Irwin Schiff, RIP

Irwin Schiff,  R.I.P.

1928-2015

by

Eric Paul Nolte

When decent people hear some authority justify his bad actions by saying, "We were just following orders," they will probably feel at least a little stab of horror rippling through their guts, like an echo of those many Nazis who were just obeying their orders to carry out the Jewish Holocaust. But to be Jewish, and a victim of some horror today, and then to hear these terrible words as a justification, is even more unforgivable.

Irwin Schiff, the eighth and last child of a Polish Jew who immigrated to America in the early twentieth century, died on 16 October 2015, of skin cancer that had metastasized to his whole body.

He was 87 years old, barely able to breath, blind, totally incapacitated. Yet the authorities hand-cuffed him to his bed frame. For months the family had been requesting that he be granted a compassionate release from jail so that he could die at home with his family around him. In the very week he died, after multiple appeals, the authorities demanded still further proof that his health was grave enough to warrant a compassionate early release.

Irwin Schiff's "crime" was that he challenged the American tax code and published books that attacked the legitimacy of the income tax. Prosecuted by the IRS, Schiff was sentenced to 14 years in jail. Given his rapidly declining health and his scheduled release in July, 2017, this meant that he was condemned to serving a death sentence. This is a man of great personal and intellectual integrity who served his country as a soldier during the Korean War. 

One of his books, The Federal Mafia, was actually banned by a court in Nevada, as if it were 1963, and the volume in question were Lady Chatterley's Lover or Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn, or, as in Germany after the war, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf (which was then banned by the German censors.) The government authorities deemed Irwin Schiff's ideas a public threat requiring censorship. 

Now, the point should be made that censorship is an asinine belief. Why? In a free market of ideas, the craziest ideas are eventually self-exterminating because crazy ideas slam up against the wall of reality, like the belief that one can fly by jumping off a tall building and flapping one's arms. By contrast, the better ideas are viable because they must be consistent with reality. So I say to the worst bigots and bastards, go ahead and preach your vile, stupid nonsense openly and in public--because in a free market of ideas, the presence of these craziest notions will only make the better ideas shine even more brightly by comparison.

Here I shall not argue the merits of Irwin Schiff's case against the legitimacy of the income tax. If you have been following my blog, you will already know that I believe the IRS should be dismantled. I believe that they display the moral timbre, if not quite the ocean of blood, of the Nazi SS or the Soviet KGB. But none of this matters here. In my humble opinion, as I've written elsewhere, taxation is not the price of civilization. The price of civilization is the protection of the sacred rights of all individuals to their own life, liberty, and property. But none of this is exactly the issue here. 

The point here is that this poor man, Irwin Schiff, was essentially put away as a political prisoner for espousing and practicing an idea that offended the authorities, and he died, chained to his bed. The authorities could not be moved to release this blind, helpless man. 

The family continued to plead for his release in his last hours, but they were denied because, as the authorities explained, they were just following orders, and were forbidden to display a dram of humanity or moral autonomy. Think of Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority.

We can do better than this, we can make the world a better place. For starters, we could dismantle the IRS and stop this reprehensible tyranny.

E   P   N

2015.1123

Still a World of Unprecedented Opportunity!

Still a World of Unprecedented Opportunity!

by 

Eric Paul Nolte

The New Yorker style cartoon says, "My desire to remain well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane."

Well, then, there is also the fact that the "news" would seem to be largely a matter of one's point of view. What is news?  And what shall we make of it? As it stands, the "news" is produced mostly by crony big businesses who comb the world high and low for every little thing that will arouse our fear, outrage, disgust, and our despair, while ignoring every evidence of the inspiring, the creative, and the amazing! 

Of these inspiring and astonishing wonderments, there is so much of it that one can truly argue that we live in an age of unprecedented opportunity, even in the face of the government's dreadful drag of collectivist insanity!

What?! We have a hundred thousand pages of government regulations, issued by unelected bureaucrats who wield life and death control over our actions, dictating the details of damn near everything that anybody can hope to do in the world.  How can I say that ours remains a realm of unprecedented opportunity?  

Because this opinion is the result of my observation of the arithmetic of the matter.  I don't disagree with the idea that government is profoundly destructive, but follow the math here. 

Start with the addition of the amazing creativity of entrepreneurs and inventors.  Their passion to create new ideas infuses the world with their astonishing new stuff. Subtract from this sum the destruction created by the dead hand of government, whose terrible interventions of the righteous, socialist, egalitarian destroyers, greatly slow the stream of invention and creativity.  I won't attempt to document every step of the positive case here, but it should suffice to ask you to compare the worlds of 1980 and 2015.

Do I need to invoke anything more than the advent of the world wide web, the internet, cell phones, and email?  I didn't even try hard to name things that have led to this radical transformation of the quality of our lives.  The difference is dramatic and profound.  

Government produces nothing that is not financed by its coercive takings from the citizens.  Everything government does is made possible by the wealth they take from the citizens by force, through taxation.  

At best, government succeeds when it creates the stable atmosphere in which the creative elements can bring their products to market, restrains the predators in our midst, negotiates the disputes among the well-intentioned, and repels the attacks of foreign invaders.  These are the functions of a legitimate government, in essence: the protection of life, liberty, and property--the protection of the individual rights of all its citizens. The civil order, and ours is arguably the most generous population in the history of the world, should take care of that small percentage of the population that is truly hapless, helpless, and deserving of our charity.    

Now think of how dramatically greater all this progress since 1980 might have been, absent the dead foot of government control, as opposed to the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's formulation of how the successful pursuit of selfish interest must necessarily benefit the greater good.

