Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2016-06-13 08:46

The killing of fifty-plus gay people in an Orlando nightclub by an evil Muslim and registered Democrat has put The Anti-American President in a quandary where he must decide which is more important to him: his support for Islam ... or his homosexuality.

Through all the years in which he has pursued his pro-Muslim agenda in the White House—banning the term "Islamic terrorism"; renaming the War on Terror an "Overseas Contingency Operation"; insisting that domestic Islamoterrorism outbreaks were instances of "workplace violence"; instituting a policy of harassing elderly women in wheelchairs at airports while ignoring bearded Arabs behind them so as not to be guilty of "profiling"; making his "apology tour" of Islamofascist states where Sharia Law is in place; releasing Islamoterrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for an American deserter; telling those who would have rescued Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Libya to stand down and lying to the American people that the attack in which Stevens was killed was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video on YouTube; dismissing ISIS as a "JV team"; expediting Iran's path to nuclear status; empowering Political Correctness to the point where the First Amendment has been shredded and free speech is a thing of the glorious past—through all of this, it seems to have eluded Obama that his precious Islam specifies that gays should be put to death (Koran, 7:80-84: "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds ... And we rained down on them a shower of brimstone." Of course, Christianity teaches the same thing, but Christians no longer advocate or practise it, their religion having been rendered largely non-malignant by decent, rational secular philosophers over several centuries in an Enlightenment that Islam has never had and can by its nature never have. Islam continues to hang, stone or throw gays off tall buildings with grisly alacrity).

Now that this fact has been made abundantly clear to Obama by the events in Orlando, which mutually exclusive allegiance will he choose? Will he have an epiphany whereby "live and let live" and his right to be gay will eclipse his love of Islam—"kill faggots for Allah and go to Paradise (where there'll be an abundance not just of virgin females but underage boys) in the process"?

Never in a million years.

Islam is the more important to him. He has spent too many years condoning it, apologising to it and opening America up to an invasion by it to allow it to be superseded by his unadmitted homosexuality.

If ever Obama were to be targeted by an Omar Mateen, that would be poetic justice. As a "faggot" myself—who truly believes in and has fought to the point of exhaustion for "live and let live"—I have no hesitation in saying that Obama is one "faggot" whose martyrdom at the hands of the murderous bigots he has enabled would constitute Karmic justice for those who went to Pulse looking for a good time, only to be murdered by a deranged Islamofascist whose only purpose in living and dying was to stop anyone having a good time.

Setback for Filth in Australia

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Move over Brexit! Pauline Hansen, reviled by Filth, has just won a seat in the Australian Senate, and will possibly pick up two more once this weekend's election results become more clear. Note the biased "reporting" here by Fairfax Filth, including the insertion of the words "respected scientist" in square brackets when referring to a piece of Eco-Fascist-Filth, but rejoice in how it must choke them to have to inform readers of this delicious affront to their Left-Fascist-Filth agenda:

Far-right One Nation leader Pauline Hanson is pushing for a royal commission into climate science and Islam and wants to abolish the Family Law Court, in an extreme policy agenda set to frustrate a future government trying to pass laws through the Senate.

The federal election has resurrected the political career of the controversial figure, whose party is expected to snare at least one Senate spot 18 years after she lost the Queensland seat of Blair.

Hanson has said her party will likely collect a second Queensland Senate position, and reportedly there is speculation she is also in the running for a seat each in NSW and Western Australia.

Whichever party forms government will have to embark on Senate negotiations with Hanson, who has called for Parliament to "start passing legislation that is right for the people and our future generations".

According to her party's agenda, that includes a royal commission into the "corruption" of climate science, adding climate change is "used as a political agenda by politicians and self interest groups or individuals for their own gain".

"We cannot allow scare mongering by people such as [respected scientist] Tim Flannery, who make outlandish statements and are not held accountable," it said.

"Climate change should not be about making money for a lot of people and giving scientists money."

The party also wants the Renewable Energy Target scrapped and would oppose any moves towards an emissions trading scheme.

One Nation, which came to prominence for its divisive immigration policies, also wants a royal commission or similar inquiry to establish whether Islam is "a religion or political ideology".

The policy claims Islam's religious aspect is a "fraud", and rather, it is "a totalitarian political system, including legal, economic, social and military components, masquerading as a religion".

The party would also cease the intake of Muslim refugees and other migrants, ban the burqa and niqab in public places, and mandate that surveillance cameras be installed in all mosques and Muslim schools.

