Lindsay, I liked the way you pointed out that tedious human need to be cool, and essentially suggested it as a fundamental thing. It is! And I don't think we grow out of it from the teen years (it just becomes less blatant).

It's an ironic tragedy too. Because as soon as you want to be cool, and sculpt your behaviour to the end of it, you're not cool. You're then just a dick! lol.

I would also have them checked *after* they've been allowed in. There needs to be the understanding that liberty must be maintained and is not automatically self-perpetuating. Which is why I think "freedom of speech and association" needs to be fleshed out. Could a person in such a society legitimately open a leftist school and be said to uphold the oath?

Ha! My oath will include not only a commitment to non-initiation of force but to non-promulgation of the initiation of force, on pain of banishment. So no one in such a society would want to open such a school. If he tried he'd be banished.

If such a country could be formed now it would be the whitest country on earth. As things stand right now, it is only white people that can even really conceive of something like this. That's my point. As far as racial groups go, it seems that only whites really have the capacity to appreciate "libertarianism" and even then they are still a minority.

That may be, but there'd be no impediment to anyone of any race who's prepared to sign the oath entering. I'd want Hermann Cain to be there for his humour apart from anything else. The other day he said, "I've got big lips. Does that make me black?"

That would be a problem as what would be the payoff to men willing to fight for such a nation? But if such a nation could be created, a nation of women that did not want to vacuum suck resources from men via the state would be the GREATEST accomplishment in human history. That alone would be trigger great amounts of patriotic nationalism among its men.

There you go then. Though I fear you may have just dissuaded me from the project. Is there a case to be made that since women are completely hormone-driven they don't count as human and thus may be kept in cages for human edification? That way, if you get "vacuum-sucked" it will only be because you freely choose to enter a cage.

before allowing him/her in.

I would also have them checked *after* they've been allowed in. There needs to be the understanding that liberty must be maintained and is not automatically self-perpetuating. Which is why I think "freedom of speech and association" needs to be fleshed out. Could a person in such a society legitimately open a leftist school and be said to uphold the oath?

That means most moronnials, white black or piebald

If such a country could be formed now it would be the whitest country on earth. As things stand right now, it is only white people that can even really conceive of something like this. That's my point. As far as racial groups go, it seems that only whites really have the capacity to appreciate "libertarianism" and even then they are still a minority.

And very few women.

That would be a problem as what would be the payoff to men willing to fight for such a nation? But if such a nation could be created, a nation of women that did not want to vacuum suck resources from men via the state would be the GREATEST accomplishment in human history. That alone would be trigger great amounts of patriotic nationalism among its men.

I would love it if it were and you could construct a society where Thomas Sowell would be allowed and not Barack Obama and the 97% of blacks that voted for him. The same would go for every race. But until that system has been devised and implemented racial awareness is not a sign of malevolence but of adherence to social reality.

This is not difficult. Barack Obama would not sign the oath. The blacks who voted for him wouldn't either. Neither would the whites, Mexicans and all the rest of The Filth who voted for him. The oath would screen out The Filth because of the content of its character, not the colour of its skin (note, this gem of Martin Luther King is now considered a "micro-aggression" by Social Justice Warrior Filth).

Now, because Filth lies, my minimalist gulch-state would be active in conducting background checks on everyone who signed the oath, before allowing him/her in. But I think we can safely assume that the likes of Obamislam wouldn't, and most of his supporters couldn't, being illiterate airheads and all. I don't mean they'd be unable to sign their names; I mean they'd be incapable of understanding the meaning of the oath. That means most moronnials, white black or piebald, couldn't sign. Wotta relief! And very few women. (Lady Slapper would be in her element with so many Galt-men to prowl among! But I have first dibs on Milo!)

You said: Environment is a factor that can trigger bad genetic dispositions (black crime for example) or nurture good genetic dispositions (Western European civilization). But the environment, ie "culture" will be an emergent property of the underlying genetics.

I said: Culture actually fosters genetic dispostitions. Every life form seeks to adapt to its environment, the ones that can't do that die (or now go on welfare). That is how important culture is. It isn't just "some factor."

This is Darwinism, which is either true or false.

Doug to Kyrel:
But it is true. On average men are and have been superior in those three areas. As I said before, they have to be because men are not guaranteed sex. Women are. Men need to create or produce resources to have sexual market value. Women just need to be born.

This is sooo funny because it's so true... I would only add that if Women are Born with Skinny Genes, it makes things even easier.

If we had a Galt's Gulch where everyone took an oath and understood and meant it, we'd undoubtedly find it a colourful place.