E   P  N

2015.1017

The Imperative of Praising Heroes Like Pamela Geller

The Imperative of Praising Heroes like Pamela Geller

by

Eric Paul Nolte

I continue to be appalled by the refusal of Americans, both liberals and conservatives, to name and condemn the naked evil that is sweeping much of the world in the name of Islam.

Much blame has been heaped upon Pamela Geller, Fleming Rose, and other heroes who publicly dare to condemn the Islamists who threaten anyone with death for the “crime” of drawing Mohammed or otherwise offending their, oh, so delicate feelings.  

The right to free speech is as fundamental and precious as the rights to life, liberty, and property, and to condemn those who draw the public's attention to the need for this most basic right is comparable to blaming the rape victim for being raped.

But there is something else that needs to be said to those cowards in the West who will not reprint the “offensive” cartoons, and who scorn brave idealists like Pamela Geller:

You who piously repeat the lie that Islam is “a great religion of peace,” you who fail to stand up and righteously condemn the absolute evil of Islamism, you are an accessary to the Islamist crimes of murdering innocents, you are guilty of aiding and abetting the evildoers of Islam, and you thereby make yourselves as loathsome and evil as the Islamists!  

This view derives from a crucial observation that Ayn Rand makes in her writings on ethics: that one who will not condemn an evil is an accessary to the crime, and is therefore morally little better than the perpetrator of that crime.

With all my talk about evil here, perhaps I should underscore, in a thumbnail sketch, this aspect of the ethics I believe: that the Good consists of everything that supports rational human life and flourishing, and the evil amounts to everything that threatens the well-being of such peaceful, rational people. 

All attempts to appease the Islamists are doomed.  There is no placating them.  In the end there is only outright surrender or principled opposition to them, backed by appropriately lethal force, in the name of self-defense.

To those who blame Pamela Geller, I say: shape up and recognize what is going on in the world, and realize that it is not yet too late to reclaim your moral virtue and stand up against this Islamist evil, this terrible threat to the great values that have created every wonder and comfort of the modern world!  It not yet too late to stand up in such an act of self-defense.  I’m not sure how much longer we have before it is indeed too late.  

E   P   N

2015.0731
rev. 2015.0801
and 2015.0828  

Man as Self-Made, Free Will, and Ayn Rand as Parent: Another Look

Man as Self-Made, Free Will, and Ayn Rand as Parent:

Another Look

by Eric Paul Nolte

I recently expressed my wish that Ayn Rand had become a parent, because I surmise that had she reared children, this experience might have enriched her view of man as a being of self-made soul.

I expressed the opinion that we are not entirely beings of self-made soul, because we are clearly delivered into the time and place of our birth as if by a roll of the cosmic dice, which endows us with a wide range of traits that limit our horizon severely.  However it is also clear to those of us who have studied the matter from an Objectivist perspective that every normal human is endowed with the power to think or not, or turn one’s attention from one thing to another.  This power of choice, the freedom to think, is in fact the very power of free will.  

So we do have the power of free will by which to guide the unfolding of our gifts, such as they are, and this is the most crucial human trait.

I suspect Rand might have worried that by not affirming Homo sapiens as beings of entirely self-made soul, she would be opening herself to the charge that she was denying free will and affirming the view of man as a helpless pawn in a deterministic universe.

But as Rand herself points out, free will is an aspect of human nature, granted to us by the law of causality.  As she says, free will does not contradict the deterministic laws of science, it is the embodiment of a power granted to us by our nature.

Neither did I intend to suggest the ironic point that had Rand been a parent, she would have been forced to come to the conclusion at which I would have hoped to see her arrive.  I agree that it is not necessary to have personal experience of many things in order to arrive at a true understanding of those things.  

For example, one needn’t actually be a parent in order to know with certainty that the moment babies arrive on the planet they are already endowed with a fully formed temperament and a matching style of learning that is unlikely to change radically as a result of subsequent experience.  Neither must one have been a parent in order to know with certainty that some poor blighted soul, born into a cruelly oppressive culture and with an IQ of 70, will not likely enjoy the same power to fashion one’s own soul as that of a genius born into an auspicious time and place.  Nor should it be controversial that the range of human potential embodied by these two children does not mean that they lack free will.  By our nature as human beings, all of us are born with this, our most singular and fundamental trait, the power to choose to think, the power of rationality.  What I am asserting here is that human beings cannot enjoy the power to fashion ourselves without a wide range of genetic and environmental constraints on our potential.  

In short, to be a being of entirely self-made soul is not in the cards for Homo saps, but any normal person is endowed with the power to choose to think, and this makes all the difference in the world!

E  P  N

2015.0610b

I Wish Ayn Rand Had Been a Parent

I Wish Ayn Rand Had Been a Parent

by

Eric Paul Nolte

We just saw the Oscar award-winning film, “Still Alice.”

The story involves the tragically unusually early mental decline of a brilliant professor of linguistics at Columbia, due to Alzheimer’s disease.

A truly horrible premise!  I can’t think of a much worse fate, unless it is losing a child at a tender age.

Now Ayn Rand was insistent that man was a being of entirely self-made soul.  I think she must have held this belief because she herself lacked a certain worldliness, a certain experience of life that is available to a large population of others who had the opportunity to be parents.  

I wish Ayn Rand had had children… imagine her getting up at 03:00 every night for months or years in the service of her babies!  Ah, yes, we are entirely beings of self-made soul!  Right.

Imagine if she had had a husband or parent with… Zeus forgive the thought… Alzheimers… or… if she herself had come down with dementia, and had enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on the horror of this condition while still in command of her intellect.  Is dementia the result of a being who is truly of self-made soul?

