Hang Your Empty Head in Shame, New Zealand!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2016-12-23 23:15

New Zealand's complicity in the United Nations Security Council's condemnation of Israeli settlements on the West Bank places New Zealand squarely on the side of evil in the epic global battle between Western Civilisation and barbarism. The de facto Muslim Obama's unprecedented instructions not to veto the resolution left the way clear for feral members of the Security Council to push it through. To its eternal shame, New Zealand, with odious, morally flaccid Murray McCully at the helm, not only joined them but spearheaded them: such stellar human rights paragons as Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia! The resolution's original sponsor, Egypt, under pressure from President-Elect Trump, had earlier withdrawn it, but New Zealand helped revive it, thus proclaiming itself to the world as an enemy of reason, freedom and civilised values.

"The resolution sends a clear message to the parties to desist from actions that will further undermine the prospect of a two-state solution. It calls for Israeli settlement expansion to be halted and for incitement and acts of violence to cease," McCully oozes.

Settling one's own civilised subjects on one's own territory (even if that bastion of Islamo-Marxism, the United Nations, doesn't recognise it as such) is "incitement"? "Acts of violence"? Has the egregious McCully somehow mistaken the identity of recent kidnappers, shooters and stabbers, or the origin of Hamas rockets?

Trump has since tweeted, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th." Let's hope by that he means America will withdraw from the UN, boot it off US soil, and form a new coalition of nations, including itself, Australia (where a planned Christmas Day massacre by Islamofilth has just been thwarted by Melbourne police), the United Kingdom and other European nations (already significantly Islamised)—any nation that can still with impunity call itself civilised and aspires to remain so.

Sadly, New Zealand could not now be considered eligible.

Netanyahu shows just how vile the Islamists are

Ed Hudgins's picture

How can you have peace with someone who would use a child in this way? Death worshipers.

Dershowitz unleashes: Obama an 'appalling president'

Ed Hudgins's picture

Thank you Andrew

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Moderated more in sorrow than in anger; I allowed time for anger to subside. They're still free to post, but via the owner (me). Gratuitous abuse won't make it through.


Andrew Atkin's picture

For whatever it's worth, I think that's exactly how it should be.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've deleted your post to Ed. If you were posting under your real name I might have let it stand, but to unleash personal assaults from behind a cloak of anonymity is cowardly, and constitutes abuse. It's what you did in the case of Amy also. Same deal now as then. You're back under moderation. You and Mr "Jones" both. The stuff about wishing harm on Hubbard etc. was beyond the pale. As we go into 2017 I give notice that I'm going to be stricter in holding people to the "good will, good faith and good humour" part of the Guidelines. KASS is fine; gratuitous abuse and threats are not.

To repeat—you're not being moderated for your views, but for your behaviour.

Bruce Logan

gregster's picture

Yes, good to see some balance in the MSM. And he resisted mentioning his version of God. (Perhaps edited out.) He was involved with the "pro–life" mystics years back.

And Olivia—brilliant as usual.

Damn, my last comment ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

.. took attention away from Olivia's letter. Hadn't realised we were cross posting. Reckon that letter should be a post of its own, Olivia.

Great idea, I'll put pen to paper before I go back to work.

Bruce Logan - Olivia

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes, superb piece. The 'real politick' is a thing of the past; I don't think MP's have a clue about the duties of governance under enlightened ideals of western freedom. (Surprised to see it in Herald).

I sent this letter yesterday...

Olivia's picture

to Bill English and ccd in Stephen Joyce, Murray McCully and Nikki Kaye, who's my MP.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you as a NZ citizen, who feels so ashamed of my country's position in supporting the recent resolution against the sovereign State of Israel. Is this why NZ took such pains to gain a seat on the Security Council? So that they can slyly join forces with such dubious nations as Senegal, Malaysia, Venezuela (!) and the anti-American President Obama against the most formidably worthwhile democracy tentatively holding its own in the Middle East?

This is not only a moral travesty, it's a diplomatic one. Do you really wish to make an enemy out of Trump's America and Netanyahu's Israel? Israel has the right to defend itself from those who wish to obliterate it, and it has the right to build settlements in its own territory, even when said territory is disputed by those who wish to have Israel as a nation deleted! A Two State solution has been rejected by Hamas, who speak for the Palestinian people, time and time again, yet you blame Israel for the lack of peace and presume to lecture the Israelis on the importance of it? Time for you to have the guts to instead lecture the actual people who wish so much violence, not only against Israel, but also the rest of the Free Democratic World.

