There Goes Bosch Fawstin Again

Grant Jones's picture
Submitted by Grant Jones on Tue, 2016-08-09 23:23

Fawstin has just posted a new drawing of Pamela Geller on his website. He justly praises Geller's boundless courage in the face of attacks and threats from Mohammedans and Social Justice Warriors.

Funny how Fawstin doesn't comment on the fact that Geller has come out in favor of Trump. I guess for his next Twitter Tantrum, Fawstin will have to block Geller.

The Obleftivists keep double-downing on their Trump Derangement Syndrome. In their fantasy world, they're sitting at the table with the cool kids from CATO, FEE and National Review.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Practically everything you say needs to be done is being done, and in the way that you wish it. Mankind in general, and the Objectivist Movement in particular, are all ascending. The pace is infuriatingly slow, yes, but mankind is doing its usual thing: rising.

The Evident Strength and Weakness of Bosch Fawstin

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- You write that "[Bosch Fawstin] might not have blocked you." But he almost certainly did. If my memory is right, he defriended me after some incident two years ago in which I criticized some Randroid-style person or act (as usual!). And then when I sent him a new friend request several weeks later (in case he changed his mind or didn't really mean it), he went one step further and permanently blocked me. On Facebook this doesn't just mean I can't comment on his FB posts -- it means I can't visit or read his page, or even be aware that it exists (since it's invisible to my searches). I'm even blocked from his separate Pigman page (after he realized I subscribed).

Applying my common sensical Monkey Law (explained here:, the almost certain reality is Fawstin has the remarkable and admirable honesty, courage, and integrity to fight strongly and well against the horrific religion of Islam -- but not that of Objectivist cultism. This is a bridge too far. On this harder and more important issue, his honesty, courage, and integrity fail him. He's comes down hard on the side of evil, and has almost certainly chosen to excommunicate me.

That's hugely disappointing and depressing, but perhaps sort of okay too. He's a cartoonist. That's his job and he does it very well indeed. I'm an intellectual. Specifically a liberal theorist. My job is to be the finest liberal thinker on the planet. It isn't reasonable for me to expect him -- or practically anyone -- to understand me or know what I'm really up to. I need to be far above his level -- at a place where Fawstin semi-virtuously and honestly thinks I'm the enemy (ironically). A traitor to Rand, he thinks (or pretends)! Ultimately and sadly, Fawstin is inadvertently a somewhat dismal, weak, and low religious zombie in the tradition of Peikoff, Schwartz, and Binswanger. And, yes, in the tradition of the Taliban, Al Qaida, and ISIS.

But give those determined, passionate, and fiery religious destroyers and monsters some credit -- they love to excommunicate! Sticking out tongue

Regarding David Kelley

Doug Bandler The Second's picture


You know in hindsight I actually think that Kelley was right about the way a philosophic movement should progress. An intellectual movement, especially a philosophical one, should have an element of humility about it. Yeah, I know Rand didn't like that term. But... Ideas especially epistemological ideas (and their implementation) are hard. I think that in comparing ARI dogmatism vs TOC KASSlessness, dogmatism is worse.

The right balance for an intellectual movement is not an easy thing to achieve but I'm starting to think that Kelley's approach could have worked if there were better people involved. I say that without certainty though. But from what I have seen now, having gone through many paradigm shifts and having immersed myself in many ideological outlooks (what O'ist has done that?), it would have been a great thing if some attempted synthesis of Austrian and Randian idea sets had been undertaken. Objectivists are really ignorant about the Austrians and particularly Rothbard's achievements. He was both brilliant and prodigious. Even if market anarchism is flawed, the Randian blacklist of Rothbard is a disgrace.