What revision to her view of man as a being of self-made soul might she have made  if she had had the opportunity to reflect on the situation of some poor sub-Saharan African girl, born into a Muslim family, born with AIDS, born into a family where, if she survives these miserable circumstances long enough to reach puberty, she will enjoy the opportunity to experience an adolescent rite of passage in which her loving elders will slice off her clitoris in some horrible, unhygienic ceremony in which she stands a good chance of contracting an infection that will kill her?  To what degree does this poor, blighted soul, who, if typical of much of her demographic, does not have an IQ much above 70, stand of creating a life of meaning, purpose, and joy?  

If you say this poor girl is a being of self-made soul, I pronounce you an idiot, an ideologue, in mindless orbit to the, yes, otherwise brilliance of Ayn Rand.

Now, I credit Ayn Rand with offering me a set of values that essentially saved my life from a fate at least as bad as death.  But let us acknowledge that she did not have all the answers.  So far, nobody comes even close to Rand’s best answers, but let us affirm that we are still keeping our minds open and searching for ever better answers as we move forward in this on-going search for wisdom and happiness.

E  P  N

2015.0604

Losing My Best Friend in College to Suicide

Losing My Best Friend in College to Suicide

And My Best Advice to the Young

by

Eric Paul Nolte

While the title of this essay is about losing my best college friend to suicide, this is also a meditation on the suicidal behavior of so many young people I have known and lost to horrible and pointless deaths, especially in recent years, and to others for whom I fear they are in danger today. 

It is also my heartfelt, mindful, and best advice to all the young people I know. This is a paean to a rational love of life, and the better world such a love may engender. 

I particularly fear for those young people on college campuses today, especially those in the humanities, where a dense and toxic fog rolled in long ago and reduced the intellectual conversation to a vertigo-inspiring babble of postmodern epistemology and ethics.  

I believe that young minds and hearts are put in mortal danger when their professors assure them that all normative values are entirely the arbitrary conventions of the tribe they were born into, and that nobody can confidently say that any ideas are necessarily right or wrong, or true or false, and yet also proclaim that all cultures are equally good (except for the West, which is absolutely condemned as the essence of evil... except for socialists ... except for Stalin and Mao...)

Yet there is still the vestigial whiff of common sense, which, from my having spent years abroad, I know is not so common after all, but instead amounts to the faint scent of Aristotle and the late European Enlightenment.  And anybody who displays the faintest whiff of this common sense and sanity has to know that when you take a dose of heroin, this is not entirely unlike walking on a tightrope from rim to rim across the diameter of a live volcano.  

We recently lost yet another golden boy to such an inadvertent heroin overdose.  In the weeks since then, I have often burst into tears at the thought of this absurd and avoidable tragedy.  I knew the boy for many years.  I don't think one would be mistaken to attribute this boy's death to something suicidal.  

What the hell is wrong with the sorrows of these young Werthers, as Goethe framed the matter?

After my first trial at college was so rudely interrupted by my Army draft notice, I lost my best college friend to suicide.  What was most shattering about this loss was that my friend, Chris Lambert, was an Objectivist! I had never known a more articulate, clear, strong advocate of rational self-interest, and of life as a process of creating one's own meaning, purpose, and joy.  And yet he took his own life.  It was completely shattering to me.  Chris was also an astonishingly gifted actor.  Among other things, at 18, Chris had recreated Hal Holbrook's "Mark Twain Tonight," a one man show in which he convincingly portrayed the 70 year old Mark Twain's traveling theater shows. 

*   *   *

Now, it's hard enough to come to understand Ayn Rand through the thicket of cultural hostility... but ... I was a red diaper baby, veteran of an urban socialist commune, reared to be an heir to Trotsky's world view.

So, here we are many decades since Chris' death. I could go on at some length about the horror of losing Chris and the overwhelming slap in the face to my then nascent grasp of Objectivism-- to have the most articulate spokesman for the philosophy of loving life on earth... take his own life for no reason that anybody could understand.  No suicide note.  No evident foul play.  Nothing.  He hanged himself in his off-campus apartment.  I have struggled to make sense of it ever since.  Chris and I were 19 at the time.  I am now 63.  It still makes me dizzy and sad. 

So let us move on to yet another horrible suicide:

The son of close friends took his own life many years ago.  He was a golden boy of 20, gifted at music and everything else he ever touched, but he was impatient, idealistic in a way that was deeply skewed towards the misanthropic, earth-worshipping wing of the most militant environmentalists. At the grave site, I was talking with one of the boy's closest friends, a young man who shared the dead boy's ideals. We were talking about environmentalism and the stakes for humanity. I mentioned that I had recently read that the ban on DDT had just then been determined to have been a politically hasty and scientifically unwarranted decision, and, more importantly, that the subsequent global ban on DDT had resulted in a worldwide catastrophe. Where malaria had been virtually eliminated in the world before then, the global ban on DDT caused a resurgence of malaria that over a period of just a few years had killed hundreds of millions of people, particularly in Africa. 

The dead boy's friend, speaking as a radical environmentalist, coldly snapped at me, "We don't need those people anyway!" 

An epiphany came to me at that moment: if your deepest ideals cherish the earth and despise humanity, what does this make of you, as a human being? It makes you an instance, an example, of the thing you despise. 

How are you supposed to live? Wouldn't it be a good example of idealism to cheer the deaths of hundreds of millions, to pray for the appearance of a new virus to wipe out humanity, or even to believe it would be a virtuous and laudable action ... to take your own life?