Murray McCully has joined forces with the uncivilised in order to put a leash on the civilised - this is utterly unconscionable considering the violence that Israel has been subjected to since its inception as a sovereign State from those who, like the Third Reich, do not believe Jews have the right to exist. This is not about building or settlements, this is about taking your place in history as a friend, or foe, of the one country which has learned to live with the same terror threat every day of its existence that we in the West are now seemingly going to have to learn to live with also - thanks to the feckless leadership from the globalist/multiculturalists. We all should be taking lessons from Israel and its remarkable survival and success, not acting against its interests. This is disgusting behaviour from a Western nation which considers itself a proud supporter of freedom and tolerance.

Please send McCully into early retirement and publicly disgrace him, for he deeply deserves it! Rethink this erroneous action and withdraw your support from such a mindless international Resolution. This is a diplomatic embarrassment to New Zealand, which is acting as the outgoing American President's proxy (a president who will be merely a weak-spirited footnote in history) and it will have far reaching consequences for its lack of insight into one of the most complex and fraught moral conflicts of our epoch. It is essential that our proud treasure of a country comes down on the right side of history in this significant matter. The men of yesterday, Obama and Kerry, have found a useful puppet in us, and we are better than that!

Please do not start your leadership of this country on such repulsive international ground. Do the right thing. Fire McCully and withdraw from the Resolution. The whole world is about to dramatically shift.

Yours faithfully,
Olivia Pierson

Bruce Logan

Olivia's picture

was a friend of my parents, years ago. Very good article by him and I'm glad the Herald printed it.

Bruce Logan - Two-State solution a fantasy

Mark Hubbard's picture

Didn't expect to see this piece for a one-state solution in the Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

Beautiful girls Ed....

Olivia's picture

loaded with potential and mischief!


Mark Hubbard's picture

Great photo of Allegra & Sophia ... and love the four C's.

[Back to slaying neo-Nazis.]

I'd go beyond "morally dull-witted" ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Kerry is part of The Filth.

Bibi's been reading Rand!! Smiling

Oh, and the children look terrific!

Morally-dull-witted Kerry bashes Israel one last time

Ed Hudgins's picture

Morally-dull-witted Kerry bashes Israel one last time

This failed secretary of state, who has left the world a mess, can't resist placing the blame on the one civilized, open, democratic society in the Middle East. Kerry rips ‘settler agenda’ in speech defending UN vote, Israeli PM fires back

Here's Alan Dershowitz on John Kerry's meaningless speech and tragic missed opportunity

And Bibi taking no crap: Netanyahu slams Kerry's speech defending UN vote as 'unbalanced'

Gratuitous off-topic post

Ed Hudgins's picture

Gratuitous off-topic post

Music indeed is one of life’s most spiritually healing & uplifting experiences! It would fall under No. 2, color, of my
Four C’s of Christmas.” (Not sure of your views on the other C’s.)

Music of the Gods can be inspired by another form of beauty. You judge Allegra & Sophia!
 photo 6667bab2-a558-4d06-8066-1f6f35909d0a_zps44yfn7ub.jpg

Okay, back to bashing Obama, Kerry, neo-Nazis, et al. (P.S.: Delete earlier post.)

Music of the Gods

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Great news, Ed. Are there Chopin cubes too? Smiling

BTW, the title "Music of the Gods" alludes to the fact the the early Greeks thought music was of divine origin, specifically of gods like Apollo and Dionysus. They ascribed to it magical properties of healing and uplift. Headbanging caterwauling, the ultimate in "uncivilised," was a couple of millennia or so away!

Linz - Wonderful Chopin piece, well played!

Ed Hudgins's picture

Linz - Wonderful Chopin piece, well played!

FYI, my little Sophia has rediscovered her "Mozart Cube." It's a 6 inch square cube that plays 6 different Mozart tunes. You press one side and it plays just with harp, another just with French horn, piano, etc. and one for all the instruments combined. And Sophia & Allegra are both picking out tunes on our piano. We want civilized children! And full disclosure, they're Jews!

Israel bans New Zealand ambassador

Ed Hudgins's picture

Murray McCully: treasonous friend of terrorism

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Now I'm hearing from Rick Grenell on Fox that McCully, long known in New Zealand as "The Black Prince" for his evil Machiavellianism, was talking to Contemptible Kerry for weeks about how to word the UN resolution. McCully is sub-human. Filth.

Bro Ed!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As for Linz, he does find the discussion entertaining and he's the principal here. But perhaps it would be more satisfying to spend that extra time listening to Lanza sing Christmas songs or Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony rather than listening to Nazi rants!

Hahahaha! There's been plenty of "Music of the Gods" being played I can assure you. Here's what I'm listening to right now, one of my favourite Chopin pieces played by the recently-deceased Zoltan Kocsis, whose CDs of the 4 Rachs and 2 Liszts I've also been playing to mark Zoltan's sad passing:


Andrew Atkin's picture

Are you suggesting I have a 'conspiracy mindset'...whatever that is...simply because I believe that 'conspiracy' is an ultimate possibility, and so I advocate listening to those who claim conspiracy? Not believing outright - just listening?

