Azrael Rand

Quote taken from your most recent video with Mike Cernovich (14:20 - 15:48). Congratulations on this intellectual achievement that was quite literally years in the making! This certainly was no small feat. Ayn Rand would be proud of you! Can't wait to see what changes are in store for your channel / platform in terms of content creation and outreach. Keep up he good work.

You're certainly versed well enough in Objectivism even if your countrymen aren't. Never played Bioshock so I don't know if it gave Objectivism a fair shake or not. Also more of a Battlestar Galactica fan (new version) but I've seen a little Star Trek here and there. I would agree with that and I think people that go looking for an ideology of their own free will, will choose the one that best rationalizes their current emotions/personality, whereas if an ideology is pushed onto someone their emotions will change to become consistent with the world view forced upon them. Just my 2 cents. Stefan has been AnaCap for quite some time now; check out some of his earlier videos. Creating UPB allowed him to transition from Objectivism to AnaCap. My take on UPB is that it's a modified version of Objectivism, which itself was solely based on Any Rand's selfishness (because what good did the group ever do for Ayn Rand growing up). UPB differs from Objectivism in that UPB upholds the NAP / freedom as the highest moral value whereas Ayn Rand upheld reason as the highest moral value. Ask yourself why did Stefan create UPB in the first place? What motivated him to do so? I think it's fair to say that he wanted to create something of his own, something he could be proud of, and as I stated in the post he wanted a philosophy that was logically consistent to provide instant clarity to even the most complex problems. Both of these motivations are inherently selfish. A selfish philosophy modified for selfish reasons. A key point in my article is that Stefan's emotional investment in UPB is holding him back from being as effective as he could be. He has not engaged the many young and talented voices of the Alt-Right likely because he has labeled them as "collectivists" which makes it that much easier to dismiss them and their views. To borrow some terminology of the left, Stefan is a major gatekeeper in the Alternative Influence Network, being on an interview with Stefan has the potential to put a YT personality on the map. Stefan's decision not to interview them is holding back important views from the alternative mainstream. All things equal, we benefit from embracing objective facts. Our predisposition to be led by emotions and not reason is also such an objective fact. Since our reasoning is guided by emotion we can't expect objective truths to be the default result from reasoning. Ayn Rand's idea to create a philosophy solely based around Objective truths was brilliant, but she made a big mistake early on, totally dismissing our groupish nature, which is why the Objectivist doctrine, as she left it, hasn't done us much good. The same standard applies to Stefan's attempts to make Objectivism "logically" consistent.

For them it's victory at any cost. They've ditched the values of our founding fathers, i.e. free speech and a culture respecting objective truths, reason and evidence. To defeat them we need to beat them at their own game. I understand the people that say we will win by sticking to our principles and reclaiming victory with virtue but isn't that exactly what Republicans like Jeff Sessions are doing? I think it's inaccurate to say they're cucking if they're true believers in ideas such as leading by example, civility, etc. They are living the values they believe in. The problem is that these values aren't compatible with human nature when put to the test. Being a doormat isn't going to get us anywhere when the other side has mastered the art of psychological warfare in the cultural and by extension the political realm. Well I didn't exactly arrive at my conclusions due to a newfound love for my fellow man. I got there by following the path of objective reality using Objectivist rational self-interest from Rand to Haidt with some Alinsky thrown in for good measure.

We are social creatures so it makes sense. There are many observed phenomena for this from the contagiousness of moods to things like Menstrual synchrony. I'd say save the individualistic ethic for members of the in-group and reserve treatment of members of the out-group based on an assessment of that group's values; how they treat their own and how they treat others (us included). At least that's my view from an outcome oriented mindset. From a moral perspective, that is detached from outcomes, sure. But in terms of effectiveness, victory or defeat, it's all up to free will. See I'd love to agree with you on that point were it not for the fact that instead of embracing the natural duality of selfishness and in-group preference we as a society are embracing an unholy union of self-hatred and altruism directed at the out-group or xenophilia if you prefer. Of course this goes back to free will. Also any thoughts on my UPB piece. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say that should be right up your alley.

Have to agree with you here. On a historical chart this could likely be a dead-cat bounce. Unless Republicans stop cucking or the Alt-Right manages to infiltrate the Democratic Party it seems like a sure path downwards after Trump leaves office.

