no simple correction after all that nonsense.

The games and phoniness just makes my skin crawl. Reminds me so much of Goode.

Hahaha

Rosie's picture

I don't think Im a victim, Michael!!! I'm not even sure I know what you can mean!

I was teasing you about witch hunts, Silly! Coz of your funny reaction!

you were serious???!!!!

Even more funny. Laughing out loud

I realise that I am on a very different "wavelength" from Objectivists. And, naturally enough, Im joyous about that too!!!!

(Back to work now for me. The doc I was waiting for has arrived! Yay)

Yep, Totally Disingenuous

Michael Moeller's picture

So Rosie gets busted trying to cover up one misrepresentation with another misrepresentation, then she tries to play the victim. Yes, Rosie misrepresented multiple times, but she is the victim of a "witch hunt"!

Poor Rosie. Being called out on her misrepresentations, the nerve! After Rosie misrepresented me and refused to correct herself or apologize. That poor victim Rosie. Poor, poor Rosie.

It's funny, you know, because all Rosie had to do was correct her misstatement about me. "Sorry, I misstated your position." That's it. Instead she moved seamlessly from one misrepresentation to another, then when she was caught again, she played her final card: the victim card.

But once Humpty Dumpty has fallen, you cannot put her back together again, as she wrote:

"Thing is, I am quite sure that I did think Doug was a racist at one point! No big drama there. It's just that I later understood where he was coming from - he was just making , as he calls it, "hardware" observations based on statistics, and wasn't a racist."

Ah, because Rosie thought Doug was a racist at the time, I must have too! Even though I never said so! Even though I could have reached the same conclusion she reached now, ie. that Doug was making "hardware" observations.

Rosie is a saccharine phony. She speaks of "good will" and "good faith", but she does not have the basic decency and intellectual honesty to correct a simple misrepresentation. A correction that would have cost her nothing.

After she first tried to appease me with a phony apology, which we now know was phony because she later rescinded it.

Given Rosie's past behavior, I kind of hoped she had improved, but it seems she has gotten worse. Ah well.

Michael

Rosie's picture

No need to invent spurious things about me, Michael, and try to entice yet another SOLO witch hunt with more of the milksop Objectivist "premises" of moral outrage!!! (I did look up "milksop', Brian, by the way. Funnily enough it means "an unmanly man", "cowardly" and "a milk pudding"!!!!)

Thing is, I am quite sure that I did think Doug was a racist at one point! No big drama there. It's just that I later understood where he was coming from - he was just making , as he calls it, "hardware" observations based on statistics, and wasn't a racist. Smiling

BTW, a simple clarification for you: I didn't post the link to the two posts that popped up after one search simply becoz I couldn't remember how to do it! It was rather late at night and didn't have time/couldn't be bothered to look up how to do this since I had to be up at the crack of dawn the next day! Just laziness and employing my Zendokai Black Belt teacher's precept: don't engage in useless activity. (You should try it sometime! It's a very useful one to master!) But, as your post reminds me, I am an employee of Lazy Bones Inc. after all!

Best wishes to you too, Michael.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You previously vouched for Rosie's good character. Yet, her display here is easily demonstrable mendacity. And, really, for no reason. All she had to do was apologize for misrepresentating my views.

What gives?

Rosie is in REAL DEEP Now

Michael Moeller's picture

Since Rosie went back to a thread from a long time ago to put words in my mouth, I decided to go back and look at the posts on that thread, and it turns out to be absolutely fascinating. I wondered why Rosie did not link to the thread, but now I know. I let others be the judge of Rosie's honesty, or lack thereof.

The first thing one will note is that Rosie states the content of the newsletters was racist, to wit:

"From my brief, the research from Lazy Bones Inc. also suggests that it was more likely to have been Rothbard, rather than Rockwell, who authored the racist content in Ron Paul's newsletters."

Rosie also tried to argue that James Powell was the author of the "racist content". Rosie was at great pains to explain away Ron Paul's connection to the "racist content" of his own newsletters in that thread, but ignorant of the facts, as usual.

So, by her own logic, if she thought the content of the newsletters was racist, then she has also thinks Doug is a racist. Per her "reasoning", thinking the newsletter content was racist equates to thinking Doug is a racist. By her own logic, Rosie thinks Doug is racist because Doug disagreed that the content was racist.

To summarize: Rosie says she disagrees with me that "Doug is a racist". To support her position, she cites my disagreement with Doug over the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters. Yet, Rosie herself states the content was racist. By her own logic, she would also be calling Doug a racist.

Why did Rosie fail to mention her own disagreement with Doug on that thread? She sure has some explaining to do because there seems to be a good bit of mendacity on her part.

THEN Rosie fails to point out the full context of my arguments with Doug. Nowhere did I call Doug racist. Period.

In fact, Rosie neglects to mention that Doug at least partially conceded some points, as here:

"Points taken but...

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Sat, 2012-11-17 23:03.

It is true that genetics isn't destiny. However, I would state it this way: genetics isn't deterministic but it is probabilistic. And the science is showing that there are differences between the races that do have consequences at the population level. Yes, any black person can have a very high IQ but as a demographic they do not. They are the most violent demographic in the country and they display behavior patterns that are identical everywhere they are in the world; ie group attacks and kicks to the head when their victim is on the ground.

I do not doubt for a second that culture is enormous in this, and the Left has created the ghettos in Western cities via the welfare state (with complicity from the Republicans). But there is a phenomenon of black savage violence (and to a slightly lesser extent Hispanic violence) that the mianstream media will not allow to be reported. I think it heroic for anyone to discuss this publicly. I raised this question in my thread on black violence. And I asked how should the Objectivist community deal with the subject of black violence and dysfunction?

Maybe Ron Paul's way wasn't the best. Perhaps neither was Derbyshires. But at least they had the guts to raise the issue. NO ONE in the Objectivist or libertarian community (outside of Rockwell) will even address the subject. That to me is a failure. I don't like Paulian libertarianism but it is the only wing of that movement that addresses racial issues like black violence, crime, tribalism, etc.. It would be nice if Objectivists would address those subjects instead of just denying them."

And my last post -- just as I remembered it -- ended with me asking Doug questions to find out exactly where he stood, and he didn't respond.

Looks like Rosie cherry-picked quotes and mislead about the previous thread in order not to apologize for her previous misrepresentation.

What do you call a person who does that? I call them a piece of garbage.

WOW!

Michael Moeller's picture

Instead of just apologizing for misrepresenting my views, Rosie doubles-down on her initial misrepresentation. I appreciate the recap from her, because it shows exactly how she has gone one step deeper in misrepresenting me instead of just apologizing for what she had done. Caveat emptor when it comes to Rosie and apologies: the apology is as bad as the offense.

Clearly, I never called Doug racist, as given by my statements on the recent threads. But Rosie is not woman enough to just admit her mistake, so she delves back into a previous argument and tries to piece together statements as if I called Doug a racist.

Doug was wrong in the first quote (provided by Rosie). I actually never called Ron Paul racist, or "waaaaaacist".

And when I said: "Yes, Doug, it was racist...", I was referring to the newsletters, not to Doug himself. (Please see pronoun "it", Rosie.) Obviously, Goode rubbed off on Rosie as she is trying to make it sound as if I called Doug racist when, in fact, I did not. Rosie is really stooping low at this point.

Doug and I debated some of the newsletter statements, and Doug never responded to my last dissection of the newsletter statements, so I have no idea whether Doug ended up agreeing with me or not. Even if Doug still did disagree with me, we can disagree whether the newsletter statements were racist AND I can still hold that Doug is not a racist, right Rosie? The two are not mutually exclusive.

I meant exactly what I said regarding Doug: I disagreed with some of his racial views. Why is Rosie not taking my statement at face value and instead digging a deeper hole by further misrepresenting what I have said? Great Question.

No, Rosie is instead going to tell me what I was actually thinking. Oh.

Rosie, the self-proclaimed purveyor of justice, gets busted misrepresenting me and then SHE demands an apology. Amazing. Truly amazing.

And Rosie also pretends to want "good faith" and "good will". Well, folks, this is how Rosie practices both those concepts. Rosie is quickly turning into a phony.

Rosie wrote about her own statements:

"So, not ingenuous at all. As you will now see (and hear)."

I agree!

Just One Example, Michael (my bolding for emphasis)

Rosie's picture

This is the question of yours I answered:

I said I disagreed with some of his racial views, and we had some brief debates in the past. How does that equate to me calling him a racist?

So, not ingenuous at all. As you will now see (and hear).

(since you insist upon it) One example for my equating your and Doug's disagreement re racial views and Ron Paul, and why I thus thought you thought his views were racist, is from the quote I give below.

Ron Paul's "racist" newsletters

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Sat, 2012-11-17 19:44.

I'm not a Ron Paul fan but I don't think those news letters were really racist. They just stated unpopular facts; namely alot of facts about black violence and dysfunction. They were about as racist as John Derbyshire's "Talk" article that got him fired from NRO. Derbyshire said nothing racist. He gave his children the same speech my step-father gave me at 15 years old; ie always be aware of the capacity for savage black violence. Ron Paul wasn't doing anything different.

If we are to criticize libertarians then at least do it for legitimate reasons not for bullshit PC reasons; ie he's waaaaacist.
Doug

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Sat, 2012-11-17 21:19.

Actually, as you can see from that thread, my criticism of Ron Paul wasn't just about the racist content of his newsletters.

Yes, Doug, it was racist, and to make note of that does not make one "PC". In fact, some of the statistics cited were not facts, and totally made-up. Furthermore, characterizing an entire race of people as criminals is racist, sorry to say.

