Deliciously Unbound Anger!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2016-01-16 07:04

Last night's Republican debate was unforgettable for one thing in particular: Donald Trump's proud proclamation of his anger. This, in the face of the Republican establishment's attempt to repair to the evil of kumbaya, Romney-esque Political Correctness via the creepy Nikki Haley after the Treasonist-in-Chief's State of the Union address. Trump was not offended by Haley's allusion to him as the voice of anger, he said; he was angry—"I'm very angry, because our country is being run horribly. I'll gladly accept the mantle of anger"—and would remain so until America's decline (epitomised, as he said later in the debate, by American sailors on their knees at the point of Islamofilth guns), was decisively reversed. As someone who has long bemoaned the absence of courage from public life, I was as ecstatically incredulous to hear Trump give this very Randian answer as I was to hear him answer an emphatic "No!" when asked if he wanted to reconsider his proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The breathtaking courage it took for him to advocate this in the first place, let alone reiterate it on a stage replete with contemptible Jeb Bushes, was indeed hard to credit.

Cowardice, public and private, is universal. There are very few brave people on earth (and none at all in the ranks of OrgOism). Odious social metaphysicianship has never been as rampant as in this age of moronnialism and Faecesbook. One of the few brave people on earth is running for President. Remarkably, he shows every sign of winning the race. He certainly has my support.

Ted Cruz, I'm now convinced, is a poseur. He oozes insincerity. His opportunistic flip-flops were itemised devastatingly by Rubio, whom I would like (I think—I like Carly too; she is brave) to see as Trump's Number Two.

One thing's for sure—identified, strangely enough, by the determinedly non-angry Ben Carson, who, thanks to his determined non-anger, has sleep-walked himself out of the race: if America elects a Democrat this year, America is over. Me, I thought America ended with Obamarx's re-election in 2012, and I remain largely convinced I was right, especially as the stock market tanks again. But if anything can save America, it's rational, righteous anger—and Trump seems to have unleashed it. History is on his side. He is an "irate, tireless minority" of one who seems to have "set brush fires in people's minds." Let us hope there are enough actual people with actual minds left to torch Obamarxism and refresh the tree of liberty in 2016.


Here

Mr_Lineberry's picture

is a very balanced and interesting article in the Telegraph.

Worth a read as the reporters have chosen to analyse and report facts - rather than the usual "they hate Obama because they're racist" and "Trump supporters are unthinking morons".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

You don't tend to find the following sorts of quotations in MSM newspaper reports:

"This country was made great by the white American male. When we have 200,000 homeless veterans why are we bringing in refugees? I say, thank you for speaking your mind Trump."

As

Mr_Lineberry's picture

I write this it is 11:45pm, America time, just a short while before those wet buggers in Dixville Notch get up in the middle of the night to traipse through the snow and vote in the New Hampshire primary.

My predictions are: Trump 33%, Kasich 15%, Rubio 14%, Christie 12%, Cruz 10%, Bush 8%.

Sanders 60% Clinton 40%

I swore I'd stay out of this debate

VSD's picture

but since you turn it into a literary yarn I can't help putting in two cents:

the first difference I'd like to point out is that Dorian himself was the one who found his portrait abhorrent - he himself 'destroyed' it ... a level of self-consciousness (yes, I know the dictionary meaning of this word) that most of Airhead America is no longer capable of

the second difference is that Donny has no valid alternative to offer - not to mention one of aesthetics and beauty and transcendance ... he feels more like a Dickens character: pointing fingers at the ugly for the sake of an ugly laugh, not to make it more beautiful

of course it's a necessary step to confront such ugliness, and Trump goes to great length to do that in is own ugly way (that I do not necessarily condemn), but he has no alternative to offer and those forcefully faced with their portrait will certainly not flock to the alternative the likes of Donny Trump standing beside their Dorian picture

thus to me Trump is more of a Fagan, exposing and using the ugliness of the world for his own gains - so while I may thank him for posing in public with that wonderful portrait, I cannot thank him for trying to make me into an Oliver

talk about doing a deal with Belzebub to cheat the devil out of his due ; )
VSD

PS: what will be really revealing is how those clamoring and pointing fingers now will react when they themselves will start to understand what that portrait really means - when reality begins to sink in again ... it's still some ways off - America is still behind a few decades of the European 'awakening' - but as usual they are catching up fast: always doing things fast and furious those cowboys : D

Dorian Gray Conservatives

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Oscar Wilde only penned one novel. One he didn’t likely imagine as allegory for future American politics. Though given sufficient time to germinate, every moral of man’s frailty eventually finds purchase in life.

Wilde, the once married but frequently homosexed playwright and poet, produced The Picture of Dorian Gray in July 1890. Only God knows whether the rise to preeminence of neoconservatism almost exactly a century later was intended as divine trolling. Though the coincidence probably shouldn’t be discounted. Regardless, the story’s titular character–a vision of the author’s personal aspiration–was a handsome and charismatic aesthete. A young man who, eschewing morality, comes to find fulfillment only in self-indulgence.

At some point Gray poses for a full-length oil portrait, and afterwards contemplates its permanence against his own fleeting physical beauty. Determined to a maintain a lifestyle of amoral licentiousness into perpetuity, he trades his soul so that he will age and wither only in the portrait. And so he does. His face eventually becoming a ravaged monstrosity in its secreted away painting. The moral scars of vice, venality, and deceit written only to oil. He peddles lies abundantly, perhaps most generously to himself. Though in the veil of sunlight, he remains a man of unblemished attractiveness.