This is what's desperately needed. An "oath" and a society that is constructed to ensure that oath is not broken. And that is the problem with "open immigration" and every discussion of limited government libertarianism (by whatever name) that I've seen. In brief, Minarchism has no developed political theory. So many things that Objectivists say would be the death of such a society even if it could be created. Such things as:

* open immigration, no border checks, immigrants "self-selected" for their "excellence"

* freedom of association even to associate with Muslims despite knowing that Muslim populations bring Muslim violence

* freedom to invite anyone in the world to "exchange values" without regard for that person's native culture

* freedom of religion even for Islam because in a free society where we nuked Iran and Saudi Arabia Muslims would be caught up in our pro-life rational society and "not be a danger"

* freedom of speech and ideas even for Communists, Muslims, Leftists of every variety, etc; ie freedom for people to not only believe in but to attempt to spread such anti-liberty ideas by both political and *educational* means. Would a Marxist or an Islamist (to use that term for brevity) have been allowed into Galt's Gulch? Then why should they be allowed into America (or our hypothesized free republic)?

I could go on. But the point I'm making is that the "oath" of allegiance a free society would require needs a political structure to be built and maintained. And currently that political structure has not been worked out. I would love it if it were and you could construct a society where Thomas Sowell would be allowed and not Barack Obama and the 97% of blacks that voted for him. The same would go for every race. But until that system has been devised and implemented racial awareness is not a sign of malevolence but of adherence to social reality.

Linz, I hope you can elevate the intra-libertarian political discussion with your upcoming book. I'm not expecting miracles. Just add a few building blocks to the scaffolding of liberty that is already in place and maybe the conversation can shift...

I'm not going to say the ideas you advance are foolish and silly. I have thought about every one of them myself. Accepting human bio-diversity is a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you are heavily invested in political liberty as I am. But I think it is always important to understand that philosophy and politics must answer to biology and not the other way around. Consider these points:

* Legitimate research has shown that social trust is significantly lessened in multi-racial and multi-ethnic communities (both among and within the races). A major researcher here is a man by the name of Roger Putnam who is a leftist. He actually hid his data for five years because it disturbed him. Whites, especially Western Europeans, are a hight trust group. They operate very well together and are very good at sharing commons. There is a natural trust that emerges from such societies. I'm not talking Platonic perfection. I am just talking any pre-1960s white neighborhood. This appears to be genetic.

* Individualism and collectivism also appear to be genetic. Western Europeans score much higher for individualism than Asians. Again, there is legitimate research on this. If there does turn out to be a genetic component to individualism, do you not think that fact would be philosophically important? If Asians bring their genetic tendencies to conformity and collectivist obedience do you not think that is a threat to Western European cultural individualism?

* There also is a significant genetic component to political thought; at least 50%. What that probably means is that biology affects emotional dispositions which channel into political beliefs in any given historical era. Not surprisingly, you see very different patterns for core societal and political beliefs among the races. Think of how hard it is to really identify and defend the requirements of liberty. Think about the debates we've had here on the subjects of IP, rights, market anarchism, US Constitutional history, etc. Do you really think that a population group with an average IQ of 85 (or lower) could ever really care about those things?

* Thomas Sowell is not just a man. He is a black man. You are engaging in *evasion*. You are willingly and purposely ignoring and evading a FACT OF REALITY. Why? Because it threatens the blank slate views you hold. And probably because you have images of Hitler marching through your head. Sowell IS an exceptional man, especially given the rarity he represents for blacks. But understand this Olivia. His rarity exactly underscores my point. If blacks were not so low in IQ they would better understand and appreciate liberty ideas and there would be more individualism among blacks (there would also be less religion). But there isn't because its not a readily emergent position for blacks as it is among whites. It is not in the "spontaneous order" for them as a group.

* You see culture as distinct from biology. That's social constructivism. But what if it turns out that cultural parameters are set by biology? Don't you think that is at least possible? And can you not see how that could have consequences for politics?

I don't expect you to become a hardcore racialist. That is an often unpleasant path and I constantly resist it. I'm just trying to show you that the ideas I've advanced are not "wicked". There are heavily supported by the latest science and research. And they will have to be addressed *eventually* by any liberty movement that has any hopes of "capturing the culture." Especially as the West descends into racial war (which it already is).

Doug is barking up the wrong tree with this skin colour fetish. I'm hoping it's a phase he'll grow out of. It would be a tragedy for all his perspicacity to go to waste. So much else of what he writes is on the money—infinitely more so than the serial crap emanating from "Objectivist" sources.