No more mosques would be allowed to be built until the inquiry is held.

I personally delight in contemplating how horrified Obleftivists across the ditch in New Zealand will be at this advance for civilised values and human freedom.


Muslims Rape Women Because They Had a Bad Day

Neil Parille's picture

And 7/10 of Mexican women arrested are raped.




Neil Parille's picture

I'm no fan of Brook, but he seems to have moderated his views on Islamic immigration.

Milo for President!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm disgusted with Trump for backing away from his "complete and total shutdown of Muslim immigration."

Here's the lovely Milo with something more edifying than Trump's capitulation to PC filth:

Not One Muslim!

I'm Right Again

Grant Jones's picture

Neil, I could only listen to a few minutes of Brook's vile rant. Quote, "if England was the England of the past, I'd move there. To hell with America." That's not out of context, @ ~ 56:00 minute mark. Brook's previous claim is that England was also a "propositional nation." His buffoonery is boundless.

"I don't have time to explain, but Israel is an exception."

Yawon Bwook the globalist with no loyalty to America should get the fuck out of my country. My ancestors did not pioneer, fight and die for scum such as him.


Neil Parille's picture

And what would an assimilated Muslim look like?


Neil Parille's picture

The Roma have been living in Europe for a century and haven't assimilated. We have the example of Hispanics in the USA who are assimilating into the welfare state.

Europe is filled with umassimilated third generation Muslims.


Neil Parille's picture

Brook said that "nationalism is a version of collectivism' but "Israel has to be an exception."

Why is nationalism a version of collectivism? Logically Brook should combine his open borders with one world government to show how anti nationalist he is.

Thanks Neil

Grant Jones's picture

Thanks Neil for listening to this drivel so I don't have to.

Doug: I agree. Assimilation takes time, often generations. There are exceptions. Immigrants who have laid their lives on the line by volunteering to serve in the armed forces, for example. But, Bwook doesn't see the United States as an actual nation made up of actual people with an actual culture who share an actual common history. To him it's just an abstraction.

Re Dr. Lewis

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I liked John Lewis and found him to be a good source of knowledge about the Ancient world. However his views on Islam and foreign policy were just a stronger version of Neo Conservatism; ie invade Muslim countries and improve them; ie "separate Mosque and state" (good luck). His view was not grounded in the reality of the Muslim religion or of Muslim people. It is as Neil says: "Don't end immigration; invade 49 majority Muslim countries to force them to separate Mosque and state."

But I will say this, had he lived he might have come around on this issue. I don't think he knew enough about Islamic theology or history. He was still operating from the premise that Islamic countries are just nation states that need to be subdued which is the wrong framework. He didn't see that all Muslims are part of the Ummah and that while traditional war strategy has its place, true solutions involve separating the West from the Muslim people themselves. Maybe had he lived, he might have gone down a similar path as Ed Cline.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I think the issue is that Yawon has an emotional attachment and loyalty to Israel that he will never have for the United States. To him all Western countries are just giant flophouses. If America goes down the drain, he will just move on to another country without giving it a second thought.

Well said. He has an ethno-religious attachment to Israel; ie a tribal one. But his view of America is just as a set of ideas; ie "individual rights". I understand now Auster's term for NeoCons, that they believe America is a "proposition nation" not an actual historic one formed by a historic people. The same criticism applies to OrgOists.

John Lewis

Neil Parille's picture

He was better than most ARI writers. I think it was he who introduced into the Objectivist talking points the claim that defeating Jihad was like defeating Shintoism.

An Intelligent Discussion Of Brexit

Neil Parille's picture

From Paul Watson and Molly:


Listen to this and compare to Yaron Brook.



Neil Parille's picture

I just skim his show. I believe the "Israel is an exception" was at 57 mins and the UK being "more immigrant friendly" toward the end.


Aloha Neil

Grant Jones's picture

I don't have the time or energy to listen to Bwook's endless pontification. Can you let me know where in this podcast he said that? Thanks.

Brook - Still Crazy After Brexit

Neil Parille's picture

On his show, he said he opposed "nationalism" but "Israel is an exception."

He also said he wants the UK to be "more immigrant friendly from everywhere." In other words, more Muslims.


Neil Parille's picture


[Brook] The only real threat to Europe comes from it's intellectuals.