I can envision an Objectivist movement that simultaneously:

1) sought to preserver Rand's original system as she presented it

2) study that system with an eye to identify flaws and weakness and seek to improve that system all the while doing so from a pro-liberty perspective

3) allow for criticism of elements of Rand's system and attempted refinements

4) productive projects with other pro-liberty movements especially the Austrians to offer a more comprehensive philosophic / political package (moral compromise could have been avoided in such unertakings)

5) awareness that specialty fields like economics, military history, religious history, etc need specialty intellectuals / professionals and seeking arrangements with those intellectuals to improve (and offer) a Randian perspective

If I were a billionaire like the Koch brothers I would have funded an institution that would have attempted a Randian / Austrian synthesis, that would have made a detailed analysis of market anarchism and offered a very detailed account of what it is and why it won't work (or is unlikely to work)*, that would have offered a more detailed version of Minarchist political theory (ala Nozick), would have studied Islamic history, theology, culture (ala Bill Warner), and would have created a branch of military studies with the right personnel to integrate pro-liberty theory with legitimate self-defensive war theory (and thus offered an alternative to *both* NeoCon altruist warmongering and libertarian "non-interventionism"). I also would have created a philosophical school (complete with its own journal) that could have had all the peaceful debates about epistemology and ethics with academics that David Kelley wanted.

The takeaway: ARI's approach to intellectual movements is wrong. They have made it about selling Rand. I would have made it about selling liberty with Rand as a foundation. This would have avoided cultism. I would have tried to create an organization that could simultaneously preserve a tradition but improve on that tradition and apply it to many different fields. I would have had a more mature starting point that understood that *one person can not get everything right*. Incidentally, this is what the Austrians sell: a tradition not a person. Its not just Von Mises that offered the 2 tablets of pro-liberty wisdom for all to see. No, its the Austrian *tradition* which had a collection of brilliant, visionary men starting with Menger. And those men built on earlier knowledge culminating with Rothbard's treatment of economics which was one of the best ever. That is a different approach than ARI's approach of Rand worship. (Think here about the Conservative criticism that Objectivism is yet another Jewish matriarchal cult - you can see that it is not unwarranted to think that given the state of OrgOism past and present.)

I've come to think that even though Kelley was a wimp, he was (and is) not an arrogant, pretentious, unlikeable asshat; something pretty much all ARIans are. I still don't agree with Rothbardian anarchism but I think that Lew Rockwell has created a better organization with the Von Mises Institute than Peikoff did with the ARI. Think of this, the Von Mises Institute offers all of Rothbard's and Mises's works for free. There were 25 libertarians at the time of the 1974 meeting in South Royalton Vermont (the legendary meeting of the then libertarian movement which featured Rothbard and many of today's older Austrians; ie Salerno, Block, etc). Rockwell started Mises Univesity in 1983. There are more libertarians today then Objectivists and you had one of the most pro-liberty Congressmen in US history win a primary in a national election (Ron Paul). You have celebrities that openly state they are market anarchists (ie defacto Rothbardians). There is no one that would openly claim to be a Randian minarchist or some such.

Rockwell has done more for Rothbard and Mises then Peikoff and Brook have done for Rand.


* This MUST be done imo. Market anarchism is TOO popular to just wave off with an "its just subjectivism" line. Rothbard's political and *economic* arguments why defense services could be privatized should have been treated seriously. That Objectivism did not do this was a MAJOR tactical mistake, akin to Hayek not writing a criticism of Keynes "General Theory" when it came out in 1936 (interesting history to that). Market anarchism appeals to the empirical / technician mindset which many upper middle class white males have (the target demographics for the liberty movement; ie "pale and male"). You can't just ignore those people the way OrgOism did. Big mistake.

No grasp of history or culture

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

History is not their friend on most issues. So, the choose the remain ignorant of the subject.

You know, I think Marxists make better historians than Objectivists. Their framework is corrupt but they get the details largely right. Objectivists just don't understand the importance of culture. Its said so often but Objectivism really has become a movement drowning in philosophic rationalism.

I've come to think of Objectivism this way. I think what Rand gave can be thought of as "scaffolding". She laid down a nice outline for a total pro-liberty system but she did not give the details; ie the total building. And the devil is in the details. Objectivists approach every subject with nothing more that that scaffolding; ie broad propositions about reason, ethics, rights, individualism, etc. In that way they *do* come off as infantile (thus the overgrown teenager smear which is sadly not unwarranted).

