Saturday, December 9, 2017

Books and Magazines You Won't Believe Are Online For FREE

Books you won't believe are online for free...but you may have to hurry before they are taken down. I did not post any of these books, these are simply books I found in my online travels.

For a list of all of my digital books and books on disk click here

See also Philosophy, Rand, Illuminati & other Books you won't believe are online for FREE and Philosophy, Religion, History & Mystery Books you won't believe are online for free and Books and Magazines you won't believe are online for free (May 25, 2017) and More Books and Audiobooks you won't believe are online for free (May 8, 2017) and Books and Audiobooks you won't believe are online for free (Apr 26, 2017) and Gods, Lies, Philosophy & other books you won't believe are online for free and Guns, Global Warming, God & other books you won't believe are online for free

America's Secret Establishments - An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones by Anthony C Sutton


Conspiracies and Secret Societies, The Complete Dossier by Brad & Sherry Steiger

The Riverman - Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer by Robert D Keppel

The Stranger Beside Me - Ted Bundy, the Shocking True Story by Ann Rule





The Bitch Manifesto

New World Translation 1984 Edition

Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli

1980's Heavy Metal Magazines

English versions of the Bible by Hugh Pope

Different Seasons by Stephen King

The Shining by Stephen King

Oprah by Kitty Kelley

Warren Commission Report

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Outlaws of Mesquite by Louis L'Amour



The Death of Money by James Rickards


Weird Tales, Oct 1936

The Hour of the Dragon by Robert Howard

The Passing Of The Great Race by Madison Grant

The Text of New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, Bart Ehrman

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920) - Dr. Lothrop Stoddard

Zebra: The True Account of 179 Days of Terror in San Francisco by Clark Howard

Our Ageless Bible by Thomas Linton Leishman

Silent Spring-Rachel Carson-1962

The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment by Julian Simon

The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg

Occult Theocracy by Lady Queensborough, Edith Starr Miller 1933

The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty

Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past by Erich von Däniken

Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by David BeDuhn





The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell

iPhone: The Missing Manual by David Pogue

Encyclopedia Of Vampire Mythology

Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell

Blink - The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell

Freakonomics by STEVEN D. LEVITT & STEPHEN J. DUBNER

SuperFreakonomics by STEVEN D. LEVITT & STEPHEN J. DUBNER

End The Fed by Ron Paul

Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil our Country and Civlization by Patrick J Buchanan

English Bible Translations - by What Standard by William O. Einwechter

Conditioned Reflexes by Ivan Pavlov

More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott

Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar

Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson

Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus

The Denial Of Death by Ernest Becker



Sexual Utopia in Power by F. Roger Devlin


The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson

1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West by Roger Crowley

Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton

Who Brought the Slaves to America? by Walter White, Jr.

Heavy Metal Magazine 1993

Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer

CARtoons magazine 1988

Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam

Freemasonry and the Vatican

Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse

Under The Sign of The Scorpion by Jura Lina
The Soviet Empire was established at four minutes past two o'clock on the 8th of November 1917 in the Russian capital, Petrograd. In astrological terms, the sun was just then precisely at the centre of the sign of Scorpio. Thus Scorpio can be regarded as the symbol and guardian of Soviet power.


1985 Kingdom Interlinear Version

New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures

New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1950

Johannes Greber New Testament

Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation?





Life - How Did It Get Here By Evolution or By Creation?

Jay P Green Interlinear Bible

Rotherham Emphasized Bible

The New Testament in Modern English by JB Phillips

When Jesus Became God - Ridhard E. Rubenstein

Encyclopedia of the undead

On the Road by Jack Kerouac

The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

50 Psychology Classics: Who We Are, How We Think, What We Do: Insight and Inspiration from 50 Key Books by Tom Butler-Bowdon

50 Self-Help Classics: 50 Inspirational Books to Transform Your Life from Timeless Sages to Contemporary Gurus by Tom Butler-Bowdon

The Turner Diaries By Andrew MacDonald (William Luther Pierce)

THE ROAD By Cormac McCarthy

Aldous Huxley - Brave New World

Tim Allen - Don't Stand Too Close to a Naked Man

1952 Mad Magazine

Texe Marrs Collection

Carl Olof Jonsson - Sign of the Last Days: When?

1970's Heavy Metal Magazines

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament: A Dialogue by Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace

The Nazi War Against The Catholic Church

Socialism and human nature, by Arnold Petersen

The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
  

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

What Ayn Rand Meant by Altruism


In modern America, February 2 is best known as Groundhog Day. But it also marks the birth of one of the most praised and criticized thinkers of the past century – Ayn Rand.

