CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism

[Matt Keys]

> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>
>Newsgroups line:
>humanities.philosophy.objectivism The ideas of Ayn Rand. (Moderated)
>

uh, you should change that newsgroup desciption to:

The ideas of Ayn Rand (except for anything that threatens the ego
of the E-Team)

>
>Alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o.), a currently existing group for
>the discussion of the philosophy created by Ayn Rand and known as
>Objectivism, has become nearly useless as a forum for discussion of
>philosophy because of extremely high traffic of irrelevant crossposts,
>spaming and flaming. Though they have been repeatedly asked to leave,
>the perpetrators of these abuses continue to disturb a.p.o.

that should read :

"the perpetrators of these posts continue to disturb the bogus randian leaders".

[ rest of attmepted justification of neo-tech censorship deleted ]

WHAT is the REAL reason for creating this new group??

study he following paragraph. it was written very carefully by the E-Team:

>The moderator may also cancel posts which are offtopic for the group.
>For example, humanities.philosophy.objectivism excludes the discus-
>sion of Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
>the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Such material is off-topic for
>humanities.philosophy.objectivism and repeated posts of this nature
>shall result in the expulsion of the poster. The Automoderator may
>also be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to return the ex-
>cluded postings to the sender, attatching a copy of the FAQ for h.p.o.

There you have it! The main purpose for the new group is
to eliminate ANY POSTS that deal with neo-tech/zonpower.

It does not matter how civil the posts are, or
how much those posts relate to "the ideas of Ayn Rand" !!!

is there a contradiction there somewhere?

the bogus "Objectivist Leaders" have been exposed as fakes on a.p.o,
and they need to retreat to a place where they can once again
*feel* their "power" over all of the newsgroup. vote YES!

get the full story at http://www.neo-tech.com/objectivism/

Why Neo-Tech Sandbagged the Objectivist "Leaders"

As previously done with selected officials in government along
with certain white-collar-hoax businesspeople, Neo-Tech sandbagged
various self-proclaimed leaders and strutting authorities on the
Internet as part of the world's biggest poker game. On the
Objectivist newsgroup (apo), Neo-Tech sandbagged its flamers along
with many ersatz Objectivists. Thus, through those sandbagged
dupes, Neo-Tech achieved its apo agenda. ...The results of that
agenda will be published in the forthcoming book titled Flame-War
Justice to be released in 1997 by Neo-Tech Worldwide.

Is part of the Neo-Tech agenda to "convert" apo Objectivists into
Neo-Tech Objectivists? No. Such an agenda is much too narrow and
minor -- a waste of time. Neo-Tech instead sandbags self-appointed
leaders and false authorities who are harmful to advancing
Objectivism.

Vanishing Bogus "Leaders"

Now to back up some: What about those self-appointed leaders of
Objectivism who continue their delusions of being Randian heroes?
They use their dogmatisms to draw attention to themselves. They
try to gain authority status by tying Ayn Rand's philosophy into
knots of dogmatism while blocking others from competitively
advancing Objectivism to the masses worldwide. ...In other words,
they keep themselves as big fish in a small pond.

But, Neo-Tech draws those false authorities into self-exposure
traps that collapse their harmful positions. For, they are the
ones who most darken Ayn Rand's name and prevent the wide-spread,
profitable use of her great work. Indeed, for thirty years, such
people have been major impediments to the natural, rapid spread of
Objectivism and its practical applications around the world.

Progress toward an Objectivist civilization comes not from
do-nothing dogmatists posturing as protective purists. Progress
comes from aggressively applying Objectivism in the real world.
Genuine progress requires constant hard work -- consistent
discipline, thought, and control. Only by competitively applying
Objectivism will the real problems of impurity be out-competed and
eventually disappear. Indeed, the totally principled,
no-compromise Objectivism of Rand and Peikoff is the most powerful
and ultimately the only effective form of Objectivism. But,
Objectivism must be competitively evolved in all areas of
productive activities, not kept in ever tightening knots of
hypocrisy and stagnation.

--
The New-World Song http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/
Neo-Tech: Get Rich By 2001 http://www.neo-tech.com/world/

[Ron Kagan]

In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com> Matt Keys, matt...@netcom.com
writes:

>"the perpetrators of these posts continue to disturb the bogus randian
leaders".
>
>[ rest of attmepted justification of neo-tech censorship deleted ]

No, not censorship; a voluntary association between individuals who
freely choose to associate with some individuals but not others.

>WHAT is the REAL reason for creating this new group??
>

>study he following paragraph. it was written very carefully by the
E-Team:
>
>
>>The moderator may also cancel posts which are offtopic for the group.
>>For example, humanities.philosophy.objectivism excludes the discus-
>>sion of Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
>>the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Such material is off-topic for
>>humanities.philosophy.objectivism and repeated posts of this nature
>>shall result in the expulsion of the poster. The Automoderator may
>>also be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to return the ex-
>>cluded postings to the sender, attatching a copy of the FAQ for h.p.o.
>
>There you have it! The main purpose for the new group is
>to eliminate ANY POSTS that deal with neo-tech/zonpower.

EXACTLY!!! The automoderator should work about the same way that a sewer
grating does: it prevents a lot of oversized and bloated crap from ending
up in the ocean...

**********************************************************************
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."

- Samuel Adams, 1776

**********************************************************************
Ron M. Kagan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, UCLA
rka...@ewald.mbi.ucla.edu

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <319B76...@hep.anl.gov>, John Power <j...@hep.anl.gov> wrote:
>Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
>> Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
>
>> Yer damn straight! Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
>
>How? Has the voting finally started?
>
>----John Power
>
>PS
>
>Betsy,
>
>If the voting has now officially started, I think it would
>be a good idea if you would include at the end of *everyone*
>of your post the procedures for voting.

She's even been much more helpful than that:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
To: SCOA CyberNet <SC...@speicher.com>
Subject: Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Dear SCOA CyberNet members,

I would like to enlist your help in a cause that may ultimately prove
important both as a way to spread and establish Objectivism and as a
step toward defining and enforcing property rights in that fertile new
medium of ideas: the Internet.

The UseNet newsgroup called alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o.) has
existed on the Internet for about 3-4 years now as one of the
thousands and thousands of such groups. It has been a popular,
wide-open, no-holds-barred battleground frequented by Objectivists and
pseudo-Objectivists and anti-Objectivists, by the honest and the
dishonest, by the knowlegeable and the clueless, by old-timers and
_especially_ by newbies.

A.p.o. has been many an Ayn Rand fan's introduction to Objectivism.
It has been there that they first find out about the Ayn Rand
Institute, Objectivist groups in their town, Objectivist conferences,
etc. It is also there that they can see a few representatives of
Objectivism at its best as well as anarchists, libertarians,
tolerationists, and modern academic critics of Objectivism in all
their ugly reality, too.

For Objectivists who want to improve their debating skills, a.p.o.
has provided an unending stream of willing adversaries for target
practice using live intellectual ammunition. A.p.o. has also been a
happy hunting ground for a "recruiter" like me as I look over the
newbies and pick the best ones for referral to other Objectivist resources.

A.p.o.'s faults have all been an object lesson in what's wrong with
anarchy. Anybody can post anything and they do. The relevance to
Objectivism, especially on the threads cross-posted to twenty other
newsgroups, is often just about zero. In flame wars and other battles
it is not the most intelligent and honest who prevail, but the most
persistent, obnoxious, and abusive. A.p.o. has no defenses against
those out to dominate and disrupt the flow of ideas and, because of
its high profile and popularity, a.p.o. has been a frequent target of
spammers and trolls.

In the past year, a.p.o. has been under attack by followers of a
loony cult called Neo-Tech who have issued a "Takeover Manifesto" in
which they say they will take over _all_ of Objectivism and oust its
current "ersatz leaders" and then "rule cyberspace." While they
haven't yet taken over, they sure have made a mess of a.p.o.

In response, several of us on a.p.o. have proposed the creation of a
_new_ UseNet newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas
which will be called humanities.philosophy.objectivism (h.p.o.).

H.p.o. will have several advantages over a.p.o. It will be in a
recognized, official UseNet hierarchy, it will be carried at all major
Internet sites, be archived, and, best of all, it can be _moderated_.

Those of us who seek to preserve the wide-open neutral battleground do
not want content-based moderation; we just want to lower the
signal/noise ratio and avoid net-abuse. The h.p.o. charter calls for
an _auto_moderator -- a robot moderator which will be programmed to
ban postings which are cross-posted, posted by a proven net-abuser, or
mention Neo-Tech in any way, shape or form.

In order to get humanities.philosophy.objectivism into the official
UseNet hierarchy, WE NEED YOUR 'YES' VOTE. A CFV (Call for Votes)
has just been posted which contains complete instructions on how to
vote. Find out if and how you can access the UseNet newsgroup called
news.groups, read the posting with the subject of "CFV:
humanities.philosophy.objectivism," and follow the instructions EXACTLY.

Votes _must_ be posted by e-mail reply or follow-up to the CFV posting
or they will not have the correct header references. Those of you who
do not have a UseNet newsreader but do have access to the World Wide
Web can read and reply to the CFV on the newsgroup news.groups by
entering this URL:

news:news.groups

For h.p.o. to pass, it requires a 2/3 YES vote with 100 more YESes
than NOs. Most a.p.o. participants are for it, but many libertarians
are dead set against anyone setting up any limits, enforcing any
standards, or establishing property rights in _their_ anarchy. The
Neo-Techers are also not pleased. Although nobody is supposed to vote
more than once, the Neo-Techers are dishonest to the core, most use a
variety of aliases and have several accounts, and we are expecting a
lot of vote fraud.

We urgently need your YES vote. E-mail this to your friends and get
the people you know at school or at work to vote YES too.

Establish Objectivism in the official UseNet hierarchy and strike a
blow for property rights in cyberspace.

Betsy Speicher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble http://www.ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants a...@ss-n.com

We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, payables receivables--through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis.

Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn
how to cash in on ADR and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
http://www.ss-n.com/referral.html http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.html

[Nicholas Rich]

Keep repeating it too. It helps burry those natural feelings which result
from evasion.

In article <319C97...@qnet.com>, Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com>
wrote:
>I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating

>Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of

>the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
>entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
>concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
>is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
>reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
>based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
>have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
>position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
>with no further discussion.
>
>
>Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism!

I did.

[Lionell Griffith]

I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating

Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of

[Matt Keys]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating
: Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
: the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists

: entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
: concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
: is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
: reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
: based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
: have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
: position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
: with no further discussion.

how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

LIBERATING OBJECTIVISM

Part I

The Liberation Manifesto

Probably every Objectivist at some time has reasoned: "Objectivism
is so logical, correct, certain. Its benefits to conscious beings
are so obvious. Why isn't Objectivism applied everywhere by
everyone? Why don't we have an Objectivist civilization now?" Yet,
Objectivism is profitably applied almost nowhere. Why? The reason
lies in the leadership of Objectivism -- an obstructionist
leadership. The deep-rooted failure of that leadership prevents
Objectivism from spreading to populations worldwide.

Forward-moving applications of Objectivism into new areas by
"outsiders" has always been resisted by a clique of self-appointed
leaders and authorities. Because that clique demands "purity"
before any new action can be taken, it effectively blocks
practical, wide-scope applications of Objectivism in most areas of
human life and business. Those ever-tightening circles of purity
kept everyone ignorant of the wider-scope visions needed to evolve
Objectivism into a civilization for the entire planet. ...Today,
however, in cyberspace, business-driven Neo-Tech exposes the harm
and dishonesties propagated by those closed-circle Objectivists.

Bogus Leaders and Authorities

Demands for specious philosophical purity perpetuates stagnation
while protecting the parasitical positions of Luddite leaders and
self-appointed authorities. Deriving power from their dogmas, they
must condemn anyone who deviates from their control. Like the
leaders of the Catholic church during the dark ages, today's
Luddites maintain a grip on their followers by attacking
competition and condemning deviants.

The Luddite leaders of Objectivism must condemn each deviant
without consideration of the values that person has contributed to
them, others, and society -- values that usually vastly outweigh
any impurity peccadillo. They must also dismiss all potential
future values from that deviant. Those Luddites demand a
dependent, following mode from everyone.

Members of that clique are also quick to attack any aggressive,
independent doer or value producer. They declare apostates as
evil. They attack with mantras of name calling -- nouns such as
wackos or kooks and adjectives such as evil and eeevil -- ad
hominem attacks rather than rational arguments. For, they have no
honest arguments to bring forth. ...That Randian personality
clique and its followers should consider Marie Curie's advice: "Be
less curious about people and more curious about ideas".

Those closed circles of purity protect the dogmatists from the
demands of growth and evolvement -- protect them from having to
compete in the free market with competitive applications of
Objectivism. Listed below are three specific examples in which the
dogmatists use dishonesty to avoid competition:

(1) Politics with its irrational, ad hominem attacks on
Libertarians.

(2) Psychology with its irrational, ad hominem attacks on
psychologist Nathaniel Branden.

(3) Philosophy and other academic areas with its irrational, ad
hominem attacks on the many drummed-out Objectivists ranging from
David Kelley to Murray Rothbard.

Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy requires no leaders or
authorities. Objectivism requires no defense or protection. For,
Objectivism is fully rooted in unassailable reality. Luddite
leaders stagnate and block the universal application of
Objectivism. Individual self-leaders on the Internet are now
ousting those false leaders. Vanishing the Luddites will let
Objectivism flow more freely into business, politics, and everyday
life. ...No more manipulating dishonesties and ax-grinding agendas
as found in their Rand/Branden, Peikoff/Kelley, and
Objectivists/Libertarian type wars [ 1 ]. Instead, rock-solid
Objectivism will be profitably applied everywhere through Neo-Tech
business dynamics. ...What about the wars with Neo-Tech? What
wars? Wars do not exist with Neo-Tech. For, Neo-Tech extinguishes
all wars -- always to its and everyone else's eventual advantage.

Sooner or later, all Objectivists will realize no conflict exists
with Neo-Tech. They will realize that Neo-Tech is the business
/application mode of Objectivism. They will also realize that
Neo-Tech literature is benevolently pushing the furthest known
limits -- the most future vision of Objectivist business dynamics
in order to pave the way for the application of Objectivism to all
areas of conscious life. Moreover, they will discover that the
extension of Neo-Tech into Zonpower is actually an integrated
array of metaphors utilizing the most advanced knowledge of
objective reality. ...The Zonpower theories and hypotheses are
presented as metaphors, not proven facts. Yet, none of the
Zonpower theories or hypotheses contradict the laws of nature.
Indeed, they all correspond to the laws of physics -- the laws of
nature.

Vanishing Bogus "Leaders"

Saving Ayn Rand from Aristotle's Tragedy

Consider a parallel example of over 2000 years ago: As with Ayn
Rand today, the analogous Aristotelian hangers-on stagnated his
philosophy with their self-created dogmatisms. Those self -serving
"hero-worshipers" buried the precious opportunity for society to
advance toward an Aristotelian civilization. They buried the
practical applications of Aristotle's work until the Renaissance
1500 years later. That disastrous stagnation by the Aristotelian
dogmatizers eventually allowed the Catholic church to usurp a
nicely petrified package of Aristotelian concepts into its
official dogma.

In that way, Aristotle's name and work were darkened. His
philosophy was viewed out of context, thus, was grossly
misunderstood and vigorously maligned when the Renaissance
arrived. Civilization-advancing giants such as Francis Bacon,
Galileo, Descartes, and Newton were incensed at Aristotle and his
philosophy for retarding civilization for two millennia. But, what
if they had the opportunity to view Aristotle's work free of its
closed-circle packaging by self-appointed "protectors" of the
status quo? What if Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton knew
what the dogmatist -- the scholastics -- had done to Aristotle and
his philosophy in order to retain their self -proclaimed
authorities?

Those Renaissance giants would have realized that Aristotle was
not the greatest villain against progress but the greatest hero
for progress. With that recognition and their use of Aristotle's
tremendous values, they would have advanced their own lives and
brilliant works even further, especially Descartes. ...The
ersatz-philosopher dogmatists, not Aristotle, were the villains
who stunted civilization for 2000 years.

Not until the 20th century with the work of Ayn Rand did
Aristotle's philosophy rise again to gain its rightful recognition
and application as a supreme civilization-advancing value. ...Ayn
Rand broke through and evolved Aristotle's great work in an
analogous way that Einstein broke through and evolved Newton's
great work.

Consider also the example of Hippocrates and Galen: Hippocrates
with his great civilization-advancing, breakthrough work in
establishing the objective practice of medicine. Then, Galen, the
physician/surgeon for the Roman gladiators, radically advanced the
understanding of human anatomy, physiology, and the effective
practice of medicine. The relationship of their work to one
another is somewhat analogous to the relationship between Ayn
Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's work in discovering and implementing
the human-based philosophy of Objectivism.

As happened with Aristotle, the self-appointed authorities of
Hippocrates and Galen -- tragically with the help of Galen himself
-- stagnated further major advances for the next 1500 years.
...Not until the 19th century era of Louis Pasteur and Joseph
Lister [ 2 ] did medicine finally resume its breakthrough
advances. But, today, major advances in medicine are again being
stagnated by the armed authorities of the FDA and the dishonest
machinations of politicians.

Will history repeat? Will the spectacular opportunity for
advancing civilization through the great work of Ayn Rand and
Leonard Peikoff likewise be darkened and stagnated -- tragically
with the help of Peikoff himself? Will the non competitive
"authorities" who dogmatize Objectivism for unearned benefits
succeed in burying Objectivism? Will they succeed in preventing
business dynamics from unleashing its limitless values to the
working populations of today's world?

Will Rand follow Aristotle's fate? Here lies the real danger of
the Peikoffian dogmatists: The Inquisition Catholic hierarchy used
a dogmatized Aristotilian philosophy to persecute apostates,
including Galileo. That principle, in turn, led to killing
countless innocent people. The police-state Peikoffian hierarchy
is dogmatizing Rand with its own narrow-scope spin to use
government force to persecute all militia members, regardless if
they are guilty or innocent of objective crimes. Such a principle
would eventually lead to the government killing countless innocent
people. ...With the fully integrated honesty of Neo-Tech now
available, no such disaster is going to occur. "Save me from the
Randians", Ayn Rand once remarked. Neo-Tech is doing that today.

Success through Commercial Dynamics

Consider Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's work: Objectivism
evolved and advanced through commercial dynamics. First were the
major publishers rolling out Ayn Rand's books, followed by Warner
Brothers through the movie "The Fountainhead". Next came Nathaniel
Branden with his own important contributions, including his highly
successful NBI corporation that got commercial Objectivism
rolling. And, finally, came Leonard Peikoff with his
forward-movement work on Objectivism and its application to new
areas with his many commercial products -- invaluable books,
lectures, courses, tapes. Without those commercial dynamics,
Objectivism today would be virtually unknown and unavailable.

Today, unfortunately, the self-serving dogmatists have drawn even
Peikoff into their stagnation with his ad hominem, police -state
intolerances. They are circling the wagons into ever narrower
restrictions to protect their authoritarian positions. They
desperately try to prevent those beyond their influence or control
from driving Objectivism forward into new and wider realms. Today,
however, the dynamic of fully integrated honesty -- Neo-Tech -- is
breaking those closed circles of false authorities, freeing
Objectivism to advance through competitive business dynamics.
Moreover, the Neo-Tech self-exposure traps reveal the
unprincipled, dishonest behaviors of Objectivist dogmatists. In
seeking allies to fight Neo-Tech, they are now welcoming with open
arms their previous "evil" enemies: the Libertarians, IOSers, and
even scatological nihilists. ...Thus, Neo-Tech has accomplished
its first mission to open up Objectivism to all comers and takers,
even to its "evil" enemies.

Honesty is the Best Policy

The bottom line: Only honesty counts. So what if one holds
different ideas from Objectivism? The fundamental standard of
character is honesty. What more can one ask of another's character
than honesty? Virtues and values originate not from truth,
knowledge, or intelligence, but from those areas to which honesty
is applied in identifying reality. Attacking an honest person is a
bad policy -- a dishonest, destructive policy. The great
19th-century railroad tycoon, Jay Gould, coined in a high-school
essay the statement "Honesty is the Best Policy". Contrary to the
Establishment's dishonest "Robber-Baron" attacks on Gould, his
great business successes arose from his policy of honesty. He was
poker-game ruthless, but honest: He could be absolutely trusted on
any handshake business deal. In fact, essentially every long-term,
successful business person can be trusted. ...Honesty is not only
the best policy, it is the only policy for long-term success.

Purity

What good is an "authority" on Objectivism who is dishonest while
demanding purity for Objectivism? By contrast, consider the
tremendous wide-scope value of the impure Bennett Cerf, the
politically liberal but honest Random House publisher of the
novel, Atlas Shrugged. He and Rand admired one another as they
worked together to promote Objectivism to the general population
through that novel. Likewise, many other honest businesspeople who
have successfully delivered Objectivism to the public were
ignorant of or even hostile to fundamental ideas of Objectivism.
So what? Let any honest-based action roll out the power of
Objectivism, regardless of purity or impurity of anyone's beliefs.
For, lying beneath all, always ready to be tapped, is the
limitless power of pure, no-compromise Objectivism identified by
Rand and nailed down by Peikoff.

Indeed, everyone applying Objectivism to whatever degree of
dilution, such as impure libertarianism, must eventually come back
to the purity of Objectivism for answers, solutions, and increased
competitive power -- for competitive growth.

Therein lies the tremendous market for those having expert
intellectual knowledge of Objectivism: Instead of expert
Objectivist dogmatists obstructing advances of Objectivism into
new and wider areas, those experts can help guide the application
of Objectivism into new areas. But, as with any competitive
dynamic, those experts must first understand the competitive
marketplace into which they would be offering or selling their
expertise.

Liberating Objectivism for Free-Wheeling Business

Let unrestricted entrepreneurial applications of Objectivism
explode everywhere -- like the unrestricted entrepreneurial
applications propelling the computer/cyberspace boom today. No
need to wait for authoritarian purity that, like Godot, will never
come. The foundation of Objectivism is rock solid. Current and
future errors will self-correct. For, to remain competitive, all
business actions will continually return to that rock-solid
foundation of Ayn Rand's Objectivism brilliantly nailed down by
Leonard Peikoff.

Hang that fake scholastic purity. Focus on net-profit balances.
Let business-oriented Objectivism roll freely, everywhere...by
everyone. Objectivism will take over the future. Rand and Peikoff
have done their work well. Hopefully, Peikoff and other
contributors to Objectivism will now break from that
circling-wagon syndrome in order to stay competitive and help
further advance Objectivism.

Let the power of liberated Objectivism roll. The dynamics of
wide-open competition and business will quickly drive out the bad
-- the anticivilization -- to bring a pure Objectivist
civilization, a civilization of honest, competitive,
business-minded doers -- the Civilization of the Universe!

The Neo-Tech Business Dynamics

What are the business dynamics of Neo-Tech in cyberspace? What is
the purpose of Neo-Tech Publishing's presence throughout the
Internet? What is the strategy of eventually providing all
Neo-Tech literature for free on web sites? First, consider why
Neo-Tech Publishing is investing its profits and capital on
providing its products for free on Web sites across cyberspace:
The goal of Neo-Tech Publishing Company [ 3 ] is to break
conscious minds out of their closed-circle thinking modes -- to
expand conscious thinking into the widest possible perspectives
with fully integrated honesty. Each such conscious mind will then
see Earth's civilization from a radically different perspective.
Each will realize that all conscious beings on planet Earth suffer
and perish from one basic disease -- irrationality -- from which
flows dishonesty.

The disease of irrationality allows force-backed leaders and false
authorities to control, drain, or destroy competitive
value-and-job producers in order that cliques of parasitical
elites can live off the earnings of others. The disease of
irrationality not only prevents the cure for all other diseases
but prevents the eternal prosperity that is natural among
conscious beings throughout the universe.

A Criminal-Based Anticivilization
versus
A Business-Based Objectivist Civilization

The anticivilization is a diseased, criminal-based civilization.
Why does Neo-Tech posit such a deep-rooted, negative view of
civilization on Earth? Three reasons. First, by breaking through
today's closed-circle thinking modes, one discovers startling new
vistas of a healthy, law-based Objectivist civilization. Second,
one then discovers that our current civilization is dishonest,
unhealthy, criminal-based...and unnecessary. And third, one
finally discovers how to vanish this anticivilization.

Indeed, by recognizing the total unnecessity of this irrational
anticivilization, one captures a new-color vision of a rational
Objectivist civilization. And, most important, by radically
breaking from closed-circle thinking processes, one discovers that
a fully operating, Objectivist civilization can prevail on planet
earth -- not after decades or centuries, but now, over the next
few years!

Dogmatists seeking false authority have always existed in this
anticivilization. In most cases, such dogmatists captured bogus
doctrines and then brought out the worst in those doctrines --
doctrines ranging from communism and Islam to anti-abortion
positions that advocate murder of doctors and fat-free
carbohydrate diets that deliver life-destroying obesity.
Objectivism, however, is totally valid with no harmful aspects to
bring out. Thus, the Objectivist dogmatists corral powerful
"advantages" in having hog-tied a valid, rational doctrine.
Nevertheless, such Objectivists are soul mates to all those living
off harmful doctrines. Not only are they stealing from everyone's
present, they are stealing from everyone's future.

The Role of Zonpower

The function of Zonpower is to break people from their stagnant
thinking traps. Zonpower frees people to think and act
independently, on their own, from the widest possible perspectives
-- from the most powerful integrations. The thrilling discovery
which awaits everyone is that essentially every problem, big and
small, can be solved with maximum benefits once the facts are
explicitly put into the widest-scope context of Zonpower.

Functioning from that widest-scope perspective -- from the
Zonpower perspective -- is the first step to eternal prosperity.
On ousting this unnatural anticivilization through Zonpower, an
Objectivist civilization of eternal prosperity and happiness will
arise -- the natural state for all conscious beings will arise.

*****

Tradition must always yield to the newly evolving facts of
objective reality for conscious life to eternally expand and
prosper.

Consider Pope Pius IX's closed-circle attack on Charles Darwin and
his "outlandish" work on evolution -- work that radically changed
everyone's perspective and thinking about human life on planet
Earth: "It is a system repudiated by history, by the traditions of
people, by exact science, by the observation of facts, and even by
reason itself... The corruption of the century, the guile of the
depraved, the danger of oversimplification, demand that such
dreamings, absurd as they are, be refuted by science, since they
wear the mask of science.

Finally, consider what Galileo said about radically changing the
view of the Universe:

"Facts which at first seem impossible...drop the cloak which has
hidden them and they stand forth in naked beauty."

The Civilization of the Universe will arrive as nature's naked
beauty through a new-world song called Zonpower from Cyberspace.
In that new-world song, all conscious beings live in eternal
prosperity and happiness.

The Harm of Closed-Circle Objectivism
versus
The Value of Wide-Open Objectivism

What does one need in order to reap the benefits of Objectivism?
One needs courage, independence, fully integrated honesty combined
with the wide-open, business applications of Objectivism. Until
this Liberation Manifesto, most Objectivists were afraid of
independence -- afraid to vanish their leaders and authorities.
They were afraid of criticism, of condemnation, of being
excommunicated by the high "priests" of Objectivism. ...Thus, they
clung to their deadly investments in this anticivilization.

Yet, now, one can now ask, "who is my leader? Some self-imposed
icon, some self-proclaimed authority, or my own self?" That person
becomes free by independently wielding competitive, action-mode
Objectivism. And those who do not free themselves? Will they
wither and die for some self-proclaimed authority? Will they die
for their investments in this anticivilization?

Objectivism belongs to each individual, not to any icon, leader,
or authority. With Objectivism, one can live independently,
prosperously, happily. ...The prize is eternal prosperity and
happiness. Without fully integrated Objectivism, all crumbles to
dust. With fully integrated honesty comes the eternal Civilization
the Universe.

Booming Objectivism

Liberating Objectivism will boom the money-making business
interests of the Objectivist establishment. Currently, Luddites
fear that the liberation of Objectivism will cause a decline in
(1) support for the scholarly and academic works of Objectivism,
(2) attendance at the lucrative Objectivist conferences, and (3)
sales of Objectivist-oriented books and tapes. Any diminishment of
financial support for the scholarly and business activities of the
Objectivist establishment would contradict the goal of Neo -Tech
Worldwide.

Moreover, Neo-Tech Worldwide recognizes the outstanding values and
accomplishments of the Objectivist intellectuals, their
publications, their conferences, their organizations, and the apo
UseNet newsgroup. Neo-Tech Worldwide along with many of its
employees and associates have long admired and supported, both
directly and indirectly, the work of Objectivist
intellectuals...and will continue to do so.

Brushing aside the above Luddite fear, all Objectivist markets
will vastly expand. Objectivism will boom not only financially but
in effectiveness and influence. For, the Objectivist establishment
has the values and products to market competitively worldwide.
They have the most important values for conscious beings on Earth.
...Liberating Objectivism will benefit everyone -- more than
anyone can imagine.

Through liberated, business-mode Objectivism, everyone can work
profitably to whip the tails off the uncompetitive parasitical
elites of this anticivilization. ...Gather the assets of the
future. Abandon the mysticisms of the anticivilization. Onward to
an Objectivist civilization -- the Civilization of the Universe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[ 1 ] For specific examples arising from those "wars", see footnote at the
end of this Part I.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 2 ] Pasteur and Lister were masters at taking their radical Zon-like
hypotheses and converting them into saving literally hundreds of millions of
human lives. In the past few centuries, such value-producing heroes in
medicine and business have managed to enhance and save more human lives than
the value-destroying bureaucrats and politicians have been able to drain and
destroy. With nuclear and biological weapons available today, that positive
ratio of life to death could suddenly, disastrously reverse. Only
Objectivism implemented through aggressive business modes can eliminate that
potential disaster.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 3 ] Neo-Tech Publishing is an ad hoc company designed to put itself out of
business upon accomplishing its goal of vanishing this anticivilization so
an Objectivist civilization can prevail. Only then can the Neo-Tech business
owners and employees most effectively return to their intended business of
Bio-Medical Research free of government restrictions and the FDA -- free to
pursue its genetic research and human cloning for the elimination of
disease, aging, and death.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 4 ] Consider the specious Objectivist/Libertarian conflict initiated by
Ayn Rand herself. Her own Luddite mode was followed with a vengeance by
Leonard Peikoff and his cohorts. Ad hominem evilization of impure
Objectivists became standard practice:

Yes, specific statements and actions by Libertarians contradict at times
certain ideas and principles of Objectivism, just as Ayn Rand and Leonard
Peikoff contradicted at times the ideas and principles of Objectivism. Yet,
the foundations of Libertarianism require the philosophy of Ayn Rand's
Objectivism. Moreover, Libertarianism points the direction toward a
practical Objectivist civilization far more principled and uncompromised
than any political movement in history. Indeed, Libertarianism would deliver
significantly more Objectivist principles in government than America's
founding fathers ever envisioned.

Then why do the Luddite Objectivists rightfully praise America's founding
fathers while heaping scorn not only on Libertarians, but, today, on the
most Objectivist-rooted presidential candidate in history -- Harry Browne?
...Indeed, the closer any person or thing comes to actually implementing or
advancing Objectivism into new or unsanctioned areas, the more emotionally
virulent become the attacks by the Luddite Objectivists. Why? Competition,
baby, competition. Competition will knock stagnant Objectivist "leaders" out
of their cozy, flowing-robes positions of unearned authority.

Advances of Objectivistical fund raiser for Bill Clinton. A
crowd of two thousand or more citizens show up. A hypocritical, pervasively
dishonest Bill Clinton delivers a silver-tongued, FDR-like speech about
irrationally increasing government activities that harm everyone. A
cheering, standing ovation is heard and a million dollars in campaign
contributions is raised.

How can such made-to-order irrationalities exist in everyone -- from Randian
Objectivists to Libertarian supporters to Clinton liberals? How? Why? Buddy,
this is the anticivilization. Everyone has a stake invested in this
anticivilization, including the Randian Objectivists and Libertarian
supporters alike. An Objectivist civilization threatens that stake. Everyone
in the anticivilization subconsciously fears a totally honest,
free-enterprise civilization. No one in the anticivilization, including
Objectivists and Libertarians, really want that kind of freedom and
responsibility. All want their made-to-order dishonesties and
irrationalities to protect their investments.

Neo-Tech/Zonpower breaks that self-defeating paradox. How? With Objectivism,
the Neo-Tech/Zonpower dynamic breaks each anticivilization investment
encountered to open the way for an Objectivist civilization -- the
Civilization of the Universe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4njfas$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gsa...@aol.com (Gsarup) wrote:
>ros...@aol.com (RosiM7) wrote:
>>>
>The statement is fine, except the following paragraph is, of course, false
>and dishonest:

>
>The moderator may also cancel posts which are offtopic for the group.
>For example, humanities.philosophy.objectivism excludes the discus-
>sion of Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
>the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Such material is off-topic for
>humanities.philosophy.objectivism and repeated posts of this nature
>shall result in the expulsion of the poster. The Automoderator may
>also be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to return the ex-
>cluded postings to the sender, attatching a copy of the FAQ for h.p.o.
><<
>

>Why is this false and dishonest?
>I assume that h.p.o. being a moderated group has the right to exclude
>topics as it deems fit.

Well, sliding over the issue of who/what 'it' is, and how 'it' decides
anything, the passage is dishonest because it is evasive.

It is evasive because it carefully words the passage to say that NT is
off-topic, almost as though it's by definition. But if you examine how this
developped, it did so upon the never-supported assertion that "Neo-Tech has
no relevance to Objectivism."

That assertion is demostrably false, and it's been shown many
times. Neo-Tech, in spite of what you may think of it, clearly has a great
deal to say about Rand and Objectivism. And much of the literature itself
arrises directly from Objectivists principles. Even those honest,
non-advocates of NT have freely admitted that it's relevent.

h.p.o. is a new group that is not in itself a bad idea. But its whole raison
d'etre, as stated by its top proponents, is to exclude anything to do with
Neo-Tech.

Therefore, h.p.o., for the valuable idea that it is in itself, is founded
upon the principle of evasion, ironically, the prime evil of Objectivism.
What's worse is that all those proponents who ignore this quite accurate
conclusion, supporting it in spite of their evasion, are doubly guilty of
evasion. They're guilty of the initial evasion, and guilty of evading the
identification of evasion. They evade, and then evade again when confronted
with evasion. Got it? Evasion, until confronted, is a never-ending downward
spiral. That's why Ayn Rand correctly identified it as a prime evil.

[Lionell Griffith]

Nicholas Rich wrote:
>
> Keep repeating it too. It helps burry those natural feelings which result
> from evasion.
>

I do not know what "burry" means. Please enlighten.

Are you implying that I am evading? Or, is it that you want to evade but
feel bad about it?

It is not the responsibility of the rejecter of the arbitrary to prove anything.
It is the TOTAL responsibility of the advocate of a position to state his proof
clearly and concisely. The proof must be stated in clear language. References
to material, not present for examination, does not constitute proof. Even if
such material were present, it is STILL the responsibility of the advocate to
present a clear and concise proof of his position. If it is not obtained, the
position can be rejected with no further consideration.

We are all waiting with excitement for Neo-Tech to produce that clear and
concise proof. All we get are advertisements, slander of opponents, and
tangled piles of words. Neo-Techers: STAND and DELIVER or SHUT UP!

Until such time, my position on Neo-Tech is as follows:

Neo-Tech steals and distorts Rand's ideas. They confound them with non-essentials:
their claims of Business based Objectivisim, Objectivisim by competition,
Zon-power,
and countless other floating and undefined abstractions and stolen concepts.
No proof is offered, just a flood of words. Neo-Tech is nothing but an attempt by
con artists to obtain credibility by theft from Rand and Objectivisim.

> In article <319C97...@qnet.com>, Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com>

> wrote:
> >I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating

> >Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of

> >the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
> >entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
> >concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
> >is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
> >reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
> >based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
> >have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
> >position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
> >with no further discussion.
> >
> >

[Nicholas Rich]

Proof of Neo-Tech's relevance to Objectivism has been posted in original
form countless times.

Those, such as Mr. Griffith below, who blindly assert otherwise are indeed
guilty of evasion.

In article <319DEA...@qnet.com>, Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com>

>> >Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of

>> >the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
>> >entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
>> >concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
>> >is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
>> >reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
>> >based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
>> >have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
>> >position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
>> >with no further discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> >Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
>>
>> I did.
>>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Matt Keys]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: Nicholas Rich wrote:
: >
: > Keep repeating it too. It helps burry those natural feelings which result
: > from evasion.
: >

: I do not know what "burry" means. Please enlighten.

: Are you implying that I am evading? Or, is it that you want to evade but
: feel bad about it?

: It is not the responsibility of the rejecter of the arbitrary to prove anything.
: It is the TOTAL responsibility of the advocate of a position to state his proof
: clearly and concisely. The proof must be stated in clear language. References
: to material, not present for examination, does not constitute proof. Even if
: such material were present, it is STILL the responsibility of the advocate to
: present a clear and concise proof of his position. If it is not obtained, the
: position can be rejected with no further consideration.

: We are all waiting with excitement for Neo-Tech to produce that clear and
: concise proof. All we get are advertisements, slander of opponents, and
: tangled piles of words. Neo-Techers: STAND and DELIVER or SHUT UP!

: Until such time, my position on Neo-Tech is as follows:

: Neo-Tech steals and distorts Rand's ideas. They confound them with non-essentials:
: their claims of Business based Objectivisim, Objectivisim by competition,
: Zon-power,
: and countless other floating and undefined abstractions and stolen concepts.
: No proof is offered, just a flood of words. Neo-Tech is nothing but an attempt by
: con artists to obtain credibility by theft from Rand and Objectivisim.

Stand Aside Ersatz Objectivists

Neo-Tech dynamics are taking over the competitive future. Ersatz
Objectivists cannot stand the competition from Neo-Tech
Objectivists. Neo-Tech is capturing and expanding their markets.
Like it or not, with the advent of cyberspace, competitive
business and fully integrated honesty is in everyone's future.

Competition lies beneath all the bitter complaining about Neo-Tech
by Objectivist "leaders": Actively growing business-mode
Objectivism simply outcompetes static academe-mode Objectivism.
Neo-Tech Objectivists are essentially putting ersatz Objectivists
out of business in the openly competitive atmosphere of
cyberspace. That is why those complainers who had enjoyed false
positions of power and authority on the Objectivist newsgroup are
now desperately, vainly crying to the Internet "government" to
stop the competition. ...Notice, they never complain to the
"authorities" about the countless examples of genuine off-topic
spamming occurring daily on "their" newsgroup. Thus, besides being
uncompetitive, those ersatz Objectivists are dishonest hypocrites
about the very philosophical principles they pretend to uphold.

[Nicholas Rich]

Who ya tryin' to fool Brad?

And oh, incidently, there are at least two cloaked NTer who are currently
members of OSG, and other forums. Plus, there are "sympathyzers" among you
in numerous places. I chose to be fully visible, others chose covert ops.

How do you think I got hold of Betsy's email to her list of subscribers (I'm
certainly not one of them).

How else do you think the NT is going to take over _all_ of Objectivism
without a certain number of deeply planted insurgents in place, just
waiting for the proper command?

Perhaps you need to start a thought-putity campaign of some such thing in
the memberships of all your organizations.

Don't worry though. Ominous sounding as it may be, Neo-Tech's insurgency
into Objectivism will ulitmately benefit all of you and all of society.

In article <4nmdr3$m...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:

>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>h.p.o. is a new group that is not in itself a bad idea. But its whole
>raison
>>d'etre, as stated by its top proponents, is to exclude anything to do with
>>Neo-Tech.
>

>The above statement is false. I have been involved in the discussions
>leading up to this group, since Jason Kuznicki first proposed it, and its
>motivation is to have a civilized forum which has standards of conduct, and
>moderation against spamming, abusers, and off-topic nonsense, such as NT.
>
>NT is simply an instance of the wider category of junk that has made apo
>such an unattractive place to serious intellectuals, objectivist or not.
>
>And I should point out that NT *has* an Internet newsgroup where those
>interested in this phenomenon can discuss it. Obviously its adherents would
>like to hijack Objectivists audiences -- they have tried to infiltrate
>every private Internet forum related to Objectivism of which I am aware --
>and have been shown the door in every case. One of the reasons of HPO is to
>provide a forum on Usenet for those who are interested in discussing
>Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and related works, without the
>silly nonsense (completely unrelated to Objectivism, save the
>occassional dropping of a keyword) NT'ers regularly spew.
>
>--
>Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
>
>Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
>
>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand

[Ed Matthews]

On Sun, 19 May 1996, Nicholas Rich wrote:

> And oh, incidently, there are at least two cloaked NTer who are currently
> members of OSG, and other forums. Plus, there are "sympathyzers" among you
> in numerous places. I chose to be fully visible, others chose covert ops.

