Old Blogger

031604 - How to be rich
Caroline said: "If you want to be rich, it's easy! Just watch what poor people do....and DON'T DO IT!"

Justagirl said: "Caroline, you'd better run screaming if you're even the least bit sensitive. You can't make such an insipid, naive, uneducated comment like. you. just. did. You DID educate me on something, though; I really didn't know (until now) there were people out there as sheltered & adolescent in their opinions as you seem to be"

I am going to jump in here and back Caroline on this. Being a member of frequent debates on her site, I can attempt to infer what she meant. Justagirl, I would wager you embrace the opinion that poor people are not poor as the result of any choices they make, that they happen to be stuck in a self perpetuating system? And that those who are rich are just lucky, like lottery winners? Caroline is right, if you want to be rich, dont do what poor people do, primarily sit around, watching TV, loitering, and going shopping with credit cards. While there are surely some people who are poor as no result of their choices, the vast majority of 'poor' people are poor because they do not make any effort to raise thier standard of living beyond the most basic rudimentary efforts, like buying lotto tickets or partaking in get rich quick schemes. You can not get rich in this country without effort, hard work, knowledge, intelligence, ambition, and motivation.

If poor people are poor as a result of any of their choices, then Caroline is right, don't do what they have chosen to do. If they are poor as a result of circumstances beyond their control, then there is not much one can do, except try to change those circumstances. If they are poor as a result of both these things, Caroline is still correct. You are right ONLY IF every poor person is poor ONLY as a result of circumstances beyond their control, and not as a result of ANY of their choices.

"poor people" of whom you speak & then educate us all on their anti-business plans."

Well, I dont think Caroline ever said that poor people have an 'anti-business' plan, they wouldnt form so cohesive an ideal. Their plan is simply to not work, vote for democrats, and have them give them money.

"and just a tip, don't give them any money - you know, because they'll just spend it all on CRACK. "

You should never give people money. Remember that old saying 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a life time' What is giving someone money but simply making them dependant on you? But don't take my word for it.

These are some quotes from Po Bronsons' 'What Should I do with my life'

"That first year stripped him of every notion he'd learned at Yale. "At Yale, we were taught that people in poor cities are poor because of factors outside their control. I used to think that inner-city kids only needed to connect. They needed love and understanding. And so if they were disorderly in class, I would let it go as a way of making them my friend, currying their favor. And they kicked my ass. They abused me. If I gave an inch, they would take a mile. I couldn't connect with them. They did not respond to kindness, they took advantage of it. My class would be continuously disrupted. I learned the hard way. What they need is someone to teach them habits that lead to success later in life. They need someone to tell them they've done something wrong. Kids face a thousand choices, and they need someone to teach them to make the right choices. How to act in social situations, how to take responsibility and not make excuses. I've become much more conservative by working here. It's the last thing I expected. It's much more like how my father raised me, with tough love." pg 288 (from a teacher who went from Yale to teaching at Inner city schools)

"He realized that everyone in the sixties who wanted to help Indians was, in fact, making them dependant. When a check shows up every month in your mailbox, you're the one who loses, because you lose your own survival skills. The handout system had turned Indians into eunuchs." pg 354 (this is from Deni, a native American who decided to do more for American Indians than lobby to get them a Casino, he spent 20 years getting 4 different degrees)

"Deni walked out of those mountains determined to write a new curriculum that embraced his ethnic identity and emphasized self-reliance. He wrote a business plan that set out his objectives for the next twenty years of his life. He would train himself for five years in four different areas: education, business and banking, indigenous government, and international relations. "I had to learn the white man's ways to save the non-white man's ways," He explained. He stuck to his plan marvelously, five years in each skill set." pg 355

Has anyone here set out long term plans like these? Do you find poor people freqeuntly set out such long term goals? Barely even any middle class people do. You only get rich from working very hard toward a directed goal, being very motivated and having a lot of ambition.