Genetics is not destiny. Period. I don't know why you are fixated on the idea, but it is patently false, as it ultimately denies free will. If anything, the problems are cultural, not one's genetic code.

Secondly, to call it a "generalization" and use it for collective judgment is rather anti-individualist, don't you think? You don't deal with races of people, you deal with specific individuals, and any racial generalization does not tell you how that specific individual thinks.

Thomas Sowell has done a lot of work on how blacks were advancing substantially prior to the welfare state, even having better divorce rates, lower out-of-wedlock births, economic advancement etc. Progressives were able to drive a racial wedge, and now we are undergoing a racial war.

Unfortunately, Doug, you are accepting one of the hidden premises of Progressivism, i.e. genetics is destiny. Prior to the welfare state, that simply was not true.

Michael

I will accept your apology, naturally. Eye

But don't let me get seduced back here. I haven't got the time to spare!!!!

Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

You are being totally disingenuous. "Then I apologize **IF**..." That's no apology at all for stating something I never said. Now you are rationalizing.

When you state "if my reasoning and conclusion", those are your thoughts, not mine. You're trying to substitute your thoughts for mine, and are pretending like they came from me.

Can't you just apologize without trying to rationalize why you misrepresented me?

You even got the facts wrong on the Ron Paul incident. I actually never said that Ron Paul was racist. What I said was that he clearly knew the content of the newsletters, and allowed the statements to be published in order to make a (hefty) buck. I accused him of pandering to the lowest elements of society.

And on the more controversial statements, Doug never responded to my post.

Michael

Michael

Rosie's picture

Many apologies to you, Michael, if my reasoning and conclusion that you thought Doug was a racist is not correct. (I did not ever say that you called him a racist; I said I disagreed with you that Doug was racist - this distinction may well be lost on you and others of course!)

My reasoning for my thinking you thought him racist is based on the conclusion I came to on an older thread regarding Ron Paul whose views you deemed to be racist in his newsletters but which Doug did not think were racist at all. There was some disagreement between you on this. Ergo I took it as read back then that if you thought Ron Paul's views were racist, yet Doug did not agree with you they were racist, that you must have thought Doug's views were racist also (but without your actually so labeling him a racist). If my reasoning back then was mistaken and you do not think Doug's views were racist - something you have not actually denied per se - then I apologise if I have misrepresented you, certainly, Michael.

Re the DTs:

Why did I leave no room for understanding Terry? I did understand what he was saying and, eventually, why based on his "premise" but did not agree with his premise and certainly did not agree with his conclusions about Doug's character for the many reasons I gave.

Why is Terry also not deserving of room for improvement and "understanding" as I granted to Doug?

Terry is of course deserving of room for improvement (as is everyone, including me, at all times). This was offered him over and over again in various ways: by me in my many posts pointing out what I hoped would, at the very least, cause Terry some pause for thought regarding his horrible and false accusations, one or two comments from Linz, and by Brian in his posts and, very much so, in his special thread he started to help Terry's improvement. It didn't have any sway at all. "He can't hear you, Rosie," said Brian. (As referred to in my variation of his quote.) Well, he didn't hear Brian very well either.

By the end, I lost patience in both trying to help him or show him any more "understanding" in the sense of sympathy/empathy when he simply refused to take countenance of anything or anybody who differed in opinion from him, when he proved that he was not reading things written correctly, was drawing incorrect insinuations from things he was not reading correctly, was not saying things about Doug correctly from Doug's own words, was reading far more in to things than the facts (and maturity) rationally and logically allowed, was repeating his errors and seemed so caught up in his own convictions about Doug that he was blind to anything he must have read that did not support his view and deaf to anyone's words. (He did not listen and see. Did he try to listen and see as he "negged" me with in PUA fashion??!!? I would imagine with the greatest difficulty he would have tried.)

Another thing he said that struck me at one point was when he included, as legitimate defenses for what to me were pretty serious allegations on a public site: "this is just a hunch of mine" and "I have a history of dealing with people the likes of Doug".

I actually wondered when I read, "I have a history of dealing with people the likes of Doug" whether this might have been emotionally relevant to Terry's OTT reaction. For what could he have meant by "the likes of Doug"? Doug was someone he had had so little to do with, so I wondered whether he had some history of PUA gamers and a woman/women who had been hurt who was close to him (is PUA in NZ? I'd never heard of it but that doesn't mean much!) because I couldn't imagine that all that fire and brimstone was due to a history of people Terry knew who used pseudonyms (especially if from the USA) for protection in a world where Intelligence and secret policemen swarm the Internet and which to me seemed like a very sensible decision by Doug, and likely given Doug's greater knowledge, studies and deep understanding of the global political evils of this world - something with which I'm not sure that Terry is overly interested in or pre-occupied.

OK? I hope this post answers your questions, Michael.

I think the subject may well have been picked over quite enough now, don't you? Doug has moved on. As have I.

To Brian

Thank you for your kind words, as always, on the other thread, Brian.

Circumstances are such that I am now engaged in quite a bit of legal work for political activists. This is extremely interesting work but it is time-consuming because it is an unfamiliar field of law for me although I always loved Constitutional law and Jurisprudence best when I was at law school. For this reason, I think I will have to surrender my night time position at SOLO! But thank you for being so sweet to me in asking. Do you think you might be able to offer Linz an Aynchovy or maybe a Randchovy instead? These might be palatable enough for him! More palatable than my posts or me, anyway, I daresay. Smiling

Best wishes, Brian.

Uh, Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

Where did I say Doug was a "racist"? Please quote me where I said this, because you are misrepresenting me.

I said I disagreed with some of his racial views, and we had some brief debates in the past. How does that equate to me calling him a racist? Please correct yourself, as I don't appreciate being misrepresented.

And I have a question about your own stance here. You argue for wide lattitude when it comes to judging Doug, and giving him room to improve himself. Ok, and I agree in many respects.

However, you jumped all over Terry, calling him "mad" and leaving no room for understanding him. Unrelentless, in fact. Why is Terry also not deserving of room for improvement and "understanding" like you granted to Doug?

Michael

Actually..... (lol)

Rosie's picture

On re reading Doug's message to me, I think he actually thought I would post it to you all as Linz did which he mentions (and so possibly intended me to) and it isn't fair really to have mentioned it and not do so and leave you wondering what he said. And he says some good and important things that I am sure that he would have liked you to know. Especially Linz. So here it is and you can judge it for yourselves.

Doug Bandler's picture
Doug Bandler
2013-08-18 18:42

Rosie,

I have stirred things up a little. Wow. I never intended to. I just wanted to discuss some interesting, outside-the-Objectivist-box things. Linz posted my e-mail to him. But I wanted to send you this because you have proven yourself to be a remarkable person. It figures that the lone Christian on the board would have the greatest range of emotional depth. I wouldn't have thought that four years ago. Then, I would have been your typical Christianity hating Objectivist. Now I see that there is far greater complexity to this world than I thought. (I thank Larry Auster for this. I didn't appreciate him while he was alive. Too much of a Randroid for that.)

Thank you for your kind words about me. You have read my posts occuring over a long stretch of time. You see how I developed and where my mind was and what it was wrestling with. This is some journey I have taken in the last 4 years. You're also right that I am wrestling with the idea if I'm an Objectivist or even a libertarian anymore. There are things, dangerous things, evil things which the Objectivist and libertarian movements are oblivious to. I'm starting to wonder if the entire Classical Liberal project is flawed. Watch the videos below Rosie. Listen to what Paul Weston says and how he says it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Did you hear the genuineness in his voice? Did you see the sincerity in his body language? Is this an evil man? Or does he care about the native British people that will be living in a multi-raical, largely Muslim world 40 to 50 years from now? Also realize that what he is talking about IS the real Britain. Do you see why I say that the movie 'V For Vendetta' is an evil movie? Nothing but Leftist propaganda which is completely divorced from reality. Paul Weston is identifying the true reality of Britain, the Britain the both Moore and the Waichovski Brothers want to destroy.

But the ENTIRE political spectrum, including Objectivism, would consider him racist. Population displacement is a very REAL threat for the European people; in North America, Europe, Australian and your beloved New Zealand. European people are the only people on earth to be so suicidal. Why?

That's where I am at. And it seems that human hardware matters. And that includes the differences between the races and the differences between the sexes. If European women refuse to have babies, the European people will be outbred. What will be the fate of a white minority living amongst the other people of the world who are NOT egalitarian or individualist. Do I even want to bring children into this world that will be minorities in their own once native lands? I really don't know.

I am outside the realm of Objectivism now. I hope some genius will come along and answer these questions from a Randian perspective and save her philosophy (and save Liberalism / Libertarianism as well). That genius is not Peikoff, Brook, Binswanger or anyone we have seen. And it isn't me either.

As for me now, I am going to take a vacation from internet discourse. Its been necessary for me on my journey. It was a great aid but a taxing one. Other things in life have precedence now. But know this: both you and Lindsay are special people. I hope your life is full of happiness and your children (two sons?) grow up in a way that gives you the spiritual fulfillment that only children can provide. (Rand never understood that sadly.)

God bless you Rosie. Always.

Doug

Delete message
Block author

Rosie's picture
Rosie
2013-08-18 18:50

Thank you, Doug. You are a very special person too. Very smart. And passionate, honest, fun and courageous too.

I give you my email address: [email address]

I hope that you will keep in touch with me as I will always wonder what became of you otherwise and I am sure that you are destined for great things. Smiling

God bless you, Doug!

I will listen to the youtube videos a bit later after the children have gone to school! (Thanks for those. I am sure they will be enlightening.)