I'll settle for the ethics of the here and now but the borg scenario does pique my interest. So would it be collective subconsciousness and an individualist consciousness? In that case there would be no need for the individualist ethics since the "free" actions of the individual would be motivated to serve the collective right? Or is there something I'm missing? We do have some free will, it may not be perfect or ever present, but it does exist and one's mindset can either enhance or detract from it. Hardcore determinists are easy to deal with. If we can't be held responsible for our actions due to lack of free will and that invalidates any and all rules / morality then what is morally wrong with us gutting the relativist like a fish. Surely they wouldn't object since there is no morality and everything is relevant no? The best way to deal with liberal ideologues is to deconstruct their belief system and to call them on their BS by pointing out that their stance isn't logically consistent and is merely a rationalization for their emotional preference. I'll gladly settle on in-group utilitarianism based around the shared characteristics of the group's members as opposed to relativist anarchy. People will believe in just about anything as long as there's an emotional motivation driving them to do so (think of the religious context that gave rise to free will in the first place). Also sorry if I couldn't live up to your expectations; I hear Stefan's new book will cover the topic of free will so maybe you'll find what you're looking for in there. --- break --- Note, I posted my analysis on UPB a few posts up but its still being held for moderation; it's one of those hidden posts with purple outline only the author can see. Hopefully it'll pop in soon. Edit: Post now shows up a few posts up or just click here.

Decided to take the opportunity to express my views on UPB that were briefly quoted by barn (from our PM discussion) earlier in this thread. I think it's common knowledge in this community that Stefan considered himself a devout Objectivist before creating UPB. As an Objectivist Stefan noticed a logical contradiction within Objectivism: It advocates for the NAP but advocates for a limited state which in itself violates the NAP. If I recall correctly Ayn Rand's view was that if human nature necessitates a limited state so be it, but she also acknowledged a scenario may come to pass where citizens would voluntarily donate sufficient tax revenue out of of rational self-interest thereby eliminating the conflict. Stefan eliminated compulsory taxation and the state with UPB to make Objectivism logically and morally consistent. The problem with both Objectivism and UPB is that both are derived by focusing on only the selfish / individualist aspect of humanity and discards our groupish nature (natural in-group preference). The cognitive method used by Stefan to create UPB is also based on an individualistic desire to create a universal standard for the sake of logical consistency and ease of application which sounds very much like a product of the consistency bias. We don't want to be wrong and we don't want to expend energy agonizing over each and every decision therefore we take something we understand to work for a certain set of applications and apply it universally. Then we rationalize away logical inconsistencies. This is how both Objectivism and UPB came into existence. Because ideologies such as Objectivism, UPB, and others are built upon an ideal that only acknowledges a specific aspect of human nature (to the exclusion of others), we will eventually arrive at a time and place where our beliefs are challenged by reality and we arrive at the logical conclusion that if we as a group aren't able to respect and live up to our ideals, then we as a group don't deserve to survive. This is the conclusion Stefan arrived at in this video. Note I also highly recommend viewing PhilosophiCat's rebuttal videos (part 1 & 2). If the logical conclusion to your belief system in the face of an existential threat is that its members don't deserve to survive for essentially acting in accordance with their nature then it was never a belief system meant for human beings in the first place. I understand Stefan has acknowledged the need for in-group preference (haven't we all in these trying times) but he hasn't done the hard work of fully integrating this aspect into his philosophical framework. I don't believe that patching up UPB to account for in-group preference is the intellectually honest thing to do. Leaving Stefan to his own devices by letting him hang on to UPB for emotional support isn't doing him nor us any favors. No one is exempt from cognitive biases, not me, not you, not Stefan or Ayn Rand. We all make mistakes. We can't change things for the better if we're holding on to a conflicting belief system that impacts our actions for the worse (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, etc). In my opinion it would be more productive for Stefan to focus his philosophical explorations on finding a balance between selfishness and groupishness appropriate for our in-group. Asking people to completely suppress their group identity or asking them to be expendable pawns to be sacrificed to the collective are both extreme views that discard one part of what it means to be human. I think it's fair to say this is the approach Japan has taken. Could they have done things better, sure, but when the s*** hits the fan they'll unite and come together to face their problems as a group whereas we know what's in store for us if things don't change soon. In a previous post I mentioned that the need to embrace influence is a philosophical implication of us being led by emotions not reason. Another important implication is the need to be open to constructive criticism. We see the mistakes of others much more clearly than our own because we don't have a dog in the fight. If we did, we'd be just as biased as the other guy. High IQ does not exempt us from this reality. I suspect that there are a number of actions Stefan decided not to pursue to protect his world view. One of them may have been the decision not to reach out to prominent members of the Alt-Right. If true, I believe this to be a mistake. There are many young, talented, and passionate figures on the Alt-Right, but no one is perfect and we all stand to benefit from collaborating with each other. Ironically, this is what the left fears most as put on public display with the recent Alternative Influence piece. What they fear is an organized network of influencers in collaboration to take them down (the same strategy they used on us). This is their greatest fear because it is their greatest strength: Organization and Influence. Let's be sure to take notice and do all we can to give those bastards a run for their money.

