Yaron Brook on the Nice attack

Mark Hunter's picture
Submitted by Mark Hunter on Thu, 2016-08-25 17:41

The latest article on ARI Watch is
The Limit of Absurdity
It describes the Ayn Rand Institute’s take on Muslim terrorism in Europe.


Ideas Rule the World -- Not People

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

"Death to Islam" isn't "Death to Muslims". I say: Death to Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism too. Also ethical Collectivism and Altruism. And political Right-wing Conservatism and Left-wing Progressivism. Death to ALL false and evil ideas and ideals!

Sorry for that, not exactly genocide but its intimation

gregster's picture

I wrote that last post from my phone, from memory. Looking again Peter put it: And yet in all his years of opposing and writing about Islamic thuggery, his decade-long singular obsession, his thinking has never matured beyond “Death to Islam.” No solutions at all, zero, beyond “not one Muslim,” a policy enthusiastically embraced at the fever swamp. As if it were possible to simply ban or bar or wipe out 1.5 billion people from existence.

Not One Muslim = Genocide?!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

That's what he's arguing?! And you respect that Greg?! Dear Galt!!

Time will tell

gregster's picture

It's obvious that defensive measures need to be enacted to protect citizens from the Islam hijrah. That some take "Not One Muslim" to mean genicide is a mark of their hyperbolic misrepresentation. At least when you Linz speak for effect there is more than a kernel of truth. ARI has lost its way. I am yet to be persuaded otherwise. Some contributors here obscure your good points but in the interest of free debate you don't bar them. Molyneux talks too much shit. The gay guy Milo is talented, as is the other from Infowars. I believe only positive can issue from this more open battle of ideas. Peter Cresswell still has my respect if he shows that his arguments are in good faith. We can't all agree. But I can agree that immigration of slime is harmful, altruistic by any welfare state. We owe the enemy nothing. Settlers must demonstrate their good intentions. Or it's Planet of the Apes.

Magnificent Pandemonium

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here's what an attendee, someone I don't know, e-mailed me the next day:

Lindsay,

Thank you for your speech last night at the NZInitiative debate. There are precious few people willing and able to stand up against the facsist left and their embrace of totalitarian Islamism. Dame Susan's inability and/or unwillingness to respond to your critique was most telling.

That was the reason I was silenced, not the fact I'd gone overtime. I made clear that I was on the verge of finishing, so what difference at that point would it have made, to paraphrase the evil cow whom HillARIans enable?

ARISIS = "Fascist left" and "totalitarian Islamism" (is there any other kind?). ARISIS's shills are now out in force doing their dirty work on me, apparently. Cowardly scum.

Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

There was a poll recently that said 30 percent of Mexicans would move to the US if they could. that's 40 million people. If you use equivalent percentage that would be 60 million Brazilians. In fact, the US would turn into Brazil , with its favelas and gated communities.

If Brazill is so great, why don't open immigration objectivists move there?

It's easy for Brook and Binswanker in their white gated communities to lecture the rest of us on how racist we are. If they believed their crap that immigration makes America bette they'd move to some Somali area of Minneapolis.

I can at least attest....

Olivia's picture

that the account here of the Auckland debate, as told by Linz, is an accurate one on the Magnificent Pandemonium thead. I have no idea why PC, who was not there, would doubt it in such a public fashion.

As far as I'm concerned ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... this debate absolutely will take place. Amy knows that I proceed in good faith, and I know that she does—which is where Doug got it so woefully wrong. Now, since when would two people with differing views held in good faith not debate each other? Well, since OrgOism fell into the clutches of the likes of Binswanker and Warts, I guess. In any event, as far as I'm concerned it's all go. But not right away. I truly don't want to do this at seven in the morning, so we must, as Amy says, wait for the time zones to change. That also means, in my case, waiting till the end of my Mario Lanza tour. So we're looking at early November. I'm sorry if that seems like a long way off, but remember—as Kyrel observes, nothing like this has happened between OrgOism and non-OrgOism before, so it's worth waiting for.

Even more exciting than the debate about Islamigration, the debate about the state of OrgOism Amy is open to (though of course they're closely related). Remember, the last time this nearly happened, between me and the TAS wing of OrgOism, the Brandroids shut it down. Not the Randroids, the Brandroids. The Kelley-ites!

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

In her debate with Linz (if it actually happens) I challenge Amy to present a coherent argument on how importing another third of Mexico, or any Moslems, is in the interests of the American people. Such an argument would not be based on the alleged "rights," interests, desires, wants or needs of the prospective immigrant. I don't care about any of that. I'm not an altruist. Better yet either Amy or Brook could present such argument in writing, instead of some rambling oral presentation. A written statement would be objective and clear (hopefully). Then, Amy and Brook could not claim to be misunderstood or taken out of context. As it stands, it's somewhat difficult to know what their views on the topic are at any particular time. Although, Brook has been pretty clear about it in some of his recent podcasts.

Brook said on one of his shows that it false to say that the mass importation of Mexicans into California has not made it a worse place.

It would be nice to know precisely what Brook and Amy think about immigration.  They often claim they are misrepresented.

Greg

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I shall not click on that link. But I've heard about it. If the local shill for ARISIS has the guts to post it here, he's welcome. I gather he claims my account of the Uni debate is flawed. Odd, given that he boycotted the event and wasn't there. On whose account is he relying, I wonder? And in what respect is my account flawed, I also wonder.

At least Mr Cresswell is stabbing from the side, for a change. But let him do it frontally, right here.

Debate

gregster's picture

When Linz is finished with Amy, he may like a discussion with Peter Cresswell.. or he may not.
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2016/...

Linz and Amy Debate

Grant Jones's picture

Before it takes place I hope Amy will educate herself on the topic of Islam, jihad, sharia and immigration in general.

Stephen Coughlin's book "Catastrophic Failure" is a good place to start on the massive Moslem/left fifth column and why the USA shouldn't import more of it.

Paul Fregosi's "Jihad in the West" thoroughly documents that vicious aggression is integral to Islam and has been conducted for the last 1400 years.

