Category Archives: Keep it Metal!

1 Peter, 1 Samuel, Candlemass, Censorship, Matthew, Proverbs, Totalitarianism

Putin is cool

4 Comments

foto,5746,e0af65f652c3c67e339aef1fad8fd2ed

Putin is cool.

Putin is cool like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. But far be it from me to judge. That’s just the opinion of the deathly cold shiver running down my spine.

Those shades. Look at those shades.

Does Putin wear them to be cool? Or does he wear them to keep out the light of the world so he can continue his uninterrupted walk in darkness? (False dilemma or true? Putin is effortlessly cool, either way.)

How did Putin get to be so cool?

There could be a simple explanation. Russia’s a cold place. Only hell is colder (when it freezes over). Perhaps Putin’s still thawing out after the Cold War. But here’s how I think Putin got to be so cool. The chilling effect of censorship in Russia.

In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders.

Putin is cool. The camera doesn’t lie. But the photographic evidence is redundant. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

Put on your God-goggles. Now what do you see? You see the hidden person of the heart. Do you see the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious, or do you see a crooked heart, a heart that devises wicked plans, which is an abomination to God?

Still got the God-goggles on? Good. It’s mirror time.

Behemoth, Job

Behemoth ranks first among the works of God

Leave a comment

BehemothBAND

“Look at Behemoth,
    which I made along with you
    and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength it has in its loins,
    what power in the muscles of its belly!
Its tail sways like a cedar;
    the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
    its limbs like rods of iron.
It ranks first among the works of God,
    yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
The hills bring it their produce,
    and all the wild animals play nearby.
Under the lotus plants it lies,
    hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
    the poplars by the stream surround it.
A raging river does not alarm it;
    it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
    or trap it and pierce its nose?” (NIV)

Behemoth is coming.

Ayn Rand, Death Angel, Semantics

It’s time to drive a stake through the heart of Objectivism

1 Comment

John Van Eyssen and Valerie Gaunt

I’m not sure how I ended up here. But I did.

The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the unearned in spirit. (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) These two aspects are necessarily interrelated, but a man’s desire may be focused predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the more destructive of the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term “prestige.” . . .

Unearned greatness is so unreal, so neurotic a concept that the wretch who seeks it cannot identify it even to himself: to identify it, is to make it impossible. He needs the irrational, undefinable slogans of altruism and collectivism to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.

– Ayn Rand in “The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness

And I was mortified. Just a few days ago I accused Rand of this.

The conventions that govern our use of stipulative definitions demand that any use of a word stipulatively defined is preceded with the appropriate disclaimer, i.e., “In what follows, I use ‘X’ to mean ‘Y’. Rand rode roughshod over this convention with cavalier contempt.

But in these two paragraphs (the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Prestige) not only does Rand adhere to the rules meticulously, – (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) – she levels the very same charge at those who desire unearned greatness that I’d leveled at her.

I hastily posted an embarrassed retraction to atone for my rush to judgement. 🙁

But then I realised. I’d thought I was wrong but actually I was right. The two paragraphs do not exonerate Rand. They seal her doom.

Rand knew the rules. She knew the danger of ambiguity. She acknowledged the need of one who seeks unearned greatness for “irrational, undefinable slogans … to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.”

And she went and broke the rules. She capitalised on the foggy murk of the very ambiguities she introduced to underwrite her egoistic creed. She satiated her need for prestige with the irrational, undefinable slogans of Objectivism – not to support her own self-deception but to deceive her wretched victims – her own followers.

Rand knew exactly what she was doing.

If I’m not wrong, I’ve resolved something that has long puzzled me. You see, I’ve spent considerable time in the virtual company of Rand’s deluded disciples. And over the course of that time I’ve developed a grudging respect for Objectivism’s founder. The lady was smart, super-smart. But her philosophy simply doesn’t stack up.

It was never meant to stack up. It’s a philosophy for life on earth. Rand’s life on Earth, surrounded by an inner-circle of adoring sycophants. And her philosophy served its purpose. It created an army of hapless dupes in thrall to their evil dominatrix.

Rand earned her greatness. But what shall she give in return for her soul?

Ayn Rand, Entombed, Logic, New Inklings, Religious Toleration

What is rationality? (Part 1)

12 Comments

2002_75211AFCFBA3477

It’s been a while, but tomorrow night The New Inklings meet again! The time is 7 pm. The place is the Downtown House Bar and Cafe at the Downtown Backpackers, corner of Bunny Street and Waterloo Quay, Wellington.

