Not One Muslim!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2015-11-04 08:47

Here's a new, but commonplace, outrage by Islamosavages. Commentary is unnecessary.

Not one adherent to this unspeakable belief system should be allowed in to a civilised country when adherents to said unspeakable belief system have declared war on civilisation and are actively pursuing that war.

Not One Muslim!

We can worry about exceptions, such as the poor woman in the hole (had she survived) when Not One Muslim! has been set in law as our default position.

OrogOism is wrong on most things

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Immigration data is not easy to come by. Stephan Molyneaux has said in his videos that some of the data is from government organizations but some of it is from private organizations and is locked behind a pay wall. He pays to get the information and that is why he relies so heavily on donations. But he is interested in truth. Objectivists have ignored empirical data on immigration for decades. Why? Because they are arch rationalists and have internalized an "anti-racist" cultural leftist worldview. And they have made that official Objectivist dogma. Give me Mollyneaux's crazy ramblings of r/K any day over Binswanger's "self selected for their virtues".

With regard to foreign policy, I now realize that the Objectivist movement from top to bottom has produced NOTHING of value. They have spewed the worst type of garbage. Mark Hunter at ARI Watch has done a good job of compiling their crap. They have the same Neo Conservative foreign policy despite how often they tell us that NeoCons are altruists. OrgOism does not understand Islam as an ethno-cultural political movement which is a danger to any non Muslim society it invades. They don't see how US warfare has been terrible for the Muslim world and has done nothing but create more "extremists" and give Muslims even more excuses to hate Infidels then they already have. This combined with allowing them to immigrate here is the same exact cultural suicide crap you get from every mainstream politician (sans Trump who they think is a "fascist"). But oh if we just killed more Muslims with bigger bombs it would somehow be better.

And there is something else which the mainstream O'ist movement doesn't know or want to know, and that is the extent of Israel's duplicity and its hostility towards America and the European world. I have resisted anti-Israel sentiments but after investigation I see that Israel is NOT an ally of the US. "The only democracy in the Mid East" is poorly reasoned crap. Objectivism has become yet another Jewish intellectual movement that is blind to the ethnic hostilities of Jews towards non-Jews. Right now Israel is giving medical aid to ISIS members. They wanted Hussain overthrown, and Assad, and Iran, etc.. American politicians are slaves to the Israeli lobby and they keep fighting wars that are good for Israel but not good for America. You can see how treacherous and deceptive Jews can be when you look at Benjamin Netanyahu. He just denounced Trump saying that it was wrong of him to suggest a ban on Muslims from entering America (which Trump did not suggest, he just suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration). Oh really? Israel is building walls left and right to keep out blacks and Muslims. They have a Jews only immigration policy with genetic testing (!!). And they recently sterilized Muslims without their consent (yes they really did this). And yet they have the audacity to criticize Trump? To me Netanyahu is a scumbag. And Israeli's are NOT trustworthy. Could you really trust a Yaron Brook with an objective foreign policy analysis of Israel?

Objectivism: cultural left domestic policy, NeoCon foreign policy, pro-Israel, anti-white conservative. This is what Rand's philosophy is being used to advance.

"Invade the world, invite the

Grant Jones's picture

"Invade the world, invite the world" used to be a piece of neo-con lunacy. Now Biddle, Brook, Binswanger and the rest of the usual suspects want to make it part of Objectivist orthodoxy.

Good point

Neil Parille's picture

" Foreign policy and immigration policy should have been kept to a minimum. Those are not easy subjects and broad philosophic principles are not enough to provide solutions. You have to be immersed in details. That is not something the ARI can do. It is not a think tank."

This is a good point Doug. I've been following the immigration debate closely and it's not easy to find accurate statistics concerning, say, immigrant crime and welfare dependency. Certainly Harry "immigrants are self-selected for the virtue) Binswanger lacks the mental energy to investigate this topic and also Brook (who is reduced to bringing anecdotal stories about his illegal gardener).

Needless to say, we are now on 3d and 4th generation Hispanics and also 2d generation Muslims so I do think we can make some generalizations, but again that's not something the ARI types want to do.

OrgOism is Foolish

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

The entire mainstream Objectivist movement is foolish. I haven't followed Kelley's organization in a while (do they even do anything anymore?) but I find it hard to imagine that TAS is putting forth such garbage ideas as ARI and those within its orbit. I know Ed Hudgins wants to colonize Mars but that's benevolent, good natured stuff compared to what I am reading and hearing from the ARIans.

The conservative articles that Neil linked to are far superior to ARI material. The thing is though that I think Brook, Biddle, Binswanger, etc are wrong on Objectivist grounds. And they are so openly anti-empirical. Mark Hunter is right with his criticism on ARI Watch. OrgOism is indistinguishable from Neo Conservatism in its fundamentals ("Invade the world Invite the world").

The more I think about it, an Objectivist intellectual movement should have just been focused on popularizing Rand's main philosophical ideas with MINIMAL political advocacy. Safe ground would have been fight altruism by abolishing the welfare state and the regulatory framework, end central banking, end public education in all forms. Foreign policy and immigration policy should have been kept to a minimum. Those are not easy subjects and broad philosophic principles are not enough to provide solutions. You have to be immersed in details. That is not something the ARI can do. It is not a think tank.

The Organized Objectivist movement becomes more unlikeable by the day; ie Obleftivism.

Yaron Brook

Neil Parille's picture

Just listened to this guy's show on a Chicago radio station. Said that we should restrict Islamic immigration for the time being but once we eliminate the threat of Islamic terror by attacking SA and Iran, we should allow open immigration of Muslims.

He said we shouldn't build a wall. I guess he believes Israel should destroy its wall.

He said that government shouldn't have an "ideological test" for immigrants because that would invite tyranny. Yaron said the government "shouldn't be concerned about ideas" it should only be concerned about freedom. So freedom isn't an idea? Freedom will survive when Israel becomes majority Islamic thanks to "open immigration"?

Yaron Brook is a fool.

The Objectivist Echo-Chamber

Neil Parille's picture

Sometimes I think OrgObjectivism is one big echo-chamber.

Some prominent Objectivist comes up with a supposedly brilliant idea (open immigration, for example) and the rest of the Orthos come along to say how great it is and what a brilliant application of Objectivism it is.

Brook: Make war against Saudi Arabia and Iraq and end Islamic terror. (Good)

Biddle: Make war against Saudi Arabia and Iraq and end Islamic terror using nukes if necessary. (Better)

Peikoff: Make war against Saudi Arabia and Iraq and end Islamic terror using nukes. (Best)

None of the chirping peanut gallery of Ari Armstrong, Peter Schwartz, etc. will every raise the question of why nuking Mecca will discourage Muslims in the west from wanting to engage in Jihad.

No one will ever ask why someone who compares defeating Jihad to a tonsil infection (Yaron Brook) should be the head of an organization which supposedly represents the most rational people on earth.


Another Good Article

Neil Parille's picture

This is an interesting article on Islam from National Review.

French served in Iraq.


Yes, they were in the middle of a war — but speaking from my own experience — the war was conducted from within a culture that was shockingly broken. I expected the jihadists to be evil, but even I couldn’t fathom the depths of their depravity. And it was all occurring against the backdrop of a brutally violent and intolerant culture. Women were beaten almost as an afterthought, there was a near-total lack of empathy for even friends and neighbors, lying was endemic, and sexual abuse was rampant. Even more disturbingly, it seemed that every problem was exacerbated the more religious and pious a person (or village) became.

I spent enough time outside the wire and interacting with tribal leaders to get a sense of the reality around me, but the younger guys on the line spent weeks at a time living in the heart of the local community. I remember one young soldier, after describing the things he’d seen since the start of the deployment, gestured towards the village around us and said — in perfect Army English — “Sir, this s**t is f**ked up.”

It is indeed. While it’s certainly unfair to judge Indonesia or Malaysia by the standards of Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s very hard to shake the power of lived experience, nor should we necessarily try. After all, when we hear stories from Syria, Yemen, Gaza, the Sinai, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Pakistan, and elsewhere they all fit the same depressing template of the American conflict zones. Nor is the dazzlingly wealthy veneer of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the other Gulf States all that impressive. Tens of thousands of soldiers have seen the veritable slave labor that toils within the oil empires and have witnessed first-hand their casual disregard for “lesser” life.



Important New Article On Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

By David Frum:


This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since. Since 1991, the United States has accepted more than 100,000 Somali refugees. Britain accepted 100,000 as well. Some 50,000 Somali refugees were resettled in Canada; some 40,000 in Sweden; smaller communities were settled in the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark.

How’s that going?

Minnesota is home to America’s largest Somali community, 33,000 people. The unemployment rate for Somali Minnesotans in 2015 was triple the state average, 21 percent. As of 2014, about 5,950 of the state’s Somali population received cash assistance; 17,000 receive food assistance as of 2014.

A close study of Somali refugees by the government of Maine (home to the nation’s second-largest Somali community) found that fewer than half of the working-age population had worked at any time in the five years from 2001 through 2006.

The U.S. unemployment rate of 20+ percent still represents a huge improvement over rates in Europe. Only about 40 percent of working-age Somali men in Norway are employed. In the Swedish city of Malmo, home to one of the largest Somali communities in Europe, only 20 percent work.

Somalis have so much difficulty finding work in the developed world because their skills badly mismatch local labor needs. Only about 18 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls attend even primary school in Somalia. UNICEF has given up trying to measure literacy rates. Much of the U.S. refugee population is descended from people held as slaves in Somalia, who accordingly lack any family tradition of education. Their children then flounder in Western schools, baffled by the norms and expectations they encounter there. In the U.K., Somali students pass the standard age 16 high school exams at a rate less than half that of Nigerian immigrant students.