Eventually Dorian becomes so dissolute, and his portrait so correspondingly abominable, that he can no longer bear its sight. He feels mocked by this manifestation of his malign existence and wants no silent testament to it. So he slashes it with a knife…and falls himself mortally wounded. The devil collects his due. Later the corpse of a hideous old man is found lying before a pristine portrait returned again to dazzling youth.

Gray learned too late that consequence is a relentless creditor, and every man’s debts eventually come due. He sought to evade the consequences of his crimes by destroying their proof in the portrait. That he fell by the lunge of hands that had so harmed others is enjoyed as just reward.

And that is The Picture of Dorian Gray. By the way, did you know it was Oscar Wilde who coined the phrase life imitates art? It’s fascinating how assiduously modern conservatism has worked to substantiate his claim. For in observing the establishment’s increasingly frantic reactions to the Trump phenomenon, one will see the unmistakable progression from teeth gnashing to portrait slashing.

In the beginning, the Dorian Gray conservatives wished to pursue only a life of soft pleasures and rhetorical beauty. Of cocktail parties and sinecures, insipid platitudes, and value-molding in meticulous self-interest. Even more, they came to abhor both the unpleasant obloquy of political opposition and the unseemly interests of grubby constituents. To their delight it was discovered that shunning the latter would avoid the former. The absence of both stressors serving as miraculous anti-aging salves.

And so the Faustian bargain was struck. Dorian Gray conservatives were granted perpetual beauty to corporate sponsors, absolution from terms ending in ‘ism, and respect from blow-dried heads inside the media archipelago.

Of course that was merely conservatism’s agreeable outward appearance. Its hidden portrait was turning repellent with betrayals and malign neglect: Consistent efforts to pry open the border, H-visas, foreign aid, foreign wars, and foreign politicians explaining “our values,” flag-draped coffins, loss of free association, neighborhoods extirpated by diversity, knock-out games, violent crime, apology groveling, affirmative action, HUD incursions, exploding government debt, money printing, judicial penumbras, social withdrawal, third-world cities, white as a pejorative, university Bolsheviks, flea market communities, insourcing, outsourcing, TPP, gay “marriage,” political purges, speech firings, funding alien fecundity, mosques blossoming like taco stands, cosmic racial hypocrisy, servility to AIPAC, the white privilege of being last priority, and always–always–the worst enemies to the right…all of this overseen with smiles ranging from wan to radiant. It is the superficial beauty of conservatism without conservatives. People with values replaced by values without people.

While their portrait was growing ever more loathsome, DG conservatives were still looking quite dashing if they do say so. Towing the Overton line meticulously, uttering repetitious inanities on Fox News, and never allowing more than an inch of space between themselves and liberalism’s shadow. There could be no life more exquisite.

That is until a pompous blond billionaire simply sat Dorian’s portrait on the public square and started campaigning beside it. To people who do not commute in Lear jets, the comparison was astonishing. By offering to actually conserve some of what conservatives cherish, and giving them succor from conservatism’s predatory donor class, Trump has revealed the portrait’s odious positions merely by contrasting them with his own.

As customary, the Dorian Gray conservatives can only discern appearances, and thus leap at Trump and his supporters, hoping his political demise will erase all evidence of their decadence and duplicity.

Not Conservative!
Nazi Bigot!
Scummy Nordics!
Anime Masturbators!

Slash, lunge, stab.

They are certain they despise Trump on his own merits, though the most candid rancor comes from what he reveals about them. That is what they most want destroyed, in the minds of voters if nothing else. So the attacks commence. I do think they may prove fatal, though, as in Wilde’s tale, not to the intended party. And when corrupt conservatism’s cadaver is one day found for the history books, it will be very amusing indeed if the coroner looks up to find a certain portrait of perfect health looming over it.

https://kakistocracyblog.wordp...

Who can't you criticize?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Voltaire's quote comes to mind these days.

In the current context, where Israel is having to hold its own surrounded by hideous Islamosavages, count me in as a proud honorary Zionist.

I used to think this too. I no longer do anymore. I despise Islam and understand the threat it poses always and everywhere, but I think Israel poses an even greater threat to American and now to Europe. I'm rethinking the entire Objectivist / Conservative argument that "Israel is a Western country allied with us in the war against Islamic terrorism...". Israel is manipulative, amoral ethno-state who should fight its own damn wars and take on the entire ME on its own. The Muslims vs the Israelis is an intra-Semitic war I could care less about. I care about Europeans and European civilization. IMO, Israel represents a threat to that. In any event, Israel's status as friend or foe can legitimately be debated. It is no slam dunk as many O'ists think.

Also, there is FAR greater evidence to point to Israeli involvement with the Kennedy assassination than to LBJ alone. The Jewish mob and Mossad connections are all over the place with the Kennedy assassination. Also you have a very clear change of course on foreign policy; ie Israel gets its nukes. And yes, an intelligent discussion on Kennedy and even on 9/11 would be welcome. But as with discussing Hitler and the Holocaust, there are just some subjects which you can't really argue because you will be labelled an "anti-Semite". It is the Jews and not the blacks which are the most protected minority group today. They are the ones that you can't discuss. They're even more protected than the Muslims in many ways.

