Contra Obleftivism—Overturning Treason

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2017-02-11 23:12

The idea here is to put Yaron Brook, Andrew Bernstein, Onkar Ghate et al on notice: the game is up. We're on to you. Your sell-out of Objectivism to PC Islamo-Marxism has been noted with disgust, and will be resisted with vigour.

Folks, use this as we used the phenomenal Global Warming thread, a place to deposit all relevant information in the fight against treasonous Obleftivists. I'll keep this thread permanently stickied, just as the Global Warming one still is (380,000 reads, 2,300 comments). Let's get these Benedict Arnolds on the run!

Israeli Nationalist Bias

Luke Setzer's picture

I find myself challenged not to conclude that Brook's position is heavily biased by his Israeli upbringing. After all, it would be quite convenient to have the United States disable every enemy surrounding the state of Israel. If we simply repatriated all Muslim immigrants from our nation back to their homelands, what incentive would we have to engage in warfare with those Muslim nations, and where would that leave Israel?


gregster's picture

On my F*c*book yesterday from a lovely Clare Yeadon:

Eloquent and powerful truths. Thank you, Yaron Brook.

Then I read on to see which words of wisdom had been impressed upon Clare:

When will we take the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism seriously?
Not by building walls and creating pretend bans, but by seriously profiling the enemy, seeking them out, and destroying them and those that fund, arm and ideologically inspire them.
And don't tell me the problem is Islam and all Muslims. This is very unhelpful. Important to target the actual enemy -- those who are dedicated to violence.
To understand my views on this:
a link to Elan Journo's book

I added:

Brook ignores the fact that he was anti Trump. The only candidate likely to counter Islam. And Brook would allow Muslim Islam virus carriers in while bombing their homelands. Then what. "Oh, the police will take care of that."

He proposes that a free west will turn them around. A non-free west being what they already despise.

Brook wants multiculturalism (he deleted that) and not American exceptionalism.

Rand would hate him and what ARI has become.

Yaron Brook replied:

Why do these people have to lie about my positions?

I will be the first to admit that it is difficult to keep up with his positions.

Contra Yawon

Lindsay Perigo's picture

KASS Katie Hopkins, Noble Soul, gets it right:

The war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own culture.

How many more times?

And how many more attacks must pass before we acknowledge these are no longer the acts of ‘extremists’? That there is no safe badge with which to hold these people at arm’s length, in the way the liberals casually use the term 'far-right' for anyone who has National pride.

These events are no longer extreme. They are commonplace. Every day occurrences.

These people are no longer extremists. They are simply more devout. More true to their beliefs. Beliefs which will be supported endlessly across our state broadcaster for the next few months until we buy into the narrative that one religion is not to blame.

Thanks Yaron

Neil Parille's picture

Another Muslim murder (of four people) but you think Islamic immigration reduces crime.


Luke Setzer's picture

Yaron Brook Institute

Be honest and change the name already.

Obleftivist Yawon weacts ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Obleftivist Yawon reacts to the latest atrocity by Islamofilth in Londonistan, whose Mayor is Muslim:

"Anyone who thinks this attack twuly wepwesents a weligion that teaches, 'Slay the infidel whewever ye shall find him,' is a collectivist, a wacist and immowal."

But ... But ... No Deviations Allowed!

Luke Setzer's picture

I am flabbergasted that Leonard Peikoff has allowed ARI to become what it has. The same parties who ejected David Kelley for "deviating" from Objectivism now allow Yaron Brook to deviate in ways that make David Kelley look like a rigidly dogmatic Objectivist. Sad!

The world would be a better place if they had just stuck to the "Free Books to Teachers" program and related essay contests.

