22 Burst results for "Ayn Rand"
Real Estate Coaching Radio
A highlight from Finally End Phone Fear Forever! (Part 2)
"Welcome to Real Estate Coaching Radio, starring award -winning real estate coaches and number one international bestselling authors, Tim and Julie Harris. This is the number one daily radio show for realtors looking for a no BS, authentic, real time coaching experience. What's really working in today's market, how to generate more leads, make more money, and have more time for what you love in your life. And now your hosts, Tim and Julie Harris. We are back and Julie, I have to say the feedback we've gotten on this topic was, is fantastic. Yes. It seems that we might be onto something. For those of you who are willing to accept the fact that you might be a little reluctant to have actual conversations with people and maybe just maybe that reluctance is leading you to have results that you're not that proud of. Well, guess what? Continue listening because you're going to love part two. We're going to start digging into the specifics of not just the psychology of call reluctance, but also really I think what we could argue would be the very practical application of picking up the phone and having meaningful conversations. And this is part two. If you did not listen to part one, please go back and listen to part one now because I think it will make all these extra points that we'll be sharing with you guys today even more useful to all of you. And as always, thank you for listening to our podcast. Thank you for keeping this number on listen to daily podcast for real estate professionals in the United States. Our way of thanking you every single day is giving you the notes from today's show. The notes from today's show are down below. If you just if you're on YouTube or if you're on iTunes or Stitcher or Spotify or all the billions of places this podcast is listened to, open up the description and you'll see all of our notes there. And while you're there, also, you're going to see some links specifically. Look for the link to join Premier Coaching. It's the next natural step for all of you. You love this podcast. This is the part. You know, this is from all measures that number one listen to daily podcast real estate professionals at least the United States. If you love the podcast, which we know you do, because many of you listen every day, you will not believe the value you get in Premier Coaching. So scroll down below. Click the link to join Premier Coaching. Julie, let's roll in and talk about point number one. Yes, that's right. So again, this is part two yesterday. We got your head straight. So if you missed part one, then you know, you know what to do. So assuming that your mindset is adjusted for success, let's get to the real work of real estate, the work that leads to appointments to contracts and to closings. Point number one, this is the real work time guys, make a minimum number of contacts daily. Remember that a contact is a conversation with a decision making adult about real estate. That number of contacts should equal the number of transactions you need to do this year to meet or exceed your financial goals. For example, if you need 12 deals, you must make at least 12 contacts daily. As your skills increase, that number typically shrinks. Agents with prospecting skills who have overcome their call reluctance can usually set one appointment for about every 10 contacts or so, assuming that they're making contacts with the likely to most likely to list prospects and not just doing something like circle prospecting. Now what Julie just said, I hope you guys are breaking down what she's saying. So the first thing is, if you're a real estate treasure map, you're filling a blank business plan which you get as the first level of premier coaching, once you complete that, if you determine that you need Julie's example, 12 deals in order to, you know, earn enough money to have all your financial needs once and desires fulfilled, well, then you're going to have to make that number of contacts a day. Contact is a conversation with the decision making adult where you're, you know, essentially answering their question, maybe following up to answer a question, maybe you're just having a conversation over at Orange Theory, but you're going to ask for business. Now as you become more professional and prolific, what you're going to realize is the conversations are going to have to start focusing more on actual people who actually have their hands up in their air who are actually looking to transact. Now here's the magic of all this. When you're getting started, it's what Julie said, the number of contacts equals the number of transactions you want to do, but as you start becoming a listing agent, then the number of contacts you make per day, you can adjust that to be the number of listings you need at all times as far as whatever your, again, it's all part of the real estate treasure map which you get as a part of the first level in Premier Coaching, but one of the outputs of that or one of the results of completing it is you're going to know what your number of listings you need at all times, not just transactions but the number of listings because we want to gear you guys towards being listing agents. So let's say in your marketplace, if you had five listings at all times, you know pretty much like clockwork, three of them would be in contract at once, maybe only two let's say. Well, your average commission is $10 ,000, you're making $240 ,000 a year if you have five listings at all times. So you're going to start out by making more contacts, but once you build up to your magic number of listings, then what you're going to do is the number of contacts you're going to make per day has to be at least the number of listings you need at all times to immediately exceed your goals. We take a very numerical, drilled down, common sense, practical, no BS approach to all the coaching that we provide for you guys, so hopefully this will, frankly, make things a lot more clear and easy to understand and mostly apply in your business. That's right. It actually makes it far more predictable than most of you think, right? You actually can apply numbers and make that work. But isn't ultimately what we're working on here with these guys is that they don't have to wait around for the business to come to them and I'm reading your future points. They can actually go to where the business is. Like some of you have this, really it's bad information and really bad training around the idea that you're supposed to do marketing, branding, passive email marketing, passive SMS, all this other stuff, waiting for people to call you. You consider a win when you create a lead. That is not a win. Leads have no value. Pre -qualified motivated leads have value. Stop giving yourself a win in your head psychologically when it all is just a stinking lead. That is the biggest mistake and it's frankly bad training the agents have been taught and it's not just the last 10 years, it's really the last 30. You created a contact. You didn't create a lead. Yeah. Who cares? You're building your phone book. I mean, well, a lot of these guys don't know what phone books are, but I mean... Your contact database, your CRM, you're collecting names and numbers of people. That does not necessarily mean they're going to transact with you. We said this yesterday and we say it a lot and it is true and again, it's worth repeating because it's such, I think, different information for all of you. Your goal is not to have a ton of leads. That is an enormous mistake. Your goal is to have a handful of leads. Then those leads are all pre -qualified and primarily listing leads and they're ready to list their homes. Maybe the contracts are signed. Maybe they're going to sign the contract in the next 60 days. The point is, is your goal is not to have 20, 30, 40, 50 ,000 leads. Your goal is to have a few leads, mostly even our top producing agents, less than like 15. And when Julie and I are having a lead coaching call and we ask about their leads, if they're giving us a long list of leads or they're saying, well, you know, screenshotting their database with the number of like 42 million, with the number of leads they're dripping on, no, that person is not doing their job. Well, they didn't actually understand the question if they're doing that. Right. You don't know what a lead is. A lead is a pre -qualified, ideally using our scripts, buyer or seller, ideally a seller, who you know what their motivation, you know what their timeframe is, you know what their half to sell is, you know everything about them. That's a lead. Also, they know who you are. And there are tons and tons, millions and millions of people out there that are actually able to be called pre -qualified at that level to list their homes sometime in the next 12 months or less, ideally 90 days or less. You just have to be willing to have the real conversations. Stop burying your head in the sand thinking that a massive number of leads is somehow going to cure your lack of actual skill and your unwillingness to have these actual conversations. It is critically important that you move past the belief that this is a, you know, sort of mass numbers game. It is, of course, a contact sport. That's what real estate and mall sales is. But it's a contact sport that results in you having a pre -qualified lead. Be very clear about that. Which means you have to get over your call reluctance. And point number two, in part two, is to focus on the person you're speaking to more than you're focused on your thoughts and feelings about being on the phone. You're calling to be of service. Maya Angelou famously stated, they'll forget what you said, but remember how you made them feel. So be fascinated by them. Remove the words I, me, my, and mine as much as possible to avoid making it all about you. Ask more questions and make fewer statements. Resist interrupting and sounding anxious to get to the next question. I had someone message us on Instagram that basically said that we're in conflict when we say, because we do say both things. Our highest and truest purpose in this planet is to be of service to others, and at the same time, we will occasionally say the