Ron Paul vs. Ellsworth Toohey

ron paul krugman
Ron Paul “debates” Paul Krugman in this video. I put debates in quotations because Paul Krugman is such a weaseling, intellectually and morally bankrupt scumbag it would be unjust to actually call this a “debate”, as if the individual men and ideas involved were in any way equals and equally valid ideas.

Paul Krugram is in fact a modern day, and real life Ellsworth Toohey (the villain of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead). He is the man who has betrayed his own soul 100 times over, who hates the good in the world so much he attacks the good, for being good.

Paul Krugman is a man who has committed the highest moral and intellectual treason. He is a man who you could accurately call, in the 21st century, a “malicious scoundrel”.

And like Ellsworth Toohey, he is particularly good at manipulating and twisting everything little thing he can get his hands on.

I sincerely hope this man trips and breaks his own neck.

(Skip to 1 minute 5 seconds to get to the interview).

 

 

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes.

— Ayn Rand

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

, ,

18 Responses to Ron Paul vs. Ellsworth Toohey

  1. MikeG May 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    How is it that everybody isnt on Ron Pauls Bandwagon? to my ear it sounds like this should be a runaway with ron paul winning every vote a near 100 % of the electorate. Its frustrating to hear that RP isnt just the dominating leader in the polls, Im not American it bothers me, how arnt you rampaging over there lol I wanna pull my hair out

  2. Shawn May 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Wishing death on a man because you disagree with his views? Talk about being morally corrupt.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson May 3, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

      The only thing worse than killing a man is convincing him to do it himself.

      And the only thing worse than convincing a man to kill himself, is convincing millions of men to kill themselves.

      Paul Krugman is a man who aims for a billion+.

      It’s moral cowardice not to despise *such* a man once you understand the nature of his actions.

      • Shawn May 3, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

        Despising people does not equal wishing death upon them.

        You claim to understand the nature of his actions, but that is only a subjective opinion (interpretation) you hold.

        So, on what moral grounds can you defend wishing death upon people you disagree with?

        • Anthony Dream Johnson May 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

          First: technically, I never wished death on him. I said I “hope he trips and breaks his own neck”. This does not necessarily entail dying. Death is your personal interpretation of what I said. Nothing in the original post actually indicates I wished death upon him.

          Second: my understanding of the nature of his actions is not a “subjective opinion”. What’s even more concerning is that this statement leads me to suspect you are convinced man is incapable of accurately interpreting reality, or in other words, you are convinced that “reality is subjective”.

          If this is the case, there is nothing further to discuss. You do not trust that your mind and your senses posses the ability to correctly interpret reality. We disagree on basic premise … I’m right, you’re wrong.

          • Shawn May 4, 2012 at 3:35 am #

            “First: technically, I never wished death on him. I said I “hope he trips and breaks his own neck”. This does not necessarily entail dying. ”

            – Yes, you are right about that. You hoped he would break his neck and fully recover, right? Lets not kid ourselves here, you wished serious harm (possibly death) upon someone you disagreed with.

            “Second: my understanding of the nature of his actions is not a “subjective opinion”.”

            – How is that particular understanding not a subjective opinion? How is it that you are totally objective and can determine reality? Feel fee to elaborate on this, and please present facts to support your claims of having the objective truth (reality).

            • Anthony Dream Johnson May 4, 2012 at 11:18 am #

              It’s not a subjective opinion because I’m right.

              Do you not understand the meaning of the term?

              I’m right.

              • Shawn May 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

                LOL

              • Shawn May 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

                1)

                “It’s not a subjective opinion because I’m right. Do you not understand the meaning of the term? I’m right.”

                – Can you understand how ironic those sentences are in the context of a discussion on subjectivity?

                2)

                What actions are you talking about by the way? The action in question here is obviously “talking” (ie his words are not his actions).

                That is why I am asking you again, Anthony, to please explain how you can wish harm upon someone you disagree with?

                How is that not interfering with the (negative) rights to freedom, and life (and even “intellectual property”)?

  3. Craig May 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    I can understand not agreeing with Mr. Krugman (I have my own issues with him unrelated to the Fed), but I think that you should have responded to him without so much invective (“a man who has committed the highest moral and intellectual treason”) and (“I hope this man trips and breaks his own neck”).

    You have a unique and fresh point of a view and it can be expressed by someone as articulate and knowledgeable as you without personal attacks. Attack arguments, not people.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson May 3, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

      I agree … except when a person deserves to be attacked.

      Physical violence is rational when it is retaliatory (when an individual deserves to be met with force).

      Intellectual aggression follows a similar path.

      Paul Krugman is such a man.

  4. Tom May 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

    The right wing HATES Paul Krugman because he keeps destroying libertarian fantasies. I began reading his blog years ago and the man has a knack of always knowing how policies in Washington will affect the markets. I’ve made a pretty penny betting with Paul Krugman and against libertarian blowhards like Ron Paul who are always claiming hyperinflation is coming around the corner.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson May 15, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

      Destroying libertarian fantasies?

      Paul Krugman is so far removed from reality …. that he’s not even worth another second of my thoughts.

      PK = scumbag

      • Tom May 16, 2012 at 11:34 am #

        And yet in this crisis the ONLY pundit that was consistently correct in his predictions. Remember when all the libertarians were claiming that the Fed was printing money that would lead to hyperinflation. Only Paul Krugman had the balls to stand up and say that it is not going to happen in a liquidity trap. Ron Paul proved wrong…Paul Krugman proved right. Funny how using science and not dogma always leads you to the right conclusions.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson May 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

          Sigh, hopelessly brainwashed little sheep. When will you wake up and start thinking for yourself?

          Let me explain this to you in terms everyone can understand.

          If my exercise program has a .1% chance of catastrophic injury every time I work out (extremely low), and I workout once per day, three days a week for the rest of my life (50+ years), my chance of experiencing a catastrophic, life changing injury is effectively 100%.

          Meaning, my exercise program actually has a 100% chance of injury.

          Similarly, the argument you’re making ignores cumulative, compounding effects that over time, achieve critical mass, or hyperinflation in this instance.

          • Click June 6, 2012 at 1:09 am #

            Arrrrrrgh.

            Go read a fucking book on statistics and probability you intellectual coward. If your exercise regime has a 0.1% of injury – you do not have a 100% chance of injury regardless of how many times you exercise. Each time you have a 0.1% chance, the machine doesn’t log how many times you’ve exercised so when you’re at 99.9% you know that next time you’re bound to be injured!

            Everytime you step onto a exercise machine the probability resets! Are you one of these people who believes if you roll a dice six time you’re guaranteed to get a six because the odds are one in six?!

            And you say you’re right and know reality.

            Yet you’ve just been debunked, some correct reality you live in separate to us.

            Go read something not written by Ayn Rand and come back and speak in the real world.

            • hrududu May 7, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

              After watching this video, it’s pretty clear that Ron Paull is not so sharp on his economics. Nevertheless, you are the one who totally misunderstands his probability. Mr. Johnson is referring to the fact that when you take .999 to a very large power, in this case, 50*365, the result you get is very small: in fact, this probability is .0000000175. For real. This would mean your chance of catastrophic injury is 99.999999%.

              Mr. Johnson’s theory about cumulative hyperinflation creeping up is of course very convenient in that it allows one to continually deny all empirical evidence refuting one’s position.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Moral Cowardice of a Generation | The Dream Lounge - May 4, 2012

    […] recently people are upset with my personal judgments and attacks on Paul Krugman, scumbag extraordinaire, Nobel Prize winning slug of the […]

Make your mark