LBJ ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... was certainly implicated in earlier murders, so I don't doubt he was capable of plotting the killing of JFK. But would he run such a high risk of being inadvertently shot himself? I know there's a photo of his car purporting to show him not there (i.e., ducked down) but you can see him upright in it. Still, odd that his hit-man Mac Wallace's fingerprint was found in the spot Oswald was alleged to have fired from.

Roger Stone was on Fox last night, Trumpeting. Wotta character!

Setting

Mr_Lineberry's picture

to one side for a moment the number of assassins, I think Roger Stone hit the nail on the head!

It was either the greatest coincidence in history - that LBJ becomes President 1 day before he was about to be exposed as the biggest crook in America - or he was behind it all.

As for no 'smoking gun' about LBJ's involvement that is his style - he would ensure there wasn't one, just as he would ensure his lifelong closest friend, John Connally, was shot at the same time (to make it look good)..... and have no conscience about it.

This is akin to how LBJ accepted bribes; he wasn't stupid enough to have anyone crawling out of the woodwork 30 years later saying he paid Johnson in cash.

Instead, to bribe LBJ what happened was you bought high priced advertising on the KTBC radio station, and TV station, owned by Lady Bird, at $1000 per a 30 second spot. The advertising would never run - (or if it did it ran at 2:14 in the morning) - and you got your government contract, or your regulation which screwed your competitors, or whatever.

I have never had any doubt LBJ was behind the JFK assassination but Roger Stone sort of put it in a coherent book.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I think there was more than one shooter firing at Kennedy. It doesn't follow that I think the Illuminati were behind the assassination. I don't know who was, though the finger of suspicion points heavily in the direction of Allen Dulles and sundry others. Roger Stone says it was LBJ himself, but can't produce a smoking gun, so to speak. I had hoped to be able to have a sustained, intelligent discussion of this matter here on SOLO, but Michael Moeller decided to go into prosecution/lawyer mode and be a complete jerk, making any attempt at sincere dissection pointless.

I've no idea what the "amoralism" of the Jews to which you refer is. "Tribalism" is scarcely something that could be pinned on them alone. In the current context, where Israel is having to hold its own surrounded by hideous Islamosavages, count me in as a proud honorary Zionist.

Loved Cruz' and Rubio's speeches tonight. Donald very gracious. He should maintain the rage, but direct it at deserving recipients. Hope he learns that lesson from the Iowa result.

Auster

Neil Parille's picture

Doug, I believe Auster converted to Anglicanism and at the end of his life to Catholicism. So his writings were done in his Anglican phase. He wasn't a big fan of the popes or the Catholic Church. He called Vatican II's documents on non-Christian religions "Europe's death warrant."

Kyrel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Read Auster's essay on the Jews that I linked to in my Kennedy assassination response to Linz. Its balanced and not anti-semitic (Auster was a Jew who converted to Catholicism) but shows the unique, and often destructive, personality of that group. Yes, Auster considers the group and goes beyond just atomized individuals; something which Objectivists can't get their juvenile minds to understand.

Honestly and Openly Discuss and Debate

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug writes, via Larry Auster: "It is a truism that Jewish talent and genius adds a great deal to society. At the same time, many Jews (and masochistic gentiles) tend to overstate the dependence of gentile society on Jews, as though it would be nowhere without the Jews."

In my experience, this observation is essentially true. But because the Jews hold this opinion very quietly, or even secretly, human society has no opportunity to discuss and debate it. The result, as always, is a disaster. The world needs to far more recognize the greatness of the Jews; and the Jews, among themselves, need to somewhat lessen the overestimation of their achievements.

This is the uber-evil of ARI and its zombie allies. They won't allow us to openly discuss and debate the various important issues. So human and Objectivist knowledge suffers badly.

Because virtually no-one openly discusses and debates the importance of biology and genetics in human action, you, Doug, have to reason it thru on your own, and now have evidently formed a pretty exaggerated estimate of its real importance in human life. In the battle between nature and nurture, nature counts for a lot. Certainly more than most Objectivists and libertarians openly admit. But not nearly as much as you think, in my opinion.

Great points Tom

gregster's picture

Israelis created their oasis in the desert and the primitives all around them are envious, and so damned boneheaded that causality will forever elude them.

To Kyrel and the others

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

One more from Auster:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

It is a truism that Jewish talent and genius adds a great deal to society. At the same time, many Jews (and masochistic gentiles) tend to overstate the dependence of gentile society on Jews, as though it would be nowhere without the Jews.

Consider this. The absolute peak of Western civilization was reached in the high Middle Ages, the 12th and 13th centuries. The architecture, the sculpture, expresses a superhuman, spiritual exaltation, a higher state of being. There’s nothing else like it in the world. And the Jews had nothing to do with it.

So let us not overemphasize Jewish genius, though it certainly exists. Let us also speak of gentile genius.

Auster was a very atypical Jew. As was Rand herself (ie. a Slavic Jewess who worshipped Aryan beauty).

Auster on the Jews

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

...I say that the increasingly venomous anti-majoritarian stance of many Jews in recent decades is a function of the fact that the white gentile majority, starting in the Sixties, abandoned its previous role as the leader of American society, and the Jews, just like other minorities, moved into that vacuum and began seeking power over the majority and over America. I argue that if the white gentile majority re-assumed its historic role as leader and adult in our society, and told the Jews in a firm yet civilized way that their anti-majoritarian statements and agenda are totally unacceptable, the Jews, being rational people, would get the message and change their behavior.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

A very sober criticism of today's Jews.