other truth, which is everyone's primary motivation is themselves. Everybody is mostly focused on themselves. Both of those things are true, and here's how they're both true. Because I do accept the fact that everyone, if you're focused on, and everyone is naturally this way. What's in it for me? How does this make me feel? You can't really move past that, and to think or to try to guilt people and to not, it's the Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged kind of thing, right? But to have people believe that their highest and truest purpose is not primarily the betterment of themselves is complete out of alignment with how, frankly, humans are actually wired. But have you to accept the fact that the way you better yourself is by being of service to others, and then those two motivations are in alignment. You guys get it? So if your highest and truest purpose is to take care of yourself, to make your life better, to take care of your family, really, that is where your primary focus always is, whether you go down and admit it or not. Okay, that is not in conflict with what society wants you to do, which is to be of service to other people, because by being of service to other people, you actually are improving your own lot in life. You're becoming the best version of you as a real estate professional, and a real estate professional is here to be of service to other people. Hopefully you guys now understand that, that our philosophies are in perfect alignment with how a lot of you guys already naturally think. That's right. So it comes down to reminding yourself, when you're over your call reluctance and you're on a real conversation with a real person, pay attention to what they're saying. Don't just ask the script questions, listen to their answers. So Julie also said something in that, and I want you guys to think about this. She said, without using these words, she said, remove personal pronouns when you're talking to people. Why? Everyone's favorite topic is themselves, remember what I just said. Everyone wants to talk about themselves. Everyone wants to have other people show interest in them.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Back into it and I found myself writing notes about this talking about how oh the thug is selfish and then I'm like, ah crap, I can't use that word while I'm trying to explain the contradiction in the very use of that terminology as a negative thing. But it's incredible like the power of language and the means of association, the association that you have for certain words or certain ideas in your brain. You can't just cut it off, right? So I think it's going to be really fun to go through all of this stuff and I'm very interested to see where you guys disagree or what your pushback on it is. And as always, I am open to suggestions for reading material. And I think this is something that I want to expand on quite a bit. I mean, outside of the fact that we're going to read this series slowly over time, and also thank you to coincide in space bowl for the, for reminding me this are just kind of like putting this on the table because I started going back through this. And I was like, man, this would be really fun to get into. And I haven't done Atlas shrugged stuff. Like I did the what is money speech or no? Is that what it is? I don't know. I'll link to it. It's really old now. In the show, but it's from the first part of Atlas shrugged. And it's a Francisco Dan cognac in a scene which works amazingly in the book, but is would be a terrible thing to put on film or very difficult to put on film. And the Atlas rug movies tried to do it. And it's just, there's a lot of impossible monologue that happens in the book that would never actually be viable in a real life setting. But it really drives the point home in the book and I always, I've thought a lot about how to make a movie out of Atlas shrugged and you'd have to, man, you'd have to make a lot of changes because of those things. But I still hope that a either somebody does it really well or B I get to a point where I'm able to do it because it's such a cool story and there's so many fun mysteries and elements to it. If you have not read Atlas shrug, I'll tell you, I don't know why today this is the case because and maybe it's just because I didn't I couldn't identify with the characters at first. There's very subtle development in the characters. So like for some reason like the first hundred pages, I think it was of Atlas shrugged the very first time I read it. I was having a really hard time getting into it and then somewhere at just some point it kind of grabbed me and I started to kind of go down the rabbit hole. And then I absolutely loved the whole thing like and it was phenomenal and I love the breakdown and how you see kind of the fact that these people's philosophy is what's driving the courses, the course of events, like the ethics is almost like a character in and of itself, or maybe better thought of as like a driving force behind certain characters in their motivations, but it's just a really good book.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Current state of the world is such a great example of where things were going in her book because she led she lived through the fall of the Soviet Union. And so she saw these things and this was her seeing this philosophy, this ideology put people at odds to set people against each other in the name of goodness. And then the slow decline where everyone absolved themselves of any responsibility. Everyone absolved themselves of merit because they sought to be the bigger victim. And then increasingly, everything becomes more and more centralized because no one wants to be the decision maker. And everyone just waits for orders from someone else, and then the entire thing collapses in on itself because it can't function without thinking rational productive individuals and entrepreneurs who are pushing it forward who are innovating and attempting to attempting to live according to their own values and accomplish something meaningful in the world. And I want to kind of expand on a lot of the points that she makes because I think the verbiage. I mean, she talks about it at the very beginning of this is that the reason she uses the term selfishness is because of the bastardization of what it actually means and what it should mean by the ideology by the philosophy of the world today of the culture today. And it's funny, like I said in the intro, is that people literally use that as a, as basically a way to argue against Ayn Rand in this vapid shallow way that she's literally holding up Gordon gekko as on like a pedestal where I can't tell you how many times that has been equated is that because she's defending huge corporate greed and all of this stuff because of the use of the word selfishness, which is comical because that is exactly how she opens it, saying that the people who refuse to understand or even think will say that, essentially, and all it does is actually reveal their philosophical insanity that they believe what is good for the individual is to sacrifice other people. Is to destroy other people's lives to be a robber to be a looter to be a thug, that that is actually their internal value is to destroy other people for their own good. It does not reveal anything negative about Ayn Rand's philosophy, it reveals that their internal philosophy is evil. Is that men are horrible things that must renounce their horrid, their horrid life, and existence as this thing of evil that needs to be shuttered that needs to be caged and controlled by the value of having only living for other people. An Ayn Rand rightfully calls that out as irrational and insane. But I don't want to go into it too much because it will probably be a really long guys take. And I think it very closely aligns, I think this is the idea of rediscovering values and ethics and having this conversation. I think is really both fascinating. And critically important because Bitcoin instills a concept of ethics in the recognition of the individual as the rightful owner. With keys as the ultimate arbiter of who owns what in what reality is and has an independent mechanism like proof of work as a irreversible assurance of the passing of time and of essentially an indestructible property right. And this is literally this is the cypherpunk ideal, whether or not anyone recognizes it as the objective is ethics or they complain or dislike the terminology because they already have these associations of selfishness as a negative thing. It's very easy to use.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Separate issues. To hold one's own life as one's ultimate value and one's own happiness as one's highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one's life. Psychologically, its result reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one's life in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself, the kind that makes one think, this is worth living for. What one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself. But the relationship of calls and effect can not be reversed. It is only by accepting man's life as one's primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness, not by taking happiness as some undefined irreducible primary, and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy. But that which makes you happy by some undefined emotional standard is not necessarily the good. To take whatever makes one happy as a guide to action means to be guided by nothing but one's emotional wins. Emotions are not tools of cognition to be guided by whims by desires who source nature and meaning one does not know, is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons by one's stale evasions, a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality, which it refuses to see. This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism. In any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. Quote happiness can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values, and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare as the ethical hedonist do that the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure. Is to declare that the proper value is whatever you happen to value, which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild. The philosophers who attempted to devise an allegedly rational code of ethics gave mankind nothing but a choice of whims. The selfish pursuit of one's own wins, such as the ethics of Nietzsche, or selfless service to the whims of others. Such as the ethics of bentham, mill, comte, and of all social hedonists, whether they allowed man to include his own whims among the millions of others, or advised him to turn himself in a totally selfless schmooze that seeks to be eaten by others.