I already agree with you about V for Vendetta. I just didn't see the manipulations by the Left to tell us who was the "enemy" so that we would never once think it might be them. There is a book called Propaganda (forgotten the author) which is supposed to be very good and which will be the next one to read on my list!

Please do email me now and then and let me know what you are up to and what your mind has settled upon in terms of the answers you seek.

Special message to Terry from me

Thanks for your explanation of your quote. That was interesting. But I do listen and see, Terry. And I also do understand your "premise". I just can't agree with your conclusion.

And in my paragraph where I said I don't care what you say etc I should add that implicit in all that I said in that paragraph was "about Doug". I shoulkd have added those words in brackets at the end. Smiling

Ha ha

tvr's picture

Rosie,

Your predicability brings a big smile to my face.

If I were a Christian, I'd make the exact same changes you made. But I am not a Christian. I'm an Objectivist.

By my morality, there is no difference between being "rational" and being "morally correct", nor is there any difference between people who matter and people who listen and see. Those people who choose not to listen and see, well, they don't matter - not to me. (By "matter", I mean be worthy of my time and attention. Even people who do not listen and see have rights, and their rights still matter to me). Why are you worthy of my time and attention? Because you try to listen and see.

Terry

Damn - already a reply!

Rosie's picture

I was going to alter your quote to one that would be more suited to my way of seeing things since your one does not sit well with me:

My variation would be this:

Uphold your own values through your own actions, make sure those values and actions are morally correct, and then everything you do thereafter will rub off on those who listen and see. Those who don't listen, well, they just don't hear.

Double flounce

tvr's picture

"I no longer care what you say any more because it is all just a load of hot air and bullshit. Even if you think your "premise" is correct. It isn't but you are incorrigible and I am doing nothing but wasting my breath on yo"

That is not granting me my premise, Rosie. Nor is it showing me good will. Nor good faith. As I have you. Pity.

"I won't be back again after this post.
Neither will Doug."

I already "speculated" the latter. I now "speculate" that you'll be back. Sometime. Somehow.

Your defending Doug by correcting my errors is laudable, and I respect you for doing it, but it has been to no effect because those errors were immaterial to my premise and my conclusions.

Even now, and after all you said, I wish you well, Good Samaritan Rosie.

Terry

Terry

Rosie's picture

I have received a long pm from Doug. I would post it except that it is very long and since I do not have his permission to do so, it would be a betrayal of trust. Should I receive his permission, however, I will post it. It is very genuine and enlightening.

In summary, though, all that I have said is correct about Doug - confirmed by him insofar as he was surprised at the "emotional depth" of my understanding of him and his changing course over the last 4 years - particularly for a Christian! - and there are subtleties (as well as things that are not so subtle) that have flown right over your head, Terry, in the post you have just written.

For example, Objectivism is not the only moral code on this earth! And Doug, until recently, was indeed an Objectivist.

Another: honesty is not confined to communications with others - it is also about yourself - so when one says "I am more honest than I used to be" one can be talking about how honest you have been with yourself whether in terms of how far you would go, how courageous you can be, to face the evils of this world rather than live as most of us do, going to work, coming home, doing the washing without turning your mind to what is really going on in and between the powers and governments.

Waste your time if you like ranting and raving about Doug. I no longer care what you say any more because it is all just a load of hot air and bullshit. Even if you think your "premise" is correct. It isn't but you are incorrigible and I am doing nothing but wasting my breath on you. As you said yourself,

"Uphold your own values through your own actions, make sure those values and actions are rational, and then everything you do thereafter will rub off on those who matter. Those who don't matter, well, they just don't matter."

I won't be back again after this post.

Nor will Doug for those of you that hoped he might.

Rosie

tvr's picture

You wrote:

"Fantasies of my own speculation"

Everyone is speculating Rosie. My speculations are not "fantasy" though, however I would posit that yours are. You are fantasizing that "Doug" is honest about everything he has ever said, done and written apart from his confessed dishonesty concerning his identity (we still do not even know who he is - refer my last post about the danger in that).

Sure, I made a mistake with my "speculating" re the Krauser website because I mistook the facts that were in front of me. That's not fantasy though, it's error, and after you corrected me about the facts, I corrected my error.

"Doug" clearly does not practice an Objectivist morality. He has admitted to questioning whether he is even an Objectivist. So what morality does he hold? What is his code? He doesn't know himself. That is why he is questioning whether he is an Objectivist.

Understand this. My principle, which I am following here, is to give others the benefit of the doubt about their being genuine and honest in all things (within reason) unless dishonesty is confirmed or confessed, in which case, for the protection of my own rationality, I then question everything that person has ever said or done that cannot be tied to reality. What I cannot tie to reality, I label as suspect. I do this for MY benefit, not theirs. There are only degrees of dishonesty in this world. Honesty, i.e., the commitment to never faking reality, is an all or nothing quality. Those who confess to being "more honest" than they were, is, in fact, a confession of dishonesty. One would never say that a person is "more dead" than they were before. Hence the expression "dead honest" I suppose. One either is or is not dead, it is not a matter of degrees. Honesty is the same. One is either 100% honest or one is dishonest in degrees. For this reason I grant everyone 100% honesty to start with, but treat a person who has admitted or confirmed their dishonesty as being 100% dishonest until and unless their actions show otherwise. They then earn their honesty back in degrees according to their actions. Right now "Doug" has zero credit with me. If I were to accept as real those things about "Doug" that I cannot tie to reality, like you are doing with him right now, it would corrupt my sense of reality. I could not be objective. THAT is why I don't give "Doug" the benefit of the doubt. I give him the penalty of being doubted, which is precisely what he has earned for himself according to a rational standard of objectivity. So, as far as I am concerned, everyone on SOLO, including you and I, is operating on hunches now concerning who Doug is and what he really stands for, no matter the history he created under anonymity.

You are perfectly entitled to believe otherwise, and I will not hold that against you if you do. It is your risk, not mine. That is, as I say, called granting you your premise. It would be nice now if you would grant me mine.

Terry

Terry

Rosie's picture

You have pointed out a couple of unintentional mistakes I have made (one factual, one editorial) neither of which are material to my premise or position, and blown it out of all proportion.

I am not psychic, Terry. I pointed out an error yesterday and you repeat it with another allegation against Doug within 24 hours. To me, not being psychic so without knowing that it was just more errors on your part, it looked shameless. Particularly given your ravings about good faith.

You accuse me of being mad, on a witch hunt, etc, when to anyone who reads this thing on all three threads from top to bottom will surely conclude, if rational, that your behavior towards me fits that bill to a T.

You may think that. But you say you are defending your honour while presenting fantasies of your own speculation about someone you have had not many dealings with I think you said - I am defending the honour of the person you don't know but continue to defame as he is no longer around to defend himself. I thought I was not coming on to SOLO again but, on this occasion, I was about to go to bed when I was texted by someone who thought it would interest me to see you repeating something already told you was incorrect and adding yet another speculative slander to it this time - no moral code. How ridiculous is that? NO MORAL CODE? NONE?! My friend thought you had repeated it in the belief I was not going to come back on SOLO and see it and was disgusted. So don't accuse me of blowing anything out of proportion please; on its face, and after the claims you made for yourself, if it were true and not yet another unintentional error and misreading of my entire posts and links but which you saw fit to comment on and speculate, you would be on a lower moral level than anyone imo. And I am not psychic to know that you disbelieved that the comments were from Krauser and not Doug although it surprises me indeed that you were not aware of this fact since, at the end of the comment, K also says, "some good sleuthing, Doug" which would be a rather odd thing for Doug to say to himself. It was pretty obvious to me that the square bracketed bolded words were to draw attention to something, and the words themselves certainly made it plain enough to me.

My "premise" as you call it is "feeling" probably - although I don't really know about such Objectivist psychology; what I do know is that I am driven by justice. Justice includes all moral principles. It is clearly not just to make things up and speculate about Doug as you are doing, in particular, providing defamatory reasons for his not answering you. Reasons that do not bear true to those who know him. There could be a multitude of reasons. You choose the darkest. My own feeling is that he would see no reason to have to justify or explain his behaviour to you; (a) because he has no relationship to speak of with you and (b) because a grown man doesn't need to justify his choices when they have no bearing on your life whatsoever.

You think that having no emotional attachment to Doug is to your advantage but I think the contrary. To get to know someone means that when the person is accused of things that you know is not consistent with their personality, you say, "No! That is wrong." That is loyalty which I know you do not have for him I agree but mine is not unfounded or unjustified. Loyalty is very important to me and one of the best qualities a person can possess, imo. That knowledge of a person was one theme that comes through in that little story about the man in the park I told you. Another theme of the story was of people looking for the bad in others rather than innocent explanations. Cynicism can be very funny but that nasty public slandering from a cynical attitude towards people without even knowing them is unjust; it must be a pretty unpleasant way of being and thinking.

Your joke on the other thread about your having nearly written a book was really funny!!

I hope that you enjoy your break from the internet and will have some fun and just forget about all this. It's a storm in a teacup really.

Doug was quite right when he said he is more of a paleolibertarian or paleoconservative or a neo-reactionary than an Objectivist nowadays (more of his labels and classification coming through there!!). It was always clear to me that he struggled with the sexual side of Objectivism, in reality, by the way he really sought some conversation on this subject (but didn't get much other than very tame responses!) ; the blogs about these and other subjects on those neo-reactionary and paleo- con and lib blogs are way more intellectual, hard-hitting and much more up his alley I would say than SOLO. He wasn't lying then and he wasn't running away. He saw what an outcry his pua stuff created and there probably wasn't a hell of a lot here for him outside of his conversations with the more mature and sophisticated personalities of Linz and Brian. You underestimate his generosity and temperament, I think. He was a great person, really. Despite what you may think and judge him badly because of all that pua stuff and his personal sexual exploration. Many males go through all that sexual/personal exploration in their late teens and twenties and regret it if they don't so he is just having a late stage of development imo! All will be well with Doug in the end, I'm sure.