We discuss philosophy (mainly) and theology. You’re welcome to join us, provided that you are (1) irenic, and (2) rational. If you don’t know what it means to be irenic, Google is your friend. If you don’t know what it means to be rational, well … tomorrow night’s discussion topic is for you!

the nature of rationality and what a commitment to Reason entails

So I thought I’d jot down a few recent thoughts … and start a series of posts … on this fundamentally important to everything topic.

Here’s my all-time favourite Ayn Rand quote.

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

I used to love to brandish this one at Ayn Rand’s hypocritical followers. I say ‘used to’ because it’s just dawned on me that Rand got it completely wrong! (Yet again! Wotta surprise!)

To arrive at a contradiction is NOT to confess an error in one’s thinking. To arrive at a contradiction is the strongest confirmation possible that there is NO error in one’s thinking!

And to maintain a contradiction is NOT to abdicate one’s mind nor to evict oneself from the realm of reality. At least, not in the short-term, probably not in the medium-term and possibly not even in the long-term! NOT to maintain a contradiction, in the short-term at least, would be irrational in the utmost extreme!

I really don’t know why I didn’t see this sooner … perhaps you don’t see it yet, so I’ll explain.

The simplest example of a contradiction is a proposition and its negation. P and not-P. Two propositions are contradictory, or inconsistent, if they cannot both be true. Three propositions are mutually contradictory, or form an inconsistent triad, if they cannot all be true. Four propositions that cannot all be true form an inconsistent tetrad. And so on and so forth.

None but the completely insane ever believes P and not-P. But believing A, B and C, where A, B and C cannot all be true? This is a commonplace. But most people who believe A, B and C don’t notice the inconsistency. A and B don’t contradict. B and C don’t contradict. C and A don’t contradict. It’s the mutual inconsistency that gives rise to the contradiction. To arrive at the contradiction you actually have to have some logical nous. You have to be able to recognise that

(P1) A
(P2) B
Therefore, (C) not-C

is a deductively valid argument. So to arrive at a contradiction is actually to confirm that you have at least a basic grasp of logic! Which most people don’t.

So you’ve arrived at a contradiction. You believe A, B and C and you are cognizant of the contradiction. You know your beliefs can’t all be true. You know that (at least) one of them has to go. But which one? You’d better sit down and try to figure that one out. But you don’t want to reject the wrong belief. So, in the meanwhile, you’ll maintain the contradiction. Take your time. It’s the rational thing to do.

Cryptopsy, Psalms

The Lord is my refuge

Leave a comment

Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
   will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
   my God, in whom I trust.”

Surely he will save you
   from the fowler’s snare
   and from the deadly pestilence.
He will cover you with his feathers,
   and under his wings you will find refuge;
   his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
You will not fear the terror of night,
   nor the arrow that flies by day,
nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
   nor the plague that destroys at midday.
A thousand may fall at your side,
   ten thousand at your right hand,
   but it will not come near you.
You will only observe with your eyes
   and see the punishment of the wicked.

If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”
   and you make the Most High your dwelling,
no harm will overtake you,
   no disaster will come near your tent.
For he will command his angels concerning you
   to guard you in all your ways;
they will lift you up in their hands,
   so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
   you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

“Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
   I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
He will call on me, and I will answer him;
   I will be with him in trouble,
   I will deliver him and honor him.
With long life I will satisfy him
   and show him my salvation.” (NIV)

Alice Cooper, Christian Libertarianism, Death of America, Democracy, Economics, Financial Collapse, Indoctrination, Justice, Propaganda, Psychology, Revolution, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings, Slashing Bureaucracy, Slavery, Socialism, State Rape, Tax, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, Vested Interests, Vote Wikiriwhi!

Enslaved by your own Gullible Stupidity! Taxation and Tyranny.

1 Comment

tax

Think seriously about this people..
By what right does the government demand to you declare every cent you earn?
Think about how arrogant and oppressive such a demand is!
Tell me please that under such demands that you/we are not *being treated like Cattle…like slaves* of the State!
Are you are so stupid….so conditioned as to think you are free, and that the Status quo is as good as a society as is possible?!!!
You are Slaves indeed!
What a joke it is that you consider State control of Education to be beneficial to society!

Satan Laughing spreads his wings.

Read about an alternative… Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013