Say what you mean, and mean what you say
Who's Online
There are currently 1 user and 47 guests online.
Online users
Who's New
Linz's Mario Book—Updated!PollCan Trump Redeem Himself Following His Disgusting Capitulation to the Swamp on the Budget?
No (please elaborate)
0%
Yes (please elaborate)
43%
Maybe (please elaborate)
57%
Who cares? (My blood doesn't boil and I'm a waste of space)
0%
Total votes: 7
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
#MOGA! Open Letter to Objectivists—Make Objectivism Great Again! Repudiate Obleftivism! Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2017-02-06 02:44
[This is an expanded version of the opening statement I had prepared for my aborted debate with Yaron Brook on Amy Peikoff's BlogTalkRadio show, "Don't Let It Go." I withdrew from the debate when I realised I could not in all conscience comply with her last-minute request that I refrain from making "sweeping statements" critical of Yaron. Warning: the following contains a number of sweeping statements critical of Yaron.]
In Yaron Brook’s BlogTalkRadio show of November 12 last year, the Ayn Rand Institute head said he was "horrified" at what 57 million Americans had just done. Yaron called Trump “the villain of our time,” “this creature, this vulgar creature,” an “authoritarian,” more anti-American than Obama, someone who might well abolish freedom of speech, someone whose proposal to build a wall on the Southern border was "stupid," someone whose election was far more dangerous than that of Hillary Clinton who would have been merely “an extension of the Obama status quo.” Yaron's sentiments were echoed by his ARI colleague, Canadian Onkar Ghate, who wrote, "On November 8, 2016, the United States took its first step towards dictatorship." Further on, Ghate said: “ … the Republican control of the presidency, the House and the Senate should give anyone pause who is concerned about, say, the campaign’s demonization of immigrants and of trade or the attempt to impose a Christian variant of Sharia law.” On his BlogTalkRadio show just finished as I write (the morning of Feb 6, NZ time) Yaron asserted that Trump is “paving the way to fascism.” This, we are told, is the voice of reason. I contend it is the voice of Trump Derangement Syndrome. More than that, it is the resurgent voice of Leonard Peikoff’s 2006 fatwa to the effect that Objectivists should vote Democrat across the board, even in the presence of “good Republicans,” because the Republicans were about to usher in a Christian theocracy. Sheer lunacy. Leonard briefly came right in 2013 ...
... before reverting to form. I contend the current Trump Derangement Syndrome within OrgOism (Organised Objectivism), most prominently displayed by Yaron Brook, is a manifestation of what I call Obleftivism, i.e., Objectivism hijacked by Islamo-Marxism. In what follows, “Yaron” and “Obleftivism” should be treated as interchangeable. Yaron implies "the Obama status quo" that Hillary would have preserved is somehow innocuous and tolerable, to be preferred over a President who has promised to lower taxes hugely, to lessen regulations by 75% and who has already moved to roll back Dodd-Frank; over a President who will allow the energy sector to function and flourish again and has already green-lighted the Dakota and Keystone pipeline projects blocked by Comrade Obama (“no big deal,” said Yaron this morning); over a President who will nix Obamacare; over a President whose appointments to the Supreme Court will be based on adherence to the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench; over a President who will stop the inflow of terrorist savages and other Third World low-lifes in its tracks; over a President who can bring himself not just to say “Radical Islamic terrorism” (in my view, “Islam” would suffice) but also to go after it. Obleftivism seems blind to the cultural ravages of unfettered immigration by ideological aliens; indifferent to, possibly even unaware of (from the smug safety of walled, white, well-guarded gated communities) the robberies, assaults, rapes and beheadings perpetrated by them. (MS—13: more prolific beheaders than ISIS!) Obleftivism says “Let 'em in, let ‘em in, let ‘em in”; the more the merrier; they'll soon get the hang of freedom and become like us—and anyone who opposes this suicidal, sacrifistic policy is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot and all the rest of the standard leftist epithets. Trump’s wall is “stupid,” says Yaron—from behind a wall. I say, build a wall along the Northern border as well. Someone has to keep Onkar Ghate and Justin Trudeau out, not to mention all the Muslims Trudeau is letting in to Canada. I say, relocate the Somalis who have wrought havoc in Minnesota to tents pitched on the golf courses inside Yaron’s gated community; assuredly he'll give them a warm welcome?! Obleftivism refuses to acknowledge, let alone proudly proclaim, that Western Culture is The Best; that it’s entitled to protect and preserve itself qua Western culture, manifested in a plenitude of ways in specific Western nations; to say such a thing, according to Obleftivists, is “nationalism,” or even worse, “patriotism”—both odious signs of [gasp] “collectivism.” Obleftivism seems not to have absorbed the significance of Ayn Rand’s appropriately negative appraisal of pre-humans elsewhere in the world:
Obleftivists claim that attacking the Clinton News Network, National Putin Radio and other mainstream media for their stinking dishonesty, Fake News and bias is an assault on freedom of speech, when in fact the real assaults on free speech are coming from the self-same media, along with academia—students and staff—moronnials, Social Justice Warriors, Ugly Wimmin, Black Lives Matter, Hollywood, and sundry other garbage, under the rubric of Political Correctness—to whose vicious depravity Obleftivists seem oblivious or indifferent. How about a call to arms on behalf of Milo Yiannopoulis, whom Yaron Brook derides (oh, to have one Objectivist with Milo’s star quality!!), recently silenced by Islamo-Marxist thugs at Berkeley University; on behalf of Gavin McInnes, pepper-sprayed by Islamo-Marxist thugs at New York University?! How about a call to arms against one of the principal organisers of the Ugly Wimmin’s March, Linda Sarsour, who once tweeted of Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “I wish I could take their vaginas away—they don’t deserve to be women”?! (Ms Ali, of course, is one of hundreds of millions of genitally mutilated Muslim women. She is now a prominent, heroic former Muslim.) All the while, in fact, Yaron minimises the enormity of the Muslim threat within America, saying, “The United States has zero potential to end up like Europe,” and, “Everyday Muslims are no threat.” How exactly does this "useful idiot" propose to differentiate the perpetrators of the killings of 145 Americans by Muslims in the United States since 9/11 from “everyday" Muslims? Blankout! “Everyday Muslims” are required to believe in Jihad, Sharia Law and a worldwide caliphate. They are stiffened in their resolve by such jolly verses from the Koran as, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” They’re also enjoined to lie (Taqiyya) about their agenda. So again, how does Useful Yaron propose to distinguish everyday Muslims from actual Muslims: i.e., Muslims who take their religion seriously? (Agenda alert: Yaron makes the exact same argument minimising the threat from Muslims as did a Cato Institute representative on the Martha McCallum Fox News Special a few days ago: the chances of being struck down by a Muslim terrorist are three trillion times lower than of being mugged or struck by lightning or a car, or some such. Hmmmmm. Cato. ARI. Pro-open borders Koch Bros. Funding.) Then again, from the smug security of a gated community, what difference does it make whether it’s Muslims or Mexicans doing the beheadings? Yaron said this morning that Trump’s description of the activist judge in Seattle who up-ended his temporary travel ban as a “so-called judge” was “despicable.” I’d say it’s the judge—a Black Lives Matter cheerleader—who’s despicable. I say, may the ban be quickly reinstated; may it revert to the President’s original proposal: Not One Muslim! I’d like to offer a helpful philosophical observation to Obleftivists at this point. Objectivism does not contend that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Objectivism views that as an intrinsicist view of rights. Objectivists, if asked, would eschew such a view. Yet when a prominent Objectivist (Binswanger) ends up saying, “Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from entering America”; or, “The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration. Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease”; or, “Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not enough, they deserve an apology” ... then you know you’re dealing with intrinsicism on steroids, and that the good ol’-time “rationalism” so well exposed by Leonard Peikoff has still not been weeded out. There are no “intrinsic” rights implanted in us by a mystical creator or nature; “rights” is a concept arrived at after tortuous millennia of excruciating cogitation by advanced human beings at the forefront of Western thought. Those whom Ayn Rand called “dinky little savages” do not have an automatic, inbuilt right, just because they look like humans, to travel to, much less remain in, Western countries. Civilised countries have the right to be selective as to whom they admit—as selective as Galt’s Gulch if necessary. Obleftivists think that the type of people to whom Ayn Rand pleaded, "Don't let it go," have, in electing Donald Trump, let it go: "it" being the uniquely American sense of life of which she wrote so eloquently. I contend that in electing Donald Trump, they, in the nick of time, reaffirmed it, and reassured us that they are still around. (Beyond miraculous, when you think about it, given all the professors and Obleftivist “intellectuals” like Binswanger who have held sway since Rand wrote that. Makes you think that “sense of life” must be in Americans’ DNA! Horreurs! Determinism!!) Ayn Rand said, of judging political candidates, “A voter’s choice does not commit him to a total agreement with a candidate—and certainly cannot commit a candidate to an agreement with every voter who supports him. Under a two-party system, a voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely between the lesser of two evils.” Yaron Brook would have you believe that Rand, who chose Nixon over McGovern, would have preferred Hillary over Trump. Hillary is easily more evil than McGovern, and arguably the most evil person ever to have run for the presidency. Yaron proudly says he doesn’t care! Trump is not the lesser of two evils, however; he is outrageously good—even though he is not the card-carrying Objectivist Obleftivists seem to demand! The very words “President Trump” are music to my ears, equal to Rachmaninoff. President Trump, President Trump, President Trump! This is even better than hearing (and as a broadcaster, reading) the words “President Reagan,” to whom OrgOists were equally asininely opposed (except for one of their leaders who voted for Reagan without telling anyone, Ayn Rand included). I am ecstatic at the spectacle of America’s ascension back to greatness. Every day, President Trump, in full view of the world he defies, relentlessly advances his audacious agenda; every week, Obleftivist Brook, in full view of a few lemming-like acolytes on Faecesbook and in parochial parts of the world, trashes it, because it might include tariffs and does include Twitter attacks on the smelly Islamo-Marxists at CNN and NPR, Yaron’s favourite sources of Fake News and Politically Correct commentary. I am a Deplorable, irredeemably. And I deplore Obleftivism. Obleftivism is Fake Objectivism! It's party time in America! Yaron Brook is a party-pooper! Make Objectivism Great Again!
|
User loginNavigation
More SOLO Store  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Syndicate |
Perfect Obleftivist Dem-Scum Pin-Up
They don't come much stupider, more fry-quacking or more evil than this:
"If your blood doesn't boil ...
... you're a waste of space."
Magnificent boiling of blood, with utterly appropriate target: Dem-Scum dirtbag Schumer, one of the lowest sub-humans on the planet:
Lindsey
Secret Societies of Objectivists/Obleftivists?
Anti-White Genocide in South Africa
Edit: I have removed my earlier comment since I couldn't find what I thought led to it.
Airhead Fryquacking IslamoMarxist Moronnial ...
... wins something over establishment Dem-Scum:
Rational Anger from Mark Levin
I commend this to the cowardly slobs who join secret societies to tut-tut about Obleftivism but attack me for getting angry about it, and never dare show their craven heads above the parapets:
ARISIS' Spiritual Father
ARISIS in Sicily Now?!
“Mayor of the Sicilian city of Palermo Leoluca Orlando has declared that Italy should ban residency permits altogether and allow migrants to flood into the country, comparing the permits as morally equivalent to the death penalty.
"The 70-year-old mayor, who recently offered to take in the 629 illegals from the Aquarius migrant transport ship after Interior Minister Matteo Salvini banned it from Italian ports, wants to make his city the 'capital of tolerance', French magazine L’Obs reports. 'We are convinced that migrants are a resource and not a problem,' Orlando told the magazine and added: 'This situation is an opportunity to defend the rights of all human beings to move and live in the place that suits them.'"
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
Cf:
“Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from entering America."
“The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration. Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease."
—Obleftivist Binswanker
Yaron Again Discusses The Debate With Brook
It's all about getting eyeballs because it will be on Dave Rubin's channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Brook and Peikoff defend Peterson's OCON invitation
Staring around the 1:13 mark, towards the end, Brook and Peikoff defend the decision to invite Peterson to OCON. I actually agree with their rationale; they're not giving Peterson a platform to present his ideas, as much as they're debating ideas. Not trying to convert him, but answering and responding. And Peterson is willing to discuss ideas in a civil matter. (Yes, Peterson does say that Rand is "not a great philosopher, and that her fiction is not great." But he does so in a civil manner, so he's welcome. I'm guessing he won't be asked not to make "sweeping denunciations" as a precondition for debate...) They also explain why someone like Peterson, "who is merely wrong", makes the cut, but not the Pope, "who is evil."
Ok, all well and good, in itself. And it's not a knock at Peterson; he's upfront about how he feels about Rand, yet is still willing to go do discuss ideas, good for him. That said, it's a bit rich for them to get defensive, given the history of O'ism towards orthodoxy, in the past, and excommunicating those who spoke to libertarians, etc. That's not addressed in the video, it's the elephant in the room that goes unnoticed, so their offense is disingenuous.
And there is ANOTHER elephant in that room...(geez, we're gonna need a bigger room...) Not only is Peterson quasi-religious, he's a >gasp< Kantian. KANTIAN! Rand called Kant "The Most Evil Man In History." EVIL!
Seriously, though, are they just going to pretend that never happened? Granted, there are even those among the objectivish who argue that maybe she went a step too far, with that. Maybe not, but maybe...and maybe Peterson is not full-blown Kantian, but maybe...but putting aside the rightness or wrongness of her view, the FACT that she made the argument remains, so to invite a Kantian advocate to OCON, while calling the Pope evil...well, that's bound to raise a few eyebrows. It's in the Objectivist DNA...Lobster dominance hierarchies demand it...it beggars belief that they wouldn't at least see the irony in it...
This one is the announcement video. In both, Brook makes clear where O'ism and Peterson are different, and Brook DOES present the differences pretty well. BUT, Brook does admit that he's not up to the task of challenging Peterson on psychology, and will try to avoid those topics.
The idea about riding coat-tails did cross my mind, as well. Brook himself says, at some point, that an appearance on Tucker Carlson does little to boost his ratings, and mentions Peterson's audience and appeal. Some think that this will be a chance for O'ism to come to the forefront as an alternative to Peterson, to the common enemy of postmodernism and PC culture authoritarianism rum amok.
"Hope floats..."
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Hmmmm...Nah.
I heard the announcement, but...hah, no, not attending. But I can't deny it, I will be interested to see how it plays out. I started and stopped my Jungian Objectivist project, what, 13 years ago? So to see this happening is a bit surreal.
(Also surprising that Ellen Stuttle hasn't emerged to discuss Peterson, given her interest in Jung. Then again, she's been pretty quiet for some time, now.)
Peterson was actually here in Philly, for his book tour, and I considered going, but decided not to, after reading his book. Anything good I get from Peterson I already find with Rand, but without the contradictions and religious talk. I still find the whole phenomenon fascinating, though.
"The villain of our time ..."
Evil Obleftivist Yawon calls him "this cweature—this vulgar cweature."
The more I see ...
