Molly Hits It Out Of The Park - Again (France and Immigration)

Neil Parille's picture
Submitted by Neil Parille on Mon, 2017-03-06 00:24

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

Note that Binswanger, Brook, Amy Peikoff, etc. believe that Molly is a liar on foreign immigration into France.


Neil

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I read a good comment someone wrote in the comments section of the alt-right Gottfried interview at Tom Woods Youtube channel. It said:

Alt-Light = There is a Muslim problem

Alt-Right = There is a Zionist problem (with heavy support from Jews in America)

Some Objectivists, the more right leaning ones (as opposed to the majority who are left-Objectivists), see the Muslim problem. But none of them see the Zionist, ie Jewish supremacist, problem. When I listen to Netanyahu I hear a crazed warmonger who will do anything for the defense of Israel including manipulating America into waging a total war with Iran. A war which would do tremendous damage to both America and Europe and result in the death of millions. I think Netanyahu is a bastard. And I think Zionists are evil and NeoCons their little bitches. And OrgOists are basically Zionists with Objectivist boilerplate. Is Rand to blame for this? I don't think so but the Objectivist movement is what it is.

Here is a thought I am toying with. When I compare the Mises Institute and the Austrians with the Objectivists I notice that the Miseseans are very likable as in decent personalities. That movement has a far greater range of internal debate. Just look at the range of speakers they have: secular Jews like Walter Block to Rushdooney Christians like Gary North (who I really like). They don't have the purity purges like Objectivism does. Why is that? My thought is that the Objectivist movement is a Jewish dominated movement whereas the Mises / Rockwell group are largely Christian with some Jewish contributors.

Kevin MacDonald's work on Jewish psychology is interesting. His research shows that ethno-centrism is highly heritable. And it corresponds with a disagreeable personality disposition. All this is biological. Think of Peikoff, Brook, Schwartz and their personalities. My god are those men unlikeable. I'm not 100% wedded to this conclusion but I'm leaning strongly in the direction that Objectivism has moved so far to the Left on so many issues because it is Jewish dominated.

Compare Objectivism with paleo-libertarianism on subjects like immigration, foreign policy, Christianity, abortion, race-realism. Objectivists take positions that are exactly the same as leftists, sometimes even MORE hysterical (as you've pointed out). The paleo-right is open to right wing opinions on all of those subjects. I know philosophy is involved but I'm starting to think it is just Jewish ethno-centricism. Jews take certain positions for collective self-interest. I mean why should a philosophical movement that aims at liberty and prosperity end up being hyper Zionist and advocating a foreign policy that would make Ghengis Khan look pacifist? I don't say this as a Hitlerian exterminationist of course although some nitwits like Mark Hubbard will accuse me of that. I say it as someone who is good at recognizing patterns.

If a former Wasp were the head of the ARI, I would bet heavy that the movement would exhibit a different disposition. OrgOism has similar elements to other Jewish dominated movements like Neo-Conservatism and Cultural Marxism. Kevin MacDonald is on to something.

Doug

Neil Parille's picture

But Yaron has one exception for this. Can you guess who it is? If you guessed Israel then you would be right. And why do Israelis get to have their own ethno-state? Because somehow only Jews have the right to preserve themselves as an ethnic collective. A privilege granted because of the Holocaust I guess. The amount of cognitive dissonance in Yaron's brain is staggering.

Yaron is a Jewish Supremecist.  It's that simple.  Phillipe Cohn from France has a right to go to Israel if things get that bad. Phillipe Bouchard doesn't.

Yaron is a traitor to Objecvtivism and all that is good and right in the world. You and I ripping the mask off orthodox Objectivism.

Brook vs Molyneux

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

His conclusion is one an Objectivist would reject. It is that a country or nation is ultimately grounded in a racial and ethnic foundation. And further, that ethno foundation is a type of collective inheritance that the political and financial elite have no right to change. This is a conclusion that I have come to as well. Objectivists would call this "collectivism" and denounce it with the same venom you find on the Left.

Yaron Brook's view is typical here of left-Objectivists and is the exact opposite of Molyneux's. He has Tweeted (somewhere) that a country does not have the right to preserve an ethic composition. That individual rights mandate that countries abandon any racial or ethnic foundation and racially blend themselves out of existence. Finland, for example, has no right to keep itself a nation of Finns. For Yaron, it is a moral imperative, grounded in liberty no less, that humanity become one coffee colored hybridized mass. "Individual rights" demand no less.

But Yaron has one exception for this. Can you guess who it is? If you guessed Israel then you would be right. And why do Israelis get to have their own ethno-state? Because somehow only Jews have the right to preserve themselves as an ethnic collective. A privilege granted because of the Holocaust I guess. The amount of cognitive dissonance in Yaron's brain is staggering.

As Molyneux said, French Jews get to go to Israel. But where do native French people, ie white people, get to go when the country becomes racially Middle Eastern and North African? Can any Objectivist give me an answer to that? Please tell me where the French are going to go (and in fact all European people) when they are a hated minority in a sea of low IQ Muslim hate? To Galt's Gulch?

Comment viewing options

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