I couldn't help but wonder if my friends' son had taken his own life, motivated, at least in part, by such a horrible idea.

*   *   *

Now, here we are, still many years later.  More recently, two friends of ours were over for dinner and spoke intimately, in voices drained of heat or hope, of their high school son (well, a step-son to one of them) who has driven into a ditch, metaphorically speaking, that makes me fear for his life and moves me to meditate on his predicament while trying to figure out some strategy to help him.

This boy's entrenched lethargy makes me worry that he might want to take his own life. Now I remember him in earlier years as sweet little boy with a charming wit and an endearing warmth and affection. It's a horrible and wrenching thought to see this precious kid as snagged on a branch in a river where he is arranging things so that he might just let go and drown! How did we get here?  

The boy moved himself to his mother's house in a neighboring state, just a week before school opened. This move allows the boy to play hooky while apparently setting things up to drop out of school altogether. This kid has given his parents agonies of doubt and despair. The parents arrange one opportunity after another for him to find some way to become engaged with school, therapy, sports, and other activities. Sometimes the schools' actions have been deplorable, but always the parents are immediately available with another intervention, and always to no avail. Now the boy is grossly obese and depressed.

My wife is a public school teacher, so I hear from her an ear-searing stream of wounded, indignant, frustrated pleas, complaints, sympathies, outrages, and other observations on the schools, the unions, and the government regulators in far-flung cities from where central planning bureaucrats and politicians fire at the teachers fusillades of edicts and absurd, but faddish, ever-changing educational policy. With our experience of seeing (between my wife and me) three kids into college, and with my reading of many shelves of books on education, psychology, happiness, flourishing, and philosophy, I must say that I no longer believe in the sanctity of a conventional education, at least as it is practiced on the government controlled campuses.

Nevertheless, I believe that knowledge is a key value of life-serving consequence. The knowledge that counts most deeply, of course, is of those matters that give us the intellectual powers to put together a life of our own, by our own lights, for the purpose of our own, long-term, rational happiness and flourishing-- something like what Aristotle called Eudaimonia.

But there is no way to help anybody who will not be helped, who does not want to be helped. The boy has long resisted both school and therapy of different orientations. 

Help without self-motivation does not work. This kind of help does not work with psychotherapy, or education, or in any other important field.  And mandatory "help" is least effective of all.  Any doubt about this claim can be resolved by a look at Stanton Samenow's study on giving psychotherapy to prisoners (Inside the Criminal Mind), and another of his books which covers his life's work with children, Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It.)

So the question is, how is this hapless laddie going to pull himself out of this graveyard spiral before he hits the ground and bursts into flames?

*   *   * 

I've heard it said that if there were some activity that troubled kids can find, something they love and enjoy, then there can be some basis for hope, some traction available between enjoyment and the ability to set a course. But this is a treacly half-truth. What if the kid loved nothing but playing violent video games all day? Drinking beer all day? These activities may be loved, but they are clearly bad for the kid, and profoundly self-destructive!

Well, then the statement must be refined: love, as usual, is never enough. Feelings are never enough!

Ah, but nothing is more common in the world than the idea that Antoine de Saint-Exupery captured in his book, The Little Prince, when his character of a wise little fox advises his eponymous little prince: "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, for what is essential is invisible to the eye." 

I remember when I read this passage of Saint Ex for the first time as a twelve year old boy, my eyes welled up and my forearms turned to gooseflesh. I felt  flooded by a cosmic insight of enormous power. "Yes!" I thought, and went on to think, "Of course this is a deep and profound truth and I should hold on to this forever!"

This cloying claim to wisdom, that it is only with the heart that one can see rightly, is so woven into the ethos of our culture in general and into my childhood in particular that it took me decades to learn how to square off to this received wisdom, figure out what was wrong with this claim, and learn how to refute this notion.    

Now, passion for some activity may be the basis for beginning to formulate a goal, but passion by itself does not come equipped with a rudder by which one can steer it on a course of one's own choice. A goal is nothing without developing a plan and taking action to achieve it. Developing a plan cannot be guided merely by feelings because emotions can teach us nothing new, these effusions of the heart merely display what we already believe.

Passion spawns dreams, but dreams and goals must be judged for their life-serving power. Without such judgment, we're back at the same treacly half-truth as when we said that the boy needs something to love if he is to get any traction between the dream and setting a course to reach it, or of developing a plan of action to achieve a goal.

The goal has to be judged as rational.

If you're steering your life by the dictum, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly," you are saying, "You should steer by your feelings."  

These days, who on earth would dare to object to this idea that you just have to go with your heart!

Indeed. Who would object? The way out of the woods lies in a rational epistemology.

*   *   * 

One of the deepest troubles here is that we live in a world that is still so backwards with respect to matters of epistemology, that it remains largely unquestioned, and even unchallengeable, that faith is a legitimate alternative to reason as a means of knowledge.

I should interject that by faith I mean the dictionary denotation of belief in the truth of a proposition without evidence. By knowledge I mean a correspondence between reality and the claims a proposition makes about reality. By reason I mean logic applied to the evidence of experience; rationality; or "the faculty that grasps and integrates the material provided by the senses," as Ayn Rand defined it.

So here we are again at the sticking point of the world, the death grip of what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world," the pre-modern ethos of superstition, versus the reactionary, but equally senseless ravings of their postmodern skeptic opponents who deny that knowledge is anything but a tribal, arbitrary convention. 

The premodern mystics say, "I know what's absolutely true because God said it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it ... except that if you don't agree with me, you're going to hell." 