-If people can be evil enough to create a holocaust, then they can be evil enough to lie to us all too, right?

Protecting liberty. Understanding conspiracy heads.

Ed Hudgins's picture

A few additional points. First, see this latest article, Israel urges Jews to leave France as Benajmin Netanyahu continues to lash out after UN vote. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, & property. When a policy--letting in masses of immigrants who could threaten liberty--leads to this sort of situation, you need to question the policy.

Second, there's a good literature on the conspiracy theory mindset, much done by my friend Michael Shermer. (I'm a space policy expert & worked as an intern on Apollo 11, so I know the Moon landing deniers as well.) To Mark Hubbard, I quite appreciate your efforts here and on another thread. But I do suggest that it is a waste of your time to engage with the likes of Bandler or his ilk any further. There are enough issues that deserve serious discussion and analysis. e.g., immigration & Islamists. But I suggest you write off Bandler et al.

As for Linz, he does find the discussion entertaining and he's the principal here. But perhaps it would be more satisfying to spend that extra time listening to Lanza sing Christmas songs or Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony rather than listening to Nazi rants!

Mark Weber vs. Michael Schermer Debate Holocaust. 90's?

Neil Parille's picture

Starting at 43, Schermer quotes contemporanous documents from Nazis.  I don't find Weber's response satisfactory.


To be clear.

Andrew Atkin's picture

I am not a holocaust denier. I simply argue that those who challenge the idea that the holocaust ever happened should be listened to. Even if there's only a (perceived) 2% chance that they're right, we can still look at whatever it is they have to say, in the same way that we can (hopefully) look at what 'climate skeptics' have to say.

This was all I effectively said, and argued for.

To say, I also watched an unconvincing documentary a long time ago on the idea of the moon landings being faked. I kinda liked the idea of that being faked (though unsuccessfully convinced) for no other reason than it all looked like a depressing waste of money to me - about as pointless as nearly killing yourself climbing to the top of Mt Everest.


Mark Hubbard's picture

Re the first, I took your voter literacy test (which I had no problem with) as a deflection to plainly answering yes, of course Slime's premise to disenfranchise all women is an affront to freedom.

I still believe that to be an indirection; you still have not given the blanket answer.

Perhaps my perception is wrong ... I'll sleep on it (apology if I am wrong and in bad faith; I have an extreme allergic reaction to Nazis).

[Niggle, still feel an issue there.]


I'm not lumping you with the anti-Semites, I know you're not. I'm saying never give oxygen to Nazis (I don't believe this is an argument referencing snowflake safe places); although on a deep level, also, I am perturbed by your comment re the Slimes Bandler & Jones, quote: '"...and he raised questions about biology/psychology the OrthOists were and are afraid to address."

No. Their questions were based as far as I can see on Aryan biological determinism of an insane and particularly evil type. Those two Nazis can have nothing to add to Objectivism (or Objectivism is in trouble if so).



Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You are starting to sound more demented than Doug.

Your question re Andrew contains no argument.

Your question:

Meanwhile, Linz, on my You-Are-Condoning-Bone-Fide-Nazis thread you continue to evade my direct question, going to pains now not to answer it, namely, do you believe Nazi (a true self-confessed anti-Semite Nazi) Bandler's premise that attacking welfarism not by attacking the welfare state, but by disenfranchising all women - including those posting on SOLO - is an affront to individualism and the foundational principles of freedom?

... I have already answered by saying I favour a disenfranchisment of all, regardless of gender, who fail a political and linguistic literacy test. In fact, I think you agreed with me on that when I proposed it. So how am I evading your question all of a sudden?

And now you're lumping me in with anti-Semites? After my first-cab-off-the-rank condemnation, the content of my primary post here, of NZ's UN vote, while the rest of you were asleep? Please!!

Jesus, Dumb-Arse Man is at it again.

Mark Hubbard's picture

In anyone, ANYONE, Linz, other than Ed, going to tell Abstract-Andrew-I-am-not-what-I-believe that:

a) His holocaust denial here puts him akin to those assinine useful idiots in the Jesus-I'm-A-Dumb-Fuck stakes as those who argue the Americans faked the moon landings, and

b) On a moral level takes him to that most evil place sub-humans continue to plumb of being Nazi sympathisers?



Meanwhile, Linz, on my You-Are-Condoning-Bone-Fide-Nazis thread you continue to evade my direct question, going to pains now not to answer it, namely, do you believe Nazi (a true self-confessed anti-Semite Nazi) Bandler's premise that attacking welfarism not by attacking the welfare state, but by disenfranchising all women - including those posting on SOLO - is an affront to individualism and the foundational principles of freedom?