I put the previously unmentioned qualifier in there to clarify what I meant with my previous statement(s). Free will means different things to different people (secular, non-secular context, absolute vs non-absolute, etc); I have no way of knowing what everyone's idea of free will is so I defined it in a way that made it clear. Now I know Stefan draws an intelligent audience but I didn't want to make any assumptions. If I didn't disprove what you believe free will to be then we're likely in agreement. This is what I said I can agree to as it pertains to free will: ----------- break ------------- My takeaway from Objectivism was that it was designed to be the perfect ideology by embracing objective truths and human nature as it exists and using this information to our advantage in any and all of our endeavors. My thinking was that if you're an Objectivist you'd always be correct since you had the truth on your side so when I took a look at the Objectivist movement of today and saw what essentially boiled down to an Ayn Rand book club I started looking for answers myself. If you're not getting the results your looking for you're obviously not accounting for one or more relevant facts and therefore aren't on the objective path yet. Yeah that's the part about accepting human nature as it exists as opposed to how you'd like it to exist and it again goes to prove the very point you've highlighted: Subconscious influence, cognitive bias, etc... The truth is that each and every one of us is impacted by these issues. The people that think they're exempt are the worst off imo. If you read Ayn Rand and became emotionally attached to her exact words you start to discount & dismiss conflicting information that by today's standards is pretty much common knowledge. I've seen Yoran Brook do this many times and it's why I don't consider myself part of the "official" Objectivist movement.

I certainly agree with you that Objectivism isn't perfect as-is but she was certainly on the right track. If you account for human irrationality and other factors not scientifically proven in her time you've got something very useful to work with. It's kind of sad that Objectivism didn't evolve alongside the scientific discoveries up to today but with Ayn Rand's personality setting the tone for the movement it's not surprising.

This is why I prefer framing it as a culture of self-ownership rather than free will, which is factually incorrect. ---- @ Donnadogsoth, I think we can come to an agreement on free will if we settle on a place somewhere between Ayn Rand's rational man and a leaf blowing in the wind.

Based on your example I'd say more like up-gradable cyborgs Here's what I previously wrote on the subject: I think it's fair to say that I disproved the existence of absolute free will in my response to MahtiSonni and I do acknowledge the ability for us to improve upon "practical" free will so I think our positions are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I don't see how using influence to overcome cognitive dissonance, a force that interferes with free will / a culture of self-ownership, can be equated to a violation of property rights. I understand you don't like the concept of influence but why would you oppose using it to break down barriers that prevent individuals from exchanging facts and ideas relevant to their well-being. For example you could decide to engage a leftist by telling them they are wrong about a certain issue and then state your facts (Ben Shapiro approach) or you could engage the same person, ask them why they believe what they believe, and ask them to play devil's advocate by stating "what if you're wrong?" once you've established a good rapport with the person. I don't believe it's a realistic goal for us to try to persuade anyone in one sitting but actually getting the other person to question the validity of their beliefs, even if only as a hypothetical exercise, can be considered progress in my book because it's something they've likely never done and engages their rational mind. Remember their belief system was pushed onto them by means of manipulation from childhood onward and reinforced by constant peer pressure and a culture where the only means to succeed as an individual is tied to virtue signaling in an effort to expand the Marxist Overton window. These poor souls never had a choice at free will and the workings of the mind (cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias) ensure that things will stay that way. When I say that human nature necessitates the use of influence techniques this is what I'm referring to. This is mostly true if the individual grew up in a society that instilled a culture of self-ownership into each of its members (what we used to have) and that in my opinion is the best system we have tried that worked. But this isn't what we have anymore. Today's youth has been brainwashed and sheltered from opposing views. I don't think its fair to make a blanket statement to hold them morally accountable for their actions under these circumstances. I certainly understand the desire to do so because you don't have to care about people who you view deserve what's coming for them but that's not objectively the case here. Then there's the nature of our political system to contend with. We know what it looks like when insane people are holding the reigns over society and today's technology is a lot better than it used to be under previous fascist regimes. So I don't think we can afford to ignore these people. Philosophy, the pursuit of objective truths, certainly isn't for everyone. If moral health is your main goal I would recommend becoming a church-going traditional conservative and never look back. However if you can't for whatever reason remain in that category then the risk of moral corruption is just the cost of doing business in the pursuit of objective truths. What's true isn't always what makes you feel good inside.