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Any criminal or any dictatorship. Man can not survive like an animal by acting on the range of the moment. An animal's life consists of a series of separate cycles repeated over and over again, such as the cycle of breeding its young, or of storing food for the winter, an animal's consciousness can not integrate its entire lifespan. It can carry just so far, then the animal has to begin the cycle all over again, with no connection to the past. Man's life is a continuous whole for good or evil every day, year and decade of his life holds the sum of all the days behind him. He can alter his choices. He is free to change the direction of his course, he is even free in many cases to atone for the consequences of his past. But he is not free to escape them, nor to live his life with impunity on the range of the moment, like an animal, a Playboy, or a thug. If he is to succeed at the task of survival, if his actions are not to be aimed at his own destruction, man has to choose his course, his goals, his values in the context and terms of a lifetime. No sensations, percepts, urges, or instincts can do it. Only a mind can. Such is the meaning of the definition. That which is required for man's survival, qua man. It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It doesn't mean the momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles, who is willing to accept any terms obey any thug and surrender any values for the sake of what is known as survival at any price, which may or may not last a week or a year. Man's survival qua man means the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan. In all those aspects of existence, which are open to his choice. Man can not survive as anything but man. He can abandon his means of survival, his mind, he can turn himself into a subhuman creature, and he can turn his life into a brief span of agony, just as his body can exist for a while in the process of disintegration by disease. But he can not succeed as a subhuman, in achieving anything, but the subhuman, as the ugly horror of the anti rational periods of mankind's history can demonstrate. Man has to be man by choice, and it is the task of ethics to teach him how to live like man. The objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value, and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man. The difference between standard and purpose in this context is as follows. A standard is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete specific purpose. That which is required for the survival of man qua man is an abstract principle that applies to every individual. The task of applying this principle to a concrete specific purpose, the purpose of living a proper life to a rational being, belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own. Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man, in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value. That end in itself, which is his own life. Value is that which one acts to gain and or to keep.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Yet his life depends on such knowledge, and only a volitional act of his consciousness, a process of thought can provide it. But man's responsibility goes still further. A process of thought is not automatic, nor instinctive, nor involuntary, nor infallible. Man has to initiate it to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false and how to correct his own errors. He has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions. His knowledge. He has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic to direct his thinking. Nature gives him no automatic guarantee of the efficacy of his mental effort. Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine, his consciousness. But it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug. The self starter and the driver. He has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire into the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned. Discovered and produced by him by his own choice by his own effort by his own mind. A being who does not know automatically what is true or false can not know automatically what is right or wrong. What is good for him or evil? Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality. He is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Simpler organisms such as plants can survive by means of their automatic physical functions. The higher organisms such as animals and man can not. Their needs are more complex and the range of their actions is wider. The physical functions of their bodies can perform automatically only the task of using fuel, but can not obtain that fuel. To obtain it, the higher organisms need the faculty of consciousness. A plant can obtain its food from the soil in which it grows, an animal has to hunt for it. Man has to produce it. A plant has no choice of action. The goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight, are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. There are alternatives in the conditions it encounters in its physical background, such as heat or frost, drought or flood, and there are certain actions which it is able to perform to combat adverse conditions, such as the ability of some plants to grow and crawl from under a rock to reach the sunlight. But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function, it acts automatically to further its life. It can not act for its own destruction. The range of actions required for the survival of the higher organisms is wider. It is proportionate to the range of their consciousness. The lower of the conscious species possess only the faculty of sensation, which is sufficient to direct their actions and provide for their needs. A sensation is produced by the automatic reaction of a sense organ to a stimulus from the outside world. It lasts for the duration of the immediate moment, as long as the stimulus lasts and no longer. Sensations are in automatic response and automatic form of knowledge, which a consciousness can neither seek nor evade. An organism that possesses only the faculty of sensation is guided by the pleasure pain mechanisms of its body. That is, by an automatic knowledge and an automatic code of values. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. Within the range of action possible to it, it acts automatically to further its life and can not act for its own destruction. The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness. They possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception. A perception is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities of things. An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by precepts. Its actions are not single discrete responses to single separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present, and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further. It is able to learn certain skills to deal with specific situations, such as hunting or hiding, which the parents of the higher animals teach their young. But an animal has no choice in the knowledge and the skills that it acquires. It can only repeat them generation after generation, and an animal has no choice in the standard of value directing its actions. Its senses provide it with an automatic code of values, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. What benefits or endangers its life. An animal has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. For situations in which its knowledge is inadequate, it perishes. As for instance, an animal that stands paralyzed on the track of a railroad in the path of a speeding train.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Faith, instinct, intuition, revelation, feeling, taste, urge, wish, whim. Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim. They call it arbitrary postulate, or subjective choice, or emotional commitment, and the battle is only ever over the question of whose whim. One's own or societies or the dictators or gods. Whatever else they may disagree about, today's moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are reason, mind, and reality. If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason. If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics and of all ethical history that you must challenge. To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking, what are values? Why does man need them? Value is that which one acts to gain and or keep. The concept value is not a primary. It presupposes an answer to the question, a value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible. I quote from galt's speech. There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe, existence, or nonexistence, and it pertains to a single class of entities to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional. The existence of life is not. It depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible. It changes its forms, but it can not cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative. The issue of life or death.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Or is it based on a metaphysical fact on an unalterable condition of man's existence? I use the word metaphysical to mean that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence. Does an arbitrary human convention a mere custom decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles, or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims of personal emotions, social edicts, and mystic revelations, or is it the province of reason? Is epic's a subjective luxury or an objective necessity? In the sorry record of the history of mankind's ethics, with a few rare and unsuccessful exceptions, moralists have regarded ethics as the province of winds. That is of the irrational. Some of them did so explicitly by intention, others implicitly by default. A whim is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its calls. No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational scientific objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science. He based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise. Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical calls or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and allegedly to define a rational, scientific, non religious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"To a demonstrable principle can validate one's choices. Just as man can not survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires. So man's self interest can not be determined by blind desires or random wins, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self interest or of rational selfishness. Since selfishness is concerned with one's own interests, the objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sins. It is not a concept that one can surrender to man's enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices, and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on selfishness is an attack on man's self esteem to surrender one is to surrender the other. Now a word about the material in this book with the exception of the lecture on ethics, it is a collection of essays that have appeared in the objectivist newsletter, a monthly journal of ideas, edited and published by Nathaniel Brandon and myself. The newsletter deals with the application of the philosophy of objectivism to the issues and problems of today's culture. More specifically, with that intermediary level of intellectual concern, which lies between philosophical abstractions and the journalistic concretes of day by day existence. Its purpose is to provide its readers with a consistent philosophical frame of reference. This collection is not a systematic discussion of ethics, but a series of essays on those ethical subjects which needed clarification in today's context or which had been most confused by altruism influence. You may observe that the titles of some of the essays are in the form of a question. These come from our intellectual ammunition department that answers questions sent in by our readers. Ayn Rand. New York, September 1964. Part one. The objectivist ethics by Ayn Rand.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"Nothing could ever justify such a breach and no one ever has. The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary. It has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system. The objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action, and that man must act for his own rational, self interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man, and from the function of moral codes in human life, and therefore is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles, which define and determine his actual self interest. It is not a license to do as he pleases, and it is not applicable to the altruist image of a selfish brute, nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes, or wins. This is said as a warning against the kind of nietzschean egoists who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality, in represent the other side of the altruist coin. The men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one's own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one's own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims. See mister brayden's articles counterfeit individualism, and isn't everyone's selfish, which follow. A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One's own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one's actions.
Bitcoin Audible
"ayn rand" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible
"He can only lose, self inflicted loss, self inflicted pain, and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty, is all that he can expect. He may hope that others might occasionally sacrifice themselves for his benefit, as he grudgingly sacrifices himself for theirs. But he knows that the relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure, and that morally their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted, unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy for himself. Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act of self sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance. Morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of his life. It is only his own personal private, selfish life, and as such, it is regarded either as evil or at best, amoral. Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's own interests is evil, means that man's desire to live is evil. That man's life as such is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that. Yet, that is the meaning of altruism. Implicit in such examples as the equating of an industrialist with a robber. There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interests. Not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value. Not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a sub human level. See the objectivist ethics. If it is true that what I mean by selfishness is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism. It means that altruism permits no concept of a self respecting, self supporting man, a man who supports his life by his own effort, and neither sacrifices himself, nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers on sacrifice as victims and parasites that it permits no concept of a benevolent coexistence among men. That it permits no concept of justice. If you wonder about the reasons behind the ugly mixture of cynicism and guilt in which most men spend their lives, these are the reasons, cynicism, because they neither practice nor accept the altruist morality. Guilt because they dare not reject it. To rebel against so devastating and evil, one has to rebel against its basic premise. To redeem the both man and morality, it is the concept of selfishness that one has to redeem. The first step is to assert man's right to a moral existence. That is to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life. For a brief outline of the nature and the validation of a rational morality, see my lecture on the objectivist ethics, which follows. The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man's proper values and interests that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions. Since all values have to be gained and or kept by men's actions. Any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice. The sacrifice of some men to others of the actors to the non actors of the moral to the immoral.
Simply Bitcoin
"ayn rand" Discussed on Simply Bitcoin
"You don't even know what is what and this is basically the shitcoin world. They always pivot to a new narrative because they have no narrative and they know that they are just trying to scam you out of your Bitcoin. Anyways, this next meme is by abili to Panama and he goes. Ayn Rand on the perils of ignoring Bitcoin and I love this quote I've heard dean basically say the same thing. And the Bitcoin standard in regards to Austrian economics and holding the hardest money and here's a quote by Ayn Rand and goes, we can ignore reality, but we can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. And I think this is where we are in the world. We've been ignoring reality for far too long as I've been saying for a while. We're like, you know, wile E coyote off the cliff and we are finally looking at our feet and realizing we are off the cliff and this is why we're seeing so much turmoil in the world right now because people are waking up to reality and you can't isolate yourself from the consequences of hard money. You need to hold the best money in this world and that is Bitcoin. And again, on that same vein, shouts out to meeting Bitcoin. He goes, open the gate to a better world, and I'm pretty sure this is another AIR, and we got the Gates of heaven and behind it. It is Bitcoin. And this is what the message I like to push all the time because it's literally changed my life. You don't change Bitcoin, Bitcoin changes you, and I am fundamentally convinced that if more people hold Bitcoin, even if it's a small minuscule amount of their life savings of their personal wealth, it will improve their life. It will hold value over the long term Bitcoin has proven itself to be the best store of value in the last 15 years and it will continue to prove itself to be the best way to store your money in the digital world as well as the best way to transact on the Internet. It is the best money in the world, period and this is the way boys and girls. Huddled in bitcoins continue to spread the signal continue to live a good life and more people will want a Bitcoin as well. Again, as I said yesterday, let's make Bitcoin cool. Little good life, living a good life is cool. Everyone wants to do this. Okay, anyways, drop your meme review score in the chat, and we will cover it live. Mine, I don't know if I've done this one. I'm running out of things over here, even though my desk is very cluttered, but I got this used deodorant old spice. I know I'm gonna get a rest. Now I'm gonna get roasted because there's probably chemicals in it or aluminum or whatever, so. You know, let me know what the best deodorant out there. You're gonna see someone in the chat. No deodorant. Exactly. Did natural pheromone, nachos? I'm gonna give you this double sided tape. Double sided tape. Woody is in that floor. For my sound panels, but they continue to fall, so it's very bad double salad. So I've moved on to Velcro, but it looks like Velcro filled me as well. So I don't know, I don't know what next. If you guys have recommendations on how Nico could hang his sound, what are they called sound? Soundproofing. Soundproofing boards? Please let me know in the comments section. I'm guessing it's foam. Yeah, yeah, but it's like nice, it's like wrapped up and stuff. Okay, so anyways, if you guys have any recommendations, Velcro didn't work and double sided tape too much. Yeah, but then it's gonna make it look good.