... of this Jordan Petersen, the less impressed I am. Yawon and he are a match made in Heaven! Smart move by Yawon to ride Jordan's coat-tails, and possibly even get the better of the encounter, since JP can't seem to make up his mind about anything. I imagine they'll both be virtue-signalling to the Left, so it will be instructive to see who gets the upper hand in that contest!
Joe, may we assume you'll be attending your first OCON and will have eye-witness accounts for us?
Fake Objectivism meets Fake Right
Jordan Peterson, a member of the Fake Right (a Left-Liberal), is meeting Yaron Brook, a member of Fake Objectivism (an ObLeftivist) at OCON in Newport Beach, UglyCal, this July.
The event will be livestreamed by Left-Liberal Dave Rubin for his Rubin Report.
The event will be viewed by hundreds of thousands, in effect putting up ObLeftivism as a very well visible public target, if you get my drift. An opportunity not to be lost.
#MOGA!
to earn their livelihoods
in Mexico?
--Brant
can't imagine why not
Leftists and Obleftivists
"We are going to be on the alert in these days, so this repressive, racist and inhumane action stops,” said Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the left-wing candidate who leads all polls for Mexico’s July 1 presidential election. “After our movement wins, we are going to defend migrants from Mexico, from Central America, from all the American continent ... who have to abandon their homes to earn their livelihoods in the United States. It’s a human right that we are going to defend.”
https://www.wgrz.com/article/n...
Cf:
“Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from entering America."
“The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration. Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease."
—Obleftivist Binswanker
Freedom to tavel is a right?
You are not free to travel onto my property.
I might even have the freedom--right--to shoot you if you do.
That's called the freedom to get shot.
Maybe if this guy studied Objectivism--that is the philosophy of Ayn Rand--for the next hundred years he might handle the underlying logic, at least when it comes to rights. Leonard Peikoff only needed several decades, not that it did him much good--not when he lets himself be brain buried by this and the other tyro.
Remember what Rand thought about the rights of "savages."
--Brant
ARISIS Intrinsicism Is Winning
Much faux outrage from The Filth, including the reptiles Schumer and Pelosi, about children being separated from parents who've crossed the border illegally bringing their children with them. Trump signs order ending separation but continuing to prosecute those who cross the border illegally. The Filth suddenly "pivots" to faux outrage about "indefinite detention," thus revealing their true agenda: open borders, unimpeded migration. Same as ARISIS:
#MOGA!!!!!!!!!! Repudiate Obleftivism!
#To Iwan With Schumer Pelosi Bwook and Ghate!
#Build Those Walls On Canadian And Mexican Borders!!
Curiouser and Curiouser
Yawon speaks of significant downsizing and the loss of a major donor in his video; he also acknowledges some doubt as to whether ARI will be funding his trips and other ventures. He says it'll be over to ARI how it explains all of this to its supporters. Well, here's the first communication from the new guy. No mention of Yawon or of any difficulties, just a lot of fashionable bromides about "leveraging," "cutting edge" and the like:
End of Obleftivism?
Don't worry, I haven't lost my sanity and begun listening to all of Yawon's videos. The moronnial-type upward-inflecting that he's adopted would be enough to drive me insane quite apart from the Obleftivist content. But someone who does monitor Yawon reports that at 1 hour 2 minutes into the following vid he acknowledges ARISIS is facing "particularly acute financial challenges" right now, that there's been a "significant downsizing" and they've lost a "significant donor." Question: is this related to their descent into Obleftivism or independent of it? If the latter are they so deluded as to think Obleftivism will save them?
In any event, #MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Linz
The other day I saw your response. Then I read your initial post on this thread again. You're correct, and a great post it is.. The Obleftivists are just as dangerous as May's Tommy Robinson-jailing pigs. Don't forget, Yawn Bwook advised against Bwexit so that the English could be wuled by those faceless unelected cunts in Bwussels.
zero chance?
Because we won't stand for it?
--Brant
Send these Somali Mosquitoes ...
... to Yawon's Ghated community:
"Islam is a mere mosquito bite. Stop being afwaid of Muslims. Thewe is zewo chance of what's happened in Euwope happening in Amewica. The weal thweat to Western Civilization is Donald Twump."
—Evil Obleftivist Yawon Bwook, speech- and morality-impeded.
How explicit can you get?
"Donald Trump needs to lose heavily." That's what Bwook the Cwook tweeted last time. If that's not saying "Vote Hillary" I don't know what is. Next time it'll be Cory Booker or Michelle Obama or Elisabeth Warren or Andrew Cuomo or some other sub-human, and he'll say the same thing. Not that his advice makes the slightest difference to the outcome, but it's evil, and is not what should be proffered in the name of Ayn Rand.
Yawn Bwook
He won’t specifically say vote for them; he’ll find a way to say it so his Anti–Rand Institute retains its tax status.
Animal Rights Institute
Donaldo Il Magnifico just called MS-13 "animals." The Left, including MS13NBC, went berserk. Dem-Scum Pelosi said even MS-13 members had the "spark of divinity" within. (Note the similarity with the Binswankerian intrinsicist view of rights.) I don't imagine Obleftivist Yawon in his Ghated community had even heard of MS-13 before I raised it in my Open Letter; now I imagine he'll leap to the defence of these animals just because Twump, "the weal thweat to Western Civilisation," has called them such. Yawon will no doubt claim that MS-13 are mere "mosquito bites" and urge folk to vote for Pelosi/Schumer. So we have yet another name for ARI. Bruno calls them the Anti-Rand Institute; I call them ARISIS (for being Islamenablers); now we have the Animal Rights Institute. Take your pick—all are valid.
Yawon the Shapeshifter
Shapeshifter Yawon in the interview now claims that inequalities are partially caused by our different "genes" and "abilities". Unbelievable. This is the same person who just a few months ago called the entire field of IQ research "evil".
There is such enormous cultural pushback against IQ denialism that even Mainstweam Yawon has to adjust himself, just like any good little Peter Keating knows he must in order to appease and please the crowd.
Obleftivist Twaitor Yawon Attacks Hungawy
Yawon gets apoplectic about Hungary's moves—none of which is totalitarian, let alone "authowitawian" as Yawon claims—to clamp down on the traitor Soros, whose tool Yawon is, while playing down the truly totalitarian evil of the government of China. 18' 00" or so in:
http://writewithcourage.libsyn...
Weal Thweat to Western Civilisation 1980
Faces of Evil
Separated at birth?
Making Hungary Great Again
Hungary cracks down on Open Borders Soros-Filth, causing him to flounce; the one-time Nazi informant says he'll put yet more money into promoting free entry for dinky little savages into UK and US:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...
Keith Ellison of The Filth Wears Bwook of The Filth T-Shirt
Dem-Muslim Keith Ellison Wears Yawon Bwook T-Shirt:
"I don't believe in borders."
http://www.breitbart.com/2018-...
Mr Bwook Goes to Washington
Islamofilth and their fellow-travellers will be swarming all over Washington this week for Muslim Advocacy Day. No doubt Yawon will be there telling lawmakers Islam is a mere mosquito-bite and the weal thweat to Western Civilisation is Donald Twump:
https://gellerreport.com/2018/...
PhD
PhD nowadays is a guarantee of moronry. Degrees generally are now worthless, so dumbed down and PC has the curriculum become.
I laugh when I think of one of my heroes, Mario Lanza, who for ten years was the most popular tenor in the world and would have gone on being that had he not done a pre-Elvis Elvis (he was Elvis's favourite singer as it happens). He would have been placed last in a conventional singing competition judged by PhD musicologists—arid fuckwits that they are. He was the Donald Trump of opera: a "vulgarian" genius whom everyone with a beating heart, functioning ears and animate receptors adored. Now it's a "credentialled world," in the words to me of someone who committed the most egregious moral treason I was ever personally privy to—and the world has never been so homogenised in its mediocrity.
