#MOGA! Open Letter to Objectivists—Make Objectivism Great Again! Repudiate Obleftivism!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
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.]

For decades, the ‘liberals’ have regarded ‘nationalism’ as an arch-evil of capitalism. They denounced national self-interest—they permitted no distinction between intelligent patriotism and blind, racist chauvinism, deliberately lumping them together—they smeared all opponents of internationalist doctrines as ‘reactionaries,’ 'fascists’ or ‘isolationists'—and they brought this country to a stage where expressions such as ‘America First’ became terms of opprobrium.

—Ayn Rand

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 ...

I am against the immigration bill a hundred percent, not just one clause or another, for one very simple reason. It happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of dictatorship. It happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democratic. So if you are talking about a bill, I don’t care whether it’s fair / unfair in any other respects, you are talking about a bill that will infuse into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country. That is what immigration means today. And there’s no use asking me in theory what do I think, there is no theory now, we’re on the end. So it’s a question of buying time.

... 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:

It is to the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, and the cannibals—to the underdeveloped, the undeveloped, and the not-to-be-developed cultures—that the Capitalist United States of America is asked to apologize for her skyscrapers, her automobiles, her plumbing, and her smiling, confident, untortured, un-skinned-alive, un-eaten young men!

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!

Yaron Unplugged

Neil Parille's picture

At 1:06 someone attempts to make some good points (for example he agrees with Ayn Rand that a woman shouldn't be president) then Yaron shuts him off.



edpowell's picture

There are about 200 countries in the world and no prominent Objectivist has ever discussed the phenomenon or tried to tease out any ideas about what makes a good country or not. While Rand (and perhaps others) explicitly rejected the idea of global government (since it is such a manifestly bad idea), the approach of Brook and others seems always to point in that direction, in the direction of open borders and thus population mixing and thus increasing homogeneity among populations. But I don't see necessarily how this follows at all from the objective facts on the ground.

I have nothing against ethno-nationalism as the organizing principle for a given country. I don't see why Britain can't be British, France French, Germany German, Poland Polish, Egypt Egyptian, Iran Persian, India Indian, China Chinese, or Japan Japanese. I don't see any reason why these countries can't create immigration policies centered around this idea. There is no universal principle requiring the homogenization of populations against the will of the people involved. Thus I find the idea of Israel as the Jewish State perfectly reasonable, despite all the problems that were manifested in its creation. I find it can be defended simply on this basis.

The question then becomes, do I thin the USA should be an ethno-nationalist state? My answer is no. The fact that I don't see anything wrong with ethno-nationalism in principle, does not mean I find ethno-nationalism to be required. The United States was founded on a few important philosophical principles--rooted it is true in the English experience--but as long as a person agrees with and works toward these principles, I personally see no reason why he can't be as American as any DAR member. Secondly, the facts on the ground have long since prevented the US from exercising ethno-nationalism as its organizing principle--that ship has sailed. Only violence on a large scale--we're talking Stalin-level violence--could ever transform the US into an ethno-nationalist state, and obviously I find that abhorrent.

So, do I support Poland or Israel or South Korea as ethno-nationalist states? Yes! Do I support the US being one? No. This is not a contradiction, because I don't think there is any "categorical imperative" demanding one or the other. If the Poles want Poland to be Polish, that's fine with me. If the US wants to be the country organized on the principle that "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," that's great too. If "diversity is strength," as we are told endlessly as if we are in the novel 1984, then why can't countries be diverse between themselves, rather than being globally homogeneous but internally so "diverse" that it leads to global chaos? (Also, remember, the pushers of diversity only want to destroy the English-speaking and European countries. They never urge China or Singapore or Saudi Arabia to allow in huge numbers of Syrian migrants).

In the other thread, Doug mentions Rothbard's change of mind on the idea of "open borders" being consistent with libertarianism. I think Hoppe has refined Rothbard's work in this area in a really good couple of essays in his book "Democracy, the God that Failed," which I highly recommend.

The Rise and Decline of the State of Israel

Luke Setzer's picture

I am surprised Brook did not hawk this lecture of his as his standing answer:


Has anyone listened to it?

Yaron Brook On Israel

Neil Parille's picture

A caller to the BlogTalkRadio show of 11 February 2017 (“Who is Killing Western Civilisation?”) addressed the subject [Israel and immigration] again.

     Stuart:  “I want to ask you about Israel. ... [mentions a few people] just want a white homeland that keeps out non-whites, and then they say, [mocking] well that’s just like Israel. They say, [mocking] well Israel is ... an ethnostate and they make it very difficult for gentiles to immigrate to there. ...”

     Yaron Brook:  “[Dismissive and weary] Yeah, I mean [over-talking] 
Stuart I’m gonna punt on the question not because I don’t want to 
answer it, because I do, but because it requires a lengthy explanation 
of why Israel indeed is a unique country and why it’s different than 
any other country on the planet, that I know of, and why it is 
ethnocentric in a significant way and why we could somehow justify that. At least in the world we live in today. But that would require a whole thing. So I’m still gonna do a show on Israel and cover that point, but I just don’t want to do it right now, uh, all right?”

The docile Stuart changes the subject.

