I speak the language of sarcasm fluently. I was right there with him. Right up until the part where he insinuated that Christians be free from criticism for denying rights to homosexuals. I guess intolerance is OK as long as it's Christian intolerance.
The terroists were inspired by our government bombing them and having bases in there land for oil. According to the 9/11 commission report and our CIA, but no, I am just a constituionalist conservative who will be called a liberal.
The funniest thing christian fundies say about Satan worshippers is that they're atheists? Huh?Don't you have to basically be a christian to worship Satan/Lucifer? You've got to believe in all the bible superstitious stuff to begin with,only your worship the opposing team. It's Completly ILLOGICAL for Christians to Think Atheists can Believ.....Oh. Yeah, there's the problem right there,Ha ha !
What about the Huge numbers of people killed by christian terrorists.over who's brand of christianity is better? Catholics killing Proddies, Drumming out the catholics..That nice Mr.Guy Fawlks wanting to blowup parliment and have the UKs churches loyal to Rome. Christians have proven to be effective at terrorist attacks on civilians who're guilty of being in the wrong christian sect. The P.L.O were great admirers of the I.R.A.
@pailmaster Because everybody has a different view of the ideal world, and we fight people who are moving the world away from our vision. I fight for a Europe with only whites, and I will never stop until I breathe my last breath.
Something unintentionally ironic about this video that I doubt Andrew Klavan is aware of: his satirical use of "Satanism" as a stand-in for Islam could not be more ironic. Anton Lavey, the "father" of modern-day Satanism based his religion on Ayn Randian Objectivism and basically added pseudo-religious ritual to it. And as well all know, Objectivism is the faith du jour of the Right wing establishment. :)
@UncleSam13 "You don't know nearly as much about the Right, or their libertarian cousins, as you think you do." That may be so, but it's a safe bet I know more than you. Would you like to make a point or speak in more platitudes?
@gnomechomskylives Irony is lost on some people. Aynn Rand was a genious that foretold this Obama nightmare many years before it happened. Change a couple of names and it is eas to see Atlas shrugging as we speak. Anton Lavey on the other hand was an egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless.
@crabman45324 Yes, Anton LaVey was a nutcase, however it is true that he based Satanism on Objectivism. A dumbed-downed psycho version that made sense to LaVey, but still. This fact does not detract from the genius of Ayn Rand any more than the actions of any self-proclaimed follower changes the original message that they claim to follow.
@crabman45324 "egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless." lmao some might say the same of Rand. The only difference is that Lavey didn't hide behind high-minded pretensions. Rand was a hack author selling dime store novels to people whose egos needed affirmation. She was not beloved except by the sycophants she surrounded herself by, like Alan Greenspan. William F. Buckley detested her and found her downright bizarre.
@gnomechomskylives You're right of course, however where I differ is that as Objectivism (and Satanism for that matter) is atheistic the right tends to reject it. A more accurate "faith du jour" application would be to Libertarians.rather than the right-wing.
@BMunich16 What's your point? Anton Lavey's Satanism was libertarian as well; it was all about the needs, wants and desires of the individual and fulfilling them. As I said, he based it on Objectivism and simply added ritual to it.
@gnomechomskylives How is Objectivism tied in to the "right-wing establishment" at all? You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, people just see a bunch of fancy words and agree with your point so they give you a thumbs up.
@BMunich16 It really baffles me how you can be so obtuse and pretend like Objectivism is NOT associated with the right, especially considering how her books have become the founding documents for the modern corporate elite, the Grover Norquist - John Birch - Tea Party types, who see the world divided into two types of people: the producers and the parasites. Hell even Alan Greenspan - one of her inner circle until she cast him out - is a devoted acolyte of her philosophy.
@gnomechomskylives So those people you mentioned make up the "right-wing establishment"? All I saw was Objectivism tied in to a bunch of right-wingers. So I guess that makes communism the "faith du jour" as you put it, of the left. I don't consider libertarians to be on the right, but I guess you're right, yes, Objectivism is "associated" with the right.
@BMunich16 Well yes, technically speaking on the political scale Libertarians don't fit neatly on the Left-Right paradigm but more the up-down libertarian/statist scale; they hover between left and right depending on the issue. However, present realities show that most Libertarians lean right. And certainly Rand appeals to many of today's Conservatives - her narratives about stalwart heroes facing the petty jealousies of bureaucrats and "parasites" -fits perfectly into the right wing ethos.
@gnomechomskylives Nothing in that comment portrays Objectivism as the "faith du jour" of the right-wing establishment. Wouldn't you say that the right-wing establishment is dominantly Christian and otherwise socially conservative? Sure, it fits into the right-wing ethos and is certainly relevant to the current conservative plight, but it most certainly not a doctrine of the "right-wing establishment", which was my original argument.
@BMunich16 While it's true that not all right wingers are Objectivists; all Objectivists are right wingers. Moreover, Rand's black & white worldview of Galtian heroes and parasites is indistinguishable from the establishment's rhetoric on "job creators" success being "punished" by "wealth redistribution" for "parasites" & "welfare queens" & "foodstamp presidents."
So while you distance yourself from the right, they do not want to distance themselves from you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
@gnomechomskylives So that suggests that right-wing ideas are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists doesn't it? You're running in circles, please, I stick to the facts, your pseudo-intellectualism doesn't work on me. The fact still stands: libertarianism is not reflective of the right-wing establishment. Far from it if you ask me.
@BMunich16 Wow, you're such an intellectual that you conflate Objectivism with Libertarianism; not the same thing. Okay Mr. Intellectual - since you're much too clever for me - please, by all means, point out some notable Left-leaning Objectivists who based their philosophy on Rand.
@gnomechomskylives I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one. Libertarianism is (essentially) Objectivist philosophy applied to politics, you aren't fooling anyone. There are no left leaning Objectivists which goes full circle, which I see is a common tactic of your weak mind, back to my previous point: it seems that right-wing ideals are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists, does it not?
@BMunich16 "I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one." Yet you keep framing yourself as intellectually superior in contrast to my "weak mind" You're the one arguing in circles as evidenced by your inconsistency.
You haven't refuted a single point; you keep going on and on about "faith du jour" which is simply a colorful phrase. The point stands, Objectivism is influential in right wing politics. Whether Objectivism itself is "right wing" (or not) is irrelevant.
@gnomechomskylives Michael Moore is more intelligent than a frog. And no, the point doesn't stand, "Objectivism is influential in right wing politics" is far from your original statement that Objectivism is some sort of doctrine to the "right wing establishment". You just watered it down to the point where it's different from your original statement.
@BMunich16 watered down? or you keep moving the goal posts to suit your argument? It is curious though why you would be so defensive about Objectivism being associated with the right wing establishment; does the thought offend you? Perhaps you're splitting hairs because your idea of "establishment" are Christian Conservatives like Santorum? While that bloc is certainly influential I wouldn't call them establishment. Please start making valid arguments instead of bickering; stop wasting our time.
1.) The goal posts never moved, I've been continuously trying to disprove that Objectivism is a doctrine to the right wing establishment, but YOU keep changing the subject.
2.) Your assumptions are just stupid, I'm an atheist, but nice try.
3.) And yes, the establishment is dominantly Christian.
@BMunich16 You haven't proven anything except your own insipid stubbornness. You're employing the "No True Scotsman" Logical Fallacy. Just because some Conservatives don't embody Objectivism in its truest form does not meant they aren't influenced by it. The tenets of Rand's philosophy: individualism, rational self-interest & rejection of state interference are the backbone of the Right wing establishment. Grow up and take your misdirected anger to those who have co-opted your philosophy.
@gnomechomskylives First of all, no he didn't. I've read LaVey's book, and while there are similarities, its actually much closer to Nietzsche's work than Rand's. LaVey set up a system were the individual was a God unto himself, and where it didn't matter what his whims were so long as he had them. And while Satanists don't actually believe in Satan, they do hold him up as the ideal of rebellion.
LaVey's philosophy is based on the premise of rebellion, not self-interest.