Struggling with the transition from semi-nomadic-herder society to postindustrial urban life, young Somalis in the West are tempted by criminal activity. Danish Somalis are 10 times more likely to be committed of a serious offense than native-born Danes. At least 29 young Canadian Somalis were murdered in drug-trafficking-related deaths between 2005 and 2010. In July 2012, Richard Stanek, sheriff of the county that encompasses Minneapolis-St. Paul, testified to Congress about the rising danger of American Somali gangs. While stressing that most Somalis in Minnesota obeyed the law, Stanek worried:

"Somali gangs have emerged as a serious threat to community safety both in Hennepin County and as a unique challenge to our law enforcement re- sources. These gangs are involved in multiple criminal activities that require sophisticated and resource-intensive law enforcement investigations. They are growing in influence and violence … and practice certain cultural behaviors that render some traditional U.S. criminal justice tools less effective."

Other young Somalis turn to political and religious violence. An estimated 50 American Somalis returned to fight for al Shabab, committing some of the most heinous acts of that insurgency. One carried out a suicide bombing that killed 24 people in 2009. Al Shabab claimed three American Somalis took part in the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall in 2013 that killed at least 67 people. Al Shabab is now intensely recruiting American Somalis to undertake terror missions inside the United States.

"We call upon our Mus­lim broth­ers, par­tic­u­larly those in the West... imagine what a ded­i­cated mujahid (fighter) in the West could do to the Amer­i­can and Jewish-owned shop­ping cen­ters across the world."

What if such an attack was to call in the Mall of Amer­ica in Min­nesota, or the West Edmon­ton Mall in Canada? Or in London’s Oxford Street, or any of the hun­dred or so Jewish-owned West­field shop­ping cen­ters dot­ted right across the West­ern world...

A growing number of Somali Americans in Minnesota have been charged with plotting to aid ISIS over the past two years, the 10th of them on December 9.




Neil Parille's picture

Here is a Biddle answering the objection that attacking Islamic states would increase the risk of terrorism:


Second, in the wake of a campaign of total destruction of Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have attacked us in the name of an allegedly all-powerful “Allah,” even the dimmest mullahs and jihadists who escaped destruction would have to wonder whether Allah is as great and powerful as they had assumed. They might even begin to doubt his existence. “If Allah is not willing or able to save us or our regimes from the retaliatory wrath of the West,” they might wonder, “then maybe he’s not all he’s cracked up to be . . .” The more intelligent survivors might make substantially deeper and broader connections: “Maybe, instead of serving Allah, we should serve ourselves. Maybe we should do what those triumphant, wealthy, happy Westerners do, and go by reason rather than faith; be productive rather than destructive; pursue life and happiness rather than death and martyrdom; establish rights-respecting republics rather than rights-violating theocracies . . .”

Of course, not all surviving jihadists would pause and think. Some would doggedly persist in their efforts to murder Westerners. But such mathematically challenged jihadists would be relatively few in number, and Western forces could hunt them down and eliminate them in short order.

Third, any Muslims who attack Westerners because we killed jihadists who murdered our countrymen were already with the enemy and are now just making it known. This information is beneficial to us because it enables us to identify and kill these newly exposed jihadists as well—and to do so sooner rather than later, affording them less time to plan, plot, recruit, murder.


Note that Biddle talks about Jihadis killing "Westerners." He can't bring himself to admit that there are millions of Muslims (and lots of Jihadis) living in the West. He's so on auto-pilot that he can't accurately describe the objection accurately. If he's reading this, here it is: there are millions of moderate Muslims in the west and a fair number of Jihadi and Jihadi sympathizers. When the West threatens (or worse attacks) Islamic nations the moderates will become radicalized. If one looks at, say, the Algerians rioting and overturning police cars on New Years in France, or when Algeria qualifies for the World Cup (or doesn't qualify) then it's almost a certainty that Europe's capitals will burn.

Biddle's theory seems to be that Muslims (living in the West) will give up the Jihadist aspect of their religion once the US blasts Saudi Arabia and Iran. They will realize that their religion is feeble and impotent. I can't find any historical precedents for this. The Romans defeated the Jews and destroyed their temple in 70AD and had to fight another brutal war against them in 135. Communism is still around even though the world has seen the failure of central planning.

Also consider the failure of Islam. Yes, it has had its periods of success (the Arabs early on and also the Turks), but relatively soon the religion was on the retreat militarily, culturally and scientifically. Even the more populous Arab states couldn't prevent the creation of Israel in 1948. If any thing, this made the Muslims more bitter.

So Biddle is willing to allow massive Islamic immigration in the West (sufficient to turn Europe and Israel Islamic over time) on the theory that a Western military campaign will once and for all destroy the inclination of 1.6 billion Muslims to harm the West. The future of Western civilization mortgaged to Biddle's hair brained theory.

EDIT: Biddle and other Objectivists make the comparison with Islam to Shintoism and Nazism. Once we defeated Japan and Germany these ideologies were ended. I don't think it's a good analogy. While I don't know much about Shintoism, Nazism was an aberration in German history and wasn't ingrained in the minds of Germans. Also, Japan and Germany were industrialized countries. Once the war was over, the people there just wanted to get on with their lives. This is not the case with Islam. Consider the California terrorists. The guy had a decent job and a six-month old baby. For whatever the flaws of the West, it gives Muslims a better chance for a happy life but for Muslims this just creates on big chip on their shoulder.

EDIT 2: Obviously, Islam is a universalist ideology not tied to any one country. As I said, it is closer to Communism than Nazism or Shintoism.

Marrotta - uggh

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Yeah, he is definitely an example of the abysmal nature of Objectivist forums. I would say that at least 50% of Objectivists are "Obleftivists". Marotta is one of them. I find that under 30 year old Objectivists are usually always Obleftivist (left leaning). Sometimes with age they get some maturity.


I occasionally check on the Twitter feeds of some Objectivists that I used to debate with in the comments sections of various blogs. They are all Obleftivists. But some Twitter feeds of more popular O'ist figures would be Ari Armstrong, Craig Biddle, Timmothy Sandefeur, Robert Tracinski, etc. The common threads that I see is that they are all militantly open borders, anti banning Islamic immigration or restricting Islam in any way all the while writing anti-Jihad articles (but just anti-Jihad, they don't understand its relation to the essence of Islam), pro never ending war in the ME as if we haven't killed enough Muslims already and that the solution is just a "non altruistic" approach to war which imo is largely irrelevant, Donald Trump is fascist and the core conservatives that like him are racist (which is exactly what leftists believe), and all the other content of their tweets is just Randian boilerplate ie low hanging fruit like being pro free market. They have absolutely no ORIGINAL ideas or applications of philosophy. To use your terminology, they are "ossified" in their thinking.

A note on Timmothy Sandefuer. Believe it or not, his brother was KILLED in the San Bernardino attacks and he STILL does not believe in banning Muslim immigration or banning Islam. In fact his blog post on his brother's death was essentially the same shit you get from leftists; ie "we can not give into fear and we can not change our culture or the terrorists win". I was sickened reading it. He is what the alt-right would call a "cuck"; ie someone who supplicates the left's world view pretending that they oppose it.

Sandefeur like all Randians thinks that we haven't waged the right type of military battles in the ME and that we haven't bombed Iran into oblivion. And this is why we are being killed by Muslims. Neil has shown that this is standard issue policy stuff from Yaron Brook and OrgOism. And he also made good arguments why this is INSANE. This is the "invade the world invite the world" NeoCon strategy on steroids. I know because I used to be the exact same way. I now realize that military action is not the fundamental problem. The problem is the existence of Muslims in Western nations. But even having your own family member SLAUGHTERED isn't enough to change your views if you are a Randian. Think about that.

Objectivism does in fact serve the role of a cult in certain ways. As does libertarianism. As does mainstream American Conservatism (witness Glen Beck's idiotic ranting on Trump calling Trump a "progressive"). As does Leftism. If having your brother killed by pious Muslims does not lead you to the conclusion that Muslims should not live amongst us and that Donald Trump's position is just BARELY beginning to scratch the service, then what will? This is why Larry Auster was in part correct when he argued that "liberalism" was a modern Gnostic cult that was incapable of seeing the world as it actually is. In my mind, Auster is being proven right more and more each day. I still think that right liberalism and Objectivism (one variant) might be able to be salvaged but I see no prospect of that in the near future.

The Sandefeur incident is seriously disheartening. Not just for Objectivism and mainstream libertarianism. But for America in general. We are a nation of weaklings. I'm beginning to think that ONLY a fascist movement will save us from the Left and from Islam and that doesn't make me happy.


Jules Troy's picture

With few exceptions I had a much higher opinion of O'sts before I discovered them them on forums online..

I did not expect them to be the embodiment of Galt in the flesh but I did expect at least some of them to be giants of industry, heroic capitalist magnates etc...

Instead I found Marrotta...



Lindsay Perigo's picture

The importance of some of that cultural commentary is precisely why it needs to be honed and focused.

What are some of these Twitter-feeds? I don't follow any of the OrgOists on Twitter (or at all! Smiling ) right now.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

You are right and I'm proud of you for listening to the interview and seeing its value and its flaws. Yes, they are incredibly knowledgeable and yes they are scattershot. I've often thought that you could have been an Objectivist version of Mollyneaux. In a better world the two of you could have had a tv show like the old "Hannity and Colmes" but with sane people. And I do think you could have directed Molly and Whittle into more grounded directions.