Robert Spencer and many other excellent writers/researchers have documented the stealth jihad in the West. I'll add that 90%+ of the West's Islam problem stems from the savages our traitorous governments have allowed to invade.

Moslems invade, they don't "immigrate" in the usual meaning of the term. This fact is demonstrated in "Modern Day Trojan Horse" by Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi. They provide a great review of the doctrine of hijrah.

Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" is indispensable. Huntington's "Who Are We" is a magnificent work that well documents the threat to American culture and liberty posed by the mass importation of Mexico/Latin America.

I was mentioned, but not by name, in Amy's hour long "rant" last week. On occasion, I Facebook link to Yaron Brook on stories I post on the latest results in Europe and America of his no-borders (for America) dogma. I will continue to do so. Brook should not be allowed to fake reality and hide from it in his exclusive, gated, lily-white "community." As was mentioned previously on this thread, turning vast parts of the United States into Mexico is not in the interests of the American people. I'm a third generation Californian who left my home state over twenty years ago because the policies that Brook champions have rendered the place unlivable.

In her debate with Linz (if it actually happens) I challenge Amy to present a coherent argument on how importing another third of Mexico, or any Moslems, is in the interests of the American people. Such an argument would not be based on the alleged "rights," interests, desires, wants or needs of the prospective immigrant. I don't care about any of that. I'm not an altruist. Better yet either Amy or Brook could present such argument in writing, instead of some rambling oral presentation. A written statement would be objective and clear (hopefully). Then, Amy and Brook could not claim to be misunderstood or taken out of context. As it stands, it's somewhat difficult to know what their views on the topic are at any particular time. Although, Brook has been pretty clear about it in some of his recent podcasts.

Yes!

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Olivia -- I so agree! It would be the world's first Objectivist discussion in public between an ARIan and non-ARIan. Peikoff should absolutely interview Lindsay about immigration on her radio show. I bet everyone would be respectful and polite.

She should also interview me about Objectivist cultism. I'm endlessly told that I absurdly and grotesquely exaggerate the phenomenon, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Let's see if this is actually true. She can bring on as many opponents as she likes to dispute me. In my view, nothing hurts the Objectivist Movement -- or the current ascent of man -- more than this god-awful religious take on Ayn Rand's magnificent thought. Let's hear it debated by someone who opposes and reviles it more than anyone else on earth. Smiling

Linz & Amy...

Olivia's picture

I hope you two do get together for a recorded discussion on these issues. It would be a very interesting and informative event for so many people. I imagine it would be rather lively too - the sort of stuff the world needs right now!

Yet More Racism From Molly

Neil Parille's picture

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

He interviews a lady who wrote a book defending free speech.

More Racism From Molly

Neil Parille's picture

Colin Kapeirnick situation (won't stand for the National Anthem).

Maybe Molly, like the rest of us, is trying to learn from experience.

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

Burka Comment

Neil Parille's picture

As I'm sure you know, it was sarcastic. She's an attractive woman but supports the de facto Islamization of Europe. Maybe she didn't get the sarcasm, but I've used the line before (talking about Brook's wife, whose picture I've never seen).

Maybe Amy doesn't know it, but there are areas in some European cities where woman can't walk down the street without being called "whores" by Muslim men if they aren't wearing veils.

EDIT: (I posted this before) - Molenbeeck

_______________

Nowhere was there a bar or café where white, black and brown people would mingle. Instead, I witnessed petty crime, aggression, and frustrated youths who spat at our girlfriends and called them “filthy whores.” If you made a remark, you were inevitably scolded and called a racist. There used to be Jewish shops on Chaussée de Gand, but these were terrorized by gangs of young kids and most closed their doors around 2008. Openly gay people were routinely intimidated, and also packed up their bags.

_________

Neil

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You called her an airhead. She came on and took that in good humour. You then had the good grace to apologise. But then we got the Burka comment. Much of the rest of what you wrote was absolutely fair and pertinent, but telling Amy she'd look good in a burka is not likely to encourage her to linger for debate. Who's the airhead exactly?!

The post by Doug I awoke to this morning was foul. I get that he's enraged with OrgOism, as am I, but there's a line between enraged and deranged, and he crossed it.

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

You write:
___

I don't get it with you and Neil. You bellyache away about OrgOists not showing up here to debate, and when one does show up you both repair immediately to vile and untrue ad hominem and drive her away! Why would anyone hang around to put up with that?!
_____

Doug can speak for himself, but I didn't engage in "vile and untrue ad hominem." I merely pointed out that, for all her protestations that she doesn't agree with open immigration of Muslims in Europe, she supports a policy (unlimited immigration of properly screened Muslims) that would turn Europe Islamic. She didn't exactly deny that.

I drove her away? Sheesh, we engaged in more invective every day during the PARC Wars.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Linz, your position ends up weak because as Neil pointed out, you think that the war with Islam is some temporary state of affairs that will end. IT WILL NEVER END. Not until Islam does. Or until Islam is changed internally. That is a LONG historical phenomenon, if it ever happens.

As long as we're at war, Not One Muslim. If that's for ever, so be it.

I've deleted your vicious and monstrously ignorant personal attack on Amy, all the more deplorable because you're here pseudonymously, and placed you under moderation.

I don't get it with you and Neil. You bellyache away about OrgOists not showing up here to debate, and when one does show up you both repair immediately to vile and untrue ad hominem and drive her away! Why would anyone hang around to put up with that?!

Linz

Amy Peikoff's picture

When the next government-imposed clock-setting adjustments take place, it will be 9 a.m., your time. Maybe that will be doable? Smiling

I'll take my leave now, for obvious reasons. Thanks to you and Olivia. I'll be in touch soon.

Jihadists

Andrew Atkin's picture

If it's true that most Muslims fund and morally support jihadist groups, then that is serious and it needs to be widely understood by the West - and us.

Clearly any Muslim that does this should be blocked from entering New Zealand. They should also be blocked if they believe in sharia law.

We don't need this sick b.s in our country.