Most things that walk seemingly upright in seemingly human form on this earth are trash, regardless of their hue. Equally, the noble exceptions, the true humans, come in all colours. No doubt white preponderates, but that's a matter of culture. If we had a Galt's Gulch where everyone took an oath and understood and meant it, we'd undoubtedly find it a colourful place.

No. Dr. Carson is not hard to explain. He is what is known as the "talented tenth". He represents the right tail of the black IQ bell curve; ie the top 10 %. But here is what you don't understand. You can not cull off men like Dr. Carson and Thomas Sowell from the rest of the black population. You get the low IQ, warrior gene possessing savages of the inner cities (now being transplanted in white ares because of HUD) along with the relatively rare people like Carson and Sowell. You get the GROUP. Again, as with Muslims so with blacks. THE LAW OF IDENTITY APPLIES TO GROUPS. Groups have properties. This is what Objectivists refuse to understand.

Ben Carson and Thomas Sowell are talented men, not just talented "blacks". Both extraordinary by any measure, let alone racial.
The Law of Identity applies to whole species - all racial groups most definitely included, there is no distinction of any sense here in your explanations.

For the purposes of showing your genetic determinism to be a sideshow I certainly will "cull them off" as you have to cull off decent and outstanding white men from the morass of nihilistic white trash which fill the populations of Western cultures.

Doug, you are barking up the wrong tree with these matters.... You are focusing on the least important aspect of people ie collective blood line (something outside of anyone's control) instead of culture (something within everyone's control). I call that a very convenient, and wicked, cop out.

I think you can make the case that men are superior in all three areas denied by Rand: intelligence, creativity, and moral worth. Or at least at the higher levels. Men are the natural leaders of society; they are spiritually dominant. Men naturally carve out the path for society's future -- for good or ill. Women naturally adapt and conform to it, and thus are more amoral and unprincipled..

This is one of the best paragraphs you've written. It marks you as a "sexist" to about 99% of the Objectivist movement. People might start calling you a "Bandlerite".

But it is true. On average men are and have been superior in those three areas. As I said before, they have to be because men are not guaranteed sex. Women are. Men need to create or produce resources to have sexual market value. Women just need to be born.

Sperm chase eggs - the fundamental starting point of ALL of human sociality. If Objectivists fully understood that concept, they might be able to save their movement and actually change the world. And also note to Linz. This is why women act so "daffy". All the things that as a gay man you have identified about the silliness (and self destructiveness) of women is a result of those "tendencies to depravity" that Rand hated so much; ie innate biology which drives human socio-sexuality the way it does.

Explain then for me Dr. Ben Carson, who was raised by an illiterate black mother who held a staunch standard over her children and made sure that they could read and write by pretending that she could read and write, when she couldn't. (Solely for the purpose of causing her gene pool to have a chance at a richer/better life.) That may be rare, but in your world of so much emphasis on genetic determinism, it is impossible..

No. Dr. Carson is not hard to explain. He is what is known as the "talented tenth". He represents the right tail of the black IQ bell curve; ie the top 10 %. But here is what you don't understand. You can not cull off men like Dr. Carson and Thomas Sowell from the rest of the black population. You get the low IQ, warrior gene possessing savages of the inner cities (now being transplanted in white ares because of HUD) along with the relatively rare people like Carson and Sowell. You get the GROUP. Again, as with Muslims so with blacks. THE LAW OF IDENTITY APPLIES TO GROUPS. Groups have properties. This is what Objectivists refuse to understand.

Maybe, just maybe in the hypothesized free society, you could have racial bio-diversity and not have chaos (that remains speculative though and will until it is actually achieved). But in a multi-racial "mixed economy welfare state", what we have now and will have for the foreseeable future, group biology matters. Acknowledging that is not determinism. It is down the same path Linz is traveling on.

If he is going to recognize that consistently applying reason is much harder than Rand thought, then he has to recognize why. The two greatest impediments to the consistent political application of reason are 1) racial tribalism and 2) female hypergamy. The reality of those two things is why I no longer consider myself an Objectivist but a Rand influenced something or other. And it is no accident that Linz specifically has mentioned both of them (all though not explicitly by name).

Humankind isn't naturally evil -- altho' the massman can often seem thus. But the masses are easily and entirely dominated by the intellectuals. Aristocratic control is complete, and properly utterly based upon persuasion -- with zero need for coercion.