The postmoderns, by contrast, say, "There is no absolute truth (except for the absolute that there is no absolute truth) and so Truth is entirely a matter of which tribe you were born into. This is multiculturalism; cultural relativism; or the idea that no tribe's ideas can be any better or more true than those of any others. That all these tribes purvey radically contradictory ideas troubles me not at all because we postmoderns are beyond any old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy questions of enlightenment now, and this fact of contradiction between the ideas of one tribe and another could only trouble those poor, benighted sods who insist on clinging to this obsolete belief in absolutes."

It remains true today that the only foundational opposition to this stunningly false alternative between premodern mysticism and postmodern skepticism is found in the stream of thinkers that began with Aristotle and who trace themselves through Ayn Rand and her like-minded kinfolk; in short, the advocates of reason, as defined above. Rand called her philosophy Objectivism, and evaluated her own significance as arriving at a time that allowed her to take up and significantly advance the Aristotelian stream. Similarly, she saw that she had been able to take up and advance many of the key ideas of the European Enlightenment which flowed from Aristotelianism. The American founders had mined their ideological origins from the Aristotelian and Enlightenment thinkers, and Rand was aware that she had significantly advanced these ideas. For example, Rand showed how the normative values of America, such as that the idea of individual rights is secular, not divine.  As she framed the matter, individual rights are not granted by divine law, nor by congressional law, but by the law of identity, which sees these rights as bedrock conditions of survival, rooted in human nature as such.

In any contest between which fundamental outlook is the most life-serving, the premodern mystic, the postmodern skeptic, or the Aristotelian/ Objectivist/ European Enlightenment, I ask you who, given the facts, could reject reason, observation and logic, and instead uphold either a) the verification of truth by means of mystical faith, meaning the stark belief in the truth of an idea without evidence; or b) the skeptic's denial of the possibility of confidence in any knowledge? 

But we're not given the facts. And the person in question here was a sweet little boy, affectionate with his family and friends, who had a charming sense of humor, and is now a depressed, obese teenager, snagged on a branch in the river, who appears to be wholly innocent of owning any life-serving values, and probably believes the reigning dogma purveyed at school these days, that self-esteem is what other people think of you ... which is why I fear this poor soul is in danger for his life.

Geez! Where do you even begin here?

Maybe with self-esteem, because without it, nobody can find the energy even to get his feet out of bed in the morning.

But, self-esteem is already a complicated concept, derived from a foundation of many prerequisite concepts, and a full grasp of it can not be achieved without a prior grasp of these earlier ideas.

So be it.  So are many of the important concepts in philosophy and science woven into a complicated web that requires, ultimately a grasp of the whole web. We enter the fray where we can, and then circle back later, in order to be systematic and rigorously fill in the blanks as prior personal and accumulated human knowledge allow.

                                                   *   *   *

Philosophy is a whirling merry-go-round that will never stop whirling merely to allow us to board without danger or grueling effort. How to jump aboard without faltering, getting whacked and losing teeth, is the first challenge. But it can be done if you just start running abeam the outer arc, find something to grab ahold of, and pull yourself aboard. From there we can begin to contemplate the whole machine around us, as if the machine were stopped, because now we're aboard and moving at the same relative speed as the machine itself.

So we tell the boy in question here, "Son, you're in trouble. 

"Do you hear me? I fear for your life. Did you get that? It matters! You matter!"

And here is my best advice to the young:

*   *   *

Your life matters!  Without you, without your being alive, there is no possibility that anything else can ever matter. Your being alive is, as the old philosophers put it, a necessary but not sufficient condition for anything else to matter in your life.

So you need to hold your life as important before you're going to be able to hold anything else as important.

You get this? Another term for this matter is to say you need self-esteem.

Oh, God, I bet you've heard endless fluff about self-esteem in school, but what they're telling you is nonsense! Self-esteem is crucial, but it is not what you have been told it is. Self-esteem is not the result of what other people think of you. 

Self-esteem is an accomplishment that you have to earn, and it lies at the intersection of several important things: you must come to feel worthy of achieving happiness. You must learn that this happiness is something that you must achieve by intelligent work. You must achieve a certain confidence in your ability to live your life, which you can expect to happen when you have acquired enough skills to know you are capable of making your way in the world. While you might not feel all these good things at this very moment, maybe you can see some evidence from your experience of having already learned many things. From this inductive evidence, you can know that you are capable of learning how to make your way in the world.

Let me expand on this idea that you need to acquire the conviction that you are worthy of happiness: 

Knowing that you are worthy of happiness is an accomplishment too, because, for one thing, this whole idea is awash in confusion and craziness coming from all your moral leaders who will tell you that any big concern with your own happiness is selfish and bad! But they're wrong! You need to learn that you are indeed worthy of happiness, but you'll never achieve it by going through life with hedonistic, self-indulgent thrills, or by just any old path of willy-nilly mindless bouncing off the walls. 

Your life is your most sacred possession! Your life is yours to live! You are on this earth to live your life and be happy, and you can put your life together by your own lights, and do damn near anything you want to do, so long as it is rational, peaceful, and respectful of the same right in everybody else.

Your life is the very source of the possibility of valuing anything at all. You should want to live because, barring any bad luck like being captured as somebody's slave, or experiencing the curse of an incurable illness with intractable pain, joy is the reward of a life well-lived. 

You can create a life of meaning, purpose, and, yes, joy! Why not? This is the possibility that life offers all of us, and it's not that hard! It's just not so difficult, if you'll just get your head screwed on right, and realize that the world is infected by all these crazy ideas, and that you do not have to be a victim of these ideas! 

You can get the right perspective to dismantle the crazy ideas and their power over you if you demand that the ideas you accept must make sense!