Another riot by Islamotrash in Sweden

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Someone should ask Open Borderer Brook about this:

Did you know ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Obleftivist Open Borderers Yawon and Onkar were special guests of Dem-Scum at Trump's "State of the Union" address a couple of weeks back? You can hear their reaction to one of the president's proposals at the end of this clip:

New Anti-Obleftivist Vehicle on Faecesbook

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Seems as Obleftivist Bwook doubles down on his Fake Objectivism, now claiming that Ayn Rand approved of unfettered free trade with totalitarian dictatorships, real Objectivists are heeding the call to resist and rebel:

Van Jones ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Communist Van Jones on the Clinton News Network just cited all his IslamoMarxist friends who consider Trump the "greatest villain of all time."

Now where have I heard that before?! A prominent Obleftivist, perhaps?

Monica Crowley ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... has just been on Hannity saying the swamp-dwellers whom Trump wishes to drain are intent on having him jailed. I don't think folk realise how panicked The Filth are.

ARISIS = a baby alligator in the swamp.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that would require them to come out from the shadows. I doubt that will happen. Smiling

Debate Doug or Mark

Luke Setzer's picture

Linz, in the interest of understanding all aspects of this issue, perhaps you should debate Doug or Mark regarding their "scientific" basis for immigration based on race.

It might make you better prepared for the accusations of racism Yaron would raise.

Si, si!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's intrinsicism that's at the root of it all. To tackle that one would have to tackle Peikoff, because he allows it to be expressed unchallenged in the name of Objectivism. Binswanger's intrinsicism is rank. Peikoff is known to regard him as a "dishonest rationalist." Why doesn't he say so publicly?!

BTW, welcome aboard, Bruno. Great to see you've lost your SOLO virginity!! Smiling

I'm thinking I must put all of my op-eds on YouTube, both because of their intrinsic (hahahaha) merits and as a living antidote to fry-quacking, the most disgusting manifestation of the West's cultural collapse.

A possible alternative

Bruno's picture

I doubt he'd be willing! It might be easier to make an interview-like show where you get to answer approximately the same questions Amy Peikoff asked Brook.
Actually we could probably get in some even better questions and answers.

We could start by addressing the starting point of it all: do objectivists actually "all agree on immigration" in principle like Binswanger says, but only disagree because of the current mixed-economy system we live in? I think this could be a good first question.
And then why not address the whole issue of the intrinsic view of rights? Now THAT would be getting to the meat of it all!

Let's read a relevant quote by Ayn Rand:
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using...."

That sure sounds different from the Binswangerian "Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being, not
just by Americans." Obviously I'm taking quotes out of two different contexts, but there seems to be some kind of mischief going on here. Some smelly fish odor tickles the nostrils.

I liked how Ed Powell addressed the underlying CONTEXT which invalidates this sort of rationalistic Binswangerian argument.
Here's a little snippet from his essay. Referring to the "right to travel" argument:

"in this chain of reasoning, the context has been dropped repeatedly
throughout the argument. It completely ignores what countries are, what the
world political context is, and what facts of reality give rise to the border between
Massachusetts and Connecticut on the one hand and the United States and Mexico (or
any other two countries) on the other hand. This chain of reasoning is an example of
rationalism, the use of deductive logic detached from reality."

PS. It'd be really nice to hear you speak Linz! A proper pronunciation of New Zealand variety English. I was listening to your interview with Pavarotti... and NOW I really understand where all that hostility towards fry-quacking comes from LOL! Big smile Big smile I also try to be really careful in trying to preserve a proper English (American of the Southern variety) pronunciation. Fry quacking is a terrible disease.

Here's the deal

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'd like nothing more than to take on this evil bastard in a context in which I may call him that, and he may call me anything he likes. That obviously is not a context moderated by Amy, who, in ways of which I was previously unaware, is an ARISIS stooge. So, guys (ugh!), suggest a credible moderator and I'll take this low-life on, if he's willing—which I doubt.

Is this Yawon in dwag?!

Lindsay Perigo's picture


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Great that Islamofilth in Sweden leered up right on cue. Yawon's pin-ups on the Clinton News Network ignored it, of course.

Here's who's rotten:

1) The Fake Media

2) Hollywood

3) Hillary, Obamarx and their supporters: Islamomarxists

4) Black Lives Matter, CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamomarxists


6) George Soros

7) Social Justice Warriors

8 ) College professors

9) Cultural terrorists such as rappers et al

10) Obleftivists such as ARISIS.

