Tuesday, 21 January 2014

“…it is time to question the motives of socialism's advocates.”

“Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the
widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and
aimed at the achievement of men's well-being. Today, that belief can no longer be
regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe.
In the light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism's advocates.”
- Ayn Rand, ‘The Monument Builders’

Rand wrote that just over fifty years ago, in 1962.

In your view, is there more or less evidence now for its thesis?

Or is time for questioning over?


  1. There is absolutely no question that socialism is in the same category as advocating that the world is flat, that vaccines cause autism, or that π = 3. This is a mathematical and economic fact.

    Anyone advocating or voting for socialism should be classified as ineligible to vote or stand for election under clause 80(1)(c) of the Electoral act

  2. Up to a certain age, socialism can be excused for youthful naivete, but beyond that it barely hides a contempt, and a violent streak of desire to do violence to others. Rare do you find an advocate of socialism who doesn't have bubbling under the surface a desire to do violence to property or people if they are in their way, or to accuse others of doing violence (and so justifying the violence they advocate).

    However the philosophy underpinning socialism is insidious, it has its base in so many religions and is being spread by the education system and media most thoroughly, and has been joined by environmentalism - the warm fuzzy caring face of the jackboot and fist of "we know best".

  3. Rand was insightful alright. Look what a dump socialist Scandinavia is compared to low tax-low govt countries like Mexico and Somalia.

  4. Angry Tory

    Vacines have long been implicated as a causal element in autism. Fact. To persist with a blind belief otherwise is to pretend that injecting infants with neurotoxins has no effect on them whatsoever.

    Tories, conservatives and all such belong in exactly the same category as do socialists- malevolent at best and more than likely quite insane.


  5. Ben

    How dim you are. Mexico is a wonderful country. I like being there and visit as often as I can conveniently arrange to. I have not been to Somalia yet so I can't report what that is like. I do know this though, socialism is evil whether it takes place here or in another country. It's expressed differently in different countries, depending on historical background, level of development, culture and how far it has progressed into the economy and political system of the country concerned. No matter where you go socialism is wrong. It causes ill for people. Only an imbecile could possibly claim otherwise.


  6. "... it has its base in so many religions". But not Christianity irrespective of the dodgy social gospel that gets sold nowadays.

  7. @Amit.

    "Vacines have long been implicated as a causal element in autism. Fact. To persist with a blind belief otherwise is to pretend that injecting infants with neurotoxins has no effect on them whatsoever."

    hmmm... You should perhaps rephrase this as: I believe that vaccines are a causal element in autism even though current scientific research unanimously suggests no relationship between the two.

    For an overview... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

  8. Michael

    Recommend you familiarise yourself with the actual results of some of the serious research into the problem. As it happens that's not found in the wiki you ignorant dog.




  9. @Amit

    If you can't provide some links to this 'serious research' you are an ignorant retard

  10. One thing I always say to those opposed to immunisation is this - if your child caught polio and was paralysed, and you could have prevented it by immunisation (ie: why isn't every other child in the street paralysed by polio) is that "love" or "hate" of your child?

  11. Scott

    Given the tenor of your "contribution" you are to be treated exactly like the barking dog you are. Go fetch, dog! Go to your local medical school library (or failing that, the local university library), look the topic up and fetch the papers about it. That's a good dog. Now sit! Sit and read. Good boy. Good doogie.

    If they don't let mutts in the library, well then you are out of luck! Perhaps you got the fleas. Don't blame me.


  12. Amit, I'm waiting. Present your references.

  13. Mr Lineberry

    That approach does cuts both ways. Paraphrasing what you wrote; one thing I always say to those supporting arbitrary, coercive or even compulsory immunisation is this - if your child got autism from a vaccination or even died from a vaccination and you could have prevented it by not having them vaccinated, is that "love" or "hate" of your child?

    The introduction of substances such as (but not limited to) heavy metals, heavy metal compounds, neurotoxins, bioactive materials, viruses, poisons (deliberately intended to cause irritation, inflamation and reaction in the subject's body), parasites, as well as a host of unintended impurities (from the vaccine manufacturing process or from the original source of the culture employed), parasites and so on is not safe. Vaccinations have been found to not prevent many of the illnesses they are purported to provide protection against. Some have provided some protection, but to such a limited extent as to be clinically useless. Many of these "treatments" are not necessary and are avoidable. The risks are real and they are devastatingly serious consequences when things go wrong. And they have gone wrong. Not always, but enough to be very, very careful about giving the "treatment" to infants. Is it really worth it?