Neil nails it - Objectivists remain blind (even Linz)

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I don't know your position on this, but Doug and I take the position that the West has been at war with Islam since its first armies crossed in Byzantine territory and we will be at war until as long as there is Islam. (Islam thus is not like Nazism or Shintoism, the OrgOists favorite comparisons.) This justifies a permanent no-Muslim immigration (or even entrance) policy and their eventual outmigration.

This is the fundamental flaw of people like Binswanger, Brook, Biddle, etc. They see the current "Islamic totalitarianism" as a recent manifestation that can be defeated. To the extent that they agree with restricting Islamic immigration, they will open the floodgates after the war is won.

This is excellent. I first learned this from Auster and it blew my mind. That a Christian Platonist was capable of such clear and potent thinking while Objectivists had their collective heads up their asses was also shocking at the time.

Islam is *perpetual war*. The very religion itself creates a state of war and thus it must be treated as a mortal enemy. Objectivists have this Leftist view that they can convert Muslims with a liberal philosophy (in their case old liberalism) all the while waging devastating war in Muslim countries. That is insane. But Neil's excellent point is that there is no "once the battle is won" period. Muslims as Muslims can NEVER be included in a free society. They represent a never ending threat to the very idea of a free society. The entire Objectivist foundation is wrong on Islam which is why they generate such trash.

I argue that when we're at war, there is no limit in how far government can go in keeping Muslims out of a country.

Linz, your position ends up weak because as Neil pointed out, you think that the war with Islam is some temporary state of affairs that will end. IT WILL NEVER END. Not until Islam does. Or until Islam is changed internally. That is a LONG historical phenomenon, if it ever happens.

Your position is far better than OrgOism, but in the end it is still weak. And imo, it is still altruistic. Sacrifice of the Kafir to the Muslim; ie sacrifice of virtue to vice. That's how Kant's CI is being implemented today. I'm sure Rand would have seen that. But clearly Objectivist "intellectuals" like Amy et all don't. That enrages me.

Passive and Activist Muslims

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- No, it's virtually all. You're not a true Muslim if you don't back jihad and sharia. You're an apostate or infidel needing to be killed. Some Muslims are passive supporters of jihad and sharia, and some are active. But basically all true Muslims support these two central social ideals. And virtually all put their money where their mouth is, and use Islamic charities to fund the murderers and enslavers.

Kyrel

Neil Parille's picture

You write:
______

Today they virtually all support jihad (war) and sharia (slavery). They virtually all offer moral and verbal support to the jihadis, and donate to their groups. And, yes, ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution or so, almost all Muslims worldwide have been involved in a low-level war against the West and America.
______

I wouldn't say "virtually all." It's better say that we can't tell those who do from those who don't. And even if we could, the bad side of Islam would eventually reasssert itself (as it has done with 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in Franc).

Easy Obvious Solution

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

For the most part, this Western and American immigration problem is so easy to solve. Just let in the Good Guys -- the ones which overall improve the nation. Keep out the Bad Guys -- the ones which overall degrade the nation. This is rational self-interest and collective self-improvement applied to the relatively-civilized nation. This is the trader principle in which both parties profit or benefit from a mutually agreed-upon, win-win transaction.

Low-lifes, criminals, beggars, cripples, the impoverished, the diseased, the crazy, etc. should almost entirely be kept out. So too ideological undesirables such as communists, fascists, Satan-worshippers, and religious fanatics.

And certainly almost all Muslims. Today they virtually all support jihad (war) and sharia (slavery). They virtually all offer moral and verbal support to the jihadis, and donate to their groups. And, yes, ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution or so, almost all Muslims worldwide have been involved in a low-level war against the West and America. They're causing us trillions of dollars in damage. And they mostly seek to slaughter millions of innocents via nuking New York and Washington -- if not Los Angeles, Chicago, London, and Paris.

Muslims today constitute truly bad Bad Guys and, except for a handful of anti-Muslim Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bosch Fawstin, truly need to be kept out.

Another Comment On Free Will

Neil Parille's picture

Objectivists are forever attacking people (particularly immigration restrictionists) for allegedly advocating determinism and denying free will. I'd suggest people look at Mark's essay on Nice and read closely the quotes from Brook. Brook blames not the terrorists, but the (real) Europeans for not having enough self confidence to somehow convert them.

Don't these terrorists have free will? Take the Nice killer, who was born in Tunisia. When he came to France, did he lose his free will? Why didn't he realize that, for whatever France's faults, its relative freedom gave him the opportunity for a better life?

This is no different from the Left blaming these attacks on "Islamophobia."

What Kind Of War?

Neil Parille's picture

Linz,

You write:
_______
I argue that when we're at war, there is no limit in how far government can go in keeping Muslims out of a country. Or removing them from a country.
______

I don't know your position on this, but Doug and I take the position that the West has been at war with Islam since its first armies crossed in Byzantine territory and we will be at war until as long as there is Islam. (Islam thus is not like Nazism or Shintoism, the OrgOists favorite comparisons.) This justifies a permanent no-Muslim immigration (or even entrance) policy and their eventual outmigration.

This is the fundamental flaw of people like Binswanger, Brook, Biddle, etc. They see the current "Islamic totalitarianism" as a recent manifestation that can be defeated. To the extent that they agree with restricting Islamic immigration, they will open the floodgates after the war is won.

Here is Harry Binswanger:
_________

1. Militarily crush Iran and its ally-states, in an all-out campaign (it would be too short to call it a war). That, coupled with a proper foreign policy, would end the rise of Islam and worry about Muslim immigration.
_______

No worries about Muslim immigration? (Guess he's never heard of Rotherham and Cologne.)

It's the neo-con invade the world, invite the world strategy. If Binswanger had given it any thought, he'd realize that an Islamic Europe would mean Europe's nukes under Islamic control. There goes Israel (which, like Brook, he exempts from the joys of open immigration).

And I'm not exaggerating here on this. When Brook debated Peikoff they both agreed that we could end the risk of Islamic terrorism in "three weeks" with a proper military policy. Muslims in Europe are such mind-numbed robots that they are too stupid to drive a truck into a crowd without some Imam telling them.