This is a great quote from Nathaniel Branden:

I recall a conversation I had with her in the early years of our relationship, when she was expounding on her idea of feminine hero-worship. I was in my twenties at the time. I asked her: "Don't men worship women? I mean, the women they love?"
"Oh, I suppose so, but that's not how I would think of it. By "worship," I mean our highest capacity for admiration, reverence, looking up. I see man as superior to woman, and..."
"Oh, Ayn," I protested. You don't. You're joking!"
"I am not joking," she answered seriously.
"Superior in what? Intelligence? Creativity? Moral worth?"
"No, of course not. In spiritual or intellectual matters the sexes are equal. But man is bigger, stronger, faster-better able to cope with nature."
"You mean, at the pure physical level?"
"The physical is not unimportant." Later, I often heard her reiterate that point.

I think you can make the case that men are superior in all three areas denied by Rand: intelligence, creativity, and moral worth. Or at least at the higher levels. Men are the natural leaders of society; they are spiritually dominant. Men naturally carve out the path for society's future -- for good or ill. Women naturally adapt and conform to it, and thus are more amoral and unprincipled.

Of course...men aren't the superior sex in every sense. They don't live nearly as long as women. They suffer far more in evil society. And men are also naturally far more crazy, criminal, and depraved.

Olivia is right in a sense about environment but that doesn't mean that social constructivism is correct.

Who said anything about social constuctivism?
I'm not right in a sense, I am right in stating that the environment of one's birth and nurture is the most important influence on a developing self-made soul.

Environment is a factor that can trigger bad genetic dispositions (black crime for example) or nurture good genetic dispositions (Western European civilization). But the environment, ie "culture" will be an emergent property of the underlying genetics.

There you go.

Culture actually fosters genetic dispostitions. Every life form seeks to adapt to its environment, the ones that can't do that die (or now go on welfare). That is how important culture is. It isn't just "some factor."

And understand that there is so much data to show that politics is at least 50% heritable. So the fact that Europeans, aka whites, have the greatest genetic predisposition to individualism (more than any other race) is not something that should be poo pooed as "determinism" as most O'ists do.

I do not believe that politics is hereditary at all - it's swallowed because the nurturers (usually) are trusted by developing minds dependent upon their care to be correct . That is cultural. I'm not completely writing off genetic race-based "traits", just pointing out that they are the least important aspect of development in a rational animal.

Trust me, I do not say this as an 'Objectivish', I say it as a human being who lives and has had to adapt to our current context through different paradigms (ugh - that word).

Determinism? You are emphasizing determinism... what else could it be?
Explain then for me Dr. Ben Carson, who was raised by an illiterate black mother who held a staunch standard over her children and made sure that they could read and write by pretending that she could read and write, when she couldn't. (Solely for the purpose of causing her gene pool to have a chance at a richer/better life.) That may be rare, but in your world of so much emphasis on genetic determinism, it is impossible.

I wish Rand didn't use it.

Tabula rasa is cognitive at most, if that; it certainly doesn't apply to character/personality traits, where all manner of evolutionary dross is quite clearly in play.

Yes, Tabula Rasa is a dangerous phrase which imo needs to be scrapped (or at least heavily qualified). There are a bunch of inherited traits and mechanisms that are not cognitive (learning language for example). Olivia is right in a sense about environment but that doesn't mean that social constructivism is correct. Environment is a factor that can trigger bad genetic dispositions (black crime for example) or nurture good genetic dispositions (Western European civilization). But the environment, ie "culture" will be an emergent property of the underlying genetics. And understand that there is so much data to show that politics is at least 50% heritable. So the fact that Europeans, aka whites, have the greatest genetic predisposition to individualism (more than any other race) is not something that should be poo pooed as "determinism" as most O'ists do.

I also agree with the importance of publicly identifying the inherent weaknesses of women as the potentially destabilizing force that they are. For example, women's amoralism in accepting free resources (stolen from other men) is a massive example of nation-wide cuckolding. Objectivism and libertarian need to be "red pilled" on women or more precisely understand true socio-sexual dynamics. This doesn't mean misogyny nor does it mean abandoning the quest for liberty. But it does mean that you grasp that female biology has an in-built interest in thwarting liberty and that this is experienced as a deep seated emotional urge.

How I wish that Objectivists really took this stuff seriously.

I think I said, "to all intents and purposes." The split is partly nurture-driven, no doubt, mainly by women and their revolting social climbing. There's nothing a woman won't do for social respectability and acclaim. See the delightful Keeping Up Appearances currently re-running on UKTV. Not that men are much better. But where "laziness and wishful thinking" are concerned, women are worse offenders than men, by and large.

Just look at the things still unashamedly called "women's magazines." Utter tabloid trivial trash. Women just lap it up. Kardashians and other such unutterable filth.

Tabula rasa is cognitive at most, if that; it certainly doesn't apply to character/personality traits, where all manner of evolutionary dross is quite clearly in play.