Ah, so there are even more examples of (ahem) "fully integrated honesty"?

You guys are shameless. Even congenital liars feel some need to hide
their activities.

> How do you think I got hold of Betsy's email to her list of subscribers (I'm
> certainly not one of them).

Golly. You admit to fraud? Attempting to gain a value by faking
reality? So much for any claim to understanding Objectivism.

> How else do you think the NT is going to take over _all_ of Objectivism
> without a certain number of deeply planted insurgents in place, just
> waiting for the proper command?

And these people are "individualists"? How many real egoists act like
puppets?

Or is this just another "bluff" (i.e., a lie), trying to generate
paranoia and in-fighting?

Forget it pal. The people I know see right through your tactics.

------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu

[Pee Kitty]

Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:
: It is evasive because it carefully words the passage to say that NT is

: off-topic, almost as though it's by definition. But if you examine how this
: developped, it did so upon the never-supported assertion that "Neo-Tech has
: no relevance to Objectivism."

: That assertion is demostrably false, and it's been shown many
: times. Neo-Tech, in spite of what you may think of it, clearly has a great
: deal to say about Rand and Objectivism. And much of the literature itself
: arrises directly from Objectivists principles. Even those honest,
: non-advocates of NT have freely admitted that it's relevent.

The view I get of Neo-Tech WRT Objectivism is that it's based off
Objectivism, but with more business ideas, assertions of individuality
(and speaking bad about Ayn Rand instead of praising her holy name), and
a LOT of wacky scientific ideas and pseudomystical rambling sprinkled
liberally over the top. I'd say it seems like a "bastard child" of
Ayn-Randian Objectivism (which can be taken in a good way or a bad way,
of course).

Whether that makes it properly 'relevant', though, depends on your
definition of relevant, and your PoV. Betsy might define 'relevant' as
'near-perfectly compatible with Ayn-Randian Objectivism' and her PoV is
that it isn't. You might define 'relevant' as 'related to Objectivism, in
all of its forms', and your PoV is that it certainly is. My PoV? I tried
the Arch Deluxe and found that all the built-up hype ended up turning
what would be an average burger into a big letdown. McDonald's sucks.
--

Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
Meow!

* Are you abnormal? Then you are probably BETTER than most people! *
* ETERNAL SALVATION OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK! For info send $1 to *
* The Church of the SubGenius / P. O. Box 140306 / Dallas, TX 75214 *
* -= Visit alt.slack =- *
* FREE SUBGENIUS STUFF! FTP to ftp.netcom.com and cd /pub/pk/pkitty *

[Nicholas Rich]

I didn't say that any of those people are doing anything immoral. they are
just there. Haave you outlined every detail of your life and your ideas to
each member of every forum on which you participate? I doubt it.

You couldn't begin to describe a single immoral act by any one of us. All
you can do is make vague character slurs.

Who do you think your fooling? I know evasion when I see it.

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960519225854.26711A-100000@gladstone>, Ed Matthews

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[T. Cabellero]

: ---------- Forwarded message ----------

: Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
: From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
: To: SCOA CyberNet <SC...@speicher.com>
: Subject: Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism

: Dear SCOA CyberNet members,

: A.p.o.'s faults have all been an object lesson in what's wrong with

: anarchy. Anybody can post anything and they do. The relevance to
: Objectivism, especially on the threads cross-posted to twenty other
: newsgroups, is often just about zero. In flame wars and other battles
: it is not the most intelligent and honest who prevail, but the most
: persistent, obnoxious, and abusive. A.p.o. has no defenses against

This is interesting ...it is clear that the goal that Betsy is after
is to "prevail." But what is amiss here is that she doesn't recognize
that to prevail here is to be the most rational. In an inversion of
reality, she says that "It is not the most intelligent and honest who
prevail, but the persistent, obnoxious, and abusive." In actuality
is IS the most intelligent and honest who always prevail. To prevail
in rational debate is not to be "the most persistent, obnoxious, and
abusive." To "prevail" is to present the most accurate picture of
reality. And, such rationality stands in its own light as the victor
regardless of persistence, obnoxiousness, or abusiveness as its
adversary.

: an _auto_moderator -- a robot moderator which will be programmed to

: ban postings which are cross-posted, posted by a proven net-abuser, or
: mention Neo-Tech in any way, shape or form.

Betsy seems to be a caricature of irrationality in that it is
difficult to believe that someone who claims to be an objectivist
can seriously suggest such things. It is obvious that the type
of prevailing she is interested in is not the rational kind.
Such censorship may "prevail" but only prevail in such a way as
to be the most powerful, which Betsy admits she believes is what
it means to prevail in debate. It can never prevail as being the most
rational, which is what should be the concern of any genuine
objectivist.

Her behavior is characteristic of any former objectivist, turned dogmatist.
Such behavior only leads to a false sense of Betsy-type "prevailing" and
bogus ego-pumping, at the expense of stagnation of the mind. If Neo-Tech
is irrational it can never prevail. What is she afraid of? Obviously,
rationality is what she fears. Hiding from it will only expedite her demise.

Fresh dynamic objectivists, please take heed and avoid becoming one
of these ossified stagnant dogmatists.

"Save me from the Randians" -Ayn Rand

-tvc15

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>: I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating
>: Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
>: the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
>: entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
>: concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
>: is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
>: reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
>: based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
>: have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
>: position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
>: with no further discussion.
>
>how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
>response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

Here is yet more "arbitrary posturing" that has never been addressed:

NEO-TECH: THE PHILOSOPHICAL ZERO

** By: Yasuhiko Kimura
** Copyright 1988 Yasuhiko Kimura
** all rights reserved by I & O Publishing Company
** For more information on Neo-Tech check out:

WWW: http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
List: neo-...@zonpower.com
NG: alt.neo-tech

About the author:

Yasuhiko Kimura is a professional thinker/businessman and a writer/researcher
in the fields of philosophy, science, and business. Born in Japan in 1954 in a
highly mystical atmosphere, Mr. Kimura was trained to be a priest/scholar in a
Zen Buddhist order in his early twenties and later traveled to India for his
further study in Eastern philosophy and psychology. His aptitude for for
mathematical logic and interest in science eventually made him reject an
anti-reason philosophy and brought him to the discovery of the
*EPISTEMOLOGICAL INVERSIONS* of the cognitive process which characterize all
mystical philosophies. His reading in 1984-1985 of Julian Jaynes'
THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND
and NEO-TECH firmly established him in the task of eradicating mysticism
from the planet.

THE VOICE OF HONESTY

For three millennia since the dawn of consciousness, humanity has lived
under the spell of mysticism. Mysticism is the disease, epistemological
disease, of human consciousness which promotes, internally as well as
externally, false notions that create problems where none in fact exist.
Mysticism is the seed of dishonesty that involves rationalizations, non
sequiturs, and mind-generated "truths" and "realities." Mysticism is also the
ground of neocheating wherein the seed of dishonesty proliferates into the
monstrous noxiousness that destroys values and causes suffering.

However, despite all-afflicting, omnipresent mysticism, amidst pervasive
destruction and suffering effected by noxious neocheating, man has brought
a monumental edifice of knowledge and values into existence. That edifice
of knowledge and values is literally the monument of man's virtues -- of
heroic effort and honesty exerted countless times by the producers of
values among us. Such value producers include Philolaus, Aristarchus, and
Copernicus in astronomy; Galileo, Newton, and Einstein in physics;
Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and Frank R. Wallace in philosophy; and Jay Gould,
Henry Ford, Mark Hamilton, and Soichiro Honda in business.

Honesty needs no support save the evidence of reality, while dishonesty
begets myriad distortions of reality in order to sustain its frail existence.
The voice of honesty is confident, firm, yet quiet. The voice of dishonesty
is uncertain, flimsy, but loud. The loud voice of dishonesty seems to have
prevailed throughout history by the sheer force of its volume, yet it is the
voice of honesty that has permeated the world and carried humanity always
forward. The roots of dishonesty are now identified for the first time by
Neo-Tech (the voice of fully integrated honesty based on contextual facts
and objective reality). Neo-Tech will forever uproot dishonesty by curing
mysticism and eradicating neocheating. and thus the voice of dishonesty
will no longer be heard on this planet.

Through Neo-Tech, at last the time has come for the voice of honesty to
prevail. At last the time has come for the lives of honest men and women to
soar into power, prosperity, and happiness. At last the time has come for
the Neo-Tech world to unfold. In light of the monumental values that man
has produced within the last three millennia despite prevalent mysticism
and neocheating, imagine how much value humanity can produce without
mysticism and neocheating. It is indeed to imagine the unimaginable and to
think the unthinkable. For, with Neo-Tech (fully integrated honesty),
humanity now steps into the dimension of infinity and the realm of
eternity...into infinite value and eternal life.

History, science, and philosophy interweave in harmony throughout this
treatise to bring to light a resplendent new system of knowledge -- Neo-
Tech, while revealing, implicitly as well as explicitly, a new stratosphere of
conscious intellection -- Neothink. Upon reading this treatise, readers will
not only gain knowledge of little-known aspects of history and science but
will also be able to integrate Neo-Tech and Neothink to reach new heights
of awareness, prosperity, and happiness forever. This treatise is a window
to human history and a preamble to eternity that chronicles the ascent of
human consciousness through the purgatory of mysticism into the sunlit
universe of Neo-Tech/Neothink.

1. THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION

In the center of everything rules the Sun; for who in this most beautiful
temple could place this luminary at another or better place whence it can
light up the whole at once? In fact, the Sun sitting on a royal throne guides
the family of stars surrounding him...the Earth conceives by the Sun, and
through him becomes pregnant with annual fruits In this arrangement, we
thus find an admirable harmony of the world, and a constant harmonious
connection between the motion and the size of the orbits as could not be
found otherwise. -- Copernicus

The publication of "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres (De
revolutionibus orbium coelestium)" by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus
Copernicus (1473-1343) in 1543 marked a complete break from the entire
system of ancient astronomy previously conceived by Greek scientists such
as Eudoxus, Callipus, Aristotle, Apollonius, Hipparchus, and ultimately by
Claudius Ptolemy. The system which those Greeks had developed has been
termed the geocentric (Earth-centered) theory of the universe The new
system which Copernicus propounded has been termed the heliocentric
(Sun-centered) theory of the universe.

By ascribing to the Earth a daily spin on its own axis, which gyrated, and
an annual orbit around the Sun, which was stationary, Copernicus evolved
a new system of the universe which opposed Aristotle, who had cogently
argued the fixity of the Earth. This provided a superior alternative to
Ptolemy's geocentric universe, which had been propounded in his
"Mathematical Compositions" (also known as "The Almagest") and which
dominated the astronomical conception of humanity for over 1400 years.

In Western Christendom the views of Aristotle and Ptolemy had been
elevated to the level of religious dogma, and to many thoughtful
intellectuals of the Renaissance, those views stifled further development in
science and were long overdue for revision. The geocentric theory had also
been used as the "scientific" basis for the Christian
theological/cosmological notion of a two-dimensional flat world existing
sandwiched in parallel between Heaven above and Hell below. Copernicus
was the first to successfully challenge the authorities of antiquity. In his
search for a true picture of the "divinely ordained cosmos," Copernicus
dethroned the Earth from the center of the cosmos and opened a new path
which was to lead to the eventual dethronement of "God" himself.

Copernicus, however, refrained from publishing his work for nearly two
decades. He feared the ecclesiastical jitteriness, which arose out of the
dissensions between Catholics and Protestants. For his work might cause
sufficient scandal for him to be charged with impugning the "authority" of
the Church through his assertion that the earth was neither fixed nor at the
center of the universe. That assertion might be construed as contradicting
one "authorized" literal interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. But
Copernicus was finally prevailed upon by his friends to allow his student,
Rheticus, to publish his work. Toward the end of 1342, Copernicus was
seized with apoplexy and paralysis; on May 24, 1343, an advance copy of
his work was presented to him. On that same day he died, leaving behind a
magnificent contribution -- a revolution in man's concept of the universe.

No longer could the Earth be considered to be the center of the universe
nor could it be considered the epitome of creation or the center of all
change and decay with the changeless cosmos encompassing it, for it was
now a planet just like the others, simply yielding to mathematical
description. No longer was it accurate to state that the Sun "rose or set"
upon the Earth nor was it valid to view the universe in terms of "up" and
"down or above" and "below," for those concepts were all perceptual
delusions and had meaning only within the confines of the geocentric
universe.

The revolution of knowledge that began with the publication of "On the
Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" and led to the further discoveries by
Johann Kepler (1371-1630), Galileo Galilei (1364-1642), and Isaac
Newton (1642-1727) is rightly termed "The Copernican Revolution." The
value of the Copernican Revolution, however, does not end in the fact that
Copernicus brought about a complete shift in man's philosophical
conception of the universe. He epitomized a revolution in man's
consciousness as well.

Through his identification of the physical structure of the universe,
Copernicus eloquently demonstrated the power of reason and
consciousness when unhindered by perceptivity-bound preconceptions.
Through Copernicus, the universe evolved from a mere sensory/perceptual
experience into a conceptual scheme or design which transcended
immediate human perception. For perceptivity-centered consciousness does
not take perceptual experiences as data but as conclusions, whereas
conceptuality-centered consciousness takes experience, perceptual as well
as conceptual, as data and constructs a model that reflects the structural
design of the universe. There is a subtle but unmistakable distinction
between the two, and that distinction is what the Copernican Revolution
exemplified in the history of human consciousness.

A profound restructuring of consciousness and a considerable conceptual
leap is required to conceive of a heliocentric universe in which the Earth is
in motion around the Sun while spinning on its own axis. Copernicus
vividly demonstrated the conceptuality-centered conscious mode at the
dawn of modern history and elevated human consciousness to the level that
had once been achieved by the Greeks 1700 years before him.

Perception is always concerned with events, whereas conception is
primarily concerned with interrelations between events. And the universe is
the complex aggregate of the whole interrelations of events in existence. In
order to comprehend that complex aggregate of interrelations known as the
universe, one must transcend the seeming subjective reality of perceptual
experience and construct a conceptual map in concordance with logic that
best reflects the underlying design principles of the universe. By moving
from the perceptivity-centered to the conceptuality-centered, one enters the
realm of objective reality, and it is the knowledge of objective reality that
gives the power to harness and control the universe -- power that can be
claimed only by a conscious being.

When one is fully integrated in conceptual consciousness, he can enter the
sphere of Neothink. Neothink is forward moving integrated consciousness
completely free of mysticism. Neo-Tech is the system of knowledge
through which Neothink is fully realized. What the Copernican Revolution
started Neo-Tech completes, and brings forth a new revolution, the Neo-
Tech Revolution, which will take humanity into dimensions of knowledge
never before imagined.

Since its birth about 3000 years ago from the bicameral mind,
consciousness has taken three distinct modes of operation: the first is the
perceptivity-centered mode that emulates the bicameral mind and takes
perception as the conclusive picture of reality while using concepts to
rationalize perception exemplified by the geocentric concept; the second is
the conceptuality-centered mode that takes experience, perceptual as well
as conceptual, as data to construct the conceptual model of reality --
exemplified by the heliocentric concept and the Copernican Revolution; the
third is the Neo-Tech/Neothink mode, that operates contextually,
synergetically using both hemispheres of the brain to develop never before
known integrations and concepts.

Frank R. Wallace's epochal discovery, Neo-Tech, was not only a
breakthrough in knowledge but also a revolution of human intellection.
Neo-Tech and Neothink are symbiotically linked in the same manner as the
Copernican Revolution and the conceptuality-centered mode. Every time a
new integration of knowledge is formed, an element of Neothink is always
involved. However, except for Neo-Tech, no system of knowledge has
ever identified a contextuality-centered, Neo-Tech/Neothink mode. Thus,
no system of knowledge has ever explored the unseen dimensions of Neo-
Tech/Neothink and developed it to its fullest potential. With the Neo-
Tech/Neothink mode, the perceptivity-centered mode becomes obsolete
and the conceptuality-centered mode evolves into entirely new dimensions.

2, THE LOST KNOWLEDGE OF THE GREEKS

During the first decade of the 16th century when Copernicus was still
forming his astronomical hypotheses, he read the works of many Greek
authors and found that heliocentric ideas had already been propounded. He
mentions in his work some of those Greek mathematician-astronomers who
held distinctly different views of the celestial system from that of Aristotle
and Ptolemy, although not necessarily heliocentric, such as Philolaus,
Hicetus, Ecphantus, and Heraclides ("On the Revolutions of the Celestial
Spheres," Book One). Indeed, the geocentric theories were not the only
systems known to the Greeks, nor even at times the most accepted.

Between the sixth and fourth century B.C., there was a philosophical
society known as the Pythagorean society in Greece. Pythagoras of Samos
(c. 582-300 B.C.), founder of the society, traveled extensively in his youth
by way of the sea to the East as well as to Egypt, and not only accumulated
a wealth of knowledge from different corners of the Earth but also obtained
a unique perspective that was possible only for the celestial navigator-
businessmen of the time, i.e., the sphericity of the Earth.

Astronomy and mathematics, particularly trigonometry, originated to a
great measure among those celestial navigator-businessmen of antiquity
whose survival almost entirely depended upon knowing the relative
positions and movements of the celestial bodies. Furthermore, while
traveling across the sea by observing the movements of the celestial
spheres, it became revealingly clear to them that the Earth was a spherical
entity. (Around 200 B.C., three hundred years after Pythagoras, Phoenician
navigator-businessmen circumnavigated the Earth for the first time in
recorded history and proved that the Earth was indeed spherical, preceding
Magellan by more than 1700 years.)

Pythagoras returned to Greece with the perspective and the knowledge of
the navigator-businessmen, along with other knowledge which he acquired
in the far corners of the world and founded at Croton, a Greek colony in
southern Italy, an academy that was devoted to a life of mathematical
speculation and philosophical contemplation. It is clearly evidenced that the
Pythagorean scientists were the first recorded humans in history to
conceive of the Earth, the celestial bodies, and even the universe as a
whole, as spherical entities.

Around 410 B.C., the Pythagorean Philolaus of Tarentum (c. 480-400
B.C.) conceived of the Earth as a spherical body in motion around a central
cosmic fire. He also postulated that the stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the
five known planets Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were
spherical bodies. His Sun was not at the center; as the Earth revolved
around the central fire once a day and the Moon once a month, the Sun
moved around the same cosmic fire once a year. The other planets took
even longer periods to orbit around the fire, while the sphere of the fixed
stars was stationary.

Around 350 B.C., a latter-day Pythagorean, Heraclides of Pontus (c. 373
B.C.), conceived of the Earth sphere as spinning west to east, adopting the
earlier view of two Pythagoreans, Hicetus and Ecphantus, in order to
explain the apparent diurnal rotation of the celestial system. He also
suggested that Mercury and Venus moved in circular orbits around the
Sun, accounting for the changes in their apparent brightness. He further
speculated that the universe was infinite, each star being a world in itself,
composed of an earth and other planets. However, Heraclides' universe,
like that of Hicetus and Ecphantus, was as yet geocentric and his Earth
spun at the center of the fixed stars.

Around 250 B.C., the greatest astronomer of the Alexandrian period,
Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310-230 B.C.), postulated that the Earth rotated
on its axis daily, and revolved around the Sun in a circular orbit once a
year, the Sun and the fixed stars being stationary, the planets moving in
circular orbits with the Sun at the center, and the Moon revolving around
the Earth. Thus, in Aristarchus the heliocentric conception of the universe
had reached its near-complete formulation. No one until Copernicus more
than 1750 years later described the celestial system as well and accurately
as Aristarchus had done in his now lost treatise. (According to Plutarch,
the head of the Stoic school of philosophy, Cleanthes, demanded that
Aristarchus ought to have been indicted for impiety. Aristarchus was
indeed almost killed for his revolutionary thoughts.)

Based upon these historical accounts, it is clear that a special chain of the
Greek mathematician-astronomer-cosmologist-philosophers consisting
primarily of Philolaus, Heraclides, and Aristarchus had successively
evolved a concept of the universe which was in fair agreement with that of
Copernicus over 1750 years later. Why is it then that the heliocentric
concept of the universe with its spinning Earth did not evolve further after
Aristarchus? Why is it that genuine knowledge of the celestial world had to
be buried in the obscurity of the terrestrial realm? Why is it that a theory so
luminous had to remain in darkness and wait for centuries to be
rediscovered?

3. THE GEOCENTRIC HIERARCHY

History reveals that around 200 B.C., less than five decades after
Aristarchus' exquisite formulation of the celestial system, the geocentric
concept of the universe, despite its inherent theoretical difficulty, became
more and more adopted by the power structure of the Western world -- by
the master neocheaters operating through their governments. The
geocentric concept achieved prominence over the heliocentric system not
because it was superior theoretically but because it was more expedient
politically. It was not a scientific decision but a political strategy that
made the geocentric system the "official" picture of the universe.

The geocentric school of astronomy began with Eudoxus of Cnidus (409-
336 B.C.), an eminent resident at the academy of Plato (427-347 B.C.),
several decades after Philolaus had postulated his distinctively non-
geocentric theory. Eudoxus' theory was further developed by Callipus (c.
325 B.C.), Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Apollonius (c. 220 B.C.), Hipparchus
(190-120 B.C.), and finally Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria (A.D. 85-163).

Eudoxus, after developing a certain mathematical procedure, evolved the
first geocentric model of the celestial system wherein he assigned a
spherical shell to every periodic movement that centered upon the Earth, a
combination of such spheres describing reasonably well the complex
periodic movement of a particular celestial body. All of the spheres were
fixedly embedded in the surfaces of the spheres further out. In this manner
he explained the motions of the celestial system by using twenty-seven
spheres, one for the fixed stars, three each for the Sun and the Moon, and
four each for the five known planets -- Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn.

As new periodic phenomena were identified, the system had to be
expanded. Callipus gave each celestial body an extra sphere, bringing the
total up to thirty-four, while Aristotle added a further twenty-two spheres.
In the field of astronomy Aristotle was responsible for the idea that the
spheres which carried the celestial bodies along their paths were real
physical entities, not mere geometrical constructions as Eudoxus bad
previously supposed and Ptolemy would later postulate. (His strong
adherence to objective reality did not allow Aristotle to view his theory as a
mere geometrical construction without any corresponding existence in the
universe.) He also believed that the outermost sphere of the fixed stars was
moved by the Primum Mobile (the Prime Mover) which governed the
entire universe.

Unlike the heliocentric system which originally came from the ancient
navigator-businessmen's business-based integration of reality, i.e., the
sphericity of the Earth, the geocentric theory was purely an academic
enterprise and entailed many difficulties from the very beginning.
Furthermore, it not only was an extremely complex theory technically but
also became progressively more complex throughout its development.
Heraclides' model of the spinning Earth was one of the attempts made to
overcome those difficulties within the context of the geocentric universe.
During the Alexandrian period, Apollonius, Hipparchus, and Ptolemy also
tried to overcome the limitations inherent in the geocentric system, again
within the conceptual framework of the geocentric model. They failed to
take into account the validity of the heliocentric concept developed by
Aristarchus through his remarkable hypotheses.

Apollonius and Hipparchus both developed the system of eccentrics and
epicycles. Apollonius suggested that if a planet moved in a circle, the
epicycle, the center of which moved upon another circle, the deferent,
which centered upon the Earth, then the motions of the planets could be
quantitatively accounted for. He further suggested that the celestial bodies
moved in circles eccentric to the Earth, the center of their orbits lying at
some distance from the center of the Earth. Hipparchus further developed
Apollonius' concept. Ptolemy adopted and evolved the system of eccentrics
and epicycles used by Hipparchus to explain the apparent motions of the
celestial system.

Ptolemy himself made a discovery which showed that the whole system of
the geocentric universe could not have any physical existence as Aristotle
had suggested: Ptolemy seems to have regarded his scheme as a mere
mathematical convenience. (In other words, he admitted that his geocentric
system was a mathematical rationalization!) Thus, in Ptolemy, the
geocentric construction of the universe had reached its theoretical
perfection and, despite its inherent difficulty and rationalized complexity, it
dominated the scientific world for the next 1400 years.

However, long before Ptolemy completed his celestial theory as described
in his "Mathematical Composition," the geocentric system of the universe
had already been adopted by the neocheating authorities of Europe.
Beginning around 200 B.C., the combined political and religious power
structures of the Western world undertook a systematic oppression not
only of the kind of knowledge which did not suit their purpose. such as the
heliocentric theory, but also of the very source of knowledge itself, the
conceptuality-centered consciousness and its reasoning faculty.

The heliocentric universe did not fit into their scheme of establishing a
hierarchical social structure wherein the neocheaters were to stand at the
center of the universe. The geocentric universe did. Thus, the heliocentric
system was slowly eliminated from the face of the Earth and the geocentric
theory gained prominence. Their success in oppressing the heliocentric
system and other valid knowledge, and in establishing the geocentric
hierarchy, gradually prepared Europe for the Dark Ages and drew the
curtains on science for over 1700 years. It was not until the rise of
business/commerce took place in Europe toward the end of the Middle
Ages, which brought about the propagation of the zero along with the
place-value number system, that the light of reason finally shone through
the darkness of the human mind and raised the curtains of science at long
last.

How could the political/religious master neocheaters be so successful in
their scheme as to be able to oppress human knowledge and consciousness
for over 1700 years? The answer lies, at least in part, in the very nature and
propensity of human consciousness.

4. THE ORIGINS OF MYSTICISM

The process of life consists of awareness and self-creation. In
contradistinction to nonliving systems such as the celestial system, all living
systems from amoebae to human beings possess two distinguishing
characteristics which constitute life. They are autopoiesis (self-creation,
production, or generation) and awareness or cognition, which ranges from
the most primitive form of awareness such as amoebae's stimulus-response
to the highest form of cognition conscious human awareness. Autopoiesis
and cognition are the two quintessences of life without which no life is
possible. Moreover, autopoiesis and cognition are interdependent of, and
integral to, one another. That is, neither can exist without the other.

Conscious life is the highest integration and expression of the autopoietic
cognitive living process. Consciousness is the most complex form of
cognition which is distinctly different from any other mode of cognition
found in other sentient beings. Consciousness came into existence on this
planet about 3000 years ago and human beings achieved consciousness not
as a product of nature's evolutionary process but as an autopoietic
reorganization of their cognitive systems. Consciousness was a discovery
and an engineered invention of human beings. Therefore, no change took
place in the physical structure of the brain but only in the structural
organization of the mind.

Nature's process of evolution had ultimately brought to human beings what
is termed the bicameral mind, and it was in the cognitive breakdown of the
bicameral mind that consciousness first originated. The bicameral mind was
a highly evolved and intelligent cognitive system that operated with
language, percepts, and rudimentary/imaginary concepts, yet with complete
automaticity. In the bicameral mind, one hemisphere of the brain, guided by
the inherent logic of nature, organized the whole inventory of information
from the past in an automatic, non-introspective, and non-self-referential
manner, and communicated some of that information to the other
hemisphere for decision-making or action.

The bicameral mind invented such life-sustaining tools as language,
numbers, the wheel, and the ship in its critical pursuit for survival. It was
indeed a remarkably intelligent and ingenious cognitive system, yet there
was no fundamental difference between it and the mind of anthropoid apes
or porpoises in their automaticity. They differed in terms not of quality
(automaticity vs. non-automaticity) but of quantity or degree of intelligence
arising from their evolutionary/biological differences. Around 1000 B.C.
when human society evolved and became too complex for the bicameral
mind to handle, it made its greatest invention, at the cost of its own
continuance, in order for the human organism as a whole to survive: that
invention was consciousness. Toward the end of the second millennium
B.C., the bicameral world saw a dramatic increase in commerce. And the
laws of commerce/business began to take over the laws of nature, thereby
pushing bicameral men and women to a complete cognitive breakthrough --
to a quantum leap into an entirely new mode of cognition. Through that
commerce/business initiated cognitive breakthrough, consciousness was
born.

Consciousness is the unicameral mind, as it were. Speaking physically, it is
the new unified communication network within the brain whereby two
hemispheres function synergetically to create a higher order of operation
which is self-referential and introspective. Speaking metaphysically, it is the
new integrated inventorying of reality in abstract concepts that organizes
myriad facts of experience in accordance with conceptually identified logic.
In addition, consciousness is an operative modality of the brain or the mind
which is inherently non-automatic. That is, there is nothing in nature that
causes consciousness to operate automatically.

Consciousness is the causative factor relative to its own existence. There is
nothing in existence that can make an individual conscious but his own act
of being conscious. Consciousness exists as an entelechy; when it exists it
exists in its full manifestation, and when it exists not it exists not at all.
That means consciousness never evolves. It is an individual's very act of
being conscious (of something) that brings consciousness into being with
its utter totality. Thus, in reality, when one is conscious, he is fully
conscious with nothing missing and nowhere to evolve.

In the beginning, however, consciousness sought to operate within the lost
matrix of the bicameral mind, that is, consciousness made the entire
inventory of brain-stored information emulate the dominant hemisphere of
the bicameral mind. Consciousness operating in the emulated bicameral
modality is perceptivity-centered consciousness. It is when consciousness
developed a sufficiently integrated conceptual knowledge internally that
consciousness made the shift from the subjective to the objective and
became aware of reality, objective and in essence abstract. Consciousness
operating in the context of abstract and objective reality is conceptuality-
centered consciousness.

Reality in the final analysis, reality in a fully integrated epistemological
context, is abstraction. It is the aggregate of abstract principles that are
completely independent of any particular observer and his experience, and
as such reality is objective. Furthermore, abstract principles by nature exist
independent of time, and as such reality is eternal. And when reality is
cognized by consciousness, it exists in the form of concepts. However,
since it exists in the form of concepts, consciousness can subjectively create
or simulate "reality" without ever objectively conceiving, comprehending,
or identifying reality as such. This inherent proclivity of consciousness to
create, simulate, or make up "reality" is mysticism. Mysticism is the
epistemological disease of consciousness to confine itself in the
perceptivity-centered modality (the emulated bicameral modality), in
subjectivity, while fabricating or making up nonexisting, illusory "realities."

Since consciousness is self-causative, consciousness must generate a
continuous integration of energy to sustain its existence in its
comprehension of reality. In other words, consciousness must continuously
exert effort to fulfill its function as the conceptual integrator of reality.
Mysticism is consciousness' default in that effort. It is the self-negation of
consciousness by consciousness. No other cognitive mode including the
bicameral mind is capable of mysticism, for none other than consciousness
is nonautomatic and is the sole source of its own existence. Mysticism is
not caused by the lack of consciousness but by the lack of integration.
Mysticism is the symptom of man's default in epistemological integrity and
the cause of all human suffering.

Perceptivity-centered consciousness is a developmental stage of
consciousness in its apprehension of reality. When the integration of
knowledge reaches a critical point, consciousness begins to see its
perceptual experience in the context of conceptually integrated knowledge
and goes beyond its perceptually or subjectively bound experiences to
awaken into objectivity. If left free and unhindered, every child as well as
humanity as a whole innately transcends the perceptivity-centered modality
to advance its knowledge in the objectively defined context of reality.

Conceptuality-centered consciousness is consciousness qua consciousness.
Mysticism, unless it is identified and corrected, prevents or truncates
forever consciousness' integrating growth into maturity. Consciousness is
self-correcting epistemologically and self-controlling cybernetically. If it
could identify its internal mysticism, it would self-correct its devastating
errors and cure the disease that is mysticism. However, in history, this
correction or healing, except for a few rare individuals, did not take place
until today. The external force that prevents consciousness from self-
correcting is neocheating. Neocheating is the deliberate manipulation of
mysticism in others. It is the poison-feeding of mysticism in others.
Mysticism came into existence 3000 years ago with the birth of
consciousness, and with it came its symbiotic neocheating. However, it was
not until Plato formulated his philosophy that a systematic and conceptual
framework was supplied in which to carry on neocheating. It was Plato
who not only rationalized mysticism but also capitalized on it to create a
brilliantly fabricated, yet devastatingly destructive philosophical system that
provided the conceptual tools of neocheating for millennia to come.
Through Plato and his philosophy, the whole matrix of neocheating was
set, the spell of mysticism was deliberately cast upon humanity, and the
reign of master neocheaters became firmly established in the course of
history.

Platonistic philosophy begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness,
that is, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence. It
assumes that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the
other way around, based upon the premise that the presence of any concept
in consciousness proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality.
Plato thus validates de jure self-made realities while invalidating de facto
reality as such.

According to Plato, the content of "true" reality is a set of universals or
Forms that represent that which is in common among various groups of
particulars in this world. He repeatedly insists that the Forms are what is
"really" real. The particulars they subsume, the concrete objects that
constitute this world, are not. Although he asserts that the Forms are
immutable, timeless, intellectually apprehensible, and capable of precise
definition at the end of a piece of "pure ratiocination" because they are
independently existing entities in "reality," he never once elucidates in a
rational context how that apprehension or definition can be achieved.

Although epistemo-contextually integrated reality is abstraction in the final
analysis, yielding to crystallization in the form of concepts through the
process of appropriation by consciousness, it is in the final analysis that
reality is abstraction and through the process of appropriation by
consciousness that reality is crystallized -- apprehended and defined -- in
the form of concepts. Existence exists and exists independently of
consciousness. Consciousness does not and cannot create reality; it is
metaphysically passive. Consciousness exists to identify reality or existence
and in the very fact that consciousness must exist to be conscious of reality
or existence, the primacy of existence to consciousness is evident.

The primacy of existence and the ultimacy of reality is the alpha and the
omega of all valid conceptual knowledge. Knowledge is the explication of
existence (explicandum) into reality (explicans). Existence is reality
implicate metaphysically and reality is existence implicate
epistemologically. Existence is what is given to consciousness
metaphysically while reality is what is revealed to consciousness by
consciousness epistemologically. Existence and reality are in essence
synonymous, and as existence exists independently of consciousness, so
does reality. Therefore, no knowledge of reality can ever be achieved by
merely fabricating concepts without regard to existence, as Plato
suggested.

Plato, by inverting the epistemological structure of the conscious cognitive
process, by reversing the metaphysical relationship between reality
(existence) and consciousness, succeeded, in effect, in giving the
perceptivity-centered modality the highest and the ultimate cognitive status,
while also providing mysticism a completely justified (and even dignified)
"full-time job" in the inner workings of human awareness. Through Plato
such false concepts as "God," "gods," or "the eternal soul," which has no
metaphysically verifiable cognitive content, gained a well-justified
philosophical foundation, for, according to him, anything that anyone could
make up in his mind should exist because "that's the way it is."

Throughout his long career, Plato carried within him an intense political
ambition and need to control others. His philosophy is largely a
manifestation of that ambition and need. He played his politics and tried to
control others not through an ordinary political channel but through the
channel of philosophy. He tried to control others not physically but
intellectually, for once people accepted his philosophy, then it was simpler
and easier to control them physically. Although Plato died before he could
witness his "dream" come true, the neocheaters throughout the world used
his philosophy to bring his dream to fruition. Thus, as Plato's dream
evolved into reality, a long and tragic nightmare unfolded.

Coinciding with the rise of the Romans around 200 B.C., the Western
world saw the proliferation of religious/political master neocheaters along
with the systematic application of their neocheating strategies. Their
proliferation marked the decline of Greek culture and the fall of its highest
intellectual manifestation Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotelian philosophy is
the first complete system of philosophy ever developed on the basis of the
primacy of existence. Aristotle evolved the system of logic -- the principle
of noncontradictory identification -- only by means of which objective
reality is identified and verified authentically. Aristotle also developed the
first ethical philosophy based on the supremacy of a conscious human
individual. Aristotelian philosophy indeed is the fountainhead of all
knowledge and the antithesis of Platonistic philosophy.

It was Aristotle, not Plato, who epitomized the mind of the Greeks. It was
Aristotelian philosophy, not Platonistic philosophy, which was the epitome
of Greek consciousness and its intellectual achievements. Therefore, the fall
of Aristotelian philosophy around 200 B.C. meant a rise of Platonistic
philosophy or Platonistic-oriented philosophies, and a beginning of a dark
intellectual obscurantism.

Although this intellectual obscurantism was finally broken during the
Renaissance by the resurgence of Aristotelian philosophy and the newly
discovered power of the zero, its roots had never been eradicated until the
discovery of Neo-Tech by Frank R. Wallace in the late 20th century.
Aristotelian philosophy laid the foundation for all life enhancing discoveries
and values culminating in the discovery of Neo-Tech. Aristotelian
philosophy fulfilled its function and destiny as the fountainhead of
knowledge and antithesis of Platonism in the discovery and development of
Neo-Tech.

5. THE MASTER NEOCHEATERS

Knowledge is power. Integration of knowledge is power. It is through
knowledge that one can control the destiny of his life, his environment, and
his universe. It is through knowledge that one can achieve his true
individuality, an indivisible conscious wholeness, and the self that is
genuinely his. It is through knowledge, and through knowledge alone, that
the flowering and the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be human,
what it means to be conscious, can come to exist.

For two millennia until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the
subsequent advent of capitalism, knowledge was almost the exclusive
possession of priest-scholars (e.g., Nicholaus Copernicus) or artist-
engineer-scientists (e.g., Leonardo da Vinci) who worked under the
sovereignty of their patronal governments. This monopolization of
knowledge was a policy deliberately planned and executed by the
successive master neocheaters who controlled and reigned over the world
for millennia. Among these master neocheaters were some of the most
brilliant and powerful kings, emperors, prime ministers, and priests or
philosophers of human history.

Around 200 B.C. the master neocheaters of the Western world began a
systematic oppression of human knowledge and usurpation of power by
employing Platonistic-oriented philosophies that provided an ideological
foundation for the propagation of mysticism. They devised a strategy
whereby they successfully achieved their purpose and prepared Europe for
the darkest tragedy of human history: the Dark Ages. Throughout recorded
history, wherever there was a rise of commercial or business activities,
there was a flourishing of Aristotelian-oriented philosophy and an
advancement of human knowledge. Athens, where the Greek culture
flourished, was such a place. Around 200 B.C., with the rise of the Romans
who were in essence an agricultural nation, commercial activity declined
and the world became more mystical. This coincided with the proliferation
of the neocheaters.

Neocheaters strive for power without exerting effort to earn genuine
knowledge of reality They strive for power without earning genuine power.
They accomplish their purpose and achieve their "power" by oppressing
knowledge and disempowering others through the use of force, mystical as
well as physical. Their power is in essence illusory and it is only in a
mysticism-entrenched society that neocheaters can sustain such an illusion.
It is only through the propagation of mysticism that neocheaters can
survive.

Master neocheaters are those who have mastered the "art" of neocheating.
They thoroughly understand the realm of nonreality and can see through
the mysticism in others. Yet, out of dishonesty and laziness, instead of
seeking to identify reality and gain genuine power and happiness, they
choose to manipulate and usurp values from others. They are the masters
of the mystic domain -- mind-created "realities" and "truths." So far as one
is caught in the labyrinth of their domain, so far as one is caught in the web
of mysticism, he can never win the battle against those masters of
nonreality.

The master neocheaters' grand strategy, through which they successfully
propagated mysticism, oppressed knowledge and usurped values, consisted
of three major substrategies:

(1) To systematically destroy the foundation of knowledge, i.e., reason, by
(a) misinforming or not informing the populace of crucially important
knowledge, such as Aristotelian philosophy or the heliocentric theory of
the universe, and (b) conditioning the human mind and reflexes by
Platonistic-oriented mystical thinking.
(2) To systematically train those who are intellectually endowed and bright
enough to be a potential threat to the master neocheaters to become
specialized scholars and to advance knowledge in a manner that serves the
purpose of the power structure, while making the scholars completely
dependent upon the power structure for their physical survival.
(3) To restrict commercial activities to the extent that the producers
produce just enough to support the continuance of the power structure,
while completely controlling the line of life-support, such as food and
money, by the power structure itself -- so that no incentive will ever arise
to advance knowledge among the populace.

All of these substrategies were carried out by deception, force, threat of
force, and the systematic propagation of mysticism. The geocentric system
gained prominence over the heliocentric system within this socio-political
environment. Platonistic philosophy became predominant over Aristotelian
philosophy within this anti-intellectual climate, reversing the intellectual
trend of the Greeks, which had produced a remarkable wealth of
knowledge and incomparably brilliant intellects such as Pythagoras,
Philolaus, Heraclides, Aristarchus, Apollonius, Archimedes, Socrates, and
Aristotle (perhaps the foremost intellect in history). (Plato, although he was
in essence anti-Greek, was nevertheless one of the great intellects and
writers of human history, and without the flourishing intellectual climate of
ancient Greece, even Plato would not have been possible.)