What more do you want from me??

To shut up with your speculations about Doug would be very good.

Anyway, I hope that you have a good break. Smiling

Re Kauser link

tvr's picture

Rosie,

As noted on Brian's thread dedicated to me here http://www.solopassion.com/nod..., you were correct that the "not an Anything-ian" was Krauser, not Doug. That was an honest oversight. Apology given on the other thread for having put you to the trouble of justifying yourself.

What looks like an OCD to you is called defending my honor. You have pointed out a couple of unintentional mistakes I have made (one factual, one editorial) neither of which are material to my premise or position, and blown it out of all proportion. I have apologized for both and posted corrections. What more do you want from me??

You accuse me of being mad, on a witch hunt, etc, when to any rational person who reads this thing on all three threads from top to bottom will surely conclude that your behavior towards me fits that bill to a T.

But I still hold good will towards you, because I understand your premise.

Terry

Terry

Rosie's picture

Did you alter your post on this thread after reading my message to you on the other thread (the one where Brian is trying to teach you a few things) to cover yourself about your charges of no good will? Well, it's a rhetorical question, really, isn't it.

Suggestion: Find yourself a good book to read. I fear that you may be developing a slight OCD on this subject and it is leading you in to those dark holes or roads that Doug so generously advised his attacker to stay clear of in his very graceful last post to you.

Rosie

tvr's picture

Accepting my premise entails, for instance, understanding that for an Objectivist, telling me that you apologize for how I feel, rather than what you did and why, carries no weight. My accepting your premise entails, for instance, understanding that because you are a Christian, you apology does mean something because you are all about feeling. Now, apply the same rationale to our disagreement over Doug. I understand and accept where you are coming from (but do not agree with you), but do you do the same with me? I am not so sure.

BTW you are right that I was wrong to write that no one has been showing me good will. What I meant was that no one has granted me my premise publicly yet since Doug flounced. And that is wrong too, Lindsay has. So I retract the statement altogether. Rather than withdrawing then returning then withdrawing and now maybe returning your good will for me, I hope that if you put it on the table again you will decide to leave it there for as long as I do mine for you. Deal?

Re your claim that I owe you an apology. Apologies are only owed to people who have suffered loss of some kind through being wronged, and only by those who did the wrong. Correcting an error of fact where you have not been wronged does not deserve an apology from me. I acknowledged that I made the error, and recognized that it was quid pro quo. And I have already apologized to you, Doug and everyone on the other thread. To ask for another now is a bit rich, no? Especially after telling me you think I am mad.

So. Peace?

Terry

Terry

Rosie's picture

You owe apologies not exclamation marks. Good will lost again.

And I don't understand a word of this: I am still not sure however if you have accepted my premise as I have yours. I speak common English.

I think you're mad! (And coming from my family and friends, that is saying something!)

Rosie

tvr's picture

Thanks for your reply. It shows good faith. And, some good will. I don't expect more from you though. I am still not sure however if you have accepted my premise as I have yours. It is not clear from what you wrote.

Re the link, thanks for the correction. Yes, that was my turn to jump the gun!

Terry

Terry

Rosie's picture

All of my writings on all the threads have been made in good faith and good will, where none is being shown to me in return. Think about that.

Oh, Terry. I'm sorry that you feel that way. You have already found the path to my sympathies by saying that and I must therefore apologise to you if you took my words to be without good faith. They were in good faith. I probably did not have a great deal of good will towards you at the time though; that is true enough. I do now though. And no longer angry. Smiling

No good faith is being shown to you in return, Terry? You really think that? I do believe that RationalMan has paid you the greatest honour one man can show another in his special post for you. Can you not see by the sheer act of taking all the time and effort of writing to you thus he is trying to impart some of his wisdom to help you and that kind of giving of oneself in the kindest and gentlest way can not be had for a price. He is trying to open your heart a little more by telling you, by way of example, the pitfalls when one is perhaps overly intellectual about people and their behaviours and forget to employ that famous expression before judging: "Seek first to understand"? (And it isn't from Ayn Rand or the Bible!)

Perhaps what is coming through from those who have taken issue with you is that certain je ne sais quoi that rises from the heart when one perceives unjust treatment to a man in obvious pain. You have to remember that your first attack was about his choices re women (and theirs too- the choices were consensual; they weren't rape). So behind my dislike of what you were saying was an understanding of your morals but the failure by you to respect his choices which were mutually acceptable to the consenting adults concerned PLUS no thought that that there might be more to this than meets the eye given the many proposals by Linz to Doug (!) and his worthiness. That was actually unlike you not to wonder and to be so hard hitting without questioning I thought, and so it made you seem like an old maid with no perspective!

So although it was a matter of morals - his vs yours - it also raised the question of your own morality in terms of what you would like to receive from others if you were in a hole and how much you value kindness/charity/patience etc etc . I guess it is about the quality of empathy which is pretty important in terms of successful living with other people.

Does that make things clearer? I know that you have a strict moral code, Terry. I know that you adhere to Ayn Rand's principle of "show me a man's way of doing business and I will show you his morality" (paraphrased!) and you have scored 10/10 here insofar as you are moral and right that you have considered Linz's purse and contribute to SOLO financially and are not a freeloader. The one thing that would increase your perfection in this case of Doug would have been to be a bit more understanding and less quick to judge on the basis of his pua gaming thing. Doug is not like the usual John Doe. He is energetic, full of life, questioning and intelligence. He deserved greater respect, Terry. I disagree with Moeller that Doug is a racist. He looked at race with the detached view of the men he quoted who were also accused of racism and lost their jobs as a result.

Funny thing you say about the link not working (and again rushing in with a hasty judgement, Terry!!!!); the link works just fine with my computer. I think you might have pushed the wrong "here" on my comment - the one that shows the quote from Ayn Rand. Try the other one! (Less haste, more speed! Now I am the old maid with her homespun sayings!)

This is how the other link reads re Krauser's comment - not Doug's - being the one you mistakenly believe is Doug's (the bits in square brackets are bolded in the original):

Doug Bandler says:
November 19, 2011 at 8:43 pm

I may be wrong, but I feel vague influence of Nietzsche in your thoughts?

No. Its not Nietzsche. [Correct. Never read more than a few pages of him. K.]

“On one side are the men and women of greatness, of a commitment to truth, reality and excellence.”

Only one philosopher speaks like that and it Rand not Nietzsche. I really like Rand but wow, if there is one philosopher that is near impossible to reconcile with the PickUp arts I would say that it is Rand. Nietzsche is usually the preferred favorite of PUAs. A true Randian would be in a committed value oriented relationship – perhaps serial monogamy but not the de facto polygamy of Game. [I'm not an Anything-ian. I like her work. There's solid Game in Atlas Shrugged and even more so in Fountainhead. I differentiate between PUA as a lifestyle choice and Game as a collection of attitudes and skills. ]

One part of this war is to persuade you all women are tramps, harlots, and whores. They wish to denigrate the greatness of a fully-developed woman and the joy she brings to those around her. These losers are stuck in an ever-repeating cycle of find-slut-fuck-slut-hate-on-slut. The only way they can stand the soul-death it brings is to deny life can be better.

This is the perfect description of Roissey; the ultimate Machiavellian Darwinian Conservative. I don’t know if you intended it as a direct attack on Roissey or not, but it is. And I agree with it. [It wasn't an attack on Roissy. I consider him a moralist disguising himself as a nihilist. He wants to change the world for the better, which is why he's such a good writer. His Deida-eqsue mission is to lead much put-upon betas to their own salvation. But overall, some good sleuthing there Doug]

Rosie

tvr's picture

As with everyone else, I will defend myself against your charges. But only up to a point, that is, beyond which, if you refuse to grant me my premise, I shall discontinue. All of my writings on all the threads have been made in good faith and good will, where none is being shown to me in return. Think about that. The only person who I lost good will with was Doug, and for good reason. Read what I wrote to Brian on his newly created thread dedicated to me, if you haven't already, and follow the trail of evidence: http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

You wrote:

"His views are authentic on every site he posts on, Terry. If you were to read with a little more insight and intelligence, you will see that the words which you quote are not Doug’s but those of Mr Krauser!!! – as are all the words bolded and bracketed in answer to Doug’s comment."

Those words, and the user "madmax" have now mysteriously disappeared from that link, no doubt deleted by "Doug"/madmax or whoever he is. Ask yourself, why would he delete them now? So quickly? The only plausible reason I can think of is to his cover tracks. Why would he do this?

"
The words you chose to label Doug were used in a pejorative sense – “alcoholic”, “druggie” and “schoolgirl molester”; they were not true because these are not words used to describe a man :
(a) Who, as far as you know, was not sober on one occasion!!! (following your witch hunting) Alcoholic??!!;
(b) Who "does not use drugs (a lot) and never during sex!!!!! Druggie???!!!;
(c) Who never once mentioned a schoolgirl!!!!! Schoolgirl molester???!!!
"

I have already accepted on the main thread that my use of "alcoholic" was not factual, and I should not have used it, but its use was immaterial in the context of what else I wrote in that post. 'Druggie', was used accurately. I was not laying legal charges against the guy. I posted the link to the dictionary definition to demonstrate my correct use. He admitted to using drugs. So I stand by that. Pejorative or not. As to the last, c), I only now see, thanks to you pointing it out, that I did slip up, badly, by not writing "school-age girls" in the final post, where I had previously, instead writing "school girls". That was an unintentional mistake and for the life of me do not know how that happened. I will post a clarification on the main thread. It does make me wonder though why, with his anonymity still in tact, did or does he not correct me? Why did he instead go silent and suddenly flounce with an excuse that makes no sense? Why is he deleting otherwise innocuous evidence of himself on other threads suddenly? I went to lengths not to accuse him of criminality, even explicitly stating on a number of occasions I accepted no criminality was involved. The only implication of criminality was my slip up you have pointed out. Why then, with a slip of the keyboard, poof!, he's gone. What does that indicate to you about him, if anything? At the very least, it indicates to me that he is engaging in mighty strange behavior for someone who is supposedly only guilty of using a fake ID and some pick up lines on girls legally.