Linz - What About Kennedy?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Are you a subscriber to the "Illuminati" conspiracy theory?

No. But you are the one who believes in the Kennedy conspiracy. I think you believe in Oliver Stone's version, where Oswald was the patsy put there by the CIA and the MIC (military industrial complex) to kill Kennedy so that Lockeed and Grumand and General Dynamics could sell helicopters and ammunitions for the Vietnam War. But you overlook that the most compelling of the Kennedy conspiracy theories has to do with Israel (!!). After Kennedy is killed, LBJ reverses course and Israel gets to have its nukes. Kennedy was moving in a pro-Palestinian direction and wanted to obstruct Israel from going nuclear. Kennedy also was no fan of the Israel Zionist lobby (which was later renamed to AIPAC). BTW, the financier of Oliver Stone's movie was a Zionist Jew who was involved with the Jewish mob that Clay Shaw was connected to.

I'm not opposed to conspiracies in theory, but I think that they occur within the context of the parameters set by philosophy (Iran Contra was a legitimate conspiracy, and there are others). That distinguishes me from the Anarchist / Ron Paul crowd who are obsessed with conspiracies. Although I will say that your average Ron Paul fan who listens to Scott Horton is far better informed about American foreign policy than Yaron Brook, Robert Tracinski or any other Objectivist, including the ones that have posted nonsense in this thread.

The only reason Jews are so resented is their achievement-orientation and results.

No Lindsay. I had a Jewish stepfather. I can tell you that there are other reasons to dislike Jews besides their "achievement". This is the type of dogmatism that I don't like with Objectivists. They can't even conceive that there are nuances to things. Anti-Semitism just has to be based on hatred of "ability" or "egoism" or some such. It just can't be the case that Jews as a group demonstrate certain behavioral traits that are unlikeable to Northern European, WASP sentiments; ie it just can't be the case that Jews have a long history of amoralism and tribalism which their host societies find objectionable. Even a converted Jew like Larry Auster understood that Jews were a problem minority. I strongly recommend Auster's essay on the Jews and multiculturalism. Auster hated anti-semitism yet he always strived to understand why the Jews were so often Leftist and harmful to European society. He understood nuance.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

Lindsay, I'm sure you have accumulated enough life experience to know that what I am saying is not insane.

Megyn Kelly

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

My problem with Megyn Kelly, and that first question in that first debate, is she cited many terms of insult which Trump offered to various individual women, but those words may or may not reflect his low opinion of women in general -- as she nastily implied in a standard rhetorical fraud. But over his long, flamboyant, outspoken, free-wheeling career Trump probably offered twenty times as many insulting words to various individual men. Those words, obviously, may or may reflect his low opinion of men in general.

I thought Trump was inept, and a wimp, in not effectively fighting back against Kelly many months ago, using my argument above. But perhaps his argumentative failure here can be explained by the fact that he really does have an unjustly contemptuous view of womankind. Thus, in the end, maybe Megyn Kelly was right!. But now that Olivia yesterday pointed out that interview Kelly did with Michael Moore, perhaps not. Possibly also both are sexist bigots, with Kelly the worst.

Blacks

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

For those who are tempted to look down upon the genetics of blacks, I would point out: They seem to excel at sexuality, athletics, music, dance, humor, entertainment, martial arts, and general creativity. This is not a humble list. I think blacks and whites are natural friends and allies, and have a lot to learn from each other.

If

Mr_Lineberry's picture

it was me I would dub the debate participants - Kelly and the other candidates - as "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" - reinforcing their irrelevance.

With any luck Kelly would be stupid enough to actually ask someone like Jeb "So how does it feel to be viewed as a dwarf?", with him being stupid enough to answer.

Kyrel

Neil Parille's picture

"IQ is fairly tricky. I think most of human intelligence is a product of nurture -- not nature."

It seems clear that IQ is mostly a product of nature. How does one explain the studies of identical twins reared apart (very close IQs) and the fact that if you wanted to find out the IQ of an adopted child you look to the biological parents, not the adoptive parents.

I don't think IQ is tricky. It correlates to all sorts of things.

Megyn

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Megyn is a feminist whore. Some time back she was screeching/quacking away on her show in a blatantly unprofessional partisan attack on Trump. I tweeted her to get over her hormonal antipathy towards him and do the job she was paid to do. That Mutual Admiration Society rimming-fest with Michael Moore was indeed the most disgusting thing on TV in a long while.

And when she goes into that hyperventilate/quack mode (I keep the remote in my hands when she's on) she *is* a bimbo.

Trump knows what he's doing. Who's going to watch the line-up of dullards and slimy lawyers who are left? His alternative event will be a riotous success, no doubt. I hope it's televised live by someone.

Megyn Kelly...

Olivia's picture

I have always loved Megyn Kelly. The question she first asked Trump, "Given your derogatory comments about women.... do you have the temperament to be President...?" was disgusting to me in its feminist idiom and spirit. I thought it was deeply cunty and Trump was right to call her on it. That feminist shit deserves to be put in its place, but only Trump has the nouse to do it. Apparently both Brett Baier and Mike Wallace* told her not to ask that question, but she insisted (groan).

So when Trump decided to sit this coming debate out, I thought - these are where the lines get drawn and also what the value of a free press is all about. I also thought Trump was silly to call her a "bimbo" because her apporach is professional, entertaining and direct. Not a bimbo.