This has to be at least the third time Brook has said he will get around to discussing why Israel is the one and only exception to Brook's prescription for Dhimmitude for the western world.



Neil Parille's picture

It was nice of Mr. Brown to answer you but I think he should respond in writing. For example does he agree with Brook that objectivist opponents of immigration are racist ?

Just Posted Yesterday by Yaron Brook

Luke Setzer's picture

Will Trump’s immigration ban protect us from Islamic totalitarianism? Is it based on facts or on irrational fears? Should we vet immigrants? In this episode of The Yaron Brook Show, Brook offers an objective analysis of Trump's executive order on immigration.


This runs 90 minutes, and I have not yet taken the time to listen, so if someone cares to post an executive summary, that would be great.

I really wish these people could be much briefer.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I hope you do pursue it, but don't be a push-over. They're getting a lot of resistance to their Obleftivism right now and are fighting a rearguard PR battle. Of course they're going to be nice to you. Don't be easily seduced. Smiling

I'd suggest you offer to resume your donations if they:

1) Ditch the mercenary mole Brook and drain the swamp of all other Obleftivists like Ghate;

2) Ditch support for open borders;

3) Ditch Obleftivism and undertake to Make Objectivism Objectivism Again.

Nice Handwritten Response Card from ARI CEO Jim Brown

Luke Setzer's picture

Content follows.
Dear Luke,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I assure you, ARI is not beholden to "corporate globalists." If you would like to discuss our position on immigration, please call me any time. We appreciate your past support, and we hope we can earn it again in the future.


Jim Brown
I am not sure if I will pursue a dialogue, but at least they did not dismiss me completely.

Good Point

Neil Parille's picture

Assuming for a moment that Somalians, Afghanis, etc. can be Americanized (a very, very dubious proposition in the first place for numerous reasons), they would need an existing muslim-American community to help civilize them like the existing Jewish community did with Eastern European Jews. But what they get is CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood organs who not only don't help to Americanize them, but only further radicalize them.

Why Immigration - Seen and Unseen

edpowell's picture

On Neil's two comments:

1) That's Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen". Obviously you only see immigrants with jobs. Why would you ever see any others? Brimelow estimates (when his book was written in 1992) that close to half (or even more than half) of immigrants coming at that time through family reunification, refugee, or asylum not only don't work but in many cases CAN'T work because they are parents of previous immigrants, or in some other way are unemployable.

2) I don't want to start a tremendous controversy on this, but I do want to recommend people read Thomas Sowell's two books on this, "Ethnic America" and "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". Here's my summary of Sowell's explanation of the reaction to the Irish and Eastern European Jews when they first came here: They were shunned by Americans because they truly were horrible uncivilized people. The Irish weren't fully assimilated until WWII. The existing Jewish community (mostly from Germany and England) took it upon themselves to civilize their Eastern European co-religionists, and started schools, taught them how to hold jobs, gave them jobs, and really held their feet to the fire.

Assuming for a moment that Somalians, Afghanis, etc. can be Americanized (a very, very dubious proposition in the first place for numerous reasons), they would need an existing muslim-American community to help civilize them like the existing Jewish community did with Eastern European Jews. But what they get is CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood organs who not only don't help to Americanize them, but only further radicalize them.

Why Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Ed -

I hear a couple arguments constantly:

1. "All the immigrants I know are hard working." But we tend to associate with people like ourselves.

2. "A hundred years ago people said the Irish, Jews, etc. couldn't assimilate." Actually I don't know how common this argument was, but assume it's true. That doesn't mean that Syrians, Afghanis, etc. can assimilate.

But why

edpowell's picture

Ann Coulter writes in her book about Trump:

A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, “If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade.”

She was speaking about globalism, but the idea applies to immigration too. It's a radical egalitarianism reminiscent of Rawls. You would think Objectivists would be immune to it, but nope.

But Why Do "Opinion Leaders" Support "Open Borders"?

Luke Setzer's picture

Why do "opinion leaders" like ARI, Koch, etc. support "open borders" when they have to know better?

But why?

edpowell's picture

I think the answer to this question is different depending on the person. I think in the case of immigrants themselves, they personalize the issue. We have no real idea how much bullshit any given individual had to go through to get into the US, either as a student or a worker. I'm sure, given that it's the government, the level of red tape is maximized and the level of actual sensible screening is minimized. So from the immigrant's perspective, it's all "I know I'm not a threat. Why should I have to go through all this nonsense? I want to go to school (or get a job) and the school (or business) wants me, so why can't I just go?" This feeling is understandable from the standpoint of individual immigrants, though not from people who claim to be philosophers, who are supposed to be trained to think on more universal scale.

Secondly there are people who are married to immigrants or whose parents are immigrants, and they think, "hell, if immigration is made any more difficult, I (or my husband) might have to live in Bumfuckistan."

Finally there are the followers. "Yaron Brook (or Harry Binswanger) says our borders should be open, and with open borders would benefit the country, therefore I believe in open borders." These people are the "partisans" in that they root for their team, no matter what their team says. Generally, if for some personal or accidental deviation from the orthodoxy, a person is rejected by their team and kicked off of the cool kids' lunch table--miracle of miracles--all their views on controversial topics reverse almost instantly.