How do you know if an idea makes sense? For one thing, you can know that no idea makes sense if it contradicts itself. For example, it is a contradiction when somebody tells you that to be happy you must live a life of self-sacrifice for the lives of others. This is crazy because it is telling you that to be happy you must renounce your own happiness.

Ayn Rand got most of these matters absolutely right. She is not a deity, and you cannot trust anybody's ideas without wrestling with them for yourself and making them your own by a process of bringing everything you believe to the final court of logic, evidence, and observation. Rand, combined with your own observation and reasoning, is a good starting point for trying to unpack the wide range of puzzlements, conundrums, and imponderables that have bedeviled Homo saps since we first appeared on the planet about 100,000 years ago.

Another foundational truth here: reality exists outside you, but includes you. Your mind does not invent reality, you grasp reality by sense perception, and you judge any puzzling aspects of your perception of it by logic. Logic is the process of identifying things without contradiction in the full context of everything else you know. There are no contradictions in reality, so for one to draw the conclusion that the underlying nature of reality entails a contradiction, is evidence that one is making a mistake. This is not to be confused with the important admission of saying, when appropriate, 'I don't know.'" To say we don't know something leaves open the possibility of a better explanation as it comes down the road, and makes it a reasonable ambition actively to search for these better answers. 

Logic, which is the process of non-contradictory identification, works because reality is what it is, and not just anything we wish it were, in defiance of the facts. The law of identity states that things are what they are. A is A. A thing, A, cannot be both A and another thing, B, at the same time and in the same respect. A thing can't be a table and yet also be a fish tank at the same time. Nothing can be entirely burning in flames, and yet be frozen solid at the same time. You can't harvest a crop in the future if you eat your stock seed today, contrary to the ravings of our mainstream economists, preaching the madness of John Maynard Keynes.

As Rand put the matter, loosely paraphrased, life, your life, is the very source of your possibility of valuing anything, and if you choose to live, you must hold three cardinal values as the compass by which you steer your life: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Reason, as your basic means of survival. Purpose, as your choice of the happiness that you want your life to be about, and which your mind must then develop a plan to achieve. Self-esteem, as the fuel that alone can power your efforts to make your way in the world.

Now, another crucial point here: A value is something we want so much that we are willing to take the actions needed to acquire it. A virtue is the means by which we pursue a value. Value is a goal, virtue is a corresponding action taken in order to gain that value. So there is very long list of virtues corresponding to all the values a person might ever hold. All our virtues pertain to the relation between consciousness and reality. The primary virtues required to achieve the cardinal values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem are: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. There are many other virtues too, at the top of which one might include benevolence towards others, and steadfast persistence at a task in the face of obstacles.  Rand fleshes out these primary relationships in Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. One could also add a myriad of other virtues of life-serving importance, such as optimism, humor, friendliness, nurturing love and friendship, good hygiene, cleanliness, punctuality, tidiness, a healthful diet, the good habits of cultivating beauty, good health, of running one's life ship shape and squared away, and regular physical exercise. Given the sad state of the world, I would also add the virtue of lending a helping hand to the hapless, when we can do so without harming ourselves or encouraging something else that is bad.

For now, I will end with the advice that, in any contest between your feelings and your reason, trust your reason. Why trust the mind over the heart? Because feelings are automatic evaluations made on the basis of what you already know. Feelings are not a window through which to view or acquire new knowledge. Feelings cannot offer you the means of verifying the truth of a proposition. The verification and testing of an idea depend on objective facts and logic, which are precisely what emotions cannot provide.

Morality is a code of values chosen by you as a guide to how to steer a course in the world.

As Rand put it, "The purpose of morality is not to teach you how to suffer and die, but how to enjoy yourself and live."

So go and figure out how to enjoy yourself and live! It's the right thing to do! And nobody can effectively do it for you, but you! 

If nothing inspires you to want to get up and out, then you have proof positive that an elephant of crazy ideas is sitting on your head.  All small children know what they want and they cry out to get it!  What the hell happened to you?  If you don't know what you want, you will need to figure out which cockamamie intellectual virus you have swallowed that has made you vulnerable to allowing an elephant to sit on your head. 

Taking your own life is not a good way out. Taking your own life will make it impossible to find a good way out.

So get going! Excelsior!


                                                   E  P  N 

2015.0428a
revised 2015.0610
2015.0619
.0801

Freedom Makes Asinine Ideas Ultimately Self-Correcting

Free Speech Makes Asinine Ideas Ultimately Self-Correcting

by

Eric Paul Nolte

The student organization called Young Americans for Liberty just posted a blurb on their website that praised ancient Athenian democracy for ostracizing citizens whose ideas offended them.

I would caution these young students to remember that democracy is just another oppressive political system unless it is chained on a short leash to a thick wall of constitutionally protected respect for the rights of every individual to life, liberty, and property.

Never forget that unfettered democracy is what happens when two hungry mountain lions and a llama vote on what to have for dinner! Unfettered democracy is a lynch mob, not the road to Utopia. 

Remember too that ancient Athenians, peeved at Socrates for publicly leading his students to embarrass powerful citizens, voted to put him to death! They voted to banish Aristotle too, but, thinking of poor Socrates, he left Athens before they could snag him, vowing that he would not let Athens so sin twice against philosophy. 

Attempting to censor ideas one does not like is not only wrong, but pointless and even self-defeating too, because in a free market of ideas, rational, life-serving values ultimately tend to prevail. Why? Because the rational is the life-serving! Stupid ideas ultimately must gurgle down a graveyard spiral of self-destruction because they are life-threatening. This is intellectually Darwinian and therefore the better ideas must necessarily prevail, in the long run. 