@gnomechomskylives What your comment tells me is that you've never read anything Rand wrote, and likely never read LaVey's book either. I, on the other hand, have read nearly everything she wrote, in addition to LaVey's manifesto, and I can tell you that Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would have found her philosophy to be very much in line with their own, with the primary exception being that God is not the foundation of natural law.
@gnomechomskylives No. LaVey may have believed that it was, but that doesn't make it so. Satanism does not hold reason as its foundational principle, instead it holds rebellion. Objectivism, by contrast, --does-- hold reason as its foundation. And therefore the two philosophies are at best only superficially similar. I said I've read his book, and nearly all of hers. The few similarities are at most skin deep.
So, have you read much of either of their writings?
@gnomechomskylives Nietzsche conceived of a dichotomy between Apollo, the god of reason, and Dionysus, the god of revelry, as the choices facing men. He upheld Dionysus as the superior choice, and so did LaVey.
Rand explicitly rejected Dionysus in favor of Apollo. It was also why she rejected Nietzsche. She regarded him as a great but flawed mind. Frankly I would challenge LaVey to name a --philosophical-- similarity between his church and Objectivism.
@GoblinKnightLeo whatever shred of credibility you had just evaporated if you honestly believe Obama's ideas are Marxist. If Obama is a Marxist so are many presidents before him going back to the Founders. It's remarkable how Rand attracts so many fawning sycophants which fail to live up to the reason & logic that Apollo embodies. I for one am not taken with Rand as you; she was a hack writer and a philosophical lightweight. Even conservatives like Buckley didn't think much of her.
@gnomechomskylives Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a Marxist, and he mentioned in one of his memoirs that she was the greatest influence on his life.
But the belief that the government was supposed to be the :"night watchman" of the populace was one that the majority of our presidents shared, and one that Marx ridiculed. Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Obama could all be legitimately claimed as socialists, and Obama has put several actual communists
@gnomechomskylives the White House as czars and advisers, in addition to some of his Cabinet appointees.
Your belief that Rand was a hack and a lightweight does not make it so, and conservatives of her time largely rejected her because she was an atheist, not because they disagreed with her ideas. Have you read AS? The Fountainhead? Any of her nonfiction? I'm going to guess the answer is no.
"Fawning sychophants"? That's a deliberate insult, but not the way you intended it.
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
I thought Satanism was hedonistic. Not in a bad way, mind you, but in a "I'm happy that you're happy and you should be happy that I'm happy" kind of way.
Objectivism is so anti-hedonism it makes your comment look stupid and uninformed.
Satan is bad. That's right. Darth Vader and Darth Sidious are also bad. That's why I follow the Jedi code and not the Sith code of ethics. I would also like to point out that Captian Picard is good whereas the Borg are bad. The only question I have then is, who would win in a fight? Robocop or the Terminator?
If the terms homophobia and Islamophobia exist in reality, then so must the terms heterophobia, Christophobia, and Judeophobia. I think Muslims are homophobes, Christophobes, and especially Judeophobes. I think homosexuals are heterophobes. I think they are repulsed and scared of heterosex and don't want it around them at all because they are insensitive, unenlightened, hateful bigots. They need heterosexual reeducation so they can understand how backward and stupid they are.
@chuck3668831 one of the dumbest fucking things i've had the displeasure to read on youtube. i have yet to encounter one homosexual that would beat another person for having the audacity to have sex, love, or marry someone of the opposite gender. as for being repulsed or scared by it? hardly, they just do not care ONE WAY or the other about it. the same cannot be said about homophobes, especially those of a religious bent.
@antipryzm I have never heard of a white man getting lynched by black men. That doesn't mean there aren't racist black men. And the word homophobia is a stupid word for stupid people. You are taking someones opinion and turning it into a pathology. Meaning that person is sick and needs help. Once the help is received and he or she is properly brainwashed then all will be well. Even the lefts terminology is Orwellian. And many do care ONE WAY or the other. Which is why they dont STFU about it.
@chuck3668831 it has nothing to do with opinion and everything to do with respect. You can have your opinion all you want about homosexuality. but lacking the respect to allow them the rights you enjoy, in accordance with the constitution, is disgusting.
there are plenty of racist blacks that have attacked whites... this is a demonstrable fact.
i very much doubt you will be able to show me proof that homosexuals have ever attacked heterosexuals just because they're hetero.
@antipryzm There is no such thing as homosexual rights and never has been. You aren't asking for equal rights you are asking for new rights to be added to the books. Only thing that is disgusting is the social manipulation and demonization proponents of "gay rights" are involved in. My problem is there will always be some group needing more laws, more affirmative action, and endless claims to help and "equality" and you think it gives you a license to add things that are extra-constitutional.
@chuck3668831 Speaking of extra constitutional.. the entire establishment of marriage is extra constitutional. There are only two possible solutions, either gays have the right to marry each other and enjoy the same protection under law as heteros, or the entire legal establishment of marriage is abolished and no one receives any sort of right or privilege under it. Which is my preferred answer... marriage is a religious ceremony, keep it that way and get rid of it under law.
@antipryzm So much for being "tolerant" huh?Anyone who disagrees with liberals is "retarded, racist, or bigoted" because you guys can't seem to win an argument any other way. And that is a fact.Special laws for special groups is what has been installed. And marriage isn't extra constitutional.That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. The supreme court said marriage is a right.And more importantly it is a state right.It is for states to decide not social engineers to tell states what to do
Marriage isn't extra constitutional? Prove it. Oh you can't "Beyond what is provided for in a constitution." Where is the institution of marriage provided for in the constitution? Its not.
You are the one who used the term bigot first, so I guess you're a liberal?
The Republican party was the abolitionist party formed under the ideal that "All men are created equal." If all men are equal than they can marry other men, if you don't believe that, you are not a republican.
@antipryzm "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is where marriage is reserved to the states. Not to people like you who wish the Federal Government to impose your will on the rest of us.
@chuck3668831 "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
"Not to people like you who wish the Federal Government to impose your will on the rest of us." Funny considering the Federal law defining marriage as between man and woman, and giving states the right to not recognize other states' same sex marriage... was put in place by a republican christian.
@antipryzm I never said I agree with the federal government imposing its will on the states against gay marriage. Show me where I said that dummy. Secondly I am against the federal government being either for or against something it has no authority over. There is always a group that need redistribution of wealth, special treatment, special programs, and special agencies and bureaus dedicated just for it. There is no end to it.
If americans love jesus so much, they should realize that they're the ones who should love satan more than anyone else... Jesus said: Love your enemy, if americans are satan's enemies, then they should do what jesus said... am i right? :p
@wiseye61 But you have to admit, when it comes to populous galvanizing, and instilling terror and a foreboding sense of impending doom, the Islamic fundamentalists do have a certain panache and true belief that the leftists just don't have. Sure lefties threaten your livelihood and smash and burn things as an en-sensed mob. A few may pipe bomb a cop car or two before helping you run for president, but intentionally dying in the act of committing mass murder,that requires religious devotion.
There was a time I identified as Satanist. I don't anymore due to Satanism's claim that spirituality is an invention of man's carnal mind. Even so, if one reads the Satanic bible they would see that it isn't necessarily "evil". I'm not trying to get into a debate. Just pick the book up and see for yourself.
@AresCassell I did. And it depends on your definition of evil. In my definition as a Christian, id est "evil = anything that works in favor of God" the book penned by LaVey is extremely evil. Selfishness is what the book is based on. Not the needs of others or of the Lord but the needs of self are held in utmost importance.
USS Liberty, The king David Hotel bombing, the Lavon affair, 9/11, etc, etc
even the so called Al-CIA-da is Jewish.
watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0
.
You people are are being duped by Zionist but you still choose to watch Zionist controlled media instead of picking up a book. You deserve what ever these satanic Jews have planned for you. You need an example of what that is...think of how the Palestinians are treated. That's coming to a city near you!