But last night she did the most revolting interview possible with Michael Moore. They were giggly buddies as he came to bottom feed over the Trump saga of not attending the debate. I can't believe she did that interview!

Now I'm thinking that Trump perhaps had her pegged all along. Michael fucking Moore??!!

* edited... I mean Chris Wallace. (If only!) Smiling

IQ

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Mr. Lineberry -- Good points. IQ is fairly tricky. I think most of human intelligence is a product of nurture -- not nature. What a shame I can't say it without sounding pandering and hugely PC! IQ evidently has many components, such as verbal, mathematical, mechanical, spatial, creative, adaptive, artistic, scientific, and probably many more. I think each race, gender, and sexuality excels at different ones.

The

Mr_Lineberry's picture

greatest investor of all time was a British businessman called Jim Slater; I greatly admired him and was devastated by his death a couple of months back.

Slater developed what he called the 'Zulu Principle' whereby you can become an expert at a reasonably narrow subject fairly easily: -

1. If you read the Wikipedia page on the Zulus you would know more about them than all your friends

2. If you read all the books in your local library about Zulus you would know more about them than most people in your city.

3. If you read all the books in the country, and all the websites, about Zulus you would know more than anybody in the entire country.

4. If you went to Africa and spent six months with the Zulu tribe, talking to them, listening to stories from elders and Witchdoctors and Chiefs - you would be a 'World Authority' on Zulus.

Anyway, the point I am making is with regards to the misconception that Asians - Chinese, Japs, Koreans - have a high IQ.

Their parents basically undertake the 'Zulu Principle' (unknowingly) from an early age and so they get 98.6% in the mathematics or science exam.

This does not a high IQ make - just ask them to do something practical, or which involves 'thinking' for yourself (rather than parroting the Atomic Table), and they fall apart fairly quickly.

The Jews

Neil Parille's picture

*****

In many respects, Jews are the greatest people on the planet by far. They seem to have IQs of around 115 -- versus only 107 or so for the Orientals/east-Asians. They may also have equivalent VQs [virtue quotients]. And despite having a world population of merely 1 in 500, they win 1 in 3 Nobel Prizes. This is too stunning and impressive for words!

I've also heard that about 12 of 13 or so in Ayn Rand's "inner circle," i.e. her Saturday night discussion group, were Jewish. Amazing!

Historically, Jews seem to be largely hated for their evident genetic superiority. They also have a great work and education ethic. So it's greatness in nature plus nurture.

*****

There does seem to be a lot of animosity to Jews. I'm curious about Spain for example. What did they do to justify expulsion? Nothing that I know of, although I'm not an expert.

The success of the Jews is truly stunning. The success is Nobel prizes in the hard sciences is crazy. There has to be some genetic component. It's the only thing you can talk about w/o fear of losing your job. And apparently it is contained to Ashkenazi (European) Jews even though they go to the same schools in Israel. That European Jews can develop such a high IQ within the time of recorded history is really impressive evidence of how evolution can create change.

EDIT: The high IQ of East Asians seems limited to Koreans, Japanese and Chinese (and maybe Mongolians) so it might better be refered to as North East Asian. It is generally put at around 103. There does seem less variation around the mean for North East Asians, so you probably will get lots of engineers but not so many top notch scientists. Other Asians seems to hover around an IQ of 85.

Losers Employing Racist Ideologies to Evade Self-Responsibility

Luke Setzer's picture

I just wanted to share a side note on random anti-Semites.

My local Ayn Rand Meetup convenes monthly in a bookseller's coffee shop to discuss books of choice.  Occasionally, a "clever-dick smart-ass" (CDSA) young man who also frequents the establishment overhears our conversation at the next table and interjects.  We usually just blow him off as what he is, namely, a zero.  He has in the past justified communism as something for which "the people" may vote "only once" and then must forever retain it.  You get the idea.

When the first Atlas Shrugged movie hit theaters, we convenened at our usual time and place to travel across the road to the local cinema for a shared experience of the film.  While we waited, the subject of the Holocaust arose in casual conversation.  As you might guess, the CDSA boy had something to say about it.  "Actually, the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves because they made everyone else feel stupid," he openly declared.  You can imagine our fiery response.  One woman at another table, not part of our group, laid in on him, stating that she was half-Jewish and elucidating the depth of offense she took at his remark.  Fortunately for all, our group had to leave to catch the movie, or the incident might have turned into a public brawl.

Racism and particularly anti-Semitism are just ways for losers to blame others for their own shortcomings.

The Jews

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

In many respects, Jews are the greatest people on the planet by far. They seem to have IQs of around 115 -- versus only 107 or so for the Orientals/east-Asians. They may also have equivalent VQs [virtue quotients]. And despite having a world population of merely 1 in 500, they win 1 in 3 Nobel Prizes. This is too stunning and impressive for words!

I've also heard that about 12 of 13 or so in Ayn Rand's "inner circle," i.e. her Saturday night discussion group, were Jewish. Amazing!

Historically, Jews seem to be largely hated for their evident genetic superiority. They also have a great work and education ethic. So it's greatness in nature plus nurture.

But Jews are also quite messianic -- which pretty much makes everybody uncomfortable. Rand was that way. And so am I. Jews attempt to be "a light unto the nations -- a holy nation, a nation of priests [i.e. of elders or wisemen]" Often they succeed. So they get hit with Randian envy -- a "hatred of the good for being the good".