Meanwhile you continue, Linz, to allow Nazis Bandler - who has written on my Nazi heads-up thread that he wants to see a right wing death squad throw me from a helicopter - and  Grant Jones - who writes he'd love to see my face smashed in by a Maori man - et al, to use your blog as a Nazi mess hall, oblivious to the fact Nazis must never be allowed at the table of human beings; that this is not an issue of safe places vis a vis Trump posters on campuses, but the opposite of safe places being, literally, gas chambers. That is, there is nothing 'abstract' about this. This remains totally unacceptable, tarring everybody who is now foolish enough to blog here. I have a lot of old header blogs/posts in here which I feel are so associated with pure evil, and would like them down please: I can't see a way to delete my older posts while keeping up my posts from 'Linz - You Are Condoning a Nazi' post?


Noting today anti-Semitic neo-Nazis desecrated Anne Frank's memorial in a wave of sickening rising anti-Semitism across the West, which SOLO, unbelievably - is aiding.


Andrew Atkin's picture

I'm not informed enough to know whether or not it's garbage. 99.9% of people are not. Hence I am smart enough to not form a premature (for me) conclusion.

If you can be clear please, so you have listened to the denialist arguments, initially with an open mind?

I'm quite familiar with denialist garbage...

Ed Hudgins's picture

... and see no value in wasting my time here on it. I hope you're smart enough to not waste your time as well. If not, your loss.

Did you listen to Doug's link

Andrew Atkin's picture

Did you listen to Doug's link on David Cole, Ed? Have you ever open mindedly looked at the arguments opposing the idea of the holocaust, from people who obviously aren't nuts?

To say, I think your contempt for Doug was a bit dramatic. He only looks like a Nazi insofar as he claims that the Nazi's are not what we think they are.

Some answers

Ed Hudgins's picture

To begin with. knowing now what Doug Bandler is, I won’t waste my time with any of his posts. If others want to parse what parts of his dogmas come from malice, sheer stupidity, self-deception or whatever, it’s your choice. I suggest trying to educate him is useless. He is inconsequential and the shit of his soul does not interest me other than to prove why Israelis need to be armed to the teeth.

Concerning Neil’s question, while I’m for open immigration in principle, principles must be applied in the real world. If I were a European, I would favor restricting though not completely cutting off immigration for a lot of reasons. Security concerns are the obvious one. But even deeper, there is a very bad side of European nationalism. Unlike America, foreigners are not as accepted even they want to integrate into societies. In addition, even the refugees from the Syria and elsewhere who simply want to escape war face serious cultural challenges. When they are illiterate and unskilled, they face serious problems.

Add to these the welfare states as well as regulations that make it almost impossible for immigrants to simply stand in front of a hardware store and accept construction or other such work as they do in the U.S. Not their fault but these factors make especially untenable to accept refugees by the hundreds of thousands untenable. Further, the European governments refuse to deal with outright Islamist imams and others who outright call for the overthrow of what liberty is left in Europe in favor of Sharia law and you see the case for restricting immigration.

Here is a modest, after-the-fact proposal. Years ago, the Europeans might simply have sent major forces to Syria, overthrown Assad, and set up their own rule in Syria. It would have been messy but they could have set up safe zones there and tried to sort out the mess a thousand miles from their own shores.

To Linz, I still like the "sweet Muslim nanny" who helped with our kids, the Muslims I work with in the freedom movement, Muslims Kurds fighting ISIS and the like. That said, there’s no question about whose side I’m on in matters concerning Israel. Further, while I’ve had differences with Trump, he has shown real promise with appointments so far. I’m especially thrilled that Peter Thiel is working with him to staff the administration and to help bring round tech entrepreneurs to a more libertarian position. Trump wants to turn around the economy and that will mean getting government out of the way of producers. And let’s realize that Hillary would have been a continuation of the disastrous policies of Obama.

Good David Cole interview

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"When people become so uncritical about a subject that they will accept anything, it becomes dangerous for the foundations of history". Said around 1:02:00.

This is an excellent interview with David Cole. He covers so much material but he covers the use of gas at 43:00. IMO, he makes a good case debunking the Exterminationist arguments. Plus he also shows how the often repeated horror stories of "lamp shades" and "human soap", etc were American war propaganda. I've heard that in many places. It might be wrong but I can see also why it is probably not.

The main point being that the Holocaust has been manipulated from the start. It now serves the purposes of both the NeoCons and the Left; and perhaps most importantly, the Zionists. And Objectivists (baring some very few exceptions) don't even question any of it. They've basically accepted the Zionist agenda for the Middle East. What happened to the Monroe Doctrine? To the idea of America as a limited government trade republic? The Austrians are not wrong when the say that Jefferson lost and Hamilton won.