But the info in that interview is incredibly important. Whittle mentions the Cultural Marxist strategy of all leftist groups never attacking each other but only the enemy; ie white Conservatives. Whittle also analyzed Islam as a political movement and showed how it is similar to Communism. Has any OrgOist even done that type of analysis?

I have been following Objectivist Twitter feeds and Linz trust me when I tell you that they are the very definition of KASSlessness. Expect "vote Demscum across the board" times 10 if Trump gets the nomination. That's how bad it is. Whatever my own intellectual journey, I still have a very soft spot for Rand. It saddens me to see Objectivists become so pathetic. Solo's credo is not the credo of the Objectivist movement as it currently exists. Your view of a secular version of Christianity that could move a man's soul and produce the kind of art and music embodied by classical Opera or by Lanza is a long way off. That truly saddens me.

I really do have a soul. But it only comes out when I am on meds. LOL


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I absolutely would far prefer to listen to this empiricist coupling than a rationalist coupling like Brook/Ghate. The former is superior on every level. But the problem with your boys is that after five minutes of bullets being sprayed from all directions in all directions one wants to say, "Enough already! Slow down, and let's reflect on what we might conclude from all this." There was some brilliance in there, and I especially loved Whittle's revisiting of the Emperor's New Clothes parable. ("Social proof"? Is that what he called it?) But it was too unintegrated. It was like two guys with extraordinary knowledge of historical detail competing to show which of them knows more historical detail. A lot of the time its relevance to the topic at hand—Trump's proposed ban—was non-existent. For trained interviewers like me whose constant refrain is "cut to the chase" this sort of diarrhoea-fest is exasperating.

Of course empirical evidence is important. It's also important to know when you can start drawing conclusions based on it. Facts without reasoning are as useless as reasoning without facts.

Not so airheaded after all?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rasmussen: Among Republicans, 66% favour ban, 24% oppose. Overall, 46% support, 40% oppose.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

First, yes I can't spell. If you were crowned emperor of the known world you would have no choice but to have me placed in front of a firing squad. The way I spell, you could not take the chance that the cause of this is genetic. I would pollute the gene pool and threaten the spread of Authenticism. No no, the vision of the future must be protected.

Second, yes they lean towards empiricism. However, Objectivists *are* de facto rationalists. I think it is crucially important to have empirical data, especially on subjects like immigration. Mollyneux has given video presentations on immigration (that I have linked to) that show that welfare usage and voting patterns among immigrants vary according to race and ethnicity. That is a matter of importance especially in the context of mixed economy America. The data they get is often from official organizations that collect this stuff and sometimes it is from behind a pay wall. So they have to pay to get it (Molly's site survives from donations). Mainstream O'ists have been ignorant of this data for years and have NEVER shown any desire to obtain it. IMO, that's because their heads are in some utopian future not in the present reality.

I do agree that I think they make too much of the r/K reproductive strategy theory; ie the rabbits vs the wolves. I think biology is at play with politics but it is channeled through "software"; ie ideology; although I wouldn't be surprised if there was in fact definite biological predispositions for political / moral positions. I don't think that necessarily entails determinism. My point with these videos is that they are intelligent, empirical, and showcase pro-liberty people actually applying the liberty ideas in a non-mainstream, non-suicidal way. OrgOist elites can't even bring themselves to consider immigrant moratoriums or prohibiting Islamic immigration (let alone bans on Islam). All you get from them is the constant drumbeat for war. They're NeoCons on steroids.

I would much rather watch two empiricists who understand that Islamic culture is incompatible with Western liberty than watch Yaron Brook banging the drums for relentless war in the Muslim world. We have already killed over 1 Million Muslims! Does Yaron ever think that the solution is not more war but something else? Something far simpler like immigration policy and out migrating Muslims? Even a European mushy Social Democrat type like Denmark's Geert Wilders is to the Right of Yaron Brook. Brook is closer to Angela Merkel than Wilders is!! Which would make Official Objectivism a standard Overton Window ideology. So much for "defying the system".


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

It could be an American thing with libertarians and Randians. New Zealand and Australia might produce better strains of people, although when I was in Australia years ago I found the culture to be insanely Leftist. Really, the "anti-discrimination" stuff was EVERYWHERE especially on television. I was nauseated by its constant drumbeat. Is it any better in New Zealand?

I tend to think that the entire Anglo world is f**ked. I hope I'm wrong. It seems that the only Europeans with some immunity to Cultural Marxism are the Slavs. But sadly they do not have a liberty tradition (although if they did they probably would have had it hijacked just like the Left hijacked the Anglo liberty tradition).

You are basically an outpost of Northern European society down there at the bottom of the Earth. Outposts usually are hardier and less decadent then the centers of empire. The American North East corridor, the Left Coast, London and Brussels, etc are all corrupt imperial centers. Hopefully, you kangaroo and sheep lovers will be spared the 2nd fall of Rome. Although if that happens what will save you from Asian conquest is beyond me.

S&M for Doug too

gregster's picture

Oh you are awful.. But yes, now, no don't go discouraging him. If he were to be promised a whipping by Ms Pierson I envisage that would be mutually beneficial. And you may get to watch. Take a break from Socialism and Moslem watch.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

You can't be serious! Inviting to NZ someone who writes "their" instead of "there"?! Bring him here and I'd horsewhip him!

As to why I don't similarly discipline Lady Slapper, there's no doubt that to do so would only encourage her. Moreover, women are all FAF* to begin with; let one loose with some intimation of a brain where the hormones usually are, and ... well, what can one do?

*Flaky as Fuck

Doug II

gregster's picture

I find the New Zealand Soloists that I have met to be profoundly great company. I thank Lindsay's Free Radical magazine and then his websites for introducing me to a principled, practical, moral philosophy. And then I read Rand. You must visit NZ, either as Doug I, or Doug II, and return home supercharged.

DO NOT DESPAIR ancient warrior. For their is providence in the fall of a sparrow. Sparrows must fall so that wise men can see their meaning and even wiser men can learn their lessons. There are forces at play I fear that are beyond us but such forces might just be blessed of the gods. We will see. Until then, stiff upper lip and remember "you can't stump the Trump". Sing it with pride.
And Laddy Slapper considers me boring. My gods man, don't you discipline these fair maidens from the lands down under? You can't just let them run around with all types of agency and freedom can you? Oh ye gods. We Western lads have lost our minds to allow this. Really we need to bring back Thor with his trusty hammer or Heracles with his godlike strength. We are praying to the wrong gods. That is why we suffer.

Even more worrying ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... than his maddening inarticulateness is the possibility that he doesn't mean any of it. That's what worries me the most. If he truly believed it wouldn't he do his homework and be properly prepared, instead of sounding like a lame repetitive ox?

And yet, I have to accept that someone running for office has said what he's said. Unimaginable that anyone else would. Just look at the cowardly reactions of the other contenders. I couldn't bring myself even to look at Bush on screen today. Ugh!!

Very prescient...

Olivia's picture

... it is so great to hear Trump say this - I can hardly believe it. One gets so used to being bitterly disappointed in these affairs it is easy to give up hope.

I just wish Donald could say it as eloquently!!

So do I. He is not an articulate man at all, that is the most worrying part of his run.

I'm glad ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... this part of my primary post, published 5 weeks ago, is now the policy of the Republican front-runner:

Not one adherent to this unspeakable belief system should be allowed in to a civilised country when adherents to said unspeakable belief system have declared war on civilisation and are actively pursuing that war.

Not One Muslim!

I just wish Donald could say it as eloquently!!

Two mad empiricists

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've met people like this. Chris Sciabarra was one of them. Brilliant battering rams on details, hopeless on the big picture. Too many facts, too little logic. These guys overlook that "grey squirrels, brown squirrels" does not equate with "black humans, white humans," humans being conceptual entities. One of them allowed that the work ethic—culture, in other words—bumps up the IQ. I venture to suggest that's true regardless of skin colour. I can fully believe that the average IQ in Syria is 83—but look at what they believe! Islam would make anyone stupid, and does.

When they weren't jerking off, they seemed to get it right re Trump. And yes, it's vastly more rational commentary than you'll get from ARI. It's beyond exasperating to see people who purport to acknowledge the supreme relevance of context fail 100% to do so, and spout lethal garbage instead.

Trump was awful on O'Reilly. Can one of you Americans somehow get to him and tell him to get me on his team?!

Better commentary here than

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Better commentary here than what you would get from ARI:

They are discussing why Islam is sui generis and is not compatible with the liberties of the West. I think that even in the Objectivist framework, Islam can be labelled a perpetual "threat of initiatory force" and heavily regulated if not banned. And yet not one Objectivist argues that. Linz is the one that comes the closest. No matter how many get killed by Muslims, Objectivists can't bring themselves to discriminate (rationally) against a group. It would threaten their ideological purity.

I keep seeing a defense of "non violent Muslims" all over the Objectivist movement; from Brook to Armstrong to the Objectivist Twitter feeds. And the popular sentiment is that Trump is a fascist for even suggesting it. And yet, throughout the years it has been bandied about that it "may be necessary to halt Islamic immigration" by several Objectivists (from Tracinski to Brook to John Lewis, etc). Well after Paris and San Bernardino is it not that time? Apparently not enough have died yet. And Brook still wants us to bomb the hell out of the Middle East while all the while allowing Muslims to enter. Jesus Christ.

This is a litmus test and Objectivism has failed. Very sad.