Unlike Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, Jews don't much recruit. And they deliberately keep themselves apart. This makes them seem suspicious. After all -- "it's always the quiet ones" who are up to something. "It's always the quiet ones" who will get you. People think this with some real logic on their side. It's rational to fear the unknown.

And Jews quietly find themselves very superior to the rest of mankind. They call themselves "the chosen people". God loves them far more than the rest of mankind, they claim. This obvious and arrogant bullshit does not endear them to others.

The Jewish nation is founded upon religion -- which is immensely false and evil. So in large part they're resented and disliked for good reason.

I also think that deep down many or even most Jews are genuine fanatics -- and thus always somewhat dangerous. Like me!

Jews are also the most honest and dishonest people on the planet. They're natural radicals and extremists. They're found on many or most of the cutting-edge institutions and movements in the world today. In the 1950s they were the planet's most powerful advocates for communism. Today they are the world's most powerful advocates against communism.

Like the Americans and Westerners, Jews are pretty much hated by all for their good qualities and bad qualities. Jews are a tricky knot to untangle.

A most curious and fascinating nation! The nature and nurture of Jews is a rich topic for discussion. But by today's depraved moral and cultural standards, it's also immensely taboo. If you criticize the Jews in any sort of sustained or unusual fashion, even the intellectually and morally best people on earth will be quick to call you a Hitler-lover. They won't hesitate to be strikingly and deliberately unjust.

Does anyone of quality or insight have anything relevant or important to say on this topic? The world emphatically doesn't want to hear it. Sad

So there we have it. I

Tom Burroughes's picture

So there we have it. I wondered, having read some of Doug’s comments on race in recent times, when or if he would slip off the edge and go full anti-semite. It seems that time has come.

Let’s consider: he swipes away my reference to two strong defences of Israel (Gilder points out that much hatred of Jews is because they excel at capitalism), but the points made in them stand. How can it make sense to regard that small country (about the size of Wales in the UK) as a parasite, given the productivity of its IT and other sectors? The US, rightly, has supported Israel as a sort of outpost of Western civilisation. The US also has a strong self interest (of the sort Objectivists can relate to) in helping to supply such a country with weapons and technology so that it can not only defend itself, but also provide the US with the kind of valuable intelligence about weaponry and defence that comes with it.

Doug then goes on to speculate that those tribal Jews seem to always attract animosity and then wonders whether they have brought the hatreds onto their own heads. As we should know from history, the reasons Jews get so much heat is, as Lindsay says, because of their deserved success. Even more annoyingly, they are successful while being harassed and persecuted – they were banned from most professions in Medieval Europe, and they excelled as bankers and the like. So they got condemned for being usurers instead. In Christian Europe, Jews suffered because of how the death of Christ was laid at their feet of blame; they had to deal with centuries of paranoia, violence and theft, and so it is hardly surprising that Jews have become a bit twitchy and defensive. Nor is it remotely odd or sinister that they have craved a homeland, a desire all the more understandable after 1945.

It is also nonsense to suggest that Israel foreign/domestic policy, or its very existence, is much to blame for why so much of the Middle East and Islamic world is aflame, although no doubt we can argue the finer details. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded over a hundred years’ ago, and modern Islamism got going long before the state of Israel as we know it today existed. There is a long, dishonourable history of people using Israel/Jews as the supposed trigger of their madness. And Israel's success in turning a desert into a garden shines an unflattering light on the neighbours, who have received aid, but frequently make poor use of it, Test. The brutal fact is that much of the Muslim world, particularly in the ME, has a serious self-esteem problem. Israel's very success burns them up. Well, tough.

Finally, yes, it is true that a lot of Objectivists are, and were, secular Jews. A lot of Jews have been conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, and so on. They are disproportionately represented in areas such as radical politics and philosophy, so it is entirely understandable, even fitting, that many Objectivists are of Jewish descent. If ever a philosophy can speak to those whose history is intermingled with struggle and great soaring achievement, it is Rand's.

I hope I don't have to read this sort of anti-semitic trash on this website again. I thought better of you Doug. I really did.

Crikey!

Mr_Lineberry's picture

When the talk gets around to Illuminati and other conspiracy theories you just KNOW everybody is as mad as a bloody march hare Sticking out tongue haha!

Never expected this on a libertarian or objectivist website.

Sometimes I almost wish ISIS did have nuclear weapons and could set a few of them off to engage in a spot of 'cleansing'. Afterwards those of us who survive can start over 'sans loons', so to speak.

See the Pyramids Along the Nile

Neil Parille's picture

John Derbyshire drew attention to this song recently. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...

"See the pyramids along the Nile." Thanks to ISIS, you are risking your life to visit some of the great monuments of western civilization.

It is from 1952 and this version was sung by the lovely Jo Stafford.

There is another line, "See the market place of old Algiers."

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

Linz,

"Are you a subscriber to the 'Illuminati' conspiracy theory? If so, you need to know I hold that rubbish in the same contempt Rand "

Doug can speak for himself, but I don't see any reason to think he believes in crazy conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, if you look at history you'd probably find "secret societies" working behind the scenes quite often when it comes to revolution. Just read James Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Are you a subscriber to the "Illuminati" conspiracy theory? If so, you need to know I hold that rubbish in the same contempt Rand did. And I am a supporter of Israel 1000 per cent. The only reason Jews are so resented is their achievement-orientation and results. My big disappointment with Netanyahu is that he hasn't taken out the filthy Iranians' nuke plants already. What's the matter with him?! And you?! Is Molyneux an Illuminatist also? Would make sense. All the Illuminatists I've encountered have been psychotic empiricists, with absolutely no idea when to stop dribbling.