Neo-Tech defines mysticism as: (1) Any attempt to recreate or alter reality,
usually through dishonesty, feelings, non sequiturs, or rationalizations. (2)
Any attempt to ignore, evade, or contradict reality. (3) The creation of
problems where none exist. It defines neocheating as: Any intentional use
of mysticism to create false realities and illusions in order to extract values
from others. From these definitions it becomes quite clear why Platonistic
philosophy became the prime tool for neocheaters to carry out the first
substrategy of destroying the foundation of all valid human knowledge:
reason.

Reason is the faculty of the mind that conceptually identifies and integrates
the materials provided by senses, perceptions, and previous conceptions.
Reason is the prime faculty of consciousness in reaching ever higher
abstractions or broader conceptions, first by distinguishing the relevant
from the nonrelevant within the entire realm of sensory, perceptual, and
conceptual data-banks, and then by conceptually integrating the relevant in
accordance with logic. Logic is the art and principle of noncontradictory
identification. Reason functioning in the conceptuality-centered modality is
reasoning, while reason functioning in the perceptivity-centered modality or
in the mystical context is rationalization.

Reasoning is an intellectual process for achieving an integrated conceptual
picture of reality by always starting from perceptual experiences and then
making a logical connection between what is perceived and what is
conceived. Rationalization is an intellectual process for fabricating an
illusionary "reality" in concepts by disconnecting conception from
perception. Reasoning is based on the primacy of existence, whereas
rationalization is based on the primacy of consciousness. Both use reason,
logic, and concepts. However, they are diametrically opposite to one
another. Reasoning begins with logically noncontradictory premises based
on the facts of reality, while rationalization begins with premises that
contradict reality.

No matter how logical-sounding it might be, any conclusion that begins
with a contradictory premise inescapably contradicts reality. The primacy
of existence is the prime principle of reality. No valid knowledge is ever
possible without observing the primacy of existence, for existence exists in
the very act of living, reasoning, and even rationalizing. Platonistic
philosophy stands upon a ground which does not exist in reality, i.e., upon
nothing, and since it is nothing it could be anything. Platonistic philosophy
is the philosophical system that rationalizes rationalization and "non
sequiturs" non sequiturs.

The most devastating non sequitur/rationalization that arises directly from
Platonistic philosophy is altruism. As mentioned before, according to Plato,
what is "really" real are the Forms, disembodied abstractions which
represent that which is in common among various groups of particulars in
this world of concrete perceptual experiences. Therefore, in effect,
individual human beings are merely particular instances of the universal
"human being;" they are ultimately not real. What is "real" about human
beings is only the Form that they share in common and reflect. To
Platonism, all the seemingly individual human beings are "in reality" the
same one Form in various reflections.

Thus, all human beings ultimately comprise one unity, and no earthly
human being is an autonomous entity. This momentous conclusion leads to
altruism and all the "higher-cause," collectivist moralities. Platonistic
philosophy, while establishing the primacy of consciousness, denies the
supremacy of an individual wherein consciousness resides. For
consciousness that is supposed to be primal is not, according to Platonism,
an earthly individual consciousness but a universal entity, a Form, of which
an individual consciousness is merely a reflection. Plato, with his literary
genius, propagated this kind of contradictory and destructive philosophy
which was to dominate the mind and thinking of humanity for the following
2300 years.

Platonistic philosophy or Platonistic-oriented philosophies provided the
tools for neocheaters to exploit as well as manipulate innocent and
productive individuals. People, thus Platonistically conditioned, had no
means to protect themselves philosophically against the neocheaters'
assaults. Although Aristotelian-based thinking was by nature always
employed in all healthy and productive human endeavors which kept the
life-line of human society going, people were bound to live in undeserved
guilt. Some asserted Aristotelian-oriented philosophies, but, until Ayn
Rand, none were able to discover the fault of Platonistic philosophy in a
fully integrated and thoroughly reasoned context, and none were able to
identify the poison-core of mysticism and neocheating in its entirety until
Neo-Tech.

During the time of the Romans, little advance was made in the field of
science. The Romans in essence lived under the glory of the Greeks
intellectually, and the systematic enactment of their neocheating strategy
and propagation of Platonistic-oriented philosophies prepared Europe for
the Dark Ages. Around 200 B.C., Stoicism, a Platonistic-oriented
philosophy, became influential among the Romans, for it presented the
traditional beliefs they had inherited from the Etruscans in a more
sophisticated form. Around A.D. 200, Stoicism merged with Platonism in
the form of Neoplatonism, particularly in the Neoplatonistic system of
Plotinus (A.D. 204-270). During those 400 years, the conditioning of the
human mind to misconceive reality through Platonistic-oriented thinking
became quite prevalent.

In regard to the second substrategy of training the bright to become
specialized scholars, it was here that the two-millennium-old trend of
specialization in knowledge originated. Since knowledge is the source, the
only source, of genuine power, the ones who are capable of integrating
knowledge are the greatest threat to neocheaters. Therefore, those who are
intellectually endowed must be divided into their specialized fields of
knowledge so that they cannot integrate different spheres of knowledge to
gain integrated power. They must also be isolated from the rest of the
world and made oblivious of the whole context of reality, while at the same
time being made dependent upon political neocheaters for their physical
survival.

A mathematician alone, no matter how brilliant he might be, could not be a
threat to a neocheater without the knowledge of other fields and the rest of
the world, and without the means of achieving financial independence --
without a business integration. So long as those who are bright remain
divided and "specialized," oblivious of the world, neocheaters are safe to
exercise their "power" and use those scholars for their own advantages.
This is what happened and what has been happening throughout the entire
history of man. Moreover, some of those scholars turned to mysticism or
neocheating and achieved political and/or religious prominence. The so-
called social "intellectuals" of today are the direct offspring of those
earlier "scholars turned neocheaters."

Research in the fields of biology and anthropology reveals that all the
species and tribes that became extinct did so because of overspecialization.
The current educational systems of the world, which originated in the
neocheating strategy of ancient political powers, emphasize specialization,
and thus endanger the continuation of the human species. Until today, the
least specialized field, the field that requires the widest integration of
knowledge, has been politics, where neocheatcrs, who have the least regard
for knowledge, gravitate the most. Ironically and tragically, the fittest to
survive the mysticism-ridden world of inverted reality have been the least
capable of surviving in reality.

In principle, the field in which the widest integration of knowledge is
required is business. It is in business that philosophy, science, and
technology meet the challenge of life to integrate into higher values that
benefit humanity. It is in business that metaphysical values are transformed
and crystallized into physical values that nurture human needs. Without
producers and their business activities, no society can possibly survive.
Therefore, in executing the third substrategy, the master neocheaters could
not wipe out the producers and their businesses totally. Otherwise, they
would have jeopardized their own existence. It is through those heroic, yet
unknown, producers that the world, albeit severely oppressed, could
survive all the darkness which humanity had to endure. Time and again
business flourished in various parts of the world, and every time there was
a flourishing of business there was an advancement of knowledge and an
evolution of human happiness and prosperity.

6. THE DISCOVERY OF THE ZERO

It is India that gave us the ingenious method of expressing all numbers by
means of ten symbols, each symbol receiving a value of position as well as
an absolute value; a profound and important idea which appears so simple
to us now that we ignore its true merit. But its very simplicity and the great
ease which it has lent to all computations put our arithmetic in the first rank
of useful inventions; and we shall appreciate the grandeur of this
achievement the more when we remember that it escaped the genius of
Archimedes and Apollonius, two of the greatest men produced by
antiquity. -- Laplace

Producers are the Primum Mobiles (the Prime Movers) of the world and
business is the very motion which carries humanity forward. It was the rise
of producers and the integral component of business Aristotelian
philosophy in the 13th-14th century that broke the Middle Ages and
brought the Renaissance to Europe. It was the same rise of producers and
Aristotelian-oriented philosophies, implicitly employed, during the first five
centuries A.D. in India that made possible one of the greatest mathematical
inventions of all time -- the zero, without which the Renaissance and the
subsequent development of scientific knowledge would not have been
possible.

The zero is the mathematically defined numerical function of nothingness
that is used not for an evasion but for an apprehension of reality. The
"nothing"' has been the exclusive territory of mystics and neocheaters. They
thrive on "nothing," in nonreality, and create their mystical edifice of power
and dominance upon "nothing" with "nothing." The zero is the only
"nothing" thus far conceived that is nonmystical, i.e., reality-based. It is a
tool, a mathematical tool, for dealing with reality, and as such is integral to
the whole context of reality qua reality. After the Renaissance, the
monopolization of knowledge became broken and scientific knowledge
flourished owing largely to the propagation of this mathematical "nothing,"
the zero to the increased computational capability among common people
that was made possible solely by the widespread use of the zero concept
and its counterpart -- the place-value numerical system.

On the assumption that an Aristotelian-based philosophy rather than a
Platonistic philosophy had dominated the Western world since the Golden
Age of Greece, Neo-Tech predicts the following retrospectively (see "Neo-
Tech Discovery," Neo-Tech Advantage #77, An Aristotelian Course of
History):

330 B.C. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
200 B.C. America discovered.
100 B.C. Free-enterprise capitalism established around the world.
0 B.C. All traces of mysticism, altruism, are gone.
20 A.D. Electrical power developed, camera developed.
40 A.D. Internal-combustion engine developed.
50 A.D. Cars in mass production. Airplane developed.
60 A.D. Computer developed.
70 A.D. Nuclear power developed.
80 A.D. Man on the Moon.
100 A.D. Man on Mars and heading for other planets.
120 A.D. Human biological immortality developed.
200 A.D. Universal immortality achieved...

As revealed in the second chapter, exactly as predicted above, the
Phoenician navigators circumnavigated the world and discovered the
American continent around 200 B.C., preceding Columbus and Magellan
by 1700 years. Aristarchus heliocentric theory of the universe was
developed approximately fifty years prior to that circumnavigation.
However, also around 200 B.C., with the rise of the Romans, Platonistic-
based philosophies became increasingly more dominant and growth in
science rapidly declined, except in Alexandria where Greek culture and
science still continued to flourish.

What is implicit in this "retrospective forecast" of human history, however,
is that a numerical system much like ours with the zero and the place-value
principle should have been developed somewhere between 200 and 100
B.C., for the Greek numerical system was much too rudimentary to make
the subsequent developments in science and technology probable. In fact,
no matter what kind of numerical symbols people of antiquity might have
adopted, logic dictates that their number system should have been the same
as ours with the zero concept and the place-value principle. Since man has
ten fingers, it is most likely that the base of their number system would
have been ten (10). The computers of 60 A.D. should have employed a
binary system due to the nature of logic.

Our modern written numeration, with the zero concept and the place-value
principle, is such an ingenious, efficacious, and conceptually integrated
system that no one who has ever considered the history of numerical
notation or mathematics fails to realize its enormous profundity,
significance, and power. For instance, consider the following addition the
same addition by means of Roman numerals and of our Hindu-Arabic
numerals:

CCLXVIII 268
MDCCCVII 1807
DCL 650
MLXXX 1080
======== ====
MMMDCCCV 3805

Without converting the Roman numerals into our modern system the
problem is difficult, if not impossible, to solve. And this is only an addition
multiplication or division would be far worse. Roman numerals and most
other systems do not lend themselves to written computation owing largely
to the static nature of their basic numerals, which are in essence only
abbreviations for recording the results of computations done by means of
an abacus or counting board.

For this reason, before the advent of our modern positional numeration (the
zero and the place-value system), the art of reckoning remained an
exclusive and highly skilled profession. Indeed, it attests to the success
wherewith the master neocheaters executed their destructive substrategy,
specialization of knowledge, that the knowledge of reckoning remained so
exclusive a profession. That master neocheating strategy created a lack of
motivation for the advancement of knowledge, particularly of science, and
its accompanying mathematical/computational tools. Thus, no progress was
made in the field of reckoning in the Western world beyond Greek or
Roman numeration. Roman numeration, particularly, was an intentional
device to keep the populace ignorant and powerless, forever confined in
the perceptivity-centered modality. in a mystical cave, by a mega-dose of
neocheating.

Therefore, the discovery of the zero and the development of the place-
value numeration had to wait for a less oppressive intellectual climate -- a
flourishing business and commercial atmosphere. Such a climate took place
in India between the first and fifth centuries A.D. It was during that time in
India that the zero was discovered and the system of place-value
numeration was developed, almost reaching to their fullest formulation by
500 A.D. Although in recorded history the place-value number systems
have been developed four times (by the Babylonians, Mayans, Chinese, and
Hindus), and the zero concept has been evolved three times (by the
Babylonians, Mayans, and Hindus), none outside of the Hindus have
devised such a complete system of numerical operation. Furthermore, none
outside of the Hindus evolved the zero concept to the degree that it is used
as the null-value in all facets of calculation.

Increased commercial/business activities during the first three centuries
A.D. in India called for further developments in navigational technology
and astronomical science, and for an evolution of a written computational
methodology for recording the process of calculations that were employed
in navigation, astronomy, and business. To accomplish these ends,
development of a superior numerical system that lent itself to written
computation became imperative. It was among those sea-dwelling
navigator-engineer-scientist-businessmen who kept and evolved the lineage
of advanced knowledge from antiquity that the place-value number system
with the zero concept was first developed. The Brahman scholars, the
Pythagoreans of the East, further evolved and perfected the system nearly
to its present formulation. By using only ten numerical symbols while
assigning one of the ten symbols, the zero, unique meanings and functions,
they succeeded in expressing infinitely large numbers and making complex
numerical operations remarkably more simple.

In Sanskrit (the scholarly language of the Hindus), the word for the zero is
"sunya," meaning "void," and there is little doubt that the zero concept
originated as the written symbol for the empty column of the abacus. The
abacus had been used around the world since antiquity to provide a facile
means of accumulating progressive products of multiplication by moving
those products ever further leftward, column by column, as the operator
filled the available bead spaces one by one and moved the excess over ten
into the successive right-to-left-ward columns.

Number products in even tens (such as the number 20 or 30) leave the first
right hand column empty (void). When expert abacus users had no abacus
available to them, they could remember and visualize the operation of the
abacus so clearly that all they needed to know was the content of each
column in order to develop any multiplication or division. They then
invented symbols for the content of each column to replace drawing a
picture of the number of beads. Having developed symbols to express the
content of each column, they had to invent a symbol for the numberless
content of the empty column -- that symbol came to be known to the
Hindus as "sunya," and sunya later became "sifr" in Arabic; "cifra"' in
Roman; and finally "cipher" in English.

Only an empty column of an abacus could possibly provide the human
experience that called for the invention of the zero the symbol for
"nothingness," and that discovery of the symbol for nothingness had an
enormous significance upon subsequent humanity. The zero, the cipher,
alone made possible humanity's escape from the 1700-year monopoly of all
its calculating functions by the neocheating power structure operating
invisibly behind their governments and religions. It was also the power of
nothingness, the zero, that raised the curtains of science during the
Renaissance, which had been drawn by the master neocheaters since 200
B.C. (It is significant to realize that the positional numeration with the zero
concept had been implicitly employed in the operation of the abacus almost
in its entirety, including the zero being the null-value. The Hindu
numeration was the written translation of that operation.)

Even if the zero with the place-value principle and its computation-
facilitating capability had been discovered by the Alexandrian Greeks, by
Archimedes or Apollonius, for instance, it would have been banished or
even lost when the emperors of the Roman Empire amalgamated the vast
power of the priesthood with their already-established military supremacy.
Historically, Roman numerals had been invented to enable completely
illiterate people to keep "scores" of events occurring one by one. The more
complex Roman numerals were those used by their superiors, keeping
count by their fingers V for five (the angle between one's thumb and the
other four fingers) and X for ten (representing one's crossed index fingers).
Since one cannot see "no sheep or no person," the Roman world had no
need for a symbol for nothing.

For science to evolve, there should be three basic socio-intellectual factors
present; (1) a flourishing business climate that will provide an incentive to
advance knowledge; (2) an explicitly defined Aristotelian philosophy that
will provide the metaphysical/epistemological foundation or context for
valid scientific knowledge and the ethical/moral basis for productive living;
(3) mathematical tools, such as the zero with the place-value principle, that
will facilitate the advancement of science. During the Renaissance all three
of these factors were clearly present. Science did not develop in India after
the discovery of the zero owing to the fact that no explicitly defined
Aristotelian philosophy had ever been prevalent in India or had been known
to the Hindus in general.

Indian philosophies from Hinduism to Buddhism, although they differed in
various issues, all held that reality could not be known by reason and logic
but only by a mystical union with existence called samadhi or nirvana,
purported to he transcendental to reason and logic. They believed that
reason and logic could take them only to the point where they could merge
into existence through the cessation of the mind. In truth, their mystical
union, samadhi or nirvana, was nothing more than a glorified perception or
sensation. They inverted the epistemological order of human cognition,
which proceeds from sensation to perception and perception to conception,
and gave perception and sensation the ultimate cognitive status.

Therefore, albeit the Hindus perfected one of the greatest discoveries in
human history -- the zero, they could not realize its cosmic function as a
mathematical tool of science. Although it required a conceptuality-centered
modality of consciousness to conceive of the zero, the Hindus did not
possess a conceptuality-centered philosophy -- an Aristotelian philosophy
to integrate the zero concept into a larger philosophical scheme so as to
bring about its fruits. The zero, thus, had to wait for nearly 1000 years until
the time of Leonardo da Vinci and Copernicus in order to bear its fruits and
transform the human world forever.

Meanwhile, in the West, the Romans repeatedly burned the Alexandrian
library, which as early as 100 B.C. was reputed to have had 700,000
manuscripts containing the wealth of Greek intellectual achievements. The
library was first set on fire in 47 B.C. during the war between Caesar and
Pompey (40,000 volumes were burned), second in 272 A.D. by a Roman
emperor, third in 391 A.D. by another Roman emperor, and finally
completely destroyed by the Muslims in 642 A.D. Thus, before the zero
could reach the Western world around 700 A.D. via the Moorish invasion
of Spain, the intellectual soil wherein this remarkable concept could have
borne fruit had been destroyed almost completely by the master
neocheaters and their neocheating strategies. The Western world had
entered the Dark Ages.

7. THE PROPAGATION OF THE ZERO

In the centuries since its discovery, the place-value system of numeration
with the zero concept has been propagated throughout the world even
more widely than the alphabet of Phoenician origin, and it has become the
only universal language humanity now possesses. When its advantages
became known to the scholars, reckoners, and businessmen of civilization
in contact with India, they gradually began to adopt this new system,
abandoning the imperfect systems which they inherited from their
ancestors. The zero and its immense computational capabilities provided
humanity with an infinite horizon for the evolution of knowledge.

Among those who adopted this new system of numeration and adapted it
to their own forms of writing were the Arabs. In the vast empire that they
built within less than a century after Mohammed's death, the Moslems
forced conquered nations to adopt their language and its writing. Thus,
Arabic soon became a means of communication, particularly among
scholars of diverse origins. In 772 A.D. al-Mansur, the second caliph of the
Abbassid dynasty, founded the capital Baghdad, which quickly became one
of the great commercial and intellectual centers of the world where the
cultural heritage of the conquered nations was well received. It was in
Baghdad that the evolution of Arab science began, assimilating all the
Greek and Hindu scientific works that came to the Arab-Islamic world.

Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi (c. 780-850), who lived at the court
of the Abbassid caliph al-Mamum, was one of the most distinguished and
illustrious mathematicians of the period. Al-Khowarizmi's treatise on
arithmetic, "Treatise on Cipher," is the earliest known Arabic work in
which the Hindu place-value numeration and computation methods are
specifically elucidated. (In Europe, al-Khowarizmi's name, first Latinized as
Algorismi, turned into the terms "algorism" and "algorithm," designating
computation with the Hindu written numerations before taking on the more
general meaning of computation with any notation. The first word of the
Arabic title for his other treatise, "AI-jabr w'al-muqubalah," later came to
designate the branch of mathematics known in English as algebra.)

Although the Moorish invasion of Spain introduced Hindu-Arabic numerals
and algebra for the first time to Europe around 700 A.D., preceding al-
Khowarizmi about a century, it was the Latin translation of his "Treatise on
Cipher" around 1200 A.D. that awakened Europe from its computational
darkness to an evolution of mathematical knowledge. However, while
Arab-Islamic civilization was achieving great scientific and cultural
attitudes, comparable only with Athens and Alexandria, Western
Christendom was languishing in social disorder, economic depression, and
intellectual obscurantism caused by the master neocheaters' oppressive
strategies to stay in power. Thus, it took over 400 years for al-
Khowarizmi's treatise to be translated into Latin, and it took another 200
years for the Hindu-Arabic numeration with the zero and place-value
concept to become widely diffused in Europe.

As in India, where virtually every sphere of knowledge was monopolized
by Brahmans and other religious priest-scholars, so in the Arab-Islamic
world was knowledge a field which belonged exclusively to the priest-
scholars who served under their patronal caliphs. Furthermore, as in India,
there was no explicit Aristotelian philosophy that dominated the mind of
the Arabs. Their guiding philosophy was provided by their religion, Islam.
Although Aristotle's works were earnestly studied and translated into
Arabic, so were the works of Plato. It was the time of academic
compilation and scholastic relativism. For that reason, no genuine
scientific/technological revolution took place in the Arab-Islamic world.
However, it was through the wealth of knowledge compiled there that the
Western world learned about the lost works of Aristotle and the zero
concept.

In the meantime in Europe, a systematic master neocheating scheme in
operation since 200 B.C., particularly by the successive Roman emperors,
had prepared Europe for the rise of Christianity. The combined religious
and political emperorship had found its authoritarian formulae, "credo"
(which means "I believe"), continually threatened by the Greek scientist-
philosophers who had incessantly evolved ever unorthodox ideas and
discoveries. The authorities had devised their grand strategy largely to cope
with and counteract those scientists' persuasive, experience-supported,
objective logic.

But it was not until the Roman priesthood developed an extremely clever
neocheating theology around an obscure mystic who had supposedly died
on the cross some centuries before that the traces of the Greek intellect
could finally be wiped out. Although the emperors possessed absolute
physical power, they lacked absolute metaphysical authority. Through
Christian theology and its doctrine, the emperor-pope could now possess
not only physical power but also the metaphysical dispensation normally
given only by "God" -- an authority that was purportedly received
originally by the disciples from the only son of God, "Christ," and his direct
authority from God himself. Indeed, following the death of Jesus and the
preaching by his "disciples," the promised prospect of salvation for all
believers raised the Christian priesthood to an unprecedented popularity
and power.

In point of fact, Jesus was an obscure mystic known in his lifetime only by
a handful of people. Uneducated and with hallucinatory propensities, he
spent his known life neurotically striving to fulfill certain ancient Judaic
prophecies under a megalomaniacal illusion that he was the son of God.
His crucifixion was to a great measure his own making in order to fulfill his
"divine mission" in life. For what sin did he actually commit that deserved a
crucifixion except that he was somewhat insane and an annoyance to the
establishment? It was indeed Jesus himself who managed to cause his own
crucifixion, because, so far as he was concerned, the son of God had to be
crucified.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that he died on the cross. His crucifixion
took place on a Friday and the next day was the Sabbath. He was on the
cross no more than six hours, so how could a young man of 33 possibly die
so easily? The myth of Resurrection thus may have a well-founded genesis;
this neurotic man might have appeared in front of people before leaving the
town for an unknown place. His disciples, equally mystical and most of
them uneducated, spread his legacy, which finally reached the neocheating
priests of the Roman Empire, who then cleverly constructed a devastatingly
destructive theology around that legacy by employing Platonistic principles.
Thus was born the emperor-pope.

The emperor-pope who was "officially authorized" by God could require
all believers to secretly confess their sins to his "officials" (ordained
priests). He could also ordain universal adoption of his explanations of the
causality of all human experiences, explanations that were most useful to
him. The emperor-pope could tell his people how to conduct their lives,
how to gain God's favor. The geocentric system was degraded to the
notion of a two-dimensional flat world sandwiched in parallel between
Heaven above and Hell below, and this cosmology put the emperor-pope
and his "God" at the center of the universe. The heliocentric universe did
not fit into his scheme, and thus was wiped off the face of the Earth.

The zero, like the heliocentric concept, had no place in such an intellectual
obscurantism. Although it was first introduced around 700 A.D. in Spain,
the zero could not find a way to reach through the darkness of the human
mind to Europe at large. The zero as well as the heliocentric concept had
to wait until the 11th and 12th centuries when producers and business
again arose in Europe. During those two centuries Europe awakened
abruptly, owing largely to a rapid population growth which had such
consequences as the clearing of land, the development of cities, and the
construction of larger churches. Prices rose, circulation of money
increased, and, as sovereigns quelled feudal anarchy, commerce revived.

The revival of commerce necessitated more frequent international contacts
and in turn favored the introduction of Arab science into the Western
world. Universities were founded, arising from guild-like associations of
masters and students at the cathedral schools. The western Crusade against
Muslims in Spain resulted in the fall of Toledo (a Christian archbishopric in
Spain) in 1085, and it was from this time that the Arabic versions of Greek
science as well as Hindu numerals were translated into Latin, the most
active period being 1125-1280. It was during this time that al-
Khowarizmi's "Treatise on Cipher" reached northern Italy and southern
Germany by way of Carthage in North Africa.

Two hundred years later, the zero concept finally diffused into the
university system and became widely used in Europe largely because of its
conceptual novelty. The zero was not only a tremendously powerful
mathematical tool but also a catalyst that elevated the conceptual faculty of
individual human beings to new heights. It is only the knowledge of the
capability for unlimited multiplying and dividing and thereby ratioing -- and
for evaluating relative experiences that is provided exclusively by the
zero/place-value numerical system that could possibly enable individual
human beings to know how to escape from the prison of ignorance which
had been successfully established for centuries.

It was the zero, the mathematical nothing, that brought Europe out of the
Dark/Middle Ages, out of the spell of mysticism, to the Renaissance, to a
sunlit world of reason. Because the zero was indeed "nothing," the
knowledge-monopolizing neocheating power structure whose entire
existence was based upon nonreality, nothing, had improvidently
overlooked it. Because it was a tool unlike the heliocentric theory or
Aristotelian philosophy they could not comprehend its power and foresee
the danger that it entailed for them. The zero, thus, became an essential and
indispensable tool in the work of Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Kepler,
Galileo, and Newton. It also brought about Columbus' revised concepts of
terrestrial navigation.

The advancement of science since the Renaissance is greatly indebted to
this something-called-nothing -- the zero. If the zero had not been
discovered, humanity would still be in a dark age, scientifically and
technologically. Imagine doing complex and highly sophisticated
computations required for astrophysics or quantum mechanics by means of
Roman numerals. It would be impossible. Those fields of modern science
could not even exist without the zero and the place-value numeration. To
understand the genuine importance of this mathematical null-value is to
know the depth of our civilization and the power of human consciousness.

Through the discovery and propagation of the zero and the place-value
numeration, humanity could achieve an immense advancement and a
geometrical increase in scientific knowledge previously unimagined.
Despite the remarkable progress in science, however, speaking
philosophically, humanity has lived, until today, with philosophical Roman
numerals alone, as it were. It was not until Ayn Rand developed her
philosophy, Objectivism, in the mid-twentieth century that philosophy
found its renaissance for the first time since Aristotle. Ayn Rand was the
Copernicus of philosophy and she brought about a genuine philosophical
Copernican Revolution.

Neo-Tech was discovered in the mid-1970s by Frank R. Wallace to further
that philosophical renaissance, not only by integrating all the valid
philosophical, psychological, and scientific knowledge on the basis of
Aristotelian-Objectivist principles, but also by making a philosophical
regression utterly impossible through its fully integrated philosophical
matrix that identifies and eliminates the whole edifice of mysticism and its
symbiotic neocheating. What the zero accomplished in the field of science,
Neo-Tech is achieving in the sphere of human life, particularly in the field
of philosophy. As the zero heightened the capability of humans to deal with
reality mathematically, Neo-Tech heightens the competence of all men and
women to deal with reality philosophically. As the zero nullifies unneeded
numerical values to render new values, Neo-Tech nullifies nonvalue or
nonreality -- mysticism and neocheating -- to bring forth values.

It was the zero, the nonmystical "nothing," that brought about the
evolution of scientific knowledge. And it is Neo-Tech, the philosophical
zero, that will bring forth not only the evolution of knowledge but also the
evolvement of human happiness and prosperity, forever. The zero rendered
all the numerical systems of the past totally obsolete. Neo-Tech now
renders obsolete every system of philosophy that has ever existed, even
Aristotelian or Objectivist philosophy, while integrating all valid knowledge
of the past, the present, and the future in its forever-evolving philosophical
matrix. The zero is the most potent mathematical tool ever to be conceived
and Neo-Tech is the most powerful philosophical tool ever to be
discovered. The zero and Neo-Tech are both based on Aristotelian
principles, on objective reality, and epitomize the power of human
consciousness in its full glory.

Neo-Tech is the philosophical zero. Indeed, to comprehend its depth and
harness its power is not only to achieve a life of unlimited prosperity and
happiness, but also to live forever, even after the Sun dies.

8. NEO-TECH, THE PHILOSOPHICAL ZERO

Neo-Tech is: a new technology based on fully integrated honesty. "New"
means never before discovered, never before identified. "Technology"
means the application of knowledge. "Fully integrated honesty" means
honesty that is based on contextual facts and objective reality, and applied
in every dimension, every facet, and every moment of life. "Honesty"
means the active state of according oneself with reality. Neo-Tech is a new
system of knowledge that self-contains the knowledge of application or to
which the knowledge of self-application is integral. And Neo-Tech
contains, integrally and integratedly, philosophical, psychological, and
scientific knowledge.

The physicist-mathematician Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) cogently defined
science as "the earnest attempt to set in order the facts of experience."
Philosophy is a sphere of science that deals with "order" itself; it is the
science or knowledge of the principles of "ordering" the facts of
experience. Philosophy permeates the entire field of science and provides
the principle or the context in which to set in order given facts of
experience that pertain to a particular branch of science. Without a valid
philosophical foundation no branch of science could arrive at a valid
picture or theory of the reality-sphere about which it is concerned.

Experience is the raw material of science. Existence and
cognition/consciousness are always inherently present in all experiences.
Experience is the complex awareness of existing, of self coexisting with all
the nonself. Experience is always biterminal, i.e., it has a beginning and an
end. Since experience is biterminal, and thus finite, it can be stored,
studied, directed, and, with conscious effort, set in order for various human
advantages. Science is that conscious effort/experience for setting in order
a finite set of finite experiences, and philosophy is a particular conscious
effort/experience for setting in order the very experience of setting in order.

Philosophy, thus, concerns itself with the principle of "ordering" and
provides a contextual order for all branches of science and all spheres of
human existence. Furthermore, a philosophical context is self-referential,
that is, it is not only the context for science and human existence but also
serves as its own context. Philosophy, therefore, is the reflection or the
expression of the fundamental inner working of consciousness qua
consciousness. No philosophy had ever existed before the advent of
consciousness. The bicameral mind had various myths but not a single
philosophy. To be human, to be conscious, in essence is to be a philosopher
and what kind of philosophy one consciously or subconsciously possesses
determines the entire destiny of his life. Similarly, what kind of philosophy
humanity as a whole predominantly chooses determines the entire course of
human history.

Neo-Tech identifies two fundamental systems of philosophy: Platonistic
and Aristotelian. Platonistic philosophy is rooted in the perceptivity-
centered (or the emulated bicameral) modality of consciousness and breeds
mysticism and neocheating. Aristotelian philosophy is rooted in the
conceptuality-centered modality of consciousness and breeds knowledge.
Platonistic philosophy has been used mostly in the fields of government,
politics, and religion, fields that exist not through producing values but
through usurping values. Aristotelian philosophy has been used mostly in
the fields of science, technology, and productive business the fields that
create values.

Since the grand neocheating strategy by the master neocheaters of antiquity
has prevailed, the forces of government, politics, and religion have reigned
over the world. Platonistic philosophy has dominated and determined the
course of human history, while productive scientists, technologists
(including engineers. artists, and craftsmen), and businessmen (including
the working class and farmers) have continued to produce value's quietly,
implicitly employing Aristotelian principles. Ironically, no one except a
handful of master neocheaters such as popes was able to know the real
cause of physical devastation and spiritual destruction which humanity
seemed destined to endure. For no knowledge existed that could
successfully identify mysticism and neocheating in their causal and
structural entirety.

Neo-Tech is such a knowledge. Neo-Tech is the only system of knowledge
that is designed to identify and collapse the entire edifice of mysticism and
its symbiotic neocheating. Neo-Tech brings to light the total
epistemological structure and mechanics of mysticism and neocheating
through its fully integrated and evolving philosophical matrix. With Neo-
Tech, people around the world are now capable, for the first time in
history, to rid their consciousness of the 3000year-old mental cancer --
mysticism, and also to rid their lives of the 3000-year-old mystical hoax
neocheating. Neo-Tech indeed is the first philosophical device or
knowledge-tool (organum) ever developed for the complete extirpation of
the philosophical plague -- mysticism and neocheating -- that has afflicted
humanity for three millennia.

In the history of philosophy three organums (the principles or the tools of
knowledge) were developed before Neo-Tech -- the first, "Organum." by
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), the second, "Novum Organum," by Francis
Bacon (1561-1626), and the third, "Tertium Organum," by Pyotr D.
Ouspensky (1878-1947). Neo-Tech by Frank R. Wallace is the fourth
organum and completes the work by Aristotle. Aristotle, through his
"Organum," identified and developed the whole principle of valid
knowledge, i.e., logic. He developed the principle of noncontradictory
identification whereby all knowledge is discovered, verified, and evaluated.
Even when his various misconclusions, such as his geocentric theory, were
disproved, it is his organum that was used to disprove them.

Although Bacon had very little regard for either Plato or Aristotle, "Novum
Organum" nevertheless exhibits a mixture of Platonistic and Aristotelian
principles, and thus is fundamentally Platonistic (for no system can be built
on the basis of Aristotelian principle if it "incorporates" Platonism; only
within a Platonistic context can some fragments of Aristotelian knowledge
be admixed, mainly as tools for non sequiturs). "Tertium Organum," by
P.D. Ouspensky, a Russian mathematician-turned-mystic who studied
under another Russian mystic, G.I. Gurdjieff, is characterized by its
regression into Platonism with an Eastern philosophy/psychology
undertone. His conception of consciousness, "cosmic consciousness," as
well as his interpretation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and fourth
dimension, is highly mystical and thus has little to do with reality qua
reality.

The following is a comparison chart that demonstrates the difference
between Aristotle's Organum and Ouspensky's Tertium Organum:

Organum: A is A.
A is not not-A.
Each existent is either A or not-A.

Tertium Organum: A is both A and not-A.
or
All is A and A is all.

If A is both A and not-A, how can one identify A in the first place? If
Tertium Organum is true, then everything loses its identity and nothing can
be known -- even Tertium Organum itself cannot be known. Ouspensky
recognizes that his logic is absurd and attempts to exculpate himself from
this apparent contradiction by saying, "We must be prepared for the fact
that it is impossible to express superlogical relations ("higher logic") in our
language." What is his philosophy based upon? A profound mistrust and
contempt in man's "ordinary" cognitive process and the power of reason.
Where does his philosophy lead? To a complete denial of conceptual
knowledge. His philosophy of "higher logic" is a total negation of reality in
the name of "higher reality." Only those who are profoundly dissatisfied
and unhappy with reality could aspire to such a philosophy. Yet, P.D.
Ouspensky was one of the most brilliant Platonists in history, integrating
Eastern mysticism into Platonism with remarkable intellectual
sophistication.

As Aristotle provided the fundamental principle of all valid knowledge and
action, Neo-Tech offers the principle that identifies all invalid knowledge
and action. Metaphorically, Aristotle evolved the philosophical positional
number system and Neo-Tech discovered the philosophical zero raising
Aristotelian philosophy to new heights. In essence, with Neo-Tech, the
philosophical zero, man's philosophical capability for dealing with reality
increases infinitely, in much the same way as the zero has infinitely
increased man's mathematical capability for dealing with reality. Platonistic
philosophy and other philosophical systems that are based upon Platonistic
principles are the philosophical Roman numerals and cripple man's
philosophical or conceptual ability to deal with reality successfully, and
thereby to achieve knowledge, power, happiness, and prosperity. With
Neo-Tech, the philosophical renaissance will indeed unfold forevermore.

Humanity as a whole now faces an unprecedented crisis brought about by
the disparity between scientific/technological development, which was
effected by the zero and Aristotelian philosophy, and the
philosophical/moral/political underdevelopment, which was caused by
Platonistic philosophy, mysticism, and neocheating. At the same time.
humanity as a whole also now faces an unprecedented opportunity made
possible by advancements in science and technology, by the discovery and
development of Neo-Tech, and by the subsequent flourishing of productive
business all around the world. The following are some of the major
obstacles in achieving and realizing the unprecedented opportunity that
now awaits humanity.

(I) Platonistic/Kantian philosophies, and prevailing mysticism/neocheating
that arise therefrom:

The task of philosophy and the job of a philosopher is not to obfuscate but
to clarify reality, not to complicate but to simplify living, i.e., not to
further mystify but to progressively demystify the human mind in relation to
reality and human life. However, except for Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and a few
others, most philosophers throughout history have almost completely
defaulted in their responsibility.

Ever since Plato elaborated the sophistry of "reality creation" and
developed the matrix of noncontextual logic (inner logic that has no reality-
integrating context), philosophy has gone astray, falling ever deeper into
the trap of mysticism. Yet, no philosopher, not even Plato, could
systematically deny man's rational faculty and attack the validity of
reason... until the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

The expressly stated purpose of Kant's philosophy is to save the "morality"
of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice, i.e., altruism. Since no rational basis
can exist to support altruism (Aristotle, for example, successfully
disqualified Plato's theory of Forms), what it has to be saved from in
honesty is conceptual-centered consciousness and its prime faculty, reason.
In order to fulfill his purpose, Kant conjures up a new version of Plato's
Forms called the "noumenal" world and sets out to 'prove" that the
noumenal world by nature cannot be known, that it is out of reach of
reason, while declaring all along that it is the world of "real" reality.
"higher" truth, and "things in themselves."

Kant imperiously uses his noncontextual logic in proving his brazenly clear
conclusion with unintelligible arguments that are full of evasions,
equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, and non sequiturs. He
proclaims as self-evident what is in reality arbitrary or untrue, and provides
erudite references to science as well as to pseudo-science to create an
illusion of credibility. Thus, through his noncontextual inner logic and
mind-paralyzing unintelligibility, Kant cleverly shifts morality from the
sphere of reason to the domain of faith and declares that what cannot be
known by reason (the noumenal world -the source of morality) can be
believed, whereby making morality exempt from reason.

Kant asserts that the human mind by nature distorts reality because
everything that is conceived by consciousness is conceived through
automatic filters in consciousness (termed categories). Thus, according to
him, reality as conceived by consciousness is inherently subjective, and
objective reality, the noumenal world or things in themselves, forever
remains on the other shore of reason not to be known but only to be
believed. Therefore, consciousness, because it is consciousness, because it
is a cognitive faculty because of its very identity as a cognitive faculty,
cannot cognize reality as such.

If reality conceived by consciousness were in truth inherently subjective
and, therefore, relative, then his entire philosophy itself would lose its
claim to truth. For, any statement that is made with regard to reality demands
itself to be objective. A statement that reality is subjective is inescapably
self-contradictory and negates its own validity. In point of fact, Kant's
philosophy is an extremely clever exploitation of a common
misunderstanding concerning objectivity.

Objectivity, epistemologically speaking, is the state of cognition that
acquires knowledge of reality by means of reason in accordance with logic,
the principle of noncontradictory identification. Epistemologically,
objectivity rests upon the universality of reason and logic. Metaphysically
speaking, objectivity is the recognition of the fact that reality exists
independent of consciousness...of any particular state of consciousness.
Metaphysically too, objectivity rests upon the universality of reason and
logic.

Metaphysical objectivity, the fact that reality exists independent of
consciousness, does not mean that reality exists beyond the reach of
consciousness, as Kant maintains, but it means that reality exists beyond
any arbitrary factor of the cognitive experience, beyond anyone's feeling,
emotion, wish, or awareness/unawareness. Through the universal means of
reason that accords itself with logic the universal principle of
noncontradictory identification, one can always apprehend and comprehend
reality that is objective and immutable (see Chapter 4).

What is required is not faith or belief but discipline -- the discipline to use
one's consciousness in accordance with logic regardless of feelings,
emotions, or wishes. Discipline is the process of consciously creating
increasingly higher order within oneself. Philosophy is a discipline.
Business is a discipline. Kant's philosophy offers the most clever rationale
in history for the evasion of discipline, any discipline that is required for a
rational apprehension of reality.

Kant's philosophy had a devastating impact on subsequent history. Both
Marxism and Nazism have their philosophical roots in Kantian
epistemology and ethics -- the epistemology not of knowledge but of blind
faith and the morality of self-sacrifice and self-abnegation. All current
philosophies, which arc in reality anti-philosophies, such as existentialism,
pragmatism, and "logical" positivism which proclaims, inter alia, that one
cannot prove that he exists, grew out of Kant. Kant's philosophy indeed
was the culmination of Platonism and became the temple of mystics and the
Bible of neocheaters.