So there are the thoughts of the head of the Objectivist movement. The *only real* threat to Europe is from its intellectuals. Would he say that if his daughters were raped by Muslims?


There you have it. Everything is caused by the intellectuals. If you had good intellectuals you could import the entire Islamic population into Europe and it wouldn't be a problem.

Brook said on his show that if America were a "free country" we could have 10 immigrants per every American. That's right - the entire Muslim population times two could come to the USA.

Dr. Diana

Neil Parille's picture

"Dr. John Lewis rightly argued that America ought to demand that the Muslim world wholly separate mosque and state. As in Shinto Japan after World War II, Muslims would be free to pray to Allah in their private lives, but Islam would be barred from public life and politics, including education. Muslims could rationalize that public secularism however they pleased -- or abandon Islam entirely. Such secular government in Muslim countries is required to eliminate their threat to the West."

Don't end immigration; invade 49 majority Muslim countries to force them to separate Mosque and state.

In the nick of time?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

According to Britain's Office for National Statistics, the number of Muslims in the UK recently exceeded 3 million for the first time, with over 50% born outside the country. That means the number has more than doubled in the last decade. In some parts of London, close to half of the population are now Muslims, hence the skewed vote for Remain in the Greater London area. On current trends they will be the majority in those areas within a decade. More are under ten years old than in any other age group.

The Islamofilth that has recently wrought such havoc in Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden, etc., would have unimpeded access to Britain under EU rules, and may still have given that Brexit will take two years to effect. Those charged with effecting it should strive to prevent such a catastrophe pre-emptively.

Some piece of Islamotrash posing as a reformed extremist is currently on Fox arguing that the nations of Europe must resist the temptation to retreat to their "old comfortable identities." That's exactly what they should do. Nations that to varying degrees respect and uphold individual sovereignty should reclaim their national sovereignty, especially in the face of an invasion by barbarian beheaders who detest individual sovereignty. Bring back borders! Long Live Cultural Protectionism! Make Britain Great Again! Glory to Western Civilisation!

The wisdom of the Leave vote is well and hilariously attested to today by the identities of the trash who are panicking at it! Oh, and what a glorious "Up yours!" to Obamuslim!


Neil Parille's picture

I asked my questions and Brook refused to answer. I don't want to be a troll. Brook has one standard (open immigration) for 140 countries and another for one country (starts with I).

We can draw our own conclusions.

Neil and Doug

Grant Jones's picture

Neil, Yawon is such a shameless evading coward. His recent tweet: "America is not afraid of the world. It does not resent trade, immigrants, bankers - it does not build walls." To which you asked about Israel's walls and refusal to take in Christians immigrants is spot on. He will not respond. Only countries that begin with "I" get to have borders. Bwook also has a big "no comment" on India's border fortifications along their frontier with Pakistan. I've asked no borders (for America) Indians if they support erasing the border between Pakistan and Kashmir. Their response is usually to go off somewhere and sulk.

Doug, I really don't get it also. Bwook is a smart guy. Apparently, his glaring contradiction doesn't bother him in the least. I have no problem with Israel's definition as a "Jewish state" or their policies designed to keep it that way. I think the issue is that Yawon has an emotional attachment and loyalty to Israel that he will never have for the United States. To him all Western countries are just giant flophouses. If America goes down the drain, he will just move on to another country without giving it a second thought.


Neil Parille's picture

Can anyone tell me what his position on immigration is? He supports open immigration, but not for Muslims (at least not now). He says he is opposed to any substantial immigration into Isreal. But open immigraition is a right.

On what principle would he oppose 30 million Christian immigrants from Ethiopia into Israel?

Really, I don't get this guy.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

It does make you wonder if any philosophy can overcome Jewish tribalism. And it is hard not to consider it Jewish tribalism because Yaron Brook, like so many other Jews, only considers it moral for Israel to have legitimate ethnic concerns. Europeans don't apparently. I guess this is all tied to the never ending guilt over Hitler.

Doug: Bwook's Tweets

Grant Jones's picture

Bwook was asked on his Twitter page why Israel gets to have borders and engage in racial/religious nationalism (Zionism). Being a moral coward and intellectually dishonest, he shamelessly evaded the questions. I'm curious as to when Israel declared war on Ethiopia. Why isn't Bwook issuing moralistic statements on how Israel has a Kantian moral imperative to import millions of Ethiopian Christians. Funny, how that works.