"Deni reinforced so many of the lessons I'd learned during my research. Patience, long-term planning, resilience. That when you embrace your true identity, you will discover a productive power you never imagined. That no Big Picture is too big." pg 358

Michael

031604 - more 'Ive got mine screw you'
"Not to mention, a few thousand soldiers of ours killed FOR NOTHING!"

They were killed while freeing 20 MILLION PEOPLE, if you consider that 'for nothing' then you embrace the most vile values imaginable.

"I like to argue Iraq because its conclusive proof of how much an idiot Bush is, along with his admin. I'm shocked that a "World Leader" would take his country into battle based on surveilance video of trucks moving in and out of an area. "

The fact that 20 million people, in the heart of the middle east, lived inside one of the most bloody and violent dictatorships on the planet is reason enough. You embrace the typical liberal idiocy of 'as long as he aint killing our people its none of our business'

There should be no argument necessary, the entire western world, which happens to be the RICHEST, FREEST, and most MILITARILY POWERFULL part of the world needs to get OFF ITS ASS and do something about the 3/4's of the WORLDS POPULATION that live in murderous tyrnanies, theocracies, and dictatorships. I know your prefer to not have your starbucks time and reality TV hours interrupted by the problems of the rest of the world, content with the 'Ive got mine screw you' mentality that most of the west embraces, but there is a real world out there where murderous thugs are killing millions of people. You may not care about their well being, but thankfully some of us, including our president, do.

Michael

031004 - 'Art always precedes engineering and not the reverse'

> However, these chapters from _The Decline of the West_ make it look
> like Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a "culture" and
> civilization is the end, the death of culture.
>
> Any thoughts?

Culture is art, civilization is engineering. The author of The Decline of the West sounds like one more arts snob decrying the fact that rationalists always decry the emperor not wearing any clothes that the artist charged vast sums to 'design'.

It is a rather typical charge, one which was disproven by Feynman, who, in addition to being a Nobel physicist, was a painter and musician who conducted the ultimate artist vs engineer experiment himself, being taught to be an artist by an artist, while the artist proved incapable of learning science.

This is why art always precedes engineering and not the reverse. The artist creates beauty, which the engineer comes along and figures out how to scientifically reproduce at will via engineering (and even figure out a use for it). The artist cannot happen upon a work of engineering and reproduce it such that it will function.

The artist sees what the engineer has done with his creation and hates him for it, and plots the engineers downfall, and the ultimate downfall of the engineered civilization, by the creation or introduction of unscientific clods (barbarians, or public school graduates) for the artist to be lauded by and worshipped and followed in tearing down the civilization, in order to create a new flowering of art in the wilderness.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

Some great comments by a friend...

030804 - 'I think you answered your own questions'
Michael said: Caroline, do you really think this, do most guys desire to feel superior to the girl they are with?

Then said: Many are in relationships where their significant others are passive and following,

Caroline responded: "I think you answered your own question."

I don't think it fair to say that liking someone who is passive is the same thing as wanting to feel superior to them. In fact, the opposite is true as well (which I didn't mention) is that most women find men who act more secure, positive, and self confident more attractive than the same men who act passive. (this particular experiment was detailed in Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human behavior")

Why is that?, do women WANT to be dominated? No, I suspect men have this attraction to passivity because they want to have a greater feeling of self worth, and not necessarily by belittling their partner, but by their partner valuing them so much to be capable of more dependence on them, i.e. trusting in their male partners abilities to solve problems, get food on the table, etc. Women would be more attracted to men who acted more confident, secure, etc, not because they were inept and unable to provide for themselves, but because it would be more likely that a man acting in that manner was competent and able to provide. Of course, these nuances are usually waay overshadowed by mere attractiveness alone, and in these experiments the same actors were used, both male and female, to pretend to be passive or outgoing.

In short, if you think that men like more passive women because they want to feel superior to them, then the fact that women prefer more outgoing and self confident men would mean they want men who they think are superior to them. I don't think the answer is so clear or simple.

"I will say that I don't like guys who never admit when they're wrong or never find themselves in the wrong. They seem to always find ways to twist logic into their favor and making themselves look good and right most or all of the time."

