Thu Oct, 10 2013
The Future, From The Past
"When Bennett [Cerf -- Random House] Donald Klopfer, and Hiram Haydn had read the manuscript, Bennett opened his next meeting with Ayn with the words, 'It's a great book. Name your own terms.'(Barbara Branden -- "The Passion of Ayn Rand", 1986, pp. 287-288)
'The whole atmosphere was wonderful and enthusiastic,' Ayn said. 'And the deal was completed the way Alan Greenspan told me Wall Street tycoons used to do it in the old days: in about five minutes. Alan Collins [her agent] said we wanted a straight fifteen percent royalty and they said okay; Alan asked for a guaranteed first-edition printing -- they said they'd print seventy-five or a hundred thousand with a minimum guaranteed advertising budget of twenty-five thousand dollars. There was no bargaining or bickering, it was settled just like that -- in the spirit of an enormous celebration.'
When the business part of their meeting ended, Ayn was told, to her delight, that when Bennett had finished reading the scene of the train ride on the John Galt Line, he ran out of his office and down the hall, waving the manuscript and shouting: 'It's magnificent!' Donald Klopfer said that he had recently been flying over Detroit -- and he'd suddenly felt glad that smoke was coming out of the factory chimneys, that the factories were still functioning."
"Atlas Shrugged" went to market on this day in 1957. After selling 6,500,000 copies to-date, it's still here.
Yes, I'm Still Here
...and this blog will return to business, soon.
In the meantime, I hope you will indulge this, which is here for a reason. This evening in email, I received this from a man who is losing his mind.
Exactly as I got it, top-posted & everything, with full headers, of which I intend to make full use:
X-Apparently-To: email@example.com via 188.8.131.52; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:32:28 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (domain of mac.com designates 184.108.40.206 as permitted sender)
Authentication-Results: mta1097.mail.ne1.yahoo.com from=mac.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mac.com; dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 220.127.116.11 (EHLO mta09.roch.ny.frontiernet.net) (18.104.22.168)
by mta1097.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:32:28 +0000
Received: from st11p05mm-asmtp002.mac.com (st11p05mm-asmtpout005.mac.com [22.214.171.124])
by mta09.roch.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132B23EE19E
Received: from [10.0.1.9] (c-98-207-50-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [126.96.36.199])
(Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(188.8.131.52.7) 64bit (built Aug
22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0MUF00K0651P0V10@st11p05mm-asmtp002.mac.com> for
firstname.lastname@example.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:32:16 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0
suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0
reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1308280000 definitions=main-1310090088
From: Richard Nikoley
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Emailing Billy Beck
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:32:13 -0700
To: Billy Beck
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 131009-0, 10/9/2013), Inbound message
Ah, finally found this in my spam folder. No idea why it went there.
Anyway, you make me so laugh. It's not anything like "Nikoley, let's just forget it. Please don't contact me, & I'll do likewise." No sweat, fun while it lasted, etc. (me)
Nope, "never again presume to attempt contact through e-mail, or I will make sure that you don't." Like, more pathetic than me at my drunkest (I *never* issue threats I can't back up 100% immediately—NOTE IMPORANTZ ASTERIKKKKKKS!!!) and this is why I'll be doing a blog expose about how you're dishonest, that you're a net harm to young idealists, especially young men, and a complete waste of time beyond a good reading list and a few pointers. It'll rank higher in Google than your own blog. That email below will of course be part of it, among many other inconsistencies and material omissions over the years. I remember literally everything, even going back to specific USENET posts by you nearly 20 years ago.
Do something about it, fucker. Or, write your own on your own dead blog.
Unlike the people you're used to dealing with who spread their legs for you—not in respect or deference, but out of fear of cryptic, ASTERIKKKKKSZED one-liners that have deep meaning only in your own walnut—I'd be happy to pop your head right off and piss on your dad's grave and put it up on YouTube video just to fuck with you over that threat below, because I never, ever take a threat sitting down. Ever. You're going to make good on that threat, or you're not hearing the end of me until you do, or admit it was a stupid fucking ploy.
Now, see, I'm emailing you for a second time today. And I'm sitting here waiting for you to man up with your threat.
Lock & load that 50 cal, or shut your impotent mouth with me.
On Oct 6, 2013, at 11:54 PM, Billy Beck
>...make damned sure that you never again presume to
> attempt contact through e-mail, or I will make sure that
> you don't.
>I've dealt with people like you before. Get it through
>your head: we're done.
Tomorrow, I have work to do.
After that, I will be back, harder than ever.
Fri Apr, 19 2013
The Whip Of The Week
"'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev' is Chechen for 'Bill Ayers'."
(Seen in Facebook)
Wed Jan, 02 2013
Nathan Stocker came with that in Facebook.
If this stoopid country had about sixteen brains per capita, those two words would corner huge percentages of the T-shirt and bumper-sticker market.