The still-prevailing Platonistic philosophy. mysticism, and neocheating
around the world are indebted to Kant and his philosophy. If Plato is
immoral. Kant is evil to the core of his soul, for he deliberately and
knowingly undercut reason and consciousness, and thus the dignity of man
as thoroughly as any human being can -- a feat Plato could never have
surpassed because of his professed respect for reason. (Authentic and
generally sincere respect for reason was implicit in all Greek philosophies).
Through Kant, philosophy became not only a useless exercise of the mind
but also a lethal weapon of neocheating. Kant provided not only an
opportunity for mediocre minds to feign an air of profundity but also an
extremely powerful tool for clever mystics and neocheaters to rationalize
their existence, which consists solely of destruction, manipulation, or
plundering of others.

But now, through Neo-Tech, humanity has an intellectual lie detector by
which an ordinary person can see through the neocheating labyrinth of
Immanuel Kant and the mystical edifice of Plato. The hidden advantage of
master neocheaters such as Kant rests solely upon the fact that they know
untruth as untruth and nonreality as nonreality, while others are made to
believe untruth as truth and nonreality as reality. However, no matter how
clever Kant is or how brilliant Plato is, they can never deny reality in
reality. Reality is there...to be known and to be integrated. Neo-Tech offers
not only an integrated picture of reality but also, through its matrix-
structure, definitive tools for the conceptual integration of reality.

Through Neo-Tech, people will he able to see that the philosophical
labyrinth of Kant is nothing save an extremely clever scheme for concealing
his incompetence as a thinker and manipulating others into believing his
conclusions with no regard to truth and reality. Through Neo-Tech, people
will also be able to see that the mystical edifice of Plato is nothing save a
brilliant fabrication for controlling others and imposing his own will onto
reality. Through Neo-Tech, reality will consistently reveal its commanding
presence, shine forth upon the darkness of nonreality, and cast away that
which has never in reality existed except in the minds of men under the
spell of mysticism and its symbiotic neocheating.

(2) The grand myth that there is an inherent inadequacy or scarcity of life
support such as food or money (symbolizing real value) on this planet:

In 1800, after receiving a complete inventory of the world's vital and
economic statistics for the first time in history, Thomas Malthus, later
professor of political economics at the East India Company College.
concluded that the world population was increasing at a rate of geometrical
progression. whereas life-support production was increasing only at a rate
of arithmetical progression. In 1810 he confirmed this earlier finding.
Thomas Malthus thus proved mathematically what people all over the
world had innately believed since the beginning of human history, that there
was an inherent inadequacy of life support on the planet and that the
situation would become progressively worse.

"Pray all you want," said Malthus, "it will do you no good. There is no
more!" A half-century later, Charles Darwin developed his theory of
evolution, propounding that the inexorable processes of nature were the
consequence of the "survival only of the fittest species and individuals
within those species." Karl Marx compounded both Malthus' and Darwin's
scientifically convincing conclusions in order to "prove" his predecided
point, and said, in effect, "The proletariat are the fittest to survive, for
they are the ones who know how to handle the toots and seeds to produce the
life support. The opulent others, the bourgeoisie, are mere parasites."

The opulent others argued semi-rationally, "We are opulent and at the top
of the heap because we have successfully demonstrated the Darwinian
principle, survival of the fittest. The workers are dull-minded and have no
vision. What is of essence for survival in this world is cunning, intellectual
fighting skills, and farsighted enterprise." For the last century these two
political/economic ideologies, communism and so-called capitalism, have
dominated the political affairs of the world -- both coming from the
assumption that there is not enough to go around.

However, missing in Malthus' theory was a critical understanding regarding
the power of the human mind and consciousness, as well as consideration
concerning the possible evolution of human knowledge. He disregarded or
failed to see that knowledge could and did indeed increase at a geometric-
progression rate that would far exceed the growth of human population,
overcoming the seemingly inevitable paucity of life support on Earth. The
advancement of scientific and technological knowledge, which includes the
food-production/distribution technology and the development of the birth-
control pill, has long eradicated the once universal and seemingly inevitable
inadequacy of life-supporting goods. In a world where there are sufficient
numbers of producers who produce more than they consume, inadequacy
of life support or overpopulation is categorically impossible. And once
mysticism and neocheating are eradicated from the planet -- once the Neo-
Tech world comes into existence, each human being will always produce
more values than he or she can ever consume, so that the impossibility of
the inadequacy of life support or overpopulation will further become self-
evident.

However, in spite of the clear evidence that humanity now has more than
enough life support and everyone on this planet can be self-sufficiently
wealthy if he or she works honestly and productively within his or her
capability to produce values for others, the political neocheaters continue
to propagate and exploit that age-old myth of inadequacy in order to stay
in "power" and control the misguided populace. The religious neocheaters
apply the myth of scarcity to their "Heaven" and say, in effect, "There is
not enough space out there in the heaven, and in order to be the fittest to
survive in that world, you must follow our teaching and donate your money
and soul to prove that you are indeed worthy of survival after your death."

This is a clear example of creating problems where none in fact exist. The
increasing sufficiency of life support on Earth indicates an entirely new era
of human life and history: War is unnecessary. Governmental politics is
unnecessary. All manipulation, deception, and physical force are
unnecessary. In other words, neocheating in every form is unnecessary and
in reality obsolete. For every man and woman can now live with an ever-
increasing standard of living, and achieve genuine wealth, prosperity, and
happiness through his or her own honest, rational, and productive effort,
thinking, and action without ever destroying others. With Neo-Tech and its
complete annihilation of mysticism and neocheating, the one most able to
survive -- the honest and rational individual -- now becomes what he or she
deserves to he, the fittest to survive.

Neo-Tech shows every conscious being the way to become a true producer
of values, and works as a catalyst in bringing forth a world of ever-evolving
happiness and prosperity with the only rational, value-oriented, natural-to-
humans social/political/economic system, i.e., laissez-faire, free-enterprise
capitalism. And it is on the basis of increasing sufficiency of life support on
Earth that the value-oriented Neo-Tech business world -- a profit-oriented,
laissez-faire, free-enterprise capitalist society -- is built. Value is the
actualized knowledge or accomplished technological capacity that protects,
nurtures, supports, and accommodates all growing needs of life. Money is
the effective means of exchanging disparate and nonequitable items of real
value. In a rational business world, the relationship of money or profit to
real value will be logically authenticated, and money or profit will follow
the production of values naturally.

(3) National division: Since war is in reality obsolete, national division only
serves as a means of protecting an individual who happened to choose
living in a particular location on this planet so that he can exercise his free
will, free choice, and free action in pursuing his productive career. It is not
nations but individuals and companies that must compete in creating and
producing values higher than others in the same business. It is not to
nations but to themselves that individuals must belong. It is not with
nations but with companies that they must identify themselves. For it is not
where one lives but what he does to create values for others that is of
significance. People do not and cannot choose their birth, their place of
birth, or their parents. People do choose and must choose, however, what
careers to pursue and which companies or organizations to work for
(including their own). Society, therefore, must be structured on the basis of
people's conscious choices, and people should not be bound by things over
which they can have no choice whatsoever, such as their birthplace, sex, or
color.

The world's neocheating power structures have always "divided to
conquer" and have always "kept divided to keep conquering." As a
consequence, the neocheating power structures have so divided humanity -
- not only into special-function categories but also into religious, national,
language, and color categories -- that humanity at large has lost its ability
to distinguish between earned values such as knowledge, skill, or character
and coincidental attributes such as color or nationality. It is imperative to
structure the world on the basis of earned values and people's free choice
or will. Neo-Tech makes a clear identification of the human value system
and helps to create a world in which every individual is identified not in
terms of accidental attributes but of earned values acquired through his
conscious choice and effort.

People do not belong to their countries. People do not have any obligation
to their countries. People's obligation is only to themselves and to their
dependent children. No one should hinder others from fulfilling their
obligation. It is to that extent, and to that extent only, that people are
collectively responsible for one another's well-being. The current national
division, to a large extent, is the result of the "real-estate war" fought over
the centuries amongst power-hungry, physical-property-coveting
neocheaters. A nation is a nonfundamental entity that exists solely on the
basis of agreements among individuals. What is fundamental is a conscious
individual human being who, unlike nations, can think, create, and produce.
Nations cannot exist without people, but people can exist without nations -
- probably much more happily and successfully.

Collectivism, therefore, is an inversion of reality. Individualism based upon
the sound recognition that a conscious individual is the highest cause and
the supreme value in existence is the only reality-based moral, ethical,
political philosophy there is. In the future Neo-Tech world, countries will
be recognized for what they really are, i.e., agreed-upon divisions for the
convenience of living together. In the future Neo-Tech world, the planet
will be seen as dynamic, synergetic interactions among companies and
businesses whose Primum Mobiles (Prime movers) are the productive,
energetic Neo-Tech men and women living happily and prosperously as the
permanent residents of the universe.

(4) Over specialization of knowledge: Because of the successive master
neocheaters' extremely effective strategy of specializing knowledge,
universities around the world still continue to divide and subdivide the
otherwise-integrated sphere of knowledge into many fragments. As a
consequence, the great majority of humanity is incapable of understanding
the language of science, the most highly specialized field of knowledge. In
addition, the educator/philosophers who belong to the John Dewey-genre
school of thought and fundamentalist/creationist religious fanatics further
spur humanity into scientific illiteracy-. Furthermore, scientists and
mathematicians often base their philosophical thinking upon Platonistic
principles, or completely divorce themselves from philosophical thought,
resulting in a highly fragmented and isolated utilization of Aristotelian
principles.

Therefore, humanity at large does not realize that all that science has ever
come to know is the fact that the physical universe consists of an
interreciprocating technology with exquisite design principles, which
consciousness discovers and harnesses to create all human technology. The
great majority of people think that technology is a "new" phenomenon and
identify it with (1) weapons and/or (2) machines, the latter, competing with
them for their jobs. Because of these notions (or misconceptions) and all
the antitechnology propaganda by the mystics and neocheaters, most
people erroneously think that they are against technology, without realizing
that the technology they do not understand and are against is a sine qua
non for achieving never-before-possible prosperity and happiness on Earth.
(Nothing inherent in technology causes environmental pollution. Further
technological advances will soon solve the problem if there is no
government interference.)

Business not only requires a wide integration of knowledge but also is the
integrating force of knowledge. It is in business that various fields of
knowledge meet and together produce values that have never before
existed. It is in business that science and technology bear their fruits and
transform nature into values. It is in business that philosophy meets the
challenge of life and finds its application in the productive sphere of human
life. Therefore, the overspecialization of knowledge that humanity has
experienced since time immemorial and still continues to experience implies
that the function of business in society has been continuously truncated
until today. Furthermore, in the current system of university education,
business itself is seen as a specialized field and taught mostly by professors
who have never been in business themselves. In reality, business is not a
specialized field but a synthesis of other fields of knowledge which
integrates philosophy, science, and technology into a system of value
production encompassing the entire sphere of human existence.

Overspecialization of knowledge, on the one hand, brought about a
scientific/mathematical esotericism that is inaccessible to the general public
and at times divorced from reality, and on the other hand, effected the
truncation of the function and the purpose of business. Neo-Tech, through
its full integration of philosophical principles, reveals a stunningly new
picture of the universe and opens a new path of science that is not only free
of Platonism (a divorce from reality) but also will bring a new
revolution/evolution of scientific knowledge that is accessible to every
conscious being, which, then, in turn will make possible the world-wide
realization of highly advanced technological societies and scientific literacy.
It further reveals an integrated picture of business and its function not only
in human societies but also in the universe. In the final two chapters of this
treatise, the science of the future and the never-before realized purpose of
business are explored.

9. THE NEO-TECH REVOLUTION

Every time knowledge reaches a new height, a whole new dimension of the
unknown unfolds right in front of our eyes. We become aware of a
dimension of the unknown which we previously did not know that we did
not know. Since all of human knowledge is based on finite experience,
there is always a sphere of existence or a dimension of reality that is as yet
unknown. Knowledge perennially begets new dimensions of the unknown,
which in turn begets new realms of knowledge and expands forever into
infinity.

The Copernican Revolution revealed to humanity the fact that there is
absolutely no "up" or "down', "above" or "below" in the universe, nor does
the Sun "rise" or "set" on the Earth. An apple does not fall "down" to the
ground; it simply collides with the surface of the Earth. What then is
gravity? The Copernican Revolution not only totally transformed
humanity's philosophical conception of the universe but also brought to
light a whole new dimension of the unknown and a whole new set of
questions. And the history of science since Copernicus has been that of a
continual unfolding of new discoveries, new unknowns, new questions, and
new realms of knowledge.

The Copernican Revolution laid ground for Newton's discovery of
universal gravitation, which in turn, with other brilliant discoveries, made
possible Einstein's Theory of Relativity and quantum physics of the 20th
century. Beginning with Einstein, physicists around the world began a new
search, an extraordinary intellectual enterprise, to give a complete
description of the foundation of matter, space, and time with a single set of
linked equations that contains the elements of the entire universe -- a
theory formally known as the unification theory or the unified field theory
and referred to, half-humorously, as the Theory of Everything (TOE).
Einstein spent his later life searching for a unification theory -- in vain.
Others in the late 20th century are coming increasingly closer to a TOE in a
strictly physical sense through highly complex manipulations of
mathematical/geometrical formulations such as in the superstring theory.

Within this historical context, Neo-Tech reveals an in toto different, new
unification theory that will mark a new Copernican Revolution of scientific
knowledge: the Neo-Tech Revolution. Throughout the history of science,
consciousness has been seen only as a passive observer and conceptual
integrator of cosmic phenomena, having nothing whatsoever to do with the
destiny of the universe. Some in the field of quantum physics challenge that
notion, and assert that the observer and the observed are inextricably linked
and constitute one unified field or context of reality, and therefore
consciousness could be a participating/ contributing element in the destiny
of the universe.

However, quantum physics, and science in general, lack the crucial
knowledge and system of identification regarding the nature of
consciousness. Thus, while quantum physics is an extremely efficient
mathematical tool in predicting the subatomic phenomena, it fails to
provide a unified theory concerning the nature of reality and the destiny of
the universe. Moreover, some physicists indulge themselves in the mystical
notion of "cosmic consciousness" due, partly, to the lack of knowledge
with respect to consciousness and, mainly, to the philosophical poverty
within the scientific community.

On the basis of Julian Jaynes' discovery and Aristotelian principles, the
Neo-Tech unification theory states that consciousness -- not some "cosmic
consciousness," which does not and cannot exist in reality, but "earthly"
consciousness, which human beings and other conscious beings throughout
the universe possess -- is not only an essential component of reality but also
the dominating force of the universe. The Neo-Tech unification theory
demonstrates, on the basis of Einstein's model of the physical universe, that
only through conscious beings' accumulation, integration and harnessing of
knowledge, and utilization of technology therefrom, can the universe
sustain its cosmic order eternally. And conscious beings sustain the cosmic
order of the universe not just to maintain the universe per se but to sustain
their own existence in the universe. For conscious beings always recognize
the supreme value of individual consciousness within a universe, and
therefore realize that conscious life must be sustained forever.

The Neo-Tech unification theory proves that consciousness is the mightiest
controlling power in the universe and that each conscious being possesses
that mightiest power equally in abundance, regardless of his or her native
intelligence. The pre-eminent feature of this theory is that, even if the
model of the physical universe employed in its exploration -- the long-
wave/short-wave model -- is proved wrong or incorporated into a larger
model, its fundamental thesis will remain eternally true -- for no matter
what the physical or mathematical laws of the universe are, conscious
beings will always discover and harness them to their greatest advantages.
If an imminent annihilation of the physical universe approaches (as the long
wave/short wave model suggests), a conscious being will literally create a
new galaxy to sustain its life and maintain the cosmic order of the universe
(see "We The Creators of Heavens and Earths" by Frank R. Wallace, 1986,
I & 0 Publishing).

The first step toward that mightiest power on Earth is the complete
elimination of mystics and their symbiotic neocheaters. The entire Neo-
Tech literature including this treatise is dedicated to that purpose. The
second step toward that mightiest power on Earth is to achieve commercial
biological immortality. Life, as explored in the fourth chapter, is an
autopoietic-cognitive process, and there is nothing in the nature of life that
dictates that a living system has to perish and die, particularly a conscious
living system such as a human being, for life as such is innately self-
regenerative. Then, why is there the process of aging and the phenomenon
of dying? The process of aging is the result of life's mathematically
inevitable aberration probability of regenerative process. Each cell in the
body continuously copies and recopies (self-regenerates) itself with some
(mathematically inevitable) slight aberrations along the way, and the
accumulation of those aberrations over the years is what is called aging.
When the body is well cared for in a proper environment with proper
nutrition, the aberration probability will be greatly reduced.

When the degree of accumulated aberrations exceeds the degree of
accuracy in regenerative copying, the body ceases to regenerate itself and
eventually dies (death is the cessation of autopoiesis -- self-generation, and
therefore of cognition/consciousness). The aberration probability, generally
speaking, increases gradually as time passes (because the regenerative
mechanism itself is subject to the aberration probability), and the body ages
steadily. However, the aging process can be greatly prolonged and
humanity of the future will be able to live an extremely long life -- probably
three to four hundred years very easily as the technology to measure and
control the aberration probability is developed; and when the probability is
controlled to zero, an individual can literally live forever.

There are several different ways to achieve biological immortality. Human
cloning is one. One is to recreate electrochemically an individual's entire
body, which includes his brain and total information stored therein, by
reducing his integrated physical pattern into a set of mathematical
equations and measuring the balance and quantity of the 92 chemical
components in his body. And then those 92 measured chemical substances
would be electrically reconstructed into an exact replica of his body
through such technologies as advanced nanotechnology. Finally, his
integrated mental pattern would he transferred into his new body
electroholographically. The basic method of electrical
reconstruction/transference can be applied to such purposes as transporting
people to far corners of the universe electrically, or electrotransmitting
mathematically equated integrated patterns of living organisms to an earth-
like planet somewhere in the universe -- to construct a life-environment on
that planet, with the chemical elements available, in order to assure that
conscious beings will eventually be present in a crucial location in the
universe in keeping the cosmic balance and order of the whole universe.

The purpose of biological immortality, however, is not merely to
reconstruct one's body and the information stored therein but to preserve
the self, the conscious core of one's being, what Frank R. Wallace calls the
sense of I-ness. The self is the metaphysical/epistemological axis within the
entire sphere of consciousness in relation to which all the information
stored in the brain is structurally integrated. Through self-consciousness,
the universe becomes divided into the self and the nonself, and experience
begins. (Experience is the complex awareness of self coexisting with all the
nonself.) The sense of I-ness sets consciousness in motion. It is the core of
consciousness' autopoiesis; it is the autopoiesis. Therefore, the I-ness
cannot be reconstructed by any means externally; it can only be transferred
to trigger autopoiesis -- and here lies the greatest technological challenge
of biological immortality.

Consciousness does not age, because it is not a physical living process that
regenerates to exist but a metaphysical phenomenon that generates itself
solely through metaphysical concepts and principles, albeit it requires a
living conscious agent to sustain its existence. For the self-interest of a
conscious being, his or her own conscious life of rational necessity
becomes the highest value, the supreme cause, in the whole universe.
Therefore, his or her conscious life must always be sustained. The
sustenance of conscious existence with the sense of I-ness and all of one's
character/personality traits, thus, becomes the highest and the ultimate
moral purpose of every conscious being living anywhere in the universe.
Therefore, the purpose of biological immortality is to preserve oneself for
the sake of oneself to achieve ever higher prosperity and happiness for
oneself forever (see "Three Steps To Achieving Commercial Biological
Immortality In Our Lifetime" by Frank R. Wallace, t & 0 Publishing).

Moreover, once commercial biological immortality becomes a reality, each
conscious being's knowledge will infinitely expand, first accelerating at a
tremendous rate of geometrical progression, and then eventually at the
speed of light. Thus, the realization of commercial biological immortality
serves the destiny of the whole universe as well. The achievement of
commercial biological immortality indeed is the utmost moral purpose of
present humanity on Earth. And the complete eradication of mysticism,
internal as welt as external, and of neocheating around the world, is an
extremely urgent issue facing every man and woman on this planet today.
For mysticism and neocheating are the only obstacles to the achievement of
commercial biological immortality and all other life enhancing values that
exist and will ever exist in the universe.

Through the eradication of mysticism and its symbiotic neocheaters, and
the subsequent achievement of commercial biological immortality,
humanity will begin to fulfill its cosmic function as the local information
gatherer, knowledge integrator, and problem solver of the universe. Thus,
through the realization of commercial biological immortality on the planet
Earth, humanity can join the ranks of other highly advanced conscious
beings existing throughout the universe who have not only achieved
biological immortality but who have also attained the power for controlling
the eternal destiny of the universe and for reigning over infinity.

Existence is not intertransformable with nonexistence; existence does not
turn into nonexistence nor does nonexistence turn into existence.
Therefore, the axiomatic fact of reality that existence exists proves that
existence is eternal and infinite. Thus, the universe -- the complex
aggregate of all consciously apprehended and communicated experiences
of events in existence -- is actually eternal and potentially infinite. That
means the universe has never had a beginning nor will it ever have an
ending, nor can it possibly have any beginning or ending.

Given the infinity of existence and its eternal span of time, what is
theoretically possible will occur infinite times in actuality. The fact that
conscious beings exist on the planet Earth unequivocally proves that there
have been and there will be billions upon billions of conscious beings
existing throughout the universe. Moreover, the fact that commercial
biological immortality is theoretically possible further proves that there
have been and will be millions upon millions of conscious beings living
eternally.

Conscious beings' accumulation of knowledge increases, first at a
geometrical progression rate, then eventually at the speed of light. Thus,
their power for controlling the universe and its destiny also increases at a
tremendous rate. Therefore, the amount of knowledge and power that
might be possessed by conscious beings who have achieved commercial
biological immortality millions of years ago is totally beyond the
imagination of current humanity on Earth. And probability statistics
indicate that these highly advanced conscious beings exist not by the few
but by the billions.

Furthermore, it is logically predicated that many of those highly advanced
conscious beings have attained the power to control the entire universe,
and that the universe is virtually run by them. For, as mentioned before,
given an infinite span of time, what is theoretically possible will occur
infinite times. Those conscious beings not only control the existing universe
but also can freely create new universes, whereby infinitely expanding the
realms of existence forever. The universe is the eternal scenario of
existence written by those highly evolved conscious beings that exist
throughout the whole universe. Through the achievement of commercial
biological immortality on Earth, we, too, will someday be able to write the
scenario of our own universe.

Neo-Tech is the name given on the planet. Earth to the primordial essence
of all knowledge that conscious beings can ever possess anywhere in the
universe. And the primordial essence of the universe-controlling power that
conscious beings will eventually claim is Neothink. Perceptivity-centered
consciousness incorporates the present with the past in the context of the
past. Conceptuality-centered consciousness incorporates the past with the
present in the context of the present. While these two modalities are
inherently fragmented and can never reach the universe-controlling power,
Neothink integrates the future with the present and the past; it integrates
the entirety of time -- the future, the present, and the past, i.e., eternity.
Neothink also integrates the unknown with the known; it integrates the
entirety of existence, i.e., infinity.

What is Neothink? Neothink is the ultimate modality of conscious
intellection that generates the context-creating matrices through which all
groundbreaking integrations of knowledge can occur. Contexts define the
structure of integration, and context generation is the finest function of
consciousness. Neothink brings into existence a vast integration of
knowledge that would be impossible for the other two modalities of
consciousness, i.e., perceptivity-centered and conceptuality-centered
modalities, precisely because the Neothink integration of knowledge is
accomplished in a self-created context. Perceptivity-centered consciousness
has no context at all. Conceptuality-centered consciousness integrates
knowledge only in an existing context. It is Neothink that takes knowledge
into new dimensions of integration by continually defining ever larger and
finer contexts.

The great thinkers are distinguished not by their intelligence but by their
ability to create a new context. In science, Newton and Einstein are the two
greatest Neothinkers of modern history because they could create the
fundamental contexts that determined the entire course of subsequent
scientific development. In philosophy, Aristotle and Plato are the two
greatest Neothinkers because they created the two fundamental contexts,
albeit radically opposing, that determined the course not only of philosophy
but of the entire history of mankind. (Aristotle defined the context for
reality identification/integration, whereas Plato defined the context for
nonreality generation/rationalization.)

Neothink is amoral. That is why some of the greatest Neothinkers such as
Plato and Kant are master neocheaters. Neo-Tech is the first conceptual
matrix for Neothink formation that is designed to counteract and overcome
the force of Neothink-neocheaters. Neothink is intellectual nuclear power;
it can destroy values and annihilate humanity completely if employed by
master neocheaters, or it can bring eternal happiness to humanity and
transform the universe forever if employed by Neo-Tech individuals. Thus,
for the benefit of all humanity, it is urgent that Neo-Tech, the voice of fully
integrated honesty, be heard and understood, and evolve into the Neo-
Tech/Neothink matrix.

Context creation is the finest form of integration; it is the integration of
integrations. Neothink is a two directional vector, as it were, whose two
distinct magnitudes represent potential eternity and infinity. Context
creation, the integration of integrations, moves into two directions by
increasing its magnitudes ever closer, in one direction, to eternity and, in
another, to infinity. As the zero yields infinity when it divides a given
number, Neo-Tech, the philosophical zero, brings infinity and eternity into
the realm of cognition when it captures the facts of reality in its fully
integrated matrix/context. Hence, the Neo-Tech/Neothink matrix is the
finest and the vastest context-creating matrix-structure whose
infinity/eternity grasping power can far surpass and thus can soon collapse
the neocheating/ Neothink matrix of master neocheaters.

By fully integrating Neo-Tech knowledge while dispelling mysticism and
transcending both perceptivity-centered and conceptuality-centered
modalities...by entering the sphere of Neothink, humanity will be able to
realize that the universe is an eternally regenerative scenario composed and
directed by conscious beings, and consisting of intricate interactions of
eternal design principles that exist as the totality of eternally
noncontradictory abstractions, i.e., as objective and immutable reality. It is
truly remarkable that conscious beings should be able to comprehend these
inexhaustible eternal design principles of the universe and immensely fine
abstractions of reality, and, with Neothink, to control the manifest destiny
of cosmic existence. And through its faultless logic, Neo-Tech eloquently
demonstrates that consciousness, this infinite capacity to know and control,
along with its growth into Neothink, is not an accident but an essential
component of the eternal design of the cosmos.

With Neothink, conscious beings begin to fulfill their destiny. With
Neothink, conscious beings begin to control or alter the manifest destiny of
the universe. The Neothink consciousness is not only the conceptual
integrator of the universe's design principles but also becomes the prime
designer of the cosmos. Neo-Tech, the philosophical zero, made possible
the dawn of Neothink, the rebirth of human consciousness to
unprecedented heights and into full maturity. Now, consciousness on Earth
begins a new journey toward the evolution, a mighty power without end --
the eternal journey and unfoldment of the Neo-Tech Revolution/Evolution.
And the whole romance of that eternal cosmic Neo-Tech journey is called
BUSINESS.

10. THE UNIVERSE, INC.

Business is the integrated circuit of consciousness designed to produce
values. Value is the actualized knowledge that protects, nurtures, supports,
or accommodates all growing needs of life. The process of value
production consists of four stages: (1) metaphysically conceiving potential
values -- the conception stage; (2) metaphysically/physically developing
working models of previously conceived potential values -- the
development stage; (3) physically mass producing previously developed
product-models -- the production stage; (4) physically mass marketing
product-values for consumption -- the marketing stage.

The process of value production is a tetrahedral system (time-tetrahedron)
that divides the universe into that which is relevant and that which is
nonrelevant to the production of particular values. That which is relevant
to the production of particular values includes: all the information and
knowledge that are required; all the individuals who possess the
information, knowledge, or skills that are required; and all the physical
materials, equipment, space, and time that are needed to produce particular
values.

Each stage of value production -- each vertex of the time-tetrahedron --
has a unique value-index which increases geometrically as the process of
value production evolves from one stage to the next. (The Value-Scale was
first identified by Frank R. Wallace -- the following is a version devised by
the author of this treatise):

VALUE-SCALE

Stage/Vertex Value-Index Value

The conception stage/Vertex I 10^0 10^0 X

The development stage/Vertex 2 10^I l0^I X

The production stage/Vertex 3 10^2 10^2 X

The marketing stage/Vertex 4 l0^3 10^3 X

X = potential value of a product

Business is the integrated circuit of consciousness in which these four
stages of value production take place. The integrated circuitry of business
is a system (space-tetrahedron, which consists of four vertices the
individual, the corporate, the world, and the universe vertices) that
integrates the energy configurations of the universe into a value-producing
machine. Production of value is the process of transforming physical/mental
energy into a physical product of physical/metaphysical value, wherefore,
productivity is the function of efficacy in transforming energy into product.
Productivity means the efficient use of energy or the economics of energy.
Productivity is in inverse proportion to the amount of energy unconverted
into a product of value. The maximization of productivity, therefore,
ultimately means to bring energy-waste to zero.

Energy has patterns, and different tasks consist of different energy-
patterns. For instance, writing an article or a book requires a unique
integration of energy-patterns that is distinctly different from that of
accounting, participating in meetings, or making phone calls. When one
mixes two or more different integrations of energy-patterns together by
shifting from one task to another or from one responsibility to another
without any control structure, interferences of energy occur, and energy
becomes wasted without ever being converted into a product of value. This
happens at all four vertices of the space-tetrahedron in the individual
vertex, the corporate vertex, the world vertex, and the universe vertex.

Numerous attempts have been made to discover the Neo-Tech law of
productivity operating at every vertex of business or the space-tetrahedron
-- the law of minimizing the interferences of energy in the organization of
business. Productive individuals from time to time get a glimpse of the law
at a personal level at their individual vertices. Productive CEOs from time
to time come to realize the law at their personal and corporate levels -- at
their individual and corporate vertices. Super productive industrial giants,
such as Jay Gould and Henry Ford, from time to time discover the law at a
personal, corporate, and world level -- at individual, corporate, and world
vertices. Creative scientists, such as Newton and Einstein, from time to
time identify the law at a universe level -- at their universe vertices (in the
form of the laws of physics or the natural economics of the universe).

However, no system of knowledge or field of science has ever fathomed
and comprehensively identified the law of productivity at all four vertices
of business space-tetrahedron. Business is the highest expression of
consciousness and the most integrated form of technology through which
the integrity of the universe is forever maintained -- through which
conscious beings transform nature into values and control the eternal
destiny of the cosmos. Before Neo-Tech and Neothink, no one understood
the cosmic significance of business and, consequently, no one was able to
unleash the power of business to its fullest, for no one knew what
consciousness is and what relationship it has to/with the rest of the
universe. And now, the Neo-Tech knowledge takes every man and woman
to the summit of consciousness -- business integration; and Neothink lets
every business unleash its immense power to the fullest and transforms the
entire universe into THE UNIVERSE, INC.

Business is the integrated circuit of consciousness designed to produce
values -- to transform nature's technology (the physical universe) into
values. The physical universe is the aggregate of energy configurations in
existence. Every configuration of energy is a unique energy-pattern with its
own set of separately unique frequencies. For instance, each chemical
element is uniquely identifiable in the electromagnetic spectrum by its own
set of unique frequencies. None of the 92 chemical elements thus far
discovered in nature is the same as any of the others in its individual set of
frequencies. Now, as the physical universe consists of 92 indivisible
chemical elements, the whole mechanics of business can be seen as an
interactive combination of unique sets of indivisible physical movements.
That is, the entire process of business can be divided into unique sets of
indivisible physical movements. (Physical movements of business were first
identified by Mark Hamilton in his "Neo-Tech Control.")

A phone call as a physical movement is a unique and indivisible physical
movement regardless of for whom it is intended and to what project it
belongs. Similarly, letter writing, copy writing, accounting, and meeting
participation can all be seen as unique, indivisible physical movements. By
dividing the process of business into its fundamental physical units -- sets
of indivisible physical movements -- the interferences of energy in business
can be greatly reduced and, as a result, the availability and the
concentration of energy can he immensely increased. This is the first
principle of the Neo-Tech law of productivity: Divide the process of
business into its fundamental units or sets of indivisible physical movements
-- The Principle of Division This principle applies to all four vertices of the
business space-tetrahedron (see "Neo-Tech Control" by Mark Hamilton, I
& 0 Publishing).

Having divided the process of business into its fundamental units of
physical movements, in order to produce a maximum effect, these units
must be combined, within the flow of time, into an integrated whole. In
nature, two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom produce one
water molecule (2H + o = H2o). The nature or behavior of the final
product (a water molecule) is totally unpredictable from the natures or
behaviors of its components (hydrogen and oxygen atoms) taken separately
(the principle of synergy). In metallurgy, a combination of iron, chromium,
nickel, and other minor elements (carbon, manganese, and others) produces
an alloy -- chrome-nickel-steel. The tensile strength of iron is about 60,000
pounds per square inch (p.s.i.), of chromium about 70,000 p.s.i., of nickel
about 80,000 p.s.i., and of other minor constituents put together about
50,000 p.s.i. However, the tensile strength of chrome-nickel-steel, which is
about 350,000 p.s.i., far exceeds the average tensile strength of all the
constituents combined (about 65,000 p.s.i.). This is another example of the
synergetic phenomenon.

Similarly, in combining all the sets of unique physical movements, the effect
or the outcome of integrating the fundamental units is synergetic and
totally unpredictable from the separate effect of each set of physical
movements. However, through experience, one can find the most effective
or powerful combination/integration that produces the greatest result in
his/her work or business. The designed structure of the most effective
combination is termed the control structure of business. Furthermore, each
day of one's work or each division/function of a company is a uniquely
indivisible unit of physical movements, and the control structure should be
applied to one's long-range career or a company's wide-range business
integration. This is the second principle of the Neo-Tech law of
productivity: Integrate the units of physical movements to produce
maximum synergetic effects or results through a control structure -- The
Principle of Synergetic Integration. This principle applies to all four
vertices of the business space-tetrahedron.

The third principle of the Neo-Tech law of productivity is concerned with
the integration of the future with the totality of the present and the past,
and requires Neothink. The success of a business is always dependent upon
the creation of new values, and the creation of new values is dependent
upon one's ability to see what is not. For example, Henry Ford saw early in
his life that automobiles were not in use as a means of transportation in the
world. The means of transportation was the horse. What was not was an
affordable automobile that would replace a horse forever. Henry Ford,
through his Neothink ingenuity, convened what was not into what was. His
division of labor/assembly line concept was another example of his
Neothink ingenuity. Frank R. Wallace realized that there was no science or
technology for identifying neocheaters and their secret weapons. The
product of his Neothink applications was Neo-Tech.

The future of every business depends upon one's ability to create the future
-- the ability to see what is not. And that ability is Neothink. After
integrating the entire physical process of business through the control
structure, one must look into the future and integrate it with the present
business-movement to create new values by converting what is not into
what is. The conversion of what is not into what is requires an enormously
vast integration of knowledge and an effective application of Neothink. The
presence of mysticism within a business severely limits its ability to create
and integrate the future. Where there is mysticism, there is no integrated
business, no effective value production, and no Neothink. The third
principle of the Neo-Tech law of productivity, therefore, is: The Principle
of Future-Integration. This principle applies to all four vertices of the
business space-tetrahedron.

The fourth principle of the Neo-Tech law of productivity is: The Principle
of Contextual Integration. As mentioned in previous chapters, Neothink
integrates not only the future with the present and the past but also the
unknown with all the known. Neothink is the contextuality-centered
modality of consciousness in which the considerations of the whole
system/context precede the considerations of its subsystems/subcontexts.
The fourth principle of the Neo-Tech law of productivity -- the Principle of
Contextual Integration means that business, in order to maximize the
quality and quantity of value production, must begin with a consideration
of the whole business context before considering its component-parts. The
largest whole context in existence is the universe physically, and
consciousness metaphysically. That is why it is imperative to capture the
universe conceptually and comprehend the inner mechanics of
consciousness. Before Neo-Tech/Neothink, no one was ever able to fully
grasp the nature of the universe and understand consciousness. And that is
the very reason why no business could ever achieve the ultimate in business
integration and productivity. With Neo-Tech/Neothink, business will soar
to new heights of integration and productivity.

In a business context, all four vertices of the space-tetrahedron are
integrated with the law of productivity and the energy-interference in
business is brought, in essence, to zero, the time-tetrahedron becomes
interlocked with the space-tetrahedron and the universe emerges as THE
UNIVERSE, INC. Business becomes the whole energy-configurations of
the entire universe, and consciousness begins to control the eternal destiny
of the cosmos. Neo-Tech/Neothink integration of consciousness will then
dominate the course of the cosmos, and nature's technology -- the physical
universe -- will be transformed into the technology of conscious beings.

The Neo-Tech Revolution in essence is the emergence of THE
UNIVERSE, INC. with Neothink as the highest integration of the business
mind. With the rise of Neo-Tech in the world, business will flourish in its
full glory. The center of scientific/technological
research/development/revolution will shift from the academe into the
business community. In fact, the academe will be absorbed into the
business community, becoming a part of the Neo-Tech/Neothink
integration of business. In the future Neo-Tech/Neothink universe, no one
will be able to survive successfully without the business integration of Neo-
Tech and the business application of Neothink, and without being a fully
integrated producer of increasingly higher values.

Great days are coming, and a great eternity is commencing for those who
choose life over death, honesty over dishonesty, effort over laziness --
Neo-Tech over mysticism and neocheating. But for those who choose
death over life, dishonesty over honesty, laziness over effort mysticism and
neocheating over Neo-Tech, their days are numbered. For those who strive
for honesty, knowledge, prosperity, and happiness while producing ever
higher values for others, the possibilities are infinite. The whole universe
awaits the transformation into values. For those who strive for nothing
while usurping and extracting ever more values from others, no possibility
is left but death and the universe turns into emptiness, void -- the barren
nothingness of the existentialist. No one can escape the powerful wave of
the Neo-Tech Revolution/Evolution unchanged. One will either perish into
darkness by choosing to remain a mystic or neocheater, or by choosing
Neo-Tech/Neothink to become a true producer of values, evolve into a
shining sun of consciousness around which the whole universe revolves.
There is a choice -- a choice between life and death, between Neo-
Tech/Neothink and mysticism/neocheating -- between the ultimate value
and the ultimate disvalue...the choice that every conscious being must now
make.

EPILOGUE

Three and a half million years have passed since humanity first appeared on
this planet, and 3000 years since the dawn of conscious life. Over the
millennia, humanity has acquired an enormous amount of knowledge and
produced a universe of values. It is totally beyond our imagination how
much advancement in knowledge we may make and how much more value
we may produce in 3000 years or three and a half million years from today.
It is utterly awe-inspiring to think about what knowledge, what technology,
what power we will have to control the destiny of our universe in 3000 or
three and a half million years. As the geocentric concept or even the
heliocentric system now appears to us as primitive and moribund, our
present knowledge and technology will appear totally primitive and
obsolete to the humanity of those distant futures. However, that future
humanity could be us Neo-Tech men and women -- today living on the
beautiful planet we call the Earth.

Three and a half million years from now, we will still remember the time
when the Neo-Tech Revolution began. We will recall the time before the
Revolution when people still had to submit to neocheaters and die.

We will then remember the time when the mystics and neocheaters around
the world finally surrendered to the power of the Neo-Tech wave, and the
time when humanity achieved its first commercial biological immortality.
We will know then that the source which made the Revolution possible still
remains the source, the entire source, of our knowledge and journey into
the unknown, forevermore. We will say to ourselves...

"Still in our hands are the copies of a manuscript that made it all possible.
It still stands at the pinnacle of our knowledge. After these three and a half
million years, after we have long achieved the speed-of-light acceleration of
human knowledge, it still remains the primordial essence of our knowledge.
Therefore, we keep this manuscript in token of what we have accomplished
ever since and what we can achieve henceforth. We keep this manuscript in
celebration of our forever-growing happiness and prosperity, and of our
eternal life at the center of the universe -- in the office of THE
UNIVERSE, INC. The name of this manuscript is NEO-TECH -- THE
PRIMORDIAL ESSENCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE AND POWER."

Nicholas Rich
http://www.ss-n.com

Justice, when it comes, is often mistaken for the enemy.
This is the root of all dishonesty. -me

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <pkittyDr...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>Whether that makes it properly 'relevant', though, depends on your
>definition of relevant, and your PoV. Betsy might define 'relevant' as
>'near-perfectly compatible with Ayn-Randian Objectivism' and her PoV is
>that it isn't. You might define 'relevant' as 'related to Objectivism, in
>all of its forms', and your PoV is that it certainly is. My PoV? I tried
>the Arch Deluxe and found that all the built-up hype ended up turning
>what would be an average burger into a big letdown. McDonald's sucks.