Well, I don't think anyone should like a person like that. I would think, as Maria suggested, that it stems from insecurities. Such a man as that shouldn't even garner ones respect, let alone love and affection.

To play devils advocate, were you able to admit you were wrong when/if you were? Being of a rare subset (very beautiful women) and an even rarer subset on that (really intelligent) and basically agreeing to my comment that more attractive people are less likely to be intelligent (*likely* being the operative term) maybe you are inclined to get defensive quickly if anyone suggests you aren't intelligent, because its easy to infer that they are suggesting (as it so often is) that beautiful people cant be intelligent.

I know in one of my relationships of the past, I was dating a very intelligent, very confident and independent secure women. When hanging out with her and her friends once, I once made a comment that she thought was silly. She patted me on the top of my head as if to say 'its okay, we know you're stupid' Of course I was furious, how dare she imply I was stupid! That got me quite irate, which I now (years later) realize was absurd, but I was oversensitive to anyone implying I was stupid, more so when dating her, who I was so attracted to because she was so intelligent (and attractive)

"I don't like dating stupid loser guys either, but it's hard finding a bright guy who's confident enough to be truly humble."

That just means its hard to find a guy worthy of your love! That could be because few guys are, or because your standards are high (or both) I don't think there is anything wrong with being picky.

"I feel like guy are mostly spread out on the ends of the spectrum, either really cute and stupid or really smart and overbearing. It'd be nice to find a middle of the road, well-rounded, normal guy. Any ladies feelin me on this?"

I certainly think the same thing is generally true with women, for the reasons I argued in the previous post. Heck, I cant even find one with half a brain worthy of even talking to. Perhaps Caroline can start a dating service for us well rounded normal guys and you really attractive intelligent women??? ;)

"I guess we're all guilty of generalizing sometimes, huh? How's this for twisting rhetoric...people of both sexes who are attractive have MORE unique and interesting personality wise because they attract more people and have more opportunity to experience diverse types of personal interaction and have more opportunities in life which lead to richer experiences. Sorry, Michael, just wanted to be argumentative for argumentative's sake."

I realize I was generalizing, none of my comments are absolute, people are all different. I was pointing out general trends that show themselves statistically. As with any statistic, as the sample size decreases, the probability of making an accurate prediction decreases. While I cant site a statistic backing what I was saying, I would make a good bet that I could find one, since, to me at least, it seems such a reasonable thing. You could say that more attractive people are more interesting as a general trend, but I would disagree. I would agree that *some* really attractive people *are* really interesting because of the diverse types of personal interactions, opportunities and experience they had, but they are the exception.

"I honestly don't feel that either is any more valid than the other."

I disagree of course, but I could be wrong. I just rarely meet really attractive AND really intelligent people that are really interesting. I have no doubt that this is a lot of the reason why you have some 1300 friends. But consider the comments on your front page, don't just email you with "Hey, I think you're Hot" Why would so many people do that if it didn't work at least some of the time to some people?

"BTW, that comment in the other journal *was not* at all directed at you. I usually don't detect any underlying subtext in your statements. =)"

Fair enough, but I still think we can not understate the importance of some baseline of logic within a conversation. It would be very difficult to carry on a conversation without it.

Michael said: Given that, perhaps being higher on the totem pole of attractiveness that you are, then men of similar levels as you are more likely to be arrogant, chauvinistic, or even ignorant. People almost always tend to date people that are in similar levels of attractiveness when rated by large samples of people. When they don't, we as a society take notice, evidence in phrases like 'whats HE doing with HER' (or vice
versa) even though we may not outwardly voice it, most of the time we a startled at the difference in attractiveness between the two. Of course, attractiveness is subjective to some extent, but the patterns and statistical prevalence is there.