Objectivist ignorance is nowhere more obvious (and repulsive) than with the subject of Islam. Allow mass immigration of Muslims but deport the "totalitarians" and execute them no less. Jesus fu**ing Christ.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

When I read your descriptions of what Orthos write, say, Tweet, I think to myself of what Tom Woods and Chris Cantwell often say. They (both Rothbardians) will comment that they read the Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, etc "so you don't have to". I get a laugh out of that. Because I have to be in a particular type of mental frame to read leftist literature and "thinking". Its like preparing yourself to walk through a sewer; you have to get ready to be nauseated. But from the quotes that Neil is giving, OrgOism now produces the same gag reflex.

I find it difficult to even read what they are putting out there. I find myself either reading the better alt-right social commenters (Sailer makes some good points) or reading or listening to the Austrians. Both have their strengths and their weaknesses. And I say to myself that Objectivism, if it was a mature movement with mature people, could have really produced more powerful analysis. I keep waiting for an Objectivist Larry Auster. I won't hold my breath.


Richard Wiig's picture

He might not have blocked you. Something happened to his Facebook settings awhile back and people were blocked from commenting, of which I was one. Bosch had no idea that they were blocked. The setting that caused the problem has since been changed, so you might find that commenting is enabled for you again.

Molly and Mike C Update Us On The Election

Neil Parille's picture


Grant Jones's picture

Thanks for the correction on Ghate being the co-author of ARI's latest book.

Valliant is obsessed with the looming Christian theocracy. Don't bother explaining to these people that America was far more religious during the "laissez-faire" nineteenth century than it is today. Don't bother explaining to them that the abolition movement was motivated by Christian beliefs and led by people who make Jerry Falwell appear secular. History is not their friend on most issues. So, the choose the remain ignorant of the subject.

Typical ARI Analysis

Neil Parille's picture

I probably have mentioned this before, but this is Ari Armstrong's piece in which he supports "open immigration" of Muslims into Europe, America and Israel.


Observe that Ari wants to allow immigration of "rights respecting" Muslims. How do we know whether a Muslim respects rights? How do we screen them? There are MENA countries that don't even have laws against domestic abuse, so any background check (which we wouldn't trust anyway) is worthless.

The tone is rather condescending, but anyway consider this:


If an immigrant commits a particularly serious crime? then the government may deport, imprison, or even (in the case of first-degree murder) execute him; if an immigrant acts as an agent of an enemy state or regime, then the government may turn him over to the U.S. military for interrogation or execution.


Among other things, how do we deport Muslims since many of their countries don't accept them back. How does Germany deport Muslim rapefugges to Syria? Drop them out of a plane?

And when Israel becomes majority Islamic and the majority of its judges, police and prosecutors are Muslims, what does that entail for the rest of the population?

Incidentally, Doug had an excellent analysis of Armstrong on the 2012 elections:

Grant & Linz

Neil Parille's picture

"He baldly states that nationalism is evil."

This is Brook's line as well. Well, there is nationalism and then there's nationalism. Brook and all these Objectivists have twitter posts about how great the Olympics are because it supposedly celebrates human achievement and all that. But the only reason why people are watching these events every four years that no one ever watches (diving, etc.) is out of nationalism. (I got this point from Steve Sailer.)

If nationalism is evil, then why is Israe entitled to create an ethno-religious state and forcibly deport immigrants (and not just the Muslims)?

Minor point, Journo's book is co-written with Ghate.

Linz: "BTW, has ARI come out and said Mike Pence will be the harbinger of a Christian theocracy?"

Your buddy Jim Valliant recently said on Amy Peikoff's show that the religions right is a greater threat to our freedom than the secular left. Yes, the secular left which has made a demonic pact with Islam is a greater threat than people who want to ban queer marriage and close stores on Sundays.

Fascinating analysis Grant

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It occurred to me also that ARI has morphed into what used to be the IOS, now The Atlas Society (and all but invisible). I was a staunch supporter of IOS at the outset and spoke at several of their events, which were big deals back then. Then David got into bed with Nathaniel and I ended up blacklisted!

The history of OrgOism is a sorry spectacle. It hasn't yet come right. OrgOism should abound in the sorts of debates we have here. Neither side of the OrgOist divide can accommodate good faith dissent.

BTW, has ARI come out and said Mike Pence will be the harbinger of a Christian theocracy?