Yeah, but you goota admit, it's better than the Big Mac?

But I'll still take a Wendy's or Bk Whopper Double (w/ cheese) any day.

[Bruce Baugh]

In article <4o1vgm$n...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich)
wrote:

<snip>

Twenty-four hundred lines of material, none of which actually address
anything at issue in the news.groups debate. Pretty impressive. Not in a
good way, though.

Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4o2mds$tg_...@marid.friedlander-bey.org>, br...@aracnet.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>In article <4o1vgm$n...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Twenty-four hundred lines of material, none of which actually address
>anything at issue in the news.groups debate. Pretty impressive. Not in a
>good way, though.

I beg to differ.

Let me go over it beiefly. Feel free to fill in the blanks. A big part of
the hpo debate is and has been *Neo-Tech.* There have been charges of
net-abuse, some of which has ocurred in small scale. But the biggest issue
has been that of topicality. It has been specifically asserted many times by
leading proponets of the hpo charter that Neo-Tech is "off-topic" for any
Objectivist NG, and on hpo specifically. I have posted irrefutable evidence
many times that such a statement is just part of the "Big Lie."

My challenges of this lie have gone completely and entirely unanswered in
any rational manner. And it's not really as though I care. But....

..Therefore, when such issues come up during the discussion process
concerning the CFV, I have ever justification for (once again) providing
proof to the contrary of the lie.

..

[and will continue to do so in spite of protestations to the contrary]

..

[good day]

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:

>Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
>
>: Of course what is really going on here is the technique of attempting to
>: destroy someone through faint-praise and false flattery, combined with
>: fundamental attacks on their honesty, integrity, motives, etc.
>
>: Exactly the kind of sleazy, disreputable tactics one would expect from
>: followers of a cult which started out as a system for cheating at poker.

From Page VI of the introduction to "The Advanced Concepts of Poker:"

"The 'Advanced Concepts of Poker' are objective and realistic. Many involve
deception. Some are ruthless. A few are immoral*. Know them and be wiser.
Apply them and get rich**.

* None of the 'Advanced Concepts of Poker' employ cheating, but a few are
immoral because they involve deception outside of the poker game. The good
player, however, does not need to use a single immoral concept to achieve
his goals. So why include immoral concepts? This book is a definitive
treatment of poker and, therefore, all concepts are included. Also by
identifying the immoral concepts, the reader can recognize them and take
defensive measures when such concepts are used against him.

** This book identifies the true nature of winning poker as a highly
profitable but a time-consuming nonproductive activity that requires
bringing out the worst in one's opponents. In certain cases, therefore,
poker can work against the good player's self-esteem and happiness no matter
how much he wins."

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4o6co1$l...@acara.snsnet.net>, tv...@foo.garply.com (T. Cabellero)

wrote:
>Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
>

>: And no private organization or collective can censor (unless they resort to
>: force, in which case, the law can be summoned) -- censorship is a concept
>: only applicable to the government, because only the government has a
>: monopoly on the use of force. Ayn Rand has covered this issue in detail in
>: here books, and I also cover this issue in my speech "Freedom or
>: Censorship" available on my web site.
>
>Apparently you did not understand Rand's position on censorship or
>are taking it out of context in a feeble attempt to justify private
>censorship. While private censorship of opposing views in a forum of
>debate is not immoral it is indeed irrational, which was the crux of
>my argument. The desire to censor (and yes it is possible for private
>organizations to censor, though without moral malfeasance) any message
>that mentions Neo-Tech, as Betsy and others have suggested, amounts to
>the ultimate in irrationality. Such cannot be the position of an
>objectivist, but of an irrational dogmatist who assumes infallibility.
>
>See John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" if you still don't understand.

Oh, but you see, Mr. Cabellero, they've got that covered by definition. See,
it's ok, and not irrational to limit a forum to a certain theme. Obviously,
it's not irrational to bar someone wanting to talk concretely about auto
repair in a philosophy foum (unless it's being used as an object lesson).

How is it covered? A two-step:

1. Net-abuse.
2. Topicality.

The net-abuse excuse cannot be upheld rationally--regardless of any past
events. And they've admitted this by removing from the original proposed
chater an initial blacklist banning all known NT posters.

So, what do they do? They say that it's off-topic. Simple. You just define it
out of existence. And in spite of the megs of stuff I could post which have
directly to do with Rand/Objectivism, NT's interpretations therof and
applications, It goes ignored. Or, they say: but HPO is a forum with a certain
identity--to study objectivism and exclude NT. That is irrational and evasive.
Whether they like it or not, today, an examination of the Objectivist
philosophy includes not only the ideas of Rand, but of Peikoff, Kelley,
Libertarian scholars, Anarcho-Capitalis scholars, and Wallace. Yes, they are
the ideas of Rand, but others have made contributions, some more valueable
than others.

If they wanted it to look less like evasion, they would have barred discussion
of _any_ and _all_ philosophies which they claim contradict Objectivism.

This is why I voted YES on the proposal. They will be reminded of their
evasion for evermore. And then, they'll be reminded of evading the
identification of evasion, and so on.

These are facts of reality which are unavoidable.

Another funny thing to take note of is how those on apo normally recognized by
me to be staunch appliers of principle (guys like Tim Starr, Steve Reed, and
others) gripe about the *mechanism* of exclusion. Well, how in the world did
they identify it as such? Could it be they identified it as such because, in
spite of what they may think about NT, they saw the ban for what it was--an
evasion? So why talk about a potential (banning Kelleyites, A-Cs, Libs), when
an *actual* example already exists.

I wouldn't have minded if they had said something like: ok, posts can be no
longer than xk, the same text can be posted no more frequently than once
every x weeks, and all follow-ups and threads must contain largely original
material--pre written articles and such can only be posted as original
threads, and then only within the acceptable frequency. That's rational.

Banning the mention of NT on hpo is irrational and evasive. Period.

--
Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com>
Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com

(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.html)

"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need
you." --Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED

[Billy Beck]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>Banning the mention of NT on hpo is irrational and evasive. Period.

...and it's only one step removed from banning anarcho-capitalists
(regardless of the implications of Rand's ideas to the discussion),
libertarians (likewise regardless of the influence of Rand's thoughts,
usually and arbitrarily dismissed without reference to facts -
consider Hospers as notable example), etc.

It's a bad idea, whose time has come.

Billy

http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96

[T. Cabellero]

Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
: In article <4o6co1$l...@acara.snsnet.net>,

: tv...@foo.garply.com (T. Cabellero) wrote:
: >Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
: >
: >: And no private organization or collective can censor (unless they resort
: >: to force, in which case, the law can be summoned) -- censorship is a
: >: concept only applicable to the government, because only the government
: >: has a monopoly on the use of force. Ayn Rand has covered this issue in
: >: detail in here books, and I also cover this issue in my speech "Freedom
: >: or Censorship" available on my web site.
: >
: >Apparently you did not understand Rand's position on censorship or
: >are taking it out of context in a feeble attempt to justify private
: >censorship. While private censorship of opposing views in a forum of
: >debate is not immoral it is indeed irrational, which was the crux of
: >my argument. The desire to censor (and yes it is possible for private
: >organizations to censor, though without moral malfeasance) any message
: >that mentions Neo-Tech, as Betsy and others have suggested, amounts to
: >the ultimate in irrationality. Such cannot be the position of an
: >objectivist, but of an irrational dogmatist who assumes infallibility.
: >
: >See John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" if you still don't understand.

: Perhaps Mr. Cabellero would care to offer us some evidence of the idea that
: Objectivism considers the exercising of one's rights to associate as
: being "censorship".

So, you still don't get it...I'll try to make it simpler...

: Here are some representative quotes from Ayn Rand on this subject (square
: brackets indicate my own comments):

: "'Censorship' is a term pertaining only to governmental
: action. No private action is censorship. No private individual
: or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the
: government can do so. The freedom of speech of private indiv-
: iduals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not
: to finance one's own : action. No private action is censorship.

It is clear here to me that Rand is merely making the point that IMMORAL
censorship can only occur through initiation of force. I can see how
she has confused you. Censorship is simply the prohibition of the publication
of something; consult any dictionary. If you don't wish to use the word
"censorship" as the variable to hold that definition, that is fine; find
another word. But, you cannot deny that it is possible for private
individuals (acting without initiation of force) to "suppress a publication"
on his private property. I'm sure that Rand didn't mean to imply that
such a thing was impossible, and I'm sure she would have revised her
wording after seeing you trying to use her words to claim that it is
rational to forbid an opposing voice from speaking in a debate.
Rand's presentation is quite sloppy in my opinion, as evidenced by
your confusion.

: obviously, the right to associate with whomever one chooses, and
: most especially, the right *not* to associate with one's enemies.
: -- BA] ...

: "For years, the collectivists [Mr. Cabellero??] have been
: propagating the notion that a private individual's refusual to
: finance [add: sanction or sponsor] an opponent is a violation
: of the opponent's right of free speech and an act of 'censorship.'

I've consistently made it clear that I do not believe that the forbidding
the posts of any message mentioning Neo-Tech is a violation of free speech.
Why you continue to think that that is my argument is quite strange, and
I think due to confusion with the word "censorship." My argument is
simply that it is irrational.

: ... [This collectivist notion] means that the ability to provide
: the material tools for the expression of ideas [including the
: creation and operation of an Internet newsgroup] deprives a man
: of the right to hold any ideas. ... It means that one group of
: men [NT'ers??] acquires the 'right' to unlimited license --
: while another group [Objectivists and admirers of Ayn Rand] is
: reduced to helpless irresponsibility.
:
: "Man's Rights" Virtue of Selfishness, p 98.

: "So long as people evade the difference between economic
: power and political power, between a private choice and a
: government order, between intellectual persuasion and physical
: force -- Mr. Minnow [then Chairman of the F.C.C.] has reason
: to assume that he can safely stretch their evasions all the
: way to the ultimate inversion: to the claim that a *private*
: action is coercion, but a *government* action is freedom."

I have no argument against this. So, please cease pretending that I
do.

To recapitulate, the forbidding of the publication of certain materials
is possible both by private entities and governments...if you dare deny
then I think I've lost all hope on bringing you to reality. For it is
obvious that it is possible to forbid the posting of usenet messages
that mention Neo-Tech on the proposed new newsgroup. The difference between
the two types of forbidding (since using the word "censorship" will
confuse you) is that the private type is not immoral and the government
type is immoral (because the latter is initiation of force while the
former is not). But, both are irrational in the context of debate.
I'm not sure I can be any simpler for you.

If you wish to argue against these concepts, then please do so. Arguing about
the definition of a word is not going to be very productive.

: >: >"Save me from the Randians" -Ayn Rand

Ayn, I'm trying!

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4o7u0o$1v...@mule2.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:

> It's a bad idea, whose time has come.

Well, at least we both seem to grasp this principle.

Vote YES on HPO.

[THINK99999]

Well, you see, this is the anticivilization.

From: nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Date: Sat, 25 May 96 15:46:26 GMT

In article <4o6co1$l...@acara.snsnet.net>, tv...@foo.garply.com (T.
Cabellero)
wrote:
>Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
>
>: And no private organization or collective can censor (unless they
resort to
>: force, in which case, the law can be summoned) -- censorship is a
concept
>: only applicable to the government, because only the government has a
>: monopoly on the use of force. Ayn Rand has covered this issue in detail
in
>: here books, and I also cover this issue in my speech "Freedom or
>: Censorship" available on my web site.
>
>Apparently you did not understand Rand's position on censorship or
>are taking it out of context in a feeble attempt to justify private
>censorship. While private censorship of opposing views in a forum of
>debate is not immoral it is indeed irrational, which was the crux of
>my argument. The desire to censor (and yes it is possible for private

>organizations to censor, though without moral malfeasance) any others

[Pee Kitty]

Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:

: In article <pkittyDr...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

: >Whether that makes it properly 'relevant', though, depends on your
: >definition of relevant, and your PoV. Betsy might define 'relevant' as
: >'near-perfectly compatible with Ayn-Randian Objectivism' and her PoV is
: >that it isn't. You might define 'relevant' as 'related to Objectivism, in
: >all of its forms', and your PoV is that it certainly is. My PoV? I tried
: >the Arch Deluxe and found that all the built-up hype ended up turning
: >what would be an average burger into a big letdown. McDonald's sucks.

: Yeah, but you goota admit, it's better than the Big Mac?

Yup, but hell, anything WOULD be!

: But I'll still take a Wendy's or Bk Whopper Double (w/ cheese) any day.

Dunno about your area, but Whoppers are $.99, and WDoubles are $1.99!
That makes it cheaper to buy TWO Whoppers than a WDouble! Weird, huh?

(BTW, don't ever eat Wendy's chili...very nasty...)

[Lionell Griffith]

Matt Keys wrote:
>
> Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
> : I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating
> : Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
> : the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
> : entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
> : concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
> : is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
> : reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
> : based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
> : have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
> : position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
> : with no further discussion.
>
> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

See my comments above. The arbitrary, the irrational, unfounded
and unsupported assertions, and logical fallicies cannot be
answered rationally. They must simply be identified and rejected.

Your ramblings took ten pages to print. The 32 bit version of
Netscape was not able to load its entirety into its mail tool.
I was not even able to edit the fragment that it loaded.

Stop the assertions. Stop the recitation of meaningless formulii.
Stop presenting your ideas as a mass of incoherant and confused words.
Stop attacking people. Stop dropping names.

Address IDEAS. Discuss IDEAS. Offer evidence. Offer proof.

Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion
of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
ideas.

PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

If you can do this, then a thoughtful, rational response can be given.
If you cannot do this, then I have no further interest in continuing
this discussion.

Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer
it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
deliver or get lost!

[Pee Kitty]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: Your ramblings took ten pages to print. The 32 bit version of

: Netscape was not able to load its entirety into its mail tool.
: I was not even able to edit the fragment that it loaded.

: Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion

: of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

: In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

: PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
: ideas.

: PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

: Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer

: it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
: Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
: deliver or get lost!

To Lionell: At least there's a silver lining; this revealed a flaw in
Netscape's design...maybe you should try a different browser? OBTW, I
think the point Matt was trying to make is that to understand why they're
relevant, you have to understand Neo-Tech, and he was trying to make it
easy for you to read up on it. But you're NOT the first to complain that
it's long, boring, and (mainly) convoluted and hard as hell to grok.

To NTP and the other Zonners: Have you guys considered putting up an
English translation of the NT stuff? As written, they are very difficult
to understand unless you're willing to spend SEVERAL hours reading, to
get used to the style and reference all the neo-words that keep getting
coined. Most people to whom you post these 10-page 'summaries' are NOT
willing to spend the hour or so trying to fully grok that NT groove. I
know that a lot of the style is influenced by the idea that it'll bring
in the mystics and get-rich-quick-wannabes...but MANY people online are
NOT like that. Why not strip the basics down, with only a MINIMUM of
neo-words and a simple, straightforward writing style, so maybe the
people you're trying to 'get through to' will actually READ the stuff and
maybe learn where you're coming from?

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <31ABE9...@qnet.com>, Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:

>Matt Keys wrote:
>>
>> Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>> : I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating
>> : Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
>> : the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
>> : entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
>> : concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
>> : is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
>> : reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
>> : based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
>> : have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
>> : position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
>> : with no further discussion.
>>
>> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
>> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?
>

>See my comments above. The arbitrary, the irrational, unfounded
>and unsupported assertions, and logical fallicies cannot be
>answered rationally. They must simply be identified and rejected.

Your "comments above" are not:

> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

>Your ramblings took ten pages to print. The 32 bit version of

>Netscape was not able to load its entirety into its mail tool.
>I was not even able to edit the fragment that it loaded.

So you're an inept user. Why blame that on others? I've successfully
downloaded the essay from a variety of newsreaders, including Netscape 2.0.
What relevance does your ineptitude and evasiveness have on:

> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

>Stop the assertions. Stop the recitation of meaningless formulii.

>Stop presenting your ideas as a mass of incoherant and confused words.
>Stop attacking people. Stop dropping names.

Neither is this:

> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

>Address IDEAS. Discuss IDEAS. Offer evidence. Offer proof.

Read the essay he posted.

>Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion
>of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

Read the essay he posted.

>In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

Read the essay...as well as many other thngs posted. Offer up your specific
disageeements rather than relying on Objectivist slogans dished out in oder to
mask evasion.

>PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
>ideas.

Done over and over.

>PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

Your personal apparitions are a figment of your imagination.

>If you can do this, then a thoughtful, rational response can be given.
>If you cannot do this, then I have no further interest in continuing
>this discussion.

There is nothing that will motivate your interest. Your post is an attempt to
mask and evade that reality.

>Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer
>it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
>Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
>deliver or get lost!

Blaming others again for one's own laziness, dishonesty and evasion.

--
Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com>
Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com

(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)

[Lionell Griffith]

pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>: Your ramblings took ten pages to print. The 32 bit version of

>: Netscape was not able to load its entirety into its mail tool.
>: I was not even able to edit the fragment that it loaded.

>: Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion

>: of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

>: In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

>: PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
>: ideas.

>: PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

>: Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer

>: it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
>: Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
>: deliver or get lost!

>To Lionell: At least there's a silver lining; this revealed a flaw in

>Netscape's design...maybe you should try a different browser? OBTW, I
>think the point Matt was trying to make is that to understand why they're
>relevant, you have to understand Neo-Tech, and he was trying to make it
>easy for you to read up on it. But you're NOT the first to complain that
>it's long, boring, and (mainly) convoluted and hard as hell to grok.

>To NTP and the other Zonners: Have you guys considered putting up an
>English translation of the NT stuff? As written, they are very difficult
>to understand unless you're willing to spend SEVERAL hours reading, to
>get used to the style and reference all the neo-words that keep getting
>coined. Most people to whom you post these 10-page 'summaries' are NOT
>willing to spend the hour or so trying to fully grok that NT groove. I
>know that a lot of the style is influenced by the idea that it'll bring
>in the mystics and get-rich-quick-wannabes...but MANY people online are
>NOT like that. Why not strip the basics down, with only a MINIMUM of
>neo-words and a simple, straightforward writing style, so maybe the
>people you're trying to 'get through to' will actually READ the stuff and
>maybe learn where you're coming from?
>--

It is up to the Neo-Techers to make their position clear. It
is NOT my responsibility to understand such psychopathology. There
is no excuse for presenting ideas with such a miasma of words. If
their explanation is as you say, that they expect to attract the
mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes, the con-game character
of Neo-Tech is still further exposed. There is nothing
to be gained by attracting such people, beyond the ability to claim
a larger number for the population of Neo-Techers. That itself
is a con-game. So much for their much self-touted "honesty."

As for my not being willing to spend the time to understand complex
and difficult subjects, nothing could be further from the truth.
Check out my web page reading room. Judge for yourself.

http:/www.av.qnet.com/~lgriffith/whrread.html

I HAVE read the so-called summary. It has NO content. It does not
deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character
assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
detailed written analysis and commentary.

If the Neo-Techers purpose is to communicate, they must first learn to

communicate and then, in fact, actually communicate. I do not
believe that is their purpose. I believe their purpose is to gain
position, power, and wealth without having to expend the intellectual
effort necessary to be productive. In short, Neo-Tech is no more than

a parasitical scam. It is up to them to prove otherwise.

I have switched back to Free Agent. It is a better news
browser than Netscape. I was testing Netscape's capability
and got caught by its unpublished limitations.

[Matt Keys]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

: Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion
: of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

see web site http://www.neo-tech.com/objectivism/ for starters.

: In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

: PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
: ideas.

there are lots of objectivists who appreciate the values
of neo-tech. there are also lots of pips such as yourself
who will always evade about why they think it is "eeeevil" and
"not connected in any way to objectivism".

: PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

you are the one making the assertions here. can you prove
your claim that neo-tech is a "con game" ? who is being conned?

: If you can do this, then a thoughtful, rational response can be given.

: If you cannot do this, then I have no further interest in continuing
: this discussion.

see above.

: Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer
: it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
: Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
: deliver or get lost!

did you even read the article? why don't you quote the article?

if you have something to say to me, don't send it to me in
private email, post it on the newsgroup.

Matt.

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4ohrc7$c...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>It is up to the Neo-Techers to make their position clear. It
>is NOT my responsibility to understand such psychopathology. There
>is no excuse for presenting ideas with such a miasma of words. If
>their explanation is as you say, that they expect to attract the
>mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes, the con-game character
>of Neo-Tech is still further exposed. There is nothing
>to be gained by attracting such people, beyond the ability to claim
>a larger number for the population of Neo-Techers. That itself
>is a con-game. So much for their much self-touted "honesty."

Snobish hatered of humanity noted.

Incidently, as this thread concerns the hpo CFV, I also note that you've said
nothing thus far to indicate why NT's views on objectivism should be exluded
from a forum devoted to the subject of philosophy/objectivism. The fact that
you personally disagree with them is not rational grounds.

[Lionell Griffith]

matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:

>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

>: Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion
>: of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

>see web site http://www.neo-tech.com/objectivism/ for starters.

It is the same ten page rambling text you sent to me. It has none
of the requested properties or content.

>: In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

>: PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
>: ideas.

>there are lots of objectivists who appreciate the values
>of neo-tech.

That some people "think" that Neo-Tech has value does not make
that thought true. Submit proof, as I asked. I have seen
nothing of value and much to disvalue.

>there are also lots of pips such as yourself
>who will always evade about why they think it is "eeeevil" and
>"not connected in any way to objectivism".

Still one more personal attack, projection, and distortion. How
about addressing the IDEAS? Say, pick the one most important
idea of Neo-Tech. Present it in common english. If special
terms must be used, define them clearly without reference to
other undefined special terms. In other words, communicate
your idea rationally, coherantly, and clearly. Repeated
reference to a ten page miasma of words is not such a
communication.

>: PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

>you are the one making the assertions here. can you prove
>your claim that neo-tech is a "con game" ? who is being conned?

I am not making an assertion. I am requesting proof of substance
and validity of Neo-Tech ideas. It is not my responsibility to
provide that proof. It is yours. You assert that Neo-Tech is
so great, wonderful, powerful, and an advance on Objectivism. I
simply am asking you to prove it. I have seen no such proof.

I have clearly identified why it appears to be no more than a
con-game. It is not an assertion. The evidence is contained
in nearly every Neo-Tech communication: undefined coined words,
constant repititon of verbal formulii, unsubstantiated claims,
constant personal attacks, refusal to deal with ideas as ideas,
total absence of rational discussion, total absence of logical
reduction of presented notions to reality, concurrent claims
of "total honesty" with distortions, lies, and floating concepts,
total refusal to address the issues, and on and on and on. All
of which looks quite like a con-game to me. If it is not a
con-game it is an expression of psychosis.

>: If you can do this, then a thoughtful, rational response can be given.
>: If you cannot do this, then I have no further interest in continuing
>: this discussion.

>see above.

I have and you are totaly non-responsive. It is continued evidence
of my position that you are unwilling to present the ideas with
clearity and persist in dumping endless piles of meaningless
confabulations upon us.

Have YOU actually thought through the ideas behind Neo-Tech?
Have YOU actually clearified their expression so that they
can be integrated into a coherant cognitive structure? If so,
share it with us and stop hiding behind Neo-Tech publications.
If not, get lost.

>: Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer
>: it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
>: Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
>: deliver or get lost!

>did you even read the article? why don't you quote the article?

Yes I did print and read the "article." There was nothing in it worth
quoting. That which was true was not new, that which was new was not
even false, it was simply arbitrary. There was no cognitive content.
One does not quote noise. One does not attempt to analyze and
provide extensive commentary on noise. One simply identifies it as
noise and rejects it without further consideration.

That you actually believe that I would be drawn into an extended
and detailed analysis of your "article" is further evidence of
the Neo-Tech con-game. The discussion would be focused upon the
minute, irrelavant, and endless detail. Each small disintegrated
point would result in reference to still more of the same quality
of Neo-Tech "articles." Fundamentals would NEVER be addressed.
Ideas would never be clearly identified. Connection to reality
would never be achieved. I do not fall into such traps.

On the other hand, if it is simply another example of delusional
psychotic expression, no discussion is necessary. You are
responsible for the state of your mind -- not I. I do not
treat such psychosis.

>if you have something to say to me, don't send it to me in
>private email, post it on the newsgroup.

I actually have nothing to say to you. It is out of respect
to the ideas of Objectivism that I respond at all. In case the
nature of Neo-Tech is not clear to all, I am exposing it. Thanks
for cooperating with that effort. You are doing a wonderful job.

[Pee Kitty]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

: It is up to the Neo-Techers to make their position clear. It
: is NOT my responsibility to understand such psychopathology. There

[Side Note: Is it just me, or has EVERYONE been calling EVERYONE a
psychopath lately? Was there a 60 minutes special that I missed that got
this meme implanted in everyone's head?]

: is no excuse for presenting ideas with such a miasma of words. If

: their explanation is as you say, that they expect to attract the
: mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes, the con-game character
: of Neo-Tech is still further exposed. There is nothing
: to be gained by attracting such people, beyond the ability to claim
: a larger number for the population of Neo-Techers. That itself
: is a con-game. So much for their much self-touted "honesty."

Uh, that's not true. Why would there be nothing to gain from attracting
"such" people? If they genuinely wanted to convert them to a more
objective worldview and help them take responsibility for their own
lives, wouldn't that be pretty honest? Now, I'm not saying that's they're
real motivation...I don't know anyone at NTP and don't really give a
damn, but it is only fair to consider all probabilities.

: As for my not being willing to spend the time to understand complex

: and difficult subjects, nothing could be further from the truth.
: Check out my web page reading room. Judge for yourself.

Can't web. Sorry. Web browser is ALL fucked up...at best, I can get an
idea of where the links are, then go back with my own kludges and
exttact the HTML pages separately. Not a big deal, since I hate the WWW
anyways...

: I HAVE read the so-called summary.

Which one? These guys are nothing if not prolific...

: It has NO content. It does not

: deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
: splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
: out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character
: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
: detailed written analysis and commentary.

Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything
is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

: If the Neo-Techers purpose is to communicate, they must first learn to

: communicate and then, in fact, actually communicate. I do not
: believe that is their purpose. I believe their purpose is to gain
: position, power, and wealth without having to expend the intellectual
: effort necessary to be productive. In short, Neo-Tech is no more than
: a parasitical scam. It is up to them to prove otherwise.

Is the burden of proof really on them, when you're asking them to
disprove your assumptions? Really, I could say that I believe that AT&T
actively supports the KKK...do they then have to go to the trouble of
proving me wrong, or is it first my job to prove myself right?

: I have switched back to Free Agent. It is a better news

: browser than Netscape. I was testing Netscape's capability
: and got caught by its unpublished limitations.

I haven't heard many good things about Netscape...the best thing people
seem to say about it is "it adds so many more options to HTML pages!" Of
course, that means that all the new pages being created for Netscape look
like shit on standard browsers...

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

>: It has NO content. It does not
>: deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
>: splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
>: out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character
>: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
>: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
>: detailed written analysis and commentary.
>
>Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything
>is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
>Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
>They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
>try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
>sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

What Mr. Griffith seems unable to grasp is that by-and-large, the NT
literature is designed and written to appeal to a "lower common denominator"
of individual. It does discuss ideas, as ideas. But it doesn't do it in the
"college-philosophy-class manner" to which he appears accustomed.

However, "The Neo-Tech Discovery" does, in fact, discuss ideas in a more
"complex" or "philosophical" manner. Even so, it is a much lighter read than
any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.

You could call that our trump card.

At any rate, everyone will eventually see the value of NT, as well as the
sound reasoning for the fashion in which it's marketed.

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

Your reply is totally unresponsive. You continue to demonstrate the
total lack of rational discussion of ideas and persist in personal
attacks. Your replay contiues to support my position more effectively
than any detailed analysis of NT Garbage could ever do.

Either address the issues in a rational, honorable, and honest
manner or get lost.

>In article <31ABE9...@qnet.com>, Lionell Griffith <lgri...@qnet.com> wrote:

>>Matt Keys wrote:
>>>
>>> Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

>>> : I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating
>>> : Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
>>> : the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
>>> : entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
>>> : concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
>>> : is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
>>> : reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
>>> : based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
>>> : have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
>>> : position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
>>> : with no further discussion.
>>>
>>> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
>>> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?
>>
>>See my comments above. The arbitrary, the irrational, unfounded
>>and unsupported assertions, and logical fallicies cannot be
>>answered rationally. They must simply be identified and rejected.

>Your "comments above" are not:

>> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
>> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

>>Your ramblings took ten pages to print. The 32 bit version of

>>Netscape was not able to load its entirety into its mail tool.
>>I was not even able to edit the fragment that it loaded.

>So you're an inept user. Why blame that on others? I've successfully

>downloaded the essay from a variety of newsreaders, including Netscape 2.0.
>What relevance does your ineptitude and evasiveness have on:

Irrelavant, immaterial, and unresponsive. Personal attack used as a
smokescreen for inability or unwillingness to address the issue.

>> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
>> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

>>Stop the assertions. Stop the recitation of meaningless formulii.
>>Stop presenting your ideas as a mass of incoherant and confused words.
>>Stop attacking people. Stop dropping names.

>Neither is this:

Non sequitor. Totally unresponsive.

>> how come I've never seen a thoughtful, rational
>> response given to the text below, by any a.p.o Objectivist?

>>Address IDEAS. Discuss IDEAS. Offer evidence. Offer proof.

>Read the essay he posted.

I did. Read my respose to the essay he posted.

>>Present a well organized, coherant, and tightly worded discussion
>>of your ideas. Connect them to reality by clear logical reduction.

>Read the essay he posted.

The essay he posted falls so far short of the standard requested that
it is verbal garbage.

>>In other words, PROVE your case that Neo-Tech has anything to offer.

>Read the essay...as well as many other thngs posted. Offer up your specific

>disageeements rather than relying on Objectivist slogans dished out in oder to
>mask evasion.

Projection again. Seems to be a common theme for NT.

>>PROVE your case that Neo-Tech adds anything of value to Objectivist
>>ideas.

>Done over and over.

Not even close. Not even a start.

>>PROVE that Neo-Tech is other than the con-game it appears to be.

>Your personal apparitions are a figment of your imagination.

Projection and personal attack.

>>If you can do this, then a thoughtful, rational response can be given.
>>If you cannot do this, then I have no further interest in continuing
>>this discussion.

>There is nothing that will motivate your interest. Your post is an attempt to

>mask and evade that reality.

Clearly I am not the one evading. Present your ideas as ideas.
Discuss them in a rational and reality connected way. Then you
would have my interest. Yet, as usual, you refuse to do so.

>>Your ten page rambling does not even deserve this reply. I offer
>>it only out of respect for Objectivist ideas. Neither you nor
>>Neo-Tech has earned the least bit of my respect. So, stand and
>>deliver or get lost!

>Blaming others again for one's own laziness, dishonesty and evasion.

Projection and personal attack. This seems to be the primary mode
of NT communication. That none of the NT crowd is willing or able
to discuss NT ideas in any self generated and direct way suggests
an ample supply of laziness, dishonesty, and evasion on their part.

Stick to ideas. Stick to logic. Stick to reason. Continue as you
have and you will continue to demonstrate the validity of my position.
Keep up the good work. You have been a great help in that effort.

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
>
>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
>agreeing to associate as HPO.

Oh, goody...a premise.

It's false.

You rent only your connection and disk space with *your* service provider. If
your service provider has an NNTP server, you have a right to access it and
place posts on it for general distribution (according to the terms of your
agreement).

You do not have any right, explicit or implied, no matter how many of you
there are, to either bar another user from NNTP access, or to place his posts
there. Only *that* individual's *service provider* has that right.

Now, the association of ISPs which collectively make up Usenet each have the
right to manage access to their own servers as they see fit. They do not have
the right to dictate how another ISP manages his. If one ISP gets out of line,
then the other ISPs could choose to disassociate (each of them cutting off any
feed that goes to that ISP).

In order to manage this whole thing, the ISPs, through their admin folks, have
established/accepted a voting procedure for establishing groups. This is where
the individual user gives input (as well as sending emails to admins, or
posting to admin groups). But no ISP is bound to implement the results of any
vote, and depending upon how the moderation/bot software works, could actually
set up his own server to allow his own subscribers to post to hpo (once it's
formed) in any manner they with (including NT words and cross-posts). The only
way it gets moderated is that the individual ISP installs something that
forwards any post to hpo to a specific email address where it is processed.

So, now your premise lays in shambles. You and I do not *own* any portion of
Usenet. We do not rent any portion of it, such that we have control over the
property. It is simply that associated ISPs have generally agreed to create
groups per voting results.

Since this is a private association, mob control through a voting process is
not immoral.

But, for an Objectivist to justify excluding one area of debate on the premise
of mob rule, be it government-coerced immorality or business-sponsored
process, is irrational, for the purpose of evasion.

The bottom line is that the Randians are desparately searching for a
scapegoat-rationalization (property, vote, freedom-of-association, net-rights,
etc.) to avoid taking responsibility for their actions--which is to support
the establishment of a forum dedicated to objectivism...which irrationally
excludes viewpoints about objectivism they don't like.

>Thus, they do have the right to
>exclude by limiting the scope of association. To make "censorship"
>mean any restriction on the distruibution of any material makes
>"censorship" have no meaning. Censorship can ONLY be done by a
>governmental body by the initiation of force. ANY other restriction
>is the simple exercise of the right to property by individuals and is
>NOT censorship. That you have some dictionary that defines censorship
>differently is of no consequence. Meaning of words is not created
>by common usage. Meaning is created by connecting a concept to
>reality by identification of essentials and assigning that meaning to
>a word. Restriction on the distrubition of information is not the
>essential of censorship. It is the restriction by Government that
>is the essential. Thus exclusion of NT from HPO is quite proper.

Strawman.

Your premise is false. The concept of censorship has nothing to do with it.

My argument does not rest upon that concept, and nowhere have I used it in any
of my posts.

This has nothing whatever to do with the bottom line.

>>2. Is hpo a proposed group to discuss Objectivism, and has it been stated in
>>the CFV that even views in opposition to objectivism are welcome?
>
>If and only if they are well reasoned and well presented. I have yet
>to see any NT literature or post that fits that criterian. The major
>portion of NT literature consists of personal attacks and delusional
>posturing. Vary little of it deals with ideas as ideas, either for
>or against Objectivism. Thus NT is properly excluded from HPO.

You rationalizing and evasive Randians blow my mind.

There is NOTHING which fundamentaly differentiates your argument from that of
any statist pig who thinks he and the government can decide what's of value
for everyone else to see, read, hear, participate in.

The only difference is that you're cleverly escaping the clear view of this
nonsense by: 1) hiding behind a vote (which you claim rests upon *your*
property rights); and 2) defining Neo-Tech out of the realm of having anything
to say about objectivism (because you don't like what it has to say), which is
an assertion which is false on its face.

>>3. Does the NT literature have a great deal to say about Objectivism?
>
>Including words common to Objectivism in a work is not necessarily
>making statements about Objectivism. NT issues repeated claims that
>it is based upon Objectivism and that it adhears to its principles.
>There is no evidence that this claim has any validity or substance.
>There is much evidence that contridicts this claim. Repeated
>presentation of word soup harangs is not saying anything about
>anything much less Objectivism. Such posts are properly excluded
>from HPO.

You're clearly speaking from ignorance. How many of the more than 20 NT
publications have you personally read?

And this "argument" is just a wamed-up version of what you posted in response
to question #2, above.

Why are you not supporting a ban on other views you disagree with? Randians
have long claimed that Libertarianism adds absolutely nothing to Objectivism,
is of no value, and is actually destructive to Objectivism. Why is there no
ban on Libertarian talk on hpo?

Or is that next?

Kellyism?

Anarcho-Capialism (which I also strongly support, so put *me* in that group of
"hippies of the right" if you like)?

How much value does Kant, Hegel, Sartre, Calvin, Marx, et. al. add to
Objectivism? Do they pronounce ideas diametrically opposed to Objectivism. Do
their adherents implicitly wish to destroy the value and ideas of Objectivism?
Does the CFV state explicitly and/or imply that their views are welcome there?
Why would they be given sancion?

Why would NT be banned, when the literature does nothing but praise Rand and
Peikoff, champion those values to common folks in a way they can grasp more
readily, state explicit agreement with the fundamental tenents of
Objectivism...and on and on?

NTP even distributes Rands books (and I believe OPAR as well) to thousands,
via "The 11-book Neo-Tech Library." Does the Libertarian Party or other
organizations distribute them?

>>4. Is it irrational and evasive to bar the mention of NT on hpo?
>
>No. NT is not about Objectivism. Objectivism is about ideas.
>NT is NOT about ideas. Any advocate of NT who wishes to present
>ideas as ideas and who proceeds to discuss them rationally in
>context of Objectivist ideas would be welcome. But, repeated long
>harangs of word soup nether thought nor written by the poster would
>not be welcome and could be properly excluded from HPO. Exclusion
>of such material need not be limited only to NT based material. We
>are looking for a positive: rational discussion of ideas as ideas
>in context of Objectivist ideas. That excludes much more than just
>NT. It takes much more than the mention of the word Objectivism to
>be included.

I have explicitly stated that I have no problem with reasonable posting
guidelines that apply to all material. I even suggested some:

1. No cross-posts.
2. At least as much original text as quoted text, except for posts 20 lines or
less.
3. 80 columns max.
4. The same text (template or article) can only be posted to the group
(everyone included) at intervals x weeks or greater, and slight edits would
not be in keeping with the spirtit of that rule.

And I could probably come up with others.

You state above:

"Any advocate of NT who wishes to present ideas as ideas and who proceeds to
discuss them rationally in context of Objectivist ideas would be welcome."

False. The CFV explicitly states otherwise. That's what I'm arguing against.

And that's why I voted YES on hpo.

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4okh7l$i...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>Your reply is totally unresponsive. You continue to demonstrate the
>total lack of rational discussion of ideas and persist in personal
>attacks. Your replay contiues to support my position more effectively
>than any detailed analysis of NT Garbage could ever do.
>
>Either address the issues in a rational, honorable, and honest
>manner or get lost.

This is simply nonsense. Either you are evading, or simply haven't been
reading my posts for the last 1 1/2 years.

I'm not claiming that each of my posts address issues as you desire them to be
addressed. However, the preponderance of them do. I have megabytes to prove
it. I'll refrain from reposting them, and you can imagine any sort of scenario
you like.

It's not real.

Incidently, I am attacking no one, and never have. I am defending values which
have been under steady and libelous attack for almost 2 years on apo. None of
those attackers, by their own admissions, have ever read the original Neo-Tech
literature.

Imagine a scenario where a worthless pip who has never read a single of Ayn
Rand's works shows up on apo, an-t, or wherever, it doesn't matter where, and
begins to attack virtually every single post lauding the values of Rand and
Objectivism. Never are any real arguments presented, where something from her
lierature is quoted, a demonstration of full-context understanding is given,
and then a reason-based (however faulty) counter-argument is presented. Such a
thing never happens, but the attempted derision and destruction of those
values continues unrelentingly.

Imagine *that* scenario, and you'll understand why I lost patience with most
Randians about a year ago.

Here's another mass of floating abstractions for you to integrate. Hopefully,
you'll get the picture somewhat:

Zonpower and Salvador Dali's "Last Supper"

One of the most breathtaking paintings of any age is Salvador
Dali's "Last Supper". And, as many Objectivists know, that
painting was one of Ayn Rand's favorite. Jesus appears
indescribably beautiful, innocent, and benevolent. He appears as
the Chairman presiding over a Universe-500 board meeting. Notice
even the neatly cropped, modern New York executive haircuts of the
disciples. Dali delivered a radical presentation of Christ never
before seen among the thousands of holy paintings by hundreds of
master artists over the millennium.

Imagine this crystal-clear painting being cast as a giant,
ten-thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle. Now, imagine a dishonest
blowhard, journalist, or nihilist -- a pip -- plucking a piece,
any piece, or a handful of pieces, from that painting. Then
imagine that pip waving those pieces before a public who had never
before seen the whole picture of that masterpiece. Using glib
words and dishonest non sequiturs, that pip harangues his
audience: In tearing down the great value of Dali and his
masterpiece, that pip captures an unearned ego trip.

The pip simply needs to hold up the piece or pieces of the puzzle
ripped from the total picture and loudly proclaim: "Look at this
Dali-crap! It's valued only by Dali-kooks. This proves that
Daliism is new-age cult stuff, pseudo art, a sham", the pip
blusters. The attacking pip then swells up with feel-big ego for
publicly, effortlessly exposing the Dali "fraud". Through his
unjust no-effort attack, the pip feels superior to the lifetime
hard efforts produced by Dali.