Caroline said "But that doesn't explain how Ric Ocasek (sp?) ended up marrying Paulina Pauriskova (sp?). Not to sound mean, but Ric is one ugly man. Or, how a shortie like Tom Cruise ended up w/6ft Nicole Kidman? Or, how an old fart like Michael Douglas ended up w/a 25yr old Catherine Zeta Jones? Hmmm, I guess there are exceptions to every GENERALIZATION."

Of course, which is why I said "when rated by large samples of people." There are always exceptions, but generalizations are called that because they are generally true. I don't know who Ric Ocasek is, but obviously Paulina values more than just physical attractiveness. But the fact that you point out there union is evidence of what I was saying. If nobody cared about varying levels of attractiveness between partners, no one would think anything of Ric and Paulina's marriage.

It seems on the celebrity seen that a lot of marriages are arranged by publicists, trying to figure out whose marriage would make more press headlines and lead to more movie deals. When people become celebrities, they also almost always leave their significant other they had before becoming celebrities, probably because they get harasses by fabulously attractive fans and other celebrities. They are elevated on the Totem pole quite a few notches. I am a big fan of Christopher Walken, and I have always respected that he has stayed married to the same women for some 40 or 50 years now, and he has always maintained a realistic attitude toward movies (which is probably why he has made so many and still remains popular over 40 years) But generally, and probably the vast majority of the times, celebrities end up dumping their non-celebrity significant other once they gain celebrity status.

I don't think any of these things are absolutes, and as statistical correlations, they have absolutely no predictive value of an individual. Its like saying men are taller than women on average. There are definitely some women taller than some men, but on average they are not. Just like men, on average, are stronger than women, but women on average live longer. Men, on average, are better map readers, and Women, on average are better a noticing details.

Regards,

Michael

030604 - What to Love?
Maria said: "have an ex boyfriend that I was with for a year and a half... it seemed he would subconsciously need to feel superior to me. He would tell me he really liked that I was smart and always reading and learning things... but over time I do feel he would try to feel superior because of my education."

I wouldn't consider this a tendency with boyfriends or significant others, I think, sadly, most people are like this. Especially in America, where ignorance is praised and intelligence is ridiculed, or at least looked down upon. (maybe other countries are like this) People seem to tend to lash out at those who are more successful, more intelligent, more anything then them, instead of recognizing and applauding them for their hard work and effort. But maybe that is more prevalent in men since it may make them feel less manly.

"I think perhaps Caroline may have to deal with the same thing. I never did or said anything to make him feel he was lesser but I realize it derived from his own insecurities."

More to the point, it seems like its everybody's insecurity, that others are better than they are!

"Sadly so far all the men I have dated have been liars... insecure... a few way more insecure than others... so I realize I have to get to know them way better before I fall in love because love is blind to these things and then what is one to do after finding they are in love with the wrong one?"

That is sad, sorry to hear that. These are questions I have personally mulled over for some time. I don't think you should be so quick to promote love to a status of being blind of the others faults, that can tend to be a self fulfilling prophecy. I have a good friend who barely does anything but complain about his girlfriend, but always ends his comments with 'but I love her!' Yet there doesn't seem to be anything about her he actually loves. After all, depending on the faults, aren't some of them a fundamental aspect of the person you have the feelings for? Surely some can be changed, and people grow and change, but we shouldn't sell ourselves short! Don't put up with people who do not treat you with the utmost respect, they don't deserve your love.

To me, love is a product of our values when we have strong values present, in absences of strong values, it is directed by social influences, in absence of that it is relegated to a little more random thing, keyed off by the environment (behavior, scent, etc) and our genes (attractiveness). So love is neither a random firing of neurons dictated by some pheromone cue, (as is implied daily by junk science journals) then imparted upon our will like some master controlling our puppet strings, nor an arbitrary construct of society (as the recent book 'Against Love' argues polemically) but neither is it something we can readily choose to turn on and off. If we could choose to turn it on and off, it would lose much of its value, and wouldn't hurt so much. It is a complex combination of these things.