Yaron Brook

Neil Parille's picture

. . . should come here and debate the issue of immigration. Of course he won't.

When I think about it ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... merely being a communist was enough to stop one getting in during the Cold War. Might well still be, for all I know. So there's a whole ideology targeted right there. Wasn't at all controversial. Why the hysteria now?!

Note, the wording of the Jimmy Carter restrictions allows for appropriate exceptions.

I hope Trump has swotted this all up when he goes on O'Reilly in a few minutes. Not holding my breath, though.

Adolf Carter vs. Barack Brook

Neil Parille's picture


Yaron was on Twitter today arguing that there shouldn't be a ban on Muslim immigration, just that they should be "screened." Like I suppose Mrs. Terrorist of San Bernadino was.

Congratulations Yaron, you are to the left of "Jimmy" Carter.


Adolf Carter!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Oh my! Turns out Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entry during the hostage crisis, among other things!

Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here's Jimmy "Hitler" Carter saying it back in 1980.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

Tweeted this to Trump

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Lindsay Perigo ‏@LindsayPerigo1 9m9 minutes ago
@realDonaldTrump Your courage against Islam unimaginable elsewhere. Next step: leave the UN and boot it out! Make America America again!


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

DO NOT DESPAIR ancient warrior. For their is providence in the fall of a sparrow. Sparrows must fall so that wise men can see their meaning and even wiser men can learn their lessons. There are forces at play I fear that are beyond us but such forces might just be blessed of the gods. We will see. Until then, stiff upper lip and remember "you can't stump the Trump". Sing it with pride.

And Laddy Slapper considers me boring. My gods man, don't you discipline these fair maidens from the lands down under? You can't just let them run around with all types of agency and freedom can you? Oh ye gods. We Western lads have lost our minds to allow this. Really we need to bring back Thor with his trusty hammer or Heracles with his godlike strength. We are praying to the wrong gods. That is why we suffer.

Sickening today ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the attacks on Trump by the other Republican candidates. You'd think Islamosavages from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were covered by the Constitution!! Even in wartime!! Despicable wimps. Bush ... ugh!!!! Problem is, if Trump goes it alone, Hillary gets in.

Ann Coulter is kick ass

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Also firebrand conservative columnist Ann Coulter.

Ann deserves specific praise. I lover her Twitter feed. She has been incredibly heroic and sure enough most Objectivists hate her. I could spit.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I'm hoping that Trump is learning as he goes. I think he sees that the further right he pushes (to use those terms) the higher his polling is. Core Conservatives and even many lower class white liberals hate Islam and are fearful and often contemptuous of Muslims. I think in the beginning, Trump didn't quite understand the Overton Window and what he could get away with. I am hoping that he wouldn't attack anti-Islam protests today.

I hate saying this, because I could always be at the center of the next one but... The more Muslim attacks we get, the stronger the non-mainstream Right will get and the better chance to get the Demoncrats out of power. Its the reaction to Islam and Muslims that may end up breaking the mainstream Conservatives hold on political power and may help spur a true opposition to Leftism.

Looked at Simply

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

In simple, surface, monkey terms, Islam is attacking America. But pretty much only Trump is fighting back. Almost every other high-profile Republican and Democratic politician is on the side of Islam. Only politicos Ted Cruz and Rand Paul currently refuse to offer full support to the Muslims. Also firebrand conservative columnist Ann Coulter. All other American political and intellectual leaders support the enemy! Sad

And ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I hope the reptilian wimp Bush's response that Trump is "unhinged" is the final nail in its coffin. Shame on the other Republican candidates too, for the scurrying back to Political Correctness. Carly?! Who'd have thought?!

Good on some things, not so

Richard Wiig's picture

Good on some things, not so good on others.

Those polls are important and

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Those polls are important and tell the truth. I hope Trump applies his strong mind to this issue and can come up with some answers, namely that Islam itself is an evil philosophy.

Not One Muslim!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's catching on! Smiling

- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -


(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I began to watch the video, but your guy is crazy. A dreadful empiricist, leaping from crag to crag with verbal diarrhaea. Splayed out every which-way. As a presenter, he's an abortion. I can no more listen to him than a quacker. Sorry.

If he's an advocate of the view that political beliefs are genetically passed on, then I'm more convinced than ever that ain't so!

Read my lips. Leontyne Price.

(No subject)

Richard Wiig's picture


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Watch the video and listen to the research he is commenting on. I was a leftist too. That doesn't change the fact that politics is largely heritable. Humans have emotional predispositions that are biologic in origin. Yes, you can use philosophy to change your views through years of hard intellectual labor if you have enough intelligence to start with. But that doesn't meant that biology and brain chemistry doesn't influence emotional and thus political preferences. Don't be narrow minded. Leave that to the Orthodox Objectivists. Today's "liberalism" is probably partly influenced by biology. For example, lower testosterone counts are clearly making men more feminine pushing them towards modern liberalism. I'm not pushing determinism, just the fact that biology influences our mental, and thus philosophic, world more than we currently appreciate.

Culture is largely genetic

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Culture is genetic, its not just philosophical. That's the blank slate view that Objectivism believes in. That view will not have a future as time and science moves on. Europeans can produce a wide range of cultures good and bad. Arabs, or brown skinned Semites are far more limited. Look at the Islamic world as a proxy of what you get from brown skinned Semitic people. Would you want to live anywhere in that world? And let me forestall the "but what about the Golden Age of Islam" argument. Muslims conquered various empires by the sword, they excelled at violence, and lived off the fading glory of those empires. They drained them of their wealth and accomplishment and then North Africa, the Levant and Anatolia became shit holes.

The problem with Muslim populations in the West is partly due to Islam and partly due to biology. You have a low IQ, high fertility (r selected reproduction strategy) people entering into high IQ, low fertility (K selected) societies; that have welfare states and mixed economies (although there would still be dangers even if they were fully free market). That in and of itself would give you what you have in America with Blacks; enclaves of less intelligent, dangerous, often times savage people that breed like rabbits (Google up images from the Baltimore riots). In America we are experiencing a wave of black savage violence directed at Whites that the media will not report and which if you mention it directly will get you fired or ostracized. You get the same thing in Europe with black or brown immigrant groups. I bet you have the same thing in NZ to some extent with your native aborigines and your imported Arabs; although you only have 4 million people and you're still 90% White (how I am jealous).

Now when you throw in Islam you get a ready made justification for counter insurgency warfare against the native European population; aka Whites. Yes, Islam makes things worse. But its the demographic itself that is the fundamental problem. Even without Islam, a mass immigrant population of Arabs and Black Africans is NOT the same as immigrant populations as Poles, Italians, Germans, and the Irish. Do you truly think it is? Do you think if you suddenly imported 2 million Christian Arabs that New Zealand would still be the New Zealand you know? What would be your chance for a libertarian New Zealand then?

As I've said, the Europeans are suffering from a serious case of pathological altruism. That has many causes. But Europeans are capable of building great cities like Paris, London, Vienna, Stockholm, Sydney, Aukland and NYC. Arabs, Somalis, Ethiopians, Nigerians, etc are not. Yes, their culture sucks. But why? Its deeper than just bad philosophy. They are not capable of arriving at good philosophy. I don't even know if you could force it on them.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

You say: Leftists/egalitarians have different brains than non-leftists.

I was once a leftist. Now I'm not. Did I get a different brain? Best I can tell, I chose to use better the one I had and still have.


Olivia's picture

This pathetic drivel from the same bloodline as Charles Martel.

This Frenchman is truuuuuly revolting - on every level, as you state (yes, utterly gelded...ugh). But this pathetic drivel from the same bloodline as Charles Martel just goes to show you that bloodlines, race, skin colour etc are not the problem. The problem is betrayal of cultural values, which are man-made, not metaphysically given. See Lindsay's latest clip on Leontyne Price.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Leftists/egalitarians have different brains than non-leftists. There are a number of things going on but for one the amygdala on leftists/liberals is wired differently. Its smaller and as a result, leftists do not process fear of outsiders in the same way as Conservatives. This has been shown scientifically. (I'll post a video link below.) So leftists don't get the fear response that Conservatives (and I'm using Conservative here broadly). They've shown that when Muslims commit acts of violence or blacks commit acts of violence, Leftists actually show them MORE sympathy not less. Conservatives respond differently.

And this is the interesting point, the empathy reflex of Europeans has been hijacked. By what? Well, if you read right wing, nationalist, or right libertarian (which would include some Objectivists like yourself) literature, you get many suggestions: Christianity, Feminism, Liberalism, Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Post Modern philosophy, Kan't CI (Rand's thesis), Jewish intellectual movements (Kevin MacDonald), biology, etc.. There are many theories and I think all of them play a role.

But whatever is going on, you seem to have some feedback loop between biology, culture and philosophy / ethics that is pushing this suicidal or "pathological altruism" (read the book of that title if you have not already) of the post 1960s West. Obama, whatever his treachery, is just representative of what egalitarians believe. He is their culmination.

Here is part 2 of Molly's 4 part video series on r/K selection theory and how it effects politics. Some parts of it may strike you as determinist but he has a lot of scientific data and he himself is not a determinist but he does take science seriously; something I wish Objectivism did.

He gets into the differences between Conservatives and liberals (to use the generic terms) biologically. Its fascinating stuff. Stephan may be a market anarchist but he is vastly more informed and informative than any OrgOist or mainstream libertarian (ie Cato, Reason, etc which are all libertarian leftist at this point). You will find this video series intriguing at the least.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Of course I remember my rational rage speech. Smiling Front page of ARI? Hahahaha. Hell will freeze over. It's still here though:

And yes, that "you don't have my hate" mush is beyond sickening, and part of the reason the West is going down.