In good faith to you, Rosie, I grant you your premise to be angry with me, but urge you to reconsider granting me my premise.

Terry

Linz

Rosie's picture

The universe where moderation = banishment is the universe I inhabit where a man like Doug will never return to something that he no can longer trust or where he is not permitted fully to be himself by the likes of fuckwiTerry - the very thing your site promised and offered him. He no doubt believed you as I did that when you included him in your “Band of Brothers” that this meant you would pay him the dues of loyalty, allegiance and respect, come what may, and email him before being seduced by the claims of fuckwiTerry. Instead, he received behaviour that resembled the Muslim Brotherhood and where Doug was treated as the infidel. It was obvious to me that upon such treatment he would never return. His gracefully worded departure and lack of ad hominem for his attackers speaks volumes about his good character. A very nice, and an interesting, man.

Where leadership exists so that men are able to behave like a pack of animals going for the kill of their best, but injured, member (as Ayn Rand states by the measure she places on a man and his sexual activity) it is wrong; it wasn't new to anyone and ought to have aroused concern only in Terry. But rather than your insisting on some respect, at the very least, for your fiancé and prized member of your Band of Brothers, you did not tell Terry to shut the duck up or pm Doug to speak to him or stand up for him to cease this nonsense and I would say that you breached his trust and humiliated him in moderating him when he had already told you the reason why he gave a pseudonym and you later said you sympathised with that reason! This was what made me sadly turn away first of all. Disloyalty and the "quick flick" to friendship is abhorrent to me. The joy, the humour, the fun suddenly turned to ugliness with the "pack attack" of Doug as led by fuckwiTerry and no one stood up and stopped it in its tracks. Plus the beauty of the music you once posted (which for me was always the best thing about SOLO and what made it special to me) is rare nowadays.

These are the main reasons I am leaving. (And no great loss to SOLO with my departure, anyway.)

Excluded from that pack mentality I loathe is, of course, the lovely, humane, delightful RationalMan (whom I mistakenly called Grant and not Brian -apologies - and whose correct name I have since googled because he impressed me with his shared same views to my own re the D-T thing, his insight and his humour and I was delighted to find examples of the same wonderful humour and spirituality on other threads and his book which I had a brief glance at). I am sure there are others too but who chose silence rather than enter the frenzied, ugly shark attack. I hope there will be more like Brian to come.

I see that Brian is now trying to assist Terry - but Terry does not appreciate a single word of what he has to say despite his experience, age and the health of his kindly, gentle advice not to mention the time and effort put in to it (though recall the kissing of feet Terry required of me and his petulance when I hadn't thanked him for looking up the Bible or something on another thread!!!), and, ignoring Brian's advice completely and responding with priggish pride and more self-defence is even now asking Doug, who has gone!!!, stupid questions but does not apologise for his errors, false presumptions and dishonourable things said to both me and more particularly about Doug as a result of them, on the V thread or in his wierd message to the absent Doug!!! All this after Doug's graceful and positively deferential comment to him and consequent departure is a clear sign of something very mentally and emotionally defunct with this self-proclaimed "man of honour" who is so reckless with his mistakes and false insinuations, his lack of respect and his lack of care for the honour of others. It is all too stupid for me. Barking madness - and it's not Good Madness! It is horrible and ugly - and all pretty weird.

Thank you for your hospitality to me here, Linz. I wish you every good thing.

Terry

Rosie's picture

You are spreading lies, Rosie. I'd rather let the dust settle on this, but I have to correct your false accusations to set the record straight.

The dust never settles on iniquity, Terry. The “lies” are yours, Terry – not mine - but perhaps they can be charitably excused for a choirboy’s priggish hyperbole or the error of the schoolboy in his quest to be Superman and destroyer of all things that seem to him to be evil.

"The link to the gaming site you post below he even writes "I'm not an Anything-ian", yet here, in his profile on SOLO, he writes that he is "an Objectivist for about 6 years." Which site do you think he is being 'authentic' on?

His views are authentic on every site he posts on, Terry. If you were to read with a little more insight and intelligence, you will see that the words which you quote are not Doug’s but those of Mr Krauser!!! – as are all the words bolded and bracketed in answer to Doug’s comment.

The words you chose to label Doug were used in a pejorative sense – “alcoholic”, “druggie” and “schoolgirl molester”; they were not true because these are not words used to describe a man :

(a) Who, as far as you know, was not sober on one occasion!!! (following your witch hunting) Alcoholic??!!;
(b) Who "does not use drugs (a lot) and never during sex!!!!! Druggie???!!!;
(c) Who never once mentioned a schoolgirl!!!!! Schoolgirl molester???!!!

“Alcoholic” and “druggie” are words used to describe people with addictions in the sense that they are slaves to those things. That was not Doug’s position as he clearly stated and which is the position of many people who occasionally get drunk or take drugs. "Schoolgirl" implies innocence and youth, not the sorts who race from the deli to the bedroom with strangers and who say yes after a chat-up line and a few compliments!!!! Hence my charge of your defamation of him.

You remind me of the story of the women at the playground where a man stands close by watching the children. One woman says to another, "Oooh look at that pedophile." On the other side of the playground, another woman says to her friend, "See that poor man? I think he is the man whose children were killed in a car crash not long ago."

So not lies from me, Terry. (•Lies = An intentionally false statement.) Curious that a self proclaimed "man of honour" can be so concerned with defending his own that he fails to give a shit about any one else's - or the truth. Go figure. Perhaps you ought to have checked your ready to hand dictionary for the meaning of lies as a man of honour would rather than add to your already increasing list of defamatory statements against others as you parry for your version of righteousness.

I suggest that if you were to show some respect and slow down and think before dashing off your quickly written, no-pause-for-reflection replies you would be better for it instead of twisting and dodging about with your dictionary and all that unbecoming self-righteousness, self-importance and self-justification. Do you not see how ridiculous and repellant that is?

That you continue to protest your innocence and his “criminality” and do not acknowledge your profound wrongdoing to this man merely adds to all that Brian said of you; in particular “what this man lacks in experience [and I would add wisdom, grace, humanity and all the same sorts of virtues] could fill an ocean.” (from memory not the exact quote - I know you have a trace of Asbergers when it comes to quotes and also feel the need to crush the evil of the paraphraser!!! Eye

Most important of all though, Terry, is what you can not see or know about Doug at such short meeting and that is that one of Doug’s major and very rare gifts was an intense ability and desire to classify and label all politico-socio-religio ideas and theories (rather like the classification of taxa begun by Aristotle and completed by Carl Linnaeus). After looking at Larry Auster's blog whom he at first "detested" then loved like a father figure and you will see why if you look at the posts between them/about one another (hilarious!) but also the pua gaming thing, you will see what I mean.

The pua gaming thing was a theory of male/female psychology and sexuality and is actually incredibly interesting when viewed in this intellectual way. I can see perfectly how it would have appealed to Doug’s mind. Krauser takes films from movies and analyses the love scenes in terms of his theories and writes subtexts pointing out his theories as the scenes progress. That he tested them and found they that they worked and that women consented to a certain male paradigm expressed in the theory would have been amazing to Doug – what you took to be his boasting, I believe was, in fact, his awe at a theory that worked!!

Doug broke a rule of saying his true name for good reasons which he gave. That is all. Knock yourself out. SOLO has lost and I hope that you learn from the wise RationalMan, Brian, as well as Linz.

You have given life to the expression used by men of the maids of old and their pointing fingers and hasty tongues:

"They mean well, God damn and blast their souls!"

And please do not bother replying. I have no further inclination to hear from you and won't again give in to my temptation of this evening to look at SOLO to see whether Doug returned! He didn't; just as I thought he would not.

Jumping The Gun And Shooting The Messenger

tvr's picture

You are spreading lies, Rosie. I'd rather let the dust settle on this, but I have to correct your false accusations to set the record straight.

'Doug' confessed point blank to being dishonest, so how can he be "authentic in all but his name"? The link to the gaming site you post below he even writes "I'm not an Anything-ian", yet here, in his profile on SOLO, he writes that he is "an Objectivist for about 6 years." Which site do you think he is being 'authentic' on?

"He was no child molester or alcoholic or druggie. That is defamation"

How can I defame someone who is unidentifiable? And I never called him a "child molester", that is a bald faced lie. I wrote that his practices included molesting school-age girls. The dictionary definition of molest, as I used it, is "Pester or harass (someone), typically in an aggressive or persistent manner". Doug's gaming techniques, as he described them, involves pestering girls aged 17-25 in a persistent manner. 17 year olds are school age girls. A 'druggie' is defined in the dictionary as "One that takes or is addicted to drugs". Doug wrote "At least I'm not doing drugs. (alot) This is relatively drug free sex." He thus qualifies as a druggie by his own confession. He himself claims he was posting while not sober. I never once accused him of criminality. Read my posts.