Contrary to Objectivism, there not only is such a thing, but it is so deeply entrenched as to be, to all intents and purposes, metaphysical. It is the reason religion continues to exert such pull, despite being absurd on its face. It is the reason Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Freud remain much more influential than Rand—they had a much better grasp of human nature as it is than she, even though she depicted "the drooling beast" devastatingly well. There are biological barriers to her "command to rise."

Biological barriers are real enough, but that doesn’t imply a “split”. Mind (including genetic tendencies) is the result of having a body (made from genetically organised DNA), but the biggest hurdle to its development is the environment or culture which nurtures it. I suspect the problem isn’t so much a mind/body conflict as it is a nature/nurture one. Because genes selfishly seek to replicate themselves by surviving and adapting to the environments they are in, the environment determines so much (man’s only means to gather information and knowledge come via his senses, so the quality of contact with the outside world is the greatest factor in the mind’s development, despite any “traits” already in place at birth). Tabula rasa, as I understand it, is about acquiring knowledge and ideas from interacting with our environments, as opposed to inheriting intrinsic memories informing us on how to survive and determining what is true. We are subjective beings with the potential to be objective if we rise to it (the rational animal), but that takes much effort, especially when it comes to dealing with the external environment - including other people; hence the need for ethics. If there is anything close to a concept of original sin in the nature of man metaphysically, it lies somewhere in his tendency to try to evade reality (laziness and wishful thinking).

... this is that difficult, except among Objectimorons. There is no such thing as a right to breed. Breeding is an imposition upon the bred without the consent of the bred. It's a form of initiating force. Then, Objectimorons will tell the involuntarily bred they have a duty to stay alive simply because they've been bred. This is rational??!! Benevolent??!! In this shitty world of Peter Keatings??!!

Here one must bring in the "reasonable man" criterion: would a reasonable man conclude that the bred, informed about the circumstances and consequences of their being bred, would assent to going ahead with their being bred? This criterion would mean most (sub-) humans currently breeding—tawdry trash breeding out of nothing but their own vain desire to perpetuate their meaningless selves and receive taxpayer funding to do so—would be prevented from doing so. Not that hard nowadays with contraceptive implants. Hell, as an interim measure at least, I'd not object to their being subsidised (as opposed to the subsidised breeding that is currently the norm). The most important thing as far as the survival of Western Civilisation is concerned, aside from stopping Islamofilth immigration, is stopping The Filth from proliferating. In most cases, it's the only thing The Filth knows how to do. The Filth must be thwarted.

Her views were tradicional in many ways ,

I recall a conversation I had with her in the early years of our relationship, when she was expounding on her idea of feminine hero-worship. I was in my twenties at the time. I asked her: 'Don't men worship women? I mean, the women they love?"
"Oh, I suppose so, but that's not how I would think of it. By "worship," I mean our highest capacity for admiration, reverence, looking up. I see man as superior to woman, and..."
"Oh, Ayn," I protested. You don't. You're joking!"
"I am not joking," she answered seriously.
"Superior in what? Intelligence? Creativity? Moral worth?"
"No, of course not. In spiritual or intellectual matters the sexes are equal. But man is bigger, stronger, faster-better able to cope with nature."
"You mean, at the pure physical level?"
"The physical is not unimportant." Later, I often heard her reiterate that point.

Rand was on the right path; ie biology. Branden was mouthing blank slate bullshit. In today's parlance, he was "white nighting" for women. Men are physically stronger than women and that has MASSIVE implications for psychology and everything actually. I would go so far as to say that because of female fragility combined with their Darwinian imperative to constantly find resource provisioning for their children, ie the future of humanity, that women have strong tendencies to amorality. (There are those damn "tendencies to depravity" that Rand hated so much.) Men are more naturally moral because we have to be for effective social activity which leads to resource acquisition (which is done to get sexual access which leads to offspring.... all that animality in the "rational animal").

And this is what I mean by Objectivism being built on a "blank slate" foundation. IMO all Classical Liberal philosophies are built on blank slate views of human nature. You see this clearly when you read Locke (he proceeds as if all the world were comprised of Englishmen). This makes the whole pro-liberty enterprise vulnerable to the more hardcore right wingers. They look at libertarian / Objectivist views of human nature and compare them with what they see and they think libertarians are demented children (which is frequently right).

I learned this dramatically through game / PUA which is the art of romantic male psychological dominance. When I went from loser to lover I just could not view blank slate ideologies like Objectivism the same way. I'm not disavowing liberty, just arguing that the liberty philosophies we have now need an overhaul. And the inherent clashes between reason and feelings, especially if they involve sexuality or racial tribalism, are so damn strong that on my darkest days I think they are insurmountable.