So the first two groups drop the context, the third group wasn't interested in ideas in the first place, just to be among the cool kids.

But Why?

Luke Setzer's picture

Sam, exactly WHY do they believe that? Faith? Superstition? Stupidity? Tradition? Whim?

Can they not see the problem of admitting people who adhere to criminal belief systems?

Having open borders between friendly, similar nations is fine.

Otherwise, "good fences make good neighbors."


Sam Pierson's picture

The open borders argument has been around a long time. Keep it simple. It's just what they believe & think is a high up the priority list, commanding emphasis.

Koch Resettlement Contracts?

Luke Setzer's picture

I am trying to find anything supporting my speculation that Koch Industries has contracts for refugee resettlement programs, but the closest I could find was sketchy:


Has anyone researched this?

I am still trying to understand why they would support an insane policy of long-term destruction, unless they genuinely believe it is not insane or destructive for reasons that elude me.

See also:


Their motives may be simply "cheap labor," but that still seems insufficient motive.

How Does Koch Industries Profit from American Muslims?

Luke Setzer's picture

Can someone please explain how Koch Industries profits from Muslims entering the United States?


Wait! I think I have an answer!

By creating global turmoil, as part of the military-industrial complex, Koch Industries engages in war profiteering.



Open Borders

Neil Parille's picture

I see that the Kock Bros. were against the temporary ban. But does Brook have to support de-facto open immigration of Muslims to stay in their good graces?

EDIT: "Industrialist and Republican mega-donor Charles Koch is none too happy President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on immigrants from Muslim countries. In fact, he likes it so little that he compared the Muslim immigrant ban to something Adolf Hitler would have done back in Nazi Germany."

So Ed

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What's *your* theory as to why ARISIS is so irrationally pro-open borders? If it's not Koch Bros, what is it? Their own home-grown evil?

Regarding Book Distribution Program

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Mises Institute makes available every book Von Mises wrote for free. I think they do the same with Rothbard's works. And I wouldn't call that altruism. I really like the way Mises Institute runs its operations. For me, they provide far more value than the ARI does. Rand's works are the value for me. But I doubt Lenny would give them away for free.

Rothbard on the Koch Bros

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Rothbard comments on the Koch Brothers in this essay on NAFTA:


It explains why the Koch brothers are so NAFTA; its related to their oil and gas business.

Here Lew Rockwell deals with the Koch Brothers influence on the libertarian movement (specifically Cato) and their antagonism against the principled Rothbard:


If the ARI were to embrace something like Ed Powell's immigration views the Koch Brothers would not give them financing; guaranteed.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Definitely something fishy going on. The less-than-subtle shift towards Political Correctness, even to the point of dismissing the Muslim threat, can't just be innocent coincidence.

Yawon has acknowledged receiving funding from the Koch Bros. They are for open borders, and recently condemned Trump's attempted 7-nation pause, against which Yawon also wanted and waved:


Financial Addiction

Luke Setzer's picture

If they started with an "open borders" policy in more peaceful times pre-9/11, got heavily financed by "open borders" people, and then stuck to that party line even after reason says it is a bad idea after all, then that suggests an addiction to the easy cash flow by sticking to the "open borders" party line.

It would help a great deal if we knew who are their major donors and why they donate.

I concede that the ARI may have sold their souls, not for money, but simply to be conceived as "nice" by the multicultural globalist elites, which is just another way to sell one's soul.

The last possibility is that they have simply become the "crusading irrationalists" decried by Leonard Peikoff in "Fact and Value" back in 1989.

I see no room for "honest error" here.

Does anyone disagree?

With all the sh!t happening in the Western world with the Muslims, I am at a loss to explain how any sane person can adopt a view favoring open borders.

Something fishy is happening here, and I dislike it strongly.

I don't see how speculating on the worst is out of the question, nor how withdrawing support based on those worst case speculations openly stated is a bad thing.

Following the money?

Tore's picture

I don't see anyone making a BIG point about funders in their critisism here. It's there, but seems more like a footnote... the critisisms are more FUNDamental than that.

A cautionary note

Ed Hudgins's picture

A cautionary note: One can certainly offer reasonable criticisms of open immigration policies favored by ARI (and others)—see some on the SOLO threads. But be careful about attributing the ARI position to donor influence.

Colleagues of mine at various organizations and I have been on the other side of such criticisms. For example, Cato and CEI are often accused of being in the pockets of the oil industry and other companies because of their skepticism about global warming, and opposition to many regulations on energy producers and to subsidies for alternative energy. Even when these organizations receive money from such companies—and those companies are sometimes stingy with their supporters, giving little or no assistance—the dynamic is usually this: the non-profit, coming from a certain ideology or philosophy, supports certain policies and other who also favor those policies give to them. Now if you saw, for example, Cato or CEI suddenly receiving funding from leftist, environmental groups and changing their decades-long views on environmental issues, then you’d have evidence of a sell-out!

By the way, when I was at Heritage we lost several major corporate donors because our free-market policies were in direct conflict with their interests in getting special government favors and handout. Heritage stood on principles.

So criticize ARI’s positions as you will, but be a bit careful about assuming the influence of donations on its position.