Samoa Has the Right Idea

Grant Jones's picture

Leaders in Samoa are discussing a ban in the importation of Moslems. Samoan Christian leaders are pushing for this completely sensible self-defense measure.

I bet that Yawon Bwook and ARI will issue a three hour podcast on the clear and present danger of Samoan Christianity and nationalism.

"However the Secretary General of the Samoa Council of Churches, Reverend Ma'auga Motu, said he would go a step further and ban the religion of Islam."

I hope Samoa follows through and does this. No doubt, the Ozero Traitor administration will put much pressure on them to import Moslems until the barbarians make up at least half the population.


Brook's Tweets

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Nationalists tend 2 want closed borders, little/no immigration. Individualists like freedom & are generally pro-immigration.

Our university professors who teach hatred for Western values are not immigrants.

This, like all periods of rising Nationalism, will end badly. Unless, this is about freedom not nationalism...

The only real threat to Europe comes from it's intellectuals.

So there are the thoughts of the head of the Objectivist movement. The *only real* threat to Europe is from its intellectuals. Would he say that if his daughters were raped by Muslims?

OrgOist rationalism now is reductio ad absurdum.

It's Pathological

Grant Jones's picture

Yawon Bwook hits a new low. Like the typical one-world government leftist, he refuses to make the distinction between "bad nationalism" and good, necessary patriotism. Bwook's and ARI's pathological adherence to their no-borders dogma can only be based on the purest of clueless rationalism that has reached clinical proportions or maintaining cash-flow. Bwook's latest Twitter tantrum puts him on record in support of transforming England into Pakistan. Of course the left's a problem (Bwook should know, he belongs to it), that's why the left supports the mass importation of allies who will help them destroy Western Civilization.


Neil Parille's picture

Good point. 75% of London voted to remain.

Yaron Brook on Brexit

Neil Parille's picture

He supports it. But of course it might lead to nationalism.


"Farage just said the Brexit election was about immigration. If that is true, will not make UK better, but worse. Nationalism on rise."




gregster's picture

I was with my family one night this last week celebrating, or marking the occasion of my parents selling their home of 40 years. They were elated with the auction outcome.

One of my brothers-in-law is English and we all spoke of the upcoming vote. My view was that the Brits would stick it to Europe. I'm used to having a minority opinion but stating it nonetheless.

I was closest to the house selling price and was the lone soul to bet against the EU.


Neil Parille's picture

Yes. This is great news.


gregster's picture

What happened? Did you fall asleep midway?


Mark Hunter's picture

As of 12:28 EST, 87.2% Reporting
Remain a member of the European Union: 48.3% / 13,676,029
Leave the European Union: 51.7% / 14,629,824

It’s beginning to look like Brexit won.

3rd worlders and back worlders, not just Islamics

Mark Hunter's picture

Comment on next to last post (before I posted this one):

There’s no reason here to focus on Islamics among the Third Worlders. Britain has suffered lots of immigration from the colonies, then former colonies, since soon after WW II. Most of them are not Islamic and doubtless they are against Brexit.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Leave" wins! A seismic setback for The Filth!!!!

Touch and go

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Leave" slightly ahead as I type. If they lose it'll be because of all the Islamofilth in London.

Update: Farage calling it won.

not so fast

Mark Hunter's picture

At the time I’m writing, the news says “41.9% reporting”:
... Remain a member of the European Union: 48.9% / 5,819,095
... Leave the European Union: 51.1% / 6,076,476
So it’s too close to say at this point.

If Brexit does fail, one reason will be because of past Third World immigration.


Neil Parille's picture

Looks like Brexit failed.

You had a great run, England: Alfred the Great, Newton, Lord Nelson, etc, Just remember the Venerable Bede writing his history when his hands were practically falling out thanks to the cold.

You decided to make your bed with Muslims, now lie in it.



Neil Parille's picture

Looks like Brexit failed.

You had a great run, England: Alfred the Great, Newton, Lord Nelson, etc, Just remember the Venerable Bede writing his history when his hands were practically falling out thanks to the cold.

You decided to make your bed with Muslims, now lie in it.


ARI Reading List

Grant Jones's picture

No Edward Cline. Too f'ing much to expect. Moronial Objectivists need only read those books whose sale will add to ARI's coffers.

The ARI's Summer Reading List

Neil Parille's picture

Wow, Objectivists read only other Objectivists. No wonder they come across as mind numbed robots.


Stuff the boring ARI...