How 'bout them public schools bro? Like you I support a culture that values self-ownership but it's important to distinguish between what is objectively true vs. an outcome oriented shortcut necessitated by human nature. Knowing the difference is vital, especially when dealing with deconstructionist leftist intellectuals.

Let me ask you this question: Does the existence of cognitive dissonance not directly contradict the concept of (absolute) free will? Still recommend reading the Righteous Mind. It's about as good as a read as your first exposure to Ayn Rand if you've ever read any of her books. Certainly one of the most relevant books of our time.

Objectively speaking they're the same. However if I use the term manipulation people will shy away from it because we are lead by our emotions not reason (proof below). It's my position that we have to embrace this concept due to the philosophical implications of human nature as discussed in a previous post. Yes I can. The concepts of us being driven by emotion rather than reason, morality as a concept derived from feelings, and a number of other things I referenced during our PMs were discussed in great detail by Jonathan Haidt in his book Righteous Mind. Since you made a reference to Haidt and morality I was under the impression that you had read the book. I highly recommend you get a copy of his book; our PM conversation will make so much more sense to you once you've read the book, I promise. I apologize for the mix-up; that one's on me. In addition you can also watch Stefan's conversations with Scott Adams on Youtube (video 1 & 2). The idea of irrationality is a recurring theme in their discussions. Stefan doesn't and hasn't as of yet fully embraced this topic (you can frequently see the emotional discomfort on his face while discussing the concept of irrationality with Scott Adams) because of the philosophical implications of accepting these facts; ie they would contradict a number of his previous stances including UPB into which he's invested many years of his life. Also note that I'm not ignoring your other comments by not choosing to answer them at this point in time. Once you've familiarized yourself with the material listed above we can re-visit these issues.

Precisely! I'm sure the Koch foundation will get right on it after they've successfully cloned Ayn Rand

Traditional intelligence deals with understanding of facts, logic and reasoning whereas emotional intelligence deals with understanding people's feelings. For example someone who's venting may tell you a bunch of stuff that is factually inaccurate. The emotionally intelligent thing to do in this scenario is to empathize with him as opposed to correcting his factual errors. Emotional intelligence focuses on why someone is telling you something (what emotions are driving the conversation) as opposed to what is being said factually and then using this information to respond in an emotionally correct fashion (as opposed to replying with a factually correct answer). If you're looking for a great introduction into basic emotional intelligence I highly recommend the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman; your local library should have it in stock. As far as Peterson goes, from what I've observed he's a very factually and data driven kind of person. I've seen a few of his debates with others and he has a habit of leaving his conversation partners behind with the way he expresses himself. I'm not saying he's a robot but I do think it's a fair statement to make that he values factual accuracy over speaking in a way that's clear for the average layman to follow. Note if you're posting on this board your likely not an average layman :)

I know I still owe you this one and the free will discussion from the PMs but I'll discuss them both here since you mentioned it here again. My personal definition of emotional intelligence is an advanced understanding of human nature, integrated into a person's mindset, which then can be effectively used to exercise influence (or 4D Chess if you prefer). I understand your emotional judgement of what you may interpret to be manipulation or deception but I disagree with framing emotional intelligence in this light on both philosophical and strategic reasons. As a movement, the "right" values facts over feelings. If we value positive outcomes facts are a must however we have to acknowledge that an objective mindset isn't man's default or natural mindset. We're driven by our emotions, not reason, and use our reasoning skills to justify our emotionally motivated actions; see Jonathan Haidt's discussion of the elephant and the rider. Thus when we try to communicate with others that do not share this common mindset (the left) our ideas are rejected by cognitive dissonance and our audience's preexisting world view is reinforced. Free will operates along the same lines. It's not our natural state of mind but if we do not hold people accountable for their actions society crumbles at the hands of determinism. Free will is a learned cultural mindset that allows us to perceive additional opportunities for applying our reasoning faculty; opportunities that remain unnoticed by our default range of perception. However we cannot say that people are always fully aware of the consequences of their actions; and even if they were aware of the full range of consequences their decisions would still be subject to emotional preference at any given moment. These are objective facts whether we like it or not. In my opinion one of the philosophical consequences of these facts is a requirement to embrace emotional intelligence in addition to "traditional facts" in order to advocate for our desired outcomes. From a strategic perspective, we must adopt emotional intelligence for no other reason than the fact that our opponents are experts at employing emotional intelligence. You can't win a war unless you're able to at least match or outgun your opponent. It is important to realize that while we're fighting for facts and free will these two values will not be enough to lead us to victory; they are the spoils of war we must win back and continue to protect using the most objective means of persuasion. No misunderstanding here at all. If you're a long time listener you should realize that the criticism Stefan applied to Ayn Rand's body of work was accurate but also that it applies to Stefan's collective body of work thus far to the same extent (objectivism does not account for emotions first, reason second). Human irrationality is an objective fact; ignoring it comes at a price. Being aware that these facts exists is one thing but fully internalizing these facts into your mindset is another. No hard feelings tough. Remember, "facts over feelings"