Those who had never seen Dali's complete painting could not know
that the facts were the opposite to the non sequiturs being
dishonestly pronounced. How could they know that the exposing
"hero" was really a nothingness fraud while the exposed "fraud"
was a beautiful gem?

In the same way, pips throughout the establishment constantly tear
down Ayn Rand and her work. Likewise, in that same way, pips have
often torn down, even killed or destroyed, the most radical yet
greatest of civilization-benefiting value producers throughout
history -- Socrates, Galileo, Michael Milken.

Zonpower on web site http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/ reflects
the most radical value, yet, the most beautiful gem in history.
Zonpower is the widest-scope integration on planet Earth. Today,
the way to know the full power and beauty of Zonpower is to see
the entire, fully integrated picture with all its puzzle pieces
locked into place. That full picture can be achieved by
downloading and reading the entire web site. But, from the
web-site, that full integration requires much time and effort.

Because of the vast scope and tight interdependencies of the
Zonpower integrations, the printed-book version with all its
diagrams, illustrations, and footnotes properly positioned is much
easier, quicker, and more convenient to read. The physical book
itself lets one more easily see and assemble pieces together into
the full, clear picture. That being recognized, combined with the
misunderstandings and misconceptions of Zonpower by many of those
who do not have the printed book, Neo-Tech Worldwide made the
following offer in February 1996:

All those who have argued against, even vigorously attacked,
Neo-Tech/Zonpower are invited to obtain a free review copy of the
352-page manuscript edition of Zonpower. The only requirement is
that the requester be sincere in wanting to review the manuscript
in order to see more easily the full, clear picture -- the entire
integration. Those who make this effort will discover Neo-Tech is
the practical-action mode of Objectivism. ...Zonpower is the
dynamic that will establish an Objectivist civilization on Earth.
[Note: This offer expired on February 29, 1996.]

Those are facts regardless of how many uninformed or hostile
people rip Neo-Tech/Zonpower out of context in order to attack its
values. ...Neo-Tech/Zonpower is the only dynamic that is rapidly
advancing Objectivism into the future -- into new areas of thought
and action. ...Regardless of any or all attacks, an Objectivist
civilization is now coming to Earth through
Neo-Tech for all conscious beings.

http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/
http://www.neo-tech.com/objectivism/

[The Omnipotent Philosopher]

lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:

> If it is not a
>con-game it is an expression of psychosis.

Are these not assertions that need proving? I'm not one to defend NT
but these are unfounded assertions. From what I know all NT
literature comes with a 60 day money back guarantee which they have
honored. Now it is available for free on the net. I hardly see this
as a con-game. In a con-game, the con artists deceives his victims to
hand over their money and then disappears never to be seen again. I
don't see the NTers going anywhere. If anything they've become more
prevalent.

To claim they are psychotic is even more absurd. They seems to me to
be more in touch with reality than most people I know.

You've also called it psychopathy. According to my dictionary:
psychopathic personality: an emotional and behaviorally disordered
state characterized by clear perception of reality except for the
individual's social and moral obligations and often by the pursuit of
immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction, or
sexual perversion. [Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.]

This doesn't sound like them either although I think an individual
only has an obligation to him/herself unless they have dependent
children. I myself may be asocial and hold the view that I have no
obligations to anyone but myself but I don't think I have a
psychopathic personality. I don't engage in criminal acts, don't do
drugs and I'm not involved in sexual perversion.
-----------
T.O.P.

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>In article <4ohrc7$c...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>>It is up to the Neo-Techers to make their position clear. It
>>is NOT my responsibility to understand such psychopathology. There

>>is no excuse for presenting ideas with such a miasma of words. If
>>their explanation is as you say, that they expect to attract the
>>mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes, the con-game character
>>of Neo-Tech is still further exposed. There is nothing
>>to be gained by attracting such people, beyond the ability to claim
>>a larger number for the population of Neo-Techers. That itself
>>is a con-game. So much for their much self-touted "honesty."

>Snobish hatered of humanity noted.

Are you implying that all of humanity fall into the category
of "mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes"? I will admit that
I totally reject such as useful and productive individuals and
want nothing to do with them. But to say that all of humanity
is such IS an expression of "Snobish hatered of humanity."

Still one more tiresome projection and personal attack. Is that
all you NTers are capable of? That is all I have seen.

Everyone: note his complete evasion of the fact that it is the
responsibility of the Neo-Techers to make their position clear.
Apparently they are not up to that task and will continue to
whine and complain that we are not "true" Objectivists and
refuse to work to understand them. Poor boys. Too bad.

I find Objectivism quite satisfactory. I find the writings
of Rand exceptionally clear and well done. I do find the
in-fighting of some of the "inner circle" quite disgusting, but that
does not detract from the basic ideas. However, I find much of the
CRAP that passes for discussion on apo to be disgusting beyond words.

>Incidently, as this thread concerns the hpo CFV, I also note that you've said
>nothing thus far to indicate why NT's views on objectivism should be exluded
>from a forum devoted to the subject of philosophy/objectivism. The fact that
>you personally disagree with them is not rational grounds.

Distortion, misrepresentation, evasion.

The following was posted, in this thread by me, on the 17th of this
month.

***********************************************************

I support the exclusion of ANYTHING even approximating
Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Their position consists
entirely of arbitrary assertions of support for Randian ideas
concurrent with their total contradiction. Their lexicon
is recursive (see recursive) and totally disconnected from
reality. Since the Neo-Techers cannot present any reality
based evidence or rational discussion for their position, I
have no responsibility for presenting such for mine. Their
position is totally arbitrary and can be immediately rejected
with no further discussion.

Vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism!

****************************************************************

In addition, views are NOT what hpo is about. Hpo is to be about
Ideas discussed as Ideas objectively connected reality. Views
are at best expressions of hormonally based emotional reactions and
have no place in rational discussion. I am not at all interested
in what you feel or believe or excrete. I am interested in ideas,
validated knowledge, and improved methods of thought. NT offers
none of these. Objectivism offers much of all of them.

The hpo CFV concerns exactly the issue of establishing a news group
devoted exclusively to the serious discussion of Objectivist Ideas.
There is no evidence that any NTer has any honorable, honest, and
serious intent to discuss Ideas as Ideas. Their only interest appears
to be to splash their projections and personal attacks upon the
universe. They appear to be unable to present a cogent self-generated
discussion of any idea at all. They present the same old verbal
garbage over and over and over and over and over and .....

If it is as they say, they are the only "real" Objectivists, why
cannot they use the Objectivist method of thought and communication?

The answer to that retorical question is they are not "real"
anythings, they are a sham and NT is a con-game -- a rather
poor one at that. Their own words prove this time and time
again.

[Pee Kitty]

Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:

: In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
: >Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

: >: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman

: >: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
: >: detailed written analysis and commentary.

: >
: >Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.

: >They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
: >try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
: >sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

: What Mr. Griffith seems unable to grasp is that by-and-large, the NT
: literature is designed and written to appeal to a "lower common denominator"
: of individual. It does discuss ideas, as ideas. But it doesn't do it in the
: "college-philosophy-class manner" to which he appears accustomed.

I don't like most textbooks either, but the writing style of most of the
early stuff on the website (THINK sent me a copy of some of it when I
told him about my webbing prob) is just plain convoluted! It's designed
to be so mystic-sounding and impressive-sounding...it would be easier if
it just said what it had to say in a STRAIGHTFORWARD manner. You don't
have to be hi-falooting and intelligent-sounding to just say what you
mean, directly. For example, when I've asked you for a clarification, you
answer me in plain english. If you (for example) were to just rewrite the
books in common, plain english, without trying to impress anyone, it
would be a much better read.

: However, "The Neo-Tech Discovery" does, in fact, discuss ideas in a more

: "complex" or "philosophical" manner. Even so, it is a much lighter read than
: any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.

I've noticed that some of the newer stuff is getting a little more clear
and less convoluted; like what think999 posted a few days ago. I hope
that trend continues, for your sake. A lot of people are just unwilling
to read something that they can't unravel...go figure.

: You could call that our trump card.

: At any rate, everyone will eventually see the value of NT, as well as the
: sound reasoning for the fashion in which it's marketed.

Sounds like a cult to me. <insert smiley here>

[Lionell Griffith]

pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

>: It is up to the Neo-Techers to make their position clear. It

>: is NOT my responsibility to understand such psychopathology. There

>[Side Note: Is it just me, or has EVERYONE been calling EVERYONE a

> psychopath lately? Was there a 60 minutes special that I missed that got
> this meme implanted in everyone's head?]

Perhaps psychopathology is not quite the exact word that should be
used but it is the closest I can think of. NT is most certianly
symtomatic of serious philosophical/intellectual/conceptual/cognitave
pathology. If that is not psychopathology, I don't know what it is.

>: is no excuse for presenting ideas with such a miasma of words. If

>: their explanation is as you say, that they expect to attract the
>: mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes, the con-game character
>: of Neo-Tech is still further exposed. There is nothing
>: to be gained by attracting such people, beyond the ability to claim
>: a larger number for the population of Neo-Techers. That itself
>: is a con-game. So much for their much self-touted "honesty."

>Uh, that's not true. Why would there be nothing to gain from attracting

>"such" people? If they genuinely wanted to convert them to a more
>objective worldview and help them take responsibility for their own
>lives, wouldn't that be pretty honest? Now, I'm not saying that's they're
>real motivation...I don't know anyone at NTP and don't really give a
>damn, but it is only fair to consider all probabilities.

It has been my experience that such people cannot BE converted. They
must to the necessary work for themselves. If clear communication
cannot do it, how can the NT crap do it? The only possible motive is
raw nose count to be used to support a con or a delusion (no real
difference).

>: As for my not being willing to spend the time to understand complex
>: and difficult subjects, nothing could be further from the truth.
>: Check out my web page reading room. Judge for yourself.

>Can't web. Sorry. Web browser is ALL fucked up...at best, I can get an
>idea of where the links are, then go back with my own kludges and
>exttact the HTML pages separately. Not a big deal, since I hate the WWW
>anyways...

Too bad. I suspect you would like some of my essays. They are
my own words, written by myself, and are mostly published works.

Pick up my resume at: http://www.av.qnet/~lgriffith/resume.html
It indicates a lifetime of study and productive work in a
wide range of disciplines. I can read a document such as the NT
"introduction" in a few minutes and get nearly every thing in it.
Then I can spend another few minutes and get the rest. There is
nothing in it. In fact, I wrote a program in 1968 that could
write a better "introduction" than that. It also had no content
but it suggested that it was about Third Generation Systems. I
could have changed a few words and phrases and be able to produce
a hundred page NT document with the same content: None!

>: I HAVE read the so-called summary.

>Which one? These guys are nothing if not prolific...

The one they keep pushing. It is a ten page rambling that represents
itself as an "introduction" to Neo-Tech.

>: It has NO content. It does not
>: deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
>: splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
>: out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character

>: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
>: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
>: detailed written analysis and commentary.

>Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything

>is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.

>Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
>They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
>try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
>sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

Yes, I agree that you suggested that an effort to present their ideas
more clearly and in English might help. I simply am not that kind to
con artists. I went a little further than usual by specifying a
standard of communication that I would find acceptable.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. I am never fair about anything.
I strive to be Just. I evaluate things for what they ARE and I
grant the respect and attention earned. When I communicate, I strive
for the maximum clearity possible for me. I am not often
misunderstood.

A string of random words, disconnected notions, floating abstractions,
and unfounded assertions to not make content. I suggest that it is
poorly written to hide the fact that it has no content. It is written
in the style of every con-artist, a flood of words used in an attempt
to suppress rational analysis and force "its possible" acceptance.
Blank out that the arbitrary is not only NOT true, it is also NOT
false. The arbitrary has NO contact with reality and thus has no
cognitive content. It contains less knowledge than the banging of
garbage can lids. Such things have NO place in serious rational
discussion -- especially Objectivist based discussions.

>: If the Neo-Techers purpose is to communicate, they must first learn to
>: communicate and then, in fact, actually communicate. I do not
>: believe that is their purpose. I believe their purpose is to gain
>: position, power, and wealth without having to expend the intellectual
>: effort necessary to be productive. In short, Neo-Tech is no more than
>: a parasitical scam. It is up to them to prove otherwise.

>Is the burden of proof really on them, when you're asking them to
>disprove your assumptions? Really, I could say that I believe that AT&T
>actively supports the KKK...do they then have to go to the trouble of
>proving me wrong, or is it first my job to prove myself right?

I am asking them to prove their position. It is NOT my
responsibility to prove their position for them. Nor is it
my responsibility to dis-prove it. I simply have identified
why it is neither interesting nor a proof and am demonstrating
by their own responses why it is rational to exclude such
from HPO. I have even given them a specification that would
make their material acceptable for discussion. They do not
appear able or willing to meet even that minimum.

>: I have switched back to Free Agent. It is a better news
>: browser than Netscape. I was testing Netscape's capability
>: and got caught by its unpublished limitations.

>I haven't heard many good things about Netscape...the best thing people
>seem to say about it is "it adds so many more options to HTML pages!" Of
>course, that means that all the new pages being created for Netscape look
>like shit on standard browsers...
>--

Yes, and they take forever to load using a 14.4 modem. Most of them
don't even look good on Netscape. Oh well, esthetics is not well
taught in our society any more than effective thinking is well taught.
Quality visual presentation, as with most things, must be self taught.

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

>>: It has NO content. It does not
>>: deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
>>: splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
>>: out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character
>>: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
>>: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
>>: detailed written analysis and commentary.
>>
>>Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything
>>is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
>>Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
>>They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
>>try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
>>sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

>What Mr. Griffith seems unable to grasp is that by-and-large, the NT

>literature is designed and written to appeal to a "lower common denominator"
>of individual. It does discuss ideas, as ideas. But it doesn't do it in the
>"college-philosophy-class manner" to which he appears accustomed.

What you don't appear to be able to grasp is that I don't give a DAMN
about the "lower common denominator." They have NOTHING to offer to
me nor to anybody else and hardly to themselves. However, we are
discussing the quality of material that is appropreate for HPO. The
proper quality is in fact 18th Century "college-philosophy-class
manner." Graduate level at that. Your own admission that you present
material that is intentionally written down provides still more
evidence for the validity of excluding NT from HPO.

>However, "The Neo-Tech Discovery" does, in fact, discuss ideas in a more
>"complex" or "philosophical" manner. Even so, it is a much lighter read than
>any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.

Ayn Rand's non-fiction works are rather "light" reads. They are
"light" because they are clear, have a sound cognitive organization
and are connected to reality.

>You could call that our trump card.

You call pandering to the least common denominator a "trump card"?
I will happily leave you to be the king of the ant heap. I will
gladly associate with the top five or ten per million and
leave you to the masses.

It is now exposed that NT believes truth and knowledge is based
upon how many believe in it. So, if they get the masses to believe,
then NT is proved true. Still one more example of the disconnection
of NT from reality.

>At any rate, everyone will eventually see the value of NT, as well as the
>sound reasoning for the fashion in which it's marketed.

Everyone? Must be a belief based upon faith. Oh, I forgot, you have
Zon-Power on your side. Wow. No one can resist that.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>In article <4okh7l$i...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>
>>Your reply is totally unresponsive. You continue to demonstrate the
>>total lack of rational discussion of ideas and persist in personal
>>attacks. Your replay contiues to support my position more effectively
>>than any detailed analysis of NT Garbage could ever do.
>>
>>Either address the issues in a rational, honorable, and honest
>>manner or get lost.

>This is simply nonsense. Either you are evading, or simply haven't been
>reading my posts for the last 1 1/2 years.

>I'm not claiming that each of my posts address issues as you desire them to be
>addressed. However, the preponderance of them do. I have megabytes to prove
>it. I'll refrain from reposting them, and you can imagine any sort of scenario
>you like.

I would like to see just one. When I do, I will reply in kind.

>It's not real.

Then prove your position. Reference to massive amounts of external
material does NOT constitute proof. Proof requires a direct and
clear presentation.

You have been providing me ample proof of my position by your own
postings. I have no need to refer you to 1 or 12 million books
(which it would not be).

>Incidently, I am attacking no one, and never have. I am defending values which
>have been under steady and libelous attack for almost 2 years on apo. None of
>those attackers, by their own admissions, have ever read the original Neo-Tech
>literature.

I have identified repeated attacks in your current posts in this
thread. See the following. You are analogizing me to that worthless
pip. That is a very personal attack.

>Imagine a scenario where a worthless pip who has never read a single of Ayn
>Rand's works shows up on apo, an-t, or wherever, it doesn't matter where, and
>begins to attack virtually every single post lauding the values of Rand and
>Objectivism. Never are any real arguments presented, where something from her
>lierature is quoted, a demonstration of full-context understanding is given,
>and then a reason-based (however faulty) counter-argument is presented. Such a
>thing never happens, but the attempted derision and destruction of those
>values continues unrelentingly.

>Imagine *that* scenario, and you'll understand why I lost patience with most
>Randians about a year ago.

I lost patience with the first reading of a post of yours last
December. That was shortly after I connected to the internet and
subscribed to apo.

>Here's another mass of floating abstractions for you to integrate. Hopefully,
>you'll get the picture somewhat:

> Zonpower and Salvador Dali's "Last Supper"

> One of the most breathtaking paintings of any age is Salvador
> Dali's "Last Supper". And, as many Objectivists know, that
> painting was one of Ayn Rand's favorite. Jesus appears
> indescribably beautiful, innocent, and benevolent. He appears as
> the Chairman presiding over a Universe-500 board meeting. Notice
> even the neatly cropped, modern New York executive haircuts of the
> disciples. Dali delivered a radical presentation of Christ never
> before seen among the thousands of holy paintings by hundreds of
> master artists over the millennium.

I don't know this to be true, but even if it is true it is irrelevant.

> Imagine this crystal-clear painting being cast as a giant,
> ten-thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle. Now, imagine a dishonest
> blowhard, journalist, or nihilist -- a pip -- plucking a piece,
> any piece, or a handful of pieces, from that painting. Then
> imagine that pip waving those pieces before a public who had never
> before seen the whole picture of that masterpiece. Using glib
> words and dishonest non sequiturs, that pip harangues his
> audience: In tearing down the great value of Dali and his
> masterpiece, that pip captures an unearned ego trip.

Imagine that pigs had wings, then you could have ham flavored
drumsticks. What a pile of subjective crap.

> The pip simply needs to hold up the piece or pieces of the puzzle
> ripped from the total picture and loudly proclaim: "Look at this
> Dali-crap! It's valued only by Dali-kooks. This proves that
> Daliism is new-age cult stuff, pseudo art, a sham", the pip
> blusters. The attacking pip then swells up with feel-big ego for
> publicly, effortlessly exposing the Dali "fraud". Through his
> unjust no-effort attack, the pip feels superior to the lifetime
> hard efforts produced by Dali.

> Those who had never seen Dali's complete painting could not know
> that the facts were the opposite to the non sequiturs being
> dishonestly pronounced. How could they know that the exposing
> "hero" was really a nothingness fraud while the exposed "fraud"
> was a beautiful gem?

This is the usual claim of a con. Don't look at the details. Don't
require that the details stand on their own. Allow the accumulation
of undigested and unvalidated notions accumulate into the feeling of
a grand idea. Then, based upon that feeling, fall into every trap
set by the con-artist. The details must stand on their own. The
details must stand integrated. One cannot start from the grand
integration and see the validity or falsity of the details.

> In the same way, pips throughout the establishment constantly tear
> down Ayn Rand and her work. Likewise, in that same way, pips have
> often torn down, even killed or destroyed, the most radical yet
> greatest of civilization-benefiting value producers throughout
> history -- Socrates, Galileo, Michael Milken.

Gratuitus statement. An example of unsubstantiated grand notion.
Does not say anything. Does not follow from proceeding discussion.

> Zonpower on web site http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/ reflects
> the most radical value, yet, the most beautiful gem in history.
> Zonpower is the widest-scope integration on planet Earth. Today,
> the way to know the full power and beauty of Zonpower is to see
> the entire, fully integrated picture with all its puzzle pieces
> locked into place. That full picture can be achieved by
> downloading and reading the entire web site. But, from the
> web-site, that full integration requires much time and effort.

Raw assertion of the qualities of an undefined notion. Comment does
not support itself. Reference to still more NT word soup.

From that unbelevable pile of word soup at
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower.

"Zon is a collective word related to the fully integrated honesty of
Neo-Tech and comprises (1) the
Civilization of the Universe, (2) those operating from its
wide-scope perspective, and (3) the power
required to control existence -- the integrated power to gain
limitless wealth and eternal happiness. ...Zon is
the mind of God. Zon is you!

Zonpower is the power to control existence. Zonpower is derived
from applying the fully integrated honesty
and wide-scope accountability of Neo-Tech to all conscious
actions."

These are NOT definitions of anything. They are still more examples
of the fuzzy grand floating abstractions that fill NT.

"Fully integrated honesty" ande "wide-scope perspective" are
meaningless grand phrases.

"Civilization of the Universe", "those operating from its wide-scope
perspective", and "power required to control existence" do not
inegrate into any existant. Zon is simply a random grab-bag of
meaningless grand phrases.

"Limitless wealth" does not and cannot exist. "Eternal happiness"
cannot exist. Both are meaningless grand phrases.

"The mind of God", another nonexistant, is added for further
grand effect.

Zon is most certianly not me. I exist. Zon does not.

Zonpower? Sill more meaningless grand floating abstractions.

Zon and Zonpower do not stand on their own. Since they are the
foundation of NT, NT does not stand. The remainder of the NT
material has no relavance to anything and need not be considered
further.

Remember: zero + zero + zero + ... + zero will equal zero no matter
how many zeros you sum. So also for an endless string of meaningless
grand floating abstractions. They sum to nothing. That you and
others get a grand feeling from them is of no consequence. The sum
is still nothing.

> Because of the vast scope and tight interdependencies of the
> Zonpower integrations, the printed-book version with all its
> diagrams, illustrations, and footnotes properly positioned is much
> easier, quicker, and more convenient to read. The physical book
> itself lets one more easily see and assemble pieces together into
> the full, clear picture. That being recognized, combined with the
> misunderstandings and misconceptions of Zonpower by many of those
> who do not have the printed book, Neo-Tech Worldwide made the
> following offer in February 1996:

Still more unsupported raw assertion. Wild promises with no evidence.
Don't make the tiresome complaint that I have not read the material.
Since I have seen not one iota of NT material of a quality different
from the example herein, I have no reason to expect the book to be
different. Not worth my time.

> All those who have argued against, even vigorously attacked,
> Neo-Tech/Zonpower are invited to obtain a free review copy of the
> 352-page manuscript edition of Zonpower. The only requirement is
> that the requester be sincere in wanting to review the manuscript
> in order to see more easily the full, clear picture -- the entire
> integration. Those who make this effort will discover Neo-Tech is
> the practical-action mode of Objectivism. ...Zonpower is the
> dynamic that will establish an Objectivist civilization on Earth.
> [Note: This offer expired on February 29, 1996.]

Don't be rediculous. The evidence presented here is sufficient to
reject the totality.

> Those are facts regardless of how many uninformed or hostile
> people rip Neo-Tech/Zonpower out of context in order to attack its
> values. ...Neo-Tech/Zonpower is the only dynamic that is rapidly
> advancing Objectivism into the future -- into new areas of thought
> and action. ...Regardless of any or all attacks, an Objectivist
> civilization is now coming to Earth through
> Neo-Tech for all conscious beings.

No facts here. Only assertions. Facts relate to existance. Facts
relate to reality. Facts are not raw assertions and unfocused
feelings. This is written in the same style with the same disregard
for reasoned discussion as all of the other NT crap. Assertions and
floating grand abstractions referenced to more assertions and
floating grand abstractions referenced to more assertions and
grand assertions ad nausium.

Possibly there is one fact. The offer of a free 352 page book.
From present evidence, the book is not even worth that much.
However, since I have not requested nor have received such a
book, I consider this as an assertion also. Don't bother
proving it is a fact. I am not interested for reasons given above.

Not once have I seen a cogently and clearly written self contained
discussion of any idea on the part of any NTer. All I ask is to
see just one. If I do, then, depending upon content, I may agree
that there is something in NT that adds to Objectivism. Until then,
NT includes Objectivism by assertion only and adds to Objectivism
by assertion only. In other words, NT is zip, nada, zero, nothing
and in no way belongs in any serious discussion of Objectivism.

My position has been proven by your and NT sourced words.

[THINK99999]

From: lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.neo-tech,news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 03:13:22 GMT

Sounds of an ersatz intellectual in panic.

pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:

>: It is up to the Neo-Techers to make their position clear. It
>: is NOT my responsibility to understand such psychopathology. There

>[Side Note: Is it just me, or has EVERYONE been calling EVERYONE a
> psychopath lately? Was there a 60 minutes special that I missed that got

> this meme implanted in everyone's head?]

Perhaps psychopathology is not quite the exact word that should be
used but it is the closest I can think of. NT is most certianly
symtomatic of serious philosophical/intellectual/conceptual/cognitave
pathology. If that is not psychopathology, I don't know what it is.

>: is no excuse for presenting ideas with such a miasma of words. If
>: their explanation is as you say, that they expect to attract the
>: mystics and the get-rich-quick-wannabes, the con-game character

>: of Neo-Tech is still further exposed. uch people, beyond the ability

[Steven Butler]

The statement below from an "Objectivist" could only be
taken seriously from within a mystical bubble of perception
while floundering in the anticivilization. In other words,
I'm sure he meant what he said, BUT, he is in error.

SB

In article <4oohgk$q...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>
> In other words, NT is zip, nada, zero, nothing
> and in no way belongs in any serious discussion of Objectivism.
>

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Future creating -- Perceive through your past, present and
future while acting necessary in the present according to your
future. Naturally acting with benevolence and compassion
rather than in defense of one's irrationality.

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
>>
>>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
>>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
>>agreeing to associate as HPO.

>Oh, goody...a premise.

>It's false.

It's TRUE!

>You rent only your connection and disk space with *your* service provider. If
>your service provider has an NNTP server, you have a right to access it and
>place posts on it for general distribution (according to the terms of your
>agreement).

You blank out the essance of a rental agreement. We rent the
connection, the time, and the space. The ISP rents the connection,
the time and the space on the net. By extension, a portion of the
rental ownership of the ISP is transferred to us. Every physical part

of the net is owned by someone or some group. Access is paid for by
someone or some group. Ownership is by timeslice usage.

If we were to take your fantasy about posting, then any restriction
of any material on any newsgroup would be "irrational" and improper.
I agree that is how you act. I do not agree that it is proper.

Newsgroups ARE subject specific. Newsgroups DO have restrictions
placed upon content and style. Moderated newsgroups are more so.

>You do not have any right, explicit or implied, no matter how many of you
>there are, to either bar another user from NNTP access, or to place his posts
>there. Only *that* individual's *service provider* has that right.

Evades the issue of transfer of rental ownership from ISP to user.

>Now, the association of ISPs which collectively make up Usenet each have the
>right to manage access to their own servers as they see fit. They do not have
>the right to dictate how another ISP manages his. If one ISP gets out of line,
>then the other ISPs could choose to disassociate (each of them cutting off any
>feed that goes to that ISP).

Not relavant to the discussion. We are discussing the right of a
group of individuals to associate and use their rented property
in an exclusive manner. You do NOT have the right to use their
property just as they do NOT have the right to use your property.
By insisting that you have the right to post any glob of garbage
on any usenet group, you are violating the rights of the other
users! You are using their rented timeslice. If the others
do not want to permit you to use their rented timeslice, they
quite properly may prohibit you.

>In order to manage this whole thing, the ISPs, through their admin folks, have
>established/accepted a voting procedure for establishing groups. This is where
>the individual user gives input (as well as sending emails to admins, or
>posting to admin groups). But no ISP is bound to implement the results of any
>vote, and depending upon how the moderation/bot software works, could actually
>set up his own server to allow his own subscribers to post to hpo (once it's
>formed) in any manner they with (including NT words and cross-posts). The only
>way it gets moderated is that the individual ISP installs something that
>forwards any post to hpo to a specific email address where it is processed.

Argument from tradition. Argument that once decided, a decision
becomes immutable natural law. A human created fact is a mutable
fact. If it is seen to require change, then change should and can
occur.

>So, now your premise lays in shambles. You and I do not *own* any portion of
>Usenet. We do not rent any portion of it, such that we have control over the
>property. It is simply that associated ISPs have generally agreed to create
>groups per voting results.

Not even scratched. You have totally failed to identify the nature
of the property subject to rental ownership. You have argued using
stolen concepts and non-essentials.

>Since this is a private association, mob control through a voting process is
>not immoral.

Mob control is ALWAYS immoral because it is irrational. You are
arguing the principle that all may vote on the rights of others.
That rights are not possesed by the individual but reside in
mob decision. You have a wish to intrude where you are not wanted.
You have NO right to that intrusion. Yet, you expect to have the
right to vote to prohibit others from excluding you from their
private association.

That wish is no more valid than the "soak the rich" vote by the
mob. Suppose we vote to take away 99% of your income to support
"free" access to the net. Do you have a right to object and
prohibit such taking? But the mob voted to do it. By your
own principle, you have no rational reason to object.

>But, for an Objectivist to justify excluding one area of debate on the premise
>of mob rule, be it government-coerced immorality or business-sponsored
>process, is irrational, for the purpose of evasion.

Garbled semantics and syntax. Total grab-bag of unrelated issues.
We are discussing the right of intellectual association and standards
for that association. We are not talking about prohibiting all
other associations and other standards of association. You still
would have the same newsgroups you currently use. We cannot properly
prohibit you from using them. Your access is in no-way reduced.

Like a spoiled child, you want access on you own terms without
reguard to the rights of others. If someone has something you
don't you want it. You are totally unwilling to pay the price
to gain it. You want to TAKE it.

>The bottom line is that the Randians are desparately searching for a
>scapegoat-rationalization (property, vote, freedom-of-association, net-rights,
>etc.) to avoid taking responsibility for their actions--which is to support
>the establishment of a forum dedicated to objectivism...which irrationally
>excludes viewpoints about objectivism they don't like.

No, it rationally exculdes intellectual garbage and irrlevant
material. As I have pointed out countless times and with
countless examples provied by you, NT has NOTHING to do with
Objectivism, in form, content, or method. It is "about"
Objectivism by assertion ONLY. It is intellectual garbage.
It is therefor proper and rational to exclude NT material.

Meet the form, content, and method of Objectivsm, then
your material will be acceptable. Object, contridict,
support, extend, or retract the ideas as you will. But
the Grand Floating Abstractions, the incessant inclusion
and reference to NT Bilge, the frequent personal attacks,
and the countless unsubstantiated assertions WILL BE
PROHIBITED. To force otherwise is a violation of the
right to association and the right to set the standards
of that association.

In other words, get lost.

>>Thus, they do have the right to
>>exclude by limiting the scope of association. To make "censorship"
>>mean any restriction on the distruibution of any material makes
>>"censorship" have no meaning. Censorship can ONLY be done by a
>>governmental body by the initiation of force. ANY other restriction
>>is the simple exercise of the right to property by individuals and is
>>NOT censorship. That you have some dictionary that defines censorship
>>differently is of no consequence. Meaning of words is not created
>>by common usage. Meaning is created by connecting a concept to
>>reality by identification of essentials and assigning that meaning to
>>a word. Restriction on the distrubition of information is not the
>>essential of censorship. It is the restriction by Government that
>>is the essential. Thus exclusion of NT from HPO is quite proper.

>Strawman.

Address the issue.

>Your premise is false. The concept of censorship has nothing to do with it.

I doubt that you have any concept of concept.

>My argument does not rest upon that concept, and nowhere have I used it in any
>of my posts.

Yes you have and do. For an examble, see below.

>This has nothing whatever to do with the bottom line.

Where does this come from? What does this have to do with the
current issues?

>>>2. Is hpo a proposed group to discuss Objectivism, and has it been stated in
>>>the CFV that even views in opposition to objectivism are welcome?
>>
>>If and only if they are well reasoned and well presented. I have yet
>>to see any NT literature or post that fits that criterian. The major
>>portion of NT literature consists of personal attacks and delusional
>>posturing. Vary little of it deals with ideas as ideas, either for
>>or against Objectivism. Thus NT is properly excluded from HPO.

>You rationalizing and evasive Randians blow my mind.

Do you have one to "blow?"

>There is NOTHING which fundamentaly differentiates your argument from that of
>any statist pig who thinks he and the government can decide what's of value
>for everyone else to see, read, hear, participate in.

See my discussion of censorship above. You are using the concept but
are not naming it. You are in fact equating government prohibition
of distribution of ideas with individual decision to exclude and not
support.

>The only difference is that you're cleverly escaping the clear view of this
>nonsense by: 1) hiding behind a vote (which you claim rests upon *your*
>property rights);

We are not "hiding" and it does.

>and 2) defining Neo-Tech out of the realm of having anything
>to say about objectivism (because you don't like what it has to say), which is
>an assertion which is false on its face.

We are not defining Neo-Tech out, we are identifing that it IS out
of the realm of reason and applicability to Objecivism. We start
with a definition of Objectivism and find no match in Neo-Tech.

Do not elavate our opinion of your bilge to think that we start
with a definition of Neo-Tech and then define Objectivism so that
Neo-Tech is excluded.

>>>3. Does the NT literature have a great deal to say about Objectivism?
>>
>>Including words common to Objectivism in a work is not necessarily
>>making statements about Objectivism. NT issues repeated claims that
>>it is based upon Objectivism and that it adhears to its principles.
>>There is no evidence that this claim has any validity or substance.
>>There is much evidence that contridicts this claim. Repeated
>>presentation of word soup harangs is not saying anything about
>>anything much less Objectivism. Such posts are properly excluded
>>from HPO.

>You're clearly speaking from ignorance. How many of the more than 20 NT
>publications have you personally read?

Again, you claim that somewhere in your mass of garbage there is a
rational discussion of the ideas. Yet, all the material I have seen
and all of the post from NT that I have read have a consistant style,
content, and method of argument. This includes many pages of text
YOU selected as representative and quality examples of NT material.
You made the selection, but I made the evaluation. It all falls FAR
short of being rational discussion of anything. There is no evidence
that NT material is otherwise. The assertion by you that it is, is
arbitrary and properly rejected.

If there IS such material, produce it. I will not read a library
full of garbage to find it. You are the advocate of NT. It is
YOUR responsibility to produce evidence for its validity. Every
text yet presented by you and other NTers fails. Thus it is
quite proper to treat your assertion as an assertion and reject
any further consideration of NT.

>And this "argument" is just a wamed-up version of what you posted in response
>to question #2, above.

>Why are you not supporting a ban on other views you disagree with? Randians
>have long claimed that Libertarianism adds absolutely nothing to Objectivism,
>is of no value, and is actually destructive to Objectivism. Why is there no
>ban on Libertarian talk on hpo?

You fail to understand what the issue is. Libertarians do address the
issue, they do deal with ideas as ideas. I believe they have a wrong
bases for them, but they do not use grand floating abstractions,
unsupported assertions, incessant references to more of the same, or
constant personal attacks. Thus, generally Libertarian discussions
can be included. As soon as they start using the form, style, and
method of NT, OUT with them!

We are not arguing about excluding content that attempts to refute
Objectivism. We are advocating exculding material that has no
content relivant to Objectivsm - either for or against. We are
advocating excluding material that fails to use the methods of
rational discussion. We are advocating excluding material that
does not deal with ideas as ideas. We are advocating excluding
material that treats ideas as disconnected and out-of-context
feelings.

>Or is that next?

>Kellyism?

>Anarcho-Capialism (which I also strongly support, so put *me* in that group of
>"hippies of the right" if you like)?

>How much value does Kant, Hegel, Sartre, Calvin, Marx, et. al. add to
>Objectivism? Do they pronounce ideas diametrically opposed to Objectivism. Do
>their adherents implicitly wish to destroy the value and ideas of Objectivism?
>Does the CFV state explicitly and/or imply that their views are welcome there?
>Why would they be given sancion?

>Why would NT be banned, when the literature does nothing but praise Rand and
>Peikoff, champion those values to common folks in a way they can grasp more
>readily, state explicit agreement with the fundamental tenents of
>Objectivism...and on and on?

By assertion only. The style, content, and method does great violence
to Rand's style, content, and method. The ideas and method will
stand, but the fraud of NT must be exposed.

>NTP even distributes Rands books (and I believe OPAR as well) to thousands,
>via "The 11-book Neo-Tech Library." Does the Libertarian Party or other
>organizations distribute them?

So what? Crown, B. Dalton and Waldens distribute Rand's books. Does
that mean we have to include discussions about their marketing
practicies? Don't be rediculous!

>>>4. Is it irrational and evasive to bar the mention of NT on hpo?
>>
>>No. NT is not about Objectivism. Objectivism is about ideas.
>>NT is NOT about ideas. Any advocate of NT who wishes to present
>>ideas as ideas and who proceeds to discuss them rationally in
>>context of Objectivist ideas would be welcome. But, repeated long
>>harangs of word soup nether thought nor written by the poster would
>>not be welcome and could be properly excluded from HPO. Exclusion
>>of such material need not be limited only to NT based material. We
>>are looking for a positive: rational discussion of ideas as ideas
>>in context of Objectivist ideas. That excludes much more than just
>>NT. It takes much more than the mention of the word Objectivism to
>>be included.

>I have explicitly stated that I have no problem with reasonable posting
>guidelines that apply to all material. I even suggested some:

>1. No cross-posts.
>2. At least as much original text as quoted text, except for posts 20 lines or
>less.
>3. 80 columns max.
>4. The same text (template or article) can only be posted to the group
>(everyone included) at intervals x weeks or greater, and slight edits would
>not be in keeping with the spirtit of that rule.

That's big of you.

I note no standard of quality or content.

Quality and content is exactly what the vote is about.

>And I could probably come up with others.

>You state above:

>"Any advocate of NT who wishes to present ideas as ideas and who proceeds to
>discuss them rationally in context of Objectivist ideas would be welcome."

>False. The CFV explicitly states otherwise. That's what I'm arguing against.

It is quite clear you have no understanding of ideas as ideas or of
rational discussion in context.

>And that's why I voted YES on hpo.

Mob theory again? You voted YES so you now think you have a right
to violate rational standards for the group?

[T. Cabellero]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

: >In article <4odf8u$b...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>, yu12...@yorku.ca (Steve Smolinski) wrote:

: >> I cannot forbid that no NT shall be published. I can only
: >>forbid that it be published with MY PROPERTY. If the government forbids
: >>that NO ONE may publish something, then that is censorship. Today
: >>I bought a cheeseburger instead of printing a pamphlet for Buddhism --
: >>so am I censoring them by forbidding that my lunch money publish their
: >>ideas? This is ridiculous.

: >1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?

: That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
: "property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals

: agreeing to associate as HPO. Thus, they do have the right to

: exclude by limiting the scope of association. To make "censorship"
: mean any restriction on the distruibution of any material makes
: "censorship" have no meaning. Censorship can ONLY be done by a
: governmental body by the initiation of force. ANY other restriction

That's not true. Censorship can be done with or without initiation
of force.

: is the simple exercise of the right to property by individuals and is

: NOT censorship. That you have some dictionary that defines censorship
: differently is of no consequence. Meaning of words is not created

If you're going to speak the english language properly, it is.

: by common usage. Meaning is created by connecting a concept to

: reality by identification of essentials and assigning that meaning to
: a word. Restriction on the distrubition of information is not the
: essential of censorship. It is the restriction by Government that
: is the essential.

It's obvious that all you're doing here is rejecting the standard
dictionary definition of censorship and choosing to accept Rand's.
This is a mistake. For if you change the meaning of "censorship" so
that it only applies to coercive prohibition of publication of
certain materials (as Rand did) then you no longer have a word to
represent non-coercive prohibition of publication of certain materials.
And, it's undeniable that such a word would have utility.
What Rand has done is destroy the essence of the word and given it
a new essence of her own (that you accept) and left a semantic void.
The rational course of action would have been to merely distinguish
between the two types of censorship and illustrate the moral
difference, or to create two new words which would be subsumed under
the one word "censorship" as standardly defined in dictionaries.
The danger in what Rand has done is not only that it leaves a concept
short of a word to hold it, but that it can lead people to the
irrational conclusion, for example, that since the forbidding the
posting of any message that merely mentions neo-tech is not
"censorship" (according to the Randian definition), that:

: Thus exclusion of NT from HPO is quite proper.

For, now we are left to wonder if the writer is saying the exclusion
is "proper" in a "moral rights" sense or in a rational sense. My guess
is that he means it in both senses due to the semantical devolution
propagated by Rand and the Randians in this case. It is my belief
that Rand's intentions were good, however, and that she just did not
see the problems that I have illustrated.

Hence, the danger of being a Randian. Some will never admit that
Rand is irrational anywhere in her philosophy --that she is
flawless. In doing so, they are no longer objectivists.

