I'm not able to watch all this because of the annoying camera angles. But it seems like the chief foreign policy guru of the ARI can discuss terrorism for 1.5 hours without mentioning immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thanks for your posts.

I'm tempted to say the idea of intrinsic rights is "nonsense on stilts," as someone famous once did say, but wish to avoid saying anything that without further explanation might be construed as declaring rights to be arbitrary. There are undeniable facts about our nature that cry out for the formation and implementation of such a concept. If God existed and gave us rights, the matter would end right there. But he doesn't, so it doesn't. We have to figure this out for ourselves, and in a compelling enough way to make it stick. We don't have a right to life just because we're alive and have a human body, though that's what the OrthOist position amounts to—meaning (by extension) any dinky savage does indeed have the right to move freely to a civilised country. Think of the lack of moral hygiene such a view reveals: savages who don't believe in rights nonetheless have them whether they like it or know it or not! Moral egalitarianism, egad!

As best I can tell, Rand was right to root rights in our capacity to reason and choose. She even, perhaps without intending to, acknowledged in passing in some interview that the concept did not apply in primitive societies where that capacity was not recognised and honoured (I think at that point she was talking about Iran). But on matters of practical implementation, e.g., immigration, OrthOists repair to an intrinsicist default position whereby all humans share the same inherent and inalienable (a disastrous error) rights just by dint of being human. The government of a civilised (by-and-large rights-respecting) country must discriminate like crazy and be fastidious as hell as to whom it lets in. In the case of America there should be a wall along the Northern border as well as Trump's proposed Mexican one. Canada is embracing The Filth with open arms, so it's only a matter of time before some of that Filth moves south for the express purpose of violating the right to life, if it hasn't already.

BTW, one of the features of Authenticism will be that where seemingly human entities can be shown objectively, empirically to trash the idea of rights and be intent on violating them ("Freedom go to Hell!" "Death to the Infidel!" etc) it will be not only permissible to designate these entities generically as "The Filth," "sub-human" etc., but obligatory. Not calling things what they are with radioactive moral fervour has been one of the most insidiously destructive facets of Political Correctness. Amazing that it's crept in to Objectivism to the point I could coin a term like "Obleftivism" with complete impunity!

From my reading of Objectivist (especially OrgOist or ARIan) blogs, Tweets (lol), and FecesBook postings, the most common position I see with regards to immigration is that all people have natural rights or Individual rights etc. And just because you weren't born within the borders of the US that doesn't mean you don't have "inalienable rights". This is the very subject that was so heavily debated here with Kinsella and Moeller et all.

If you do write this book, you must cover the flaws that Objectivism has with regard to rights. They DO treat them as intrinsic despite what they claim. Personally, I too have had problems with this subject and I can not find quality treatment of it anywhere in the O'ist corpus. You need to bring some clarity to this.

In the name of "inalienable rights", Objectivists are willing to let the sadistic butchers of that innocent cat into Western nations, and all because they have "rights inherent in the nature of man". There has got to be a way to distinguish between generic rights and civil rights; ie the rights that you have as a human and the rights that you have because you are a citizen of a specific nation. Those latter rights CAN NOT include freedom to migrate into any nation you want.

Hans Herman Hoppe despite being an anarchist is better on this than any O'ist I've read. He argues that in a free society all property would be privately owned (except for government property) and the government has a trustee relationship with its citizens. Its role is to protect their property, and that can not include allowing everyone on earth free entry into the nation ala Binswanger and Biddle. Objectivists have been mouthing some serious insanity all these years.

There is a disconnect with Objectivists on the issue of rights (on others too...). But it has reached epidemic proportions and is producing idiotic political discussion among the ARIans/Randroids/Orthos, etc.

I would pay good money for some Objectivist friendly treatise that addressed this intelligently.

Linz, I cannot wait to see the fruits of your philosophical endeavors. Reading Rand and other thinkers (notably, Spinoza, Deleuze, and Whitehead) made me realize that total integration is required to live an authentic life. It takes time and thoughtful consideration, but it's well worth it.

Looking forward to it!

Now you know the road that I have been on since discovering game / PUA and then right on its heels, discovering gender and racial hereditarianism; ie applied socio-biology. Objectivism, as is the case for all Classical Liberal derived philosophies, is a blank slate worldview. This is a big problem; the source of *all* the problems we've seen in its history. Blank slatism leads to views that are consistent with both social constructivism and environmental determinism; ie it leads to views that are the same as those held by the Left (and by that I mean both the Left and the Neo-Conservative Progressive Right). The rubber hits the road with immigration; the ultimate litmus test if you are "right wing" and thus on the side of defense of European civilization; ie "the West".