@thirdeyewise2 wow!really? the jews are bombing innocent civilians & killing unarmed school children? Those damn jews must be dressing like muslims and going on tlevision, the internet and radio telling the world how they will kill all the non muslims. They must have disguised themselves as the taliban in afganistan and opporessed the muslims there!and london,madrid,india!Damn jews!theyre such good liars!i was convinced it was muslims and their koran!They must have tricked us with that too!
@thirdeyewise2 i was being sarcastic. Muslims should take responsibility for their actions.Not blame everyone else. Your blaming the jews doesnt work.Muslims have been behaving like this for centuries, killing, enslaving and lying and its all down to the korans instructions and the example of mohomad. Both islamic official hadith and historians ave documented it.History has recorded it.We now witness it.Grow up and take some responsibility for your cult.
If I have to choose between a zionist bullet between my eyes, or a muslim bullet, or a christian bullet, or some white natioalist bullet, or god-forbid some NWO satanic bullet. please, i decline them all thank you very much. the principles of liberty and 'leave me alone and stay the fuck off my property, i'll render the same favor to you' suffice.
I speak the language of sarcasm fluently. I was right there with him. Right up until the part where he insinuated that Christians be free from criticism for denying rights to homosexuals. I guess intolerance is OK as long as it's Christian intolerance.
The terroists were inspired by our government bombing them and having bases in there land for oil. According to the 9/11 commission report and our CIA, but no, I am just a constituionalist conservative who will be called a liberal.
The funniest thing christian fundies say about Satan worshippers is that they're atheists? Huh?Don't you have to basically be a christian to worship Satan/Lucifer? You've got to believe in all the bible superstitious stuff to begin with,only your worship the opposing team. It's Completly ILLOGICAL for Christians to Think Atheists can Believ.....Oh. Yeah, there's the problem right there,Ha ha !
What about the Huge numbers of people killed by christian terrorists.over who's brand of christianity is better? Catholics killing Proddies, Drumming out the catholics..That nice Mr.Guy Fawlks wanting to blowup parliment and have the UKs churches loyal to Rome. Christians have proven to be effective at terrorist attacks on civilians who're guilty of being in the wrong christian sect. The P.L.O were great admirers of the I.R.A.
@pailmaster Because everybody has a different view of the ideal world, and we fight people who are moving the world away from our vision. I fight for a Europe with only whites, and I will never stop until I breathe my last breath.
Something unintentionally ironic about this video that I doubt Andrew Klavan is aware of: his satirical use of "Satanism" as a stand-in for Islam could not be more ironic. Anton Lavey, the "father" of modern-day Satanism based his religion on Ayn Randian Objectivism and basically added pseudo-religious ritual to it. And as well all know, Objectivism is the faith du jour of the Right wing establishment. :)
@UncleSam13 "You don't know nearly as much about the Right, or their libertarian cousins, as you think you do." That may be so, but it's a safe bet I know more than you. Would you like to make a point or speak in more platitudes?
@gnomechomskylives Irony is lost on some people. Aynn Rand was a genious that foretold this Obama nightmare many years before it happened. Change a couple of names and it is eas to see Atlas shrugging as we speak. Anton Lavey on the other hand was an egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless.
@crabman45324 Yes, Anton LaVey was a nutcase, however it is true that he based Satanism on Objectivism. A dumbed-downed psycho version that made sense to LaVey, but still. This fact does not detract from the genius of Ayn Rand any more than the actions of any self-proclaimed follower changes the original message that they claim to follow.
@crabman45324 "egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless." lmao some might say the same of Rand. The only difference is that Lavey didn't hide behind high-minded pretensions. Rand was a hack author selling dime store novels to people whose egos needed affirmation. She was not beloved except by the sycophants she surrounded herself by, like Alan Greenspan. William F. Buckley detested her and found her downright bizarre.
@gnomechomskylives You're right of course, however where I differ is that as Objectivism (and Satanism for that matter) is atheistic the right tends to reject it. A more accurate "faith du jour" application would be to Libertarians.rather than the right-wing.
@BMunich16 What's your point? Anton Lavey's Satanism was libertarian as well; it was all about the needs, wants and desires of the individual and fulfilling them. As I said, he based it on Objectivism and simply added ritual to it.
@gnomechomskylives How is Objectivism tied in to the "right-wing establishment" at all? You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, people just see a bunch of fancy words and agree with your point so they give you a thumbs up.
@BMunich16 It really baffles me how you can be so obtuse and pretend like Objectivism is NOT associated with the right, especially considering how her books have become the founding documents for the modern corporate elite, the Grover Norquist - John Birch - Tea Party types, who see the world divided into two types of people: the producers and the parasites. Hell even Alan Greenspan - one of her inner circle until she cast him out - is a devoted acolyte of her philosophy.
@gnomechomskylives So those people you mentioned make up the "right-wing establishment"? All I saw was Objectivism tied in to a bunch of right-wingers. So I guess that makes communism the "faith du jour" as you put it, of the left. I don't consider libertarians to be on the right, but I guess you're right, yes, Objectivism is "associated" with the right.
@BMunich16 Well yes, technically speaking on the political scale Libertarians don't fit neatly on the Left-Right paradigm but more the up-down libertarian/statist scale; they hover between left and right depending on the issue. However, present realities show that most Libertarians lean right. And certainly Rand appeals to many of today's Conservatives - her narratives about stalwart heroes facing the petty jealousies of bureaucrats and "parasites" -fits perfectly into the right wing ethos.
@gnomechomskylives Nothing in that comment portrays Objectivism as the "faith du jour" of the right-wing establishment. Wouldn't you say that the right-wing establishment is dominantly Christian and otherwise socially conservative? Sure, it fits into the right-wing ethos and is certainly relevant to the current conservative plight, but it most certainly not a doctrine of the "right-wing establishment", which was my original argument.
@BMunich16 While it's true that not all right wingers are Objectivists; all Objectivists are right wingers. Moreover, Rand's black & white worldview of Galtian heroes and parasites is indistinguishable from the establishment's rhetoric on "job creators" success being "punished" by "wealth redistribution" for "parasites" & "welfare queens" & "foodstamp presidents."
So while you distance yourself from the right, they do not want to distance themselves from you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
@gnomechomskylives So that suggests that right-wing ideas are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists doesn't it? You're running in circles, please, I stick to the facts, your pseudo-intellectualism doesn't work on me. The fact still stands: libertarianism is not reflective of the right-wing establishment. Far from it if you ask me.
@BMunich16 Wow, you're such an intellectual that you conflate Objectivism with Libertarianism; not the same thing. Okay Mr. Intellectual - since you're much too clever for me - please, by all means, point out some notable Left-leaning Objectivists who based their philosophy on Rand.
@gnomechomskylives I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one. Libertarianism is (essentially) Objectivist philosophy applied to politics, you aren't fooling anyone. There are no left leaning Objectivists which goes full circle, which I see is a common tactic of your weak mind, back to my previous point: it seems that right-wing ideals are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists, does it not?
@BMunich16 "I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one." Yet you keep framing yourself as intellectually superior in contrast to my "weak mind" You're the one arguing in circles as evidenced by your inconsistency.
You haven't refuted a single point; you keep going on and on about "faith du jour" which is simply a colorful phrase. The point stands, Objectivism is influential in right wing politics. Whether Objectivism itself is "right wing" (or not) is irrelevant.
@gnomechomskylives Michael Moore is more intelligent than a frog. And no, the point doesn't stand, "Objectivism is influential in right wing politics" is far from your original statement that Objectivism is some sort of doctrine to the "right wing establishment". You just watered it down to the point where it's different from your original statement.
@BMunich16 watered down? or you keep moving the goal posts to suit your argument? It is curious though why you would be so defensive about Objectivism being associated with the right wing establishment; does the thought offend you? Perhaps you're splitting hairs because your idea of "establishment" are Christian Conservatives like Santorum? While that bloc is certainly influential I wouldn't call them establishment. Please start making valid arguments instead of bickering; stop wasting our time.