Yaron Brook and now Ed Hudgins are advocates of endless wars in the ME. Lets bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia so Europe can be even more destabilized. And more white women can get raped. But we're a movement based on "reason" and "philosophic truth". Right.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Thanks for the reply. Yes I am stating the Nazis used Soviet style slave labor camps to kill the Jews. I've read Irving but I wasn't relying on him because he has been all over the place in his career. He started out a denier but ended up acknowledging the 6 million number and Hitler's awareness of the Final Solution. But I have read other reports that say the specific practice of shoveling Jews into concentration camps (to Wagner's music no less) where they were gassed to death to be fabrication and impossible on a large scale given the technology of the time. Although I have read that small scale gas poisonings were used, but largely as experimental procedures. David Stein / Cole makes a convincing case for the revisionist side and he himself is Jewish (he has a very interesting story and actually presented his case on the Montel Williams Show in the 90s believe it or not).

Perhaps I'm wrong, although I wouldn't doubt if there was exaggeration and embellishment with the Holocaust given how central it is to the Left's anti-white-Christian narrative. Setting up Hitler as a Satan stand in has been one of the major ways that the Left has guilted the right into almost total obedience. That alone would warrant skepticism of the Exterminationist arguments. However, I also would not doubt that the nationalist right has their own propaganda purposes, especially given that much of their anti-semitism is malevolent. (Although I still find them far better read and more knowledgeable than pretty much all Objectivists; ie Kevin MacDonald vs Leonard Peikoff.) But I'm always glad to be corrected.

And I also agree that Iran is overemphasized. I've read credible accounts that say that Iranian nuclear capacity is being fabricated largely by a combination of Israeli Zionists and US Hawks. And when I say "US hawks" I do not say that in a good way. But rather I mean suicidally insane war mongers (mostly NeoCons) that want to wage constant war as part of their missionary world veiw to "spread democracy". ARI is on the side of these people no matter what their particular differences are.

I also think the subject of whether or not Israel is friend or foe is a legitimate subject to be debated. Israel through AIPAC has far too much influence on the American government. That itself makes them dangerous.

I see this type of debate going on in libertarian circles, especially with Ron Paul. Tom Woods recently moderated a debate on Israel from a libertarian perspective on his podcast. Can you imagine any Objectivist every doing such a thing? A healthy intellectual movement searches for truth. Objectivism is not a healthy intellectual movement. As we see basically everywhere.

No, Doug

Grant Jones's picture

The five extermination camps located in Poland predominately used poison gas to murder their victims. This is an established historical fact. The massive amounts of evidence were provided by the Nazis themselves. Thanks to the German's anal-compulsive record keeping, the prosecutors at Nuremberg had an easy job. The use of gas chambers for mass murder was not wartime propaganda. The doctrine of strategic aerial bombing was firmly in place with the US Army Air Corps long before Hitler even came to power in Germany. I assume that I'm the only one here who has read cover to cover Robert Futrell's classic Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force, 1907-1960 published by the Air University. In some ways Patton was a bigot. Often, Eisenhower had much more sense.

However, if Doug is saying that the Nazis killed six million Jews (and millions of others). But, that they used the same methods as Stalin. Then, I don't see how that's Holocaust denial. I don't understand its relevance. Certainly, ARI and many others overemphasize Iran as the main enemy. The USA is at war with Iran and should deal with them and prevent those psychos from getting the Bomb. But, they are not the central problem.

What's my main interest here is Perigo and Hubbard's responses. As is par, they're not interested in taking a few minutes to explain to Doug why he's wrong. They're not really interested in arguing the history or citing facts at all. Their main interest are the motives of thoughtcriminals. They are almost obsessional on this point. This is fundamentally a religious approach to ethics. They are preoccupied with finding and metaphorically publicly burning heretics. "Nazi!" "Holocaust denier!" Someone should inform these subjectivists that words have specific definitions. Words are something more than clubs with which to beat doubleplusbadthinkers. David Irving is a notorious Holocaust denier. His motives? Who knows and who cares. It's way more important to possess the knowledge and ability to refute him.


Neil Parille's picture

Don't know much about the middle east, so I can't comment.

My default position is anti-Islam so I tend to support Israel, if for no other reason. What I'd say though is the US's interests and Israel's aren't necessary the same. Our interest was to keep thugs like Ghadaffi, Assad and Hussein in power (to, among other things, prevent whats now going on in Europe) whereas Israel's interest is to have chaos in their countries.

A Great Objectivist Book and Person

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

My thanks to Ed Hudgins for pointing out that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was recently seen in the Knesset reading John David Lewis's book Nothing Less than Victory. This is hopeful -- it's how knowledge spreads and morality triumphs. Of course, what is truly needed in this world is for think tank members, periodical writers, and college professors to read it.

The reason to give a

Andrew Atkin's picture

The reason to give a holocaust denier a chance (to listen to), lies in the fact that you can go to prison in some countries for daring to entertain the thought crime alone. That, to me, is about as sick as it gets. With that kind of oppression, how can we say we've heard the other side of the story? And what are these countries afraid of so as to require such a disgusting and immoral law?