This is a conversation that Objectivsts need to have. But will they?

Here is a good interview with Tom Woods and Jonathan Haidt. Is Reason Enough?

Objectivists have a completely rationalistic view on rights.
Not only should the right to vote or migrate not be taken for granted, the same thing goes for raising children and owning animals.
The right to be responsible for another life should only be granted to those who can do the job properly.
Some people with mental illnesses, (like alcoholism and drug addiction/criminally insane people) should not be allowed to have children, and i am not talking about child protection services placing the offspring in a foster home.
They should be sterilized before they get the chance to ruin a life. They should never be allowed to own an animal.
Abusers of animals should be put to jail. Same thing with abusers of children. In any shape or form. Never should they be anywhere near animals and children.
People subscribing to dangerous ideoulogies need to be under constant surveillance, and also be denied the right to have the responsibility of another life.

I've reached many of the same conclusions myself. Of course these type of ideas would fall way outside what 99% of Objectivists would consider legitimate under "individual rights." I think though that they are proper applications of individual rights. There is much work that needs to be done before any libertarian society would have the necessary intellectual foundation for "capturing a culture." Right now any culture they would capture would be destroyed by all the low IQ savages they would allow to emigrate to the country in the name of "freedom".

Objectivists have a completely rationalistic view on rights.

Not only should the right to vote or migrate not be taken for granted, the same thing goes for raising children and owning animals.

The right to be responsible for another life should only be granted to those who can do the job properly.

Some people with mental illnesses, (like alcoholism and drug addiction/criminally insane people) should not be allowed to have children, and i am not talking about child protection services placing the offspring in a foster home.

They should be sterilized before they get the chance to ruin a life. They should never be allowed to own an animal.

Abusers of animals should be put to jail. Same thing with abusers of children. In any shape or form. Never should they be anywhere near animals and children.

People subscribing to dangerous ideoulogies need to be under constant surveillance, and also be denied the right to have the responsibility of another life.

"Social groups, not individuals, as the primary unit of selection" is exactly the empirical reality we see occurring constantly, not least within OrgOism and OrthOism, which is what brings some bitter levity to this discussion. This doesn't mean Rand was wrong in saying it shouldn't be that way; just that she was far more ahead of her time than anyone thought, or thinks. The advent of "social media" (what an Orwellian joke of a title!) has demonstrated more eloquently than anything else that "social groups, not individuals, [are] the primary unit of selection." No one is saying what he/she really thinks (and in most cases has lost the capacity to think anyway); everyone is saying what he/she believes will get him/her a "like." Shudderingly repulsive. Remember how when I started SOLO I cited Rand's question, "Will we ever see life on the level?" Answer would appear to be "no." Funnily enough, I'm just reacquainting myself with King Lear ahead of attending a live performance this Thursday. Amazing that the penultimate line was written centuries ago, since it was never more apposite: "The weight of this sad time we must obey; Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say."

Authenticism will strive to encourage thought that will inform feeling that will then be candidly expressed, even as it acknowledges that some feeling is independent of thought, and some of it should/will be kept to oneself for aesthetic reasons. This is one of my stumbling blocks: how to keep Authenticism from being confused with exhibitionist whim-worship (funny how, in that expression, Rand herself acknowledged a mind/body dichotomy—what are "whims" exactly?): mindless brute ejaculations that come from a primitive ooze we'd be better off transcending and don't need to hear about in public discourse, no matter how free our society, any more than we need to hear from some conceited little Narcissistic twat on Faecesbook what he/she just had for lunch.

Hi, Linz. One more for you. Re: your comment in the original post:

"This will get me into all sorts of strife, not the least with Obleftivists. Their latter-day acquiescence to Islam shows me that opposition from their quarter is to be welcomed as a sign that I'm on the right track."

While reading up on the validity of the triune brain, I came across this:

The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I've heard of this, but have not yet read it, and just learned that it references "the concept of the triune brain in his explanations of certain aspects of human behavior."

Good enough, but then, the synopsis relates directly to your original post, especially in regards to herd mentality, religion and Islam. And the criticism of his ideas about Islam mirror what you said about "acquiescence to Islam". Like I said, I haven't read it, so I can't vouch for it, but it might be worth a look for your project, seeing as there's a convergence of the ideas, here...