The Manic Pixie Weirdo
"ayn rand" Discussed on The Manic Pixie Weirdo
"It out, you guys. And thank you so much to nusli for sponsoring this episode. Okay, I got it here. So they are, I guess, a briefly explaining some of them. There's the Ayn Rand objectivist, a little bit of. And they based most of their works and things on the Russian philosopher Ayn Rand. And her books Atlas shrugged and the fountainhead.
TuneInPOC
"ayn rand" Discussed on TuneInPOC
"So I did. I went with the dolphins. Exactly what I expected. You know, we get out there and they put you in a little small groups, you know, and they were three other girls and you know, you get to play with them and do those tricks and stuff and then they have a photo op, but they take your picture and they taught the dolphin different poses like the hug you or you know the dolphin a kiss you or the dolphin lets you kiss them and you know I had a racist dolphin. I did the racist ass dogs. I was in the group with three other white girls and you should see their pigs. They were cute. You should see my fucked up picture. Dolphins hugging me like this. I'm like, fuck you, dolphin, you bottle those bastards with this shit. Four years get caught in a tuna net. Fuck you. Racist ass dolphins. In the girl hating nerve to ask me, so would you like this in a key chain? Why? Why would this fuck the picture on the keychain? And I know you taught him this shit. Why don't you just put a little hood on him next time? Why don't you do that? I was jerking off this morning. Ma'am, you're not going to want to miss this. I don't know, where are you going? I'm taking a very inopportune time to leave. The crazy thing is she's psychic and can see into the future, but only by 5 seconds. She's like, I know what's coming up. I'm out here. I was joking off this morning. To the Statue of Liberty. Because I love America. I love America so much, y'all. Oh my gosh. And whenever I think of the Statue of Liberty, you know, I get a heart on and I got a rubble out. As a way to show my patriotism, you know? Or patriotism, right? No. No, no, no. No. No. Absolutely not. No, that does not lead this room. I never fucking said it. And I will deny it. It didn't happen. No, but I was thinking about the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty. And, you know, which reads, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse from your teeming shore, send these the homeless tempest cost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. And you know, I was thinking like, what a truly beautiful selfless humane optimistic ideal to have. And one that's quite literally the opposite of what Republicans believe. It's going to be awkward, certainly when the Republican nominee and don't tell me who it is. I have not been paying attention. So I'm going to check it out later. Is it Rubio? Don't tell me, don't tell me. Don't tell me. Don't tell me. Oh boy. No, it is. I just don't. Yeah, no. I know what his name is. All right, we'll get to that in a minute. But it's going to be awkward when Trump has to take that photo op in front of the statute of liberty. They all have to do it. They have to stand there and slums up and all that stuff. And I mean, it's awkward. And I do feel some empathy for him. And I know it's kind of weird or unfair to feel empathy for a person who that's literally the one trait they lack. But. And let's be honest. I mean, empathy is what is dragging America down. It really is. It makes America weak. When we care about those less fortunate than ourselves, it just weakens us as a country. It drains us of our resources and it's not fair to rich people. And it's a sign of weakness. It really is. Ask any Republican. Ask guy rant. Ask Ayn Rand. So she'll tell you. I believe you can still find her ghost haunting the same public housing she died in well on social
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Entrepreneurship Is About Identifying a Need
"What is it that entrepreneurs actually do? What is it that makes entrepreneurs different from other types of people? One of the classic works on this subject, and it's kind of rare because if you go to Adam Smith, if you go to Ayn Rand, you see a defense of capitalism, a defense of entrepreneurship, but not an actual description of the lineation about the uniqueness of the entrepreneur. Now, Joseph schumpeter in his book, the entrepreneur does do this. This is why, to me, this is a very important book. And I tested by measuring it against my own kind of entrepreneurial ventures. I remember, for example, when I first concocted the idea of doing this movie on Obama, I met a guy who wrote me a check for a $100,000, but I told him it's gonna take two or two and a half $1 million to make the film and he's like, well, he was a $100,000. Go find 19 other guys to give you the same. I was like, wow. Of course I had no experience in filmmaking. I was known as a writer, a think tank guy. And so I'd go to potential investors who did have the money, but they would look at me as if what? What are you talking about? A movie? What good is that gonna do? How are you gonna get that? How are you gonna even make it? And so this is something that Trump made her talks about. He basically says that the entrepreneur comes up with an idea. And we often think that the entrepreneur needs to have a new invention, a kind of, no, yes, there are entrepreneurs who come up with new inventions and then figure out how to get them out. But ordinary entrepreneurship is you just identify a need. And the need could be very small. It could involve nothing new. It's just what schumpeter calls a new combination. And so for example, the suitcase has been around for a long time. And the wheel has been around for a long time, but roll on luggage hasn't been around for a long time. So an entrepreneur may go, listen, what if I took the wheel? What if I took the suitcase? I stuck the wheels on the suitcase, suddenly it's much easier to get around with your luggage. So something so simple and innovation not an
Science Salon
"ayn rand" Discussed on Science Salon
"Abide by a decision of the supreme. Court is absolutely right. Sometimes you've got it. I mean the java government only job governors to protect individual rights and if a state violates the rights in egregious ways than yes the federal government needs to enter the picture and enforce those rights enforce the protection of those rights. And i. i assume you agree that. The revolutionary war was adjust war and probably world war because of the rise of fascism hitler and mussolini and in japanese and so on but then okay yep so from there just will set up a system like this than we. Couldn't you make the same argument for the korean war. And the vietnam war. These are absolutely necessary. The domino theory if we don't stop him at this small country they're going to topple over like dominoes and pretty. Soon the entire world except for us will be communist. And that's a just war. They say i mean no. I don't i don't justify any will to. I would only justified because we were attacked. And ultimately germany declared war. Now say i'm sympathetic to those. Who didn't want to enter the war until it was inevitable until we literally. We were attacked. Boho no korean war was unnecessary. It's none of our business. If korea wants to is going to become communist if the communist overrun it's not a business to be the policemen or the arbiter of what is freedom around the world. We should be a shining city on a hill in a sense of what freedom is can be and let people choose to mimic us. Not and if they don't tough you know it's it's it's tough for them more than it is us and i had the perspective and i think i think this is the right perspective. That authoritarianism ultimately is abusing strategy. It leads to poverty