Tore's picture

That was absolutley outstanding!!

Termination of Monthly Support for the Ayn Rand Institute

Luke Setzer's picture

Dear ARI:

With some regrets, I need to direct you to discontinue my monthly $10 donation to your organization.

I began supporting ARI many years ago because of your worthwhile efforts to deliver free books to teachers, host annual essay contests, and train New Intellectuals via the Objectivist Academic Center.

Unfortunately, these last few years, your leadership has shown all signs of having sold their souls for large donations from globalists to advance the globalist agenda by prostituting Objectivism, destroying the philosophy and the nation that Ayn Rand loved in the process.

There is NO WAY that the United States of America, or any other Western nation, can accept unlimited numbers of immigrants and refugees from non-Western countries, especially Muslim countries, and safely assimilate them to Western values. Yaron Brook, your principal ARI mouthpiece, has for years advanced this thesis. It completely defies reality and reason. Any honest undergraduate student of an honest course in Western Civilization I and II and World Religions will recognize this.

Islam is a vile, totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion. Both ancient and modern history corroborate this assessment. As for non-Muslims from non-Western countries, even their assimilation ability has limits, and their quantities need tight limits to avoid overwhelming finite limits of Western institutions.

Ongoing attacks from ARI notables such as the extremely well-compensated Yaron Brook on our duly elected United States President Donald Trump because of Trump's worthy efforts to secure our borders raise serious questions about the motives of your speakers. Based on a perusal of 2014 tax records filed by ARI, one can reasonably speculate on a "follow the money" thesis, namely that the bulk of your organization's donations come from multi-millionaire corporate globalists who dismiss "rational nationalism" in favor of nihilistic globalism. Assuming this is true, one can safely infer that those donations come with strings attached demanding that ARI support borderless globalization. I find this speculative development especially interesting considering how your organization has, in the past, published work supporting national self-interest and, more notably, an entire lecture by Dr. Edwin Locke on "The Psycho-Epistemology of the Arab World," described in your catalog as follows:

"The Arab psycho-epistemology, Dr. Locke shows, is characterized by the primacy of consciousness, and Arab values stress collectivism, traditionalism and fatalism. Dominating Arab thinking is the religion of Islam, which stresses blind obedience to Allah, rather than rational thought, as a guide to action. The result is the inability to live successfully on earth, and undying resentment of those who are."

Today, evidently, the ARI has taken a purely "faith-based" approach to the Arab world, assuming that "somehow" large numbers of immigrants carrying this mindset will adopt Western values through osmosis even as their numbers overwhelm current Westerners. Again, this attitude defies reality and reason. The ARI has blinded itself in a fundamental way to the detriment of the legacy of Ayn Rand, all for reasons completely opaque and, consequently, left to justifiable speculation about monetary motives supplied by nefarious globalists.

To quote Donald Trump: "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Luther "Luke" Setzer


Thanks for the feedback in your email of earlier today. We’re sorry to hear that you feel you can no longer support ARI after so many years of regular monthly support. However, as requested, I have canceled your monthly EFT. The last transaction took place on February 6.

Should you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to reach out and I’ll be happy to assist.

Ivanka is great in more ways than one..

gregster's picture


Thx for the link Grant Jones.

"Let 'em in, let 'em in, let 'em in!"

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Link posted by Doug on the poll thread:


Adios, America!


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I should think that will sting them. Bravo!

Overpaid Globalist Shills Hijacking Objectivism

Luke Setzer's picture

Thanks for the tax form link, Ed ... very informative.

If I had to sum the problem in a few words, I would say that ARI has sold its soul for money from globalists to advance the globalist agenda by prostituting Objectivism, destroying the philosophy and the nation that Ayn Rand loved in the process.

Does that capture the whole problem in a single sentence?

When I terminate my donations this week, I want to sting them with something brief and pithy.

What Doug Said

edpowell's picture

ARI is destroying Objectivism. Yes, I think sending books to schools is valuable. If you want, buy 50 copies of The Fountainhead and send it to your local high school. But absolutely don't place ARI in an intermediary position.

ARI's Form 990 gives more info on their business (though not where their money comes from). They raise $10M a year and spend $5M+ on salaries, bonuses, and benefits. Brook himself is accumulating a shit-ton of deferred compensation, so his effective compensation is much more than the $441K/yr of direct compensation.

Go through the From 990 and then decide whether this organization even qualifies as a "charity" in your mind.


Sweeping Statements

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

The "can't remain civil" argument shows that OrgOists are either liars or stupid. Lindsay's argument is that Yaron Brook's view on immigration is based on a host of thinking flaws which are repeated everywhere in OrgOism; that Yaron is repeating errors of thinking that affect his views on immigration, foreign policy, left-right analysis, cultural analysis, etc.. OrgOism is drenched in rationalism is really what this comes down to and that their entire approach to Objectivism is flawed. How can you not make that argument without making "sweeping statements"? Banning "sweeping statements" is banning intellectual debate.