Et al.

I expect that after the riots in Sweden Yawon will claim either they're a Fox News beat-up and/or no such thing could happen in America, and the real danger, especially with Melania's having recited The Lord's Prayer, is of a Christian theocracy in the next five minutes.

We have to get to the bottom of this. Yawon is clearly a mole. A mercenary mole primarily?

Yaron Brook - "We're Rotten"

Neil Parille's picture

Funny If It Weren't So Sad

Neil Parille's picture

"The reason Muslims and immigrants have such a high impact on our culture is because we're rotten." -Dr. Yaron Brook #DontLetItGoUnheard
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes
Yaron Brook Retweeted
LPR‏@leadersnaction 13h13 hours ago

[Comment: The west may be "rotten," but don't Muslims who are being imported into this country have free will? Why, Yaron, aren't those "rotten" ethnic Swedes rioting? More to the point, is the sexual abuse of Swedish women and girls just "payback" for their rotteness?]

Christian priest Father Gabriel Naddaf tells UN: "#Israel is the only Mideast country not persecuting Christians"

[Comment: But Yaron wants to import millions of Muslims into the West who will persecute Christians -- only Israel matters]

I think what needs to be

Andrew Atkin's picture

I think what needs to be calmly clarified (for mass public consumption) is the step-by-step dynamics on how a Sweden and France can happen.

It seems to me that the more jihad-flavoured Islam you get, the harder it is to stop and reverse...due to infiltration, and may be even the power of the assassination threat on our officials.

How many of our politicians think twice about what they say and do, so as not to offend the worst of their Islamic populations due to that fear?

People who are prepared to die and kill in the name of their religion should have absolutely no place within their enemies borders. We can know that much!

--btw, when that woman smiled at the end of that Tucker Carlson video Lindsay just linked, I got the feeling she achieved what she wanted - to shut down the conversation. Pure verbal diarrhea.

Left-Objectivists give same argument

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Neil brought to my attention that OrgOists like Ari Armstrong are making the exact same arguments; ie the rape and crime data is "exaggerated". That is an evil argument to make and it is a leftist one.

There is something going on at a deep level here. You either see the threat to white, European culture or you don't. If the present course isn't changed then Europe will be religiously Muslim and racially Middle Eastern; that latter one is the more important. White Western Europe will be finished. Do Objectivists really not care about this? Jesus Christ, talk about putting abstractions above reality.

Also, understand what this means for modern politics. If you see that the Slavic people are the only Europeans to be resisting white demographic replacement then you will start to see Russia in a different light. You also realize that the Slavs may end up being the future of the European people. And understand both the Left and the Neocons are hostile to Russia. Another reason why the mainstream hates Trump so much for his slight deviation from the Overton Window. I hope he makes a rapprochement with Russia. But he's never going to do that rattling the saber against Iran. But once you understand racial dynamics you simply can not be opposed to Russia. That's Obleftivist territory.

Obleftivist poster girl

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Pure evil:

Objectivism through Induction

Luke Setzer's picture

Perhaps all these folks need a weekend refresher seminar on "Objectivism through Induction"!

Binswanger The Rationalist

Neil Parille's picture

Here is Harry from one of his immigration essays:

That's the moral case for phasing out limits on immigration. But some ask: "Is it practical? Wouldn't unlimited immigration—even if phased in over a decade—be disastrous to our economic well-being and create overcrowding? Are we being told to just grit our teeth and surrender our interests in the name of morality?"

This question is invalid on its face. It shows a failure to understand the nature of rights, and of moral principles generally. Rational moral principles reflect a recognition of the basic nature of man, his nature as a specific kind of living organism, having a specific means of survival.

Questions of what is practical, what is to one's self-interest, can be answered only in that context. It is neither practical nor to one's interest to attempt to live and act in defiance of one's nature as a human being.