The part about Peterson lacking emotional intelligence (1) or us needing both to succeed (2)? (1) This one's easy. Someone who's good at employing emotional intelligence usually has charisma. Peterson is like a white version of Ted Cruz; well spoken but socially awkward and hard for the common man to relate to. (2) For this one I'd point to Scott Adams' book Win Bigly that chronicles Trump's presidential victory over his rivals while utilizing 4D Chess techniques aka advanced emotional intelligence.

My take on the issue you described is that both content of character and race matter, not just one or the other. The genetic traits of the population matter and the moral character of the population matters as well. Human nature includes both aspects of selfishness and groupishness (Jonathan Haidt) therefore, logically, society ought to be organized around both individual liberties and natural in-group preference. Whenever we ignore one aspect of humanity in favor of another problems end up occurring. Assuming the Alt-Right gained significant political power, which it needs to do for Western culture to reverse the current out-group preference to a more natural in-group preference, it would likely be organized on the political left (white collectivists) leaving the individualists on the political right (whites and non-whites) to balance out the equation, hopefully leaving unassimilable minority groups without significant national political representation. I do believe there's a realistic chance for the Alt-Right to take over a portion of the Democrat party (white collectivists) using divide and conquer tactics if they can embrace emotional intelligence. I'd gladly take a political compromise between natural in-group preference and individual liberties over the current status quo. Agree with you 100%. I understand people's impulse to virtue signal and for violence considering current events but strategically you're shooting yourself in the foot and helping out the very enemy you want to defeat. These tactics only "work" when you're in the majority. I like Jordan Peterson as well but he's another example of a spokesperson with a razor sharp mind for analyzing and presenting facts but not a whiff of emotional intelligence to speak of (similar to Ayn Rand or Stefan). We need both to be effective.

If everybody took responsibility for their own behavior there wouldn't be a need for contracts or courts for that matter. The problem I'm pointing out is that the limited liability corporation privatizes profits while socializing its accountability beyond the firm's liquid net worth. If a company causes an injury to an unrelated third party, leaving him with an expensive medical bill, the company could only be forced to pay out a fraction of this cost due to limited liability. Are you saying there's no problem to be found here from an individualist or libertarian POV?

Let's say you and I partner and make this limited liability company and we each put in $2000 into the joint venture. One day while I'm out on a sales call I accidentally hit someone with my car and leave them with a medical bill of $50,000. The court awards the individual with the $4000 plus another $2000 in profit we've made so far. Was justice served to the injured third party?

PT Bergin, First off Congratulations on becoming a father. Second here's s list of quick recommendations: - Find out what financial resources your family qualifies for from local, state, and federal governments. I understand this is a classical liberal leaning website however the reality is you've been paying taxes your entire life and will continue to do so until death, nothing wrong with taking back what's yours when you need it most. I understand your family situation is bad but you can always visit a local church and see what resources they provide as well. Keep in mind it's is only for the short term. You're not doing your family any favors by turning down a helping hand in a time of need. - Do some serious research into prenatal care, nutrition, diet, vitamins for your wife. The things your wife eats while pregnant can and do impact your child's long-term health. - Look into supplementing your education if you're currently facing bad options in the job market. Consider a technical or other school that has a well paying job waiting for you after graduation.

Ticketyboo, If you've had a chance to read the article I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the piece. Do you also identify as Alt-Right?

Public post on FDR is fine by me. If you prefer one over the other I'll defer to your choice.