luni, 19 noiembrie 2018

Steve Bannon | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union


Gotta love all the snowflakes asking their NPC questions without really engaging in an actual dialogue or listening. Orange Man Bad Fascists badHey Hey
Ho Ho
Bannon has Got to Go




Nothing worse than an over-privileged, over-educated yet not very bright upper class idiots, virtue signalling their arses off, to justify their elite position, that was given purely by right of birth, not by merit. Steve Bannon is speaking for the 'Working Class' here to a bunch of arrogant upper class twits, this has been painful and embarrassing to witness. God protect us from these fragile fools. These students do not seem worthy of a university with such a reputation.

___
Vad ca mai multi "experti", ce s-au autointitulat "societate civila", trimit scrisori prin care spun ca problema e la popor, pentru ca voteaza. Si ca votul nu ar trebui sa fie lasat pe mana oricui, venind in sprijinul afirmatiei lor cu un citat din Thatcher, la referendumul lor din 1975.
Thatcher cand a spus despre referendum ca e un instrument pentru dictatori sau demagogi s-a referit la altceva, dar nu stiu cati din cei de acolo au avut rabdarea de a vedea motivul. Ea atunci s-a referit la ramanerea in the piata comuna europeana, unde nu se punea problema suveranitatii, nici problema cedarii puterii parlamentare catre un consiliu de unelected bureucrats, ce stabilesc ei impreuna care e binele comun. Thatcher niciodata nu ar fi fost de acord cu cedarea suveranitatii, nici la nivel de individ, nici la nivel statal. Altfel nu mai exista legitimitate pentru nimic.
In 1975 Common Market era ok, insa dupa Maastricht in UE s-a impus o viziune Socialist federalista cu care UK nu a fost niciodata de acord pentru ca in practica devenise o subminare prin reguli care de care mai idioate a Pietei Comune, pentru care britanicii intrasera in UE. Nici o legatura cu Piata Comuna pentru care britanicii intrasera initial. Cautati discursul No, No, No al premierului britanic Margaret Thatcher si va veti convinge. Sunt argumente la orice pas. De altfel exista si scrisori clare in care ea se disociaza clar de aceasta abordare, si nu ar fi fost de acord niciodata cu asa ceva.
Da, un referendum poate fi anticonstitutional. Cand multimea voteaza ca toti copiii trebuie luati de la parinti si dati la casa de copii, sau cand isi da cu parerea in stiinta (global warming) e clar ca trebuie limite constitutionale. Pentru ca de prea multe ori multimea ba chiar si academiile de stiinta (vezi Franta si aparatele mai grele ca aerul) au gresit. Este exact ce incercau sa evite fondatorii US atunci cand spuneau ca:
"Democracy ..wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (John Adams),
sau
“Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” (James Madison)
sau
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and ... breaks up the foundations of society." (Thomas Jefferson)
sau
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” - (Benjamin Franklin)
e motivul pentru care H. L. Mencken zicea ca:
[D]emocracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters — which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum".
____

Thatcher stia aceste lucruri. Le intelegea perfect. Progresistii nostri insa nu inteleg de ce au vrut fondatorii in US sa evite cu orice pret, de ce nu apare NICAIERI in Constitutia US cuvantul democratie. Nu! Habar nu au, nu vor sa afle. Nu sunt interesati. Ei deja au stabilit.
Au scos un citat dintr-un context (5 June 1975), si il folosesc drept argument. E metoda prin care presa intoxica, si in loc sa caute adevarul, nu face decat sa-l ascunda, sa-l perverteasca, sa-l transforme in unealta politica, sau de santaj. E metoda prin care fariseii din templu impuneau versiunea lor de adevar, ba te mai si judecau pentru asta. De aceea libertatea presei este o chestiune fundamentala insa NU este absoluta, cum gresit au impresia expertii de la SNSPA. Da, poti spune orice tampenie. Insa NU orice este permis. Stiu ca pare un paradox, insa asta e domeniul lor, si ii las pe ei sa descopere de ce.
"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. 
I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false". (Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807)
"This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822).

"For I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
____
“And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.” - The Histories 6.9.7-9, Polybius (ca. 200–118 BC)

duminică, 18 iunie 2017

Debate 1984: Capitalism Versus Socialism, Which is the Moral Social System?

Debate 1984: Capitalism Versus Socialism, Which is the Moral Social System?


This is the 1984 public debate between the Objectivists (Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath) representing the capitalist view, against the Democratic Socialists (Gerald Caplan and Jill Vickers) representing the socialist view. 

The entire transcript is available at many places including:

debate1984.wordpress.com





















































luni, 13 februarie 2017

Ce este capitalismul. Intrebarea fundamentala a ultimilor 27 de ani cam oriunde pe glob.

Ce este capitalismul. Intrebarea fundamentala a ultimilor 27 de ani, cam oriunde pe glob, nu doar la noi (la noi a lipsit cu desavarsire - analfabetii din universitati au distrus generatii intregi cu nestiinta lor - rezultatele vazandu-se acum la orice pas).