Twit-Witter has gone quiet. No response from Yawon or his gwoupies to my challenge. So I've tweeted another one, an easier one for him:
Enemy Invasion -- and Corruption and Infection
"Open immigration" still means one thing and one thing only today: enemy invasion immigration. Canada and Australia admit immigrants mostly based upon merit. So should all high-quality nations. The savages and enemies of the West have no right to invade.
But, MWibbensPHD....
But, MWibbensPHD has a PhD! She way smarter than you meany waycists who demand Israeli style immigration policy for your nation.
P.S. I bet that this "Price is Primary" person is Yawon Bwook.
Yawon and Shapeero
They deserve each other. Two fake-Right fake-Objectivist Californian squeakers who need to go find a veeeeery good speech coach to perform a miracle on them.
Both are mainstream façade distractions impeding truth seekers to enter a real right wing and individualist home of thought.
Two anti-Twump cuckservatives/obleftivists, neo-con warmongers, lovers of immigwation of illiterate parasites, fake-America California aficionados.
#CalExit #Now!
Dunning-Kruger effect
Yawon's minions are morons and too stupid to know they are dealing with a superior intellect in the man whose name is Danger. They think Yawon is a worthwhile philosophical thinker, what more needs to be said?
All heating up ...
... on Twit-Witter. Yawon has taken to "liking" tweets critical of me, in lieu of fronting up to debate me:
https://twitter.com/MRibbensPh...
At the border
1) "The principle of individual rights demands open immigration . . . ."
How? And what is that principle?
2) "Implementing that would mean . . . ."
3) "Entry into the United States . . . ."
The third sentence contradicts the second sentence. If it's the second sentence that's valid the third isn't. If the third is valid then toss the second.
Re the last sentence, you can add in more stipulations, make a personal list, rationalizations to follow.
"Asylum is a right." And welfare isn't?
Etc.
--Brant
this is too easy--Rand was never easy, except to the honest folk who already knew something
(written under the influence of hard liquor)
Hilawious Hystewia!
We're not privy to the apoplexy that must have gone down on election night in the well-guarded Ghated communities of Obleftivists, but if it were anything like this apoplexy from their fellow-Filth The Young Turks it's extremely gratifying and thigh-slappingly funny to contemplate:
Binswankers at the Border
Note the dinky little savages from shithole countries at America's southern border right now are touting signs saying "Asylum is a right." C/f Binswanker:
But ...
... it's your DUTY!
I refuse !!!
I can bring myself to listen Yawon if there is absolute necessity, but Shapeero? Please, no!!
Good Lord!
This came up on my YT channel. Is this what Yawon sounds like these days? A poor man's Alex Jones, scweaming and wasping? What a disgusting noise! And is he set to debate with Ben? Will he demand that Ben wefwain fwom making "sweeping cwiticisms" of him?
As theatrically compelling as it might promise to be, I fear an encounter between a quacker and a shrieker would be altogther too much for my aesthetic sensibilities. Neil and Bruno: you're on notice—if this happens, I'll be relying on you to listen to it and report!
Home of ARISIS HQ Defies Sanctuary California ... Bwook Flounces
Home of ARISIS HQ Defies Sanctuary California ... Bwook Flounces To Puerto Wico
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
If your blood doesn't boil you're a waste of space.
Amazing ...
... that Obleftivists, professed adherents to Objeftivism, which vehemently opposes the ethics of sacrifism, are so eager to self-immolate at the behest of Muslims, MS13 and other members of The Filth. Let's have some ethical cleansing. MOGA!!
The Anomaly
The anomaly is Open Borders and Mass Immigration. The need to defend national borders is a constant and eternal necessity. We are experiencing the results of deviating from normalcy.
The Founding Fathers knew better than this bunch of Obleftivist useful idiots at the Anti-Rand Institute & friends advocating for national self-annihilation. Open immigration was never part of the deal. The idea of Open immigration is some form of post-modern mental virus. All the "classical liberals" who advocated for it were mistaken. The farther back you go the more they are excused. Those who still advocate for cultural suicide in 2018 are inexcusable.
America and ARI
Brant writes:
"The United States is now Israel."
Exactly.
Brant also writes:
"Ayn Rand would chop off ARI's head and drive a stake through its rotten heart."
Exactly.
self defense
Ayn Rand would defer to the necessity of self defense in the context of a war threatening the very existence of civilization.
There is a reason she never advocated "open borders" for Israel.
Times change.
The United States is now Israel.
--Brant
Obleftivists' intellectual bankruptcy
One direct response to me thus far:
Note the complete absence of any effort by Mr. O'Neil, representing Obleftivism, to answer a single point in my Open Letter. The same complete absence conspicuous from any Obleftivist since I wrote it.
Oh, brother!
This Margolis objects to ad hominem but embraces authority.
Like I've said--there are only two types of property in the United States: public and private and the public is in trust for the private. Coming into this country is by the permission of the property owners and must be filtered by the federal government for no private property owner can guarantee his guest will confine himself to his property.
--Brant (55 years into Objectivism)
Ayn Rand would chop off ARI's head and drive a stake through its rotten heart
Obleftivist Obscenity
I posted a brief reply on that thread, including a link to here. Let's see how long it stays up.
The Obleftivist frauds dare speak out!
Stadler Margolis, an Anti-Rand Institute Obleftivist, is triggered. Oh, so triggered. He thinks that himself, Ghastly Gate, Hairy Binswanker and Mosquito Bite Bwook have a monopoly over "Objectivism."
"Drop that label!" says Stadler, "that's OUR label!"
No. No it is not. You are Obleftivists. Just admit it already.
I will post his boilerplate Obleftivism verbal regurgitation, although as you can imagine there is absolutely nothing here which we haven't read (or Galt forbid "listened to" with our ears bleeding in the process) already a million times. And they think they're smart! It's an embarrassment.
Stadler Margolis says:
Direct link to Faecesbook: https://m.facebook.com/story.p...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's time to Repudiate Obleftivism!
It's time to Make Objectivism Great Again!
It's #MOGA! time!
Will ARI Drain *Its* Swamp?
FBI and DOJ finally starting to expel their scum. Today, McCabe. Tomorrow, Wray and Rosenstein? All of them, as well as Crooked Comey, should be in cuffs, as Judge Jeanine keeps saying.
ARI must similarly purge itself of Bwook the Cwook and all the other mercenary Obleftivists whose primary love is not reason and freedom but their Ghated communities.
Bwook/Binswanker poster-boy acquitted
I see the illegal alien scum who shot Kate Steinle has been acquitted. No doubt Bwook and Binswanker would say from their Ghated communities that the scum, self-selected for virtue, is owed not only an acquittal but an amnesty and an apology.
"The villain of our time" in South Korea
Oh, but it wasn't Galt's Speech. Therefore Twump is "a cancer." Vote Hillary!
To Iwan with Yawon!! To Ankara with Onkar!!
#MOGA!!!!!!!!!
#Down With Obleftivism!!!!!!!!!!
Someone else who gets it ....
http://www.theratcap.com/2017/...
To repeat myself ...
"Those Muslim immigwants into Euwope are nothing more than pests. ... The weal thweat to Western Civilisation is Donald Twump."
"Evewyday Muslims are not a pwoblem. Stop being afwaid."
“The United States has zewo potential to end up like Euwope."
—Yawon Bwook
EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Down with Obleftivism!
#MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr. Hurd...
I always find his analysis insightful, one of the few things on FB newsfeed that is actually worth the read.
I did like it!
Thanks Joe for the link!
Frightened of anger indeed. The world is perishing from an orgy of fear of anger.