Let everybody trumpet whatever they believe, no matter how foolish. The craziest ideas will be most obviously crazy in a free market of ideas, where the contrast with rational ideas is available in a side-by-side comparison. 

A key point here is that the creation of a political machinery that might allow one party to attempt to suppress bad ideas will also allow tyrants to attempt to suppress good ideas too. 

The raging fires caused by crazy, cockamamie intellectual viruses must eventually fizzle out, even when this extinction may not happen in our lifetime! 

The trend line, measured from the dawn of Homo saps to the asinine and murderous mutterings of blockheads and jackasses today, is nevertheless tilted slightly upwards, to the benefit of life, liberty, and the very possibility of Aristotle's eudaimonia, or rational happiness.

E  P  N  

2015.0427
rev. 2015.1129

Andreas Lubitz, Suicide and Mass Murderer

Andreas Lubitz, Suicide and Mass Murderer

by 

Eric Paul Nolte

As an airline captain for a major international carrier with nearly 40 years experience as a commercial pilot, I take aviation disasters very personally. I wept as I read the horrifying and saddening news of Tuesday’s crash and the death of all souls aboard the Germanwings Flight 9525, from Barcelona to Duesseldorf. 

The key facts here, announced this morning by the French prosecutor, Brice Robin, are these: the crash was without any doubt caused by Andreas Lubitz, the 28 year old German co-pilot. After the captain left the cockpit to use the restroom, Lubitz manually locked the flight deck door, thereby making it impossible for anyone to re-enter the flight deck, and then, in good weather, he disconnected the autopilot and deliberately flew the airplane in a steep dive into the side of an Alpine mountain.  All 150 passengers and crew perished instantly. The cockpit voice recorder preserved the sounds of Lubitz's breathing, the pounding on the flight deck door, and the terrified screaming from those in the cabin right up until the moment of impact.

Obviously, this crash is both a suicide and a mass murder.  The question is why did Lubitz do it?

An article by Morgan Winsor in today’s International Business Times drew attention to a debate now over the question that a reporter asked about the co-pilot’s religion. Winsor wrote that, “Robin said the crash did not show any signs of terrorism. Some were appalled by the reporter’s inquiry.”

A little while later Winsor quoted Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, an associate professor of political science with a courtesy appointment in religious studies at Northwestern University in Illinois, who said, "This line of questioning makes no sense to me whatsoever. I find it disturbing and depressing that at a time like this some people feel compelled to search desperately for explanations that presume religious causation.”

No sense whatsoever?  On what planet is this multiculturalist, politically correct  ideologue living?  Every day we hear of yet another Muslim true believer, sometimes two or even more, who has strapped a bomb vest to his body and gone out and murdered countless random innocent civilian victims.  Until the secular European enlightenment pulled the righteously murderous fangs out of the head of Christianity, the ocean of blood spilled in the name of their religion was just as deep as that of Islam, but today, no other religion on the planet but Islam can be tarred with this godawful fact.  It is perfectly reasonable to wonder about the murderer’s values, including his religious or philosophical motives, which might offer some explanatory power for why he murdered.  It is foolish to dismiss such questions about a mass murderer's motives.

Most suicides, apart from the Islamic suicide bombers, are done in desperate pits of angst and despair, private, and alone.  Sometimes they lash out at those they perceive as having wronged them, usually family members, and here we see murders paired with suicides, but these examples are not of mass murder, as is the case with this atrocity committed on the Germanwings flight.

It would not be unprecedented for an airline crash to be caused by a suicidal pilot.  In 1999, Gamal al-Batouti, the pilot of Egypt Air 999, dove his Boeing 767 into the Atlantic off Nantucket, 30 minutes after takeoff from New York, crying, “Allahu Akbar,” several times during the fatal dive.  But subsequent investigation revealed that the pilot’s motive may have been something more like his deep depression, rather than any religious fanaticism.  So his being a Muslim would appear not to have been a factor here at all.

As I write this, we do not know what possessed this privileged and gifted young German to commit such an atrocity.  Depression?  Righteously religious and suicidal mass murder?  Depression is a thinking disorder, according to the experts, such as Aaron T. Beck and Martin E. P. Seligman.  I am persuaded that otherworldly religion and postmodern philosophy are also thinking disorders.  I will do my best to restrain my judgment until all the relevant facts come in.

My deepest blessings and compassion to the families of the loved ones lost.  Bless us all.  Even you, Andreas Lubitz… what the hell went wrong with you? A lost soul, desperate and starved for life-serving values.  Like so much of the rest of the world.  What the hell went wrong with you, you miserable tumbleweed tangle of insanity!?

E  P  N 

2015.0326c

"Peace in Our Time" Appeasement of Terrorists

"Peace in Our Time" Appeasement of Terrorists

by

Eric Paul Nolte

A cartoon portrait of a weeping Mohammed appeared on the cover of last week’s Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine of satire, declaring, “Je suis Charlie.” Above the cartoon figure of Mohammed is the declaration, “All is forgiven.”

All the commentary I have read about this declaration of mercy assumes that it is Mohammed who is forgiving the murderously rampaging Muslim terrorists who had recently killed 12 people in the Parisian offices of the magazine. The terrorists proclaimed that they were avenging the prophet Mohammed for the allegedly unforgivable sin of drawing pictures of the Prophet. 

But I wondered who or what was really meant to be forgiven? 

Couldn’t it just as well be intended that Mohammed might be depicted as forgiving the cartoonists? This would be a lovely thought! What a fond hope!   