I don't sign up to the idea that the holocaust never happened. But I am happy to listen to whatever these so-called monsters have to say.

I think David Irvine is among the most famous of them?


Sadly ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that would appear to be so. "Doug" is a Nazi. Well, at least now we know, from his own keyboard. I expect we'll hear about the Illuminati soon enough. Someone on YouTube has got to him. It's not Molyneux, since Stefan is not into that rubbish. But it's been apparent for some time that Doug's position is determined by the last (often-maniacal) YouTuber he's watched. And he has periodic meltdowns, such as when he went off on Amy. I think we've just seen another such meltdown. I've put up with it all since at his best his critique of OrgOism was trenchant and timely, and he raised questions about biology/psychology the OrthOists were and are afraid to address. With this latest post he has undermined all the good posts he ever made and exposed himself as a sick monster. And yes, Bro Hubbard, you were saying it before I did.

I applaud Ed Hudgins' post, and mark it as a decisive advance from his earlier "sweet Muslim nanny" stuff. I'm curious to see his answer to Neil's question. TAS has the opportunity here to claim the high ground from Hillary-enabling ARISIS.

Um, Linz

Mark Hubbard's picture

Slime Bandler is a full on holocaust denying anti-Semite. The TOTAL nutjob.

I'm going to give you some of my Xmas day on a separate thread.

"Iranian Fireball" = Nonsense

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I say if your philosophy leads millions to acquiesce in their destructive in gas chambers, by Islamists, or from Iranian nukes extinguishing them in a fireball, what you’re doing is not philosophy for this world.

"Iranian fireball" stuff is nonsense. As is the "gas chambers". The camps were not "gas chambers". They were slave labor camps. The Jews died of typhoid not by being "thrown into ovens". The "gas chambers" was America war propaganda made to justify the massive and ruthless bombing and slaughter of millions of German people during and after the war. Perhaps you don't know this but even General Patton, America's greatest and most competent WW2 general, said after the war that America fought on the wrong side and that the violence against the Germans was excessive. He called the Germans a "fine race" and didn't like the anti-German hatred by the post war allies. He ended up dead mysteriously too.

Ed, you don't know what you are talking about and you exhibit the same ignorance of foreign policy that is typical for Objectivists. America has armed some of the most evil Muslims on this earth. They have destabilized the secular Muslim nationalists who were keeping a lid on the Islamic crazies. And they have done this in cahoots with Israel. In fact, it was official Israeli strategy. The CIA agent who interrogated Hussein just came out with a book describing how Saddam was not the danger that the Government made him out to be. Linz was wrong with his "Saddamite" tirade. (I was too.) Also, Israel has been ISIS's air force in this conflict with Syria. Israel want's Assad destroyed. They also have oil interests in this as well which is just base economics. Israel's goal has been the destabilization of nearly every Muslim country and the cowards have used the United States to do it. They also stole American nuclear technology in the 1960s and 70s. Look at the video I posted. Israel is NOT an American ally and they never have been.

You are just going along with the cult of victimhood that the modern world has built around the Holocaust. And I would add you are not using Rand's epistemology. I hold out no hope for the ARI as they are a bunch of dogmatists. But you Kelley people should make yourself the Objectivist organization that is actually open to investigation and debate over some of the things that have been accepted as Shibboleths. Rethinking Israel and open immigration would be good starting points.


Neil Parille's picture

"And to Objectivists and libertarians especially, I say if your philosophy leads millions to acquiesce in their destructive in gas chambers, by Islamists, or from Iranian nukes extinguishing them in a fireball, what you’re doing is not philosophy for this world."

So you oppose "open immigration" of Muslims into Europe and the USA?

yes [ ] no [ ]

“Look into a gas chamber full of dead Jewish children, then talk

Ed Hudgins's picture

My thoughts on this topic are best read in my short pieces and Ayn Rand’s Thoughts on Israel.

But I’ll start a brief summary by provocatively urging everyone to “Look into a gas chamber full of dead Jewish children, then talk.”

There is something unique about the Jewish experience that makes a Jewish morally defensible as opposed to, say a “white” state other race/ethnic based state.

Jews had hoped that with the Enlightenment they would be able to live at peace and even integrate into society. But the Zionist movement stated in the 1880s when it became apparent in Western Europe that anti-Semitism was still strong. Jews, mainly secular, began moving to Turkish-governed Palestine. Jews from Russia also came to escape ghettoization, denial of most liberties and periodic pogroms. They purchased land, set up farms, made the desert bloom, founded Tel Aviv, a university, a hospital—in other words, they brought civilized values to the region.