In a way, we do choose it though, when we bother to make such choices. Ask yourself what you like in guy, and then what you dislike. Why do you like those things, and why do you dislike the others? Are both of these not a result of either genes/socially imparted ideals/or your own chosen values? I think, in its best form, love is the physical expression of our deepest values. In its most common form though, its based loosely on a few values people hold (someone of my same skin tone, religion, nationality, political ideology, etc) but other than that, its basically social cues. All of these variables play with each other in a complex way, if someone is really smart, or charming, you may be more lenient in the looks category, if they are really religious, you may be more lenient in the skin tone, etc. Sadly, Love is almost always presented by a false dichotomy, its either purely spiritual, or purely random, when purely spiritual, its often implied that it is blind to faults.

I am not saying your love is spiritual (I am a hopeless romantic myself, is that spiritual?) but I think too few people recognize the other influences on love, primarily our values. In America, its like 'true love' has replaced religion as the secular god of worship; we can do anything for love! Many of which would get us thrown in Jail. Songs, movies, poems, they scream about love conquering all at the top of their lungs! Yet divorce rates are higher than ever. Why is this, is it because people perpetuate this notion that a true love must be perfect, and any love that isn't musnt be true? Or that once we get past our six month endorphin high its perfectly fine to toss your mate aside and let the next attractive stranger kindle those internal flames?

"I start to feel so much for them and ignore their bad points. My brother is the opposite.. he searches for all their negative qualities... so as not to waste any time.. My parents have been married 31 years and I see a relationship is give and take but I don't see why I am acting like my relationships equals marriage..."

It seems you really value the deep connection that can come from a good relationship and emotional commitment. Those are difficult things to gain as a foundation when the relevant values aren't present. I say, at least in some part, go a little with your brothers notion, but don't go too far. A lot of negative qualities are quite minor, you just want to avoid someone who holds some important value in opposition to yours.

" I have always tried to work things out in a relationship so as not to regret it later but I am not going to stick to that anymore..."

I don't think you should, nobody out there should sell themselves short! Our love is too valuable of a thing (as is our desire) to be dolled out to those not worthy, imho.

"For me it is only matter of time until I figure it out for myself and walk away... we live and learn, right? hehe .... venting in the gallery... I'm sorry about that. :)"

Im glad you did, and that you are comfortable enough to share such personal things. Also, you give me excuse to yap about my ideas on love, I hope someone finds them valuable, or can develop on them, or call em hogwash. Just trying to understand all this myself.

I just got back from a local bar where a good cover band I watch often was playing. I've never been one for picking up people at a bar, since you cant even talk to them, so I don't try to. I end up watching a lot of the social interactions, and getting annoyed at the way men, and sometimes women behave. Today I watched, at the last song played, a guy go up to a girl and dance with her for the duration of the song, after the song they started making out, then they left together! I could tell by the way they interacted (they were both right in front of me) that they didn't know each other to start with. I am amazed, one song, and they are making out, then they leave together! Girls, whats up with this? Are these guys just so hot that you'll do that?? I feel like a fish out of water trying to understand these things, but maybe im just lashing out at those more successful then I since I am still pining over the girl who has stolen my heart.

Michael

030404 - Great site "Protest Warrior"
"
More than two and a quarter centuries ago, a group of men came together to create the greatest country this world has ever known. They were men of wealth, privilege, and status, yet they risked everything for a principle, that all men are endowed with Inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not gifts bestowed from a government, but are intrinsic to human life. They codified these principles in that great document The Constitution, and established a nation where men could finally live free.

Liberated from the whims of tyrants and kings, the people of the United States of America built the greatest, wealthiest, most moral country on earth. Our economic liberty and rule of law obliterated the aristocracy, enabling anyone to go as far as their imagination and drive. The profit motive spurred a geyser of technological breakthroughs that surpassed the previous two millennia a thousand times over. Our Judeo-Christian heritage drove slavery, an ongoing practice since the dawn of man, into the history books.