  14. Michael

    Same goes for you as for Scott. Your contributions were rude and worthless, so you get treated exactly as the dog you are.

    For what are you waiting, little doggie? Permission to go outside? Be a good boy and ask your owner. You do not need to ask me. I do not care where you go so long as it is not near this house right here.


  15. Mr Lineberry

    To clarify the position. The issue here is that there is an element of risk associated with vaccinations. That risk needs to be carefully weighed against actual and achievable benefits. We should not accept claimed benefits as fact automatically. That is, we ought not to take as guaranteed truth what promoters of treatments claim. Benefits need to be identified and understood on a factual basis prior to making decision to go ahead. In many cases the risks are potentially more likely and more serious than the illness we propose to eliminate by the practice of vaccination. That is when it is a good idea to not go ahead.

    Still, if other poeple want to do it, that's their own business. No, I do not intend to force them not to. They can do as they like. Here is an interesting thing though. How about this? If somone is vaccinated, why are they concerned and upset that I not be? Why should they give a damn? After all, they are protected. They must believe the vaccine will protect them from the disease. My situation is then of no relevance to their status as a protected safe person. So we are all happy with the state of play then.

    What do you say?


  16. @Amit the troll

    The mercury in vaccinations is 'bound up' due to the type of molecule it is in. Different mercury compounds have very different toxicities. If you weren't so ignorant you would know this.

    You still haven't provided any links to research to back up your claims. If there were papers available in libraries there would also be articles on the internet. But there aren't, because you're an ignorant childish twat talking out of your ass.

  17. Scott

    Clearly you are a barking animal, a dog. Your "contribution" demonstrates you have not been into the medical school library. Couldn't be bothered to even do a search, let alone go to the library. Or is it you really are a flea infested mutt and they wouldn't let you in?

    Had you spent even ten minutes on the vaccination topic doing some serious searching and focussed reading you'd have learned the adjuvants of greater concern are aluminium and aluminium compounds. Aluminium and mercury are not the same, dog.


  18. Amit would allow his child to die of polio along with millions of others because he's an ignorant fucktard who thinks he's not. Thankfully no woman would ever consent to having his child.

  19. Chaz would allow his child to suffer permanent brain damage or even die, along with millions of others, because he's yet another ignorant dog who doesn't think much since he is too busy licking his own private parts and burying his nose into the sulphurous anus of any other dog he can find.

    Now that we have that established let's pause and take notice of how quickly the coercive and collectivist tendencies of some come to the surface when their baseless beliefs are challenged. In the example of Chaz see how quickly he ascribes the deaths of millions upon one person pointing out that vaccination carries a significant non-trivial health risk and that vaccinations are not necessarily as efficacious as their promoters claim. The idea that millions will die if one isn't coerced into accepting vaccination arbitrarily is commonly held by the thoughtless. A moment's consideration demonstrates its malevolent falsity.

    The coercive and collectivist premise of the dogs' vaccination "argument" also demonstrates an interesting inconsistency. If you are vaccinated, then you would believe that the vaccination protects you from the disease. So what if another fellow is not vaccinated? It hardly affects your status. You are protected. You are safe. Or is it that you are not really so safe and the protection is conditional at best, minor, an artefact, illusory?

    In the final analysis this a matter of respecting individual rights rather than applying coercion and initiations of force. None of you low dogs have a right to force any person to undergo a vaccination. This matter is also about using reason to find out fact of reality, evaluate same and then make decision based on what is discovered. There is no room for mindless belief in this and there is no room for mindless emotionalism. That sort of thing is for dogs.


  20. Vaccination programmes have completely eliminated diseases such as polio. For you to claim they're ineffective is just plain wrong. As his your claim about the supposed "non-trivial" health risks. That's why you've provided no evidence to support your lies and have nothing left but abuse.

    "There is no room for mindless belief in this and there is no room for mindless emotionalism."

    Correct. How about you produce your evidence? Or has your mindless dogmatism driven you mad?

  21. Guess it's time to stop feeding the troll.

  22. @Amit the troll

    If aluminium compounds are of greater concern why did you specifically mention heavy metals in your previous reply? Aluminium isn't a heavy metal.