From the wiki page:

The Lucifer Principle book by Howard Bloom, sees social groups, not individuals, as the primary "unit of selection," on genes and human psychological development. It states that both competition between groups and competition between individuals shape the evolution of the genome. The Lucifer Principle "explores the intricate relationships among genetics, human behavior, and culture" and argues that "evil is a by-product of nature's strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric".[1] It sees selection (i.e. through violent competition) as central to the creation of the 'superorganism'[2] of society. It also focuses on competition between individuals for position in the 'pecking order' and competition between groups for standing in pecking orders of groups. The Lucifer Principle shows how ideas are vital in creating cohesion and cooperation in these pecking order battles. Says The Lucifer Principle: “Superorganism, ideas and the pecking order…these are the primary forces behind much of human creativity and earthly good.”

Reception of the book

Reviews of the book[3] saw it as 'ambitious' and 'disturbing' in its conclusions that societies based on individual freedom might succumb to systems such as communism or Islamic fundamentalism.[4][5] The Washington Post said that "Readers will be mesmerized by the mirror Bloom holds to the human condition... He draws on a dozen years of research into a jungle of scholarly fields...and meticulously supports every bit of information...." while Chet Raymo in the Boston Globe termed it "a string of rhetorical firecrackers that challenge our many forms of self-righteousness."

Bloom responds to Islamic issues

Bloom later wrote[6] that he and his publisher had been threatened by Islamic groups who objected to aspects of the book. He claimed that "Arab pressure groups asked ever so politely that The Lucifer Principle be withdrawn from print and that nothing that I write be published again. They offered to boycott my publisher's products — all of them — worldwide. And they backed their warning with a call for my punishment in seventeen Islamic countries." Bloom states that the Attorney for the Authors Guild wrote to his publishers, warning of an author boycott if the book was pulled from the shelves. The publishers asked Bloom to rewrite a chapter on Islamic violence, which led to the creation of 358 lines of footnotes attesting to the facts he presented within it.[6] Today, there is a strange acknowledgement[citation needed] that what Bloom wrote about Islam in The Lucifer Principle is based on expertise. Bloom is a frequent guest on Iran’s Press-TV, Iran’s Alalam-TV, Saudi Arabia’s KSA-2-TV, and even on Syria’s Ekhbariya-TV.

Hi Joe. A delightful surprise to see you here.

"Slapped on" with "miscommunications" makes perfect sense to me. It means the neo-cortex has its work cut out sometimes making it clear who's in charge. Isn't that what we all experience introspectively?

Culled these from the same thread I linked below; seems relevant to the original post:

Rand: "The physical is not unimportant"
Jmaurone's picture
Submitted by Jmaurone on Sat, 2012-04-07 14:27.

X-ray: "I can imagine that Rand (whose focus was on man as a 'heroic being') felt somehow uncomfortable with the idea of humans sharing so much evolutionary heritage with animals."

Maybe, maybe not...I've heard that thought before, but I balance it against this bit, as well, quoted from Nathaniel Branden's A Woman's Self-Esteem: Struggles and Triumphs in the Search for Identity:

pg. 144 has this:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I recall a conversation I had with her in the early years of our relationship, when she was expounding on her idea of feminine hero-worship. I was in my twenties at the time. I asked her: 'Don't men worship women? I mean, the women they love?"

"Oh, I suppose so, but that's not how I would think of it. By "worship," I mean our highest capacity for admiration, reverence, looking up. I see man as superior to woman, and..."

"Oh, Ayn," I protested. You don't. You're joking!"

"I am not joking," she answered seriously.

"Superior in what? Intelligence? Creativity? Moral worth?"

"No, of course not. In spiritual or intellectual matters the sexes are equal. But man is bigger, stronger, faster-better able to cope with nature."

"You mean, at the pure physical level?"

"The physical is not unimportant." Later, I often heard her reiterate that point.

and

Missing Link and Ghosts in the Machine
Jmaurone's picture
Submitted by Jmaurone on Sat, 2012-04-07 14:25.

X-ray: "I can imagine that Rand (whose focus was on man as a "heroic being") felt somehow uncomfortable with the idea of humans sharing so much evolutionary heritage with animals."

As demonstrated with the Branden quote in the post below, I'd wonder whether it had more to do with something with a misunderstanding, or simply ignorance, of the brain's evolution (taking Rand at her words that she wasn't a student...)

Again, I bring up Koestler's Ghost In the Machine. Going beyond the "left/right hemisphere" split, he details the tri-level brain: reptilian, mammalian, and the neocortex. Where Rand talked about integration, she made it sound "seamless," but Koestler points out that the neocortex was, in essence, "slapped on" to the other parts in a not-so-seamless way; sometimes they are in conflict, and the cortex can be "hijacked" by the animal side ("flight or fight" responses, for instance.) This goes for the "animal" side of sexuality and dominance, which clashes with man's development of rights and the principle of "non-initiation of force." That clash is seen in Rand's work, and that's why Objectivists are still split, today.