One would think these self-evident facts would be cherished, heralded, shouted from the rooftops. Yet instead we find the exact opposite today. Today, America is vilified, hated and under attack like never before, from enemies both foreign and domestic. Externally, we face a threat perhaps even more dangerous than Communism: the menace of Islamo-fascism. Internally, we face a Fifth Column who hate America, and have cunningly maximized their power through their control of the media, the schools, and the culture, propagating principles in direct contrast to what makes this country great. Most ominously, these two forces have joined together in a marriage of convenience against their common enemy, America.

For too long, we have ceded the moral high ground to our enemies. We have let the forces that hate freedom, justice and morality set the agenda, as good men reel on the defensive, protesting our good intentions. More Americans everyday are awakened to the cause for liberty, yet our political elites continue to apportion more of human affairs to the State. And while no other country has been a more positive force for good on this planet, the princes of political correctness run rampant with their anti-American vitriol, poisoning our kids and emboldening our enemies.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.” That certainly adds an ominous connotation to "Progressives”, the latest appellation of the Left.

The war on Iraq was what finally exposed the Left for what they really are. Strictly on national security reasons, it was a war we had to wage. Saddam Hussein tried to build a nuclear reactor in the 80s, it was his use of biological weapons against the Iranians that turned the tide of that war from a defeat to a stalemate, and he has used chemical weapons against the Kurds with impunity. Is it imperative to confirm that he had WMDs before we preemptively strike? No. All that matters is a psychopath tyrant who ran in the same circles as the 9/11 terrorists might have them.

Now if the price for protecting America was to destroy Iraq, if it was an us or them situation, then we might have an argument. That scenario might have allowed for men of good conscience to disagree. But what was most astounding, and most revealing, was that this war would immensely benefit the Iraqi people, by liberating them from one of the most brutal sadistic tyrants this world has ever seen. Saddam and his henchmen ruled with an iron fist, subjecting his people to an unimaginable hell of torture chambers and dungeons. The Baathist regime, an unholy mixture of socialism and Islam, has killed a hundred times more Muslims than the Israeli Defense Force.

The death count by Saddam was only limited by his power, nothing more. So this was a win-win situation. We eliminate a murderous regime which might be building weapons of mass destruction, we liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny, and most importantly, we begin to drain the swamp of Islamo-fascism that has a stranglehold on the region.

And yet liberals across the country mobilized for protests against this just war. Not since Vietnam have we seen such a groundswell of opposition to an American military action. When Bill Clinton intervened in a civil war being fought over Kosovo, bombing a civilian populace back to the stone age on behalf of a radical heroin-smuggling Muslim terrorist group, there was nary a peep from the Left. Yet when we try to take out a bloodthirsty savage dictator, the exact antithesis of all the values liberals purport to hold, and we have chaos in the streets.

So what is the key variable? What was different about this war? The variable is that this war was about protecting American interests and expanding freedom on the planet, and that is what our enemies cannot countenance. The Arab dictators who live like their ancient Babylonian ancestors while their people starve are loathe to see freedom in the Middle East. And the ‘liberals’ whose entire cause is their cult of secular humanism, find the expansion of economic liberty and democratic values anathema to their evil designs.

If the Left were honest in their convictions, they would be as pro-America as the Right is. What other country has done more to liberate people from the evils of fascism, to empower women and minorities, or has a better track record on the environment. Most importantly, what other nation is there with a more charitable and moral people. Yet while with one side of their mouth they castigate America for its racism, sexism, anti-environmentalism, inequality and genocide against others, they are apologists for Islamic and socialist regimes that are a thousand times more culpable.

But what’s most frustrating of all is that we, the liberty-lovers, are so timid in confronting them. The Republican leadership is constantly acceding the principles of big government, only calling for slower growth. President Bush’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ is a total validation of the Left, as if there is anything compassionate about hooking people up to government dependency, and then forcing us to work half the year as a slave to pay for it all. We have allowed the Left to assume the intellectual and moral high ground, casting our side as selfish interests with ulterior motives.

And that’s where ProtestWarrior comes in. It’s time we turned the tables and put them on the defensive. By using their Saul Alinksy Communist tactics against them, for the first time their rickety moral foundation is being exposed and attacked. No longer shall we say to them, "We’re not evil.” The time has come to say, "You’re evil."