And Doug is not 'banished', he is under moderation. I am sure that if Lindsay finds a way to retain and un-moderate him authentically, he will.

Terry

In Memoriam

Rosie's picture

Before Doug was banished for using a pseudonym to protect himself from any possible damage to his life for his unorthodox outspokenness regarding the Left, Islam etc., he sent me a private message including a Film Review website, Counter-Currents, which he had found after making a whole lot of effort googling for reviews of V for Vendetta.

He wrote:
"Here is one of the best reviews I have read of 'V'. It captures so many of my thoughts exactly. BUT... Be forewarned. Its from a white nationalist site: Counter-Currents. I saw it when I was Googling for reviews about the movie:

http://www.counter-currents.co...

There are so many excellent observations in this review that I encourage you to read it. Ignore some of racialist stuff. There isn't that much in there anyway."

And before someone comes back with further false accusations that Doug was a white nationalist, I shall quickly prevent this by adding a further part of his note to me: "Again, I know its a white nationalist site. I'm not a WNer. But I've noticed that some of the best understanding of the evil of the Left comes from the racialist Conservative social commentators."

Doug was quite right about this film. He saw far more deeply in to it than I did. No wonder he was lonely. He was way too smart and "before his time" to find many like-minded friends in his Lefty culture. He must have been thrilled when he met Lindsay and found a kindred spirit. I am feeling so very, very sad for Doug. He confessed all those things about gaming because he thought he was on a site of friends whom he liked and trusted and believed it to be reciprocal. Sad

I googled his name and found he wrote using the name Madmax or Doug Bandler and his views are all consistent. He *was* authentic. In all but his name for reasons he explained.

I even looked up his pua "gaming" thing and upon studying it, found that one of its aim was to find a "high value woman" by studying hard (academics) and improving your mind. They even quote from Ayn Rand - a speech by Francisco - about this here.

And here you find a typically "Doug" comment from him about female beauty. So much on a higher plane than all the other comments.

He was no child molester or alcoholic or druggie. That is defamation and more immoral than cautiously assuming a pseudonym to protect yourself or inviting young women to accept sharing your bed. I googled those academics he mentioned as examples of how freedom of speech is treated in his country. It was sickening. A grave injustice has been done to a highly intelligent individual thinker. Everything I despise about groups has occurred to Doug as far as I am concerned. People turning on him in such a frighteningly aggressive way in the name of "morality", then not listening to his answers with any respect whatsoever but calling them manipulations and twisting perceptions of him in such a ghastly, evil way.

Morality encompasses more than rules about a and b and going witch-hunting. Morality, to me, is something much more humane. Sad

No great shakes for SOLO but this is no place for me any more.

Best wishes to you all.

Doug, If you are reading this please know that you are always welcome to stay with me and my family if you should ever wish to visit NZ. My address and phone number are in the Wellington, NZ phone book under my name.

Doug...

Marcus's picture

...your male-female psychology theories are fascinating.

I wondered if you have any ideas how it might fit in with the classic bondage roles of female domina and male submissive?

Or is this just an extreme form of teasing?

Doug

Rosie's picture

I want to see a movie with egalitarians and altruists as the enemy. I'm not going to get that from Hollywood. All I get are the Left's view of fascists and theocrats. I'm bored with that. Show me cultural Marxists as villains, not Conservatives and Christians.

Great point! I see what you mean now. And I have to agree with you; the villain is a repetitive type as you say.

Today's Hollywood is not capable of making movies for someone like me. There's too great a chasm between ideologies. I'm that far gone.

Nope. I think you are right on the money there, Doug. Got any ideas for a script? The Bandler genre of film.

Negging sounds off-putting to me. Gauche conversation. Boring too. Wouldn't work with me.

Rosie - miscellaneous

Doug Bandler's picture

Negging is different than nagging and it is different than teasing. Its a term of art. Negging is a camouflaged insult or a disguised put down. Its a way of showing higher value or dominance. The "neg" is a PUA tactic that allows you to lower the value of a hot girl so that she doesn't consider herself better than you. I don't use them anymore but they work something like this:

PUA: Hey, I like your nails. Are they real?
girl: No.
PUA: That's ok. They're nice anyway. (positive - negative - positive)

or

PUA: I like your dress. There was a girl here last week wearing that same one. Its really nice. (positive - negative - positive)

or

PUA: Is that your natural hair color?
girl: No
PUA. Its nice except I think you can go a shade or two lighter. (positive - but with a take back)

You get the idea. This can work on a woman if executed properly (it can also backfire). I don't use them though. There are other ways to overcome women's "bitch shields"; i.e. their protective mechanisms to ward off boring men. However Negs won't work on men. The whole point of them is to show dominance. You don't win a man over by dominating him. That's the whole point of "game"; its the art of psychological dominance over women.

As for teasing. It does seem like I contradicted myself, but not really. A woman can tease a man and it can be enjoyable for the man. But if she goes too far, then it won't be. Also, when women tease a man, they will be very in tune to the man's response. If a man can't handle the teasing, then the woman will lose attraction. Men must know how to deal with female teasing if they are to spark sexual attraction. Its an art. Too much and you're an asshole. Too little and you're a bore. I don't think that is controversial.

If they will run or back off when teased then they show they have a very low threshold of stickability, wisdom and loyalty (and are just looking for a mirror that reflects them at thrice their size) so it is a very quick, neat and effective good riddance to those sorts of men.

Yes. Well said. Teasing is a test of male strength and dominance. I know you wouldn't phrase it like that but to me everything with women comes down to strength and dominance. I'm warped though. So forgive me my sins.

And how can it be if it contains the rarity of combining visual and aural beauty with inspiring rhetoric?!

Well, but the rhetoric is unsupported by the rest of the movie. Also, the visual beauty is just pretty pictures. The action on screen does not demonstrate a love of freedom in more than a superficial way. But then that could be me. I don't want to see a movie where the villains are some caricature of Christian theocrats. I want to see a movie with egalitarians and altruists as the enemy. I'm not going to get that from Hollywood. All I get are the Left's view of fascists and theocrats. I'm bored with that. Show me cultural Marxists as villains, not Conservatives and Christians.

So what's your idea of a good "must see" film then?

There aren't many movies I can point to. But Gladiator is a movie that I liked. That movie moved my soul. Masculine strength. Honor. I bonded with that movie. I like many other movies but not because I think they mean anything but just because they were escapist entertainment. Today's Hollywood is not capable of making movies for someone like me. There's too great a chasm between ideologies. I'm that far gone.

Doug

Rosie's picture

A couple of posts back you said:

Negging or teasing a man turns him off.

Now:
if a man cant take being teased he's a loser. I love being teased by a girl.

Make up your mind!

Teasing only happens successfully when you are smart enough to spot the tease, honest enough not to run from the truth about yourself, confident enough to not get defensive, good natured and humourous enough to come back with a quick retort and a laugh. That's why it is a part of the mating dance because it tells a woman a whole lot more about you (and vice versa). Who wants to be with someone long term with whom you have to explain jokes, walk on eggshells or face eruptions of fury or, even worse, gets hurt and then sulks and refuses to talk? Not me. Another trait a woman gets a glimpse at from teasing a man is whether they are men who will stick around through the inevitable lows and bad times as well as the good times. If they will run or back off when teased then they show they have a very low threshold of stickability, wisdom and loyalty (and are just looking for a mirror that reflects them at thrice their size) so it is a very quick, neat and effective good riddance to those sorts of men.

And since, " In an interview in the March 2008 newsletter to the Grant Study subjects, Vaillant was asked, “What have you learned from the Grant Study men?” Vaillant’s response: “That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.” succeeding in her tests of your ability for both loyalty and forgiveness is probably the most important test of all to pass if you want to marry someone who is only looking for a soul mate with whom to share her life (and not money, status etc).

But there is no way I can argue that the movie does not have inspiring rhetoric. I think it is superficial and ultimately meaningless.

Inspiring rhetoric that is also superficial and meaningless?! So with the beautiful face of Natalie Portman and the beautiful voice of Hugo Weaver, the superficiality reaches that state of perfect modern art, meaninglessness, you think?! The film is hardly meaningless imo. And how can it be if it contains the rarity of combining visual and aural beauty with inspiring rhetoric?! Script, visuals and sound are the three main elements of film after all!

You prefer and find more meaning in a film with uninspiring rhetoric, ugly women and quacking?!

So what's your idea of a good "must see" film then?

Rosie

Doug Bandler's picture

I do think the point in the film was about Government freedom-snatching and manipulation of people through minority hate-mongering as opposed to the advocacy or promotion of the actual subjects.

This is one of those things where on the surface you can argue that because the film is written that way. But with Leftists I never deal with the surface or take them at their word or give them the benefit thinking they are acting in good faith. What does "minority hate-mongering" mean to a Leftist? And who are they to criticize hate-mongering? Those who invented the term "white Hispanic".

But there is no way I can argue that the movie does not have inspiring rhetoric. I think it is superficial and ultimately meaningless. But yes, it is pretty. And Natalie Portman was gorgeous in that film (as always), even with a shaved head. That's how pretty her face is. And Hugo Weaving has an awesome voice. I love him as Elrond from LOTR and as Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' movies. His voice is lyrical. Americans can never speak that way.

I'll relent and concede that it was an entertaining movie that a liberty oriented person can enjoy. Unless he's a Leftist hating maniac like me. Then there is no pleasing him. He's just miserable. Sad

Oh and yes, if a man cant take being teased he's a loser. I love being teased by a girl. That means she likes me. Teasing is a necessary part of the mating dance, something I didn't know until 4+ years ago. What a dunce.

Doug & Rosie...