Olivia's picture

Here are two far more honest, salient and relevant people to listen to - and Milo wears his pearls exactly as I do, around his wrist (I love him for that alone). Smiling



Doug Bandler The Second's picture

On the Peikoff podcast he said he would support it if we defeated Jihadism, didn't have a welfare state, and didn't have multiculturalism. But on his show he seems to have dropped the last two.

So all we have to do is defeat "Jihadism" and then we can have Islamic immigration with no worries? I see Brook is proving that all those ARI contributions are being put to good use...


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I just read through two *entire* threads where this was discussed. One on IP, the other on the nature of rights. In one of them Kinsella dropped in. It was very illuminating. I remember back in 2012 when they were going on, but I wasn't that interested then. Leonidas was making the classic intrinsicist arguments that amounts to rights being metaphysical. That view is all over the O'ist movement.

But I also see where Von Mises went wrong. He never liked rights theory and believed that rights (and freedoms, which was his wording) could not be found in nature. He wanted to get away from Locke's intrinsicism but ended up a subjectivist on this. And as a result the entire libertarian movement, especially the Austrians, believe this. The Rothbardians don't like rights instead favoring "property" which is "real". This also explains the anarchism. And the foreign policy pacifism and Pollyanna. I also think this is one of the key reasons for the open immigration views that dominate the O'ist movement; in their most radical form with Binswanger's no border-check policy. There are other things going on like the blank slate view of human nature. That too is a big flaw. But rights theory is just sloppy in both O'ism and libertarianism.

A LOT of work needs to be done. IMO, so long as the pro-liberty philosophy, "liberalism" as Kyrel would call it (a bad term imo), is bound up with anarchism it will NEVER capture any culture because it isn't reality based. But underlying that is a flawed foundation that stems from the very difficult subject of human rights. No one has nailed that one yet and it seems even Rand wasn't precise enough.

Maybe your parting gift to the liberty movement can be some clarification in this area (and others) and a pathway for what I call "the unified theory of liberty".


Neil Parille's picture

Grant, hard to know what Brook thinks about Islamic immigration. On the Peikoff podcast he said he would support it if we defeated Jihadism, didn't have a welfare state, and didn't have multiculturalism. But on his show he seems to have dropped the last two.

There's the problem ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... right there:

In other words: Though no one can take away your natural rights – they are “inalienable” and exist because you exist –

That's the intrinsicist view of rights that treats them as metaphysical givens, and thus ineffably inalienable. It doesn't hold up. I'd be interested to hear anyone defend it. And answer my own points quoted by Doug from the earlier discussion.


Grant Jones's picture

Someone must have spanked Yawon and reminded him that "open immigration" for Moslem savages is the current truth. What's with an 1 1/2 podcast every week? Can't Yawon compress his pearls of wisdom into a 1200 word article like everyone else? Do people actually listen to all these podcasts from self-appointed Objectivist experts every week. Don't they have jobs or something, anything, worthwhile to do.

The next U.S. Muslim Attack

mvardoulis's picture

If they can't get Obama, let's hope they at least get the Westboro Baptist Church, their Christian counterparts.

Uncharacteristically philosophical ...

Mark Hunter's picture

The following is from my ARIwatch.com review of a letter Rand wrote (5 February 1937) to the now defunct New York Herald-Tribune:

She goes on to say that the vast majority of Americans take their civil rights for granted; they don’t realize that an institution is needed to guarantee those civil rights.

In other words: Though no one can take away your natural rights – they are “inalienable” and exist because you exist – they can be violated. The legal basis for preventing or punishing people who would or do violate natural rights is civil rights. Civil rights are the legal recognition of natural rights. Civil rights must be jealously guarded in order to mean anything.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Here is what Lindsay has written on the subject:

... that Objectivists have shied away from for far too long: rights are not metaphysical, nor are they "inalienable." I agree with Biddle's adversary that "natural" is an apposite term, given that rights are concepts derived from and required by man's nature, but I don't think the real debate is over whether "natural" or "inherent" is the apposite term. Objectivists have long signed up to "inalienable," which, while making for good poetry in the Declaration, is simply a fantasy. It's intrinsicism, pure and simple: the only way rights can be inalienable is if they are indeed bestowed on us by a mystical creature. I remember hearing Branden on some pre-1968 tape or other twisting himself inside out trying to demonstrate that rights remained Rights even while being egregiously trampled upon. Rationalistic bunk. It's not the term "natural" that has to go; it's the term "inalienable."