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

I'm pretty tame compared to you and Doug.

Amy

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And bravo on your recent talk! We're in agreement that Islam is poison. (Listen, e.g., to my Robert Spencer interview that I did years ago, which is available on BlogTalk.) Where we disagree, apparently, is how far government can go in keeping Muslims out of a country.

Apparently! Smiling I argue that when we're at war, there is no limit in how far government can go in keeping Muslims out of a country. Or removing them from a country. Trump had it right first time round. What's dismaying is then to hear OrgOists parrot the Left in shrieking "Racist! Xenophobe! Bigot!" "Fascist!" etc. That frustration with what I call Obleftivism is what you see boiling over here.

Now, the only impediment I can see to my calling your show is the obscenely early hour it airs NZ time. 7 am??!! I prefer to have no truck with the world before 7 *p*m and agree with Oscar Wilde that only shallow people are brilliant at breakfast!

Or maybe ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... he's run out!

More, less, whatever it takes, Neil—just fix it. This is not a PC place but comments like that are beyond the pale and don't advance the discussion you say you wish to have one jot.

Neil...

Olivia's picture

Thanks Amy, you are an attractive lady but you'll look even better in a Burka.

I take it that you've hit the vino, again.

Molly Interviews

Neil Parille's picture

. . . a young blond chippie. She went to Calais and Milwaukee etc. to see what's happening.

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

More Racism From Molly

Neil Parille's picture

Free Will

Neil Parille's picture

Amy -

Could you elaborate on your opinion that Molly's ideas are a repudiation of free will and an advocacy of determinism?

Take a non-controversial example. Males are more aggressive than females. This is due, in part, to higher free testosterone in males, more testosterone receptors in the brain, etc. That doesn't mean that any given male is determined to be a criminal or that any female is determined to be non-violent. But it does mean that in any society men will commit more crime than women. I certainly don't know of any exceptions.

Consider the example Molly gives: Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) "migrants" to Europe. The MENA IQ averages around 85, which is one full standard deviation below Europeans. Low IQ is correlated with higher crime, drug use, welfare dependency, etc. Even if Molly is wrong that these differences are genetic, they are nonetheless real. They seem so ingrained that they might as well be genetic.

So Europe will have all sorts of problems even if it properly vets MENA people.

I don't mean to be condescending, but have you studied mainstream writers on intelligence? What Molly says is not controversial even among leftists. For example, even Richard Nisbett (an avowed Marxist) thinks there are differences in intelligence among groups. Likewise James Flynn (a socialist). While they don't think these differences are genetic, they acknowledge they are real and relevant.

I'd recommend introductions on intelligence by Dreary and Ritchie.

Objectivism 2.0

Neil Parille's picture

I hope the talk is made available.

But does something prevent Ghate from coming here and defending his support for open immigration of Muslims into the West and Israel? Is there something that prevents Yaron from coming here and telling us why every country on Galt's green Earth should permit open immigration except Israel?

Ghate recently edited a book with Journo by ARI writers on "Islamic totalitarianism" (an absurd concept) with all of one mention of Islamic immigration.

Sure, these folks have plenty to do with their time, but Brook said he won't debate an immigration restrictionist.

EDIT: Yaron Brook and Harry Binswanger have said that opposition to immigration is based on racism. Why don't they defend this belief?

OrgOism...

Amy Peikoff's picture

Before we ever have a discussion of that, Lindsay, you'll have to check out Onkar's "Objectivist Movement 2.0" lecture. I hope they make it available soon. But yes, it would be fun to discuss immigration, Trump, etc. Feel free to call in at BlogTalk. Smiling

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/a...

And bravo on your recent talk! We're in agreement that Islam is poison. (Listen, e.g., to my Robert Spencer interview that I did years ago, which is available on BlogTalk.) Where we disagree, apparently, is how far government can go in keeping Muslims out of a country.

Amy

Neil Parille's picture

I apologize for calling you an airhead. Too much vino. You are obviously very bright. Some of us (or at least myself) overdo it in our criticism of those associated with the ARI. There are aspects of the ARI which I find unpalatable (open immigration, the rewriting of Rand's material, etc.) but one should always be polite.

I do not see how I have substantially misrepresented your views. If every properly screened Muslim were allowed into Europe, that would be sufficient to turn Europe Islamic.

Greetings Amy!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Welcome aboard—or should I say, back! I too enjoyed our meet-ups some of some years back. For the benefit of those here inclined to lump you in the "cultist" category let me say for the record I saw no sign of anything like that—and this, let me add, was after my prolonged, fierce disagreement with Leonard over his unconscionable fatwa as I called it, to vote Democrat across the board.

You'll have noted, Amy, it is I who have started to call the ARI "ARISIS" to convey my contempt for Yawon's sacrifist stance on Islamic immigration and the hypocrisy of his saying Israel is allowed a wall but America isn't (and then refusing to say why). He won't get anyone on his show who disagrees with him—the only people he "interviews" are echo-chambers. That's partly why his show is so boring. And he should fix his speech.

I'm encouraged to read your acknowledgment that we are at war and an open borders policy would be suicidal in that context. I think Trump's original "complete and total shutdown" of Islamic immigration was the right call and am dismayed that he's watered it down. Not One Muslim should be our default position. We can negotiate exceptions after that. I'd be happy to discuss on your show, and the state of OrgOism generally. Smiling

Good to see you here. I hope you're well and happy. Smiling

Gentlemen

Amy Peikoff's picture

If the subject heading applies to you...or at least to how you'd conduct yourself if you call into my show, please do. I would be happy to debate the substance of this there. It could make for good radio and, just think, you could show an ARISIS-type how wrong she really is! Smiling

My show is on Fridays 3 p.m. ET. (I think that's Saturdays at 7 a.m. for you kiwis.)

Yes, I did participate here a bit several years ago. And I enjoyed meeting Lindsay here in California a few years ago. Dropped by because of the link he shared on FB recently, and then weighed in here to defend my "airhead" self from misrepresentation of my views.