Rand sold more than 30 million books. Atlas Shrugged has been ranked behind only the Bible as an influence on readers’ lives. She has also been stridently attacked for issues such as her militant atheism. But perhaps least understood has been her full-bore rejection of altruism. On her birthday, it is worth reconsideration.   

Modern usage has eroded the meaning of altruism from Rand's hated concept to a mere synonym for generosity.

Altruism has commonly been held up as the standard for moral behavior. But Rand rejected it, asserting it was “incompatible with freedom, with capitalism, and with individual rights,” and therefore “the basic evil behind today’s ugliest phenomena.”


That head-on collision arises from French philosopher Auguste Comte, coiner of the term altruism. The altruists.org website says he believed “the only moral acts were those intended to promote the happiness of others.” Comte’s Catechisme Positiviste asserts that altruism “gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence,” and, therefore, “cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such a notion rests on individualism.”

In Comte’s view, any act performed for any reason beyond solely that of advancing someone else’s well-being is not morally justified. That implies taking a tax deduction for a charitable act strips it of its morality. The same is true when done because “what goes around comes around.” Something as seemingly innocuous as feeling good about doing good also fails Comte’s joyless standards. Even “love your neighbor as yourself” fails his unlimited duty of altruism. As George H. Smith summarized it, “One should love one’s neighbor more than oneself.”

Ayn Rand’s attacks on altruism are aimed at Comte’s definition. However, modern usage has eroded his meaning of altruism to little more than a synonym for generosity, so Rand’s rejection of the original meaning is now often taken as a rejection of generosity, which it is not. In Roderick Long’s words,
… her sometimes misleading rhetoric about the “virtue of selfishness”… was not to advocate the pursuit of one’s own interest at the expense of others … she rejected not only the subordination of one’s interest to those of others, (and it is this, rather than mere benevolence, that she labeled “altruism”), but also the subordination of others’ interest to one’s own.
Rand’s categorical rejection of altruism was a rejection of Comte’s requirement of total selflessness, because that was inconsistent with any individuals mattering for their own sake. Rand vehemently opposed such an invalidation of individuals’ significance.
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value.
Rand’s “virtue of selfishness” was a response to Comte’s demand for complete selflessness. Not only is a requirement for everyone to completely disregard themselves an unattainable ideal, it is self-contradictory. You cannot possibly sacrifice yourself fully for me, while I am also sacrificing myself fully for you. And if no one has any intrinsic value, why would the results, even if possible, be meritorious? With Comte as a starting point, more attention to people’s own well-being – more selfishness, in Rand’s terminology – is the only way to move toward recognizing value in each individual and significance in each life.

Comte's conception of altruism is inconsistent with liberty.

Comte’s conception of altruism is also inconsistent with liberty, which was Ayn Rand’s focus. The duty to put others first at all times and in all circumstances denies self-ownership and the power to choose that derives from it. Everyone else maintains never-ending presumptive claims on every individual, overriding any rights they may have. In contrast, benevolence involves voluntary choices to benefit others of one’s own choosing, in ways and to the extent individuals choose for themselves.
This is why Rand criticized equating altruism with benevolence. The key distinction is between benevolence’s individual discretion, which recognizes our rights over ourselves and our resources, and altruism’s unconditional requirement to always sacrifice for others.  
An omnipresent duty of self-sacrifice also makes people vulnerable to manipulation by those who disguise power over others as “really” a means to attain some noble goal. The desire to sacrifice for the good of others can be transformed into the requirement to sacrifice to the desires of leaders. As Rand expressed it:
Those who start by saying: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others” – end up by saying: “It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.”
The key here is Rand’s emphasis on duty:
When A needs something, in B’s opinion, if C, who can do something about it refuses … C is pilloried as someone who is selfish rather than altruistic for not choosing to support B’s cause. The faulty syllogism remains that “C is failing to do his duty here. C should do his duty. So C should be made to do it.” And … that syllogism as a bludgeon remains an ever-present threat from everyone who wants to do good with someone else’s resources, and finds coercion an acceptable mechanism.
To Rand, Comte’s view of altruism is logically impossible, joyless, and liberty-excluding, and has enabled vast harms to be imposed on vast numbers. It does not deserve deference as a guide to morality. However, Rand offers no criticism of voluntary benevolence. That is why we should still care about her objections to altruism, which we now mistakenly take to mean whatever voluntary individual choices people make to be generous to others. 