Its not them, its you

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

They have been kicked out of almost every country they've entered. Sooner or later they try to change every culture they come into contact with. And for thousands of years they have stirred up resentment against them *everywhere*. This group is always complicit in generating the animus that is directed against them.

If everyone you have ever encountered doesn't like you, maybe its time to start asking if the problem is with you... and not with them. Something Jews, the most ethno-tribalist people on Earth, never ask.

And one of the major problems with Objectivism is that it started out as a Jewish intellectual movement and is still heavily dominated by Jews. Jewish movements follow the same pattern. Exactly what we see with Objectivism over its history. It would have been far better if Objectivism had been a Goyish affair without the Jewish matriarch phenomenon.

Jews

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Jews lead the noble Objectivist movement and are the greatest people on the planet by far.

Let Zionists fund Israel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Israel is the source of much of the Middle East turmoil. It was and is an Israeli ambition to destabilize major Muslim nations that they see as threats; and to use the US army to do so. Israel seems to want to carve up the Middle East into tribal factions and have them at war with each other. It does not want a unified Arab world united against it.

In theory, I would have no problem with that. But the world is not isolated theory. In practice, Israel's lobby (AIPAC) is the most powerful pressure group in Washington. And given that so many American Conservatives are influenced by Neo Conservatism, which is a quasi-leftist pro-Zionist movement, Israel has tremendous influence over America. Throw into the equation that many Evangelicals attach special religious significance to the "holy land" and Israel commands even more power.

The Iraq War was a disaster for America. It led to ISIS. Libya was a disaster for Europe. Syria has been a disaster for Europe. (BTW, can you imagine the disaster if the US were to wage war against Iran given its track record? Perish the thought.) Israel's plan of destabilizing the Muslim world represents an existential threat to not just Europe but to the European race. Why? Because the pathological altruism of white liberals now insists on taking in as many Muslims (and non-whites from that region) as possible. This represents such an enormous threat to Western Civilization, ie white civilization, that I consider Israel to be a dangerous country. I don't care about their "startups" or their "entrepreneurial spirit". They get billions from America.

If Zionists want a Zionist nation, ie a religious ethno-state, then let Zionists fund it. Not the American tax payer. Let Yaron Brook go back to Israel and defend it and pay for it. Many Americans don't want to do either. Its a real eye opener that so many Objectivists are pro-Israel, an openly racialist ethno-state. But if any European country wanted to keep itself white that would be "racism". I could spit.

-----

The Gilder book is garbage. That's the common Objectivist tripe that Israel represents "capitalism" and opposition to Israel is "anti-semitism". Anti-semitism is one of the chief ways the Left (and the mainstream right) prevents any open discussion of many, many issues. And an objective study of WW2 and Hitler would lead to the conclusion that the Nazis were in large part a response to the *Jewish dominated* Communist movement which was responsible for the mass starvation of tens of millions of gentiles (Ukraine and Armenia, etc). The Jews as Communists engineered the slaughter of over 20 million Christians. The Nazis paid them back by killing 4-6 million Jews. If you dig deep into any attempted mass slaughter you will always find a deeply seated ethnic grudge. And such grudges are often not arbitrary. There are legitimate reasons people have ethnic hatred.

The point: WW2, the Nazis, and the Holocaust and thus "anti-semitism" are far more complicated things than "criticizing Jews equals opposing capitalism". That's the type of autism you get from Objectivists.

Wrong about Israel

Tom Burroughes's picture

The US, or other nations, should not give blank cheques in terms of aid to Israel, or indeed any other nation. I would argue though that Israel, as a relatively prosperous nation that has no illusions about Islamist terror, is well capable of looking after itself and no doubt, in light of the recent West/Iran deal over sanctions, will be pushing forward plans to potentially knock out an Iranian nuke, should it get one.

Israel is not "parasitical" - that country is self-reliant and has a strong domestic, and very entrepreneurial economy. It is in some ways a far better place than others.

I recommend George Gilder's "The Israel Test" as a book on that country that is well worth reading. Also can recommend another publication about the country, called Startup Nation.

The fact that Trump is "Jew wise" means what, exactly: that he is an anti-semite, or has reflexive prejudices against Jews? If so, that is a black mark against Trump, who already has rather a lot of them (a record for having been a long-time registered Democrat, supporter of single-payer healthcare, user of Eminent Domain laws to seize private property, ignorance about the benefits of free trade, general loutishness, etc.)

Any serious Objectivist should reject Trump's agenda - in as much as it is coherent at all - in toto. As for his stance on immigration, for example, he wants to build a wall to keep illegals out. He ignores that almost half of illegals have overstayed their visas, and many are the children of illegals, so building walls would make no difference to that problem. Okay, these are mere details, but you would expect someone like Trump to at least take the time to learn.

Slavs

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

The Slavs are the sanest outpost of politics right now. Putin is a far saner man than any Western politician (we'll see about Trump). They are resisting the Left's push for non-white immigration in order to blend out the European race. There is a potential new European divide between Western European countries led by Germany and by the Slavic countries. If Trump gets elected he should ally himself with the Eastern European block. I don't know about nuking Mecca and genociding Muslims (although the thought is appealing). But siding with Putin in stabilizing Syria under Assad and then having little to do with the Muslim world while systematically out migrating Muslims would make him a hero in this day and age. Also if Trump would stop all aid to Israel and let that destructive parasitical little country fend for itself, that too would assist his awesomeness. And above all else American needs to stop being Israel's little lap dog and fighting all of its wars. Trump does seem to be Jew wise from what I can tell. He's all but mentioned them as being allies of ISIS.