1.) The goal posts never moved, I've been continuously trying to disprove that Objectivism is a doctrine to the right wing establishment, but YOU keep changing the subject.
2.) Your assumptions are just stupid, I'm an atheist, but nice try.
3.) And yes, the establishment is dominantly Christian.
@BMunich16 You haven't proven anything except your own insipid stubbornness. You're employing the "No True Scotsman" Logical Fallacy. Just because some Conservatives don't embody Objectivism in its truest form does not meant they aren't influenced by it. The tenets of Rand's philosophy: individualism, rational self-interest & rejection of state interference are the backbone of the Right wing establishment. Grow up and take your misdirected anger to those who have co-opted your philosophy.
@gnomechomskylives First of all, no he didn't. I've read LaVey's book, and while there are similarities, its actually much closer to Nietzsche's work than Rand's. LaVey set up a system were the individual was a God unto himself, and where it didn't matter what his whims were so long as he had them. And while Satanists don't actually believe in Satan, they do hold him up as the ideal of rebellion.
LaVey's philosophy is based on the premise of rebellion, not self-interest.
@gnomechomskylives What your comment tells me is that you've never read anything Rand wrote, and likely never read LaVey's book either. I, on the other hand, have read nearly everything she wrote, in addition to LaVey's manifesto, and I can tell you that Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would have found her philosophy to be very much in line with their own, with the primary exception being that God is not the foundation of natural law.
@gnomechomskylives No. LaVey may have believed that it was, but that doesn't make it so. Satanism does not hold reason as its foundational principle, instead it holds rebellion. Objectivism, by contrast, --does-- hold reason as its foundation. And therefore the two philosophies are at best only superficially similar. I said I've read his book, and nearly all of hers. The few similarities are at most skin deep.
So, have you read much of either of their writings?
@gnomechomskylives Nietzsche conceived of a dichotomy between Apollo, the god of reason, and Dionysus, the god of revelry, as the choices facing men. He upheld Dionysus as the superior choice, and so did LaVey.
Rand explicitly rejected Dionysus in favor of Apollo. It was also why she rejected Nietzsche. She regarded him as a great but flawed mind. Frankly I would challenge LaVey to name a --philosophical-- similarity between his church and Objectivism.
@GoblinKnightLeo whatever shred of credibility you had just evaporated if you honestly believe Obama's ideas are Marxist. If Obama is a Marxist so are many presidents before him going back to the Founders. It's remarkable how Rand attracts so many fawning sycophants which fail to live up to the reason & logic that Apollo embodies. I for one am not taken with Rand as you; she was a hack writer and a philosophical lightweight. Even conservatives like Buckley didn't think much of her.
@gnomechomskylives Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a Marxist, and he mentioned in one of his memoirs that she was the greatest influence on his life.
But the belief that the government was supposed to be the :"night watchman" of the populace was one that the majority of our presidents shared, and one that Marx ridiculed. Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Obama could all be legitimately claimed as socialists, and Obama has put several actual communists
@gnomechomskylives the White House as czars and advisers, in addition to some of his Cabinet appointees.
Your belief that Rand was a hack and a lightweight does not make it so, and conservatives of her time largely rejected her because she was an atheist, not because they disagreed with her ideas. Have you read AS? The Fountainhead? Any of her nonfiction? I'm going to guess the answer is no.
"Fawning sychophants"? That's a deliberate insult, but not the way you intended it.
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
Satanism is no worse than talmudism and mohammedanism.
onemoreturn 2 days ago
"satan" is a hebrew word meaning adversary. The horns and hooves were just added on by the mescal-addled numb-skull who wrote Revelation
arklowrockz 3 days ago
I speak the language of sarcasm fluently. I was right there with him. Right up until the part where he insinuated that Christians be free from criticism for denying rights to homosexuals. I guess intolerance is OK as long as it's Christian intolerance.
fuzycheese 3 days ago
The terroists were inspired by our government bombing them and having bases in there land for oil. According to the 9/11 commission report and our CIA, but no, I am just a constituionalist conservative who will be called a liberal.
mynameisliberty1 4 days ago
I thought that all religion was bad.
ev1ls0da 4 days ago
He elevates sarcasm into an art
Ken1Nickels1 5 days ago
Comment removed
Ken1Nickels1 5 days ago
What's movie is that picture at 4:18 from?
CrownedSerpent 1 week ago
I'm Satanophobic or whatever else KKK Libtards want to call me.
alexjonesdid911 1 week ago
Liberals are Demoniacs ! ! ! ! !
alexjonesdid911 1 week ago
after watching several of his videos, I have to wonder if he is actually a joo.
gennusa1 1 week ago
That clip from the exorcist scared the crap outta me...
unfolder4u 1 week ago
Comment removed
HornPlayer983 1 week ago
The funniest thing christian fundies say about Satan worshippers is that they're atheists? Huh?Don't you have to basically be a christian to worship Satan/Lucifer? You've got to believe in all the bible superstitious stuff to begin with,only your worship the opposing team. It's Completly ILLOGICAL for Christians to Think Atheists can Believ.....Oh. Yeah, there's the problem right there,Ha ha !
dianalee84 1 week ago
What about the Huge numbers of people killed by christian terrorists.over who's brand of christianity is better? Catholics killing Proddies, Drumming out the catholics..That nice Mr.Guy Fawlks wanting to blowup parliment and have the UKs churches loyal to Rome. Christians have proven to be effective at terrorist attacks on civilians who're guilty of being in the wrong christian sect. The P.L.O were great admirers of the I.R.A.
dianalee84 1 week ago
I just can't tell when he's serious and when he's not
darkmater4tm 2 weeks ago
i am an athiest but i have no problem with a person beliving in a god/gods
my problem is when that belief system turns into violent acts because my god is the real god and is better so you have to suffer from it
also most satanist acaully don't belive in satan yes a few of them exists thats true but most of them use the desciption satanist to provoke
i am personally an athiest and get my morals from my parents ghandi is a role models for me to name a few
why cant we all just get along ?
pailmaster 2 weeks ago
@pailmaster Because everybody has a different view of the ideal world, and we fight people who are moving the world away from our vision. I fight for a Europe with only whites, and I will never stop until I breathe my last breath.
TheEuropeanWarrior 2 weeks ago
United States of Jesus - as Pat Condell calls it.
AndyKordo 2 weeks ago
Why are you even discussing this religious nonsense? Religious are delusion, not sacred.
MrNeodarwinian 2 weeks ago
Ia ia ftaghn Cthulu!
MultiFortunatus 2 weeks ago
This guy cracks me up.
A combination of honesty and sense of humor. truly epic.
bywukime 3 weeks ago 13
Comment removed
Rakshinra 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bywukime he still scares the shit out of me...
Rakshinra 1 week ago
Stop Islam now!
misterlunatic 3 weeks ago
@misterlunatic ut-oh another kid who saw too much Islam fear propaganda
ListenandQuestion 3 weeks ago
Something unintentionally ironic about this video that I doubt Andrew Klavan is aware of: his satirical use of "Satanism" as a stand-in for Islam could not be more ironic. Anton Lavey, the "father" of modern-day Satanism based his religion on Ayn Randian Objectivism and basically added pseudo-religious ritual to it. And as well all know, Objectivism is the faith du jour of the Right wing establishment. :)
gnomechomskylives 3 weeks ago 8
@gnomechomskylives You don't know nearly as much about the Right, or their libertarian cousins, as you think you do.
UncleSam13 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UncleSam13 "You don't know nearly as much about the Right, or their libertarian cousins, as you think you do." That may be so, but it's a safe bet I know more than you. Would you like to make a point or speak in more platitudes?
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives Irony is lost on some people. Aynn Rand was a genious that foretold this Obama nightmare many years before it happened. Change a couple of names and it is eas to see Atlas shrugging as we speak. Anton Lavey on the other hand was an egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless.
crabman45324 2 weeks ago
@crabman45324 Yes, Anton LaVey was a nutcase, however it is true that he based Satanism on Objectivism. A dumbed-downed psycho version that made sense to LaVey, but still. This fact does not detract from the genius of Ayn Rand any more than the actions of any self-proclaimed follower changes the original message that they claim to follow.
