The silence is deafening... Wake UP America!
Extremists (From The Journals of Ayn Rand. In this part she is forming a female character's opinion of the main character (a male) who is frowned upon for standing by is principles regardless of the consequences that his fellow townspeople will impose.) ".... the idea of the 'extremist' is splendid. We should have more extremists--then life wouldn't be what it is. But she says that 'an extremist is always dangerous' and we all should be just in between, the 'golden mean', the balanced average.
This is a wonderful expression of the view exactly opposite from mine. What I want to show in my book is just the horror of the middle: the illogical, inconsistent, weak, tolerant, mediocre, loathsome middle. For if men were extremists they would follow each idea and feeling to it's end. They would be faithful, straight, and absolute in everything. And they wouldn't tolerate a lot of what is tolerated now. This is just what we need." I want to talk more about this.
It seems so many are wishy washy in their beliefs and in their arguments, which is totally acceptable behavior it seems. Why? Shouldn't we all be clear on our convictions instead of flim flammy about them? I see this as a weakness and a lack of self examination because when you start digging into your own beliefs and having to explain them to yourself in a way that makes sense, even to yourself, it can be a smack in the face to realize your levers aren't lined up accurately and some difficult adjustments would need to happen to get things straight.
What are your thoughts?
This is a wonderful expression of the view exactly opposite from mine. What I want to show in my book is just the horror of the middle: the illogical, inconsistent, weak, tolerant, mediocre, loathsome middle. For if men were extremists they would follow each idea and feeling to it's end. They would be faithful, straight, and absolute in everything. And they wouldn't tolerate a lot of what is tolerated now. This is just what we need." I want to talk more about this.
It seems so many are wishy washy in their beliefs and in their arguments, which is totally acceptable behavior it seems. Why? Shouldn't we all be clear on our convictions instead of flim flammy about them? I see this as a weakness and a lack of self examination because when you start digging into your own beliefs and having to explain them to yourself in a way that makes sense, even to yourself, it can be a smack in the face to realize your levers aren't lined up accurately and some difficult adjustments would need to happen to get things straight.
What are your thoughts?
What is bad is their starting as early as age 10, using Maslow group therapy on entire grade levels,led by teacher hacks, unqualified to do such dangerous tampering. One friend walked in on group hypnosis of 9 year old kids. Subliminal tapes were also used to get "proper" thinking from the same age group. The CIA could not have done more to "set the teens loose in the streets", as one communist manual advises.
Under Common Core, the kids will be tested and fixed if their attitudes do not fit those set forth in the curriculum. It truly is as if Rand could predict where we were going, right down to banning the incandescent light bulb, as laid out in "Anthem" - Atlas is Shrugging.
I agree on most fiscal issues with Forbes. However, completely disagree with Forbes on intellectual property policy. and since technology drives the world and economic freedom-he would be out for me. Christie is charismatic but RINO. you ain't getting the republic back through him. He'll make the teachers unions come up to scratch and take the common core federal money and chains in the same breath. you are a freedom works supporter, I am more an AFP supporter. both do good influencing. as a libertarian, I do not want to be known as a one trick pony either. I think we can clean up Rand.
Money is the mother's milk of politics. We need a clear message that focuses on fiscal issues which are central to the federal government. Leave the social issues to the states. Unless billionaires like the Koch Brothers team up with someone like Forbes and an organization like Freedom Works, we'll keep chasing our tail with nickle and dime donations and the LameStreamMedia beating Libertarians over the head with our wish for total drug legalization and presenting us as wanting to have a stoned nation. We need a charismatic figurehead (it ain't Ron Paul or Rand Paul--get a haircut Rand!). It certainly wasn't Forbes but his message was brilliant. Most of the electorate votes their emotions. They have no idea what REASON is.
Put me on a panel to find that charismatic person (hmmm ... I think that's what the Dem's did in anointing Obama). Christie is charismatic (perceived as a straight shooter) but probably wouldn't pass a libertarian litmus test (although he gave a great talk at The Reagan Library http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc64KV3ab...)
I am particularly prone to becoming engrossed in an idea to such an extent that I fail to yield to biological necessities. I put off eating, sleeping, and even relieving myself when I become hyper-focused. It is rarely rewarding in the short term, and as often as not, a solution "pops into mind" only after finally giving in to my biological necessities.
Individual etremism in this sense harms no one (except possibly the individual), and is truly just a means to an end.
Of course, if an individual extremist goes insane in her rabid pursuit of knowledge or truth or articulation, the end corresponding to the extreme means might not be such a pretty thing.
Consider the popular or charismatic individual genius embarking on an extreme quest for knowledge. His admirers wait in quiet anticipation for the results to be articulated. The genius, now insane, returns from his quest and announces that "reality exists only in the minds of men", or any of the many other ridiculous conclusions reached by philosophers throughout the ages. The admirers adopt this new "extremist end" reached by "individual extremist means", and an "extremist group" is formed.
Would that external genius and charisma could gather no purchase within the hearts of men, nor stealthily rob them of their own sensibilities through their desire to be loved by their beloved. Until a society can establish a methodology by which to teach the use of necessary emotional shields against external genius and charisma, individuals will continue to succumb to the temptation to allow, and even encourage, their beloved to think for them.
My conclusion:
A society full of individuals utilizing extremist means in their pursuits would contain no groups blindly following extremist ends. An "extremist" is quite different from "extremists", and "means" are quite different from "ends".
'Run along, punk. Go and try to pour a ton of steel without rigid principles, on the expediency of the moment.'"
Load more comments...