and at least the self-destruction and she net. She always thought that while soviet union was clearly an evil empire it was never really a threat to the united states because it was not an ideology was suicidal and it was an and they would be destroyed if a potentially win the war with us and second they went add. Y'all that had to fail. Because they went against the very nature of reality the very nature of man and the very nature of reality and indeed ultimately they did fail they collapsed a basically the only no show reap probably helped them survive longer than they should have through taunton feeding them and giving them food so no. You don't have to go to war with every dictator in the world. Dictatorship doesn't spread like a virus dictatorship usually collapses on itself without external support and and without the sanction of a country like the united states. I mean all. We'd have to see dictatorship decline in the world is say we think dictatorships evoke. We don't want to deal with you. But we're i'm going to. We're not gonna invade. You would just not going to deal with you. But then we have to be consistent then. We have to tweet dictatorship in saudi arabia. Just like we treat a communist dictatorship Just like we treat others and we don't. We don't have a foreign policy. It's it's it's completely win. Based it there's no reason there's no logic there's no rationality to the various theories that advocated today in terms of foreign policy..
Science Salon
"ayn rand" Discussed on Science Salon
"That would be horrible and i. It would boycott the restaurant. And i wouldn't wanna participate and went to bed. People have a right to be rational. Otherwise rights don't mean anything. I just like when you you know you have the right to fee speech and yet a lot of the things that people say we don't like i find a lot of stuff that people say offensive that doesn't allow me to silence them. And any you know a lot of business owners do things i don't like in. And maybe they discriminate in ways. I don't like but that doesn't clued them from doing. It shouldn't preclude him from doing it. And it doesn't preclude me from saying i'm boycotting you. I'm not. I'm and i'm gonna put a big sign in front of your thing and i'm going to. I'm going to demonstrate. Oh i'm going to do something to let the world know that you're wotton human being you know so so again. Collective action can be done this kind of idea that we can. We can together change something. It can be done without government using using a gun it can be done through voluntary means and i think the more we will end government the dumber. We get the lisp Personal responsibility. We have the more. We just assigned stuff to the governor. Forget about it and don't take up causes for ourselves and fight for the things we believe in. So you know i i think government has the opposite impact. I think the rise will recently of racism. Both on the left on the right is to some extent kind of a a counter two years of perceived racism with -firmative action on the one side and And on the other side you know the fact that this inequality is perceived as by definition caused by racism without even considering the real causes all the possible causes of inequality. Do you think slavery would've ended eventually on its own does fallen into disuse for economic reasons or sometimes we need a war. We need the government to come in here. Your example. sometimes. We need military You know they had to just go in. And say or indicates of i think it was Was at eisenhower. Sent the troops into desegregate schools because the alabama governor said. We're not desegregating. The schools segregate. What was it segregation now segregation tomorrow's segregation forever and so sometimes the government has to come in and say we're gonna stop what you're doing because this is wrong. So here's some of my free market fans won't like my answer but the answer is absolutely sometimes you need to go to war and the civil war was just war. It was a war to protect the individual rights of americans Black slaves americans and the right to deserve to be protected and the fact that southern states did not protect. Those rights was a ba- abomination of violation of the at least the declaration of independence. And i think the spirit of the constitution and lincoln was absolutely right and one one should have gone to war to end that. And i think eisenhower sending in the troops when states refuse to protect the rights of black americans is apps over fused..
Science Salon
"ayn rand" Discussed on Science Salon
"Agree. Completely now. pay pal was capitalism's he can't be grudging all his wealth. But certainly tesla completely crony tests led loses money every every quarter if you take out the credits the carbon credits they get from the government And yes you drive a subsidized cau- and and for that matter you drive a cold car because the the the only way to get the 'electricity into your cause by burning coal burning natural gas of burning fossil fuels so you're still burning fossil electronic 'electricity ferry. It's right there in my wall. Just blanket in fear it's free. That's the way people think about it. It's very bizarre. So yeah i mean. We live in a mixed economy. We live with entrepreneurs who at least some of their wealth derived thumb association with government. But to some extent. You have to ask yourself. What's the option in the world in which we live in today where the government has its hands in everything it regulates everything it has. Its hands in all of our pockets. It's very hard to survive as a as somebody who does business without having some kind of dealings with the government whether you like it or not so the counters that without a regulatory state then people will Cheat the system or they'll build subpar Housing structures that fall apart if somebody doesn't inspect them and lean on them to do the right thing so the in if they break the law we punish them or buying them and and so on in or restaurants or stores will discriminate against people of color. Which has happened in the past. And you know. That's the government's job you get in there and say you know as a constitutional right to not be discriminated against in you know had a you know the the second round of civil rights activism followed by state enforcement of those. We'd still be here with jim. Crow laws sure. But i think the key to jim crow laws and into red redlining into most of the kind of systematic racism that existed pre civil rights. Was that the government was involved. I mean it was. The government dropped the lines. It was the government did subsidize some mortgages but wouldn't subsidize the mortgages because of racial preferences and banks and others followed and i think that's true in the celtics. Well now. there was a lot of races. I'm not saying there wasn't racism. Independent of the government. They was but the solution to racism is not violate people's right. I absolutely have a right to discriminate against people even irrationally stupidly immorally in my business businesses. Mind that's the. That's the point of bumpy so think government intervention. There is wrong. It shouldn't be telling us that we can't discuss discrimination in the workplace. Can discriminate in a restaurant any more than it should should be able to tell us that. We can't discriminate home. Clearly we can. Clearly we do discriminate based on. I don't if i communist in my house. i don't even fascist to my house. Maybe they're afraid to tell you tell they should be afraid to tell your instead of the restaurant only serving whites. Let's say it's it's a restaurant today. Serving non tran if you're trans. You can't come in here. And of course people would lose their minds and the government would step in..
