Telegram Archive - week 20, 2025, page 3
- 9 minutes read - 1780 words
Why not just Anthemism? Idk why you’d change that, tbh
looks a lot like “antisemitism” from a quick glance. Several people reported this (optical illusion)
But I’m not sure I like the gangster connotaion @participant-4603 is right. Need to think more.
Ok, for now I just changed the group name in English to “Go Anthem”, and same for Twitter handle – it’s now x.com/go_anthem . Also, on the homepage I wrote “Anthemism or ‘going anthem’ is an Objectivist political ideology …”
but the domain name remains the same.
Thank you for all your feedback
FYI, for comparison, what it means to “go galt”: https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-go-galt
I wish we could find a way of playing with acronyms. O.A.S.I.S. = objectivist agency for settlement initiatives
Or T.R.I.U.M.P. = truth, reason, individuality, unity, merit, progress, and harmony.
I was hanging out with a guy from the Jewish Agency earlier maybe that’s why it’s on my mind….
Do you honestly think I’d pick Trump for acronym !?
Nah.
I missed the h at the end anyway.
Piratism?
It would be the ultimate prank
What is Capitalism? https://courses.aynrand.org/works/what-is-capitalism/
Boris is trying to educate us all đź’€
It’s not a course, it’s the first article that’s in the Capitalism book, but now published online to be more easily accessible.
Alright, alright. Still, why not just call this group Objectivist Founders or the like? We’re just Objectivists after all, aren’t we?
I guess the name you’re looking for should apply to a specific branch of Objectivism: founding a new State, so why find a new name?
Objectivland
Aynburg. Randistan. Anthemique. Egoismia.
Aynburg is dope
Atlantis IV
Except me, there are no Objectivists in this group (yet). And, it has to be an -ism. Also, just like Zionists don’t have to be Jews, I think non-objectivists should be interested in to live in a country like this and help to make it happen.
Actually, sorry, @participant-1481 is an Objectivist.
Did you know that at the time of writing of Daniel Deronda by George Eliot, Christian Zionism was a thing? And, Herzl’s right hand man was a Christian priest? (Herzl began his project 15 years after Deronda was published)
Many are neo-Objectivists; a project that is 100% (orthodox) Objectivist would not be able to gain support
I agree that there are not enough Objectivists to make this happen. And, they largely do not support the attempt, as they consider it premature. They still hope to save America and UK. I spoke to one young guy, and he said “we are mostly there, there is business and productivity already, we just need to tune the philosophical outlook.” Another (older) man, said that I have no money to be listened to and taken seriously. Etc.
Fr?
Why?
For what it’s worth, everyone told Herzl that he is a fool of a dreamer. His friends, his work colleagues, the potentials investors. He was 36 years old, making enough money just to pay the bills and to save up a bit. When all investors refused, he made an equivalent of present day ICO.
Instead of raising capital from the rich Jewish philanthropists, he got a coalition of financial men to start a new bank. German regulations required to raise capital through stock sale of the bank. A lot of this stock was purchased by dirt-poor Jews in Eastern Europe.
Perspectives on the State, intellectual property, social conservatism, etc.
Politics is only a part, and a derivative part, of Objectivism. Most of it is the epistemology theory, but there is also metaphysics (nature of reality) and ethics (egoism).
Leonard Peikoff on immigration: In principle, I hold that immigration should be free. It is not a function of the government to prevent foreigners from coming into this country as they wish.
The fact that you were born or already live in this country does not entitle you to declare what should be done with the property and land that you don’t own, or with the voluntary arrangements of other people. Nobody owns or controls what isn’t owned or controlled by an individual. (I do think it’s proper for the government to restrict physical threats, known criminals, people with contagious diseases, and foreign agents in times of war, but that is not the same thing as quotas for nationalities.) – June 2008, Keeping It Real
Based. So, @participant-3927, the solution is: let’s start a fundraise for the new nation?
Herzl did not start that way, I think it was his 3rd year into the project.
He started with talking to influential people behind closed doors.
And I think in our case, the same pattern must be followed.
But @participant-1046 disagrees with me. He thinks community must be built around token sales. That’s what they did in Montenegro
I tried the solution that Anton proposed , but his system uses telegram unencrypted chats to expose private keys.
I don’t want to deal with this myself, but if someone wants to handle it and manage it (but in a secure way), go ahead.
I can see the money collected be used to host informational events in places of interest. (Rent space, serve cookies and coffee , etc.)
From the Godot article
Many fictional characters, like Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo, Raskolnikov, the Karamazov brothers, and Grenouille (from Patrick Süskind’s Perfume), ultimately fail in their attempts to defy societal constraints and achieve their goals. Their misguided efforts often lead to destruction and despair. In contrast, there are other characters who show us that denying the status quo is far from futile.
Which characters succeed ? In folk tales I show: Cinderella, Prometheus, and Frodo.
In classics: Deronda, Valjean, Quasimodo, David Copperfield, and Gabriel de Montgomery (from Two Diana’s).
Have you considered Odysseus? I think his is a great story
And every protagonist in Ayn Rand’s novels, especially Howard Roark.
I haven’t considered Odysseus, it has to be a fight against society. I don’t think he did that
Like, a man who, through his mind alone, defies gods and monsters
Fighting gods is good. I love this part. It’s in all Greek myths, man challenging gods.
Yeah, but most of the time, men perish in the attempt or they show some weaknesses and flaws
Hercules didn’t perish. Orpheus didn’t perish. Curiously this resulted in a Hercules-worship religion, and Orphism.
The idea behind Anthemism is the belief that if we want a better political society, we must build it ourselves from scratch. Trying to reform a large country is merely “waiting for Godot”—hoping for change without taking effective action ourselves.
Yeah, but they don’t really embody the man of Reason like Odysseus: I don’t remember about Orpheus, but Hercules was a demi-god and mostly won thanks to his muscles. And, btw, Hercules went crazy and killed his wife and children, while Orpheus failed the mission to bring his wife back to the living
The twitter channel has 22 followers. Please follow it and retweet, help it reach even some modest numbers.
Guys, how would a voluntaryist government work?
Remember that discussion we had? I wanted to know: how would a voluntaryist, objectivist government prevent the formation of another, private government without initiating force against those who are pushing for it?
In other words, since taxes would be voluntarily paid (like Ayn Rand has said), who c/would force citizens only to pay for that one government and not others?
This question is especially for @participant-3927
I got the Liberland newsletter in the mail. “At the recent HTX Party, President VĂt JedliÄŤka held a strategic meeting with Justin Sun, Prime Minister of Grenada and founder of the TRON blockchain ecosystem.” The Prime Minister of Grenada is Dickon Mitchell. @participant-6456 Don’t tell me you didn’t check the work of your helpers who compose these things – you’re the face of this project. If you’re spreading misinformation, it’s on you.
I’m impressed with Tron, but hate the fact that Sun has affiliated himself with Trump and helped him with crypto.
By the way, I was an early trader on Huobi (what later became HTX).
Voluntarism is an ideology, so I assume when you use this term you don’t mean that. When you say voluntarist you just mean that the government is voluntarily funded. In all other respects the government has a monopoly on force. Continuing, your question is: what prevents someone to fund a rogue organization to the extent that it has bigger force than the underfunded government? The government must recognize that it’s a threat, and stamp it out before it’s too late, and confiscate its weapons. But if the swing of public interest is so great that it can’t do that, that’s civil war which will result in a new government, now replaced by the newly chosen government. In any case, there’s always one monopoly on force – as chosen and supported by the people.