I'll add this. Mark Hunter who posts here occasionally is the founder of ARI Watch. On that site he documents the ENORMOUS insanity and stupidity of ARI and OrgOist writers on virtually EVERY subject especially foreign policy (although Andrew Bernstein's idiotic pro-Nat-Turner essay has me thinking that OrgOism is now officially culturally Marxist). ARI is wrong in just about everything outside of cookie cutter material like "there should be no welfare state", which is low hanging fruit when you are a libertarian. "Sweeping statements" are absolutely necessary when dealing with intellectual corruption of that kind. More than intellectual corruption, I would say financial corruption as well. Yaron Brook makes over $300k a year. For what? Decimating Rand's philosophy? Its tragic as well as repulsive.

And I say it again, you get a guy like Luke Setzer that still thinks that ARI is worth donating to because of the book distribution program. Jesus Christ. At this point, ARI and OrgOism are a major threat to the spread of Rand's ideas. Young people are going to compare the stuff they see and hear from ARI and its affiliates with what they are seeing from alt-right sources (including guys like Molyneux, Mike Cernovich, Milo, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and hot babes like Laura Southern). As the race war intensifies and the Left becomes increasingly militant under Trump (which we are seeing unfold before our very eyes), the OrgOists are going to be indistinguishable from leftists and left-libertarians. Rand's philosophy will die in the process.

This is a war and OrgOism is on the side of the Left. Everyone who supports open immigration is.

Well, that's a lie straight up

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Not agreeing to avoid "sweeping statements" is hardly the same as "admitting [I] couldn't remain civil." I had in fact already undertaken to do so when I was hit with the "no sweeping statements" thing at the last minute.

Are all Obleftivists liars?

Yaron Defends The Discussion

Neil Parille's picture

I've just started listening to yesterday's show.

At the beginning he says his opponent backed out of the debate because he couldn't agree to be civil. Brook also said if an opponent had taken part in the debate he would have "distorted" his (Brook's) views.


EDIT: It was originally slated to be a debate but the person I was supposed to debate bailed out because he admitted that he couldn't stay civil during the debate.

Salient point ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... someone has just made to me privately, re Amy's sad attempt to make the debate a "safe space" for Yawon: "She’s relegated her show to the safety of the echo chamber. No juice, no conflict, no ratings."

Another thing we can do right here ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is set up a Contra Obleftivism resource, a permanently blue-stickied thread like the Global Warming one, into which Neil can pour all his Yawon quotes. Smiling I'll set it up in a minute. Also, vote in the new poll (scroll down. left).

Funding Obleftivism

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The remark in my essay about the Koch Bros was not idle or gratuitous. Yawon has acknowledged on air that he gets funding from them. They're very pro-open borders and anti-Twump. I guess while he's getting money from them he doesn't have to worry about small fry like us. I've contributed, modestly and intermittently, in the past, but never again.

Re the leftward lurch, I just read another piece on Mark Hunter's site, about ARISIS's embrace of gay activist Jason Hill. I think we can all see what's happening here. As I just said, Obleftivism as the voice of "oppressed" minorities. It'll be Islamectivism next!

Kelley is Open Borders

edpowell's picture

See the interview below for an overview. Remember, I oppose Brook not primarily because he advocates open borders, but because he has no fixed position on the issue at all, changing from week-to-week and never writing anything down. That allows him to state he's for open immigration when talking to tech executives, while saying he's for keeping terrorists out when talking to zionist groups, while saying he's in favor of green cards for all students when they get their degree when talking to colleges, to saying no muslim immigration at all when talking to the Israeli press. It's the blatant dishonesty that I abhor, combined with righteous indignation and smears when this is pointed out.



edpowell's picture

Yes, the original article is quite something to behold. Relying primarily on a communist history that even Howard Zinn would think was over the top, Bernstein delivers a tour-de-force of Philosophical Fakery, to use Ed Cline's term.

One can't really psychologize in these circumstances as to why someone like Bernstein would publish such nonsense, but one does wonder why any self-respecting editor would allow its publication. Okay, I answered my own question.

I'm not entirely sure why ARI has veered so radically to the Cultural Marxist end of the spectrum. Perhaps Bill Buckley was correct when he said that any organization not sufficiently conservative will eventually become leftist. There is certainly an alienation towards Western Civilization in general and America in particular among the ARI crowd and those who take their money. I'm afraid hitting them in the wallet is the only really effective way to get to them. I will try to research who the big donors are and perhaps we can organize a letter-writing campaign to them, asking them to stop donating. It's the only thing I can think of that might get these people's attention.

What about TAS?

Luke Setzer's picture

What positions has The Atlas Society (TAS) advanced on border control and immigration?

I quickly searched their site and found these hits:


The gist I get from skimming the articles is that TAS at least favors border control to keep out troublemakers and prevent system overwhelm within a given nation's borders.

I did not notice any shrill name-calling in the same vein as Brook and company.


Obleftivist revisionist history

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I have just read, in disbelief, Mark Hunter's account of Andrew Bernstein's vile revisionist history here:


The pattern is becoming clearer to me. Obleftivism as the voice of "oppressed" minorities. Wait for Bernstein to applaud Black Lives Matter. And the Ugly Wimmin's March.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Good to see you! Thanks for the comment and suggestion. Re "Obleftivists"—it's got them worried. Here's the owner of one orthodox site:

"Obleftivism," is an notable word and it is also a sharp accusation. If this word is not countered firmly and clearly, the accusation may actually stick and the reputation of certain popular leaders of Objectivism may get tarnished. Such an outcome will be very unfortunate.