Dr. Michael Hurd on Trump, and backlash
"I read today that Yawon has just described Trump as a "cancer." Wonder what that makes Hillary, whom he supports.
"What I find unfathomable is the zombie-like acquiescence by "Objectivists" to their philosophy being hijacked by Obleftivism. Is it truly the case that there's nothing more than a handful of true, fire-in-the-belly Objectivists remaining?"
There is Dr. Michael Hurd, a pro-Objectivist psychologist. He's not aligned with any organization, I should add, but speaks for himself, and pulls no punches. He has come out in support of Trump, not as the ideal, "Galt-like" candidate, but as an antidote to Clinton. He doesn't support everything Trump does, of course, and is balanced about it, but points out his strengths and the left's weakness/hypocrisy. And for his effort, he has been vilified by some ortho-Objectivists. One recent thread on a closed Objectivist Facebook group started a witch hunt, starting off with "anyone a fan of Dr. Hurd's? He really went over the deep-end for Trump"...(paraphrased)...saying things like "he's destroyed himself", he's dogmatic, he's untrustworthy, etc...(I disagree with them; a lot of ad hominem and unsourced claims.) One conversation claimed that he condemned anyone who didn't vote for Trump as being anti-Objectivist, or not understand it, or something like that. But when I countered with the Peikoff "vote Democrat-across-the-board" fatwa, and his reversal a few years, later, after we got Obama, it was, as Rand would say, "blank-out." It really is lke there is more than political disagreement at work; they are really out to >vilify< anyone who disagrees with Brook, et. al...
Anyone who's interested in Dr. Hurd's Trump support in full context can read for themselves. Here's a link to his series of Trump articles, on his website:
https://drhurd.com/?s=trump&su...
Linz, you may like this one:
"Donald Trump’s Anger is the Best Thing About Him"
https://drhurd.com/2015/08/01/...
"Reaching out"
Run a mile from anyone who uses that ghastly PC term. No surprise ARISIS are using it.
I read today that Yawon has just described Trump as a "cancer." Wonder what that makes Hillary, whom he supports.
What I find unfathomable is the zombie-like acquiescence by "Objectivists" to their philosophy being hijacked by Obleftivism. Is it truly the case that there's nothing more than a handful of true, fire-in-the-belly Objectivists remaining?
In any event, I repeat my challenge to debate Bwook without his "no sweeping criticism" precondition. With a mutually-agreed-to moderator.
#MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reaching Out
Jim Brown, President and CEO of ARI, says: "If you have any questions, I encourage you to reach out to me." Someone should. They should encouage Brook and the rest to discuss and debate the issues more with those who are well-informed about Objectivism. This will vastly refine and improve the content and style of ARI's public arguments.
Yes
I received one of those as well. For some reason I haven't been expunged from their mailing list.
For:
... read:
The Obleftivists are doubling down. MOGAns must now quintuple down!
#Obleftivism is Fake Objectivism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yaron Brook Just Made Chairman of the Board at ARI
Announcing Yaron Brook’s New Role at ARI
Dear Luther:
As you may know, Yaron Brook is one of the best-known Objectivists in the world. His radio show, which is now heard Saturdays on TheBlaze, is on fire—and the global demand for Yaron as a speaker and public advocate for Ayn Rand’s ideas has never been greater.
That is why I am pleased to tell you that Yaron’s role at ARI has officially changed from Executive Chairman to Chairman of the Board, which now will allow him to concentrate fully on his global outreach.
Yaron is hard at work in his new role and will continue to represent ARI and support its mission of building awareness and understanding of Ayn Rand’s ideas. He’s also established a terrific network of friends and donors throughout the years, and he will stay active in fundraising activities for ARI.
I am assuming the role of President and CEO of the Institute and its affiliated organizations.
If you have any questions, I encourage you to reach out to me.
Sincerely,
Jim Brown
Chief Executive Officer
Milo Heads Down Under
Milo's about to unleash on Australia. I know efforts are underway to try to bring him to New Zealand, but don't know the outcome.
Not sure which is worse in the following interview: the ugly feminazi or the brainless manner of "speaking" by all the "interviewers."
Linz
I saw Steve Bannon yesterday evening with Hannity. I was hoping some of us would catch it. I thought he was excellent in describing the task of draining the red and blue swamp. He’s better than I imagined.
Ed
I agree with your theory. I put it slightly differently myself in my comment on Hacksaw Ridge in the Quality Videos thread:
#MOGA!
*This* is what OrgOism needs ...
Steve Bannon shows the moral clarity and sense of urgency absent fwom smug, complacent, gated community, half a million bucks a year Obleftivist pwostitute Yawon:
Scholarship Errors
If you are interested in scholarship errors, you might be interested in my view of Chapters 15 and 16 of DIM, where I accuse Peikoff of poor scholarship (basically cherry-picking).
https://objectivedissent.org/2...
Coulter
I have found Coulter reliable, as you say. Coulter's schtick is very simple, and most of her books rely on it: she pays for a Lexis/Nexis subscription, and she uses it to point out hypocrisy in the media in the past compared to the present. That's basically the whole deal. I haven't read her biography of Joe McCarthy, however; that would be a good book to really check as it relies on primary sources, not just Lexis/Nexis.
Most people don't understand that Coulter's weekly column relies heavily on hyperbole. Most people don't know what hyperbole actually is, which is why Trump's off-the-cuff remarks mystify them. In her columns, she is a political humorist. In her books she is a political commentator who uses humor. There's a difference, one that simply escapes most liberal readers.
My theory...
...isn't particularly original to me. It's just that the in-crowd like being the in-crowd, as if they were back in Junior High School. The cliqueishness of the entire Objectivist movement is so obvious to me as an "outsider" that I'm surprised it isn't more commented upon. To be on the "inside" one must spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars going through the usual gates, like the OAC. The OAC is a place (to paraphrase Peikoff's lecture on education) where ignorant students sit silently and listen to knowledgeable professors, with the OAC staff in the role as professor, or really high priest. What's funny is that there is more serious debate and disagreement at fundamentalist Bible colleges than there is at OAC an in Objectivist gatherings. One must toe the party line or one is out. If one wants to be "in" more than one cares about being right, you get the whole litany of abuses, both from the leaders to their own followers, as well as from the followers to everyone else.
I have not yet read Elliot's long description of why he was ejected from HBL (I will soon). I ejected myself when it became clear that Binswanger would no longer present honest disagreements fairly. The arbitrary rules, like not linking to mises.org or even mentioning Reisman, Binswanger's personal abuse toward those who did not toe the party line, all of these made me believe that it was immoral for me to send him any more money. Though I'm sure I'd have been booted at one point or another, certainly after I wrote my immigration essay.
I had a miserable enough time in junior high to ever want to go back. Plus I have enough real credentials to ever think a credential from these people would be meaningful. So I guess I was always an outcast, and remain so. But I've read a whole lot of non-Objectivist thinkers over the years, both libertarians as well as classical (you mention Burke, an excellent example). None of the Objectivist leadership seems at all interested in any thinkers other than Rand. And sometimes Rand mischaracterized certain thinkers of the past since she was not widely read herself. Peikoff and Binswanger received PhDs in Philosophy, so at least they were exposed to the writings of previous philosophers, but as far as I can tell, neither of them know a thing about history, without which knowledge the philosophic thought of previous generations is not in its proper context. They strike me as deliberately--even militantly--ignorant. Peikoff once said that all one needed to know about current events was what was on the front page of the NYT, and even then mostly just above the fold. How can anyone think such a thing? It was stupid to think in 1960 before the Times went hard left. It's literally insane to think it today. Brook does Peikoff one better, by relying on NPR--literally government propaganda--as well as the Times. Militant ignorance is the leitmotif of Objectivist intellectuals.