For reference if you are interested, here are the threads:



The debate is very interesting and Moeller was at his best there. Lindsay prefers "rights may not be violated without moral impunity" as a substitute for inalienable. I think he's on the right path. BTW, I love your front door analogy for why open immigration is wrong.

The inalienable part.

Richard Wiig's picture

Surely the problem is not the inalienable part, because natural rights are inalienable. It is the treatment of political rights as if they are natural, that is the problem. At least that is how it seems to me. Political rights and the institutions that implement and defend them are no less concrete than the bricks and mortar of buildings. They therefore belong to those who pay for them. Libertarians/Obleftivists, though, are treating them as if they are abstract natural rights. None of them would personally have an open immigration policy on the front door of their house. They'd easily see the folly of that, but they have no problem when it comes to their country.

Ending Islamic Immigration = A Good Start

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

He says ending Islamic immigration will do "nothing."

That's an empirically false statement. If he had said that ending Islamic immigration won't solve everything then he would be right. It would have to followed by out-migrations and eventual deportations of Muslims and IMO the prohibition of the religion in its entirety. That would likely ensure that only a very few Middle and Near Easterners would remain here and that they wouldn't become violent. But that number should be as small as possible; ie approaching zero.

But why does Brook emphatically challenge ending Islamic immigration? Because open immigration is tied to liberty in his mind which is tied to "individual rights" which is the source of the problem. Objectivism has a massive flaw with its rights theory; the "inalienable" part. Until that gets worked out Objectivists will continue to defend the "right" of Muslims to butcher Americans, and all in the name of "liberty".

Sad state of affairs.


Neil Parille's picture

It is not clear what exactly he believes. He says ending Islamic immigration will do "nothing." He also admitted for the first time that nuking SA and Iran wouldn't completely stop terrorism. There would still be "random" attacks.

Someone called in to defend Trump and Yawon would barely let him talk.

Starting at 1:16 on he talks about Islamic immigration and I can't make much sense of what he says.

He says Israel's wall is an admission of failure. He doesn't mention that Israel's wall is also designed to keep out Ethiopian Christians, for example.

And this creature's IQ ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... below the radar:

Her moronry doesn't excuse her evil, though. Add her to The Filth.

Here's what I posted on YouTube:

What a disgusting creature. Turning an event like this into a moronnial monologue all about herself, all about being some kind of fashionable "victim" and all delivered with that loathsome vocal fry/quack affectation. Brainless, self-absorbed unreason on steroids. Utterly repugnant. Political Correctness is not merely stupid, it's evil.

Different Hardware

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Germans: average IQ of 100-102, Japanese: average IQ of 103-106, Middle Eastern Muslims: average IQ of 82-85.

Apples and oranges.

Improvement is Life; Ascent is Normal

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug writes: "You're starting point is the same as the NeoCons. You think that it is within US power to improve the Muslim world. It is not. Which is why your view is in the end a fantasy." The US radically improved the fascist tyrannical Germans and Japanese after 1945. A libertarian US could do a hundred times better with the fascist tyrannical Muslims.

I thought ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... you said he was coming round? Anyway, I had to bail after a few minutes. Yawon's pwesentation skills are non-existent. Too painful to listen to.

Yet Again Yaron Calls For Open Immigration Of Muslims

Neil Parille's picture

And denies that terrorism has anything to do with immigration,



Neil Parille's picture

"Indeed, the European powers colonized most parts of the dar al-Islam for decades or even centuries. When they left after World War II, the Moslem savages were still savages."

This is a good point to remember, particularly when dealing with the arguments of Biddle and Bwook that defeating Islamic countries will encourage Muslims to give up their Jihad. Nothing should have shown Muslims how retrograde their culture is than the easy occupation by Western armies, but if anything it made the Muslims more bitter.

Doug and Greg

Grant Jones's picture

Indeed, the European powers colonized most parts of the dar al-Islam for decades or even centuries. When they left after World War II, the Moslem savages were still savages. Containment is the best policy for Islam.

Doug II

gregster's picture

You're right there. It was madness to think a democracy could be set up in the quashed zones. And madness to transmit democracy in the first place.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

set up a liberal state

That's not possible. You're starting point is the same as the NeoCons. You think that it is within US power to improve the Muslim world. It is not. Which is why your view is in the end a fantasy.