We have to fight these people in the trenches. Just as they have the right to protest America, we have the right to protest them. And as our crashings, infiltrations, and adventures demonstrate, there is nothing more powerful than facts, logic and truth when confronting them. Our carefully calibrated signs and slogans are Patriot Truth Missiles, intercepting and destroying their Leftist scuds. The best defense is an aggressive offense.

The most astounding insight we have found is just how intellectually bankrupt they are. Totally devoid of ideas and running on fumes, their only recourse is to vilify their opponents, shield themselves from the marketplace of ideas in their ivory towers, and engage in gross manipulation of facts. It is almost surreal the lengths leftists go to avoid facing how anti-freedom they are. So desperate are they to protect their moral house of cards, all they can do is set up individual politicians as straw men. Anyone who challenges their paradigm is branded as a racist, a sexist, a white male capitalist oppressor. All of this is a phantom phalanx to prevent the truth from emerging, that their ideology is not based on the good, but is in fact a hatred of the good. Witness that the two countries that stand most for 'liberal' values, the United States and Israel, are the two countries they despise the most.

Can there even be any more doubt that all their causes are just facades for their true sinister agenda, to create a world without freedom, without justice, without moral standards? And as the United States and her armed forces is the one thing standing in the way of their nightmare utopia of a one world socialist government, they will do anything and everything to weaken America.

The time has come to draw a line in the sand. Many conservatives say that we are realists battling the liberal idealists. We reject this premise. We hold that the moral is the practical, as we are idealists for liberty.

PROTESTWARRIOR HQ -- http://hq.protestwarrior.com
"

030404 - Ayn Rand on sex and love in Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Francisco D'Anconios speech to Hank Rearden on Sex and Love.

"Well the man who despises himself tries to gain self esteem from sexual adventures, which can't be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man's sense of his own value"

"You'd better explain that"

"Did it ever occur to you that its the same issue? The men who think that wealth comes from material resources, and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think, for the same reason, that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of ones mind, choice, or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you, just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind they say, sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But in fact a mans sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive, and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the women he sleeps with, and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment, just try to think of performing in the spirit of selfless charity. An act which is not possible in self abasement, only is self exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the women who reflects his deepest vision of himself. The women whose surrender permits him to experience, or to fake, a sense of self esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of women he can find. The women he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, because only the possession of a heroin will give him a sense of achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut. He does not seek to..."

"What's the matter?" He asked. Seeing the look on Rearden's face, a look of intensity much beyond mere interest in an abstract discussion.

"Go on" said Rearden tensely

"He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body. But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a women he despises, because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud. She will give him a momentary illusion of his own value, and a momentary escape from the moral code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One precedes from the other. Love is our response to our highest values, and can be nothing else. Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence. Let him profess that love is not self enjoyment but self denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice. That the noblest love is born, not of admiration but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws, and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond. It will make him impotent toward the women he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of whore he can find. His body will always follow the ultimate logic of his deepest convictions. If he believes that flaws are values, he has damned existence as evil, and only the evil will attract him. He has damned himself, and he will feel that depravity is all that he is worthy of enjoying. He has equated virtue with pain and he will feel that vice is the only realm of pleasure, then he will scream that his body has vicious desires of its own which his mind can not conquer. That sex is sin, that true love is a pure emotion of the spirit. And then he will wonder why love brings him nothing but boredom, and sex, nothing but shame."

Rearden said slowly, looking off, not realizing that he was thinking aloud.

"At least, I've never accepted that other tenant, I've never felt guilty about making money"

Francisco missed the significance of the first two words, he smiled and said eagerly.