Dismaying, but just as I thought ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

YB: I would rather not get into a discussion of the more prominent articles out there that have criticized my position on immigration. I don’t think they’re worthy of it.

AP: Yeah, yeah, yeah, no.

Still the same closed cult after all, unable to cope with dissent, run by bullies and serviced by sycophants.

Yaron On Coulter, Malkin And Fellow Objectivists

Neil Parille's picture

At 51:09 to 54:00


If I have the time, I'll transcribe it. Yaron says that Objectivists who are fans of Coulter are "dishonest" and questions whether they are "objective."

Note that Amy doesn't enforce her "no sweeping statements" policy when Brook is doing the talking.

I can't image anyone new to Objectivism finding it worth looking into after
listening to his condescending and smug attacks on anyone and anything. Ed's right: he's not a good spokesman for Objectivism.

Second Funniest Moment In The Discussion

Neil Parille's picture

At 7:45

YB: I would rather not get into a discussion of the more prominent articles out there that have criticized my position on immigration.  I don’t think they’re worthy of it.

AP: Yeah, yeah, yeah, no.

How's that for a couple of uncompromising individualists wanting to have some intellectual discussion!

I always thought that you owe it your readers/listeners to deal with the best arguments for the opposing position.


Brant Gaede's picture

There are two types of property in the United States--and in most other countries: public and private. The public property is held on behalf of the private citizens and both the public and private property holders have the right if not duty to control access and define trespass.

On top of this basic formulation, the national government by protecting rights defends the country and you don't need a declaration of war.

So much for "open borders." That's a load of crap when you actually reference the human rights of a country's citizens. The easy come/easy go of previous centuries belongs to a different, gone away world.


Funniest Moment In The Discussion

Neil Parille's picture

At 1:01:43

What are we going to say in 20 years to the Ayn Rands of the world, and here I’m exaggerating a little bit, who didn’t get into the United States because we put an immigration ban on and built a wall all in the name of preserving the American culture that is rotting away from within anyway, right. I mean I’d rather get a few more scientists, and a few more Ayn Rands, and a few more Yarons and Elan Journos and the rest of the immigrants that are here at the Institute. And, yeah, for every one of those a hundred thousand uh, uh, uh, Mexicans or Latin Americans or whatever, but, you know, I think we’re worth a hundred thousand.

Apparently Brook realized that some immigrant groups aren't particularly desirable, then tried to talk around it.

The Brook / Amy Peikoff Discussion

Neil Parille's picture

A few points:

1. Brook said Hispanics would vote Democratic if Republicans were better on immigration. Totally ignores the data in Ed's essay on Hispanic voting. Cruz got 35% of the Hispanic vote for senate (running against an anglo) and at a time when he was seen as moderate on immigration.

2. Claims that those who point to his living in a walled community are using a Marxist argument that a person believes what he does because of economics. Totally misses the point.

3. Brook said a wall on the Mexican border is "stupid." But if we are supposed to screen immigrants, then what the hell do we do to keep out the ones who didn't pass the test?

4. Said walls don't work and, as an example, pointed to Israel's wall. "There was just a knifing in Tel Aviv." But what would Israel be without a wall?

5. Amy refused to take calls and allowed Brook to say that he wasn't going to discuss articles written by Objectivists opposing immigration. So she allowed him to steal the show.

What ARISIS Obleftivism Enables

Lindsay Perigo's picture


Brant Gaede's picture

My suggestion. I think it hits harder, like a punch in the deserving gut. Let me say it again: "Left-Objectivists!"

I like this article--a lot.



Lindsay Perigo's picture

Thanks for the report. Unlimited "properly screened" Muslims? Insane. Evil.

That certainly accords with everything I ever heard him say. But there's that pesky passage Ed quotes where Brook says the US should ban all Muslims until the war with various Muslim nations is over. Obviously he's abandoned that position.

Any other tidbits?

Jeepers Creepers

Neil Parille's picture


Brook said there should be unlimited properly screened Muslims into the USA and apparently of Muslims into Israel as well.

He also called Ann Coulter a liar and her supporters corrupt . . .

Well at least we know what Bwook believes.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

From his report, it was the largest compilation of lies, half-truths, smears, and smug, out-of-touch condescension in the entire history of Objectivism.

That's quite an achievement!

Sounds as though he must have made some "sweeping statements"?!

The "Debate" is Over

edpowell's picture

Well, it's over. I could not bear to listen in real time, but Grant live-blogged it. From his report, it was the largest compilation of lies, half-truths, smears, and smug, out-of-touch condescension in the entire history of Objectivism. Reports are he called us racists. I will listen later and perhaps write a response.


gregster's picture

It was going to be "a case of a treasonist debating a keeper of the faith" and, yes, the treasonist is Bwook. I'm sure this will become more apparent to even slowcoaches such as Rasputin. I note he didn't fail to put his clumsy boot in on Amy's FBook thread. I'm surprised he's gone to the dark side (but let's not dwell on that particular shortcoming here, it would detract from this groundbreaking ARI-cracking development).