As for ARI and OrgOism, if you can't see how they have favored secular Leftist causes and pushed the "imminent Christian Theocracy" as well as constantly beat the drum for war against Iran, etc, then I don't know what Objectivist movement you are watching. Maybe you live in an alternate universe...

News to Me; Foreign Policy

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- You seem to claim that the Os and Ls have been (1) attacking Right and Left about equally and (2) pointing out their similarities frequently. I'm utterly unaware of these two. Os and Ls, like Rand and Solo Passionists, seem to attack the Left relentlessly in a way which practically screams out: "I'm a conservative." As for ARI "embracing both major Progressive movements of this era: cultural leftism and NeoCon militarism," I'm unaware of this as well.

I personally favor a novel Muslim (and communist) foreign policy of "liberation for profit" -- win/win for them and us. Overthrow their dictatorships, kill all their leaders, take back our oil, set up a liberal state, take much of their land and resources in just payment. Everyone walks away happy (except Muslim nationalists and American mindless anti-interventionist libertarians). Smiling

The Right

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Leftism is mostly a driving and aggressive evil on this planet. Rightism is mostly resistant and defiant to it. But the Right is massively evil too. It has no good alternative to offer. Zero. It's essentially all negative and no positive. The Right largely fights evil; but it doesn't promote good. It offers no hope for the future. The Right, like the Left, needs to be DESTROYED.

Kyrel, Flawed Strategy

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Strategically, the best way to promote neoliberal philosophy and culture is to attack Right and Left together, while pointing out how much they have in common. If you spend 90% of your time attacking the Left, using arguments and attitudes which sound very Rightist, everyone will conclude you're a Rightist, and the Left will reject your arguments, as they should.

This is exactly what the Objectivist and Libertarian movements have done over the past 30 years and it has accomplished exactly what?

Kyrel, you're on the side of the ARI with the above advice, because that has been their strategy especially post 9/11. They have embraced both major Progressive movements of this era: cultural leftism and NeoCon militarism (aimed at using war to transform Muslim nations).

Murray Rothbard was closer to the mark when as an older man (when he was mature and past his left-wing phase) he recommended libertarians side with right wing populists rather than leftists. As he does in this essay. Its a good essay:


Zero vs Trump

gregster's picture

Kyrel: ”[Trump] was vastly more tongue-tied, and verbally and intellectually incompetent. This is a great opportunity for him to make his immigration and security case, and he's mostly blowing it. Yes, Trump wings it live to air. He wouldn’t be capable of offering the ideal immigration solution because he isn’t confident enough to expound the objective superiority of the West built upon its superior morality. And voters only want something easily chewable. There should be a more borderless world and private airlines etc would operate their systems more effectively than government. But the savages make that difficult and until they’re penned, we wait, till forever, unless you’re at ARI.

I agree with Grant, Doug II, and Linz, Zero is competently attacking his enemy—the values that made America.

And as Grant pointed out on F***book, the term “radical Islamist.” Trump still can’t honestly name it as “Islam” but it's a start.

"Obama's charge, in contrast, was based on his perception that the billionaire Republican's views are so extreme that he threatens the fabric of America itself."

“Yapping” Zero calls it. “Sloppiness” about Trump's identifying the enemy from a Zero who actively enables it.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I too agree with Doug. This is not error, it is worship of the evil for being the evil. I had occasion to say to someone in private recently: "It's not that the world has gone mad, though much madness is manifest; it's lunged headlong into pure, vicious evil. This is a battle to the death, and blood will be shed."

I wish Trump could bring himself to call Obafilth and Clintofilth "evil" instead of merely incompetent. "Crooked Hillary," while funny and true, does not quite cut it. Trump was right to call for Obafilth's resignation; now he should call for his impeachment. He comes tantalisingly close to spilling the beans when he says "There's something going on with Obama" but then, maddeningly, will not deliver. What's going on is a treasonous President who does indeed sympathise with Islamoterrorism and deliberately left his country mortally weakened.

Mind you, the trash who voted for him are every bit as much part of The Filth as Obama.

Americastan, here we come.

United in Hate

Grant Jones's picture

I agree with Doug on this. The left's primary motivation is a nihilist rage at existence. As Rand wrote decades ago, the death and destruction caused by socialism is so obvious that its supporters have no "humanitarian" excuse.

Read Jamie Glazov's excellent book "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror." He demonstrates that the left's motives are self-hatred and hatred for existence. He shows how leftists are drawn to blood and worship mass murderers. They always have been anti-life vermin.