EvilDandy 2 weeks ago
@crabman45324
Wait, so what's the difference between the two? Rand didn't have foresight, her works are mere reactions to where she grew up.
HornPlayer983 1 week ago
@crabman45324 "egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless." lmao some might say the same of Rand. The only difference is that Lavey didn't hide behind high-minded pretensions. Rand was a hack author selling dime store novels to people whose egos needed affirmation. She was not beloved except by the sycophants she surrounded herself by, like Alan Greenspan. William F. Buckley detested her and found her downright bizarre.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives You're right of course, however where I differ is that as Objectivism (and Satanism for that matter) is atheistic the right tends to reject it. A more accurate "faith du jour" application would be to Libertarians.rather than the right-wing.
EvilDandy 2 weeks ago
@gnomechomskylives No it isn't? Objectivism is libertarian you buffoon.
BMunich16 1 week ago
@BMunich16 What's your point? Anton Lavey's Satanism was libertarian as well; it was all about the needs, wants and desires of the individual and fulfilling them. As I said, he based it on Objectivism and simply added ritual to it.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives How is Objectivism tied in to the "right-wing establishment" at all? You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, people just see a bunch of fancy words and agree with your point so they give you a thumbs up.
BMunich16 1 week ago
@BMunich16 It really baffles me how you can be so obtuse and pretend like Objectivism is NOT associated with the right, especially considering how her books have become the founding documents for the modern corporate elite, the Grover Norquist - John Birch - Tea Party types, who see the world divided into two types of people: the producers and the parasites. Hell even Alan Greenspan - one of her inner circle until she cast him out - is a devoted acolyte of her philosophy.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives So those people you mentioned make up the "right-wing establishment"? All I saw was Objectivism tied in to a bunch of right-wingers. So I guess that makes communism the "faith du jour" as you put it, of the left. I don't consider libertarians to be on the right, but I guess you're right, yes, Objectivism is "associated" with the right.
BMunich16 1 week ago
@BMunich16 Well yes, technically speaking on the political scale Libertarians don't fit neatly on the Left-Right paradigm but more the up-down libertarian/statist scale; they hover between left and right depending on the issue. However, present realities show that most Libertarians lean right. And certainly Rand appeals to many of today's Conservatives - her narratives about stalwart heroes facing the petty jealousies of bureaucrats and "parasites" -fits perfectly into the right wing ethos.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives Nothing in that comment portrays Objectivism as the "faith du jour" of the right-wing establishment. Wouldn't you say that the right-wing establishment is dominantly Christian and otherwise socially conservative? Sure, it fits into the right-wing ethos and is certainly relevant to the current conservative plight, but it most certainly not a doctrine of the "right-wing establishment", which was my original argument.
BMunich16 6 days ago
@BMunich16 While it's true that not all right wingers are Objectivists; all Objectivists are right wingers. Moreover, Rand's black & white worldview of Galtian heroes and parasites is indistinguishable from the establishment's rhetoric on "job creators" success being "punished" by "wealth redistribution" for "parasites" & "welfare queens" & "foodstamp presidents."
So while you distance yourself from the right, they do not want to distance themselves from you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives So that suggests that right-wing ideas are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists doesn't it? You're running in circles, please, I stick to the facts, your pseudo-intellectualism doesn't work on me. The fact still stands: libertarianism is not reflective of the right-wing establishment. Far from it if you ask me.
BMunich16 6 days ago
@BMunich16 Wow, you're such an intellectual that you conflate Objectivism with Libertarianism; not the same thing. Okay Mr. Intellectual - since you're much too clever for me - please, by all means, point out some notable Left-leaning Objectivists who based their philosophy on Rand.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one. Libertarianism is (essentially) Objectivist philosophy applied to politics, you aren't fooling anyone. There are no left leaning Objectivists which goes full circle, which I see is a common tactic of your weak mind, back to my previous point: it seems that right-wing ideals are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists, does it not?
BMunich16 6 days ago
@BMunich16 "I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one." Yet you keep framing yourself as intellectually superior in contrast to my "weak mind" You're the one arguing in circles as evidenced by your inconsistency.
You haven't refuted a single point; you keep going on and on about "faith du jour" which is simply a colorful phrase. The point stands, Objectivism is influential in right wing politics. Whether Objectivism itself is "right wing" (or not) is irrelevant.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Michael Moore is more intelligent than a frog. And no, the point doesn't stand, "Objectivism is influential in right wing politics" is far from your original statement that Objectivism is some sort of doctrine to the "right wing establishment". You just watered it down to the point where it's different from your original statement.
BMunich16 2 days ago
@BMunich16 watered down? or you keep moving the goal posts to suit your argument? It is curious though why you would be so defensive about Objectivism being associated with the right wing establishment; does the thought offend you? Perhaps you're splitting hairs because your idea of "establishment" are Christian Conservatives like Santorum? While that bloc is certainly influential I wouldn't call them establishment. Please start making valid arguments instead of bickering; stop wasting our time.
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
@gnomechomskylives
1.) The goal posts never moved, I've been continuously trying to disprove that Objectivism is a doctrine to the right wing establishment, but YOU keep changing the subject.
2.) Your assumptions are just stupid, I'm an atheist, but nice try.
3.) And yes, the establishment is dominantly Christian.
BMunich16 2 days ago
@BMunich16 You haven't proven anything except your own insipid stubbornness. You're employing the "No True Scotsman" Logical Fallacy. Just because some Conservatives don't embody Objectivism in its truest form does not meant they aren't influenced by it. The tenets of Rand's philosophy: individualism, rational self-interest & rejection of state interference are the backbone of the Right wing establishment. Grow up and take your misdirected anger to those who have co-opted your philosophy.
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
@gnomechomskylives First of all, no he didn't. I've read LaVey's book, and while there are similarities, its actually much closer to Nietzsche's work than Rand's. LaVey set up a system were the individual was a God unto himself, and where it didn't matter what his whims were so long as he had them. And while Satanists don't actually believe in Satan, they do hold him up as the ideal of rebellion.
LaVey's philosophy is based on the premise of rebellion, not self-interest.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives What your comment tells me is that you've never read anything Rand wrote, and likely never read LaVey's book either. I, on the other hand, have read nearly everything she wrote, in addition to LaVey's manifesto, and I can tell you that Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would have found her philosophy to be very much in line with their own, with the primary exception being that God is not the foundation of natural law.
No so LaVey's.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@GoblinKnightLeo You don't have to take my word for it, take it directly from Lavey's own words:
LaVey described his religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (cited in Ellis, p. 180)
Ellis, Bill. Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives No. LaVey may have believed that it was, but that doesn't make it so. Satanism does not hold reason as its foundational principle, instead it holds rebellion. Objectivism, by contrast, --does-- hold reason as its foundation. And therefore the two philosophies are at best only superficially similar. I said I've read his book, and nearly all of hers. The few similarities are at most skin deep.
So, have you read much of either of their writings?
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Nietzsche conceived of a dichotomy between Apollo, the god of reason, and Dionysus, the god of revelry, as the choices facing men. He upheld Dionysus as the superior choice, and so did LaVey.
Rand explicitly rejected Dionysus in favor of Apollo. It was also why she rejected Nietzsche. She regarded him as a great but flawed mind. Frankly I would challenge LaVey to name a --philosophical-- similarity between his church and Objectivism.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives LaVey doesn't get to dictate what is and what isn't. Neither does Obama get to determine that his ideas aren't Marxist.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@GoblinKnightLeo whatever shred of credibility you had just evaporated if you honestly believe Obama's ideas are Marxist. If Obama is a Marxist so are many presidents before him going back to the Founders. It's remarkable how Rand attracts so many fawning sycophants which fail to live up to the reason & logic that Apollo embodies. I for one am not taken with Rand as you; she was a hack writer and a philosophical lightweight. Even conservatives like Buckley didn't think much of her.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a Marxist, and he mentioned in one of his memoirs that she was the greatest influence on his life.