Oh, one more thing. I had a typo in my first response here. Onkar's lecture was called "Objectivist Movement 2.0," not "Objectivism 2.0". I think they plan to make it available on YouTube at some point.

Five-Leaf Clover

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- I clicked Amy Peikoff's name and it says she joined Solo Passion about 8 years ago. But I imagine she hasn't actually participated here in more than 7 years. So why should anyone abuse the ultra-rare ARI folks? They take part in open Objectivist discussions once in a blue moon -- if that. Peikoff is de facto new to Solo, and may conceivably have something of value to say.

New Solo Members

Neil Parille's picture

I believe Amy was here previously. I seem to recall her wading in on James "the Brandens are evil for throwing a surprise party" Valliant's nutty book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

Respect and Courtesy

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

For the record, I certainly think that new Solo Passion members and participants should be treated with respect and courtesy. Especially those who have unusual and challenging views which are stated intelligently.

The Second Amendment

Neil Parille's picture

Here is an opinion piece in The Washington Post about the effects of immigration on gun control.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

______________

The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.

______________

As far as ever having a society that respects freedom of association, I don't imagine that it's a virtue in Hispanic or Asian cultures.

Stefan

Neil Parille's picture

Amy,

Here is Stefan M. interviewing Charles Murray.

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

Here is him interviewing James Flynn (who takes the opposite view).

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

Then ask yourself Hyashi is being fair to Molyneux.

So rude toward someone about whom you are so apparently ignorant

Amy Peikoff's picture

"I'm not nice."

I noticed. So exactly why would I want to engage you, on this forum or anywhere else?

Nuke 'Em?

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- You write:

"I'm not against military action against Iran and SA. I just think it won't change things much. How would Cologne have not occurred if we nuked SA and Iran."

I've stated publically my foreign policy on dealing with dictatorships at least 50 times over the years. Seems like you should know it by now! Way before nukes are used -- if ever -- I want the top ten or so leaders of the gov't, military, police, party, and religion terminated in a highly targeted and precise fashion. Then the liberators should quickly encourage, or help set up, a liberal state in the overthrown nation, to the extent possible.

But, at any rate, get rid of the dictators and top bad guys first! Then probably flood the nation with liberal propaganda and education. Possibly offer to use a minimal amount of force to establish liberty and justice for a fee and profit. Go from there. No wholesale slaughter.

Jesus Christ Woman!!

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Also, in a proper society, we would all be perfectly free to discriminate against them, and offer them no job opportunities, etc.

Do you realize how ignorant of reality this statement is? No, of course you don't. If you did you wouldn't be the Randroid that you are. How are you going to get your "free society" when you are allowing non-Europeans to mass-immigrate into a welfare state democracy dominated by Leftist egalitarian political ideology in its late stage version; ie Cultural Marxism. Which in case you haven't realized amounts to *hatred of white heterosexual males* and everything associated with them; ie the totality of European civilization. Have you looked at the Left lately? Have you seen the SJW's. They are the Leftist shock troops starting to form. Have you seen "Black Lives Matter"? They are killing police officers in the name of white hatred and black nationalism. None of this was in 'Atlas Shrugged' so I understand that your only frame of reference hasn't properly prepared you for the world as it is now or more accurately the Left as it is now. Your ex-husband has many nutty ideas but his "D2 nihilists" was one of his better ones. And they are CULTURALLY DOMINANT. Do you not fear whites becoming a minority especially in such a culture? Do you think you're all white area in Irvine California will hold indefinitely? That's some real talk right there.

Non-whites vote disproportionately for more welfare state policies Amy. That "race realist" Stefan Molyneux has many well sourced videos showing this (hey maybe you could get Harry Binswanger to watch them.) All these black and brown immigrants that you are so desperate to have enter the country, a country by the way that was founded as a White settler nation - you do know that miss philosophy phd coupled with law degree, yes? Well it turns out all these immigrants are pretty anti-gay and anti-gun. Ho Ho! Guess what honey? Forget your 1st Amendment. Forget your 2nd Amendment. Actually, when whites become a minority why don't you just forget your entire Bill of Rights.

But let me ask you former Miss Peikoff, what happens when the Left controls the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court? What happens when white people are a minority and the Left succeeds in using Section 8 to place blacks and Hispanics and Muslims (!!) in every formerly white area in the country (except of course the area for the elites...). What happens then (read about Ferguson Missouri)? Ayn Rand wrote about "hatred of the good for being the good". Did you ever consider Miss Philosophy Phd that you could get "hatred of the white for being the white"? Have you led such a sheltered life that that is not real to you? Have you seen a Black Lives Matter rally lately? Too busy watching all those comic book movies with your boyfriend huh? Yeah, escapism works until it doesn't.

Amy, you think you have "addressed the issues" but you haven't addressed anything. Neil is being too nice to you. I'm not nice. There are holes from top to bottom with standard Randian analysis. This whole idea that you can differentiate between peaceful and non-peaceful Muslims shows you know nothing of how CULTURE actually works. And I haven't even got into the racial issues which are even more important than the religion.

As we have discussed here. Objectivism is saturated with philosophic rationalism. It is disconnected from reality and thus is offering NOTHING of value outside of technical philosophy. Your "analysis" proves this.

Utter Rarity

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I'm shocked, shocked that a religious and cult-style Objectivist like Amy Peikoff would dare to discuss the issues in a semi-open and free forum such as Solo Passion, however briefly. This constitutes a threat to her very essence and soul.

Bombing Islamic Countries

Neil Parille's picture

"Mass bombings of Muslim countries with all the Muslims that are in Europe now would be the defacto start of a never ending ethno-religious war between Muslims and Europeans."

I really wonder if Objectivists who make this argument (attacking Islamic countries) have ever considered what would result if the West decided to bomb Saudi Arabia and Iran. Muslims in France riot every year on New Years eve. Last year they burned or overturned 900 cars in France.

In France, the Algerians riot when Algeria qualifies for the World Cup (or doesn't qualify for the World Cup).