It will be interesting if Germany will take a hard turn to the right after all the raping and killing that is going to go on there. Europeans have never had to live with a dysgenic population before. Americans are used to living with blacks so we have experience with a low IQ dysfunctional race. But now the Western Europeans are going to get something similar with the Arabs plus they get the bonus of Islam; ie the "religion of peace". I don't see how the citizenry can maintain all the PC illusions necessary to support a Leftist society when innate biological differences are staring you in the face and punching you in the head, not to mention raping your women.

Angry Man with Access to Nukes

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Donald Trump may be good with anger and alpha male-style emotion. But is he good with reason? Just because he's angry about something doesn't mean he knows what to do in response. Actual knowledge of political science is called for here. His extreme ignorance bodes ill for his presidency. Trump's understanding of libertarianism and political freedom is childish and contradictory at best.

And is Donald Trump really all that good at anger? Aristotle famously said: "Anybody can become angry -- that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way -- that is not within everybody's power, and is not easy."

Robert Fico For President

Neil Parille's picture

Responding to the sexual assaults in Cologne and Hamburg, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has reiterated his aim to allow no Muslims into the country. According to reports, some of the attackers were refugees.

Robert Fico said on Thursday that Slovakia would fight against immigration from Muslim countries to prevent attacks like last year's shootings in Paris and large-scale assaults of women in Germany, which took place on New Year's Eve.

"We don't want something like what happened in Germany taking place in Slovakia," Fico said, adding that the country must "prevent [its] women from being molested in public places."

According to reports by local German newspaper "Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger" and an online preview of investigations by Sunday paper "Welt am Sonntag," Cologne authorities have identified some of the perpetrators in the attacks as been Syrian asylum seekers.

'Multi-culturalism is a fiction'

In light of the attacks, Fico told reporters that Bratislava would " never make a voluntary decision that would lead to the formation of a unified Muslim community in Slovakia."

"Multi-culturalism is a fiction. Once you let migrants in, you can face such problems," Fico said.

Slovakia is a Catholic country of 5.4 million people, who thus far have had next to no experience with immigrants. The country received only 169 asylum requests last year.

Under the European Commission's plan for mandatory quotas to share out 120,000 asylum seekers among the EU's 28 member states, Slovakia is being asked to take in 802 migrants. Fico's government has already filed a lawsuit against the Commission in response to the plans.

The future of the West depends on Trump becoming President

Triassic's picture

I think that the future of the West depends on Trump becoming President.

I note that there is already a positive feeling between him and Putin. I would be *ecstatic* if they got together and together decided to eliminate Muslims from the planet, starting by nuking Mecca, Medina and Syria. Pakistan would need nuking too (given that they have them themselves).

( Given its utter foolishness, cowardice and determination to destroy itself, it's tempting to want to nuke Europe too..... )

Churchill was the "man for the moment" in WWII. Given that WWIII is already underway (as shown by the Muslim invasion of Europe), the West *desperately* needs Trump to become US President.

A world without Muslims and Islam - it would be a *fantastic* world.

That

Mr_Lineberry's picture

sort of idiocy is why I have never had profiles on Twitter or Facebook (although a few years back some 'usual suspect' did create a fake FB profile purporting to be me). Too many weirdos about.

Never been able to understand the point of it; lots of people with too much time on their hands by the sounds of it.

A good point I didn't spot

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Good take on the debate. Trump does come across as the most sincere and most egoistic of the candidates. I also think he is the only politician that could actually be accountable.

As for Twitter. Ha. As if FeacesBook isn't bad enough. Twitter is airhead heaven. Yet, Trump's effective use of Twitter has allowed him to spend less than any other candidate. Sadly, Twitter is now a political tool. It (and other social media) is a factor in politics these days. Twitter rage campaigns by the left are the newest Alinsky-ite tool.

Politics as well as culture is in the sewer.

Twit-Witter Moronry

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Shaana Flaws
@shaantweetiepie
Jan 16

@ShakingStick @LindsayPerigo1 pitiful take on Trump's ego- maniacal narcissism and cynical politics of destruction .

Hear hear!

Mr_Lineberry's picture

You sum it up well Lindsay.

I think everybody showed their true colours during the debate and Trump came out the clear winner on that score.

What delighted me is that someone (other than me) has pointed out Cruz's voting record vis-a-vis his rhetoric; his flip flops, his pork barrel spending, his hypocrisy, and good on Rubio for doing so.

I could never support either Rubio or Cruz because neither are 'real' Americans - heartland Americans - and both have the evidence to prove it haha!

Something which never ceases to astound me is how unlike his brother Jeb Bush is.
His brother is the greatest President in history who shoved missiles up the arses of Dictators and terrorists, whereas Jeb acts like a mouse.

Hard to believe they are related; hard to imagine Jeb getting pissed and partying for 3 days at a time a' la George circa. 1970 (if you know what I mean?).

Who knows what Trump is thinking on this topic, but Kasich would definitely be my pick for Vice President - good team player who won't make waves, yet has a lot of experience.

Comment viewing options

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