It's really incredible.  He argues, in essence, that because open borders follows from Objectivist politics and because Objectivism is the only rational philosophy, that it's impossible for open borders to be anything but good.*  The real is the rational and the rational is the real.

*Except for Isreal.

And deliver us from Obleftevil

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Would anyone care to mount a contrary interpretation?

Not I. We're all Christians now. The only thing better than Melania speaking The Lord's Prayer is Mario singing it.

Everything secular now has been Gramsci-ised. Including OrgOism. The evil we need to be delivered from includes Obleftivism.

Natural Law and Benevolent Intentions

Luke Setzer's picture

One can reasonably interpret these prayers as the acknowledgement of natural law and the conveyance of benevolent intentions in alignment with it.

Contrast this against the narcissism and faux "love" of so many notable "leaders" today whose irrational egoism flouts any notion of immutable natural laws governing all of us.

Would anyone care to mount a contrary interpretation?

Melania Leads The Crowd In The Lord's Prayer

Neil Parille's picture

Holy cow.  If Donald had gone on to pray Pslam 23 half of the ARI would have keeled over by now.

I belive Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) is one of the greatest pieces of literature in the western tradition.

Amy still inside Ortho bubble

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Amy Peikoff had been somewhat skeptical of the position, but she seems now pretty much on the open immigration side. (Her professorship is funded by the ARI/Anthem.)

She's had some better instincts over the years and shown some signs of being more independent in her thinking. But she too is in a small bubble. When I think of the intellectual journey I have gone through, and am still going through, I realize now that the overwhelming majority of Objectivists have put themselves on a plantation that they have no interest in leaving. You have to challenge your worldview if you pursue truth. You can't put blinders on and think that Ayn Rand gave you all the answers, which is the way most Objectivists act. They think they have all the answers they need and they just rigorously defend their ideology. They are not after truth, they are out to protect their consciousness from cognitive dissonance.

Dealing with immigration honestly and truthfully would require you to delve into IQ, fertility rates, crime rates, socio-biology, cultural history, and a host of things beyond just economics although economics is of course involved. It would also require that you understand the left and its ultimate intentions. But Objectivists are incapable of this, baring a few exceptions.

OI as Anti-Propertarian view of politics

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Why do Objectivists disagree on immigration? Well, they really don’t. I think we all agree (certainly Leonard Peikoff does) that in a laissez-faire world, there’d be open immigration.

This comment is sad. It shows that Objectivists not only live in a bubble, they read in a bubble; ie they refuse to even read other libertarian writers who have written on this subject, especially if they're Austro-libertarians. Hans Herman Hoppe has covered this as has Lew Rockwell. Both have given Anarcho-capitalist solutions but they have also given minarchist (limited government) solutions as well.

What I don't understand is how Binswanger and the rest of the OI O'ists don't understand that even in a minarchy all property is privately owned. The border would be an example of the "commons" and the government would act as a trustee that managed that common space for the benefit of the property holders that are the American citizens. There is no "right of entry" into the nation just as there is no right of entry into a person's property.

The way to view this is as something akin to a homeowners association. The only people allowed in are those invited. Now Ed, has given a good first-attempt at a theoretical framework for how to deal with this. The government prior to 1965 had a rough but good system in place for this and that was to only admit Europeans and then to close off the borders when too many people emigrated to the country too quickly. Post 1965 immigration is not done as a faithful trustee that is protecting the property of its citizens. Its been done for all manner of corrupt reasons, many of them racial, motivated by bad philosophy and bad economics. I've mentioned this many times.

Objectivists have a non propertarian approach to immigration. They think that because an American citizen has freedom of association, this translates into the freedom of anyone on earth to cross American borders which as I said is a commons that the government is supposed to manage for the best interests of US citizens as an extension of their property rights. I add here that you can see why market anarchists just want to ditch the entire government itself. This is what Hoppe argues because he sees that governments do such crappy jobs of handling commons.