Brook said there should be
Does he have a source on attacking Coulter's scholarship? I personally checked it because I wanted to know the truth:
http://curi.us/1626-fact-check...
http://curi.us/1625-reviewing-...
http://curi.us/1820-adios-amer...
Linz has noted worthwhile
Actually, Alex Epstein is bad.
Alex Epstein Attacks Liberty
Alex Epstein's Pinnacle
Alex Epstein Scholarship Problem
Besides the links, another thing he did wrong is endorse the standard views on addiction and the medicalization of everyday life (calling things "unhealthy" instead of "immoral"). I asked him to stop and told him why it was a mistake; he wouldn't answer me.
I was not a random stranger contacting him. I helped out with the Center for Industrial Progress for a couple years (wrote some articles, did some research and editing, etc.). He said he thought I was one of the few people smart enough to contribute. We met several times. We had conversations in person, by email, and on calls. But they didn't get very far. The problem is: he's too busy doing activism to take philosophy seriously or address some of his mistakes that I pointed out to him. He's not willing to think more, he just wants to tell others what to think.
And his activism is full of compromises and sucking up to (aka sanctioning) authorities and opponents. He pays enemies of humanity for "debates", knowing full well they aren't capable of debate, but pretending otherwise because he wants to get attention by piggybacking on their prestige with sound bytes of himself "debating" them.
He's done some good work which is probably what you guys are aware of. He's right on many points about energy. But he's a compromiser who's more interested in social climbing than intellectual discussion. Compromisers as dangerous, as Ayn Rand warned us. We don't need people trying to spread mixed messages in our name.
Even when I said a lot of this to him, he just acted like nothing much had happened and kept trying to say I was smart but should be less aggressive and more humble. He wouldn't even tell me to get lost! He just made excuses. So I told him he can contact me if he changes his mind and becomes willing to think about the issues and discuss arguments; he hasn't.
Epstein also decided not to talk about Trump's great views on energy and be neutral between anti-energy and pro-energy candidates.
What's *your* theory as to
My guess is:
Peikoff was never a very good thinker. He has publicly admitted to not really being a philosopher, to finding learning hard, etc. While Rand was alive, she was constantly correcting him and steering him back on to the right track. After Rand died, he got progressively worse. As an atheist intellectual who wanted to be influential, he got drawn to the trendy left. He didn't want to stand up to almost everyone and everything, as required. That's hard. He ran out of energy, he never had clear enough convictions of his own, and cultural leftism started getting the better of him. Peikoff also went through the university system, as did a lot of other ARI people.
Peikoff is dishonest. He's written about this. What set Rand apart from others? Why was she so smart? Peikoff reports Ayn Rand's own answer as her honesty. Peikoff, however, spent years denying this b/c he assumed his own integrity was the same as Rand's, and therefore there must be some other difference... This wasn't honest.
Dishonesty will tear you apart and corrupt you over time. Contradictions don't work.
While alive, Ayn Rand gave Peikoff answers to many current events issues. Over the years, as those stopped applying to the current situation (because the details of the politics of the day shift), Peikoff became more and more lost. He had to try to think for himself, and he couldn't do it well. (A minor aside: I recently listened to Peikoff's audio lectures on grammar. I like some of his old work. After listening, I got the grammar book he recommended and was surprised to find he'd taken tons of course material from the book. He didn't give adequate credit for the content he used, which is worrisome.)
So anyway, people like Peikoff don't know about things like Saul Alinsky and George Soros. They don't read the right sources like Ann Coulter and Front Page Magazine. They get info from NYT and related "respectable" sources too much – they think they're so smart and recognize its flaws, but they are only mentally correcting for about a quarter of the bias. Binswanger was even getting info from Nate Silver and allowing HuffPo links (but not Mises.org links). When challenged about Silver, Binswanger basically admitted he had no idea what he was talking about, but wasn't inclined to learn.
They are ignorant and our culture's intellectual institutions (media, universities, intellectual respectability) are leftist. It takes a motor and an ongoing process of rational thought for an atheist intellectual to stay on the right and not get sucked into any leftism. The alternative way to stay on the right is to have some entrenched good values – e.g. be an American Christian who prefers common sense over what the elites tell him is rational. But Peikoff, rather than e.g. reading and understanding Edmund Burke (as I did), just hates Christians (in a way Ayn Rand didn't).
Rejecting tradition is dangerous. You have to know what you're doing. There's way more ways to be mistaken than correct. Atheists reject important traditional ideas and values. To be an atheist, you need to be a good thinker or you're probably going to come out worse than most American Christians – which is exactly what we see in the world on a large scale with the Christian right trying to save civilization while the atheist left attacks civilization.
Don't get me wrong. I've never been religious. You can think for yourself and do well. But it's hard and the majority fail. Peikoff failed. He wasn't enough of a first-handed maverick pioneer to go against a major intellectual trend without the backing of a major tradition, just using his own mind and judgement.
This is, of course, all much worse and more damning than the belief that they were bought by donors. By saying the open borders donors had to buy them, you suggest they actually know the truth. They don't. They're intellectually lost.
(I can provide sources on any of this if asked.)
Neil, my thoughts on debating
Neil, my thoughts on debating them:
Lindsay was right not to debate them with an arm tied behind his back.
Offering them money to debate is a mistake because it sanctions them as important intellectuals who deserve to be paid for having a discussion.
You should demand they debate without any payment, or else admit they are not serious intellectuals.
I would expect any serious thinker to be willing to debate in writing with the following rules:
- unmoderated
- no time limits
- no length limits
- public, with permalinks for everything
- discussion happens over time. people should think over their reply, check sources, etc., before replying.
- no arbitrary rules about topic. bringing up methodology or tangential topics you consider relevant is allowed. if you don't like it, criticize it instead of trying to say it's off-limits.
Debate should continue until some resolution is reached. If someone wants to quit, they can explain why as part of the debate. If they want to stop responding without explanation, that decision can be on the record and they can be revealed as a fraud.
What if someone is busy and their time is valuable? They are welcome to have someone else write their arguments for them. They can have an agent debate in their place. If they have neither the fans nor funding to get anyone good enough to do this, then I'm not buying the too-fancy-to-debate-me story. If you can't get anyone else to represent your viewpoint for you, then you're a lone voice who better argue your own points. If you don't have enough money to spend your time being an intellectual, too bad, that's your problem not my problem.
They're also welcome to provide references to pre-existing answers to issues when they have one which addresses the issue. Thinkers should build up reusable answers and reuse them. They can reference text written by anyone as long as they take responsibility for it, since they are using it to speak for them.
It is the responsibility of a public philosopher to see that questions and criticism are addressed. Do it personally, or get someone else to do it and take personal responsibility for what they say. If they won't do that, they are refusing to think. The way to deal with intellectual imposters who refuse to think is by pronouncing moral judgement, not by offering money as if their time was valuable (it isn't because they're bad thinkers) and they were above you (they aren't above me because I have integrity and am interesting in thinking arguments through, unlike them).
Great post. They don't seem
Great post. They don't seem to recognize how dangerous Obama, Hillary or open borders are!
I tried to talk to Harry Binswanger about it, but dissent isn't allowed on his forum. I put up a blog post here about how I got banned from HBL.
Here, I wanted to relate my experience trying to talk to Binswanger about Hillary around election time. I discovered he's deeply ignorant of the facts because he gets his news from biased MSM sources. I asked him if he knew anything about Saul Alinsky or George Soros. He didn't seem to, and was unwilling to contemplate actually reading something to find out.