Rand reminds us of the central defense against the threat of coercion lurking beyond altruistic demands placed on people. It lies in protecting individual self-ownership and the property rights that derive from it. When that is maintained as fundamental, my power to choose what to do with myself and my property – including when my conclusion is, “I could contribute to cause X, but I choose not to” – is accepted as legitimate. Thus we would soundly reject the view that “Apart from such times as [someone] manages to perform some act of self-sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance.”
Without the coercive violation of rights, liberty can be maintained. The vast majority of people would not only be generous, they would have far more to be generous with. Their voluntary arrangements, including their chosen generosity, creates a better world than Comte’s altruism.
Gary M. Galles
Gary M. Galles
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. His recent books include Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014) and Apostle of Peace (2013). He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Socialism? Not Without a Fight by George Hugo 1909



Socialism? Not Without a Fight by George B Hugo 1909

I have always been told that when you put up a practical proposition to a Socialist, you can't find him! I knew he would not answer those questions because they were unanswerable. He says to us: "Oh, come along. Let's jump overboard, and, when we strike the water, we will discuss the question of swimming."

Well, I don't want to lose sight of our subject, "The Creed of Despair." I made the assertion that Socialism was the creed of despair, and I will give you its history, how and why I came to that conclusion. While in New York some time ago, I walked down Broadway in the evening. When I reached 39th Street, I was attracted by a Socialist speaking on the street corner. I stopped, became interested, and listened for two hours, profoundly impressed with the fervor, intensity, and sincerity of this speaker, and two others who followed him. My mind was open. I wanted to know and analyze their statements; in other words, to get at the root of their theory, if it had any root.

The first two speakers pointed out the many inequalities of modern life, dwelt upon the unequal distribution of wealth, showed the misery, poverty, and crime in the world, holding the capitalistic system which recognized individual ownership of property responsible for it all. In a word, civilization was a failure! Closing their harangues with appeals to the surrounding crowd to vote for the Socialist candidate for office. They saw effects, and diagnosed the cause to be the capitalistic system. It remained for the third speaker to tell just how they were going to rid themselves of capitalism and bring about the era of the Brotherhood of Man. I quote from memory, but I was so astounded by the remarks that they remained indelibly impressed upon my mind. He said: "You men walking down Broadway believe that you are free men, a clever lot of men, but you are not. You are nothing but a lot of wage slaves!" "Look about you. See the automobiles whizzing by while YOU walk!" "See the magnificent buildings with which we are surrounded, while most of You live in Hovels!" "Who created all this wealth? You! You created it, and all you need to do is to take it."

I had waited two hours to learn the method of procedure, and now felt rewarded for the time I had spent. "The way to do it," he continued, "is not to start a riot or to attempt to take it by force, for, if you do, the police will pounce upon you and club you into submission, or the troops will be called out, you will be shot down like so many rats, and they will probably hang me. Now that's not the way. The way to do it is to elect the Socialist candidates to office, and take by law the property which belongs by right to you! He went on, and said, "This sounds revolutionary," just as our friend Carey did. "But did Abraham Lincoln hesitate to sign the Emancipation Proclamation? Did he not take property by the stroke of the pen? Will any one deny that this was not a legitimate confiscation of property? Now, all you need to do to get your property is to vote the Socialist ticket, and we will do the same thing!" 

Here was a plausible plan, a definite statement of just how Socialism was to be put into operation; in other words, lawful confiscation of private property, robbery by the ballot! After showing how easily this could be done without violence, without disorder, he answered his own next question, "Why don't you vote the Socialist ticket?" by saying, "I will tell you why, because down deep in your hearts there is the lingering hope that some day you will have some of these wage slaves working for YOU!" "But, when the time comes that all hope is gone of having wage slaves under your domination, then you will become Socialists!" In other words, when man acknowledges to himself that he is a failure, when hope is dead, when despair sets in, then socialism holds out its hands and cries, "Accept our creed, the creed of despair!" 

But this speaker failed to point out that the emancipation of the black slave, just as it was, involved our nation in Civil War, at a cost of blood and treasure unequalled in modern times.

Do you, as Socialists, for one moment believe that the unjust taking or confiscating of property, by the simple act of a stroke of the pen, will be accepted peaceably by the individuals who now own property? If you do, undeceive yourselves. You may build your air castles, go into emotional ecstasies over visionary ideals, dream Utopian dreams to your heart's content, but remember that when you attempt to actually take property by the process of collective robbery, individualism will rise in self-defence, and, if need be, crush you! Individual freedom and the private ownership of property will not be superseded by slavery and the collective ownership of property without a struggle. Civilization may tremble in the balance, the struggle may be intense, but the oak of individualism is too deeply rooted in the soil of freedom to be destroyed by all the collective underbrush in the forest of humanity.