But the belief that the government was supposed to be the :"night watchman" of the populace was one that the majority of our presidents shared, and one that Marx ridiculed. Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Obama could all be legitimately claimed as socialists, and Obama has put several actual communists
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives the White House as czars and advisers, in addition to some of his Cabinet appointees.
Your belief that Rand was a hack and a lightweight does not make it so, and conservatives of her time largely rejected her because she was an atheist, not because they disagreed with her ideas. Have you read AS? The Fountainhead? Any of her nonfiction? I'm going to guess the answer is no.
"Fawning sychophants"? That's a deliberate insult, but not the way you intended it.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Really?
I thought Satanism was hedonistic. Not in a bad way, mind you, but in a "I'm happy that you're happy and you should be happy that I'm happy" kind of way.
Objectivism is so anti-hedonism it makes your comment look stupid and uninformed.
SgtHydra 5 days ago
@SgtHydra Read my comments below, Lavey said it himself. I am simply the messenger; you are the uninformed one.
However, whatever conceit Objectivism has of being anti-dionysian, it is not conveyed by its followers, as your hasty and rude comment demonstrates.
gnomechomskylives 4 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Utterly ridiculous. It is clearly just Lavey stirring up trouble.
The man has said various conflicting statements throughout his life, which to be quite honest fits his religion.
SgtHydra 4 days ago
Religion isn't good at all, actually. Scientology is the worst.
The92Waffles 3 weeks ago
Satan is bad. That's right. Darth Vader and Darth Sidious are also bad. That's why I follow the Jedi code and not the Sith code of ethics. I would also like to point out that Captian Picard is good whereas the Borg are bad. The only question I have then is, who would win in a fight? Robocop or the Terminator?
elzoog 4 weeks ago
Funny piece, but FYI a lot of satanists don't even think Satan is literally real, or at least not evil.
Noromongrel 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
chuck3668831 1 month ago
AHHH Klavin this had me in tears XD
arivas713 1 month ago
If the terms homophobia and Islamophobia exist in reality, then so must the terms heterophobia, Christophobia, and Judeophobia. I think Muslims are homophobes, Christophobes, and especially Judeophobes. I think homosexuals are heterophobes. I think they are repulsed and scared of heterosex and don't want it around them at all because they are insensitive, unenlightened, hateful bigots. They need heterosexual reeducation so they can understand how backward and stupid they are.
chuck3668831 1 month ago
@chuck3668831 one of the dumbest fucking things i've had the displeasure to read on youtube. i have yet to encounter one homosexual that would beat another person for having the audacity to have sex, love, or marry someone of the opposite gender. as for being repulsed or scared by it? hardly, they just do not care ONE WAY or the other about it. the same cannot be said about homophobes, especially those of a religious bent.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm I have never heard of a white man getting lynched by black men. That doesn't mean there aren't racist black men. And the word homophobia is a stupid word for stupid people. You are taking someones opinion and turning it into a pathology. Meaning that person is sick and needs help. Once the help is received and he or she is properly brainwashed then all will be well. Even the lefts terminology is Orwellian. And many do care ONE WAY or the other. Which is why they dont STFU about it.
chuck3668831 1 month ago
@chuck3668831 it has nothing to do with opinion and everything to do with respect. You can have your opinion all you want about homosexuality. but lacking the respect to allow them the rights you enjoy, in accordance with the constitution, is disgusting.
there are plenty of racist blacks that have attacked whites... this is a demonstrable fact.
i very much doubt you will be able to show me proof that homosexuals have ever attacked heterosexuals just because they're hetero.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm There is no such thing as homosexual rights and never has been. You aren't asking for equal rights you are asking for new rights to be added to the books. Only thing that is disgusting is the social manipulation and demonization proponents of "gay rights" are involved in. My problem is there will always be some group needing more laws, more affirmative action, and endless claims to help and "equality" and you think it gives you a license to add things that are extra-constitutional.
chuck3668831 1 month ago
@chuck3668831 Speaking of extra constitutional.. the entire establishment of marriage is extra constitutional. There are only two possible solutions, either gays have the right to marry each other and enjoy the same protection under law as heteros, or the entire legal establishment of marriage is abolished and no one receives any sort of right or privilege under it. Which is my preferred answer... marriage is a religious ceremony, keep it that way and get rid of it under law.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm So much for being "tolerant" huh?Anyone who disagrees with liberals is "retarded, racist, or bigoted" because you guys can't seem to win an argument any other way. And that is a fact.Special laws for special groups is what has been installed. And marriage isn't extra constitutional.That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. The supreme court said marriage is a right.And more importantly it is a state right.It is for states to decide not social engineers to tell states what to do
chuck3668831 1 month ago
Marriage isn't extra constitutional? Prove it. Oh you can't "Beyond what is provided for in a constitution." Where is the institution of marriage provided for in the constitution? Its not.
You are the one who used the term bigot first, so I guess you're a liberal?
The Republican party was the abolitionist party formed under the ideal that "All men are created equal." If all men are equal than they can marry other men, if you don't believe that, you are not a republican.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is where marriage is reserved to the states. Not to people like you who wish the Federal Government to impose your will on the rest of us.
chuck3668831 1 month ago
@chuck3668831 "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
"Not to people like you who wish the Federal Government to impose your will on the rest of us." Funny considering the Federal law defining marriage as between man and woman, and giving states the right to not recognize other states' same sex marriage... was put in place by a republican christian.
hypocrisy much?
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm I never said I agree with the federal government imposing its will on the states against gay marriage. Show me where I said that dummy. Secondly I am against the federal government being either for or against something it has no authority over. There is always a group that need redistribution of wealth, special treatment, special programs, and special agencies and bureaus dedicated just for it. There is no end to it.
chuck3668831 1 month ago
these vids are all funny. but this made me laugh the most (woopi and joy bhahah)
MadManWithABlueBox 1 month ago
the funny thing is, if you were to compare religions to political parties, the church of satan would most closely resemble the libertarian party.
scottydu81 1 month ago
@scottydu81 THAT THE STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD
I know for a fact that Satan himself would never vote for government healthcare.
MetalSights 1 month ago
@MetalSights libertarians dont support government healthcare. they actually support deregulating health care and even support getting rid of the FDA.
scottydu81 1 month ago
i can't tell when he's being sarcastic and when he isn't
jaffarm 2 months ago 2
@jaffarm
you should see his video about abortions. I couldn't tell if he was for or against it.
Herb615 3 weeks ago
Most terrorrists are terrorists, because there're no sane human beings that insane enough to spread fear, wheter it's religious or atheist
Slamdumb020 2 months ago
If americans love jesus so much, they should realize that they're the ones who should love satan more than anyone else... Jesus said: Love your enemy, if americans are satan's enemies, then they should do what jesus said... am i right? :p
Slamdumb020 2 months ago
Most terrorist are not Muslims.
Majority of Terrorists in the world are actually separatists and left-wing commies
wiseye61 2 months ago
@wiseye61 But you have to admit, when it comes to populous galvanizing, and instilling terror and a foreboding sense of impending doom, the Islamic fundamentalists do have a certain panache and true belief that the leftists just don't have. Sure lefties threaten your livelihood and smash and burn things as an en-sensed mob. A few may pipe bomb a cop car or two before helping you run for president, but intentionally dying in the act of committing mass murder,that requires religious devotion.
AdUtrumquePeratus76 2 months ago
@wiseye61 Most (If not the only) Terrorists on TV are Muslim, that's the problem...
sysarchitect 2 months ago
There was a time I identified as Satanist. I don't anymore due to Satanism's claim that spirituality is an invention of man's carnal mind. Even so, if one reads the Satanic bible they would see that it isn't necessarily "evil". I'm not trying to get into a debate. Just pick the book up and see for yourself.