You can find videos of this on you tube.

But when the USA and France bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia, Objectivists think that they will say "oh, I guess we had it coming." The riots would make the LA riots of a few years ago look like a picnic.

Miss Peikoff - where to start?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Muslims who take their religion seriously pose a danger to Westerners everywhere.

This is weak. There is no way to differentiate Muslims who take their religion seriously from Muslims who don't. It also ignores the fact that Muslim immigration, as all non-Euro immigration" is a *multi-generational* phenomenon. It has been shown over and over that there is a great danger from 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who ultimately identify with their ethno-cultural origins; this is true for Amerindians as well as Muslims as well all non-whites.

Throw on top of it that Islam itself is a thinly veiled war movement whose ultimate aim is global conquest and letting in ANY Muslims is suicidal. The very religion should be banned. It is incompatible with notions of liberty. This is something that EVERY Classical Liberal derived movement (Rand is included in that) does not see and why real Right Wingers are correct in saying that Right Liberalism (all variants) is a suicide pact. If your movement can not even stop the most EVIL culture on earth from immigrating with the express intentions to destroy you, well, then your movement is shit.

There are dozens of other problems with Amy's standard ARIan arguments regarding Islam; ie the "bomb the world invite the world" nonsense that is Neo Conservatism on steroids (yes, you're even worse than those dreaded Neo Cons). If you're foreign policy solutions don't start with banning Muslim immigration and ultimately moving towards complete seperationism between Muslims and the European world, then anything *downstream* from that will be useless. And that is what Amy's (and OrgOism) "bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia to show strength, bla, bla, bla" strategy is. In fact its worse than useless. Mass bombings of Muslim countries with all the Muslims that are in Europe now would be the defacto start of a never ending ethno-religious war between Muslims and Europeans. *That would turn into a race war immediately* because in one sense that is what this is; an ethno-cultural conflict between two incompatible ethno-cultures: the Muslim world and the European world. But I know, that's getting way too biological for an OrgOist. I might as well be Hitler no doubt.

Yes Amy, by all means, go on Stefan Molyneux's show. Armed with all those "anti-eugeneicist" arguments from that hysterical Japanese kid you'll destroy Stefan Molyneux's "determinism" and prove to his whole audience the true power of free will. Also, please discuss your military plans on nuking Mecca or fire bombing Tehran all the while you want to allow the mass immigration of all those "good Muslims", just like your current boyfriend. But please don't get into the Chechen killers in Boston even though they were roughly from the same ethnic group. Oh we'll be able to tell the difference and spot the good ones for sure. No problem there.

Tell that to Molyneux. And don't forget to tell him where in Rand's philosophy you get this from. Also, tell him about all the good Muslim individualists that Europe will get if only you don't focus on all the white women (and underage girls - Rotherham you do remember that yes?) being raped or having acid thrown on their faces. That doesn't seem to bother Yawon Bwook, I don't see why it should bother you? Really Amy, go demonstrate your philosophy phd and your mastery of Objectivist epistemology for Molyneux. I'm sure you'll do wonders for helping Objectivists to "capture the culture".

I love to see ideas debated.

Big Assumption?

Neil Parille's picture

Well, Algeria has 40 million people and it's pretty close to France. Morroco (33 million) is just across the straights of Gilbralter.

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatl...

Polls have been taken of Mexicans and 30% have said they would come to the USA if they could. Mexico is wealthy compared to Muslim countries.

The population of the Islamic nations on the Mediterranean has to be at least 250 million.

Big assumptions

Amy Peikoff's picture

Not sure so many would be able to afford it with only private, voluntary charity to help them.

Also, in a proper society, we would all be perfectly free to discriminate against them, and offer them no job opportunities, etc.

But

Neil Parille's picture

There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. If only 10% came (which I assume would be able to afford it and passed screening) that would be 150 million. With high birth rate and the existing population of Europe that would be sufficient to turn Europe Islamic.

Incidentally, France is 10% Muslim and Muslims are 50-70% of the French prison population. It's not just terrorism that we have to worry about.

It's the same issue

Amy Peikoff's picture

Of course I would support restriction of the number of Muslims into Europe, on the same rationale. Muslims who take their religion seriously pose a danger to Westerners everywhere. Why wouldn't I?

You also left out my discussion of the fact that today, we have western governments using the tax dollars they've stolen from us to bring refugees in. Such a thing would be no part of a proper government.

Open Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

I should have been more accurate. You do not seem to oppose restricting the number of Muslims into Europe. That would lead to Europe becoming Islamic over time.

Airhead Here

Amy Peikoff's picture

How in the world did you get, from my podcast, that I support open immigration of Muslims? Please stop misrepresenting my views. I muted you on Twitter because of your repeated insistence that I spend my time defending Yaron's--not my--views.

(As to whether I sound like an airhead (at least sometimes), whatever. There are plenty of people who seem to get value from my show, despite my native Californian vocal handicap.)

On my show I said that I support substantial restrictions on Muslim immigration, because we are at war, and it is often impossible to do the type of background checks necessary to distinguish those who pose a danger from those who don't. And I said that I likened the exclusion of the sort of Muslims that Yaron discussed on his recent podcast--those who would be positively influenced by the translation of Rand's works into arabic--to the collateral damage of innocent civilians that is part of fighting a proper war. I'm not sure why he himself doesn't draw that analogy. I can't help it. My "airhead" brain tends to see analogies like that everywhere.

Anyway, carry on bashing ARISIS, or whatever your term of condemnation is this week. If you actually kept up with the culture of that which you are spending time insulting, you would be aware that the Objectivism 2.0 lecture that Onkar gave at this summer's conference discussed the inevitability and propriety of Objectivists having differing views on topics such as immigration.

And did any of you listen to the debate on immigration that I moderated? The one between Leonard and Yaron? That was years ago.

Molyneux

Neil Parille's picture

She claims that he denies free will (I don't believe he does) and that he is a genetic determinist. He does believe that there is likely a substantial genetic component to within group and probably between groups. So both culture and genes play a part. Wow, that's some racist kook from the alt right.

