From what I’ve been reading, CBT is very closely related to negative visualization as championed by the Stoics … how close is that to being accurate?
I was always under the impression that zero hedge was/is associated with Peter Schiff on some level … not sure where I read that but they do favor him quite a bit…fwiw
No. She said the Indians had no right to the land because in her worldview they weren’t using it.
There’s no genocide reference in that quote. The way you’re acting it’s like she handed out smallpox blankets. Do you have anything more substantial than hyperbole? Like an actual quote where she advocates genocide?
An objectivist wouldn’t hold with genocide because it doesn’t earn a return and violates the private property right to life.
It disgusts me, but Ireland’s flirtation with all but the very worst revolutionaries is something I have learned to treat as white noise.
1 Like
So you are saying she said it was okay to “take” the land from the Indians but wasn’t okay with the methods? Because you can force someone off their lands without violence? You might want to read the part: “I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and live like savages.”
They had no right to live here. What does that mean? They don’t have the right to live here so they don’t have the right to not be killed here. If I say it’s OK to wipe out a group of people, but don’t use the word genocide, am I somehow not talking about genocide?
You made a mistake in your last sentence. She didn’t believe that the Indians had the concept of private property or individual rights so therefore the rules of objectivism do not apply to them. Again her own words:
“But if a “country” does not protect rights–if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief–why should you respect the “rights” that they don’t have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too–that is, you can’t claim one should respect the “rights” of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages–which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched–to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did.”
You’ll also note how she speaks as though she is stating facts when clearly it is opinion. And it just so happens that the culture she finds superior…is her own.
The wife and I recently took a trip to Ireland. When we were in Dublin we went on one of those free walking tours and our guide was so red he sounded like an advertisement for the Bolsheviks. He was extremely off putting the point we left the tour.
Beautiful country though, thoroughly enjoyed our time there.
1 Like
I seriously doubt anybody takes Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ to be good moral philosophy or ideology. I am not getting that from the responses I read.
Rather the opposite, that you can take some value from her ideas without accepting everything she proposes. Personally, I detest Rand. Mainly, because like you said, she’s an ideologue who fancied her self a philosopher. But you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If she had a pearl of wisdom, it’s perfectly acceptable to use the pearl without applying the entire system. We mix and match all the time.
1 Like
Don’t let that put you off. Most of the country are quietly conservative once you get out of Dublin.
Let’s just say that, when it comes to the rising, we get a little irrational.
1 Like
None of the good stuff she said was new or revolutionary. She wasn’t the first person to talk about individual rights. If the first time an American learns about freedom is from Rand then he didn’t learn anything before reading Rand. So yeah, she said some things that I agree with but I’m not going to give her credit for them since I had already heard them before.
1 Like
That’s not unusual for Europe, in general. There seems to be, at least in western Europe, always some dope espousing communism. When I was in Italy, it must have been some time around election time. There was one candidate who’s symbol was the boot of Italy colored in red with the sickle and hammer in the middle of it. I am hoping he was the lunatic fringe, but I wasn’t paying much attention to their politics.
2 Likes
Ireland is a bit more conservative than most. The most conservative I have found are in the UK and Ireland. The continent is a mess though.
Ireland still has no abortion, and a pro business economy. Catholic values and Anglo business attitudes.
The Irish are remarkable in their capacity to fail to preach how they practice, though.
2 Likes
Correct. It’s one of many reasons I do not care for her. She really didn’t do anything but put her spoon in a pot already cooking. But if that’s were people were introduced to an idea, I am fine with that.
1 Like
The communist party in Italy is DOA.
Too bad it’s not DOA everywhere. I have no idea who said candidate was or how popular he was, I just remember the adverts around the train and bus stations.
1 Like
The problem is when that’s all they know about Rand so they end up talking about her in a way that betrays ignorance of her ideology as a whole and her as a person. They judge her by only the positive things they agree with but that’s not the proper way to judge someone or their ideology.
I believe they got zero seats in the last election.
Her comments on Native Americans
1 Like
Isn’t that what I posted? And her views on racism in America are incredibly ignorant. She won’t acknowledge slavery as racist because she won’t acknowledge that the “intellectual superiors” that were slave owners were racist. In her mind only uneducated poor people, she used the term white trash, could be racists. The people who invented racism were the ones who benefited from it. Racism was used to defend slavery.
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
Rothbard, on Rand and her people, in 1972. I’m about positive I’ve previously read that the split occurred when libertarians wouldn’t reject the things Rand wanted rejected(religion, primarily).
2 Likes
Not close at all. CBT is a series of techniques to teach you to acknowledge where your feelings/thoughts come from and how to possibly change them or at least cope with them. Its really a series of coping strategies at heart. The wikipedia entry on it is quite good.
You might try to figure out why you are having negative thoughts (such as, “why do I think my whole family will hate me if I dont get this job?”), but I dont think CBT would have you focus on a negative outcome (such as actively visualizing your whole family hating you) as in negative visualization. Thats seems more like a mindfulness or “zen” kind of practice, to be “at peace” with the situation, as opposed to understanding where the thoughts/feelings arise from.
The two could be used by a single individual to enhance their mental well being, but they are two different things.
2 Likes