[Anonymous]

In article <4okbs0$i...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

> In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
> >Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>
> >: It has NO content. It does not
> >: deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
> >: splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
> >: out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character
> >: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
> >: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
> >: detailed written analysis and commentary.
> >
> >Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything
> >is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
> >Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
> >They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
> >try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
> >sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.
>

> What Mr. Griffith seems unable to grasp is that by-and-large, the NT
> literature is designed and written to appeal to a "lower common
> denominator" of individual. It does discuss ideas, as ideas. But it doesn't
> do it in the "college-philosophy-class manner" to which he appears
> accustomed.

In other words he's not willing to take seriously material which is
written on the assumption that the reader is an easily misled fool.
He's got a point there.

> However, "The Neo-Tech Discovery" does, in fact, discuss ideas in a more
> "complex" or "philosophical" manner. Even so, it is a much lighter read
> than any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.

Rand, whether she is right or wrong, is at least clear. She doesn't
pretend that her ideas will make you immortal or give you super powers.
She never wrote a trough of swill like the 'Cassandra's Secret' chapter of
the online ZonPower book.

> You could call that our trump card.
>

> At any rate, everyone will eventually see the value of NT, as well as the
> sound reasoning for the fashion in which it's marketed.

You're awfully proud of this great 'marketing' campaign. But you claim
to have no connection to Neo-Tech Publishing. Oh no - you're shocked,
SHOCKED at the very suggestion! Of course there was that little account
you had on the neo-tech.com machine. And those business meetings in Las
Vegas with some very busy people at NTP who don't waste their time unless
there are bucks to be made.
And then there's the fact that your own company is called Sachs, Savage
& Noble, and the fact that Wallace Ward's first wife is named Helen
Savage, and one of the sons from that marriage - Frank S. Ward - writes
Neo-Crap as Eric Savage. Could the 'S.' stand for SAVAGE? So how much do
you charge to become a mind-numbed robot Nick? Perhaps you could go with
the highest bidder. John Finn would be proud.
I guess you're not as 'objective' as you wanted everyone to think, eh
Nicky? Hello Nicky? Where did you run off to?
Hee hee hee hee hee hee!
- King of all Heretics

[Lionell Griffith]

fer...@infobahnos.com (The Omnipotent Philosopher) wrote:

>lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:

>> If it is not a
>>con-game it is an expression of psychosis.

>Are these not assertions that need proving? I'm not one to defend NT

>but these are unfounded assertions. From what I know all NT
>literature comes with a 60 day money back guarantee which they have
>honored. Now it is available for free on the net. I hardly see this
>as a con-game. In a con-game, the con artists deceives his victims to
>hand over their money and then disappears never to be seen again. I
>don't see the NTers going anywhere. If anything they've become more
>prevalent.

I am in the process of demonstrating it by using NT and NT Poster's
own words. The con is an intellectual con. The value taken, is
intellectual value. The con is in process, so they have not
yet disappeared. Your argument is about non-essential properties.

>To claim they are psychotic is even more absurd. They seems to me to
>be more in touch with reality than most people I know.

What reality are you living in?

>You've also called it psychopathy. According to my dictionary:
>psychopathic personality: an emotional and behaviorally disordered
>state characterized by clear perception of reality except for the
>individual's social and moral obligations and often by the pursuit of
>immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction, or
>sexual perversion. [Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.]

Please read more carefully. I said psychopathology. That is quite
a different thing from psychopathic. So your comments on
the psychopathic personality are not relavant.

[Nicholas Rich]

Since LG, by this post, places himself squarely in the category of the present
and future irrelevant of society, I see no need to respond further.

Nothing like seeing a loser who has no clue about it.

In article <4oodrf$p...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>>>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>
>>>: It has NO content. It does not
>>>: deal with IDEAS as ideas. There is nothing to understand. It just
>>>: splashes grand undefined words and phrases intermingled with
>>>: out-of-context comments about Objectivism and attempts at character
>>>: assignation. It is so poorly written that it could not pass Freshman
>>>: Comp 100. As such, it does not deserve further attention, much less a
>>>: detailed written analysis and commentary.
>>>
>>>Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything
>>>is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
>>>Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
>>>They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
>>>try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
>>>sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.
>
>>What Mr. Griffith seems unable to grasp is that by-and-large, the NT
>>literature is designed and written to appeal to a "lower common denominator"
>>of individual. It does discuss ideas, as ideas. But it doesn't do it in the
>>"college-philosophy-class manner" to which he appears accustomed.
>

>What you don't appear to be able to grasp is that I don't give a DAMN
>about the "lower common denominator." They have NOTHING to offer to
>me nor to anybody else and hardly to themselves. However, we are
>discussing the quality of material that is appropreate for HPO. The
>proper quality is in fact 18th Century "college-philosophy-class
>manner." Graduate level at that. Your own admission that you present
>material that is intentionally written down provides still more
>evidence for the validity of excluding NT from HPO.
>

>>However, "The Neo-Tech Discovery" does, in fact, discuss ideas in a more
>>"complex" or "philosophical" manner. Even so, it is a much lighter read than
>>any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.
>

>Ayn Rand's non-fiction works are rather "light" reads. They are
>"light" because they are clear, have a sound cognitive organization
>and are connected to reality.
>

>>You could call that our trump card.
>

>You call pandering to the least common denominator a "trump card"?
>I will happily leave you to be the king of the ant heap. I will
>gladly associate with the top five or ten per million and
>leave you to the masses.
>
>It is now exposed that NT believes truth and knowledge is based
>upon how many believe in it. So, if they get the masses to believe,
>then NT is proved true. Still one more example of the disconnection
>of NT from reality.
>

>>At any rate, everyone will eventually see the value of NT, as well as the
>>sound reasoning for the fashion in which it's marketed.
>

>Everyone? Must be a belief based upon faith. Oh, I forgot, you have
>Zon-Power on your side. Wow. No one can resist that.
>
>Excuse me while I go vomit.
>
>

--

[Nicholas Rich]

Irrelevant AND dishonest...

In article <4ot9a8$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>
>>>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
>>>
>>>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
>>>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
>>>agreeing to associate as HPO.
>
>>Oh, goody...a premise.
>
>>It's false.
>
>It's TRUE!

[Nicholas Rich]

You're becomming increasingly irrelevant.

--

[Lionell Griffith]

sbu...@servtech.com (Steven Butler) wrote:

>The statement below from an "Objectivist" could only be
>taken seriously from within a mystical bubble of perception
>while floundering in the anticivilization. In other words,
>I'm sure he meant what he said, BUT, he is in error.

>SB

Another tiresome Grand Floating Abstraction without meaning.
NTer's are capable of nothing else. That is why they are
attracted to NT.

This "encounter" with NT and NTer's gives further evidence
that one must look elsewhere for intellegent life on earth.

>In article <4oohgk$q...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>

[Nicholas Rich]

This is the ersatz-intellectual equivalent of shooting the messenger because
of his own inability to comprehend the message.

Incidently, has anyone noticed how bicameral the intellectual-mode
Objectivists are? They need to read and integrate Jaynes (NT would be good to)
to discover how metaphorical communication is what drives civilization
forward. Of course, sound ideas must be at the foundation (Objectivism), but
sound ideas in themselves do not advance civilization. They must be
communicated to an existing civilization.
Metaphorical/lyrical/allegorical/parabolical communication is the only way to
accomplish this.

Read "The Pilgrim's Progress" for an excellent example. I suspect that
"Quantum Crossings" will bear some stylistic resemblances to this fine work of
literature.

In article <4oursn$4...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>sbu...@servtech.com (Steven Butler) wrote:
>
>>The statement below from an "Objectivist" could only be
>>taken seriously from within a mystical bubble of perception
>>while floundering in the anticivilization. In other words,
>>I'm sure he meant what he said, BUT, he is in error.
>
>>SB
>
>Another tiresome Grand Floating Abstraction without meaning.
>NTer's are capable of nothing else. That is why they are
>attracted to NT.
>
>This "encounter" with NT and NTer's gives further evidence
>that one must look elsewhere for intellegent life on earth.
>
>>In article <4oohgk$q...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>>

>>> In other words, NT is zip, nada, zero, nothing
>>> and in no way belongs in any serious discussion of Objectivism.
>>>
>
>
>

--

[Lionell Griffith]

Seems that he as run out of words. So much for the Kight of NT.
So much for NT. He and they cannot handle a direct, open, and
objective attack on their words.

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>Since LG, by this post, places himself squarely in the category of the present
>and future irrelevant of society, I see no need to respond further.

>Nothing like seeing a loser who has no clue about it.

>In article <4oodrf$p...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>

>--

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>Irrelevant AND dishonest...

>In article <4ot9a8$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
>>>>
>>>>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
>>>>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
>>>>agreeing to associate as HPO.
>>
>>>Oh, goody...a premise.
>>
>>>It's false.
>>
>>It's TRUE!

>--

>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com>
>Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com

>(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)

>"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
>compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need
>you." --Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED

Still one more non-answer.
Failure to address the issue.
One more personal attack.

More evidence he is a null operator and Neo-Tech is nothing
but noise.

[Lionell Griffith]

Seems that he as run out of words. So much for the Kight of NT.
So much for NT. He and they cannot handle a direct, open, and
objective attack on their words.

[Nicholas Rich]

My final reply to you on anything whatsoever (you're welcome to have the last
word):

You've shown by your responses that you are totally uniterested in
understanding, clarification, honesty. You are interested soley in pipping
your ego.

So be it.

Pip it on your own. I won't help.

In article <4ovc9n$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>

>>Irrelevant AND dishonest...
>
>>In article <4ot9a8$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
>>>>>
>>>>>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
>>>>>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
>>>>>agreeing to associate as HPO.
>>>
>>>>Oh, goody...a premise.
>>>
>>>>It's false.
>>>
>>>It's TRUE!
>

>>--
>>Nicholas Rich <nr...@ss-n.com>
>>Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com
>
>>(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)
>
>>"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
>>compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need
>>you." --Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED
>

>Still one more non-answer.
>Failure to address the issue.
>One more personal attack.
>
>More evidence he is a null operator and Neo-Tech is nothing
>but noise.
>
>

--

[Pee Kitty]

[news.groups removed from Newsgroups line]
Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

: >Uh, that's not true. Why would there be nothing to gain from attracting

: >"such" people? If they genuinely wanted to convert them to a more
: >objective worldview and help them take responsibility for their own
: >lives, wouldn't that be pretty honest? Now, I'm not saying that's they're
: >real motivation...I don't know anyone at NTP and don't really give a
: >damn, but it is only fair to consider all probabilities.

: It has been my experience that such people cannot BE converted. They
: must to the necessary work for themselves. If clear communication
: cannot do it, how can the NT crap do it? The only possible motive is
: raw nose count to be used to support a con or a delusion (no real
: difference).

I don't share your experience. I've seen (and helped) people move from a
mindless religious (or similar) mindset to a more sensible one; it just
takes a lot of work. I think the whole point of the NT 'miasma' is to get
their attention...it's supposed to be written in a format that they're
used to reading--all religious-y and grandious and appealing to their
need to 'get rich quick'. And the ones that read through it and start to
understand it can be gradually weaned into a more rational mindset. It's
like wrapping up a textbook in a Playboy cover and throwing in some naked
pictures...they'll read it and look at the pictures, then get around to
reading the 'articles', and that's when they start to learn something
useful. By the time they've realized they've been reading a textbook,
they're smart enough to realize it's what they should've been doing in
the first place. In other words: NT is (slightly modified) Objectivism in
a pretty, grandiose package. At least, that's how I interpret it.

: >Can't web. Sorry. Web browser is ALL fucked up...at best, I can get an

: >idea of where the links are, then go back with my own kludges and
: >exttact the HTML pages separately. Not a big deal, since I hate the WWW
: >anyways...

: Too bad. I suspect you would like some of my essays. They are
: my own words, written by myself, and are mostly published works.

Well, I can hunt and grab; I just have to read the stuff offline. I'll
stop by and grab some random links...

: Then I can spend another few minutes and get the rest. There is

: nothing in it. In fact, I wrote a program in 1968 that could
: write a better "introduction" than that. It also had no content
: but it suggested that it was about Third Generation Systems. I
: could have changed a few words and phrases and be able to produce
: a hundred page NT document with the same content: None!

In the intro? Maybe not...I think all it's supposed to do is grab your
attention and yank you toward the other stuff. I've read through the
other stuff, and found content in there. Nothing I didn't already know,
though...I can't see shelling out $80 for one of these books, but someone
who hasn't already learned that stuff would probably be happy to pay to
learn it.

: >Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything

: >is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
: >Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
: >They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
: >try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
: >sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

: Yes, I agree that you suggested that an effort to present their ideas
: more clearly and in English might help. I simply am not that kind to
: con artists. I went a little further than usual by specifying a
: standard of communication that I would find acceptable.

A reasonable standard...though I doubt they'll rewrite the books. They
did just post a 'preview' of the newest thing that's going up on the
website, though, and I found it much more clearly-written. You might want
to check it out...it's still got that NT 'flair' to it (grandiose, very
confident), but without a lot of the convolutions.

: Fairness has nothing to do with it. I am never fair about anything.

: I strive to be Just. I evaluate things for what they ARE and I
: grant the respect and attention earned. When I communicate, I strive
: for the maximum clearity possible for me. I am not often
: misunderstood.

I guess they're just trying for a different audience...they're TRYING to
draw in the kind of people who think in overembellished, vague terms.
That would be the 'mystics' out there that they keep mentioning. I wonder
if it's the right approach...but if it works, then it does make sense.

: A string of random words, disconnected notions, floating abstractions,

: and unfounded assertions to not make content. I suggest that it is
: poorly written to hide the fact that it has no content. It is written
: in the style of every con-artist, a flood of words used in an attempt
: to suppress rational analysis and force "its possible" acceptance.

But that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make them con artists.

: Blank out that the arbitrary is not only NOT true, it is also NOT

: false. The arbitrary has NO contact with reality and thus has no
: cognitive content. It contains less knowledge than the banging of
: garbage can lids. Such things have NO place in serious rational
: discussion -- especially Objectivist based discussions.

Agreed. But not everything in NT is arbitrary; most of that is the window
dressing. There are solid ideas underneath it (again, they seem like
nobrainers to me, but that's irrelevant), but they're buried DEEP.

: >: If the Neo-Techers purpose is to communicate, they must first learn to

: >: communicate and then, in fact, actually communicate. I do not
: >: believe that is their purpose. I believe their purpose is to gain
: >: position, power, and wealth without having to expend the intellectual
: >: effort necessary to be productive. In short, Neo-Tech is no more than
: >: a parasitical scam. It is up to them to prove otherwise.

: >Is the burden of proof really on them, when you're asking them to
: >disprove your assumptions? Really, I could say that I believe that AT&T
: >actively supports the KKK...do they then have to go to the trouble of
: >proving me wrong, or is it first my job to prove myself right?

: I am asking them to prove their position.

Actually, you say you're asking them to prove that they're not a
parasitical scam. That's an assertion, which does shift the burden of
proof to you. Just asking them to prove their position IS their burden,
of course.

: >I haven't heard many good things about Netscape...the best thing people

: >seem to say about it is "it adds so many more options to HTML pages!" Of
: >course, that means that all the new pages being created for Netscape look
: >like shit on standard browsers...

: Yes, and they take forever to load using a 14.4 modem. Most of them

: don't even look good on Netscape. Oh well, esthetics is not well
: taught in our society any more than effective thinking is well taught.
: Quality visual presentation, as with most things, must be self taught.

Hard to teach, since aesthetics are subjective...what I like isn't what
you'd like, I'm sure. I actually kind of like my Lynx...all fucked up
with the words and links mangled in a bizarre parody of webbing. It's
like dadawebbing...

[Lionell Griffith]

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>This is the ersatz-intellectual equivalent of shooting the messenger because
>of his own inability to comprehend the message.

>Incidently, has anyone noticed how bicameral the intellectual-mode
>Objectivists are? They need to read and integrate Jaynes (NT would be good to)
>to discover how metaphorical communication is what drives civilization
>forward. Of course, sound ideas must be at the foundation (Objectivism), but
>sound ideas in themselves do not advance civilization. They must be
>communicated to an existing civilization.
>Metaphorical/lyrical/allegorical/parabolical communication is the only way to
>accomplish this.

>Read "The Pilgrim's Progress" for an excellent example. I suspect that
>"Quantum Crossings" will bear some stylistic resemblances to this fine work of
>literature.

What he fails to understand, civilizations don't advance. They either

decay, (as ours is doing) or are yanked into the future by the
leading edge producers and creators. The direction of advance is
defined by the producers and creators. The masses can only follow.
It serves no purpose to "communicate" by myth, promise of magic,
and mystical metaphors to the followers and drones of society.
That is, other than that acieved by any religion -- con, scam,
or fraud.

[T. Cabellero]

Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
: tv...@foo.garply.com (T. Cabellero) wrote:

: >"Save me from the Randians" -Ayn Rand

: I have asked Mr. Cabellero, three times (at least twice by email) to supply
: a reference for this alleged Ayn Rand quote. It is well known that Ayn Rand
: despised the term "Randian", so it is difficult to imagine a context in
: which this quote might have been uttered.

Then it makes sense that the context in which it was uttered
was "Save me from the Randians."

: It is reasonable to request attribution for an unattributed quote being
: made repeatedly in public. A person who publicly refuses to attribute a
: quote, upon request, can rationally be assumed to be forging the quote,
: particularly if no third party has volunteered the reference (further
: strengthening the case that the quote is fabricated, given the wide
: readership of this group.) (I do not expect Mr. Cabellero to agree with my
: analysis, given his egregiously distorted views on the concepts of
: censorship and expression, but he cannot escape from the consequences of
: rational people applying a rational standard to his actions, and acting
: accordingly.)

: For the last time, I am asking Mr. Cabellero to supply the reference for
: this quote.

No. I'll leave that as a homework assignment for you. Consider me your
tutor in objectivism.

: --
: Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/

: Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!

: "The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
: guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand

[Lionell Griffith]

Seems that he as run out of words. So much for the Kight of NT.
So much for NT. He and they cannot handle a direct, open, and
objective attack on their words.

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>My final reply to you on anything whatsoever (you're welcome to have the last
>word):

>You've shown by your responses that you are totally uniterested in
>understanding, clarification, honesty. You are interested soley in pipping
>your ego.

>So be it.

>Pip it on your own. I won't help.

>In article <4ovc9n$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>
>>>Irrelevant AND dishonest...
>>
>>>In article <4ot9a8$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:

>>>>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
>>>>>>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
>>>>>>agreeing to associate as HPO.
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, goody...a premise.
>>>>
>>>>>It's false.
>>>>
>>>>It's TRUE!
>>

[T.M. Scheeler]

As I said in an earlier e-mail, you are a fraud and a liar; go look in the mirror.

================================================================

[Nicholas Rich]

You've got the productive/creative/mind elements correct. You simply
missunderstand the underlying dynamics totally and completely.

Heven't time to explain it to you. You'll learn soon enough anyway...

In article <4ovg8p$9...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>

--
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble
nr...@ss-n.com a...@ss-n.com

[Nicholas Rich]

The quoted portion clearly indicates that there are no lies.

But what the hell...

You dupes are continually supplying NTP with increadibly valuable posts which
will most certainly be used to market the new 600+ page Neo-Tech Objectivism
book to be agressively and profitably marketed beginning next fall.

I imagine it will be marketed in front-end style to an Objectivist
market--particularly to those who've just read Rand, to those not yet
indoctrinated into Randianism--I dunno, perhaps even to them.

But be thankful. It will be the best thing to happen to the Objectivist
movement since sliced epistemology.

In article <4p01hg$d...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>
>>Mr. Rich, one of the leading NT recruiters, has admitted that the whole
>>thing is a big lie, designed to appeal to mystics. Of course such an
>>abominable and contemptible tactic is completely alien to the epistemology
>>and morality of Objectivism, which they parasitize and claim to uphold.
>
>
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) responded:
>
>>I've never made any such admission, nor implied anything of the sort.
>
>
>More lies from Mr. Rich. Here is the evidence:
>
>
>In article <4o77kf$l...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich)
>says:
>>
>
>>Every NTer knows that white-hat neocheating (promoting myths in an
>>undetectable fashion) is involved in the *front-end* sale of NT
>>publications. It's the only way they could be sold to a mass-market.
>
>>Now, if they wanted to do a few hundred K $$$ every year selling
>>philosophy books, they could do that too--and have brochures that read
>>like the book summaries in the Second Renaissance Books catalog. That's
>>not the market.
>>
>>But most people have these mysticisms which can be profitably exploited. >
>>Yes, you read that right--and with no apology--"PROFITABLY EXPLOITED!"
>
>>However, in a wide-context, none of the claims in the brochures are lies.
>>It does sound goofy to a person who's been raised in a rational
>>environment, and irresistably too good to be true to mystics. But most
>>people who buy and read the book dump their mysticism eventually--yes, in
>>various levels of success--but that's pretty much how life
>>oppoerates--some are better at things than others.
>
>>One other note. The difference between white-hat and black-hat neocheating
>>is that in white-hat neocheating, force is never used, and in the end,
>>value is actually given rather than userped as in black-hatting.
>
>>It's a beautiful ploy really.
>
>
>I hope it is clear why discussion of this nonsense is being
>excluded from HPO -- these are obviously vicious intellectual
>parasites, who will lie and defraud to make money, and in a matter
>as fundamentally important as philosophy.
>
>Gee, Neo-Tech is almost as contemptible as modern academia.

>
>--
>Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
>
>Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
>
>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand

--

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4p01mi$d...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>
>>I think the whole point of the NT 'miasma' is to get
>>their attention...it's supposed to be written in a format that they're
>>used to reading--all religious-y and grandious and appealing to their
>>need to 'get rich quick'.
>

>"Every organization gets the members that its leaders and ideals deserve."

Precisely.

That sword cuts both ways.

The business marketplace has seen to it that Neo-Tech gets the essence movers,
the doers.

Randianism get the talkers.

(Mr. Aisa'a contributions to forward-movement activism noted, appreciated, and
respected.)

[Pee Kitty]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

: >In article <4ot9a8$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
: >>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

: >>

: >>>In article <4ok9k3$a...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
: >>
: >>>>>1. Is hpo your property? Is it any of ours?
: >>>>
: >>>>That is one of the problems of "common" property. However, the
: >>>>"property" here is rented and thus "owned" by the individuals
: >>>>agreeing to associate as HPO.
: >>
: >>>Oh, goody...a premise.
: >>
: >>>It's false.
: >>
: >>It's TRUE!

: >Irrelevant AND dishonest...

: Still one more non-answer.

: Failure to address the issue.

I just backtracked on this thread; he DID answer it, in the post that
included "It's false"...that phrase was followed by several paragraphs
about why it's false to associate a newsgroup with property.

: One more personal attack.

I didn't see your post that included the phrase "It's TRUE"; did you
offer a counterargument or just say "It's TRUE"? (I have no way to tell)

: More evidence he is a null operator and Neo-Tech is nothing
: but noise.

Neither of you guys are willing to address the other's challenges; and
therefore your posts have just degenerated into pointless yelling at each
other. I've seen points made from BOTH of you, that the other completely
failed to address rationally, instead just making some comment to
belittle it. I'm against both sides on this one...I'm just going to side
with Subjectivism, since it's obvious that THAT sides wins EVERY
argument, eventually...

[Matt Keys]

Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
: [brackets indicate my comments -- BA]

: In article <4okeil$c...@news.accent.net>,
: fer...@infobahnos.com (The Omnipotent Philosopher) wrote:

: >I'm not one to defend NT [as he proceeds to defend NT...]
: >but these are unfounded assertions. From what I know all NT

: >literature comes with a 60 day money back guarantee which they have
: >honored. Now it is available for free on the net.

: This is false. The purpose of NT Publishing is to make money. The junk on
: the Internet is bait. The sole purpose of the existence of NT is to scam $

uh, excuse me brad, all of thier books are going to be online for
free within the next year or so. Care to explain that? of course, as a
profit driven company, they have to show a profit to survive.

: Mr. Rich, one of the leading NT recruiters, has admitted that the whole

: thing is a big lie, designed to appeal to mystics. Of course such an
: abominable and contemptible tactic is completely alien to the epistemology
: and morality of Objectivism, which they parasitize and claim to uphold.

good job of misrepresenting his words. He was saying the ads
are slightly exagerated and oriented towards non-intellectuals.

: Nonsense. There are just as few of them as ever. You are confusing the
: ability to spam endless canned nonsense onto the net with actual adherents.
: And they have been drummed out of every Objectivist undertaking which
: they've tried to invade. apo, being an anarchy, is available to them only
: because it is unowned and unmoderated. And that means it has no connection
: with Objectivism, beyond what relevance any *specific* post may have.

see quote below:

Rage against Neo-Tech

Ref: More recycling on Usenet of dishonesties and rage against the fully
integrated honesty of Neo-Tech. Indeed, the postings and templates from
Neo-Tech are effective. They hit their targets accurately, efficiently. That
is why the reactions are strident, profane, panicky.

The half-life Usenet was a valuable tool for developing a key segment of the
web site:

http://www.neo-tech.com/

That doubling-life web site increasingly spreads the full-context facts
about Neo-Tech worldwide. Those facts are now permanently available for
universal use, including the templates...and will be used over and over in all
forms and media until ignorance and dishonesty vanish.

--

Neo-Tech Objectivism http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/
Neo-Tech: Get Rich By 2001 http://www.neo-tech.com/world/

[Anonymous]

In article <4p06hn$q...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

> In article <4p01hg$d...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
> wrote:

> >ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
> >
> >>Mr. Rich, one of the leading NT recruiters, has admitted that the whole
> >>thing is a big lie, designed to appeal to mystics. Of course such an
> >>abominable and contemptible tactic is completely alien to the epistemology
> >>and morality of Objectivism, which they parasitize and claim to uphold.
> >
> >

> The quoted portion clearly indicates that there are no lies.

Wrong. It clearly states that there are lies, but then tries to claim
that the lies become truth provided one looks at a 'wider context.'
'Myth' when presented, as it is in the Neo-Tech ads and literature, as if
it were fact is nothing but a fancy lie.
Or do you have some real life proof that Neo-Tech/ZonPower can make you
into a GOD?

> But what the hell...
>
> You dupes are continually supplying NTP with increadibly valuable posts
> which will most certainly be used to market the new 600+ page Neo-Tech
> Objectivism book to be agressively and profitably marketed beginning next
> fall.

I doubt that my expose of all your lies will be quoted IN FULL as part
of your marketing effort. I suspect you'll just quote some of my flames
and leave out all the stuff about how you weasled and waffled and evaded
for six months about whether you had a financial connection with Neo-Tech
Publishing or Wallace Ward, til finally you were exposed.
I doubt you'll include the post where a Neo-Tech employee or front
man/woman ranted and raved about me being sexually assualted by doberman
pinchers. Or the ones where various NT employees gibbered gleefully about
my approaching suicide/impotence/doom. What happened Nicky? I thought I
was supposed to be dead by now? Looks like Wacky Wally Ward doesn't quite
grok Cassandra's Secret yet or else he wouldn't be so innaccurate in his
predictions.
And how are you going to explain the massive Neo-Tech lie that I was
created by Drew Ellis? That should really be something to see.

> I imagine it will be marketed in front-end style to an Objectivist
> market--particularly to those who've just read Rand, to those not yet
> indoctrinated into Randianism--I dunno, perhaps even to them.

Every Objectivist venue you've tried to infiltrate has booted you out on
your sorry fully integrated ass, so what makes you think you'll be able to
reach Rand readers with your bilge?

> But be thankful. It will be the best thing to happen to the Objectivist
> movement since sliced epistemology.

Having a bunch of kooks combine a few Objectivist catch phrases with a
huge stinking load of shit about consciousness controlling reality, space
alien civilizations of the universe, thinkons, Cassandra's Secret
(precognition), exploding gravity units, and immortal, omnipotent ZONS is
not gonna set the world on fire.
In the end you'll be forced to go back to marketing this shit to the
pathetic opportunity seekers who are the natural prey for mindfucking
cults like Neo-Tech.

- King of all Heretics

P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
no! :)

[Sivarama Venkatesan]

On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Brad Aisa wrote:
> tv...@foo.garply.com (T. Cabellero) wrote:
> >"Save me from the Randians" -Ayn Rand
>
> I have asked Mr. Cabellero, three times (at least twice by email) to supply
> a reference for this alleged Ayn Rand quote. It is well known that Ayn Rand
> despised the term "Randian", so it is difficult to imagine a context in
> which this quote might have been uttered.
>

> It is reasonable to request attribution for an unattributed quote being
> made repeatedly in public. A person who publicly refuses to attribute a
> quote, upon request, can rationally be assumed to be forging the quote,
> particularly if no third party has volunteered the reference (further
> strengthening the case that the quote is fabricated, given the wide
> readership of this group.)
>

> Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/

"I wish they [the `Nietzschean
whim-worshippers'] would stay
away from us. For once I feel
sympathy for Marx. He said
somewhere that he was not
a Marxist. God protect me
from the Randians."

- Ayn Rand, quoted by Nathaniel
Branden on p.261 of "Judgment Day..."
(Houghton-Mifflin). Not one of the
"officially sanctioned" books, I'm
afraid.

Venkat

--
***************************************************************************
* Sivarama Venkatesan * Email: sve...@eclair.eecs.berkeley.edu *
* Dept. of EECS, UC-Berkeley * Tel. : (510)849-0123(H)/(510)643-5895(W) *
***************************************************************************

[think999]

In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:

> - King of all Heretics
>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
>no! :)

There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.
Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4p20du$l...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:
>In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
> wrote:
>

>> - King of all Heretics
>>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
>>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
>>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
>>no! :)
>

>There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.
>Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

Actually, he's correct. Nor have there been business connections between NTP
and Richard Nikoley, or between he and Eric Savage, or between myself/SS&N and
Frank Ward, etc, etc, and every possible permutation.

In '92, what is now SS&N was originally a partnership, Nikoley, Ross &
Nikoley, composed of myself (Nikoley), a good friend and longtime business
associate (Ross) and my mother (& Nikoley). That arrangement did not work out
for various reasons.

I then formed Sachs, Savage & Noble, and registed it as a fictitious business
name entity (dba). It has since been sold to a trust which holds all shares. I
am Director of the company.

The names were chosen out of a possible four names which I liked the sound of
because of the financial/legal "ring" to them:

Golden
Noble
Sachs
Savage

I actually wrote down every possible permutation of 3, and selected Sachs,
Savage & Noble as the best sounding.

JF, you spoiled all the fun. Who knows to what heights of lunacy he would have
taken this :)

It was also fun to watch Objectivists like Lionel Griffith jump on the ataboy
& asskissin' bandwagon.

[Steven Butler]

lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>
> sbu...@servtech.com (Steven Butler) wrote:
> >
> >The statement below from an "Objectivist" could only be
> >taken seriously from within a mystical bubble of perception
> >while floundering in the anticivilization. In other words,
> >I'm sure he meant what he said, BUT, he is in error.
>

> Another tiresome Grand Floating Abstraction without meaning.
> NTer's are capable of nothing else. That is why they are
> attracted to NT.

In other words, I'm certain you meant what you said, BUT,
you are in error. It *-means-* you are in error. But you knew
exactly what I meant and still you called it a "Grand
Floating Abstraction without meaning".
^^^^^^

> This "encounter" with NT and NTer's gives further evidence
> that one must look elsewhere for intellegent life on earth.
>

> > lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In other words, NT is zip, nada, zero, nothing
> > > and in no way belongs in any serious discussion of Objectivism.

I admit that I knew you wouldn't understand the first
sentance. Why? Because *-you-* take yourself seriously
from within *-your-* (you own it) mystical bubble of
perception as *-you-* flounder in the anitcivilization.
Go ahead, call it a "Grand Flaoting Abstraction"...so
that you can then evade that you *-do know-* what
the second sentance meant. Ignorance will not change
it for you.

Moreso, it was for the benefit of those who do
understand what fully integrated honesty is.

SB

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Future creating -- Perceive through your past, present and
future while acting necessary in the present according to your
future. Naturally acting with benevolence and compassion
rather than in defense of one's irrationality.

[Lionell Griffith]

pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

Yes, we have different experiences. That makes the communication all
the more interesting and informative. However, I have MUCH more
success with training horses than I have with that kind of people.
Even if they could be "converted" I doubt they would be of much
use. They have a lifetime of mental garbage stuffed in their
subconscious mind. It would take another lifetime to clear it out.
Intellectually retarded I can work with. Intellectually crippled
I cannot.

>: >Can't web. Sorry. Web browser is ALL fucked up...at best, I can get an
>: >idea of where the links are, then go back with my own kludges and
>: >exttact the HTML pages separately. Not a big deal, since I hate the WWW
>: >anyways...

>: Too bad. I suspect you would like some of my essays. They are
>: my own words, written by myself, and are mostly published works.

>Well, I can hunt and grab; I just have to read the stuff offline. I'll
>stop by and grab some random links...

>: Then I can spend another few minutes and get the rest. There is
>: nothing in it. In fact, I wrote a program in 1968 that could
>: write a better "introduction" than that. It also had no content
>: but it suggested that it was about Third Generation Systems. I
>: could have changed a few words and phrases and be able to produce
>: a hundred page NT document with the same content: None!

>In the intro? Maybe not...I think all it's supposed to do is grab your
>attention and yank you toward the other stuff. I've read through the
>other stuff, and found content in there. Nothing I didn't already know,
>though...I can't see shelling out $80 for one of these books, but someone
>who hasn't already learned that stuff would probably be happy to pay to
>learn it.

Clearly it was very repulsive to me. But, I am a Scientist and
Engineer and I require clearity, evidence, and proof. I simply do not
see it in any of the visible NT material. Hince, no reason to suspect
that it exists in the hidden NT material. That is how I treat all
marketing efforts. If it is puffery, I don't go further.

>: >Content-free? Can't agree...whether what they're saying is WORTH anything
>: >is another matter, but ther'es definitely something there.
>: >Poorly-written? Sure is; see my proposal to NTP in my first reply to you.
>: >They could really use a revamping. But are you saying you're unwilling to
>: >try to understand them just because they can't write well? That doesn't
>: >sound very fair. Even *I* tried, and I'm admittedly lazy as hell.

>: Yes, I agree that you suggested that an effort to present their ideas
>: more clearly and in English might help. I simply am not that kind to
>: con artists. I went a little further than usual by specifying a
>: standard of communication that I would find acceptable.

>A reasonable standard...though I doubt they'll rewrite the books. They
>did just post a 'preview' of the newest thing that's going up on the
>website, though, and I found it much more clearly-written. You might want
>to check it out...it's still got that NT 'flair' to it (grandiose, very
>confident), but without a lot of the convolutions.

From my incounter with the one or two existant NTers, I fail to see
evidence of ability or willingness to meet the standard. Hince, I
judge them to be lacking.

>: Fairness has nothing to do with it. I am never fair about anything.
>: I strive to be Just. I evaluate things for what they ARE and I
>: grant the respect and attention earned. When I communicate, I strive
>: for the maximum clearity possible for me. I am not often
>: misunderstood.

>I guess they're just trying for a different audience...they're TRYING to
>draw in the kind of people who think in overembellished, vague terms.
>That would be the 'mystics' out there that they keep mentioning. I wonder
>if it's the right approach...but if it works, then it does make sense.

I don't think a thousand of them are worth a copper plated zinc cent.
NT is welcome to them.

>: A string of random words, disconnected notions, floating abstractions,
>: and unfounded assertions to not make content. I suggest that it is
>: poorly written to hide the fact that it has no content. It is written
>: in the style of every con-artist, a flood of words used in an attempt
>: to suppress rational analysis and force "its possible" acceptance.

>But that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make them con artists.

Yes, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like
a duck, and sounds like a duck, it IS a duck. Yes, they are con
artists. They may even be conning themselves. But, they are con
artists.

>: Blank out that the arbitrary is not only NOT true, it is also NOT
>: false. The arbitrary has NO contact with reality and thus has no
>: cognitive content. It contains less knowledge than the banging of
>: garbage can lids. Such things have NO place in serious rational
>: discussion -- especially Objectivist based discussions.

>Agreed. But not everything in NT is arbitrary; most of that is the window
>dressing. There are solid ideas underneath it (again, they seem like
>nobrainers to me, but that's irrelevant), but they're buried DEEP.

I suggest that it is YOUR intellect that is finding the deep stuff. I
doubt that they intentionally put it there. When discussing ideas,
window dressing is ALWAYS used to hide the lack of competance and
content. Clearity is the hallmark of honesty and competance.

If the NTers cannot and will not provide clearity and validation
in their introductory material, there is no way that it is in the
"deeper" material. They state they are supreme marketiers. Yet,
they can't sell me a comma. Even after I gave them instructions
as to how to sell to me. No, its not there.

>: >: If the Neo-Techers purpose is to communicate, they must first learn to
>: >: communicate and then, in fact, actually communicate. I do not
>: >: believe that is their purpose. I believe their purpose is to gain
>: >: position, power, and wealth without having to expend the intellectual
>: >: effort necessary to be productive. In short, Neo-Tech is no more than
>: >: a parasitical scam. It is up to them to prove otherwise.

>: >Is the burden of proof really on them, when you're asking them to
>: >disprove your assumptions? Really, I could say that I believe that AT&T
>: >actively supports the KKK...do they then have to go to the trouble of
>: >proving me wrong, or is it first my job to prove myself right?

>: I am asking them to prove their position.

>Actually, you say you're asking them to prove that they're not a
>parasitical scam. That's an assertion, which does shift the burden of
>proof to you. Just asking them to prove their position IS their burden,
>of course.

No. I have asked them to prove that they have and are making a
positive addition to Objectivism. I have asked them to identify
with clearity what that addition is and to prove that it is
valid. I have asked them to prove that they in fact are even
supporting objectivist ideas. All I received were convoluted,
grand floating abstractions, long lists of personal attacks, and
unsubstantiated assertions.

Their material did not prove their position. Their material did
not even STATE their position clearly. From that evidence, I
identified them as frauds. All they have to do is state and prove
their position with clearity. They have refused. They have proven
themselves to be frauds by their own words, style, and method.
I am not generous enough to call them simple incompetants.

>: >I haven't heard many good things about Netscape...the best thing people
>: >seem to say about it is "it adds so many more options to HTML pages!" Of
>: >course, that means that all the new pages being created for Netscape look
>: >like shit on standard browsers...

>: Yes, and they take forever to load using a 14.4 modem. Most of them
>: don't even look good on Netscape. Oh well, esthetics is not well
>: taught in our society any more than effective thinking is well taught.
>: Quality visual presentation, as with most things, must be self taught.

>Hard to teach, since aesthetics are subjective...what I like isn't what
>you'd like, I'm sure. I actually kind of like my Lynx...all fucked up
>with the words and links mangled in a bizarre parody of webbing. It's
>like dadawebbing...
>--

That aesthetics is subjective does not make it arbitrary. The medium,
style, subject, and content selection must match the purpose of the
work. I may not agree with the purpose, but if the style, subject,
and content selection do in fact match the purpose of the work, then
the work was well done. I may not "like" the work, but I can
appreciate the quality of the workmanship. Without purpose, there
is no aesthetics. It is just random splashes of words, colors,
sounds, and the like. Much of the web is just that.

No, random whim is not purpose. It is the very essence of
non-purpose.

[Albert Carrasco]

In <4p2nv5$4...@mandolin.qnet.com> lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith)
writes:

>
>I don't think a thousand of them are worth a copper plated zinc cent.
>NT is welcome to them.
>

You're in for a *big* surprise.

Giants versus Twerps

Who knows the fierce battle it takes to start from nothing except
an idea, and from that idea to build livelihoods, values, and
prosperity for entire populations?

Jay Gould knew, Henry Ford knew, Leona Helmsley knew, Michael
Milken knew along with too many other unsung giants -- each
attacked in a thousand ways by countless twerps, pips,
ex-beneficiaries, fired employees, professional value destroyers,
government bureaucrats, parasitical elites, ego
prosecutors/judges, and demagogic politicians.

Those entrepreneurs knew about fighting day and night, year after
year to build job-creating businesses that deliver competitive
values to society -- values that advance civilization. Such
business people tragically must consume irreplaceable chunks of
their precious lives in throwing off envious sloths and do-nothing
nonentities who constantly try to drain them and diminish the
values they produce for society. Only those precious few
entrepreneurs know the fierce struggle required to competitively
succeed where countless others fail. Only they have the toughness
to battle nonstop in solving and overcoming the never ending flood
of life-or-death survival problems. They can never "go home" after
work to entertainment or diversions. They can never kick back in
the evenings, on weekends, or on vacations. They can never leave
their work or responsibilities. ...Such people do not collect
paychecks from others. They create the paychecks that others live
on. Such is their responsibility. They work to solve problems that
do exist, not to create problems that do not exist.