Thu Dec, 20 2012
In Dealings With Them
There is a ghastly ahistoricity in these complaints against the antiquity of the Second Amendment. What very few understand is the power-relations of the progression of arms in the past five hundred years. In 1789, the flintlock musket was the "assault weapon" of its day. It was every bit as dangerous and menacing then as the AR-15 is now. Anyone who doubts this need only reflect upon the fact that civilians took their weapons into battle against the greatest military power in the world, and prevailed.
In a discussion of the gun-control hysteria, I was told, "So I leave it to you to propose the endgame."
This is what I wrote:
I don't know what you mean by that, but I can tell you this with all the authority of a lifetime of study and observation:
This is a cultural problem about the existence of values. None of this is -- at this point -- a dispute over which values to hold, but about the very existence of values to begin with: what they are and why they are necessary to human life.
Taking Adam Lanza as only one extreme example of the cultural psychosis, now: that kid was somehow brought to an adult age without ever having been taught what values are. There are teeming tens of millions of specimens like him, now, at the dead-end of a cultural procession that began long before he was born. Not all, or even many, will run to the extent that he did, but their lethality is every bit as real over the long run, in their casual nihilism.
You don't understand: Adam Lanza is "the end game".
Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, that is the problem in its entire scope. That's how big it is, and that's why these complaints about the guns is just so much rubbish. If cars were the social menace here, you people would be arguing about what colors to prohibit.
There is no way that resort to non-essential trivialities is going to address this matter.
Wed Oct, 31 2012
That Terrible Autumn Thing
It's just terribly sad to watch all this voting going on. All this pride in an unaccountable huddling around un-human ideas -- ideas which never integrate the crucial attribute of human individuality and everything that means -- in order to distribute raw force upon every each-other of a people indignantly clamoring for peace and brotherhood; these contradictions and evasions cannot but work to deaden the soul with gloom for any broad-stroke of an American future.
A man might steal such moments as he can which reflect the passing light, late in the day, but sensitivity to trails of history can only bring melancholy at watching otherwise very worthy individuals indulge this rot.
It gets expensive to say so, and it's hard to remember why it was ever important to try.
Thu Oct, 11 2012
Have No Doubt...
...the zombies are here, already.
Wed Oct, 03 2012
The Whip Of The Week
"Poor Obama. He was prepped and ready to debate a conservative Republican and he instead found himself in the Democratic primaries."
(Kim Shady -- cited by Kyle Bennett, Facebook)
Fri Sep, 28 2012
Where They Were
By the first decade of the twenty-first century, people who lived in the United States were voting for their lives.
By then, too many of them had no way of knowing how evil this could be, because they had never lived what had been lost; a middle-aged person could recall vestiges, at least, of a common-sense approach to life communicable to nearly everyone around him in any matter of everyday conduct, where many a grown man or woman in their early twenties or even thirties could not. There were millions of them. They had been reared by people who had grown -- themselves -- soft in the head over what reality was and whether it could be "socially constructed", in any of myriad ways. The lot of them were intellectually and psychologically adrift on tides of sensation (they would always state how they felt, even or especially in matters demanding thought, and they could not tell the difference) constantly afire with activism, advocacy, struggle, reports, investigations, studies, organizations (and associations), mandates, orders, parties, leaders, special interests, and democracy. And the central (if not only) thing that was true about them was that they were herds.
It's terrible to say it, of course, but it must be said that the bovine analogy is very apt at analyzing these straits of the early twenty-first American century. This was a mass of humans whose lot had fallen well below its nature in the metaphysically general aspect: individuals in wholesale numbers had evidently lost command of principally human faculties such as language, and this does not refer to the niceties such as pronunciation and syntax, but more importantly to the function of the language itself, which is to transmit concepts (the fruit of cognition) among individuals. This was a creeping debility, whose final manifestations in political matters could not explain to its sufferers what was happening to them as it happened. Their cognitions generally ran to the sideways glance at the flow of the mass and common pleas to "have a nice day" amid general mayhem.
They commonly called themselves Americans and claimed all sorts of alien nonsense as "American", meaning: values (mainly ideas) which are contrary to the ethics and politics of individualism which brought their nation imperfectly into the world but which were all that could ever sustain or save it. That their forebears had erected a polity whose merest administrations were executed at theoretically popular command was bad enough (even after Benjamin Franklin had warned whether they could "keep it"). That this instrument of power had devolved to such naked graspings as they had since the turn of the twenty-first century was really only the basic logic of the thing extended to its integral conclusion: the political power which is a necessary element of government always finds its way to the hearts, minds and hands of individuals in the name of the masses. The masses, having been groomed to their place per se, became militantly supplicant to individuals who made their livings at pretending to know how everyone else should live and strutting that basic pretense into positions of command authority.