Just yesterday, Molyneux was very upset about welfare has done to the black family.

Molyneux, it should be noted, has interviewed hereditarians (such as Murray) and environmentalists (such as Flynn and Turkheimer).

Is Molyneux worse than Hitler now?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

What was said regarding Molyneux? That he is a "racial realist"? Oooohhhhh, what a nasty sounding phrase. I'm willing to bet that Amy Peikoff doesn't have the slightest clue as to what is involved with racial hereditarianism and has never exposed herself to the arguments in any significant way.

She really should debate Molyneux, especially on feminism and cultural Marxism. Amy's head would explode. And that's before Moly would educate her on IQ scores and the crime data and the demographic data, etc, etc, etc....

The War argument is stupid

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

This argument that ARIans have that if we destroyed Iran or Saudi Arabia that the world would be free from Islamic terrorism and belligerence is just f**king stupid. Brook and the OrgOists are idiots for hitching their *entire* foreign policy wagon to that argument. It shows the failure to understand that Islam is a mass cultural phenomenon that transcends nations. Bombing Iran or Saudi Arabia with all the Muslims that live in North America and Europe (over 40 million on the European continent) would result in a permanent gorilla war between Muslims and white people (you basically already have this but it would become escalated). The fabric of Euro-American society would be severely disfigured. It would be a nightmare. Brook and the ARIan gang are stupid, evil people for pushing that scenario on us.

Think about what the ARIans are saying: that they would rather kill millions of people and start a permanent ethno-religious war with the brown and black skinned Muslim world rather than simply stop Islamic immigration and deport the Muslims that are already here, a much easier and more humane solution. Larry Auster dealt with this when he was alive with the Neo Cons who yes believe it or not had pro-blood-lust war sentiments just like the OrgOists. Here is Auster:

http://archive.frontpagemag.co...

Goldblatt [a NeoCon] doesn't consider any options beside the total democratization of the Muslim world on one side and its mass destruction on the other. Scenarios such as the one I suggest below—of forcing and encouraging Western Muslims to move back to their home countries and isolating them there where they can't harm us—do not occur to him. He more easily envisions the slaughter of millions of Muslims in their native countries than the exclusion of Muslim immigrants from America. He would sooner contemplate genocide than be seen as intolerant.

[This is really no different than Yaron Brook. He would sooner kill millions of Muslims and nuke Mecca no less than simply end Muslim immigration. That latter part to an OrgOist is the equivalent of killing Jews at Aushwitz. Auster continues:]

The attitude is not at all rare today on the political right [even the Neo Con right]. The moral and practical idea of stopping all Muslim immigration, closing all Wahhabi mosques, and deporting all jihadists and terror supporters is unthinkable and is never spoken of. But the idea of killing millions of human beings is thinkable, and has been expressed—with sanguinary enthusiasm—many times. [This applies to Brook and the ARI gang and now to Kyrel who is arguing for it in the name of old style "Liberalism" no less! Jesus fucking Christ...]

Auster then goes on to make an important philosophical point about universalist philosophy:

This is a logical if extreme result of the ecumenist vision. Universalists cannot imagine radically different civilizations residing and flourishing in distinct spheres. They can only imagine a single global system formed by a single set of democratic ideas. A culture permanently hostile to democracy or to America defeats, by its very existence, the universalist idea. The only way to defend the idea from such a recalcitrant culture would be to annihilate it.

By contrast, civilizationists accept the fact of civilizational differences and have no fear of alien civilizations—so long as they stay in their own territory. It follows that we don't need to destroy Islam, we just need to contain it within its own sphere so that it can't threaten us.

Auster wrote those last two paragraphs directed to NeoConservatives with their Messianic desire to "spread democracy" to the world. But it could be applied to today's Objectivist movement just as well. Brook and Ghate want to have open borders so Ethiopians and Guatemalans can follow their dreams. Now they want to allow "good Muslims" to be let in so they can pursue their "individualist aspirations". They also want to simultaneously bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia into oblivion and they see no problems with these two ambitions. Throw in Kyrel wanting to bomb these countries to establish "liberal outposts" there and you see that mainstream Objectivism is awash in stupid and suicidal ideas.

Now you know why Objectivists aren't capturing any culture and why at root Objectivism is still considered shit philosophy by core Traditionalist Conservatives, the people you would have to win over to grow an anti-left political movement.

Amy P.

Neil Parille's picture

Yes, I'll give her some credit. She realizes how bad Clinton is and admitted that Trump is a "wild card" who could be ok.

And she doesn't demand the entire world call her "Dr. Peikoff."

Self Confidence, Self Esteem, etc.

Neil Parille's picture

As far as self-confidence and all that goes, the West was able to colonize most of the Muslim world from 1850 (not sure on the start date) to around 1950 with a minimal number of forces. That didn't cause Muslims to change their ways, nor did that self confidence do anything for the Muslims who started coming into Europe in the late 1950s and early 60s.

Give Amy P. some credit.

Mark Hunter's picture

Though Amy P. does say both Hillary and Trump are bad, in so many words she says Hillary is worse and that she must be defeated – implying, but maybe not saying it outright (I can’t listen to everything) that Amy P. supports Trump in order to defeat Hillary.

Mark

Neil Parille's picture

Brook discussed this issue on a recent podcast. He said that Muslims in the west are motivated by Wahabi preaching from Saudi Arabia and the success of ISIS. Now I think the success of ISIS in creating a state (rather than just blowing things up) has generated some of this, but it would happen anyway.

And of course Brook will never try to explain how the Cologne attacks would not have happened.

The alleged hijackers of 9/11

Mark Hunter's picture

The alleged hijackers of 9/11 infamy were based in the U.S. and Germany.

Dropping any number of nuclear bombs on Saudi Arabia and Iran while keeping or letting in their residents would not prevent these barbaric attacks.

If you deported Middle Easterners from the West then literally destroyed all Islamic countries, yes, the world would be better off. The second is difficult (just destroying the governments isn’t enough, witness Libya and Iraq). The deportation can be done, it just requires the will to do it. After that, with border control and refraining from attacking the Middle East either directly or by Israeli proxy, we would be better off.