WSJ Tech News Briefing
Fed Up With Facebook and Twitter, Some Conservatives Turn to Parler
"In recent months. In years we've seen mainstream social media. Companies like facebook and twitter. Step up their efforts to moderate content on their platforms in some prominent conservatives have said many of those measures unfairly target them and censor their viewpoints on the internet. They've increasingly responded by telling their followers to join them. On another social media platform it's called parlor and its billing itself. As a sort of libertarian. Alternative to twitter or puerto jeff horwitz has been looking into parlor and he joins me now to talk more about it. Jeff things being here certainly alright so for the folks who have been leaving book twitter. Can you just remind us what are their concerns with those platforms. Don't like content moderation very much or at least the way that the platforms are doing it. We should say and this kind of all boiled over the with the election the idea that the platforms would be one fact checking claims about voter fraud. That didn't really pan out but it'd be fact checking them at all and to be labeling the president's own speech and in some cases even restricting the spread of it really got people riled up and so many of them have been turning to parlor instead. It's sort of billing itself as this libertarian version of twitter but what exactly does parlor differently. That sort of appeals to these groups so the first thing it does is it does not moderate content except in very rare circumstances. The team does volunteers right now. So you know whether it even does it under. Those circumstances is kind of tb. Rules are no threatening to kill people and no committing illegal acts by means of the platform. Those two things are out aside from that. You wanna share nude sell fees by all means you want to use ethnic slurs. Go right ahead and this is intentional. Design the back of the hat form. It was launched with the expectation that there would be sort of this radical liberty approach and that even hateful speech would be tolerated and the thing that is sort of really different as well is that the platform doesn't push content at all so facebook and twitter and youtube. They all operate by recommending the best content when we think about things going viral it's usually because the platforms recognized that users responding in such a way that it was gonna meant the content was going to have great interest and then pushed it out to a whole bunch of people. This plant doesn't do that at all so you follow you. Follow you see their posts in reverse chronological order. And that's that so if the platform doesn't determine what people see what is doing that so on parlor. The interesting thing is that they've basically left all of this up to users. It is a user's responsibility to label sensitive about would be pornographic or extremely violent or hate-filled content if they post it and it is also used responsibility to use filters to determine whether they're going to see that so instead of trying to make sure that you know bad stuff doesn't go around the platform which is what the mainstream platforms tend to do what parlour is trying to do is making it so that you don't have to see it if you don't wish to and you giving users more control on that level so again it's just based on putting decisions that have typically been done on the platform level pushing it down to the user level and you mentioned the backers of parliament. Who's behind this. So rebecca mercer is the funder that got it off the ground. I mean everyone involved. Is i think has some very solid libertarian credentials executives with sort of ayn rand ian objectivism credentials or you know sort of bitcoin. Devotees rebecca mercer is the sign of robert mercer. Who is extremely wealthy hedge fund manager. Who has both funded. A whole bunch of very libertarian slash right meaning causes and also was involved with the cambridge analytica situation back in two thousand sixteen so he was funded dot company. Which was we all know. Got into a great deal of mass. Based on their somewhat dodgy business practices and as well obtaining of facebook data in ways that were blessed than orthodox. Got an end. Just how popular is this. Gambit of their how popular is parlor so parlour has gone from around four and a half million users before the election to well over ten men had been around for over two years at this point so they were really actually very slam trying to keep up with the traffic and it certainly didn't hurt that. You had some very high profile folks. Dan bongino the facebooks. Most popular radio hosts very right leaning. Talk show type actually. Owns a stake in the thing and has been pumping this on facebook as well based on the idea that people are irritated about facebook. Showdown groups and You know the stop. The steel effort that they sort of crackdown on and so it's kind of been on the platform itself. It's been getting pushed pretty hard. And that's been a big part of their growth. And i guess the question is does this platform present a competitive threat to the mainstream social media companies. Like could it actually compete with facebook and twitter too early to say. I think that there is a lot of skepticism. I mean people always say they don't want you know anyone else telling them what to thank telling them what to read or recommending content or censoring that they say that however the the history of the mainstream platforms basically was of people who had roughly those ideas themselves who were very much first amendment devotees even though they ran private platforms in the first amendment. Doesn't really apply in the full sense. They really wanted to keep it open for everybody and the problem is is that life gets in the way a and really vile stuff makes other users feel uncomfortable crimes get committed. There's kind of a reason why these platforms have cracked down over time. So i think it's sort of to be determined whether people who are leaving facebook and twitter because of their concerns that conservative viewpoints aren't going to be are being treated fairly are going to like being on a platform where like nude sell. Fees are totally cool. Are a wall street journal. Reporter jeff horowitz. Things reporting thank you.