Linz, you are coming face to face with the realization that there is a quasi-determinist element to human nature. Free will is approached by Objectivists in a totally out-of-context way. They bristle with rage if you suggest that free will has limits and parameters. Look at the way even Rand herself took umbrage with "tendencies to depravity". But humans do have tendencies to depravity. Or as I would put it: tendencies to hormonal based self-destructive emotionalism. Even the exercise of reason itself is dependent on IQ and genetics. Less intelligent people are going to find it very hard to maintain a life dedicated to moral and intellectual discipline (and of course sexual discipline); one of the reasons that IQ should be considered important in any discussion of immigration and politics.

From my PUA experience I've seen that human sexuality is not a fully rational affair. It is largely an animalistic hormone driven response to emotional stimulus; and all of this driven by Darwinian directives and neuro-biology. I'm not saying women are pure robots. But I am saying that men and especially women make sexual decisions by those "tendencies to depravity" that Rand hated so much and attacked the Conservatives for (even Rand herself did this by having sex with Branden, yeah its amazing how the "red pill" explains that better than a 500 page book by James Valiant). Well this is one area where the Conservatives are right. Actually I would go so far as to say that St. Augustine was right and Pelagius was very wrong (and all Classical Liberals past and present are Pelagians). Augustine was largely right in arguing that humans are led astray by sin; sin properly being understood as hormone driven emotional impulses. If you strip the religious elements from the Catholic view of sin, it is far closer to human nature than those held by Classical Liberals or Objectivists.

Does this mean we should all become Traditionalists, Conservatives or racial nationalists? No. But it does mean that if the liberty philosophy (O'ism and libertarianism included) is to have a future it is going to need a foundation in biologic reality. That means it will have to acknowledge hereditarian understandings of biology and the implications from that. Racial biology, IQ differences, testosterone differences, dispositions to violence, crime data, sexual reproductive strategies (r/K), etc must be considered if there is any chance of creating the "utopia of greed" that Rand envisioned.

When I discovered the "red pill" of applied socio-biology (for women through game and for race through Auster and then the alt-right) I went temporarily insane (I had a weak psychology inherited from a bad childhood which Objectivism is really not equipped to fix). From 2010 to 2014 my mind exploded as I encountered cognitive dissonance resulting from paradigm shifts. I am just now regaining psychological balance. I got very angry at Objectivism and Objectivists because I felt that they were betraying the pursuit of truth in the name of blind ideological conformity. I still think that is what is happening but I have lost my anger at Objectivism. I now just realize that if that movement and the legacy of European liberty is to survive it will have to adjust to the Tsunami of science based, biology rich information that is deluging the internet. It will also have to take off the blinders and acknowledge the in-your-face reality of black and Muslim violence and criminality; ie it will have to see what every right-winger sees regarding the destruction of white nations from non-white immigration.

I think that your "Authenticism" will be an important first step both towards a better "Objectivism" and away from the sterile mess that OrgOism has become. I see that there is a gradual recognition of many of the things I've mentioned above by both Austrians and other libertarians. You see this with the Von Mises Institute discussing the alt-right more and more. You see this with people like Stefan Molyneux (more heroic right now than any OrgOist) and the YouTube blogger "Libertarian Realist". I also see Austrians like Tom Woods and Jeff Dias starting to become more explicitly anti-left. Objectivists are being very resistant though and the few who partially see the light get ostracized (like Ed Cline).

I for one would love to see some Randian awareness of the "red pill"; some Randian version of Stefan Molyneux, but one who actually applies all the best elements of Objectivist epistemology and who can avoid philosophic empiricism (which Moly does suffer from). For example I would love it if a guy like Alex Epstein would become interested in racial hereditarianism. He has a good cognitive methodology. If he were to escape the narrow orbit of OrgOism I think he could contribute greatly. The same for Michael Moeller.

So I wish you the best with the new project. It will probably be met with contempt by the Orthos, but that's to be expected. I think OrgOism will have to be destroyed before there can be any significant advancement with the movement.

Blank Slatism leads to leftism. That is the fundamental reason why Objectivism is becoming indistinguishable from mainstream thought (ie sympathies with cultural leftism domestically and Neo-Conservatism internationally). It really is "earlier than we think" sadly.