“Flatten,” “crush,” “destroy” are more suitable for comic books than this discussion. In the real world flattening the Middle East would require dropping thousands upon thousands of nuclear bombs.

Besides, the problem is not just Muslims. See Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome.

Kyrel

Neil Parille's picture

I'm not against military action against Iran and SA. I just think it won't change things much. How would Cologne have not occurred if we nuked SA and Iran?

Why the ARIans are Such Fools

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Yaron Brook, Amy Peikoff, and the other ARIans form such foolish opinions because they're cultists who "debate the issues" inside an echo chamber -- unlike on Solo Passion, where a certain openness and freedom prevails. The problem isn't "OrgOism" -- it's ARIan religiosity and cultism. Tell them to stop highly censoring their discussions, so their insights and conclusions will be much better. Sad

Flatten Every Dictatorship -- or at least Dictator -- on Earth!

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- You mock Yaron Brook for the "idea that 'flattening' Saudi Arabia or Iran will end terrorism in the West." But overthrowing those two horrific fountainheads of jihad, and replacing them with something semi-liberal, will change the essence and atmosphere of the whole planet. Jihad is only poorly and weakly carried out by isolated individuals and tiny unorganized stateless groups. Studies of "terrorism" [jihad] from right after 9/11 bear out that the "terrorists" [jihadis] very much need an "address" and government-protected haven from which to plan their attacks beforehand and repair to afterward.

You're consistently bashing Brook for something he actually gets right.

Amy's Rant

Neil Parille's picture

She gets all worked up over Stefan Mollyneux. She invites Stuart Hyashi onto her show to discuss Molly. Unfortunately for her and her listeners, Hyashi misrepresents what Molly belives. I sent her a tweet pointing this out and suggesting that she invite Mollyneux onto her show.

Self Confidence

Neil Parille's picture

Can you imagine Charles Martel, King John Sobiseki or the leaders at Lepanto saying, "wow we just routed the Muslims. Now that we have this self confidence we can let them all in"?

Amy's Rant

Grant Jones's picture

In which Amy Peikoff pretends that the Islamic doctrine of hijrah doesn't exist.

Airhead Amy Supports Open Immigration Of Musp

Neil Parille's picture

If you can make more sense of her than me, you deserve he gold medal in rhythmic gymnastics

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/a...

Larry Auster on "Confidence"

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Auster dealt with this years ago.

==================

Years ago the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb called for the "re-moralization" of society—the reviving of the moral fiber and discipline that had made earlier generations of Westerners, particularly the Victorians, such strong, disciplined, and self-confident people, whereas we have become unsure, guilt-ridden, and disbelieving in ourselves and our culture. If I may coin a phrase, I would suggest that alongside the re-moralization of our own society, what we need today is the re-demoralization of Islamic society.
 
Of course, Daniel Pipes says: militant Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution.
 
But I say: Islam is the problem. The defeat and re-demoralization of Islam, combined with the steady return of Muslims from the West to their own countries, is the solution.

===================

Really, is Yaron Brook even in the same universe as someone like Larry Auster?

http://archive.frontpagemag.co...

http://archive.frontpagemag.co...

These two Auster essays on Islam are better than everything Brook has written on the subject times 100. And this is just a small sample of Auster's brilliance on the subject of Islam and the failures of America's foreign policy.

Blacks and confidence

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Blacks are routinely tested has having higher confidence and self-esteem than whites and yet as a group blacks are the least productive and most criminal and savage of all the racial groups. What has self-confidence done for them?

Brook is taking one element that Rand used in her writing and using it where it does not belong. Rand argued that the West was weak and because of the intellectual assault of its intellectuals and as a result that it lacked confidence and pride in its former achievements. I can agree with that. But taking that and applying it to hostile, alien peoples like Muslims is insane. They have been waging non-stop war against Europe since the mid 8th century. They've never had "confidence or pride" in the West. They have always hated the West and sought its destruction. How is some Afghan's "confidence" levels going to lead him to an appreciation of a different race's ethical norms, its political liberties, and its cultural practices?

Brook really is both ignorant and stupid.

Mark

Neil Parille's picture

This is excellent. The idea that "self confidence" is sufficient to make Muslims assimilated (whatever that might mean) is like the idea that "flattening" Saudi Arabia or Iran will end terrorism in the West. Brook won't elaborate on any of the subarguments that might be necessary to make these arguments plausible. Maybe holding these ideas imrpoves Brook's self-esteem, but that's about it.

As you note, Brook has no knowledge of psychology, history or much of anything else. There have been Muslims in France for 50 years, so there is enough information to determine whether "self-confidence" will change their bejavior, but that would require Brook to do some reading I suppose. It's much easier just to spew out rationalistic nonsense.

Stupid or Evil or Both

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I just read this and combined with the recent podcast that Neil linked to it is safe to say that OrgOism is a corrupt movement that is on the side of evil. They have made open immigration and the continued admission of "good Muslims" a necessary component of "liberty". In the process they have destroyed any sane definition of that word.

It is abundantly clear the current government of the US is an occupation government that promotes White minoritization en route to a total egalitarian despotism. Immigration is the Left's *major* tool for this. Not to understand this and oppose it renders you either useless in the battle for liberty or opposed to it.

OrgOism is just too stupid or too evil to offer any worthwhile commentary on anything. Right now I hate them. An Objectivist intellectual might have some important and useful things to say on technical subjects. One such person is John P. McCaskey. But outside of particular philosophic points, the Objectivist movement has nothing to offer a social or political or dare I say, a cultural movement.

Rand did deserve better but sadly she set the table for this with her own matriarchal personality. Its not hard to see why Objectivism became a cult of mediocrity and personality worship.

Thanks a Bunch

Grant Jones's picture

Excellent job, Mark. Much thanks for listening to and analyzing Bwook's verbal diarrhea. I don't have the stomach to listen to his weekly absurdities.

Comment viewing options

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