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ed commented on Amy's wall that Yaron was not a good spokesman for Objectivism. I knew nothing of this. Amy then contacted me to tell me I was not to make "sweeping statements" critical of Yaron such as "Yaron is not a good spokesman for Objectivism." She told me someone had tried to post that, but didn't tell me who. She also said she assumed I knew who it was, when I had no idea. In any event, after I let this sink in, it was clear that if "Yaron is not a good spokesman for Objectivism" were not allowed, "Yaron is an Obleftivist traitor to Objectivism" would not get beyond the third word. That's when I pulled out, and expressed my uncensored thoughts in the Open Letter.

It's sad that nothing has changed. Had Yaron and I debated, unimpeded by a ban on "sweeping statements," it would have been a first in the history of an Objectivism hamstrung in its flourishing by the lack of open-debate oxygen. The orthodoxy openly debating a dissident. At least, it could be framed that way. Thinking about it, it would really be a case of a treasonist debating a keeper of the faith, even if the latter does think aloud in alarming ways routinely.

What this episode has made very clear is the hijacking of Objectivism by Obleftivists. Ghate, Brook and, it would seem, the co-opted Binswanger, a shudderingly creepy Vulcan. We must reclaim Objectivism from these grotesqueries!

I am reliably informed ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the Obleftivist establishment are working overtime behind the scenes to have my article shut down. Anyone who links to it is beat up on immediately. They're terrified the term "Obleftivism" will take hold. Let's see that it does!!!!!

Yaron's anti–concepts

gregster's picture

Very good to tack the Rand quote to your article Linz. It too would have been an additional bullet in Ed's arsenal. It's little wonder ARI will not debate anything in real time. And the articles they spend time on they still get the wrong side of history.

Andrew Bolt

Richard G McGrath's picture

Linz - further to Hilton's comments, Andrew Bolt is a ray of hope in the otherwise unremittingly leftist Australian media. He ran a high quality weekly TV programme, free to air, called The Bolt Report, that I used to catch on Sunday mornings, but he shifted to pay TV and I haven't seen much of him since. Some of his sermons may be available on Facebook as he has a group of followers there. His political interviews were great. He supported the much more principled Tony Abbott over 'Halal Mal' Turnbull.

Amy at F*c*book

gregster's picture

Me: Now it becomes clear. Amy didn't like Powell's 69 pg critique and imposed a rule that she knew Perigo would never adhere to on principle.

Amy: Greg not at all. It was a comment Powell made on my wall that did it. I had already told Lindsay he couldn't use the derogatory terminology he routinely uses.

The Latest From Mistress Amy

Neil Parille's picture

She will have Yaron on her show Friday and will ask him questions based on what Ed Powell and others have raised re: Trump, Immigration, etc.

"Oblefties" sounds even better - but Oblefti-bloody-vists it is

HWH's picture

Interested to know what makes you assert that Rand also fell into that "secular/left" trap a smidgen?

Cant you get some "mensch" in NZ to interview you occasionally so we can get some more of your magnificent dissent onto Youtube?

If not, I suggest you and I do it our bloody selves.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I just dont get how pervasive the lefty disease has become, even among the brightest out there.
Among these I dont just count the Obleftists, but seemingly rational players like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Kraus (the remaining horsemen).

That's Obleftivists. Smiling And we must all start saying it, and damning these treasonous bastards—Brook, Ghate, Binswanger—to hell!

Harris, Dawkins, the late Hitchens et al—all have/had this mindset that "secular" necessitates "left" and (to my aesthetic point) musical egalitarianism. Even Rand herself fell into that trap. It's earlier than we think!

Hi Linz

HWH's picture

Thanks..will pop in more often. This is still "home home"

Bolt is a conservative, very decent man, but too conciliatory. In my view he should stop trying to coddle our gaggle of progressive elites and just go after the pondscum the way Limbaugh does.

Hopefully I get to be independent enough to go after them myself in the next year or so.

We need serious cryptonite to take these suckers down, and we shouldn't take prisoners.

That's why I admire your stand againsts the Obleftists.

I just dont get how pervasive the lefty disease has become, even among the brightest out there.

Among these I dont just count the Obleftists, but seemingly rational players like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Kraus (the remaining horsemen).

For me of all the prominent conservatives, Mark Levin seems to offer the most succinct and passionate critique of the Rinos, and gets stuck into Trumps' inconsistencies as well. Quite refreshing.

Glad to see you havent lost your fire and that you're living up to the spirit of your surname.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Thanks for the kudos. Now quit being a stranger!! Smiling

Let's all get going against Obleftivism!

Have caught a bit of your Andrew Bolt recently. Is he a Randian?

I suspect...

J Cuttance's picture

that the NZ Herald's editorial team will be wondering whether their daily anti-Trump pieces are having any effect on U.S. policy at all.

In all seriousness ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... we must recognise that Gramsci's Long March through the Culture has now enlisted OrgOism. Unthinkable. But that's what's happened. Brook/Ghate/Binswanger/Koch Bros.