The Scathing Atheist
Thoughts and Prayers Are Costing Us a Fortune
"Our lead story tonight after much hemming and Hong about the downsides financial accountability in government, the trump administration reluctantly agreed to release a Herschel accounting of whatever happened to those billions upon billions of dollars entrusted to them under the Corona Virus Aid Relief and Economic Securities Act and confirmed every terrible thing. We assumed about the administration's stewardship of our money, including the fact that they didn't give two shits. If you found out how crooked they're stewardship of our money has bet. But to be fair unless your doctor evil. You'RE GONNA be way off on the numbers. Terrifying Republicans actually argued that oversight of the giant Relief Fund to make sure the money gets distributed responsibly would be an irresponsible west of government mony. Exactly now we don't have all the details because these numbers were released in such a way as to ensure that plenty of outright theft could still happen. Only recipients who received over one hundred and fifty thousand loans were listed, and all we were given was a range so given how much information was made public, if the administration straight up pocketed half of it, we wouldn't know about that yet, but even what we do know is plenty to raise eyebrows like for example. Find out when we get trump's tax returns. Yeah, right right now as soon as the audits over for example, a couple of things to already piss you off. The number of businesses directly connected to members of Goddamn Congress and the trump administration that were approved for loans, or for the fact, that is not the line ran. Institute got sticking. Out of the deal, but the number that really leaves off the page me is the nearly ten billion dollars that went directly into the pockets of clergy. Okay to be fair America's biggest export is being wrong. No. Meat Supply. What you mean. Whatever? I. Say the Ayn Rand Yassin. toot, except in a government bailout apply for government. bailouts lasts yes, just weeping as they did. A hard one. Oh I bet it wasn't for him though because they never meant what they said, anyway in all according to estimates from American atheist, churches receive between six point, two and nine point seven billion dollars minimum. Right now we don't know 'cause. They only released ranges, but keep in mind. The any church got one, hundred, forty, nine, thousand, nine, hundred and ninety nine dollars, or less, isn't on the list. In addition to that another four point eight billion went to private schools, predominantly Christian wants, and you know according to Bucket Supreme Court. That's the same as the church when they want it to be. You there's a bunch of those churches at one, forty, nine, nine, nine nine. teed. Yeah exactly so as American atheist, President Nick Fish pointed out quote in two months. The trump administration has given churches and religious schools more than double the CDC's annual budget and quote. So you know when it comes to corona virus mitigation, the most expensive ticket item right now might actually be thoughts and prayers.
The Portal
The Mind Financing The Future
"When powerful people use their advantage to engage in new involuntary transfers of wealth safety or freedom from those too weak to defend themselves. The winners are almost always forced to create an idealism as a cover for their siphoning in simpler terms. These idealisms are actually cover stories or bespoke fig leaves which almost exactly fit. The extraction are taking that they are tailored mask once. This is understood. We realized that to test this theory. Each wave of idealism would have to be matched to a highly specific effective confession for an injustice that pervaded the era in which it was found. This concept of idealism as disguising theft is of course an upsetting cognitive shift get is therefore naturally initially difficult to come to see the waves of idealism that characterized each era that we have lived through not as the best of our aspirations for a better world but rather as the photographic negative of the greed of our own ruling classes for example. The idealism of United States competitiveness was everywhere in the nineteen eighties and early to mid Nineteen Ninety S. At that time it seemed to be about the need for all Americans to pull together and get back into fighting shape as a country looking below the surface however it was not really about the need of managers owners and workers to pull together through shared austerity to reinvigorate American industry. Rather it was a false idealism. That instructed organized American Labor to give up hard won gains that were then not matched by comparable sacrifices from the other groups. Once the United States Labor had been sufficiently humbled in attenuated in its power by the Mid Nineteen Ninety S. The drumbeat of patriotic competitiveness gave way to the post National Davos idealism of a world without borders singing the praises of Financial Inclusion Trade Immigration and philanthropy with the Maudlin sediments of nine hundred eighty five. We are the world as its anthem. The purpose of the Post National Movement was not to include those overseas but instead to allow the wealthy of the industrialized world to break the bonds with their fellow citizens of the working class and to access cheaper labor. Pools abroad using far-flung supply chance likewise the idealism of so-called constructive engagement with governments like communist China's would be seen through this lens as the rationalization for ignoring issues of human rights and strategic risk in such a way as to benefit economically in the short-term selling out American interests in the long-term meanwhile back home in the states the techno Utopian perspective that arose dominate. The Bay area of California held. That information just wants to be free and that now. Transparency is king because privacy is dead perversely as you would expect in this theory. This hippie dippy sounding digital vision is exactly what ushered in the surveillance economy as the platforms became not windows but half silvered mirror through which the social media barons learned every intimate detail about their users. These startups turn techno behemoths. Turned the most intimate personal details of our private lives into their proprietary business. Data which was as far from free or transparent as one could possibly imagine the idealism of gender and identity to fits the exact pattern second wave feminism seemed to be about recognizing the intrinsic worth of women in the workforce but it may also be seen as an employer dream to push out the labor supply curve in such a way as to make the previous single breadwinner household require a second income just to keep pace the politics of identity which caught fire in the wake of the twenty ten. Colorado Senate upset are explained largely by economists. Pm Alana's theory. That identity is the cheapest substitute for the Labor Voting Block which demanded far more significant economic concessions. More bizarrely the strange media ritual of pointing the finger of Islamaphobia at anyone who dares ask about a mass murderer in which the killer triumphantly shouts of the hawk. Bar Emits. Bloody and sadistic mayhem may well be about protecting transfer. Payments from oil-rich monarchies while the official admonition to see the Niqab hit job burqa and clitoridectomy predominantly ethnic differences or symbols of female. Liberation is so absurd to go along way towards establishing the need for some theory. Is this to fill the space. The left-leaning idealism of making housing affordable for all that too many bad loans inflated the housing bubble while the right-leaning Ayn Rand Ian Idealism of self regulating markets practiced by Alan Greenspan allowed the banks to privatize gains while socializing the risks losses. The giving pledge to May well be an attempt to keep governments from clawing back unpaid taxes from carefully sheltered fortunes or establishing wealth and asset taxes in a period of radical inequality. In this sense it can be seen as something of a bargain if I promise to screw over my own children for charity. I hope that you will leave me alone and unquestioned to enjoy my vast and carefully sheltered wealth while I'm alive and as we have just seen with the Biden endorsements from Speaker Nancy Pelosi Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and former Senator Hillary Clinton. The metoo movement appears to be less about sexual assault and more about adding a tool for extra-judicial vigilantism which can be wielded selectively or kept sheath according to taste suffice it to say that. Hashtag believe all women has now given way to hash tag believe convenient women so you may ask. Why bring this up now? Well in my opinion what we need now is someone who is not part of any of the official idealisms. Of course that would have sounded quite weird in isolation if I had simply said that we need an anti Utopian to lead us. Wouldn't we want someone envision a dreamer doer hybrid two point the way? No we want someone who is not signed on for any of these horrible anti patriotic charades from either party. Someone who never believed in free trade free markets nationalism housing for all deregulation competitiveness etcetera etcetera. We need someone who is not closed with Jeffrey Epstein who does not possess significant financial relationships abroad. Additionally someone alienated by both the hardline pro-life pro-choice perspectives. Would be perfect for where most Americans are today since the time of Nixon. We've been in an era of predatory idealism with our best impulses used against us from both right and left. It is now time to get back to the hard work of cleaning up from two disastrous generations of failed business people politicians reporters in professors and perhaps most importantly we need to flush our dependence on near totalitarian communist China out of our system before it is too late