The Zionist reading of European anti-Semitism was correct. The Nazis killed 6 million of them. Those Jews who when to Palestine, including two of my wife’s relatives, survived. Those who didn’t, including most of the rest of my wife’s family, ended up in gas chambers & execution pits.

When the state of Israel was declared in 1948, David Ben Gurion said the new state “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”

The next day five Arab countries attacked it with the goal of killing all the Jews or driving them into the sea. The Israelis won. The Arabs and Muslims who did not take up arms are still there in Israel enjoying more rights and Arabs and Muslims enjoy in neighboring countries.
So I say to all, this is not a sophomore, dorm-room debate. This is the real world. This is life or death. And to Objectivists and libertarians especially, I say if your philosophy leads millions to acquiesce in their destructive in gas chambers, by Islamists, or from Iranian nukes extinguishing them in a fireball, what you’re doing is not philosophy for this world.

Ryan Dawson on Israel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Ryan Dawson is a Ron Paul libertarian and a damn good independent journalist. I don't know if I agree with all of his arguments yet as he does posit alot of false flag operations. But while he is anti-Zionist he is not anti-semitic nor is he a white nationalist. He makes the liberty anti-racist argument against Israel and the Zionists. IMO, he's right that Israel is allowed to have a racial / religious ethno-state in defiance of modern liberalism's condemnation of that system while no one else in the Western world is allowed the same.

Now I am not opposed to ethno-states. But... if Israel can get one then white people can get them too. The Left implicitly knows this. And while their anti-Israel pro-Palestinian agit-prop is largely based on their egalitarianism and their hatred of power imbalances, they also do not want ethno-states to re-emerge as a legitimate possibility in the West. Because if they do the white Right which they hate more than anything else will have a basis to bring back ethno-nationalism. As usual leftists are psychologically motivated by their hatred of white conservatives; something Objectivists do not understand because they can't see past "philosophical premises".

Lastly, Objectivists get Israel wrong for the same reasons they get immigration wrong. They are rationalists first and foremost. With everything. Objectivists have no ability to immerse themselves in details and understand the actual social dynamics at play. This is why while most libertarians, even the Austrians, have flawed starting points they nevertheless are more empirical in their thinking methodology. Molyneux is an example. Yes, he's an anarchist and I do think there are flaws with that, but he's super empirical; something you rarely find in Objectivists.

Brook is the model of Objectivist rationalism. If its not some simple cookie cutter free market position it is guaranteed that Brook will be wrong. And with Israel he's on the side of an openly racist ethno-state. And he thinks only Jews have the moral foundation for an ethno-state. While white women get raped by brown savages all over Europe. Jesus, for that alone I can't stomach him.

Rethink Israel.

Is Israel really an ally

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I don't doubt that New Zealand is run by the same Leftist weaklings we see running every other Western country (Trump and the former Soviet Union excluded). But I think the pro-Israel view of the Objectivist movement should be reconsidered. Dig deep and Israel is not an ally of the US or the West (and it never has been). Its a religious ethno-state that is expert at manipulating America into fighting its wars to America's detriment (One of Trump's generals is on to this).

If the Zionists want a Zionist state. Let the Zionists pay for it. Not the American tax payer.

Look into these Israeli settlements. IMO, not something to defend or celebrate.

Good Essay On Immigration

Neil Parille's picture


This is the best short article by a libertarian on immigration that I've ever read. Libertarianism and Objectivism are not suicide pacts.

The attack on a Christmas market in Berlin earlier this week, apparently carried out by a Pakistani immigrant*, is just the latest in a series of violent and disturbing terrorist incidents in Germany. The event raises uncomfortable questions about immigration, culture clashes, Islam, and identity: what does it mean to be German, rather than someone who merely lives in Germany? It also raises pragmatic questions about how to provide physical security in public spaces, given such dramatic failures by the German government.

Libertarians can duck these questions, or dismiss them. We can sniff about how everyone is an individual, how Islam is not to blame, or how Pakistanis are not any more prone to murderous violence than Germans. We can argue for a holistic approach to welfare statism, foreign policy, and human migration. None of these arguments will help Germans deal with horrific criminality here and now, however. Rather than virtue-signaling to deeply illiberal and hostile audiences in government, media, and academia, we should make populist arguments for radical privatization of property and security. Imagine the actions a private shopping mall, theme park, or stadium would take immediately in response to a terrorist incident on their private property!

We also should argue for localized decision-making regarding immigration, as with every political matter. Germans, like everyone else, want and deserve true self-determination. The smaller the political unit, the closer we come to Mises’s concept of granting this power to every individual. Mass state-sponsored immigration from Islamic countries is being imposed on Germans, as a political project created by the EU and the German government. It is not the result of market demand. We are not witnessing some kind of heroic movement of labor toward welcoming employers and family relatives, but rather a coordinated and staged relocation of people who mostly are not true refugees. Libertarians are right to criticize this political project while supporting average Germans who simply want to enjoy their cities rather than “learning to live with terrorism” as part of everyday life.