Yaron wept

Sam Pierson's picture

Betsy DeVos gets the nod as Sec of Education. Terrible news... school choice might get expanded. Power might be returned to the states. Public teacher unions feel threatened.

And Scott Pruitt is closing in on the EPA. More terrible news.. he wants to cut it back, and end its focus on climate change activism.

This paving of the way to dictatorship proceeds apace. If only Clinton had won.

Ed Cline ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ed Cline, hero, has posted my essay on his site under the title, Philosophical Fakery:


Essay Contests, Objectivist Academic Center, Etc.

Luke Setzer's picture

What impacts do Brook, Binswanger, etc. make on the incoming youth training programs at ARI?

I mean specifically the essay contests, the Objectivist Academic Center, etc.

Linz has noted worthwhile intellectuals produced from those efforts such as Alex Epstein, so evidently not everything from ARI is bad.

I am very reluctant to withdraw support from what still looks on net to be a worthwhile organization just because of a few aging and soon to be gone bad apples making bad calls who happen to have high visibility, but who also may have far less net influence than for which we give them credit.

What other organizations systematically promote Ayn Rand in a positive way to train young minds in Objectivist thought without engaging in ceaseless "navel-gazing" as Linz has justifiably accused TAS in the past?

Marsha Enright's The Fountainhead Institute comes to mind.


I'm with you Linz

HWH's picture

Hope Trump drops the tariff war once he's equalised the mess concocted before him, but other than for that he's the best thing the world has had since Reagan, and I hope he Trumps the lefty scum forever.

I'm also so tired of the treason, from the Rinos, the Cinos and the Obleftivists

Go Linz! You're the best.

Amy's Faecesbook thread

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I just posted this there, and fully expect it to be deleted. So here it is:

Of course I agreed to "no rudeness." Who wouldn't? But then, much later, came this "no sweeping statements" stipulation, with "Yaron Brook is not a good spokesman for Objectivism" being cited as an example. Initially I neither rejected nor accepted that, merely thinking to myself it was awfully precious. Then, as I prepared my opening statement, I realised that I could be cut off within five seconds on the grounds of "no sweeping statements." That's when I withdrew, and, liberated, unleashed in a far tougher attack on Brookism than I had intended for the debate. Here's the over-arching "sweeping statement" just one of whose components I wish just one cultist here would address: "Obleftivism." Treachery to Objectivism from within. No doubt this comment will be deleted in the fine tradition of OrgOism, so I shall be posting it on SOLO also.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Thanks for your support. It's true, all Objectivists are pussies—that is, all Objectivists who've become Obleftivists via their cultist obeisance to the cult leaders like Yawon Bwook. They're pussies on principle: i.e., betray Objectivism on behalf of Political Correctness.

"Islamophobia" to be illegal in Canada?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Evil airhead Justin Trudeau is now seeking to make "Islamophobia" illegal in Canada. No doubt this move will have the support of Onkar Ghate and Yaron Brook, Objectivism's Fifth Columnists:


The Disgrace of Obleftivism

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Depressing to see on Faecesbook the cultism on Amy's thread. Accusing me of ad hominem while not a single one of them addresses the substantive issue of Obleftivism. Amy admits to contemplating removing any posts that link to my essay here. Not a single post addressing a single one of my points. Nothing has changed within OrgOism. Binswanger rules!! Ugh!

Most disappointing...

Olivia's picture

that this is not going ahead.

When I think of the full time, world-wide, vicious, critical assault that Trump has subjected himself to in every form of media ever invented (including Objectivist podcasts), that Brook and Amy are so sensitive to *any* criticism in a debate of such a monumental matter is just so utterly weak spirited!

Anyway, a great open letter has been the result, so that is something. Very sharp writing Linz.


Tore's picture

Splendid writing, Perigo!

Shame on Peikoff for pussing out. But it's in the nature of pussies to constantly be a pussy. No balls at all. Shame.

Brook doesn't have any balls as well, but I guess he's not to blame for this. All Objectivists are pussies, though.

Truck drivers

Sam Pierson's picture

Truck drivers know better again (and Linz).

These chaps would've condemned the Boston Tea Party crew for breaking & entering, and causing reckless property damage, then spent the war petitioning King George for redress.

The Trump phenomenon has sure clarified whose views not to take too seriously. Of public intellectuals, Victor Davis Hanson has proved to have had the best judgement.

Still maybe they're right: tariffs & controlled borders will be the end of the US.

Tour de force!

All good stuff. Maybe Lindsay

Andrew Atkin's picture

All good stuff.

Maybe Lindsay could debate someone closer to home?

For Interest:


Golriz Ghahraman will be speaking at this protest march.

I find this one interesting. I get the feeling she will be an up-and-coming Green party member and possibly a favourite of the left-wing media. She is an Iranian refugee who came to New Zealand at the age of 7. She seems very aggressive (angry) and ambitious, and of course totally politically correct (instant expulsion from the Green party if she isn't. lol!). She seems to blame America for Iran's status (forcing her to come to New Zealand) going by her facebook commentary. Ideologically she is probably your perfect opposite, Lindsay Smiling


Neil Parille's picture

Just brilliant. No wonder Brook wouldn't debate you.

Comment viewing options

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