Grant Jones's picture

Thank you, Doug. I do appreciate your taking the time to read and comment on my posts. I agree 100% that the OrgOism is completely, and willfully, clueless about cultural Marxism. They hardly ever comment upon it. For decades the OrgOism has sought academic "respectability." They're just like Cuckservatives who seek the approval of their sworn enemy. It goes back no later than David Kelley's infamous 1989 response to Peter Schwartz's equally retarded attack on him for speaking at a book store function. Kelley's view that an "academic Marxist" may not be a bad guy and is just wrong caused much comment at the time. But, today, ARI as basically adopted Kelley's view. The cultural left is the ocean they swim in; and, they don't even notice the water anymore. They've been converged - to use a phrase from the "alt-right."

Another example is Peter Schwartz's "The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest" published by ARI several years ago. It's truly awful. As usual, Schwartz demonstrates his ability to parrot Objectivist boilerplate on self-interest and individual rights. As usual, he demonstrates his profound ignorance of the topic at hand. As usual, he demonstrates his inability to engage in inductive reasoning. He baldly states that nationalism is evil. Hence, a foreign policy not based on the national self-interest. Because to say that all Americans qua Americans have the same interests when it comes to foreign policy is "collectivism." Of course, their rational self-interest shouldn't conflict in this context anyways. He seems to view the United States of America as a mere geographical expression that just happens to protect individual rights for some unknown reason. Schwartz seems to consider American culture and national character as an unchanging metaphysical absolute, instead of its being a highly contingent man-made fact. He would benefit from reading Rand's article on this subject. The writing of Samuel P. Huntington on this topic is much, much better.

Schwartz can't identify the national interest beyond the floating abstraction (for him) that the sole purpose of the government is to protect individual rights. The actual mechanics of this lofty goal applied to foreign policy is beyond him. Some examples: He is obsessed with Iran as if this were still 1990. He uses some form of the evasive weasel phrase "totalitarian Islam" no less than nineteen times in this short pamphlet. He still sees the current global conflict with jihad as something occurring between nation-states (although - because? - nationalism is evil). He mentions the greatest threat we face, the hijrah, not at all. He seems to really think that our problem with Islam can be solved largely by military means. He's hopeless, in a word.

I highly recommend Jamie Glazov's great book "United in Hate." In it he establishes that both the left and Islam are animated by Death Worship. This is the kind of work ARI should be producing, but never will. Its current foreign policy and military "export" spends his time retweeting cultural Marxist talking points. Journo's newest book with Yawon Bwook actually features the phrase "Islamic totalitarianism" in its title. As with SWJ, the OrgOism can be counted upon to double-down on the Stupid. It's all so embarrassing. Ayn Rand deserves much better.

Gran'ts comment is top notch

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

It really is. This is the type of thinking that should be *standard* for Objectivists. Filial loyalty is a concept that O'ists just can't grasp (of course not, their conception of "individualism" leaves no room for familial devotion, that might be "collectivism"). They also can't grasp the multi-generational aspects of immigration. Gran't also makes a very simple point that should be obvious: Fawstin represents the best of Islamic immigrants and look how RARE he is. If you only get one liberty lover out of thousands (tens of thousands? millions?) of Muslim immigrants you are going to LOSE your society.

Another point Grant makes which OrgOism does not fully grasp is that our ENTIRE society is dominated by the Left; ie those "D2 Nihilists" that Peikoff thinks are going to lose power to the fundamentalist Christians!! And the Left aims at transforming the West into their egalitarian utopia. To that end they will ally themselves with Muslims no matter what savagery Muslims commit. For a Leftist, the racial transformation of the West in accordance with their racial egalitarian vision is what matters. Suffering through Islamic savagery is just a transaction cost of getting to that utopian vision. No matter how many women get raped or have acid thrown on their faces or how many Infidels are killed or how much the quality of life decreases, none of that matters to a Leftist. What matters to a Leftist is applying their egalitarian vision to every area of society; economic, familial, sexual and racial. Objectivists don't see this. They have not updated Rand's version of armageddon from 'Atlas Shrugged'. Big mistake.