Alternative Analysis

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Leftists aren't limitless monsters, and the Left doesn't promote evil for the sake of evil. They're intellectually ignorant. That's mostly it.

They're also genuinely idealistic. Far more so than the Right. They probably have a certain psychology, which does draw them to the Left, just as the Right has the opposite spirituality. But mainly the Left sees how false and evil is the ideology of the Right, and since they think Right and Left constitute the whole philosophical universe, they draw the only conclusion they can, which is that Leftism is best.

Strategically, the best way to promote neoliberal philosophy and culture is to attack Right and Left together, while pointing out how much they have in common. If you spend 90% of your time attacking the Left, using arguments and attitudes which sound very Rightist, everyone will conclude you're a Rightist, and the Left will reject your arguments, as they should.

O's almost always fail to see the good of the Left, and the bad of the Right, and so they lose very time, as O's deserve. This is what is known as philosophic incompetence. Right-wing conservatism offers the world zero hope for the future. Ayn Rand was dead-wrong to think it did. O's have been failing for 50 years with this fatuous belief.

Not Incompetence

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Its the opposite.

The Left is extremely competent when you realize that their goal is the destruction of the West or what is in effect white, heterosexual, European civilization. Everything they do is designed to destroy all the elements that have been responsible for the rise of the West. Those include the European racial composition of (formerly) European countries, heterosexuality ultimately expressed in monogamous marriage and the nuclear family, high trust among homogenous communities, objective morality which up to the 60s was expressed as traditional morality, both artistic beauty and physical beauty but especially feminine beauty, sexual virtue, economic self-sufficiency, martial values of self and national defense, gun ownership, property rights and personal and national (and cultural) pride. Notice I didn't say "capitalism", "individual rights", "freedom", or "secularism" or any of the other rhetoric you get from Objectivists. The list I gave is more fundamental. The Objectivist view that this is a "war on capitalism" is so narrow and misses the essence of the Left by light years.

The Left's primary goal is to destroy their hated enemy which is white, heterosexual, non-liberal males. They don't care about women, gays, the poor, the downtrodden or the environment. What they care about is annihilating their political adversaries. Is it ultimately driven by altruism as Objectivists believe? Or by egalitarianism? Maybe. If the left is truly motivated by philosophical premises is something I debate with myself but have reached no firm conclusions. But I am certain they are motivated by a psychological hatred of their enemies; ie white non-liberals. They are demonstrating an increasing exterminationist hatred of white hetero males and the civilization they built. They want us dead.

And OrgOism doesn't even see this. Even worse, if you try to make them aware of it they censor or attack you; ie they act just like leftists.


Grant Jones's picture

I do disagree with one thing. Obama is an extremely competent traitor.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

That's a great quote, Greg! Unfortunately I heard Trump on the radio yesterday [the Sean Hannity radio show, June 13, 7-12 minutes after the show began] and he was vastly more tongue-tied, and verbally and intellectually incompetent. This is a great opportunity for him to make his immigration and security case, and he's mostly blowing it, in my view.

Jump on it Trump!

gregster's picture

Donald is the only candidate now saying the unspeakable: "The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.

That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.

We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.

We have an incompetent administration, and if I am not elected President, that will not change over the next four years -- but it must change, and it must change now."

Great post Lindsay.

Justice and Revenge

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Islam is especially wretched in how it treats women, gays, and underage boys. World leaders, at some point, need to mention this. But current advocates for women and gays certainly don't. These are basically traitors.

Of course...the great truth may be that Islam treats everybody horrifically. Still, it would be a great treat to see a Western army composed of women and gay-males march on the Middle East, and then smash to smithereens all of those Muslim dictatorships. And then -- as a public spectacle and deliberate humiliation of Islam -- to televise all those ex-tyrants suffering the exact same horrors upon their persons that they inflicted upon women and gays. Laughing out loud

The Shooter

Neil Parille's picture

It has been reported that he made "homophobic" stateements. However, there is no direct evidence that he targeted the nightclub because it was gay. (I assume he dd, but don't know for sure.)

Anyway, within hours Obama knows that the motive was anti-gay. But he makes no mention of this guy's Islamic religion. There is more evidence that he was motivated by Islam than anything else.

The media is generally following this narrative. They can make the supposed "homophobia" in America the culprit.

Comment viewing options

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