Marcus's picture

...get a room.

Oh yeah, sorry, what I am thinking. You do have room, right here Eye

Doug

Rosie's picture

As for Islam and the film. I consider any pro-Islamic sympathies to be treacherous. They represent a massive failure to identify evil. I get that the film makers were trying to show what a terrible government England had because it was censoring thought and ideas. But using Islam for that is, IMO, pro-Islam propaganda.

I'd agree with you here if it weren't for the fact that in the film the Government wiped out a group of Christians also (then blamed some minority group and called them terrorists). For this reason, I do think the point in the film was about Government freedom-snatching and manipulation of people through minority hate-mongering as opposed to the advocacy or promotion of the actual subjects.

Different biology, different psychology. "Negging" or teasing a woman generates attraction. Negging or teasing a man turns him off.

Can't stand being nagged by anyone - male or female. It's a martial arts precept: Don't engage in useless activity.
If I ask one of the children or anyone else to do something and he doesn't want to, then I just take him at his word and get whatever has to be done, done by some other means or, if it doesn't have to be done, leave it undone.

I like being teased and teasing others. Teasing is fun. It's a great way to show or be shown that our foibles have been identified! If a man can't be teased (provided it's not nasty) and is turned off by that, he must have excessive vanity, a fragile ego and humourless. Those traits, plus nagging, are four of a number of ultimate turn offs for me.

Won't Work On Men

Doug Bandler's picture

The idea is that when a man nags, insults or "shit-tests" you or threatens to bust your marriage, you don't argue with him or try to use logic with him or discuss moral philosophy with him.

Different biology, different psychology. "Negging" or teasing a woman generates attraction. Negging or teasing a man turns him off. Well, there is some room for playfulness. But...

I like your spunk. Trying to hoist me on my own petard. And I also like how you spotted the technique. And here I thought I was being clever. Uh oh, I've been exposed. By myself!!

As for Islam and the film. I consider any pro-Islamic sympathies to be treacherous. They represent a massive failure to identify evil. I get that the film makers were trying to show what a terrible government England had because it was censoring thought and ideas. But using Islam for that is, IMO, pro-Islam propaganda. That would be like making a movie during the WW2 era and showing the villains as being bad because they censored 'Mein Kampf'.

Now, as for the dunfermline branks, you know I think with the right lighting and maybe some mood music, I could pull off that look. Maybe.

Doug, it looks like you got Rosie all gamed up.

Marcus's picture

I think she's so horny with her bondage gear photos she'd be ready to give up God and Jesus now if you'd let her into your bedroom.

Wow, it works!

Doug

Rosie's picture

Yes Rosie, I'm disappointed in you. If you persist with this silliness I might have to consider a divorce. You know how I get when it comes to the Left.

(Aside: There are three core Game concepts to employ here; "agree and amplify" being the main one. The idea is that when a man nags, insults or "shit-tests" you or threatens to bust your marriage, you don't argue with him or try to use logic with him or discuss moral philosophy with him. You agree with him and tease him. This is just one of the gazillion ways to show "psycho-sexual dominance" to a man. If you fail to deal with these "shit tests" from men, and ALL men do this, then you lose the man's attraction. Why is this? This is consequence of biology. The most knowledgeable women have always known this. They just didn't have evolutionary psychology as their source. It was just a natural understanding of men. Post 1960s women have been unleashed and thus do not know these things.)

Yes, dear. Such silliness in me. And you are always right, dear.

Plus the film is pro-Islam which is enough to condemn it.

I'm so silly that I missed the pro-Islam theme. Was there one?! You must explain why you think this when the government had Mr Dietrich executed after finding a Koran in his house! (See from 0.24 - 0.30 in the video below!) You see, I can't understand why the film must therefore be pro-Islam; but I'm so silly and naive so do please explain.

Oh, and Dougy, if you are mistaken about the film being pro-Islam, do please put on one of these little dunfermline branks I had made for you. Eye

Priorities

Doug Bandler's picture

Better would have been a John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith mask, but hey the kids wouldn't have had a clue who they were.

Well that wouldn't have helped merchandizing now would it. Priorities.

What got me too Doug...

Marcus's picture

...is that Moore uses the symbol of Guy Fawkes.

That's wrong on so many levels. The people behind Guy Fawkes (who was really just the hired assassin and the not the thinker) were not anti-monarchy and pro-freedom. They just wanted a different monarch who was pro-Catholic and anti-Protestant.

Better would have been a John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith mask, but hey the kids wouldn't have had a clue who they were.

A Leftist Progaganda Tool

Doug Bandler's picture

The famous masks in the film have been adopted by hard left-wing protestors like the "Occupy Wall Street" movement who hate capitalism and all it stands for and are NOT protesting against state control, but want more of it. (They were praised by Alan Moore too).

Exactly. 'V for Vendetta' has served to empower the Left by giving them a symbol and a propaganda tool.

Rosie

Doug Bandler's picture

It is very much about keeping governments moral and citizens aware and active. I.e., pro-liberty and anti-fascist.

You're naive.

The movie was a simple rant by Leftists against the modern Conservative movement which they consider to be "fascist". Yes, prejudice against homosexuals is wrong, but anti-gay prejudice is a trivial injustice in the scope of injustices that exist today. Plus the film is pro-Islam which is enough to condemn it. The film also portrays America's "war on terrorism" as imperialistic and hawkish when the truth is American foreign policy is altruistic, egalitarian pacifism dressed up as patriotism by Neo-Conservatism.

In short the movie gets everything about modern politics wrong! But its got some pretty speeches for "freedom" so you like it.

Yes Rosie, I'm disappointed in you. If you persist with this silliness I might have to consider a divorce. You know how I get when it comes to the Left.

I have seen the film...

Marcus's picture

...and discussed it ad nauseum on SOLO when it was released.

Read SOLO discussion here.

Myself and others enjoyed the film, but realised that the film offered no "alternative" solution.

It was either for the state OR against the state.

I concluded it seemed to be suggesting anarchy as a solution.

Yes we cheer on "V" and we love his rebellion, but what are we cheering for, what is the alternative?

Blank out.
(As Ayn Rand would say).

Indeed any hopes we had for the effect of the film being positive were dashed too.

The famous masks in the film have been adopted by hard left-wing protestors like the "Occupy Wall Street" movement who hate capitalism and all it stands for and are NOT protesting against state control, but want more of it. (They were praised by Alan Moore too).

Epic Fail!!!

Alan Moore on his books, fascism and anarchy

Rosie's picture

He is a very interesting fellow. Is he an anarchist or a libertarian? He says he is an anarchist here but also sounds like a libertarian in that he does think we need minimal government which he calls an Administration.

Did you know Blair introduced surveillance cameras in 1997?

Rosie's picture

Another interview with a photo of Alan Moore at the top. (I can't decide whether he looks like someone from Slayer or Monty Python's Life of Brian!)

Moore spoke with me by phone from Northampton, the ancient riverside British hood where he lives, about film, comics, funding and seeing Patrick McGoohan’s psy-fi classic “The Prisoner” everywhere we turn. Especially now that our openly secret, often ludicrous surveillance state — which he envisioned decades ago in dystopian influentials like “V for Vendetta,” whose striking Guy Fawkes mask has become an inextricable part of Anonymous and Occupy’s iconography — has thankfully wormed its way back into the news cycle.

"The surveillance state is nothing new: From Bentham’s panopticon to McGoohan’s Village to “V for Vendetta’s” streetcams to the NSA’s Prism.

To me, one of the biggest surprises of these recent surveillance revelations is how surprised people are. The level of surveillance we’ve had over here for the past 20 years now is ridiculous — and useless, I would add. Eerily enough, the security cameras on every street corner of Britain was instigated by the incoming Blair government in 1997, which was when I decided, back in 1982 or so, to set the first episode of “V for Vendetta,” which had cameras on every street corner. So yeah, we’ve had those for awhile; they’ve proliferated and multiplied for decades. More recently, there have been troops of police who have said that all these things are useful for is alienating the public. [Laughs] They are not actually useful in the prevention of crimes, or even actually apprehending their suspects.

Here’s the thing: If you’re monitoring every single thing that goes on in a given culture, if you have all the information that is there to be had, then that is the equivalent of having none of it. [Laughs] How are you going to process that amount of information? That’s when you get all these wonderful emerging paradoxes. Recently over here, there was a case where it was suspected that the people who monitor security screens were taking unnecessary toilet breaks and gossiping when they should be watching us. So it was decided that the only sensible thing to do was to put a security camera in the monitor room. [Laughs] This is answering the question that Juvenal asked so succinctly all those years ago: Who watches the watchmen? The answer is more watchmen! And yet more watchmen watch them, and of course it will eventually occur to them to ask: Can those people who are watching the people doing the watching really be trusted? Much better if they were under surveillance.

That’s the level of absurdity these Orwellian solutions bring to our increasingly complex world. George Orwell’s vision was 1947. Yes, the world was more complex than it had been, but nowhere near as complex as it was going to get. We currently have in Northampton — and I think we might be the first to have it — security cameras in some places that actually talk to you. “Pick that cigarette end up! Yes, you!” [Laughs] Which is so much like Patrick McGoohan’s vision for the Village in “The Prisoner,” all those years ago.

Marcus

Rosie's picture

The marches Moore attended which inspired the comic books were against racism and fascism, as confirmed in the following quote from an interview with Moore.

From the horse's mouth:

AM: Right, the character will be limited, and so will you. When I was doing V for Vendetta years ago, and I started to introduce the Nazi heads of this totalitarian state in the far-flung future of 1997, I’d been marching against the National Front and taking part in the Rock Against Racism marches, and I realized that I can’t just portray Nazis as bad guys, because everybody knows that, and you’re not saying anything.