Binswanger claimed to respect David Horowitz. I provided quotes from Horowitz showing that Horowitz and Binswanger completely disagree (Horowitz and his Freedom Center is the best source of anti-leftist information). Would, Binswanger, therefore be willing to read information from Horowitz on the philosopher (Saul Alinsky) behind the ideas and agenda of Obama and Hillary? Of course not. Instead, Binswanger refused to read longer material and also, at the very same time, said the quotes I gave were too short without enough substantive argument.
A lot of HBL members are reasonable about politics and supported Trump or Cruz. (Cruz was my first choice, Trump my second choice.) But they're scared to dissent much because it's not an open discussion forum and they could be banned for arguing with Binswanger. By pretending to have an open discussion forum, but actually controlling the content, Binswanger is dishonestly presenting a false picture of what most Objectivists think.
On a related note, part of the reason Binswanger said he banned me is that some of his paying members didn't like what I wrote, and he thought it was a good business decision to pander to a larger number of people. Do you think that Wynand Papers style reasoning is better or worse than banning intellectual dissent? It does effectively ban intellectual dissent anyway...
Peikoff Originally Envisioned Himself as a Medical Doctor
Brant ranted:
"Of course stupidity and ignorance easily run a close second. As a philosopher Leonard could have made a damn fine doctor (of medicine). (In this context doctors are generally stupid and ignorant out of focus on their profession--it's a time to read and think thing about bigger things which they don't have even if interested.)"
In his lectures on induction, Peikoff mentioned that he originally intended to enter the field of medicine prior to meeting Ayn Rand when he was 17. At that point, he changed his mind and decided to become a philosopher instead. I am not sure if Brant knew this when he wrote his rant, but I thought it was an interesting observation.
"moralizing hypocrites"
"Moralizing hypocrites" is Hunter's best line summing up Peikoff and Brook I've ever read.
Otherwise they're primarily stupid and ignorant.
Of course stupidity and ignorance easily run a close second. As a philosopher Leonard could have made a damn fine doctor (of medicine). (In this context doctors are generally stupid and ignorant out of focus on their profession--it's a time to read and think thing about bigger things which they don't have even if interested.)
Ayn Rand was powerful, sincere, charismatic, highly productive and extremely intelligent. She made mistakes--don't we all? A little imitation would have done ARI a world of good.
Nathaniel Branden once stated--I can't give the reference--what was the best place for the Jews? The United States! Not Israel. If he elaborated it was outside my personal experience. (Please note I'm rifting off Hunter's article.) He and Rand were pro-Israel. Well, me too. But Israel is not the promised land. Why? "God" doesn't exist so he couldn't have promised anything. (My big [secular] objection to Israel is it concentrates too many Jews in one place. It's a de facto ghetto though a de jure state. (The Warsaw ghetto was a ghetto de jure--Nazi de jure.) This begs the question of whether big brains really are benefiting the human race in toto. Since I love big brains I could care less if they are or not; they benefit me. So, go beg elsewhere.)
--Brant (rant)
Ed
Many excellent comments. Here is a piece from Mark Hunter (I think he mentions you):
http://ariwatch.com/Presidenti...
Peikoff can write an entire book with the subtitle "Why the lights of the west are going out" and not mention immigration once.
There are objectivists who have competency in their areas (for example Tara Smith), but when it comes to general cultural critcism they are blinded by Objectivist talking points. Brook can't be bothered to look at the reasons why even leftists (such as Nisbett and Turkheimer) believe in the validry of the concept of race of why IQ tests are not "bulshit." Brook lives in Southern California but can lecture the rest of us that we would realize that Mexicans are committing crime at a "much lower" rate than Anglos and we would realize it if weren't so stupid. Brook says that if we had "self esteem" and believe in our culture we could import 3 billion 3rd worlders into the United States. Why in the world is anyone giving money to the ARI?
Greg
Fahy and Valliant seem to lean against Jesus' existence. They say there is "no historical evidence" for this.
This is ridiculous. The only literary evidence for Pilate was the Gospels and Josephus. In 1961 an inscription was found with his name. Prior to 61 was it reasonable to doubt Pilate's existence? Same with Caiphas - ossuary was found recently that might reference him, but it was a mistake to believe he existed prior to 2000?
EDIT: this is what Valliant wrote: "There may have lived a man named Jesus, but there remains today no historical evidence that he did."
Ed
Great comment, but Valliant and Fahey remain agnostic on whether Jesus existed, despite Objectivism's view of agnosticism.
this preposterous new claim by Valliant that not only Jesus of Nazareth did not exist
Ed
Destroying Christianity is the primary goal of ARI, and has been since Peikoff issued his "Religion versus America" fatwa in 1986. But in the civilizational battle we are faced with, Christians are our allies against the Muslim hoards. Islam is the enemy. Unless Brook in some fashion comes to understand this, and focusses his attention (to the extent ARI should focus on politics at all) on the fight FOR Western Civilization, ARI remains the enemy of everything we hold dear, indeed the enemy of everything AYN RAND held dear.
Amen, Bro Ed!
We're all Goblians now!
Incidentally, if race is merely a "social construct," why does Yawon attack "white Chwistians"?
I suspect Ayn Rand would want to dynamite the edifice named after her a la Roark.
MOGA!
This Is It (Sent to Amy and Jim)
Jim,
I'm tired of the bull shit back and forth. Here is the deal.
1. I pay don’t let it go ONE thousand dollars within a week of the debate and ONE thousand FIVE HUNDRED dollars after a week.
2. Amy posts links to my critique of PARC (The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism) and my amazon review of Creating Christ in the show notes.
3. Amy keeps our debate on her show/blog talk as long as other programs.
4. The first half of the show (45 mins) deals with Creating Christ. The question is whether the Flavians created the Gospels and whether the Gospels are fiction.
5. The second half concerns PARC and The Passion of Ayn Rand (by Barbara Branden).
6. I take the position that Barbara’s book is basically “fair and balanced” and you the opposite. I have the right to discuss Burns, Heller, and my suspicions about the accuracy of the material published by the Archive (including Journals and 100 Voices).
7. Out of respect for Amy I will not mention her ex (Leonard) and what role he may have played in the rewriting of Rand's material.
8. The debate will take place within two months.
9. We agree to be civil. I can refer to you as "Jim" and you can refer to me as "Neil" or "Parille" (pronounced pah-rell).
I have to be the only chump on earth who has paid for a debate. The accept deadline is Thursday, 7/27/2017 at 5PM Est. Any email before then which proposes a counter-offer will be deemed a rejection.
Neil
Valliant Won't Debate.
Of course Valliant won't debate. As I described to Neil privately:
He’s a lawyer and thinks like a lawyer. He has a client, his book, which he wants to convince a jury (his readers) is “innocent.” You, the prosecutor, know the book is guilty as hell (that is, false), and want to prove its guilt on some national TV program, let's assume for example, Tucker Carlson. You ask Valliant if would want to go on TV and debate with him his client’s guilt or innocence in front of the whole world, and in particular, you want to remind everyone that his LAST client (Valliant's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics", PARC) was guilty as hell (since you literally wrote the rebuttal, "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism"), and not only was that client guilty but he, Valliant, the defense counsel, lied in court about what the client actually said and did. (That is, Valliant engaged in a number of falsehoods and equivocations in PARC that are not justified by the facts). If we were talking about a real court case, no lawyer would take that deal. Lawyers love going on TV and saying how innocent their clients are, but they’d NEVER do so in a situation where they were exposed to a hostile interrogator. Valliant won't do it unless he’s in some way shamed into it. You and I and Linz are burned with Amy herself as she's chosen to ride the Yaron Brook sinking ship down to the bottom of the sea rather than engage in any serious intellectual discussion.