    Again you responded with childish insults instead of evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about. Now fuck off

  23. Amit - Please note I am not engaging in name calling or personal abuse (not really my style with people I don't know).

    What I am doing, Amit, is encouraging folk to think why the immunisation is taking place - (ie: put the contents of the vaccine, the side effects, the nasty taste etc to one side for a moment - and think about what a polio vaccine prevents).

    Do you actually know what polio is? what suffers endure? and when you talk about "risk" - there is a risk walking your doggie! haha!

    If you gave a child a choice between an iron lung, a lifetime in a wheel chair, and a destroyed life (because their smarty pants clever dick parents want to be all "modern" and engage in illogical and preposterous 'fashionable behaviour') - or a vaccine preventing the disease - I am sure the average 6 year old is capable of twigging which is preferable.

    I would also ask you to consider a certain logic about polio -

    1. Nobody in New Zealand has it
    2. That is because they have been immunised against it (duh!)
    3. 4,500,000 people in this country do not have autism
    4. Fancy that!

    (As an aside, I do not necessarily agree with the claim made by the Dunedin Medical Officer of Health a couple of years back which went something like ..." Those who are not immunised don't get polio simply because they are surrounded by immunised people"...as that seems a little simplistic, but I digress)

  24. Mr Lineberry

    Yes, sir. I noticed you did not engage in name calling or abuse or rudeness. You presented your argument and proceeded in civil fashion. There are quite a few who would do well to take notice of you in that regard there. Likely they'll not. Dogs is dogs.

    Starting with the "logic" about polio. Start at claim 1. Let's assume that no-one in NZ has it (that could be contested but we'll pass on that for the time being). Claim 2 remains not correct. I have not been vaccinated for polio. I am in NZ. There are numerous people who have not been vaccinated. They are in NZ. I have met many of them in my time here in NZ. I do not have polio. They do not have polio. Claim 3 is not correct. It would be false to pretend that no vaccinated person in New Zealand is autistic. The truth of the situation is that there are autistic people in New Zealand who have been subject to vaccination.

    The vaccination treatment is a risk. There is a possibility that the reaction to a vaccination in a given person can lead to serious consequence. That consequence does include autism and worse, even death. It has occurred and it will continue to occur. The risk is there. Not everyone who is vaccinated is doomed to such a severe outcome, just as not everyone who drinks alcohol is doomed to become an alcoholic. The logical approach is to weigh up the risks against the benefits, if any. Presently the benefits claimed are often not as great as promoters would have you believe, while the risks are underplayed. Given that in many cases the likelihood of getting a certain disease is not great anyway, why then take unnecessary risk? I now pose your statements and questions, amended, back to you.

    If you gave a child a choice between autism, a lifetime of affliction in full-time care (& worse) and a destroyed life (because their smarty pants clever dick parents want to be all "modern" and engage in illogical and preposterous 'compliant belief in authority centred behaviour') - or simply avoiding the vaccine risk altogether - I am sure the average 6 year old is capable of twigging which is preferable.

    Do you actually know what autism is? What suffers endure? What their families endure?

    I stress this point. It is not correct to pretend that the objection to vaccination is due to a belief that all people who are vaccinated will become autistic. That is not the position at all.


  25. A polio resurgence in Islamic countries thanks to Islam.



  26. Good point Commander.

    And don’t forget how many Islamic savages bring about their own destruction through their own evil:

    ‘Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.’
    Studies have shown that 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins – and in Bradford, this rises to 75 per cent.


    Mohammed Saleem Khan, chief executive of the Bradford Council for Mosques, said: ‘It is important to discuss these issues, but I just do not know of any firm evidence backing up Professor Jones’s claims. I think we need more conclusive studies so we can know for certain if there is any genuine risk.
    ‘Marriages between cousins is certainly common within south Asia, but it is becoming less so in Britain and also in Bradford. Islam allows you to marry anyone you want, so in many ways Islam promotes diversity.’


  27. "Islam promotes diversity"

    I copied the quote from the apologist-savage for humour. I forgot to add. (But I'm sure any right-minded character would see it was perversely funny.)

    Islam in Bradford promotes diversity, if diversity is to mean two heads, oxygen-starved brain, and a brief lifespan.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.