The bottom line is that the entire framework that Objectivists argue from is wrong. This is not surprising. As i've learned, Objectivists are wrong about American history especially the Civil War, about American federalism and the role of the Constitution, the history of American foreign policy and its move to empire (which it is now), foreign policy and America's complicity in generating the hatred against it (its not just "they hate us for our freedom" which is a stupid argument), the evil of the CIA and its police state powers (as Trump is now learning), the left / right distinction, the blank slate and socio-biology and other things I can't think of right now.

Rand had many brilliant insights and should be honored but the movement that bears her name is fucked in more ways than you can count. Open Immigration is the best example of their suicidal rationalism masked by extreme arrogance and self-righteousness. Isn't that the distilled essence of OrgOism though?


Neil Parille's picture

I don't know what explains the total support of ARI types for open immigration. Amy Peikoff had been somewhat skeptical of the position, but she seems now pretty much on the open immigration side. (Her professorship is funded by the ARI/Anthem.)


Luke Setzer's picture

As Neil noted, the ARI has many contradictions in what they preach about this crucial topic, and contradictions run squarely against the foundations of Objectivism. Islamic terror represents an immediate and existential threat to free people everywhere. I can look past the ARI's other foibles, but this blatant evasion goes beyond the pale. A clearly articulated, well-reasoned, well-informed, "healthy boundaries" argument should be formulated and shouted from the rooftops.

I still say something fishy is happening here.

Follow the money.

Why Objectivists Disagree On Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

A few points:

Why do Objectivists disagree on immigration? Well, they really don’t. I think we all agree (certainly Leonard Peikoff does) that in a laissez-faire world, there’d be open immigration.

1. Maybe it would be accurate if Harry said ARI associated objectivists don't disagree on this.  Does Harry think that Ed Powell, Ed Mazlish, etc. aren't objectivists?  They do not agree that in a laissez-faire world there should be open immigration.

2. I don't think Leonard believes that in a LF world there should be open immigration.  He said that if New Zealand were LF it would be entitled to restrict Islamic immigration.

3. Not even Harry and Yaron Brook agree with this.  They oppose open immigration for Israel regardless of whether it is LF.  They want to preserve Israel as an ethno-national state even though if the other 169 countries were to do this Yaron and Harry would call them racist.

More villainy

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The villain of our time's EPA nominee just got through. He's sued the EPA a number of times and wants to decimate it. Clearly another villain of our time!

As attorney general of Oklahoma, he sued the very department he was tapped by President Trump to run 14 times, often joining forces with the country’s largest fossil fuel companies against the EPA. He’s also openly questioned the science of climate change and challenged data that says humans contribute to global warming.

Why Objectivists disagree on immigration

Ed Hudgins's picture

Why Objectivists disagree on immigration
By Harry Binswanger

This piece helps explain the differences.

That villain..

Sam Pierson's picture

.. puts a smile on my face with his common touch. He is the real deal. Heart & brain & endearing ramble. Good times.

"The greatest villain of our time ..."

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here's the man Obleftivist Yawon Bwook, paid in excess of $400,000 a year to betray Ayn Rand, calls "THE villain of our age." The villain of our age is signing an Executive Order overturning a regulation promulgated by Bwook pin-up Obamarx that would have been a last nail in the coffin of coal:

What would Hank Rearden think of Obleftivist Yawon Bwook?

One of Yawon's pandarees

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This creature being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, a teacher, is the kind of mentality to which Obleftivists pander:

I was reading ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... Adios America as part of my debate prep. Wonder if it's too late to reverse the barbarian invasion? Glad to see Trump rounding up the crims at least.

One little nugget I've neglected to mention: in one of his podcasts Brook called upon Obama to pardon Edward Snowden. There's your tweasonist wight there. The contemptible bastard. Wonder if he ran that idea by Peter Schwartz?

Amy Fails To Confront Yaron - One Example

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron said that if the Republicans changed their tune on immigration they could "easily" get "over 50%" of the Hispanic vote.

No response or follow up from Amy. Incredible if she's read anything by the "anti-immigration" side.

1. Ed pointed out in his article that when Cruz was running for senate (and perceived as pro-immigration) he got all of 35% of the Hispanic vote (he was running against an Anglo Democrat).