In a week or even a day, the entrepreneur business builder can
face and must solve more survival problems than most people face
in a lifetime. Any one of those countless problems can be taken
out of context by a malicious value destroyer ranging from a fired
ex-employee trying to financially shake down his ex-employer to a
nihilistic pip trying to pump up his shrunken self-worth.

What kind of people dishonestly, enviously, maliciously attack the
good? What kind of people feel, think, and act in such purposely
destructive ways? In Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and
Hitler's Germany, how many millions of value producers met their
deaths because of such envy-shriveled pips. In America, today,
countless pips stand ready to destroy heroic, competitive
value-and-job producers through jail or death as a police state of
armed bureaucrats arises -- a police state arising today from the
self-aggrandizing agendas of criminal-minded politicians and
dishonest journalists.

Many pips collect paychecks from tax-funded sources, from
tenured-academe positions, from statist-establishment positions,
or from companies they hate. Some pips have revealed themselves on
Usenet as Randian cultists promoting Objectivist dogma. Other pips
appeared on Usenet as ersatz Objectivists who often use quotes in
trying to associate themselves with quotes from various courageous
heroes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Yet, they
themselves lack the courage to honestly face reality to profitably
build competitive values for themselves, others, and society.
Instead, they expose their essence by attacking objective values
produced by others while making problems where none exist. Various
examples of such pips are provided in the forthcoming book
Flame-War Justice from Neo-Tech Worldwide.

In any case, such pips and nihilists have no understanding of what
it takes to start, build, and run competitive businesses that
ultimately provide the livelihoods and well beings for them and
everyone else on Earth. And, who else besides such value
destroyers has the time or inclination to pip -- to ego pump by
purposely dragging down success and values created by others?

Neo-Tech stands alone protecting value-and-job producers from
intentional value destroyers. To witness that protective dynamic
in action, stay tuned to the Neo-Tech home page:
http://www.neo-tech.com/

[Nicholas Rich]

Good thing Neo-Tech Objectivism will eradicate the planet (through exposure)
of pompous-ass idiots like this.

Talk about someone who has totally missunderstood ans missaplied the
principles of rational self-interest and value production....

In article <4p319s$7...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>decom...@aol.com (DeCoManage) wrote:
>
>>In article <4oodrf$p...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell

>>Griffith) writes:
>
>>>However, we are
>>>discussing the quality of material that is appropreate for HPO. The
>>>proper quality is in fact 18th Century "college-philosophy-class
>>>manner." Graduate level at that. Your own admission that you present
>>>material that is intentionally written down provides still more
>>>evidence for the validity of excluding NT from HPO.
>

>>Ayn Rand novels and NT were my introduction to Objectivism. It was
>>written in terms I could understand for the most part and I have
>>questions. Now I am attempting to understand Objectivism and expand what
>>I had learned by reading some of the NT and Ayn Rand works. I value most
>>of the input from objective individuals.
>
>>Your opinion "The proper quality" will exclude myself as well as others
>>who are just beginning to open their eyes to Objectivism. That is you
>>intent? To exclude anyone who does not communicate at your obviously high
>>intellectual level?
>
>I have little interest in educating "beginners" for free. The
>exchange with advanced, clear thinking, and able communicators
>is paid for by the exchange of ideas, comments, and the testing
>of arguments. It is up to the beginners to educate themselves.
>
>An education is never free or even cheap. I have no willingness
>nor obligation to pay for yours with my time or resources. There
>is adequate written and recorded material for sale that can
>provide your basic education. Purchase it. Don't expect me to
>give it to you.
>
>I offer this segment of your education for free.
>
>End of free education.

[Lionell Griffith]

sve...@taiyang.eecs.berkeley.edu (Sivarama Venkatesan) wrote:

Hearsay evidence that Rand actually said it, but
at least we now have the citation.

[Lionell Griffith]

thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:

>In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:

>> - King of all Heretics
>>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
>>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
>>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
>>no! :)

>There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.

>Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

From an idea set that consists of baseless assertions, still one more
assertion. Although it does not make a bit of difference if this
assertion is true, false, or arbitrary. NT is still crap.

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4p53ko$1...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
> wrote:
>

>>> - King of all Heretics
>>>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
>>>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
>>>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
>>>no! :)
>

>>There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.
>>Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF
>
>From an idea set that consists of baseless assertions, still one more
>assertion. Although it does not make a bit of difference if this
>assertion is true, false, or arbitrary. NT is still crap.

Explain just how he or I are supposed to prove the negative in this case?

Or, do you wish me to assert that you mollest little boys, and demand that you
prove that you don't or never have?

[Lionell Griffith]

Try reading my post: ... it does not make a bit of difference if this
assertion is true, false, or arbitrary ....

You would note that you don't have to prove a thing. You already
have.

nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

>In article <4p53ko$1...@mandolin.qnet.com>, lgri...@qnet.com wrote:
>>thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
>> wrote:
>>

>>>> - King of all Heretics
>>>>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
>>>>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
>>>>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
>>>>no! :)
>>

[Anonymous]

In article <4p20du$l...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, thin...@netcom.com

(think999 - AKA 'Frank R. Wallace' AKA Wallace Ward, Neo-Tech founder)
wrote:

> In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net
(Anonymous) wrote:
>

> > - King of all Heretics
> >P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
> >name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
> >could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
> >no! :)
>

> There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and
> Mr. Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

I didn't say that there was a direct business connection between NTP and
'Mr. Rich' - I said that your son goes by the name Savage and that he may
be involved in Sachs, Savage & Noble.
This is certainly an interesting coincidence. Of course with all the
names you've cooked up for all your various personas, doppelgangers,
yes-men, shills, droids, dupes and front men I suppose it is just
possible that one of them would accidentally match one of the three names
Tricky Nicky cooked up for his arbitration franchise business. It is of
interest that this particular name is identical on your wife's original
last name though.
By the way, what ever did happen to Helen Savage?

- King of all Heretics

P.S. Care to offer any proof that 'Drew Ellis' created me? Say some
check stubs, copies of correspondence, or how about my email address? You
see there's no way Drew could have contacted me without a valid email
address, so surely he must still have it. The whole world is watching
Wallace Ward, and your filthy lies are really starting to stink sitting
out in the hot summer sun like this. Perhaps you'd like to retract your
claim that I was created by one of your lackies? Or prove it. You know
you're lying, and I know you're lying. Onlookers strongly suspect that
you're lying since you've done nothing to prove your case. Refuse to
provide evidence and everyone will know that you are dishonest and
completely without ethics in your online marketing tactics.
You're not going to weasel out of this one Ward. You stepped into the
trap and no amount of lies will get you out.
This isn't poker Finn, it's Net War. And if anyone's the poor fish,
flopping around the deck gasping for air, it's throat gushing blood from
the jagged prongs of the hook tearing away at it's flesh, it's YOU.

[Matt Keys]

Anonymous (nob...@flame.alias.net) wrote:
: In article <4p20du$l...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, thin...@netcom.com

: (think999 - AKA 'Frank R. Wallace' AKA Wallace Ward, Neo-Tech founder)
: wrote:

: > In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net
: (Anonymous) wrote:

: >
: > > - King of all Heretics

: > >P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
: > >name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
: > >could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
: > >no! :)

: >
: > There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and

: > Mr. Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

: I didn't say that there was a direct business connection between NTP and

: 'Mr. Rich' - I said that your son goes by the name Savage and that he may

: be involved in Sachs, Savage & Noble.
: This is certainly an interesting coincidence. Of course with all the
: names you've cooked up for all your various personas, doppelgangers,
: yes-men, shills, droids, dupes and front men I suppose it is just
: possible that one of them would accidentally match one of the three names
: Tricky Nicky cooked up for his arbitration franchise business. It is of
: interest that this particular name is identical on your wife's original
: last name though.
: By the way, what ever did happen to Helen Savage?

: - King of all Heretics
: P.S. Care to offer any proof that 'Drew Ellis' created me? Say some

: check stubs, copies of correspondence, or how about my email address? You
: see there's no way Drew could have contacted me without a valid email
: address, so surely he must still have it. The whole world is watching
: Wallace Ward, and your filthy lies are really starting to stink sitting
: out in the hot summer sun like this. Perhaps you'd like to retract your

: claim that I was created by one of your lackies? Or prove it. You know

: you're lying, and I know you're lying. Onlookers strongly suspect that
: you're lying since you've done nothing to prove your case. Refuse to
: provide evidence and everyone will know that you are dishonest and
: completely without ethics in your online marketing tactics.
: You're not going to weasel out of this one Ward. You stepped into the
: trap and no amount of lies will get you out.
: This isn't poker Finn, it's Net War. And if anyone's the poor fish,
: flopping around the deck gasping for air, it's throat gushing blood from
: the jagged prongs of the hook tearing away at it's flesh, it's YOU.

the "is KOAH a Psycopath?" FAQ version 0.001

[ material obtained from http://dejanews.com, search for King of all
Heretics, look for old articles, before Koah became "nice". ]

*** side note: as you read these articles by KOAH, keep in mind Betsy and
a few others on a.p.o were encouraging his reckless spastic attacks on
Neo-Tech the whole time. They also supplied him with libelous information
about Neo-Tech. see q4) for more.

q1) does KOAH really want to nuke innocent citizens?

q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
every orifice possible?

q3) more evidence for q1 and q2

q4) do Objectivists and others really cheer on KOAH?? (read about
a.p.o "leader" Betsy Speicher's support of KOAH here)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

q1) does KOAH really want to nuke innocent citizens?

read his post and decide for yourself:

Subject: Re: Objectivist enemies of open debate
From: nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
Date: 1996/04/05
Organization: Flame International Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.support.ex-Cult,alt.neo-Tech

> >> He is absolutely the worst sort of destructive nihilist. And in his own
> >> words, there are circumstances where he would personally explode a nuke in
> >> a populated city.
> >
> > There are circumstances where _you_ might do the same.
> > Nihilism cannot be determined by listing various shocking actions a
> >person might take - you must establish that the person is without ethical
> >principles and philosophical beliefs.
> > I have been quite clear that I do subscribe to a moral code.
> > It just isn't in alignment with what most social systems and
> >superstitious religions have deemed moral during recorded history.
>
> There are _no_ circumstances that would cause me to purposely end the life
> of _any_ individual who was not _directly_ and _purposely_ thretening my
> life.
>
> In your example, you stated that if you should be drafted, you would seek
> about to murder your commanding officer and everyone up the chain of
> command--apparently without regard to whether they happen to be caught in
> the same draft as you, with the same gun to their heads.

So they're just following orders, eh?
Tell it to Adolph Eichmann.

> You also stated that you would attempt to acquire a nuclear bomb and
> explode it in a populated city, if drafted into military service--aparently
> without regard to the indesputable fact that well over 99.9% of that
> poupulation of individual, living, conscious beings (including thousands of
> totally innocent children) have no _direct_, _individual_, _conscious_
> involvement in your being drafted.

Ah - but they are part of the leftist 'social contract' - they elect
demopublicans who ALL share the premise that I should be enslaved.

I refrain from any action regarding this so long as my LIFE is not
threatened. But if I am drafted ALL BETS ARE OFF. The line is crossed.

The draft is a declaration of total war on me. The only way to avoid
this is to refrain from enslaving me.

I would destroy the entire universe rather than live as a slave.
And you can quote me on that.

> Unless you dispute having said this, I think anyone would be well advised
> to consider what a whimpish, unstable, wild-eyed lunatic you are and refuse
> to deal with you in any context.
>
> >> Once I saw that, I realized for good what his psychology was all about.
> >> He can't fool anyone anymore.
> >
> > Nihilist is not a psychological term.
> > It refers to a lack of belief in anything.
> > I am not a nihilist.
> > I absolutely believe in myself.

> > - King of all Heretics
>

> It is a certain psychology which gives rise to nihilistic tendencies, and
> you display them in spades.

Ah - so I have nihilistic 'tendencies' now.
Nihilism is the belief in NOTHING.
I believe in all sorts of things very strongly.
I might be a terrifyingly immoral egoist from the point of view of
communitarian and altruist moral codes, but I'm no nihilist.
I am something MUCH, MUCH WORSE!

- King of all Heretics

--------------------------------------------------------------------

q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
every orifice possible?

koah writes:

> Oh, and if I was able to ensure that I wouldn't catch anything from sexual
> contact, and that I could protect my partners 100% from pregnancy risks,
> I would probably join KOAH on his coast-to-coast orgy of promiscuous sex.
> Because I live in reality though... One partner at a time for me.

They say to search for the words 'promiscuous sex' and my psuedonym to
find my outrageous statements, but I wouldn't use that term. In fact, I'm
pretty sure they're misinterpreting my views about sociobiology as a
blanket endorsement of orgies.

The Neo-Techers seem to think that they can alter the balance of forces
in the net war decisively in their favor by violating my privacy (which
they show their intent to do even if they reveal the wrong name). They
again show very little understanding of net culture.

They are very confused.

I am not trapped in combat with them, they are trapped in combat with me.
Remember AB!

- King of all Heretics

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

q3) wait, there's more info for q1 and q2:

> > - King of all Heretics

> >P.S. By the way Bradley, you can go fuck off too. Put on your Spock ears
> >and watch some Star trek reruns like a good little boy and go away.
>
> Template for a Bloody Psychopath
> In early March, 1996, this anonymous psychopath publicly announced on
> Usenet his desires for limitless, no-value promiscuous sex.

Wahoo!
By the way, that sounds pretty good, but I don't recall stating a desire
for limitless _no-value_ promiscuous sex. :)

> Then, between blizzards of uncontrolled Tourette-like sexual profanities,

What the fuck are you talking about cocksucker?
Hee hee hee hee!

> he proclaimed across Usenet his intentions to murder innocent U.S. army
> officers and nuke an American city filled with innocent citizens and
> children.

You can't make an omelette...

> Currently, this coward is desperately trying to conceal his newly exposed
> criminalities with a torrent of smoothed-over, nice-guy posts.

I still proudly state that I would kill any army officer foolish enough
to try and command me were I drafted.

By drafting me they sign their own death warrents.
How is this 'nice'?
I'm not 'nice.'
I'm your worst nightmare.

> But, make no mistake, if an unstable person like him somehow got a nuke, he
> would incinerate a U.S. city in order to feel important enough to get
> girls.

By the way 'Barbie', are you one of Wallace Ward's mooching relatives or
one of his gullible dupes?

- King of all Heretics

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

q4) do Objectivists really cheer on KOAH??

here is one sad example:

In article <4e96t5$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:

>Anonymous <anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl> wrote:
>
>> Wallace, creator of the Neo-Tech/ZonPower cult. I will be scanning this
>> group and alt.neo-tech for any information on him. If you have such
>> information, please post it with the words "ATTN: KOAH" in the header.
>
>I have a HUGE amount of information for you, but it is much too
>voluminous to post here. Can I e-mail it to you? (I tried to e-mail it,
>but it bounced.)>
> Betsy Speicher

here's another:

> >As you can see, _I've_ pulled you out of the kill file and my apologies for
> >jumping too quickly to judgement. After seeing the unbelievable rants and
> >raves of the Neo_kooks I had no choice <G>! _I_ certainly would not have
> >blocked your posts to _everyone_! (At least not _that_ way, I'm an old unix
> >junkie and would've cooked up an indetectable kill-bot or something <G>!)
> >
> >I'm _not_ one of those who think that Objectivism is a closed system. On
> >this point I agree with Kelly - much work needs to be done.
> >
> >I _still_ think your incredible profanity isn't needed, but it looks like
> >nothing less is going to stop the Neo-Kooks. More power to you - keep up
> >the good fight!
>

here's another:

>From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
>Subject: ATTN KOAH
>Date: 21 May 1996 05:46:01 -0700
>Organization: SCOA CyberNet sc...@speicher.com
>
>
>A third party with info for your FAQ is trying to reach you through me.
>
>(Has something to do with the relationship between Nick Rich and NTP and
>other matters).
>

and another (by a non-objectivist)

In article <4jsbif$i...@shiva.usa.net>, tali...@mail.usa.net (talisman) wrote:
> In article <4joc56$4...@utopia.hacktic.nl>,
> nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:
> >In article <4ic24h$7...@panix2.panix.com>, tdon...@panix.com (Tony
> >Donadio) wrote:
> >>
> >> The point I am making is that your posts seemed to assume that
> >> this was a
> >> general sentiment or "party line" amongst us -- and that this was
> >> a rather
> >> hasty an erroneous generalization.
> >
> > I think I've clarified this.
> > I was a bit mad when I made the original rant.
> > Naturally those who don't approve of the blocking are not
> > deserving of
> > my wrath on this matter.

> > - King of all Heretics
>

> King,
>
> I think there are a lot more people who support you than you know.
> Besides, you're one of the only ones who can communicate in an
> entertaining manner.

Thanks.

> Most others sound like they've got a stick up
> their ...

Or as I once put it 'the most boring people on earth.'

> Those who do not post anonymously probably fear to associate
> themselves with you, even if they agree, because even with your anon
> status, you're still getting threatened and abused.

Not only that, they might end up the subject of a Neo-Tech template!

- King of all Heretics

--

[Pee Kitty]

Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:

: In article <4p20du$l...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:
: >In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
: > wrote:
: >

: >> - King of all Heretics

: >>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
: >>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
: >>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
: >>no! :)

: >
: >There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.
: >Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

: Actually, he's correct. Nor have there been business connections between NTP

: and Richard Nikoley, or between he and Eric Savage, or between myself/SS&N and
: Frank Ward, etc, etc, and every possible permutation.

Oh, so you did answer it. Ignore my comment a few posts back where I
wondered why you hadn't said anything about KOAH's charge.

: JF, you spoiled all the fun. Who knows to what heights of lunacy he would have
: taken this :)

It's not like it was totally unfounded...Savage is a common name, but not
VERY common. Worth raising an eyebrow and considering, at least. Guess
it's over now; we'll have to back to arguing about other stuff.

[Pee Kitty]

Anonymous (nob...@flame.alias.net) wrote:
: In article <4p06hn$q...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
: > The quoted portion clearly indicates that there are no lies.

: Wrong. It clearly states that there are lies, but then tries to claim
: that the lies become truth provided one looks at a 'wider context.'
: 'Myth' when presented, as it is in the Neo-Tech ads and literature, as if
: it were fact is nothing but a fancy lie.
: Or do you have some real life proof that Neo-Tech/ZonPower can make you
: into a GOD?

I think I can try to help everyone here. AFAIK, the idea behind
statements like that is that they're neither true nor false, because they
don't map to reality...at least, not how you'd immediately expect. The
concept of being a god doesn't map to reality, because gods don't exist!
If they then go on to make the metaphor that the only real gods are
rational beings, who can control their environments (to some degree),
then they can say that a human being IS a god...a rational one, at least.
The final step is to say that the principles of NT can make one more
rational, and thus more godlike.

But because the average person sees "godlike" and immediately associates
the stuff in mythologies and religions (instead of taking the logical
route and saying "Wait! Gods don't exist!"), it comes across as a promise
of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. It's not, because the promise itself
could NEVER be more than a metaphor.

These guys use a lot of metaphors, in case you didn't notice...

: I doubt that my expose of all your lies will be quoted IN FULL as part

: of your marketing effort. I suspect you'll just quote some of my flames
: and leave out all the stuff about how you weasled and waffled and evaded
: for six months about whether you had a financial connection with Neo-Tech
: Publishing or Wallace Ward, til finally you were exposed.

Probably.

: I doubt you'll include the post where a Neo-Tech employee or front

: man/woman ranted and raved about me being sexually assualted by doberman
: pinchers. Or the ones where various NT employees gibbered gleefully about
: my approaching suicide/impotence/doom.

Dobermans? Suicide? Where did I MISS all of this? Didja save any of it?

: And how are you going to explain the massive Neo-Tech lie that I was

: created by Drew Ellis? That should really be something to see.

No kidding.

: Having a bunch of kooks combine a few Objectivist catch phrases with a

: huge stinking load of shit about consciousness controlling reality, space
: alien civilizations of the universe, thinkons, Cassandra's Secret
: (precognition), exploding gravity units, and immortal, omnipotent ZONS is
: not gonna set the world on fire.

I dunno...if Telephone Psychics could take off like wildfire, it seems
all NT needs is a good infomercial...

: P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the

: name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
: could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
: no! :)

That was one hell of an interesting theory...on the one hand, Savage IS a
fairly common name. But on the other, that's quite a coincidence...and
Nick hasn't denied anything yet...

[Pee Kitty]

Matt Keys (matt...@netcom.com) wrote:

: the "is KOAH a Psycopath?" FAQ version 0.001

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt! I thought you said you were gonna stop POSTING
this durned thing! We've all seen it a million times...just post a
pointer or something!

It's just getting so repetitive...and I thought those templates were
bad...

[Pee Kitty]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

: Yes, we have different experiences. That makes the communication all

: the more interesting and informative. However, I have MUCH more
: success with training horses than I have with that kind of people.
: Even if they could be "converted" I doubt they would be of much
: use. They have a lifetime of mental garbage stuffed in their
: subconscious mind. It would take another lifetime to clear it out.
: Intellectually retarded I can work with. Intellectually crippled
: I cannot.

IMO, it depends on the person. Some people have a LOT to offer, and were
just unfortunate enough to have garbage clogging up the braintubes; with
a little plunging and vaccuuming, they can get back on track and be great
aids. Some people are difficult to help, and when you do help them,
they're still not worth much. But the people DO run the full spectrum
between the two extremes...it's not just all useless biblethumpers.

: >In the intro? Maybe not...I think all it's supposed to do is grab your

: >attention and yank you toward the other stuff. I've read through the
: >other stuff, and found content in there. Nothing I didn't already know,
: >though...I can't see shelling out $80 for one of these books, but someone
: >who hasn't already learned that stuff would probably be happy to pay to
: >learn it.

: Clearly it was very repulsive to me. But, I am a Scientist and
: Engineer and I require clearity, evidence, and proof. I simply do not
: see it in any of the visible NT material. Hince, no reason to suspect
: that it exists in the hidden NT material. That is how I treat all
: marketing efforts. If it is puffery, I don't go further.

Really? Me, I assume all ads and marketing hype are contentless; finding
one with content is usually enough of a shock to make me look into it.
They're supposed to be flash and glamor, to grab your attention. Just
look at the commercials on TV lately. I'm used to content-free being the
rule, not the exception, in advertising...honestly, I'm surprised that
you follow the inverse. Idealism versus Realism, to some degree?

: From my incounter with the one or two existant NTers, I fail to see

: evidence of ability or willingness to meet the standard. Hince, I
: judge them to be lacking.

Uh, the NTers you talk to don't write the books! Nick, for example, has
nothing to do with NTP (the company) except that he's an avid user of
their stuff. If you want to talk to one of the guys who's actually
responsible for what's getting published, talk to think99999 (give or
take a 9 or two (as in one "9" or two, not one 9 or one 2 (though I'm
sure you knew what I meant (but why waste the chance to point out a cute
phrasing (or to nest multiple levels of parentheses (like this))?)))).

: >I guess they're just trying for a different audience...they're TRYING to

: >draw in the kind of people who think in overembellished, vague terms.
: >That would be the 'mystics' out there that they keep mentioning. I wonder
: >if it's the right approach...but if it works, then it does make sense.

: I don't think a thousand of them are worth a copper plated zinc cent.
: NT is welcome to them.

Clear enough. Maybe this whole argument stems from the vast difference
between your attitude toward the average person and the NT attitude?

: >But that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make them con artists.

: Yes, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like
: a duck, and sounds like a duck, it IS a duck.

Or a platypus with a lot of plastic surgery.

: Yes, they are con

: artists. They may even be conning themselves. But, they are con
: artists.

Just because they don't make any sense?

: >Agreed. But not everything in NT is arbitrary; most of that is the window

: >dressing. There are solid ideas underneath it (again, they seem like
: >nobrainers to me, but that's irrelevant), but they're buried DEEP.

: I suggest that it is YOUR intellect that is finding the deep stuff. I
: doubt that they intentionally put it there. When discussing ideas,
: window dressing is ALWAYS used to hide the lack of competance and
: content. Clearity is the hallmark of honesty and competance.

A few points. (1) If I was smart enough to find deep stuff in any random
collection of words, I'd be smart enough to be able to read something
without reading anything INTO it, though (1a) it is certainly possible
that the only content I picked up was the basic fundementals of
Objectivism that they've planted in there. I have NOT studied Objectivism
or Rand, and while you would probably just ignore any Obj. building
blocks that you came across in a body of work (since you're so thoroughly
familiar with them that they're second nature to you), I would definitely
notice them and think "Gee, that's a neat idea". (1b) Though I'm not
saying that's necessarily what happened. Hell, I STILL haven't read any
Rand, so I STILL don't know what's Objectivism and what's not. I don't
care, either. (2) Window dressing is NOT 'always' used to hide lack of
content; be careful how easily you use words like 'always'. Window
dressing is used in many places. Choosing words for their alliterative
qualities or their onomotopoeia can deliver a message better than just
straightfoward, technical writing--it gets it across on multiple levels,
and keeps the listeners INTERESTED. I'm not saying that I like the window
dressing in the NT stuff; I find it annoying. But it is not NECESSARILY
true that Window Dressing and Content are mutually exclusive.

: If the NTers cannot and will not provide clearity and validation

: in their introductory material, there is no way that it is in the
: "deeper" material.

Huh? I don't see the logic in that at all.

: They state they are supreme marketiers. Yet,

: they can't sell me a comma. Even after I gave them instructions
: as to how to sell to me. No, its not there.

Then I guess they're not trying to sell to you.

: >: I am asking them to prove their position.

: >Actually, you say you're asking them to prove that they're not a
: >parasitical scam. That's an assertion, which does shift the burden of
: >proof to you. Just asking them to prove their position IS their burden,
: >of course.

: No. I have asked them to prove that they have and are making a
: positive addition to Objectivism.

But in the post that I was replying to, you said the following (quoted
below), and that's what I was referring to in the paragraph above.

" : >: >: In short, Neo-Tech is no more than "

" : >: >: a parasitical scam. It is up to them to prove otherwise. "

: Their material did not prove their position. Their material did

: not even STATE their position clearly. From that evidence, I
: identified them as frauds. All they have to do is state and prove
: their position with clearity. They have refused. They have proven
: themselves to be frauds by their own words, style, and method.
: I am not generous enough to call them simple incompetants.

Okay.

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>: pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>: Yes, we have different experiences. That makes the communication all
>: the more interesting and informative. However, I have MUCH more
>: success with training horses than I have with that kind of people.
>: Even if they could be "converted" I doubt they would be of much
>: use. They have a lifetime of mental garbage stuffed in their
>: subconscious mind. It would take another lifetime to clear it out.
>: Intellectually retarded I can work with. Intellectually crippled
>: I cannot.
>
>IMO, it depends on the person. Some people have a LOT to offer, and were
>just unfortunate enough to have garbage clogging up the braintubes; with
>a little plunging and vaccuuming, they can get back on track and be great
>aids. Some people are difficult to help, and when you do help them,
>they're still not worth much. But the people DO run the full spectrum
>between the two extremes...it's not just all useless biblethumpers.

The problem, PK, is the LG suffers from a sort of mind/body split. He
disconnects from reality when talking about all these intellectual pond scum
he hates, and wouldn't give a zinc penny for.

Someday, he might realize that without the mass of value producers in this
would of low intellectual development, and often totally incorrect philosophy,
he wouldn't even have available the basic value of whatever brand he uses to
wipe his ass.

He's an intellectual snob of the worst order. He directs his invective toward
the jewels of civilization--those simple yet honest folks who, throughout
their life, in spite of their philosophy, produce more value than they
consume. These people, and those who create the opportunity and means for such
production are what raises civilization.

Intellectuals, by-and-large, have been a net drain to civilization from the
very beginning.

With probably a few exceptions, only intellectuals integrated with business
are of significant long-term value to civilization.

Most just spew out endless reams of publications referencing and attributing
other publications, adding little, if anything, of value.

Ayn Rand, as an intellectual, is the absolute epitomy of what an intellectual
should be. She did not write in "18th century style, graduate level at that,"
as LG would have had her to do. She introduced an entire new
idea/philosophical system to the world primarily through theatre, film, and
fiction--mass marketed! That's business integration.

[end of post of floating abstractions, no connection to reality, saying
nothing, etc., etc.]

[Matt Keys]

Pee Kitty (pki...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Matt Keys (matt...@netcom.com) wrote:

: : the "is KOAH a Psycopath?" FAQ version 0.001

: Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt! I thought you said you were gonna stop POSTING

: this durned thing! We've all seen it a million times...just post a
: pointer or something!

: It's just getting so repetitive...and I thought those templates were
: bad...

I edited it in a few places..

Matt.

[think999]

NR, Thank you for this beautifully accurate post. JF

In article <4p6s1s$d...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>>: pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>>: Yes, we have different experiences. That makes the communication all
>>: the more interesting and informative. However, I have MUCH more
>>: success with training horses than I have with that kind of people.
>>: Even if they could be "converted" I doubt they would be of much
>>: use. They have a lifetime of mental garbage stuffed in their
>>: subconscious mind. It would take another lifetime to clear it out.
>>: Intellectually retarded I can work with. Intellectually crippled
>>: I cannot.
>>
>>IMO, it depends on the person. Some people have a LOT to offer, and were
>>just unfortunate enough to have garbage clogging up the braintubes; with
>>a little plunging and vaccuuming, they can get back on track and be great
>>aids. Some people are difficult to help, and when you do help them,
>>they're still not worth much. But the people DO run the full spectrum
>>between the two extremes...it's not just all useless biblethumpers.
>

[RosiM7]

HAW!

From: nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
Newsgroups:
alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,news.groups,alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Re: CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Date: 6 Jun 1996 02:07:01 GMT

I> In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net

(Anonymous) wrote:
>
> > - King of all Heretics

> >P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by
the
> >name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
> >could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good
heavens
> >no! :)
>

> There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and

> Mr. Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

I didn't say that there was a direct business connection between NTP and

'Mr. Rich' - I said that your son goes by the name Savage and that he may
be involved in Sachs, Savage & Noble.
This is certainly an interesting coincidence. Of course with all the
names you've cooked up for all your various personas, doppelgangers,
yes-men, shills, droids, dupes and front men I suppose it is just

possible that one of them would Nicky cooked up for his arbitration

franchise business. It is of
interest that this particular name is identical on your wife's original
last name though.
By the way, what ever did happen to Helen Savage?

- King of all Heretics

[Billy Beck]

lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:

>sve...@taiyang.eecs.berkeley.edu (Sivarama Venkatesan) wrote:

>>"I wish they [the `Nietzschean
>>whim-worshippers'] would stay
>>away from us. For once I feel
>>sympathy for Marx. He said
>>somewhere that he was not
>>a Marxist. God protect me
>>from the Randians."

>>- Ayn Rand, quoted by Nathaniel
>>Branden on p.261 of "Judgment Day..."
>>(Houghton-Mifflin). Not one of the
>>"officially sanctioned" books, I'm
>>afraid.

>Hearsay evidence that Rand actually said it, but
>at least we now have the citation.

I'm dyin'.

Or...as another noted 20th century thinker recently pointed out:

"Class, this is what we call 'skepticism'. There is no actual
evidence of a fraud being offered here."

Billy

http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96

[T. Cabellero]

Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
: thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:

: >In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:

: >> - King of all Heretics

: >>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
: >>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
: >>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
: >>no! :)

: >There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.

: >Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

: From an idea set that consists of baseless assertions, still one more

: assertion. Although it does not make a bit of difference if this
: assertion is true, false, or arbitrary. NT is still crap.

hmm..I have a nagging suspicion that Lionell Griffith is an employee
of Neo-Tech Publishing who is acting as a detractor of Neo-Tech
in order to boost exposure of Neo-Tech and promote sales.
Is this true, Lionell? Come on, admit it. You're behind this
profit-driven capitalist scheme called Neo-Tech aren't you?
It's all about money isn't it? Shame on you. You guys are making
all the money while us guys are being suckered in to sending
money to you for Neo-Tech books. You're taking advantage of
us aren't you? You capitalist swine.

-tvc15

[T. Cabellero]

Matt Keys (matt...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:
: : The CFV process as an increasing value...

: : ..incresingly exposing dishonesty, while motivating increasing dishonesty and
: : evasion on the part of Mr. Asia and other Objectivist "leaders."

: just wait till the newsgroup is formed, and they start coming up
: with reasons to kick people off!

: I can see it now. the E-Team stomping through the hippo playground,
: gleefully kicking out all neo-tech posters and other heretics.

If they want a newsgroup dealing with only Randian-Brand
objectivism, shouldn't it be called something like:
alt.philosophy.objectivism.randian ?

there could even be an alt.philosophy.objectivism.neo-tech

It makes no sense to limit an "objectivism" newsgroup to just the
Randian-Brand when such a limitation isn't indicated in the title.

-tvc15

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4pbarg$6...@acara.snsnet.net>, tv...@foo.garply.com (T. Cabellero) wrote:
>Lionell Griffith (lgri...@qnet.com) wrote:
>: thin...@netcom.com (think999) wrote:
>
>: >In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
> wrote:
>

>: >> - King of all Heretics

>: >>P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
>: >>name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
>: >>could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
>: >>no! :)
>

>: >There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.
>
>: >Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF
>
>: From an idea set that consists of baseless assertions, still one more
>: assertion. Although it does not make a bit of difference if this
>: assertion is true, false, or arbitrary. NT is still crap.
>
>
>hmm..I have a nagging suspicion that Lionell Griffith is an employee
>of Neo-Tech Publishing who is acting as a detractor of Neo-Tech
>in order to boost exposure of Neo-Tech and promote sales.
>Is this true, Lionell? Come on, admit it. You're behind this
>profit-driven capitalist scheme called Neo-Tech aren't you?
>It's all about money isn't it? Shame on you. You guys are making
>all the money while us guys are being suckered in to sending
>money to you for Neo-Tech books. You're taking advantage of
>us aren't you? You capitalist swine.

He, along with KOAH, *is* working for Neo-Tech.

..on tutu command.

[claude jeruchim]

think999 (thin...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4p1rl6$a...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:

: > - King of all Heretics
: >P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
: >name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
: >could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
: >no! :)

: There is nor has there ever been any business connection between NTP and Mr.
: Rich. The similiarity of names is coincidental. JF

he means:

There is not, nor has there ever been any business....

--

-------------------
End of network mail

[Anonymous]

In article <pkittyDs...@netcom.com>, pki...@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

> Anonymous (nob...@flame.alias.net) wrote:
> : In article <4p06hn$q...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich)
wrote:

> : > The quoted portion clearly indicates that there are no lies.
>
> : Wrong. It clearly states that there are lies, but then tries to claim
> : that the lies become truth provided one looks at a 'wider context.'
> : 'Myth' when presented, as it is in the Neo-Tech ads and literature, as if
> : it were fact is nothing but a fancy lie.
> : Or do you have some real life proof that Neo-Tech/ZonPower can make you
> : into a GOD?
>
> I think I can try to help everyone here. AFAIK, the idea behind
> statements like that is that they're neither true nor false, because they
> don't map to reality...at least, not how you'd immediately expect. The
> concept of being a god doesn't map to reality, because gods don't exist!

Then it is a lie. No being has god like power - not even gods since
they don't exist!

> If they then go on to make the metaphor that the only real gods are
> rational beings, who can control their environments (to some degree),
> then they can say that a human being IS a god...a rational one, at least.
> The final step is to say that the principles of NT can make one more
> rational, and thus more godlike.

If I say that a fire truck is a jet airplane, and claim that the only
_real_ jet planes are fire trucks, and then try to sell a fleet of 'jet
planes' to Value Jet, I am engaging in a sleazy semantic trick which is
also known as lying.

> But because the average person sees "godlike" and immediately associates
> the stuff in mythologies and religions (instead of taking the logical
> route and saying "Wait! Gods don't exist!"), it comes across as a promise
> of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. It's not, because the promise itself
> could NEVER be more than a metaphor.

You can say that because you're not the sort of person who's gonna be
duped by this crap. But they aren't after you, they're after people who
will honestly think that they are gonna become gods if they order this
book. I know that's absurd, but Neo-Crap is based on exploiting the will
to believe in the absurd.

> These guys use a lot of metaphors, in case you didn't notice...

I notice they tell a lot of lies and then claim they're using metaphors
when they're called on it.

> : I doubt that my expose of all your lies will be quoted IN FULL as part
> : of your marketing effort. I suspect you'll just quote some of my flames
> : and leave out all the stuff about how you weasled and waffled and evaded
> : for six months about whether you had a financial connection with Neo-Tech
> : Publishing or Wallace Ward, til finally you were exposed.
>
> Probably.
>
> : I doubt you'll include the post where a Neo-Tech employee or front
> : man/woman ranted and raved about me being sexually assualted by doberman
> : pinchers. Or the ones where various NT employees gibbered gleefully about
> : my approaching suicide/impotence/doom.
>
> Dobermans? Suicide? Where did I MISS all of this? Didja save any of it?

The doberman thing was in one of 'Barbie Diamond's messages. Of course
Barbie doesn't exist, so it was written by some unknown person at Neo-Tech
Publishing who was too embarrassed to post it under their normal identity.

The suicide business is a theme of the Neo-Tech templates, and many
Neo-Kooks have picked up on it in the past though my continued failure to
commit suicide as predicted has caused some of them to give up on that
angle.

> : And how are you going to explain the massive Neo-Tech lie that I was
> : created by Drew Ellis? That should really be something to see.
>
> No kidding.

It will no doubt be a classic of neothink (rationalization.)

> : Having a bunch of kooks combine a few Objectivist catch phrases with a
> : huge stinking load of shit about consciousness controlling reality, space
> : alien civilizations of the universe, thinkons, Cassandra's Secret
> : (precognition), exploding gravity units, and immortal, omnipotent ZONS is
> : not gonna set the world on fire.
>
> I dunno...if Telephone Psychics could take off like wildfire, it seems
> all NT needs is a good infomercial...

Neo-Tech would have to tone it way down. Notice the psychics keep their
promises nice and vague.

> : P.S. Remember everyone - Neo-Tech founder Wallace Ward's son goes by the
> : name Eric Savage, and Nicky's company is Sachs, SAVAGE & Noble. Gee -
> : could Nick be a wee bit BIASED in his defense of Neo-Tech? Good heavens
> : no! :)
>

> That was one hell of an interesting theory...on the one hand, Savage IS a
> fairly common name. But on the other, that's quite a coincidence...and
> Nick hasn't denied anything yet...

His denials mean less than they once would have.
See, he's been jesuitically honest in the past. But he did say recently
that he owed me no honesty because I was such a bad person, so I have to
take his denials with a grain of salt.
He brought it on himself by stating that he would be justified in lying
to me.

[Nicholas Rich]

In article <4pe48o$c...@news.xs4all.nl>, nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:

> His denials mean less than they once would have.
> See, he's been jesuitically honest in the past. But he did say recently
>that he owed me no honesty because I was such a bad person, so I have to
>take his denials with a grain of salt.
> He brought it on himself by stating that he would be justified in lying
>to me.

To whom it may concern:

He's correct.

KOAH is engaged in the activity of libeling values. Lies, deceit, dishonesty
*in the context* of defending those values are moral and right.

[Steven Butler]

In article <4p7nn9$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ros...@aol.com (RosiM7) wrote:

> HAW!
>
>
> From: nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
> Newsgroups:
> alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,news.groups,alt.support.ex-cult
> Subject: Re: CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Date: 6 Jun 1996 02:07:01 GMT

> nob...@flame.alias.net(Anonymous) wrote:
>
> Refuse to
> provide evidence and everyone will know that you are dishonest and
> completely without ethics in your online marketing tactics.
> You're not going to weasel out of this one Ward. You stepped into the
> trap and no amount of lies will get you out.
> This isn't poker Finn, it's Net War. And if anyone's the poor fish,
> flopping around the deck gasping for air, it's throat gushing blood from
> the jagged prongs of the hook tearing away at it's flesh, it's YOU.

Hey Anon., why don't YOU prove that DE didn't create you? Why?
Because you can't. You're anonymous...writting your own
irrationalities off the face of the earth.

Gezz...some people just can't get out of the way of themselves.

[Anonymous]

In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com (Matt
Keys) wrote:

(utterly irrelevant NAQ (Never Asked Questions) template snipped)

Matt, rereading the message you 'responded' to with your poorly written,
badly argued and quite silly canned template I see that I asked any number
of very relevant questions. But not one of my questions related in any
way to the issue of whether or not I am a 'psycopath.' You didn't answer
any of them.
Why not answer the my questions?
Where's the proof that I was created by 'Drew Ellis'?
What is my true email address which 'Drew' used to recruit me?
Where are the cashed checks or money order reciepts used to pay me for
my work 'for' Neo-Tech Publishing?
And what ever did happen to Wallace Ward's wife Helen Savage?