A man like Grant should have been one of the leaders of the Objectivist movement as well as men like Lindsay. Not me. I'm way too temperamental and imbalanced. I have fantasies about throwing Leftists out of helicopters (and some Objectivists too). This comment is so good perhaps it should be its own post.

Issue of Loyalty

Grant Jones's picture

Fawstin exemplifies the conflicting loyalties of many (most?) immigrant and second/third generation Americans. Fawstin is from a Bosnian Moslem family that immigrated to the USA. He was written about his experiences growing up Moslem at length. Although an atheist and Objectivist, he still has conflicting loyalties and issues over identity. Hence, his almost schizophrenic pronouncements on the importation of the hijrah/jihad. Obviously the issue of deportation and/or ending the hijrah hits home for Fawstin. He wants to be a good, loyal American (I presume). But, he also has filial loyalty to content with.

It takes a great deal of ruthlessness and emotional hardness to just "walk away" from one's family and birth culture. Most people just can't do it. I don't blame them; I couldn't. I don't have to because my birth culture/nation is objectively superior to all others. Luck of the birth lottery. But, if that wasn't the case, I won't claim I could abandon my cultural upbringing and legacy.

The above issue is just one of many that OrgOism shamelessly evades. It is an issue the presents itself even under the best case scenario of a free society with a healthy screening/assimilation process. Add the current nihilism of "multiculturalism," white guilt and anti-white/American hatred emanating from the media and academia, and we have the Balkanization of the country well under way. By Fawstin's own testimony, he is the only real American in his entire extended family. The rest should be immediately deported. Such action is clearly in the national self-interest. This logical conclusion is a bridge that Fawstin can't/won't cross. And he's the best that we have from the last several decades of the hijrah. But, filial bonds blind him to reality. He lashes out at anyone such as myself or Ky who state the obvious. Of course, Fawstin has a perfectly understandable excuse for his blindness. Yawon Bwook's primary loyalty being to a foreign nation is transparently obvious. However, native born real Americans don't have this excuse. They're just blind, stupid or worse.

Boy are we in trouble

Neil Parille's picture

Love This Guy

Neil Parille's picture


Neil Parille's picture


Culture, Culture, Culture

Neil Parille's picture


Neil Parille's picture

"Objectivism as a movement should have seen the error of the combination of military action and open immigration and Islam. They also should have seen that despotism and violence are inherent in Islamic societies, and Muslims bring their culture with them. "

According to Brook, et al. because Western societies assimilated Europeans like my Italian grandparents decades ago, in an ideal world we could assimilate Muslims, Tree Worshipers, Vodoo Practitioners, etc.

However, we have three generations of Muslim, Hispanic, etc. immigration and the assimilation of these groups isn't very promising. But for Brook, Fawstin, et. al none of this matters. As Brook said on Twitter recently if we were a "confident" culture we wouldn't have to worry about immigration. Who cares about empirical evidence?

Military action as the solution

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Like Oblefivists he thinks the solution to Islamic terror is military action

That is the fundamental error of OrgOism. But they refuse to question that starting premise. IMO, its because to them "bold military action" is the equivalent of egoism and anything else is altruism. This is the classic case where the filters that Neil talks about rear their ugly heads; ie "altruism vs egoism" "subjective vs intrinsic" "individualist vs collectivist". Its not that these are erroneous concepts but that they are very broad. The devil is in the details, especially when you are painting with such a broad philosophical brush. Objectivism as a movement should have seen the error of the combination of military action and open immigration and Islam. They also should have seen that despotism and violence are inherent in Islamic societies, and Muslims bring their culture with them.

But they haven't and the more Islamic atrocities we see the more I realize that O'ist foreign policy is so bad it makes libertarian "non-interventionism" look smart.


Neil Parille's picture

I have asked him on Twitter what his view of immigration is, and he refuses to answer. I assume therefore that he supports unlimited Islamic immigration into Europe and the US.

Like Oblefivists he thinks the solution to Islamic terror is military action

Brave and Heroic

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Bosch Fawstin is remarkably brave and heroic. But without explanation he defriended and blocked me on Facebook more than two years ago.

Comment viewing options

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