2. It doesn't appear that Rubio won the Hispanic vote in Florida (he initially supported amnesty) in his two senate runs and Hispanics in Florida are more Republican than other places because of the Cubans and their anti-Castro sentiment.*

3. Reagan signed an amnesty in 86 or 87 and the Republicans did worse among Hispanics in '88 when Bush I won in a landslide.

4. Poll after poll shows that Hispanics are left of center on issues such as Obamacare and taxation. In fact, some polls show them more in agreement with Republicans on immigration (apparently they don't think flooding the country with immigrants who will compete with them for jobs is in their rational self interest).**

5. Hispanics have high rates of illegitimacy and welfare dependency. Not exactly natural Republican constituents.***

6. In 2012, a statewide referendum was passed in California to raise taxes on the rich and also the sales tax. It won because of overwhelming Hispanic support. Does Brook seriously believe that Hispanics voted to raise taxes because they don't like the Republicans on immigration?

Brook may have an excuse for allegedly not knowing these things. What's Amy's?


* Thanks to Ed for pointing this out to me.

**And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

***Hispanics’ support for the Democratic economic agenda, both in California and nationally, stems in part from their receipt of government assistance. Nationally, non-immigrant Hispanic households (i.e., households headed by a U.S.-born Hispanic) are enrolled in welfare programs at over twice the rate of U.S.-born white households (42 percent vs. 19 percent), according to an analysis of March 2012 census data by the Center for Immigration Studies. That welfare use is driven by Hispanics’ higher poverty rate — over twice that of whites. Lagging educational attainment and out-of-wedlock child-rearing in turn lie behind those poverty numbers. Hispanics have the highest dropout rate in the country. Over 53 percent of all Hispanic births are to unwed mothers . . . compared with 29 percent of white births. Hispanics’ teen-pregnancy rates are the highest of any American racial or ethnic group.

That Is My Point

Luke Setzer's picture

All this agitation may just be a tempest in a teapot. We could settle the issue by seeing a breakdown of the ARI annual budget. I am looking but failing to locate it. If the overwhelming impact of ARI is its "Free Books to Teachers" program and associated essay contest, then the ramblings of Brook and company are ultimately just a fart in the ocean only worthy of a brief "Ew!" before continuing the swim.

Conversely, if the ARI has turned into the equivalent of the Clinton Foundation, and the numbers support that thesis, we would have a "truck-like" argument for immediate defunding.

The lack of immediate financial transparency at ARI itself is somewhat disturbing.


VSD's picture

how about sponsering an essay contest why the three aforementioned are no longer in agreement with objectivist principles (to keep it 'polite' ; ) ... thus you still support the essayists, give them an interesting topic to write about, and get your money where you want it to do the most good ; )
As for those three 'leaders': how can they 'speak for objectivism' when it's so simple to debunk them on almost any topic? Just because they are so popular on faecesbook & co? When the three non-Bs wrote so voluminously about the three Bs I already wondered 'why bother? just ignore them if they are so stupid'. Is objectivism really subject to such 'cult-leaders'? To me it was always about Ayn Rand's writing, about implementing it myself in my own life, benefiting on a personal level from it. And of course enjoying it like a breath of fresh air in a putrid world of rot : )
Personally I never heard of any of those 'big wigs' (just like the three Bs) before they were maligned here ... maybe that's the best way to get rid of them: relegate them to the irrelevancy where they belong ; P

Defunding ARI

Luke Setzer's picture

Even though I support ARI with $10 monthly draws to advance worthy undertakings such as the essay contests for high school students, I will cheerfully withdraw my support and tell ARI why by pointing to this thread, assuming it gathers sufficient credible steam.

Otherwise, no one will notice one way or the other, and I hate to punish the essay contestants over the stupidity of a few ARI leaders.

Is there some way to measure the impact of ARI opinion leaders on the essay contest winners?

It would help also to point to a page outlining ARI's budget to see where all their money goes, and consequently who will be most hurt by defunding efforts.

Comment viewing options

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