In this interview, Moore says he did not like the script of the film, or Hollywood, though he has not actually seen the film itself. He says his comic books were about fascism and anarchy; words never mentioned in the film.

Moore: I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

In short, Marcus, although the comics may have been about anarchy and fascism, the film doesn't really flirt with anarchy at all imo. It is very much about keeping governments moral and citizens aware and active. I.e., pro-liberty and anti-fascist. That is my take on it, anyway. It was very true to life. Stephen Fry was a news reporter and homosexual whose very job depended on his having to pretend he was heterosexual and have attractive women to his house because he, like everyone else, was under surveillance. Imagine living like that? Imagine allowing yourself to have other people lording it over you like that? It is happening right here in NZ. The entire film was great in every respect; particularly well acted too. Just in that scene above, for example, the detail of the realism and timing of the "Ssssshhhh!" from the mother to her child's question are perfect.

Have you actually seen the film, Marcus?

Moore oposed to fascism?

Doug Bandler's picture

While left-wing anarchy does have similar ideas to some strains of libertarianism, it's not the same.

I agree. Anarcho-Leftism basically argues that if you remove the state you will have the ability to create the perfect egalitarian society. In that sense they are Leftists, even more radical than the Communists. But its our old nemesis egalitarianism. The Rothbardian version of anarchism while annoying, at least argues that if you abolish government you can get the ideal market economy. Its not egalitarian at its core. Its a warped, rationalistic attempt at political individualism. Which is why libertarians can lean Left or Right. And that goes for anarchists too.

The book was inspired by the anti-fascism marches Moore went on in the 1970's/80's and his intense dislike of the policies of Reagan and Thatcher.

I haven't researched Moore intensely but does anyone know exactly what his view of fascism is? Social Conservatism = fascism? Capitalism = fascism? Market liberalism = fascism? What? Fascism is a totalitarian version of Conservatism. Nazism was a totalitarian racial Conservatism with exterminationist designs. Where the hell does he see that in Thatcher's Britain? Thatcher wasn't even that religious. But then again Moore thought Rand was a black-hating racist because she was an advocate of laissez-faire. Not a clear thinker was he.

A is for Anarchy...

Marcus's picture

...that's what Moore advocates and that's what the film promotes.

While left-wing anarchy does have similar ideas to some strains of libertarianism, it's not the same.

The book was inspired by the anti-fascism marches Moore went on in the 1970's/80's and his intense dislike of the policies of Reagan and Thatcher.

Magnificent

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Magnificently confident, sinuous, defiant, and assertive pro-liberty speech!

This is a better comment

Rosie's picture

This is a better comment from your link and which is way more on the money:

V was not for advocating mindless class war or any other kind of war. V elegantly articulated precise reasons for his actions rooted in objective moral truths, the film begins with him commandeering a news station and broadcasting to the country the transgressions of the government much like the Declaration of Independence (a stretch? maybe). He had a strong nationalist streak and believed in the need for a virtuous populace if the populace were to get just government. V didn’t seek to replace the British government with world government, but rather with a new, virtuous British government. And yes, he believed in Beauty which is why he insists on keeping his scarred body and face covered for the entire film.

The destruction of Parliament could be seen metaphorically as representing the idea that the governing class is so totally corrupt and the country itself has acquiesced and stood by as this evil has taken them over that whole thing needs to be re-born. And guess what, in real life, it does! And only the British people can make it happen, just as in the film’s finale when the people finally come out of woodwork and refuse to cower anymore before their overlords. I think any traditionalist can hold in his head the idea that the actual British people who need to step forward in real life aren’t necessarily the same as those portrayed in the film.

Doug

Rosie's picture

Have you seen the film yourself, Doug?!

I don't agree with those commentaries you have quoted below at all. (Despite being from the hallowed halls of Larry Auster's blog!)

In fact, they seemed to be talking about quite a different film from the one I saw! The one I saw was a very clear critique of the invidious methods of a fascist government, with its bagging (processing and killing) of any opponent to the government, the biological experiments done on its own citizens without care for killing them (them being the Christians in the film), using minority groups to take the blame for its actions and calling them terrorists, the use of the media to manipulate the thinking of its citizens, surveillance of citizens etc etc.

Is it anti-fascist? Yes.

Is it pro-Leftist? No! (Rolls eyes.)

And the very fact that the UK is now in the process of controlling the internet through invidious censorship, the USA is instituting surveillance of all its citizens and NZ about to follow suit with its GCSB Bill and TPP makes it an excellent and timely reminder to all citizens to be ever vigilant to the sneaking onset of that slow-creeping, freedom-stealing monster, tyranny.

Indeed the author of the original Graphic Novel, Alan Moore, was disgusted by the film’s director & screenwriter twisting his work to make an anti-Iraq War message.

Apart from the fact that there is no anti Iraq War message (!) Wikipedia says this:

Co-author and illustrator David Lloyd, by contrast, embraced the adaptation. In an interview with Newsarama he states:

“ It's a terrific film. The most extraordinary thing about it for me was seeing scenes that I'd worked on and crafted for maximum effect in the book translated to film with the same degree of care and effect. The "transformation" scene between Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving is just great. If you happen to be one of those people who admires the original so much that changes to it will automatically turn you off, then you may dislike the film—but if you enjoyed the original and can accept an adaptation that is different to its source material but equally as powerful, then you'll be as impressed as I was with it.

An Excellent Discussion of This Movie...

Doug Bandler's picture

...Over at Larry Auster's blog from two years ago:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

One of the commenters is positive on the movie but the other commenters put the movie in its proper perspective. This is my favorite:

...the film may be another one of those films that inadvertently conveys something of a traditionalist message, but the protester understands it in its intended sense. It was not meant as an anti-leftwing government film. Indeed the author of the original Graphic Novel, Alan Moore, was disgusted by the film’s director & screenwriter twisting his work to make an anti-Iraq War message. He said his work was being “turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. It’s a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which was not what the comic book V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England.”

So the Wachowski Brothers deliberately made the movie to be a Leftist attack on NeoCons and the Iraq war*, but Moore, that anarchist asshole that thought Ayn Rand was a racist who hated black people**, was angry because it didn't challenge government itself! Essentially what you have is the more consistent Leftist, Moore, being critical of the less consistent Leftists, the Wachowski Brothers. But you are dealing with Leftists. But what else would you expect from Hollywood?

And another quote from an Auster post discussing the film:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

Some months ago, I commented on the fact that there is, among white liberals and their various minority client groups, a palpable hatred of non-liberal whites and a subconscious desire on their behalf to see us harmed, humiliated, and ultimately exterminated. At that time I remarked that liberal whites have not yet allowed themselves explicitly to think the thought that non-liberal whites must be exterminated; their collective super-ego has not yet permitted their collective Id to present this thought to them as a practical possibility. But, through this Django Unchained movie and other films like the repulsive V for Vendetta, a movie which, incidentally, contains much left-wing iconography, we can see now that these dark thoughts are increasingly burbling up into their consciousness. As their power grows, so grows their impatience with us and their sense that we are the source of all of the world’s problems. If we would just get of the way, they think, the utopia would be here. But we won’t get out of the way. And so we must be dealt with.

These films express the same kind of exterminationist impulses as those expressed in the white supremacist tract The Turner Diaries, except that the latter was directed at blacks and Jews, the book was written by a marginal and mentally unstable figure, and was almost universally condemned, while the bloodlust of Django and V for Vendetta is directed against white, Christian men, they are made by famous Hollywood directors who have tens of millions of viewers, and they are almost universally celebrated.

Movies like these are, in terms of their impact upon the collective psyche, slowly moving the ball down the field toward a coalition of the elite white and the formerly oppressed nonwhite that will finally exterminate the white Christian oppressor and usher in the rainbow Utopia which we have thwarted for far too long.

The ugly truth is that they have had it with us and they want us gone.

I am not a Christian. But I think the sentiments in the above quote are right. The Left DOES have exterminationist fantasies about white non-Leftists. But of course Objectivists and libertardarians refuse to see this.

------------------------

* And notice that the Leftist Wachowski Brothers see the Iraq war as an example of evil Right-wing imperialism when in fact the Iraq war is an example of Leftist utopian social engineering. Deeper, its a purely self-sacrificial war that aims at saving the Muslim world from itself. Yet Leftists think that it wasn't altruistic enough!! 'V for Vendetta's' motivations were EVIL. That's what matters.

** And why? Because she was a champion of capitalism. This is the depth of this idiot's mind. He's a nihilistic anarcho-Leftist. Fucker's not even a Rothbardian, which would mean that at least he understood economics.

Uggh

Doug Bandler's picture

This movie again? Its a Leftist attack on Conservatism. I'm no Conservative, but the attack is as shallow as a puddle. The Conservative dictatorship in the movie is bad because its anti-Islam and anti-gay. Oh and its Christian, you know all those evil white Christian guys. And yet you still like it Rosie? Hollywood is spitting on you and you thank them for it by raving over their movie? But that's turn-the-other-cheek for you.

All of Hollywood's dictatorships come from the Left: i.e. they are depicted as evil because they are non-egalitarian. Hollywood never challenges egalitarianism, equalism, in any serious way. That would mean challenging their religion. Yes, there is talk of "freedom" in this movie. But what is meant by "freedom". We never learn, other then that being opposed to Islam is somehow a threat to "freedom".

This movie is anarcho-Leftist garbage. The Wachowski Brothers are hardcore Leftist maniacs. And yet Objectivists and libertarians have always been admirers of this movie.

I can spit.

Comment viewing options

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