Just my theory.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Lindsay wrote:

"The Authenticist project has been delayed ... and delayed and delayed ... because of certain recurring stumbling blocks in my own head. I've just realised what one of them is: my own remaining in denial about the intractable reality of the mind/body dichotomy. Contrary to Objectivism, there not only is such a thing, but it is so deeply entrenched as to be, to all intents and purposes, metaphysical. It is the reason religion continues to exert such pull, despite being absurd on its face. It is the reason Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Freud remain much more influential than Rand—they had a much better grasp of human nature as it is than she, even though she depicted 'the drooling beast' devastatingly well. There are biological barriers to her 'command to rise.' Women are still governed by their hormones, headaches and twots; men by their hormones and dicks; men and women both by a ghastly herd-driven desire to conform and be 'cool'; irrespective of what dispassionate reason might dictate. I was onto this in Romance and Rationalism when I asked where Objectivism allowed for the animality in man, the 'rational' animal."

And

"Isn't it instructive that virtually no one is willing/able to join this debate? I just had visitors here of a lefty persuasion who said, of course there's a mind/body dichotomy: it's in our DNA. They bristled when I suggested their own agenda was to deny free will altogether. At least they were prepared to debate. Can't say the same for OrthOists and Obleftivists."

Hi, Linz. Just popping by, because this caught my eye. Not to debate, but to offer some supporting thoughts. It is a topic I've taken to, in the past, so I thought this might help, in some way. I'm sure you've seen Arthur Koestler's book, THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE, come up, here, in discussions from the past, but it's worth mentioning in the context of your post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Koestler took on this topic of the mind-body dichotomy some time ago, so his neuroscience certainly needs updating. And his "pharmaceutical" solution is suspect. (I don't recall, offhand, whether or not he denied free will.) But I think his thesis still has some bearing, today, mainly, the triume brain (the "reptilian", "mammalian", and neo-cortex, in contrast to the "hemispheres" of the logical left and emotional right brain) and how, evolution-wise, the neo-cortex was "slapped" on to the existing structure, resulting in many miscommunications between them, as well as "instinctual" reactions, or "hijackings", as some say, of the amygdala over the reasoning parts of the brain.

(The triune brain model is still controversial, I'll add. Someone here once objected to the characterization of the neo-cortex being "slapped on", pointing to a then-recent article showing how "neatly' the brain is wired. That was interesting, in itself, but this "slapping on" should be understood more metaphorically, or functionally, as opposed to the "neatness" of the "wiring", not the aesthetics of the wiring, but the results of the connections...)

Here's the link to THAT discussion, two-thirds down the page...)

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

(For what it's worth, it did influence Nathaniel Branden, which pissed Rand off not a little, but then, Branden was getting into certain ideas, like hypnosis, at the time, so she was wary of the "woo" factor of Koestler. But that just makes it more pertinent to your thesis, and your project, given the nature of that division of an Objectivist nature over Koestler's ideas, and that Koestler may have nudged Branden to see a mind/body dichotomy similar to your speculations. As far as Rand denying that dichotomy, that's probably a question of extent; see next post.)

Amy admitted that Johnson supports the entire state apparatus prohibiting private discrimination.

The purported libertarian who thinks Christian bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Shamy on Amy!

Even worse than being a PC fascist, Johnson is dull.

You've shown more awareness in those three paragraphs then I've seen out of OrgOism in the last decade and a half. I hope you write your book because I see NOTHING insightful coming our of the Objectivist movement. Neil tells me that Amy Peikoff is comparing the Republicans to Nazis and making them morally equivalent to Leftists. Not surprisingly she is going to vote for Johnson. Everywhere in Objectivism I see the same type of psychologies that you see everywhere with Leftists. The movement is becoming unlikeable. I have many disagreements with the alt-right but they see the evil of the left and the specific way in which they are fighting their enemies; ie the anti-white cultural Marxism.

As with most libertarians, Objectivists come across as falsely arrogant children; the exact stereotype they have held for years.

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

Brook said he wouldn't debate immigration because "it's my show." I don't see how that follows.

He'll never came here and tell us how Israel has the right to keep out non-Muslims but the USA and Europe is morally obligated to allow them in.

... that virtually no one is willing/able to join this debate? I just had visitors here of a lefty persuasion who said, of course there's a mind/body dichotomy: it's in our DNA. They bristled when I suggested their own agenda was to deny free will altogether. At least they were prepared to debate. Can't say the same for OrthOists and Obleftivists.

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.