It's funny because Amy was really on Tucker Carlson the other day arguing about a study that said Christians are more tolerant than atheists, Amy arguing in the negative. But of course, Christians are FAR more tolerant OF IDEAS than atheists, ESPECIALLY Objectivists, who, as a whole, are the most intolerant lot on the planet. Even Raul Castro occasionally said to Fidel, "I think your going a little to far there, comrade, better pull back a little." Not so in the Objectivist community, where toeing the party line, NO MATTER HOW BIZARRE, becomes the primary motivation, rather than intellectual independence. We see this not only in the immigration debate, but in the fullsome praise for Ben Bayer's contentless article on fake news, Brook's denial that race exists (not that race is unimportant, but that it literally doesn't exist, it's a "social construct"), that IQ is a meaningful measurement, that Trump is a would-be dictator or authoritarian, that Muslims are a "pest" not a threat and that the real threat to Western Civilization is Trump, that Christians are no better than Muslims and the real threat to freedom in the US is Christian theocracy, that everyone who opposes them is a racist or xenophobe, that Hillary should have been elected, that Americans are lazy and worse overall as human beings than foreigners, that Milo is a racist and mysogynist, the outright false claims by Andrew Bernstein that certain revolting slaves were morally equivalent to the Founding Fathers, and that Bruce Jenner is a woman. I'm sure there's more. We could fill an entire thread with nothing but bizarre statements made by the Objectivist leadership and their sycophants and enforcers over the years that fly in the face of science, common sense, or rational thought. Indeed, Mark Hunter has made a mini career of doing so over at ariwatch.com.
And now we have this preposterous new claim by Valliant that not only Jesus of Nazareth did not exist--a person we have multiple second-hand accounts of his life and works--more than for Socrates, for example--but that the entire Jesus story in multiple letters and independent and somewhat mutually contradictory gospels was fabricated by the Emperor Vespasian and his minions to clamp down Jewish revolutionaries. I mean, the amount of WTF involved in reading this book--I'm only halfway through--is mind boggling. The distortions, the leaps of faith(!) required to believe the thesis, the massaging the historical record out of all recognizability, the gliding over inconvenient facts that have been well-known for literally millenia, makes this book a piece of garbage. Of course Valliant won't debate it. He has nothing to gain by debating Neil or anyone well-versed in ancient history, like Brook has nothing to gain by debating someone like Linz or myself on immigration. Brook is happy to fly around the country on other peoples' money debating some idiot socialist from Demos whose IQ is and knowledge of economics can be measured in single digits. They probably laugh and go have a drink together afterwards. But the idea of debating someone like Linz or Neil or myself, who will call them out on their bullshit, and back up our conclusions with both data from the real world as well as Objectivist principles properly formulated, they won't touch that with a ten-foot pole.
Brook's basic dishonesty can be seen in his interview with Amy on immigration, the transcript of which is posted elsewhere on this site. Over the course of an hour and a half, he takes every single position, open immigration, selective immigration, banning muslims, and others, claiming some sort of relationship between these positions based on context. So if someone claims he favors massive muslim immigration, he can say, no he doesn't, in the same paragraph where he urges the US to have completely open borders. He spends an hour on discussing immigration in an "ideal world", a world in which basically every country and most people are Objectivists, a world that has never and will never exist. He defends such a discussion by saying as a philosopher, he needs to deal with the principles. Well, here's a principle: in an "ideal world" the US wouldn't need an Army or a Navy either, so why doesn't he argue for the abolition of the US military with the same fervor he argues for open borders? I mean, is it because he's an idiot? Does he not possess enough of the little grey cells to realize that if we are arguing about principles in a particular context, the only relevant context to even discuss is WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. If he wants to write a book about what immigration would be like in a purely Objectivist world, sometime in the year AD 4765, to be read only by his sycophants, that would be fine. But he is arguing for open borders TODAY when the issue is about civilizational survival. HE CANNOT BE THAT STUPID. There has to be an ulterior motive. Many people suggest the motive is his funding by the open borders libertarians. That's as good an explanation as anything. Clearly the explanation cannot be that Brook believes his own bullshit? Am I wrong? Valliant is in a similar position. He can't be stupid enough to think the nonsense he has written in his book about Vespasian inventing Christianity to pacify the Jews passes the smell test, much less Occam's Razor? He, like Rand, Peikoff, and Brook before him, just wants to throw mud at Christianity and by doing so Western Civilization. To say that Brook and Valliant are alienated from Western Civilization as a whole is an understatement. They claim to admire the Greek elements in Western Civilization, but in fact what they really want to do is expurgate all the Christian elements down to the last comma, even it if brings down the whole civilization around them. They think of themselves as intellectual Samsons, destroying the evil Christian temple surrounding them. When in reality, they are not intellectual Samsons but intellectual cockroaches, feeding on leftover garbage tossed to them by the Koch brothers and only occasionally causing enough of mess to be proclaimed a nuisance. Destroying Christianity is the primary goal of ARI, and has been since Peikoff issued his "Religion versus America" fatwa in 1986. But in the civilizational battle we are faced with, Christians are our allies against the Muslim hoards. Islam is the enemy. Unless Brook in some fashion comes to understand this, and focusses his attention (to the extent ARI should focus on politics at all) on the fight FOR Western Civilization, ARI remains the enemy of everything we hold dear, indeed the enemy of everything AYN RAND held dear.
No Debate
Valliant refuses to debate me, even on my dime. Not even a friendly discussion of Creating Christ.
Wotta Surprise
Only about 15 pre-conditions.
My pre-conditions were three: (1) Amy link to my critique of PARC and my review of Creating Christ on the show notes; (2) I be allowed to discuss the Burns and Heller books and my concerns about the accuracy of Ayn Rand Archival material; and (3) debate be general in nature because of time constraints.
I don't think the ability to discuss the other biographies and concerns about the Archival material should be a "condition" but it was something I felt needed to be explicit.
Incidentally, ARI archivist Jennifer Woodson admitted on FB recently that there are problems with the quality of the posthumously published material, so what's the big deal?
This was my outrageous proposal in full:
__________
Hi Jim,
Here is the proposal:
1. I pay don’t let it go one thousand dollars within a week of the debate and one thousand after a week.
2. Amy posts links to my critique of your PARC book (The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism) and my amazon review of CC in the show notes.
3. The first half of the show (45 mins) deals with PARC. I have the right to discuss Burns, Heller, and my suspicions about the accuracy of the material published by the Archive (including Journals and 100 Voices). I take the position that Barbara’s book is basically “fair and balanced” and you the opposite.
4. The second half of the show concerns CC. The question is whether the Flavians created the Gospels and whether the Gospels are fiction.
5. I’m not afraid of being surprised, but since time will be short maybe Amy could provide in advance a basic outline of where she is going. “Jim – why do you believe the Passion of Ayn Rand is unreliable?” “Neil – why do you think the Flavians had no role in the New Testament writings.”
Neil
_________
Wotta surprise ...
... that they are imposing pre-conditions! I've never known them to do that.
In my case, I'd agreed immediately and unreservedly to be civil, since I regard that as a legitimate prerequisite. Then at the last minute came the requirement not to make any "broad criticisms of Yaron." That I could not accept. The fact that Yawon then went on air and claimed I pulled out because I couldn't agree to be civil shows what a liar he is.
ARISIS is an Obleftivist cult. No surprise they are massively funded by an ex-Scientologist. Their modus operandi is identical, including the activities of "enforcers" like Valliant and sundry other shills.
MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't Let The Deal Go Down
Haven't heard from Amy, but Valliant isn't exactly receptive without more restrictions than the Rockefeller Center has ornaments on its Christmas tree. I can only imagine the behind the scenes restrictions the ARI put on the Linz / Brook debate.