AresCassell 2 months ago
@AresCassell I did. And it depends on your definition of evil. In my definition as a Christian, id est "evil = anything that works in favor of God" the book penned by LaVey is extremely evil. Selfishness is what the book is based on. Not the needs of others or of the Lord but the needs of self are held in utmost importance.
Legion719 2 months ago
Hail Satan..........
DameanStormwolf 3 months ago
Most terrorist are Jewish....
USS Liberty, The king David Hotel bombing, the Lavon affair, 9/11, etc, etc
even the so called Al-CIA-da is Jewish.
watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0
.
You people are are being duped by Zionist but you still choose to watch Zionist controlled media instead of picking up a book. You deserve what ever these satanic Jews have planned for you. You need an example of what that is...think of how the Palestinians are treated. That's coming to a city near you!
thirdeyewise2 3 months ago
@thirdeyewise2 wow!really? the jews are bombing innocent civilians & killing unarmed school children? Those damn jews must be dressing like muslims and going on tlevision, the internet and radio telling the world how they will kill all the non muslims. They must have disguised themselves as the taliban in afganistan and opporessed the muslims there!and london,madrid,india!Damn jews!theyre such good liars!i was convinced it was muslims and their koran!They must have tricked us with that too!
Pitttdog 3 months ago
@Pitttdog
exactly!
listen/read: IamthewitnessdotCom
thirdeyewise2 3 months ago
@thirdeyewise2 i was being sarcastic. Muslims should take responsibility for their actions.Not blame everyone else. Your blaming the jews doesnt work.Muslims have been behaving like this for centuries, killing, enslaving and lying and its all down to the korans instructions and the example of mohomad. Both islamic official hadith and historians ave documented it.History has recorded it.We now witness it.Grow up and take some responsibility for your cult.
Pitttdog 3 months ago
@thirdeyewise2
If I have to choose between a zionist bullet between my eyes, or a muslim bullet, or a christian bullet, or some white natioalist bullet, or god-forbid some NWO satanic bullet. please, i decline them all thank you very much. the principles of liberty and 'leave me alone and stay the fuck off my property, i'll render the same favor to you' suffice.
NonSapor 1 month ago
criticism had allways exists, and criticism was always criticised thankes for people like him!
exhausted2212 4 months ago
Satanism is no worse than talmudism and mohammedanism.
onemoreturn 2 days ago
"satan" is a hebrew word meaning adversary. The horns and hooves were just added on by the mescal-addled numb-skull who wrote Revelation
arklowrockz 3 days ago
I speak the language of sarcasm fluently. I was right there with him. Right up until the part where he insinuated that Christians be free from criticism for denying rights to homosexuals. I guess intolerance is OK as long as it's Christian intolerance.
fuzycheese 3 days ago
The terroists were inspired by our government bombing them and having bases in there land for oil. According to the 9/11 commission report and our CIA, but no, I am just a constituionalist conservative who will be called a liberal.
mynameisliberty1 4 days ago
I thought that all religion was bad.
ev1ls0da 4 days ago
He elevates sarcasm into an art
Ken1Nickels1 5 days ago
Comment removed
Ken1Nickels1 5 days ago
What's movie is that picture at 4:18 from?
CrownedSerpent 1 week ago
I'm Satanophobic or whatever else KKK Libtards want to call me.
alexjonesdid911 1 week ago
Liberals are Demoniacs ! ! ! ! !
alexjonesdid911 1 week ago
after watching several of his videos, I have to wonder if he is actually a joo.
gennusa1 1 week ago
That clip from the exorcist scared the crap outta me...
unfolder4u 1 week ago
Comment removed
HornPlayer983 1 week ago
The funniest thing christian fundies say about Satan worshippers is that they're atheists? Huh?Don't you have to basically be a christian to worship Satan/Lucifer? You've got to believe in all the bible superstitious stuff to begin with,only your worship the opposing team. It's Completly ILLOGICAL for Christians to Think Atheists can Believ.....Oh. Yeah, there's the problem right there,Ha ha !
dianalee84 1 week ago
What about the Huge numbers of people killed by christian terrorists.over who's brand of christianity is better? Catholics killing Proddies, Drumming out the catholics..That nice Mr.Guy Fawlks wanting to blowup parliment and have the UKs churches loyal to Rome. Christians have proven to be effective at terrorist attacks on civilians who're guilty of being in the wrong christian sect. The P.L.O were great admirers of the I.R.A.
dianalee84 1 week ago
I just can't tell when he's serious and when he's not
darkmater4tm 2 weeks ago
i am an athiest but i have no problem with a person beliving in a god/gods
my problem is when that belief system turns into violent acts because my god is the real god and is better so you have to suffer from it
also most satanist acaully don't belive in satan yes a few of them exists thats true but most of them use the desciption satanist to provoke
i am personally an athiest and get my morals from my parents ghandi is a role models for me to name a few
why cant we all just get along ?
pailmaster 2 weeks ago
@pailmaster Because everybody has a different view of the ideal world, and we fight people who are moving the world away from our vision. I fight for a Europe with only whites, and I will never stop until I breathe my last breath.
TheEuropeanWarrior 2 weeks ago
United States of Jesus - as Pat Condell calls it.
AndyKordo 2 weeks ago
Why are you even discussing this religious nonsense? Religious are delusion, not sacred.
MrNeodarwinian 2 weeks ago
Ia ia ftaghn Cthulu!
MultiFortunatus 2 weeks ago
This guy cracks me up.
A combination of honesty and sense of humor. truly epic.
bywukime 3 weeks ago 13
Comment removed
Rakshinra 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bywukime he still scares the shit out of me...
Rakshinra 1 week ago
Stop Islam now!
misterlunatic 3 weeks ago
@misterlunatic ut-oh another kid who saw too much Islam fear propaganda
ListenandQuestion 3 weeks ago
Something unintentionally ironic about this video that I doubt Andrew Klavan is aware of: his satirical use of "Satanism" as a stand-in for Islam could not be more ironic. Anton Lavey, the "father" of modern-day Satanism based his religion on Ayn Randian Objectivism and basically added pseudo-religious ritual to it. And as well all know, Objectivism is the faith du jour of the Right wing establishment. :)
gnomechomskylives 3 weeks ago 8
@gnomechomskylives You don't know nearly as much about the Right, or their libertarian cousins, as you think you do.
UncleSam13 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UncleSam13 "You don't know nearly as much about the Right, or their libertarian cousins, as you think you do." That may be so, but it's a safe bet I know more than you. Would you like to make a point or speak in more platitudes?
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives Irony is lost on some people. Aynn Rand was a genious that foretold this Obama nightmare many years before it happened. Change a couple of names and it is eas to see Atlas shrugging as we speak. Anton Lavey on the other hand was an egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless.
crabman45324 2 weeks ago
@crabman45324 Yes, Anton LaVey was a nutcase, however it is true that he based Satanism on Objectivism. A dumbed-downed psycho version that made sense to LaVey, but still. This fact does not detract from the genius of Ayn Rand any more than the actions of any self-proclaimed follower changes the original message that they claim to follow.
EvilDandy 2 weeks ago
@crabman45324
Wait, so what's the difference between the two? Rand didn't have foresight, her works are mere reactions to where she grew up.
HornPlayer983 1 week ago
@crabman45324 "egomanical, self-serving side-show barker that preyed on the clueless." lmao some might say the same of Rand. The only difference is that Lavey didn't hide behind high-minded pretensions. Rand was a hack author selling dime store novels to people whose egos needed affirmation. She was not beloved except by the sycophants she surrounded herself by, like Alan Greenspan. William F. Buckley detested her and found her downright bizarre.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives You're right of course, however where I differ is that as Objectivism (and Satanism for that matter) is atheistic the right tends to reject it. A more accurate "faith du jour" application would be to Libertarians.rather than the right-wing.
EvilDandy 2 weeks ago
@gnomechomskylives No it isn't? Objectivism is libertarian you buffoon.