Why is Obama still in the White House?

Linz - Remember Your Rational Rage Speech?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I think you gave it in California in 2005 when visiting with James Valiant. I remember that speech till this day. It should have been posted on the ARI front page but of course it wasn't. Listen to this sad excuse for a Frenchman below in light of the message of your inspiring speech:

I submit that this is one of the fundamental reasons for the demise of European civilization; ie "The West". This is the combination of altruism / sacrificism, egalitarianism, moral non-judgementalism, soppy sentimentality, multi-culturalism which is contained in "modern liberalism" and all in the package of a gelded white male. This pathetic drivel from the same bloodline as Charles Martel.

What caused this is the true question that the entire Objectivist movement should be using Rand's epistemology to figure out. Because while Christian Humanism is involved, you have other things going on as well; tracing this disease is complicated. But this refusal to feel righteous anger at evil combined with the refusal to see the inherent danger of a GROUP of people (ie Muslims) is going to spread devastation to the Euro-American world.

We are dying in a sense because we will not hate. Even Objectivists refuse to experience rational rage and rational hate. "Not One Muslim" should be a no brainer, along with the hatred of Islam and the fear of Muslim populations.

Atlas Shrurgged 2.0

Doug Bandler The Second's picture


Excellent update of AS. The thing is if AS were in fact to be made into a good faith attempt at a modern TV mini-series, it would have to incorporate the things that you added into the Winston Tunnel scene. It would have to show that the multi-culturalism of the Left which as I say is really multi-racialism and that the Left's updated egalitarianism is both a racial and gender egalitarianism. The Left's new version of nihilism hates White non-liberals. To avoid that is to NOT understand the "Drooling Beast". But no one in the Objectivist movement wants to go there, which is what disgusts me more than anything. I'm not saying to blindly accept racial hereditarianism, although I think that is the direction of the future. But you must understand the racial egalitarianism which is the MAJOR organizing principle of the modern Left.

Molenbeek Broke My Heart

Neil Parille's picture

"Over nine years, as I witnessed the neighborhood become increasingly intolerant. Alcohol became unavailable in most shops and supermarkets; I heard stories of fanatics at the Comte des Flandres metro station who pressured women to wear the veil; Islamic bookshops proliferated, and it became impossible to buy a decent newspaper. With an unemployment rate of 30 percent, the streets were eerily empty until late in the morning. Nowhere was there a bar or café where white, black and brown people would mingle. Instead, I witnessed petty crime, aggression, and frustrated youths who spat at our girlfriends and called them “filthy whores.” If you made a remark, you were inevitably scolded and called a racist. There used to be Jewish shops on Chaussée de Gand, but these were terrorized by gangs of young kids and most closed their doors around 2008. Openly gay people were routinely intimidated, and also packed up their bags."

- Teun Voeten, November 2015

"Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American [and presumably Belgian] spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children. "

- Harry Binswanger, June 2015


Neil Parille's picture

On the issue of racial differences in intelligence, I think the jury is still out. The tests that could be done (genetic studies, adoption studies) aren't being done and the previous studies in this area aren't conclusive. For example, see this:

Very good, Neil ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... apart from your smuggling in of inherent racial differences. I really had no idea you were into all that. I thought you, as a Brandroid Goblian, were just another version of Rosie. Whatever else Rosie may be, she is not a racist.

As for Rosie's peculiar rant-from-someone-else: I saw Marco Rubio talking about the idea of closing mosques, and what he said was a side-step that meant the opposite of what is here attributed to him (alas—I wish Marco *had* been saying what he's accused of!). I think we may safely assume that the rest of Rosie's copy-and-paste is equally dishonest. Rosie, remember, is a superstitionist of the Goblian variety. I guess, when the chips are down, superstitionists stick together (the ghastly Goblian Baade is equally vociferously defending Islamofilth on Faecesbook). Rosie is now aligning with the lowest filth on earth as they blow up anyone they can. See the second link showing an Islamofilth stoning in my primary post: Rosie, you in particular. All in the name of "compassion." Compassion? From people who say of the idea of eternal torture, "Why not?" George Orwell himself could never have imagined such Newspeak.

Winston Tunnel Scene, 2020

Neil Parille's picture

"As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.

It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them. The Comet’s driver was Abdul Muhammed who as a youth made clocks that looked like bombs, its engineer was Quetzacotl Martinez, and its brakeman was Shabazz El-Jackson

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that all race was a social construct and individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion "for a good cause,” particularly to control "hate speech" and "trigger warnings."

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that the majority must not assert is own personality because to to do otherwise was “racist, sexist, homophobic, and Islamophobic.”

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that whites are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of meta-narratives and stripping them of their "white privilege."

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a transsexual businessperson who had acquired his business by affirmative action.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting her friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them under the Race Neutral Minority Business Protection Act of 2020.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a politician who claimed that Islam "is a religion of peace" although he studiously avoided the Islamic portions of Europe when he went on vacation.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a “transgendered person” he had had a right to use a female restroom notwithstanding that the he has male genital organs.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that all groups were equal in intelligence and that poor people were they way they were because of “microagressions.”

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job advocating open immigration even if it resulted in the immigration of Muslim rapists because “white girls and women are collateral damage on the march toward multiculturalism.”

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all people who benefit from “white privilege” were scoundrels.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control the United Nations and the EU.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a White lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any regime run by Social Justice Warriors.'

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no such thing as human differences - how do you know that the trains driven by third worlders are dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that that race exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains be piloted by Islamic conductors aren't safe? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you?

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'I live in a gated community. Why do I care if the world around me is descending into a third world hell?'

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The Whites? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the Third World. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the White, where mercy to the oppressed is concerned.'

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth."

- Based on Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", pages 566-568. All due apologies to Leonard Peikoff because "you asked for it brother."

Leftist crap

Doug Bandler The Second's picture


Have you become a hardcore Leftist in the last 3 years? Or a libertarian leftist? Accusing White Right Wingers of "hate" and "bigotry" when Muslims are waging war against Infidels throughout Europe and this all stems out of allowing Muslims to mass emigrate to the West shows you to be the one who is ignorant.

When you were a Christian libertarian you were charming. If you have become some libertarian leftist pushing SJW crap and guilting Right Wingers because there is no female President then you have officially become unbearable. I have no stomach for Leftists.

Also, I'll add if you really believe that the Muslim world is a safer place for women then please by all means go live there. Shit or get of the pot.

Regardless of whether or not

Richard Wiig's picture

Regardless of whether or not those "facts" taken individually are true or false, they have no bearing on the jihad that is raging, or on the actual teachings of Islam. What is your point, Rosie? That bigotry is bad? Yes, we no that. But the existence of bigots does not invalidate the need to act in self-defence against Islam. Islam is the problem, so Islam must be addressed. If it wasn't for soldiers of Allah going to war against the world, no one would be making suggestions about closing all Mosques. What values are you defending here? Why are you not suggesting a better way to combat the soldiers of Allah, if you think have a better way?

Some Facts about Muslims

Rosie's picture

"The right wing anti-Muslim hysteria has reached fever pitch this week, following the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13.

From Donald Trump’s Nazi-inspired suggestion of closing all mosques and forcing all Muslims to wear ID to Jeb Bush’s suggestion that only Christian refugees should be allowed into the country, the sheer ignorance and blind hate that underscores the republican party has been on full display.

Presidential contender Marco Rubio trumped Donald Trump himself. Rubio suggesting that America not only close down all mosques, but shutter any place where Muslims could possibly gather. During an interview with Fox News, Rubio, often described as “the most moderate” republican candidate for president, Rubio said:

“It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired.”

Republican politicians called for putting Syrian refugees in segregated detainment camps, while every day right-wing bigots in Virginia attended a town hall meeting, where one man was recorded on video screaming at his Muslim neighbors of 30 years, claiming “Every Muslim is a terrorist.”

Ignorance and bigotry always walk hand in hand, as those of us looking on in horror at the GOP freak show already know.

The anti-Muslim hysteria routinely promoted by the right-wing goes beyond your run-of-the-mill republican stupidity. Their ignorance in the areas of Math, Science and American History doesn’t compare to their lack of knowledge on the subject of the Islamic faith.

Here are some “myth-busting” facts that might surprise you.

Worldwide there are 1.6 billion Muslims. That number is expected to increase by 35 percent by the year 2030.

Only 20 percent of Muslims live in the Middle East.
The majority of people who follow the Islamic religion, more than 60 percent, live in the Asian-Pacific region.

Muslims have lived in China for more than 1400 years. (In China a Muslim woman may wear a Tudong and Tudung, as shown in the featured image for this article.)

Less than 15 percent of the world’s Muslim population is Arab.

Two-thirds of the U.S. Arab population is Christian, not Muslim.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in Ireland.

The European nation of Albania has a population that is 90 percent Muslim.

The most common name in the world is not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It’s Muhammad.

All Muslim women do not wear hijabs.

The percentage of women in government in Muslim-majority countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, is higher then in the United States.

The youngest female president in the world, Atifete Jahjaga, the president of Kosovo, is a Muslim woman. The United States has yet to elect a female president. We can’t even get the oppressive right-wing Christian congress pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

Muslims give more to charity than Christians, Jews or atheists. They contribute twice as much as to charity as Christians.

No-one knows when the first Muslims settled in the country that would later become the United States, but it was likely well before Europeans settled here.
According to PBS “Many historians claim that the earliest Muslims came from the Senegambian region of Africa in the early 14th century. It is believed they were Moors, expelled from Spain, who made their way to the Caribbean and possibly to the Gulf of Mexico.”