If not, we risk irrelevance or worse: the conjoining (in the public’s mind) of libertarianism with all of the useless “public policy” ideas issuing from Brussels, Washington, and Berlin. The common criticism of libertarianism is that it sounds great in theory, but fails to offer concrete solutions to real-world problems. This criticism is wrong. Libertarianism offers the most pragmatic, proportional, and efficacious solutions imaginable: marketplace solutions. It is modern governments, with their political intrigue, sclerotic monopolies, inefficient bureaucracies, and perverse incentives, that cannot competently address tough problems like border control and terrorism. It is precisely because these problems are so complex and intractable that they should be sorted by the market.

The thorny issue of immigration, rife with very real externalities and distorted by “public property,” calls for market order. There is a market for immigration, just as there is a market for security. Open borders advocates ignore the in-group preferences of the marketplace, just as they ignore the tremendous externalities caused by sudden influxes of migrants. The real question is not whether borders are open or restricted, but rather who decides? When someone asks for the libertarian position on immigration, my response is that libertarians want as much or as little immigration as the market demands.

Immigration and borders have been debated at length, and vociferously, by libertarians. Probably no better examples exist than several exchanges by open borders advocate Walter Block and restricted immigration advocate Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is little to say about the subject that is novel or more insightful than what Block and Hoppe already have provided. That said, certain points bear repeating or elaboration:

Borders satisfy innately human desires for order and separation. Borders arise and exist naturally, without being created or enforced by political entities (although they were generally less rigidly defined and more porous prior to the era of modern governments).

The nation is not state, as Murray Rothbard reminded us. Nations can and do emerge naturally, while states tend to be late-arriving artifices that do injury to earlier, more natural borders.

In-group preferences are strong. Provided groups coexist without coercion or violence, libertarianism has nothing particular to say about such preferences.

Humans are not all good and well-intentioned, nor are they fungible. People with money, intelligence, or in-demand skills are better immigrants than people without these attributes. Poor and criminal immigrants impose huge costs. Any worldview that denies this, or downplays this, fails to comport with reality. Libertarianism, rooted in natural law, should by definition accord better with reality than worldviews requiring positive law. Why do we lose sight of this?

Humans naturally want to live in safe areas, i.e., in “good neighborhoods” on a macro scale. And they want to know their neighbors are not a threat. In other words, there is a market for security beyond one’s own property — not everyone can own and control vast areas of property like Ted Turner. This is why gated communities exist. Simply stating that “nobody has a right to control any property they don’t own” does not address reality.

Almost all instances of rapid mass migration do not occur as natural marketplace phenomena. Instead, they usually occur due to wars, famine, and other state-created disasters. So it does not follow that resistance to mass migration is anti-market.

Every human has a natural right to control his body and movement. No human should be falsely imprisoned, enslaved, or held in a place against his will. But the right to leave a physical place is different than the right to enter one. The entry should be denied or permitted by the rightful owner of the property in question. But when vast areas of land are controlled (and/or ostensibly owned) by the government, the question becomes much more complex — and the only way to make it less complex is to privatize such land. Unless and until this happens, it is facile for libertarians simply to insist that everyone has a right to go wherever they wish.

The concept of open borders is mostly a big-government construct. Without state-provided incentives (food, housing, clothing, schooling, mobile phones, etc.), and frequent NGO funding for actual travel, immigration naturally would be far more restricted.

As stated in an earlier article, a libertarian society has no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees, and trespassers.

Libertarianism, to borrow a phrase from Judge Napolitano, is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to ignore history, tradition, culture, family, and self-preservation. It does not require us to live as deracinated, hyper-individualized actors who identify with nothing larger than ourselves and have no sense of home.

Immigration is a complex and antagonistic issue. But facile slogans won’t help libertarians have a bigger voice in the debate.

*. ed note: Suspect may, in fact, be Tunisian.

Haven't Read The Book

Neil Parille's picture

But I got the impression that Lewis was an invade the world / invite the world type.

He first introduced into the Objectivist bag of tricks that defeating Jihad was like defeating Japan and Germany in WW2.

Netanyahu Reading Book by Ayn Rand Objectivist

Ed Hudgins's picture

Netanyahu seen in the Knesset reading John David Lewis's book Nothing Less than Victory. The late Mr. Lewis is described as a "proponent of Objectivism, a school of thought founded by the writer Ayn Rand. The name of the philosophy comes from the concept that there is objective truth that is derived from reality.”


Lindsay Perigo's picture

See the comments on Whaleoil. Human New Zealanders, as opposed to sub- and pre-humans, are rising up against the treasonous, morally flaccid McCully:


Comment viewing options

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