BMunich16 1 week ago
@BMunich16 What's your point? Anton Lavey's Satanism was libertarian as well; it was all about the needs, wants and desires of the individual and fulfilling them. As I said, he based it on Objectivism and simply added ritual to it.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives How is Objectivism tied in to the "right-wing establishment" at all? You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, people just see a bunch of fancy words and agree with your point so they give you a thumbs up.
BMunich16 1 week ago
@BMunich16 It really baffles me how you can be so obtuse and pretend like Objectivism is NOT associated with the right, especially considering how her books have become the founding documents for the modern corporate elite, the Grover Norquist - John Birch - Tea Party types, who see the world divided into two types of people: the producers and the parasites. Hell even Alan Greenspan - one of her inner circle until she cast him out - is a devoted acolyte of her philosophy.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives So those people you mentioned make up the "right-wing establishment"? All I saw was Objectivism tied in to a bunch of right-wingers. So I guess that makes communism the "faith du jour" as you put it, of the left. I don't consider libertarians to be on the right, but I guess you're right, yes, Objectivism is "associated" with the right.
BMunich16 1 week ago
@BMunich16 Well yes, technically speaking on the political scale Libertarians don't fit neatly on the Left-Right paradigm but more the up-down libertarian/statist scale; they hover between left and right depending on the issue. However, present realities show that most Libertarians lean right. And certainly Rand appeals to many of today's Conservatives - her narratives about stalwart heroes facing the petty jealousies of bureaucrats and "parasites" -fits perfectly into the right wing ethos.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives Nothing in that comment portrays Objectivism as the "faith du jour" of the right-wing establishment. Wouldn't you say that the right-wing establishment is dominantly Christian and otherwise socially conservative? Sure, it fits into the right-wing ethos and is certainly relevant to the current conservative plight, but it most certainly not a doctrine of the "right-wing establishment", which was my original argument.
BMunich16 6 days ago
@BMunich16 While it's true that not all right wingers are Objectivists; all Objectivists are right wingers. Moreover, Rand's black & white worldview of Galtian heroes and parasites is indistinguishable from the establishment's rhetoric on "job creators" success being "punished" by "wealth redistribution" for "parasites" & "welfare queens" & "foodstamp presidents."
So while you distance yourself from the right, they do not want to distance themselves from you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives So that suggests that right-wing ideas are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists doesn't it? You're running in circles, please, I stick to the facts, your pseudo-intellectualism doesn't work on me. The fact still stands: libertarianism is not reflective of the right-wing establishment. Far from it if you ask me.
BMunich16 6 days ago
@BMunich16 Wow, you're such an intellectual that you conflate Objectivism with Libertarianism; not the same thing. Okay Mr. Intellectual - since you're much too clever for me - please, by all means, point out some notable Left-leaning Objectivists who based their philosophy on Rand.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one. Libertarianism is (essentially) Objectivist philosophy applied to politics, you aren't fooling anyone. There are no left leaning Objectivists which goes full circle, which I see is a common tactic of your weak mind, back to my previous point: it seems that right-wing ideals are the "faith du jour" of Objectivists, does it not?
BMunich16 6 days ago
@BMunich16 "I didn't say I was an intellectual, nor do I pretend to be one." Yet you keep framing yourself as intellectually superior in contrast to my "weak mind" You're the one arguing in circles as evidenced by your inconsistency.
You haven't refuted a single point; you keep going on and on about "faith du jour" which is simply a colorful phrase. The point stands, Objectivism is influential in right wing politics. Whether Objectivism itself is "right wing" (or not) is irrelevant.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Michael Moore is more intelligent than a frog. And no, the point doesn't stand, "Objectivism is influential in right wing politics" is far from your original statement that Objectivism is some sort of doctrine to the "right wing establishment". You just watered it down to the point where it's different from your original statement.
BMunich16 2 days ago
@BMunich16 watered down? or you keep moving the goal posts to suit your argument? It is curious though why you would be so defensive about Objectivism being associated with the right wing establishment; does the thought offend you? Perhaps you're splitting hairs because your idea of "establishment" are Christian Conservatives like Santorum? While that bloc is certainly influential I wouldn't call them establishment. Please start making valid arguments instead of bickering; stop wasting our time.
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
@gnomechomskylives
1.) The goal posts never moved, I've been continuously trying to disprove that Objectivism is a doctrine to the right wing establishment, but YOU keep changing the subject.
2.) Your assumptions are just stupid, I'm an atheist, but nice try.
3.) And yes, the establishment is dominantly Christian.
BMunich16 2 days ago
@BMunich16 You haven't proven anything except your own insipid stubbornness. You're employing the "No True Scotsman" Logical Fallacy. Just because some Conservatives don't embody Objectivism in its truest form does not meant they aren't influenced by it. The tenets of Rand's philosophy: individualism, rational self-interest & rejection of state interference are the backbone of the Right wing establishment. Grow up and take your misdirected anger to those who have co-opted your philosophy.
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
@gnomechomskylives First of all, no he didn't. I've read LaVey's book, and while there are similarities, its actually much closer to Nietzsche's work than Rand's. LaVey set up a system were the individual was a God unto himself, and where it didn't matter what his whims were so long as he had them. And while Satanists don't actually believe in Satan, they do hold him up as the ideal of rebellion.
LaVey's philosophy is based on the premise of rebellion, not self-interest.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives What your comment tells me is that you've never read anything Rand wrote, and likely never read LaVey's book either. I, on the other hand, have read nearly everything she wrote, in addition to LaVey's manifesto, and I can tell you that Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would have found her philosophy to be very much in line with their own, with the primary exception being that God is not the foundation of natural law.
No so LaVey's.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@GoblinKnightLeo You don't have to take my word for it, take it directly from Lavey's own words:
LaVey described his religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (cited in Ellis, p. 180)
Ellis, Bill. Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives No. LaVey may have believed that it was, but that doesn't make it so. Satanism does not hold reason as its foundational principle, instead it holds rebellion. Objectivism, by contrast, --does-- hold reason as its foundation. And therefore the two philosophies are at best only superficially similar. I said I've read his book, and nearly all of hers. The few similarities are at most skin deep.
So, have you read much of either of their writings?
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Nietzsche conceived of a dichotomy between Apollo, the god of reason, and Dionysus, the god of revelry, as the choices facing men. He upheld Dionysus as the superior choice, and so did LaVey.
Rand explicitly rejected Dionysus in favor of Apollo. It was also why she rejected Nietzsche. She regarded him as a great but flawed mind. Frankly I would challenge LaVey to name a --philosophical-- similarity between his church and Objectivism.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives LaVey doesn't get to dictate what is and what isn't. Neither does Obama get to determine that his ideas aren't Marxist.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@GoblinKnightLeo whatever shred of credibility you had just evaporated if you honestly believe Obama's ideas are Marxist. If Obama is a Marxist so are many presidents before him going back to the Founders. It's remarkable how Rand attracts so many fawning sycophants which fail to live up to the reason & logic that Apollo embodies. I for one am not taken with Rand as you; she was a hack writer and a philosophical lightweight. Even conservatives like Buckley didn't think much of her.
gnomechomskylives 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a Marxist, and he mentioned in one of his memoirs that she was the greatest influence on his life.
But the belief that the government was supposed to be the :"night watchman" of the populace was one that the majority of our presidents shared, and one that Marx ridiculed. Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Obama could all be legitimately claimed as socialists, and Obama has put several actual communists
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives the White House as czars and advisers, in addition to some of his Cabinet appointees.
Your belief that Rand was a hack and a lightweight does not make it so, and conservatives of her time largely rejected her because she was an atheist, not because they disagreed with her ideas. Have you read AS? The Fountainhead? Any of her nonfiction? I'm going to guess the answer is no.
"Fawning sychophants"? That's a deliberate insult, but not the way you intended it.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago
@gnomechomskylives I'm insulted because you think I don't take her ideas seriously. That's the only possible meaning behind calling her admirers and those who took up the name Objectivist "fawning sychophants". So if you were intending to insult me, fine, you managed it. Which means this discussion is over.
GoblinKnightLeo 6 days ago