It is believed that when Columbus made his journey to the United States, he carried a book that was written by Portuguese Muslims who had navigated their way to the New World centuries before him.

In spite of the fact that there are more than a billion and a half peaceful Muslims on the planet, right-wing America’s deep hatred for all Muslims remains insatiable. That’s because their religious bigotry against Muslims is rooted in slavery. The first known wave of Muslims to come to the U.S. were African slaves. At least 15 percent of the slaves, violently kidnapped from their homes and families by lazy, violent and greedy white men, were Muslim. That single fact destroys the myth of “uneducated African savages” Confederate-flag-waving racists love to promote.

There are an estimated six million Muslims living in the United States. About one-third of U.S. Muslims are Black.

According to a report published by the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, “Today’s Muslim American population is an extraordinary mosaic of ethnic, linguistic, ideological, social, economic, and religious groups.”

Muslims range from highly orthodox to moderate to secular. While the number of religious sects probably doesn’t come close to the 33,000 different denominations of Christianity that exist worldwide, there are still many different interpretations of the religion.

The United States is not and never has been a Christian nation. America’s founding fathers had no desire or intention of enforcing the religious opinions of Christians. On June 10, 1797 the United States signed a compact of friendship with the Muslim population living along the Barbary Coast. The Treaty of Tripoli was commissioned by President George Washington. It was unanimously approved by the United States Congress. It was ultimately signed by the country’s second President, John Adams. Of special importance is Article 11, which reads:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Since bigotry and hate ferment with ignorance, one of the most important ways we can combat anti-Muslim hysteria is by using facts to dispel right-wing myths, fantasies and lies.

(From where links to the proofs behind each fact may be found. )

Pot-smoking loser?

Rosie's picture

"Be a pot smoking loser on one day (as one of these Paris creeps apparently was) and blow yourself up for Allah the next day and go to heaven."

Cannabis is (amongst many other treatments) an anti-anxiety medication, Doug.

It is also very low on Professor Nutt's very good study of the overall harms of the most commonly used drugs.

I would seriously doubt any causation or correlation between his use of cannabis and his suicide bombing.

As for ISIS, understanding how this group formed is the first step to understanding there is the possibility of a far more sinister background behind this horrible madness.


Neil Parille's picture

"I can't agree with you about low IQ, Doug. I don't think low IQ is a determinant of moral behaviour. Islam suits people who don't want the work of having to think for themselves, and that doesn't confine itself to the low-IQ'd. It is about values."

Well, you can be smart and evil and dumb and good, but there does seem to be a correlation between IQ and morality, or at least socially beneficial behavior. (Crime tends to be committed by lower-IQ people for example.) The recent book Hive Mind has an interesting discussion of this.

There is probably a better

Richard Wiig's picture

There is probably a better term than moderate Muslim. I don't think secular quite cuts it, because there isn't necessarily a ring of truth about it, but something that leaves no impression of any kind of moderate Islam would be best.

I can't agree with you about low IQ, Doug. I don't think low IQ is a determinant of moral behaviour. Islam suits people who don't want the work of having to think for themselves, and that doesn't confine itself to the low-IQ'd. It is about values. Islam is a particularly vicious collectivist ideology, because it sanctions butchery almost as end in itself. It isn't just a means to an end, but is lauded and praised as something for a good Muslim to do. Other collectivist ideologies make attempts to hide their brutality behind closed walls. Islam lauds it and holds it on high as an inspiration to other Muslims. It is truly sub-human.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Cheers mate,

I agree with that essay. There is no moderate Islam. But I would say that there are "moderate" Muslims in the sense that they don't take the religion seriously. Most of the Arabs, Turks, North Africans or Black Africans that migrate to Europe are not serious Muslims. But they still do damage the way all low IQ groups do damage to European mixed economies. Arabs have an average IQ of 84 which is in the same range as American Blacks.

But when you throw in Islam you get a far more dangerous set of circumstances. In America where you have African cities like Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, the Mississippi Valley, you get shit holes where no one wants to live. You get massive crime including black on white crime but there is no ideological component. Its just certain racial groups reverting to their genetic mean. Blacks and Amerindians are more violent than Whites. Throw them in any city in large number and you get violent crime and rape. Everyone in America knows this but its sacrilegious to say it (the religion of egalitarianism).

But when you throw in Islam you now have the risk of this sub-population producing religious warriors who will ALWAYS have an excuse to attack infidels. And it doesn't always have to be the lower classes. Many Jihadists are either middle class or affluent. If they decide to get religious, truly religious, they will get violent. The Ft. Hood massacre in Florida was committed by a doctor. Muslim populations will always breed Jihad killers. This is why Europe's situation is so dangerous. They have imported a low IQ population with a ready made ideology for generating homicidal killers and its all packaged up in a religion.

That was Neil's point and the point that many Paleo Right wingers make.

Islam generates Jihadists - always

Doug Bandler The Second's picture


I agree with the Vdare quote. It is true that the majority of ME immigrants are not pious. Most of them will end up low IQ types that will imitate black culture; ie rap, hip hop, drugs, gold chains, "bangin' hoes", displaying wealth through cars, etc, etc, etc. BUT, when they do decide to be pious and loyal to their religion they will be ripe for conversion to Jihad.

Auster always argued that Jihad was an outgrowth of Sharia and Sharia is central to Islam. Muslims transmit their culture and its history with them. So Jihadism will go wherever Muslims go. My analogy is that is Islam is like a cancer. And Muslims are cancer cells. When you get enough of the cancer cells, you will get the manifestations of disease and eventually death.

Islam brings death. But yes, technically I agree with your central point.


Richard Wiig's picture

Here is a good essay that explains why there is no moderate vs. radical Islam.

Moderate vs. Radical Islam

Neil Parille's picture


You write:

The major media outlets are still pushing the "Radical Islam" thesis; ie that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are good and that we have to "ferret out the bad ones". This is entirely the wrong frame of analysis. Muslims as a group are dangerous and none of them should be allowed in. But that would require you to make a decision about a group of people and in today's egalitarian world, you are not allowed to do that (because we might end up Nazis or something). Even Objectivists would call that "collectivism".


I'm not an expert on Islam. That there are different groups of Muslims makes sense. Obviously not all support terrorism.

On the other hand, it is also the case that some of the "radicals" were born in Europe and only occasionally attended religious services. Yet they became radicalized easily. Apparently it's often a case of "sudden Jihadi syndrome." Some Muslim lives a bad life and decides to become a martyr for Islam. The idea of reforming one's life (which is what Western religion seems to teach) is totally foreign to the Muslim mind. Be a pot smoking loser on one day (as one of these Paris creeps apparently was) and blow yourself up for Allah the next day and go to heaven. Islam is a version of nihilism.

In the US, we have liberal Protestantism, mainline Protestantism, evangelical & fundamentalist Protestantism and hardly any radical bomb throwing Protestantism. So the idea of someone going to a "moderate" protestant church and turning into a suicide bomber makes no sense. But this is not what happens to disaffected Muslims in the West.

There was something on VDARE recently:


One of the most talking points right now is that Islamic terrorists aren’t really Islamic or aren’t “true Muslims.” This variant of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is used to lecture Westerners why expressing skepticism about the wisdom of importing millions of Muslims is practically a hate crime.

But there is a larger issue. What the West is importing isn’t some kind of Saudi Arabia in its midst. It’s importing a permanent underclass plagued by the same kind of social dysfunctions we see among many non-white minorities in the United States.

How many of these criminals [ins Sweden] are Muslims? Probably a majority are nominal Muslims who may even go to the mosque once in a while. But truly devout? There’s no way to be sure, but probably a small number. However, in terms of their catastrophic impact on Swedish society, they are almost as harmful as an ISIS sympathizer who spends his days brooding on the injustices of the Crusader West.

What Europe is importing is a permanent underclass. Islam is a complicating factor because, like in American prisons, it can provide an ideological justification explaining the failure of this underclass as the fault of “discrimination” and “religious oppression.” Occasionally, some degenerate will turn his life around by becoming a more devout Muslim, like Ibrahim Abdeslam did. And as the denizens of this underclass are now sufficiently numerous they cannot be tracked, the minority of terrorists now have the “sea” they can swim in, as Mao famously said of guerrillas.


So when someone such as Amy Peikoff says we can allow Muslims into the West so long as they are "heavily screened" she is ignoring a larger social problem. Of course, she's an Orthodox Objectivist and the idea of bringing the findings of social science or cross-cultural studies into the mix would interfere with her commitment to rationalism.



Olivia's picture

re The Decline

I find the attitude and sentiment of that type of talk utterly vile too. Linz is right - the response should be to grow some balls! Who the hell sits back and enjoys the decline of such a great and life-giving culture?

I'm damned if I'm going to sit back at all. Fuck that! The anti-ideological Muslim shits will not win - they will do some regular damage, I think that much is clear, but they will be defeated because their ideas are pure shit-on-stilts. No red-blooded Westerner will swallow it without a fight.

Right now I'm liking Trump again because he seems to have the right instincts about things, regardless of his irritating flaws. He has a very strong sense of what American exceptionalism is - god, he's the living embodiment of its outcome! He also does not get lost in the mindless Christian psychobabble which is promininet among Reps... he tips his hat and that's the end of it. Also, if America gets flooded with conservative Sunni Muslims from the M.E, Trump would most likely have the balls to send them back home, like he's proposing with illegal Mexicans, as well as close the Wahabbi obsessed hatefilled mosques.