"You do see that its the same issue, no, you'd never accept any part of their vicious creed. You wouldn't be able to force it upon yourself, if you tried to damn sex as evil, you'd still find yourself against your will acting upon the proper moral premise. You'd be attracted to the highest women you met. You'd always want a heroin, you'd be incapable of self contempt. You'd be unable to believe that existence is evil and that you're a helpless creature caught in an impossible universe. You're the man who spent his life shaping matter to the purpose of his mind. You're the man who would know that just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love. And just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool's self fraud, so is sex when cut off from ones code of values. Its the same issue, and you would know it. You're inviolate sense of self esteem would know it. You would be incapable of desire for a women you despise. Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love. But observe that most people are creatures cut in half, who keep swinging desperately from one side or to the other. One kind of half is the man who despises money, factories, skyscrapers, and his own body. He holds undefined emotions about non-conceivable subjects as the meaning of life and as his claim to virtue. And he cries with despair because he can feel nothing for the women he respects, but finds himself in bondage to an irresistible passion for a slut from the gutter. He is the man whom people call an idealist. The other kind of half is the man people call practical. The man who despises principles, abstractions, art, philosophy, and his own mind. He regards the acquisition of material objects as the only goal of existence, and he laughs at the need to consider their purpose or their source. He expects them to give him pleasure, and he wonders why the more he gets the less he feels. He is the man who spends his time chasing women. Observe the triple fraud which he perpetrates upon himself. He will not acknowledge his need of self esteem, since he scoffs at such a concept as moral values, yet he feels the profound self contempt which comes from believing that he is a piece of meat. He will not acknowledge but he knows that sex is the physical expression of a tribute to personal values. So he tries by going through the motions of the effect, to acquire that which should have been the cause. He tries to gain a sense of his own value by the women that surrender to him, and he forgets that the women he picks have neither character nor judgment nor standard of value. He tells himself that all he is after is physical pleasure, but observe that he tires of his women in a week or a night. That he despises professional whores, and that he loves to imagine he is seducing virtuous girls who make a great exception for his sake. It is the feeling of achievement that he seeks but never finds. What glory can their be in the conquest of a mindless body. Now that is your women chaser, does the description fit me?"

"God no"

"Then you can judge, without asking my word for it, how much chasing of women I have done in my life"

"But what on earth have you been doing on the front pages of newspapers for the last, isn't it, 12 years?"

"I've spent a lot of money on the most ostentatiously vulgar parties I could think of, and a miserable amount of time on being seen with the appropriate sort of women. As for the rest,"

He stopped, then said "I have some friends who know this, but you are the first I am confiding in against my own rules. I have never slept with any of those women, I have never touched one of them"

"What is more incredible than that is that I believe you."

The lamp on the floor besides him threw broken bits of light across Francisco's face as he leaned .forward. The face had a look of guiltless amusement

"If you care to glance over those front pages, you'll see that I never said anything. It was the women who were eager to rush into print with stories insinuating that being seen with me at a restaurant was a sign of a great romance. What do you suppose those women are after but the same thing as the chaser, the desire to gain their own value from the number and fame of the men they conquer. Only its one step phonier, because the value they seek is not even in the actual fact but in the impression on and the envy of other women. Well I gave those bitches what they wanted, but what they literally wanted, without the pretense that they expected, the pretense that hides from them the nature of their wish. Do you think they wanted to sleep with me or with any man? They wouldn't be capable of so real and honest a desire. They wanted food for their vanity, and I gave it to them. I gave them a chance to boast to their friends and see themselves in the scandal sheets as the roles of great seductresses. But do you know it works in exactly the same way as what you did at your trial. If you want to defeat any kind of vicious fraud comply with it literally, adding nothing of your own to disguise its nature. Those women understood. They saw whether there was any satisfaction for being envied by others for a feat one has not achieved. Instead of self esteem their publicized romances with me have given them a deeper sense of inferiority, each one of them knows she has tried and failed. If dragging me into bed is supposed to be her public standard of value, she knows that she couldn't live up to it. I think those women hate me more than any other man on earth. But my secret is safe, because each one of them thinks that she is the only one that failed, while all the others succeeded, so shell be the more vehement in swearing to our romance, and will never admit the truth to anybody"