Many people in the United States who might have read this would also have balked at the concept of "masses" before counting themselves as constituents. What was most important to their history, however, is that that small revolt was of no import. Once again, as in the ringing complaint of Thomas Paine centuries before but on the dawn of something new in history, the fugitive "freedom" was hunted 'round the world. This terrible fall in the standing of an idea was the whole cause of world misery on scales never conceived by their forebears, but people living in the United States were treated to -- and indulged to the extent of their crippled mentation -- terrible insults of cynicism drafted from questions whether "freedom" was any sort of value, or even existed at all. This, within less than a lifetime after the greatest conscious ideological crusades of the previous century had rallied Americans to its standard.
What mattered, then, was the right of might, and that's why people who lived in the United States were voting for their lives.
Sat Aug, 18 2012
The Fatal Defect of The Democratic Republic
No republic can stand the realizations of evil men that democracy is a natural market for lies.
Sun Jul, 29 2012
Studies In The Fundamentals Of Futlity
"So you're OK with people suffering needlessly? And you're OK with killing 17,000 people a year? Because if you are, admit it. Don't hide behind 'we can't afford it.'(Tony Messenger -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Sure, that's a viable position. Darwinian, but viable. 'Decrease the surplus population' is Scrooge-like, but viable. If you'd rather not raise taxes on the fortunate and on health care freeloaders, that's a viable position. If you want to continue to allow people to be sick and to die needlessly, that's a viable position.
But tell us face-to-face. Tell us they have to die because you just flat don't care."
Oh, Tony... You sit there on your ex cathedra pose, you sausage-fingered mook, and peer up your nose with your dainty insinuations of others' guilt, that sneer of yours ever-cocked for the poor bastard who wanders into it. You just can't believe that anyone would dare take you up on it.
And there is so much now that I don't care about. Like: I really, really don't care whether you like me or not. Guess what, fool: even when I account for the rank silliness of your analysis (that mad equivocation with Stalin, for instance, or your grotesque misgrappling of the verb, "killing"), I don't care.
And this is the really crucial part of it, you see: you can't make me care. You can howl in your dinosaur newspaper until the commies come home or you go out of business: whchever comes first. You can vote for commissars -- and even elect the bloody savages -- for the rest of your life. You can hire them to threaten me, or throw me in prison or even kill me, but you will never make me "care", as you so greasily put it.
I can't afford to care, you see. You and your kind have priced me straight out of the ethical market.
(link: The Other McCain)
Thu Jun, 28 2012
In This Awful Hour
"How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?"
Wed Jun, 27 2012
...you rotten sonofabitch, you and your kind are going to confront someone ready to meet you on your own premises.
There will be no mercy.
Tue Jun, 26 2012
Field Marshal Rodham
"That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy...Hillary's absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico..."What if she played the whole thing discreetly as she could from the sidelines at State, waiting for it to blow up in Obama's face?
She's that sharp.
Never take your eye off her. Never, ever.
"This meshes perfectly with your previous pondering about Holder calling the shot on Exec. privilege as well."(Facebook commenter)
Holy shit. Now, I wish I had some old-school AC-ECW talent around. I'd like to review in detail whatever anyone has on the precise relationship of Holder to the Rodham half of The Bunker, back in the day. I've already mentioned the Magaziner affidavit (with -- as always -- Vince's bones rattling about). Very few have any idea what that's about, but take a look at this --
"On Dec. 21, 1994, Lamberth dismissed the suit against the government, but he asked U.S. Attorney Eric Holder (now deputy attorney general) to investigate whether Magaziner should be held in criminal contempt for supplying false information in his affidavit, filed March 3, 1993. The investigation turned on a single sentence in which Magaziner states, 'Only federal government employees serve as members of the interdepartmental working group.' Lamberth insisted that this sentence contradicted indisputable evidence that private citizens attended the working groups, and that some of them played supervisory roles. The judge was especially irritated by the presence of executives from managed-care conglomerates who stood to profit from the new legislation--exactly the sort of conflict of interest FACA was intended to check. Judge Lamberth says that the appeals court took at face value Magaziner's 'only federal government employees' declaration when it ruled against the request for a temporary injunction.(Franklin Foer -- Slate, January 10, 1998)
Although Holder chided government lawyers for formulating a 'sloppy,' 'overly aggressive' response to the AAPS lawsuit and took Magaziner to task for using ill-defined legalistic language supplied him by White House counsel Vincent Foster, he concluded his investigation by declining to prosecute Magaziner for criminal contempt. He found no factual errors in Magaziner's affidavit, and no evidence that he had intended to willfully mislead the court. Indeed, deep into the affidavit, Magaziner volunteers the information that consultants who were clearly not government employees played a prominent role in the working group."
Now, you can see some of the patent Holder bullshit developing in that. If this guy hadn't been on the team before that case, he surely must've been down for cigars on the inside when it was over. Hillary had once screamed, "Just fix it, Vince!" Well... maybe he did and maybe he didn't, when he ended up in Ft. Marcy Park. The point is that all the cleaning help would have been welcome, and Holder was probably damned useful around the house.
What's he playing for in this gun giveaway deal?