Problem is that while Mr. Awol President is in office, you can bet these barbaric bastards are going to do their worst because they know he is weak...hold on, but don't sit back.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

1) A free market limited government society needs a certain population base to implement it if it is even possible. First, you would need the people who have the cognitive power at the group level (IQ). Then you would need for the high social trust among those people to build such a society. Only Europeans have the developed traditions, philosophies and quite possibly innate biology for that. I would say that the North East Asians are certainly smart enough (they have higher IQs than Europeans), but they have no traditions of individual liberty and its uncertain what will happen in the Asian world once the West is no longer strong. I can never see the Asians flirting with a multi-racial individualistic society. They are too ethno-centric for that (which is probably genetic). So if the European world loses its European nature I see no future for the Objectivist vision.

2) Even if you did establish such a society, you seem to be operating on the assumption that liberty is self-sustaining. I don't think it is. You would need a population that can continue to instill the hard fought liberty value set to future generations. I think it is a very legitimate speculation that equatorial region peoples (very polite phrasing) may not take to liberty. As heretical as this sounds, liberty may end up being a white thing. Although I am not 100% wedded to that.

Anyway, America does look like it is going in the direction of a mix of Brazil and South Africa (Galt forbid). If that does pan out, then the best alternative would be the fracture of North America into smaller territories where hopefully Europeans can build liberty oriented societies. But in that post-America scenario I doubt the Randian conception of multi-racial libertarian politics would have a following as brutal racial wars* would have destroyed any futuristic vision of multi-racial individualism.

* And I think we are getting the hint of a future race war and black uprising with the "BlackLivesMatter" protests going on in American colleges. The updated version of Rand's "Drooling Beast".

The major media outlets are

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

The major media outlets are still pushing the "Radical Islam" thesis; ie that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are good and that we have to "ferret out the bad ones". This is entirely the wrong frame of analysis. Muslims as a group are dangerous and none of them should be allowed in. But that would require you to make a decision about a group of people and in today's egalitarian world, you are not allowed to do that (because we might end up Nazis or something). Even Objectivists would call that "collectivism".

Although that said, there is an interesting battle going on in American politics now. ObaZero wants to continue importing Syrian "refugees" because not to do so would "violate our values" ( obviously he thinks sacrificism is what defines America) and because "they are the victims of terrorism too". But 33 states as of this time are refusing to take any refugees and I think even Milquetoast Paul Ryan is pushing some legislation that would put a moratorium on the refugee program. ObaZero is of course not happy. And Trump is talking about closing certain Mosques in NYC that are known for organizing Jihad and that the Communist mayor has stopped monitoring. Trump has many of the right instincts.

IMO, this whole mess is primarily an immigration problem and secondarily a military problem. Although the right military course of action with the Islamic world is not easy as there are so many different players and intra-Islamic feuds and alliances. From what I can tell at this point, we should help Russia crush ISIS and back Assad. Let him be the dictator of that country (he basically is a "Moderate Muslim"). If it was feasible, I might suggest carving out a region so that ME Christians can have their own county. All economic sanctions and restrictions against Syria should be removed and let Assad pay the US for keeping him in power with some type of oil discount for the next 2 or 3 decades. Then send all Syrians back to Syria.

Larry Auster had a very sane and sensible policy suggestion for the Islamic world. He called it "Rollback, Isolate and Contain". Here is Auster on Islam:

Islam is the problem.

However, we do not have the ability to destroy Islam.
Nor do we have the ability to democratize Islam.
Nor do we have the ability to assimilate Islam.
Therefore, the only solution is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Two starkly different paths lie before us.

If we pursue the course of ecumenism, we will embark on a decades-long attempt to turn Muslims into moderate Muslims. The endeavor would become the central political project and moral commitment of our society, an obsessive, irrational quest that—like the Oslo “peace” process—we could never permit ourselves to abandon, no matter how many times it had failed. In the process we would empower Islam and lose ourselves.

If we pursue the course of civilizational defense, we will unstring Islam as a global force by decreasing Muslims’ presence in the West and containing them within their historic lands. Once the two civilizations are no longer in each other’s faces, our freedom and safety will no longer depend on our begging, cajoling, and bribing them to give up their deepest convictions.

Which path is more promising? The path of civilizational realism, in which we recognize Islam as our eternal adversary and act accordingly, or the path of the civilizational peace process, in which we look on a billion Muslims as moderates who have somehow failed so far to realize that they are moderates, but who—we devoutly believe—will somehow discover that they are moderates if we keep trying hard enough to convince them of that fact?This is my rollback, isolate, and contain strategy.

Full essay here:

Really, no Objectivist was even close to Larry Auster as a political and social commenter. Whatever his flaws, when he was good he was brilliant. Brook or Binswanger or Biddle, etc, are not capable of such clear thinking.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I followed your link to Enjoy the Decline:

The "End of America?" Most likely. The "Demise of liberty?" You betcha! The "Destruction of Western Civilization?" Of course! But why let all of the above get you down? Learn to "Enjoy the Decline!" "Enjoy the Decline" is mandatory reading for all conservatives, libertarians, Americans, and lovers of freedom who are mourning the slow, but sure death of their culture and their country. America is over. Freedom will be curtailed. Liberty is dead. And above all else, it is inevitable. But the answer is not to get depressed and give up hope. The answer is to change your attitude and learn how to "Enjoy the Decline." You get one life on this planet and Aaron Clarey explains how to get the most out of it even though socialism and tyranny are all around you. From learning how to adapt your psychology to learning to let go and take advantage of the socialist system, "Enjoy the Decline" carries the freedom loving American through the 5 stages of grief and puts them on a path to enjoy their life regardless of what is happening to their beloved America. Dark, macabre, and morose, but truthful, helpful, and practical all the same, it is guaranteed to make you happier than your socialist counterparts even though they have everything they want. Make leftists, liberals, and progressives miserable. Enjoy the Decline!

Detestable! Self-indulgent smarm and psychobabsle. Part of the problem. Instead of giving up, the advice should be: grow your balls back!

"Reason in the head" is a given. But reason's purported advocates have been poisoned by this notion that "reason in the head" demands the complete absence of "fire in the belly." That's been lethal.

Bring it on!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Bring on the racist, populist xenophobic backlash I say!!

Yaron on Islamic Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron posted this this weekend (it was recorded prior to Paris).

He makes some good points and is opposed to all or most Islamic immigration now. However, note that his concern is not with Islamic immigration per se, but a "racist,"populist, xenophonic" backlash.

He says the Germans will create concentration camps and throw Muslims (and Jews) in.


Passion at the Expense of Reason

Luke Setzer's picture

Linz asked: "Why is absence of fire in the belly the all-time No. 1 greatest virtue ever except among scum?"

Because scum practice passion at the expense of reason and so make their "fire in the belly" their top virtue while acting totally against reality.

That said, I agree that "fire in the belly" is needed among good people provided it remains subservient to "reason in the head"!

As for why good people lack this, PC conditioning explains it, sadly. Their predecessors with the Frankfurt School have performed well at infiltrating cultural institutions to create a cognitive overwhelm of the populace. Today, the few "Red Pill" types who have awakened to what has happened often feel this sense of overwhelm, shrug their shoulders, and ask, "Why bother?"

Enjoy the Decline.

I'd still like to know ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Why is absence of fire in the belly the all-time No. 1 greatest virtue ever except among scum?

The cleverest part of Political Correctness is the way it disarms the good guys by making legitimate anger a mental illness. Filth can blow people up and it, The Filth, gets a free pass; call The Filth "filth" and the PC brigade will go into paroxysms of tut-tuttery. I guess they realise they are being adjudged, rightly, to be part of The Filth, as enablers.

That included the Brandens.

Why We Fight

Neil Parille's picture



I should say the Binswanger policy of no borders would be mine too, were it not for the pesky prevalence of filth in the world—from whose reality Binswanger, in the security of his inherited cossetedness, is inured. Or so he thinks. Actually, Islamotrash can easily break through such fortresses of second-hand affluence. What will Harry say then? Will he have time to say anything?


This is a good point. Some times I wonder if OrgObjectivists think there is evil in the world.

Yaron Brook thinks that if America were free we could have 3 billion third world immigrants (leftists and Muslims). All we need is an appropriate amount of self-esteem and we could convert them all in 20 to 40 years. Thanks Nathaniel. Rand described evil epochs in which the Attilas and the Witch Doctors triumphed over the good, not just for decades but for hundreds of years. Now thanks to Yaron we know that the eschaton is just around the corner. Strange things happen when Yaron Brook channels his inner Karl Marx.

And Binswanger is even worse. He believes that immigrants are "refreshing" Europe and the USA and making then better places. Does he think Paris, Madrid, London, 9/11, etc. didn't happen? What about the rapes in Sweden or Rotherham? Like Mary Baker Eddy and "Christian Science" does he think evil is an illusion?

This is why we fight Yaron Brook; this is why we fight Binswankerism.

Parille on Brazil—Please Enlighten Us

Luke Setzer's picture

Neil wrote:

"If the US had open immigration, it would resemble Brazil with the wealthy living in their gated communities with guards and the poor in their favelas, and the rest just trying to get by."

What little I know of Brazil suggests it has quite the corrupt government and law enforcement with bribery rampant to the point it makes American government look quite ethical.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I cannot understand exactly how a no-immigration yet otherwise laissez-faire American economy would preclude the aforementioned results in Brazil repeating themselves in the United States. Wealthy people could still live in guarded, gated communities, poor people could still live in slums, and the rest could still fall somewhere between the extremes though likely at the lower end.