But this forgiveness of the cartoonists would be impossible because it is contrary to the Islamic commandment to kill all those who dare to portray the prophet in pictures. Put another way, it was Mohammed himself who commanded righteous Muslims to kill such infidels. So the idea that Mohammed might forgive the cartoonists would be a lovely possibility only if the prophet could be imagined as the head of a religion that is actually preaching the kind of peace on earth that does not treat a difference of opinion as an unforgivable sin that must be punished by death. This is not the historical figure who was Mohammed, who was, instead, a petulant little snit who got his nose bent out of joint over every little slander, real or imagined, who intractably called for death to every infidel, and carried his religion by the sword damned near to the Great Wall of China, in the east, and in the west almost to the gates of Paris, and all the way to the gates of Vienna.  

Parenthetically, but not entirely incidentally, the Muslims assaulted Vienna three times, the last time as recently as 1683! John Locke had already developed his unprecedented  theory of human rights that gave us the ideological origins of the American project, including, to the point here, our bedrock belief in free speech.

So, imagining Mohammed to be forgiving the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists is ludicrous, to anyone who has actually read the Koran (I prefer this traditional spelling; same for "Mohammed.") Ha! Fat chance! Yet I can indeed imagine that this Mohammed's forgiveness of the cartoonists could have been the meaning intended by the cartoonist who drew the weeping prophet.

Unfortunately, I think that these cartoonists did not intend to show Mohammed as tearfully offering absolution to the poor murdered souls at Charlie Hebdo; the reason I think this is because of an article I read in the Manchester Guardian. 

In a news interview, Renald Luzier, a.k.a. Luz, the cartoonist who drew the cover of this first issue of the magazine after the murders, was asked why he drew another picture of Mohammed, knowing that this would offend so many Muslims. 

Monsieur Luzier was clearly emotional as he spoke of how cartoonists were once children who loved to draw and play. He fervently said that so too were the terrorists once children who drew and played, but they grew up and lost their sense of humor. The idea of a weeping Mohammed simply came to him as he pondered the matter, conjured up out of his own humanity. The whole idea is of a man, sadly crying out for those who were so cruelly murdered. Luzier may have been hoping to invoke the humanity of this impossible, imaginary Mohammed. The idea simply stuck with him, and, voila!— there was his drawing for the magazine cover.

A less symbolic explanation was given by one of the surviving columnists for Charlie Hebdo, Zineb El Rhazoui. According to the Guardian story, Rhazoui said that the cover was a call to forgive the terrorists who murdered her colleagues last week. I find it amazing that she said she did not hate the murderers, Chérif and Saïd Kouachi. Moreover, she “urged Muslims to accept humor.” She said, “We don’t feel any hate to them. We know that the struggle is not with them as people, but the struggle is with an ideology.” Not the people? The people who hold this murderous ideology? As if people are nothing but empty vessels filled with ideologies that make them bounce around helplessly like puppets on a string, pulled by ideas they have no power to resist or examine. The terrorists are people who choose to follow a murderous ideology. 

Yes, I grant you that it is hard to exhibit intellectual independence in a culture that worships conformity to an ethos of mindless submission, which is the literal meaning of the Arabic word, Islam. But we don’t protect ourselves or make any progress against such cultural forces by encouraging them with the inducement and reward of forgiveness.

I am baffled, no, that’s not quite it, I am appalled by Rhazoui’s expression of forgiveness and her claim not to hate the terrorists who so righteously and terrifyingly murdered her colleagues.

Our emotions, the psychologists tell us (see Martin E. P. Seligman, for example) are the embodiment of our values, they are an automatic, psychosomatic barometer of our beliefs. Hatred is the emotion that arises from a perceived injustice, it is our response to what we believe to be unfair. So what would it mean not to feel hatred for a person who murders someone we deeply love? Imagine what you would feel towards someone who would murder your child, your wife, or your husband? What would it mean to forgive such a monster? Should we forgive Hitler? 

Now, a reasonable person might be inclined to forgive somebody who expresses regret for his wrongful actions, begs your forgiveness, promises never to do it again, expresses some understanding of the evil actions he did, and offers a logical argument to persuade you to believe why he will never do it again. But to forgive these unrepentant, righteous murderers? Never!

I find it hard to believe that Rhazoui truly forgives these Islamic terrorist murderers. Such forgiveness sounds something like pious, Christian, turn-the-other-cheek bushwa. Maybe she is scared that she will anger the Muslim crazies even more if she expresses hatred and provoke them into committing ever more atrocities. 

Or … here it is … maybe she holds the delusional hope that she can somehow appease these despicable monsters. 

Maybe Madame Rhazoui truly believes that only by not condemning the terrorists can she leave open a space for dialogue and eventual reconciliation with Muslim murderers, for the purpose of achieving “peace in our time,” as the hapless British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain put it in 1938, after his appeasement of Hitler, and one year to the month before Hitler invaded Poland. 

Fat chance of appeasement, rapprochement, or dialogue with Islamist totalitarians, like the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. 

Those who wield swords in the name of mindless submission to the murderous commands of any ideology or religion are the least likely people on earth to be open to peaceful co-existence. If outright self-destruction is not our goal, then the language of those who begin wielding force, impelled by mindless faith, must be answered by force, in the name of self-defense.

If, without initiating physical force against others, we express our opinions, and affirm our cherished belief in freedom of speech, if our ideas offend their tender sensibilities, well then, too damned bad. Let them grow up and get on with their lives, peacefully. Or else we stop their threats with appropriate force.

E  P  N

2015.0120
rev.0801