Your objection to these outcomes is ... ?

Yaron's Gardner

Neil Parille's picture

If the US had open immigration, it would resemble Brazil with the wealthy living in their gated communities with guards and the poor in their favelas, and the rest just trying to get by.

And if Europe had open immigration it would become Islamic.

These results would take place even without a welfare state, although it would take longer.

I wish Harry and Yaron would come here to defend their utopian fantasies, but I doubt they will.

Bless you Doug!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I appreciate that you appreciate the fire in my belly, even as you disagree with me about race. "Not One Muslim" looks pretty pertinent right now, no?

Re the uselessness of OrgOists qua polemicists, it's not just them. Almost everyone in the category we may reasonably call "good guys" seems to have had a fire-in-the-belly bypass. Just watching Ben Carson now with Chris Wallace on the subject of dealing with Islamofilth: piss-weak. What he's saying is actually fine; how he's saying it strips it of all authority. No wonder Trump has such appeal: he has fire in the belly, or seems to, in spades, if I may mix my metaphors. One of the reasons I despised the Brandens—they promoted the pernicious moral and polemical anemia that is now endemic. Except among the bad guys!

I should say the Binswanger policy of no borders would be mine too, were it not for the pesky prevalence of filth in the world—from whose reality Binswanger, in the security of his inherited cossetedness, is inured. Or so he thinks. Actually, Islamotrash can easily break through such fortresses of second-hand affluence. What will Harry say then? Will he have time to say anything?

Oh well, at least Yaron will still be able to employ his illegal Mexican gardener.

Does anyone ever wonder whether OrgOism is all about the comfort zones of sycophants and the feathering of their nests? Is this what accounts for their KASSlessness and capitulation to Political Correctness?

Two Approaches

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports. After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened, exactly as is entry into Connecticut from New York.

This is one approach to Objectivism.

Not One Muslim!

This is another.

I wish Lindsay's version dominated. I would feel better about the movement instead of alienated to it. Now I fully understand why Lindsay didn't have a future with OrgOism. Its a shame as he is a better polemicist than any mainstream O'ist.

Thanks Mother Merkel (CNN)

Neil Parille's picture

Europe's worst security nightmare appears to be coming true: At least one of the terrorists who attacked civilians in Paris on Friday entered the European Union hidden among the wave of refugees arriving on European shores.

One of three bombers who detonated himself at the Stade de France late Friday arrived on the Greek island of Leros on October 3 among numerous Syrian refugees, CNN's Christiane Amanpour reported, citing an unnamed French senator who was briefed by the Ministry of the Interior.

The man declared himself to be Syrian, said his name was Ahmad al Mohammad and was, under new procedures set up to help refugees, issued a new emergency passport.

From Leros, he traveled to Macedonia, Serbia and then Croatia, Amanpour reported.

The fingerprints from the bomber at the Stade de France match those taken when the man was issued his emergency passport on Leros.

The two others who detonated themselves at the stadium carried false Turkish passports, Amanpour reported.

EDIT: Even the minimal restrictions Europe has on immigration are too strict for Harry Binswanger: "This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports. After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened, exactly as is entry into Connecticut from New York. "

Excellent Comment

Neil Parille's picture

This is a comment that someone posted on Libertarian Realist's blog:


Here's the deal: supposing you had open borders. Supposing the immigrants contracted to work for (say) $3 an hour and live three families in a house. Since this is a voluntary contract, a doctrinaire Objectivist might claim, all sides profit. The employer gets cheap labor so he can deliver goods & services at the lowest possible price. The consumer profits because they gain goods & services at those low prices. And the immigrants profit because they make more money than they would have made had they stayed in their home countries.


What happens when the immigrants get fed up with working for $3 an hour and living three families to a house? What happens when they take it to the streets in protest? And start burning cars? And assault our Objectivist's sons in the schoolyard. And groom his daughters as sex slaves? Or perhaps invades his house and cuts him to pieces with pangas?

Then what?

Does our Objectivist wag his finger and tell the immigrants they have violated the terms of the contract? Call the cops with SWAT teams kicking down doors? Or does our Objectivist hide under the bed and wonder what happened to his high minded doctrines?

Lest you think I am using hyperbole, this is precisely what is happening now in Europe and South Africa. Third world immigrants are burning cars, and assaulting children, and massacring entire families.

Really, I would like to sit down someone like a Binswager and confront him with these realities. Is he ideologue enough that he would refuse to recognize that reality even when it is kicking down his door?




Neil Parille's picture

I don't know what to make of the relative silence of people of ARI leanings with respect to Islamic immigration.

It seems to me that the ARI doesn't have the "tools" necessary to analyze the mindset of Leftists who want to transform a country through mass immigration. If Brook and Ghate can't put something in the altruistic/collectivist or reason/mysticism box they can't understand it. Ghate and Brook were pretty clear that the desire to preserve one's culture via restricting immigration is racist (although they don't apply this to Israel).

And when confronted with the rapes in Sweden, all Brook can do is blame the Swedish government, not the immigrants for bringing their culture with them. Brook said that if America were free it could accept 10 immigrants for every one citizen and these people would be converted to freedom within a generation or two. Yes, a country of 300 million people could allow 1.5 billion Muslims and 1.5 billion communists and things would be back to normal in 40 years. Yaron Brook is delusional.

I remember when the Boston Bombing happened. The Objective Standard denounced not Islamic immigration, but anarcho-capitalism because you couldn't shut down Boston and have a man hunt without a state (which is being turned into police state thanks to immigration).


Lindsay Perigo's picture

One of the Parisian Islamofilth was a Syrian "refugee"? And America is going to admit over 100,000 such "refugees"? Well, I've said it before, Americans: you deserve what's coming, because of your apathy, uselessness, gutlessness, KASSlessness and all the rest. Wankers! All you do is jerk off in your armchairs. ARI and TAS have been the worst. Why is courage the most absent thing in public life?!

Yaron Brook

Neil Parille's picture

I was following him on Twitter last night.


Unless the enemy is defeated, where they live, inspire, and preach (Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, ISIS) Civilization will not be safe.


So we need to declare war on a half dozen or more countries. While these attacks may have been sponsored by ISIS, I don't think ISIS shipped equipment to France. It's not as if it takes a genius or a Mullah to shoot up and blow up buildings. And the loyalty of Muslims is not to SA, Iran or whatever, it's too the Ummah (the spiritual "Nation of Islam").

And of course the extremists can move to other countries. Wouldn't it be easier to end immigration and start outmigrating Muslims?

In fairness to Brook, he did post links to some of this talks on immigration. He is against most (maybe all, he's never clear) Islamic immigration now. He says that there is no way now to screen out the "moderate" Muslims from the radicals. But he does believe that when we have defeated Iran, SA, etc. we should then have open immigration of Muslims.

Think about this. We could have tens of millions of presumably "moderate" Muslim immigrants, but they wouldn't bring there culture with them? The "moderates" all living together, all listening to the same Immans, all inbred wouldn't recreate their culture in all of its bad elements. As Doug notes, it's a denial that the law of identity applies to group.

And there have been polls of second and third generation Muslims and they are more radical than their parents and grandparents. Of course, Brook and Binswanger would never look to the findings of public opinion polls (much less social science findings of scholars like Richwine) when determining immigration policy. That would force them to leave their rationalistic echo chamber.

EDIT: It appears that the first generation of Muslims to France did come to work. France's economy was booming and didn't have quite the welfare state that it has now. But when the second and third generation don't progress to the level of the first, it breeds resentment. There is kind of a cultural regression to the mean, which you also see in Hispanic culture in the US and to some extent Asians. (See the findings of Richwine, among others.)

I just linked ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to this thread on Faecesbook, and added this:

Wonder how Obamullah the Enabler and other Islamapologists will explain this one away?! Scum!

Already the "It has nothing

Richard Wiig's picture

Already the "It has nothing to do with Islam" crap is starting up. It makes me want to slap the speaker in the face. And on it pour out. There's nothing so far on the news commentary but vomit.

Dirty filthy low-life sub-scum

Lindsay Perigo's picture

100 + dead in latest atrocities in Paris.

Not One Muslim!

Beyond Disgusting

Richard Wiig's picture

You can hardly blame a child for growing up twisted after seeing this.

Hard to Take Seriously

Luke Setzer's picture

Neil, I find it difficult to take seriously any scholarship on a Web site that proudly displays the Confederate flag as its "DONATE" icon.

The site clearly seeks to rig its conclusions in the same way that it accuses its enemies of rigging conclusions.

This passage from a more balanced resource says enough about the Confederacy and all it meant and therefore how to judge its apologists:

"Virtually no evidence exists to suggest that the South would have peacefully emancipated its slaves. Indeed, since slavery was supported with the power of a Confederate government fully behind it, the institution could have survived for decades, if not perpetually. Slavery existed in some empires in the world for centuries—and still exists in parts of the Arab world today. It was seldom voluntarily eradicated from within. Equally as destructive is the notion that states—or principalities—could choose their own terms when it suited them to be in the Union."

Schweikart, Larry; Allen, Michael Patrick (2004-12-29). A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror (Kindle Locations 8591-8595). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

Brain Size, etc.

Neil Parille's picture

It Struck Me as Relevant

Luke Setzer's picture

If it struck no one else that way, oh well.


Neil Parille's picture

What does this have to do with whether the racial hereditarian thesis is true or false?


Neil Parille's picture

You can find some back and forth on the issue here:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.