Bruno interviews Lindsay Perigo, the man who exposed Obleftivism (Fake Objectivism!)

Bruno's picture
Submitted by Bruno on Thu, 2017-08-31 15:22

Linz and I had this most important conversation the other day and it's something that will blow Obleftivism out of the water!

The trouble is there's been certain technical difficulties that made the recording of insufficient quality. I've had to refrain from publishing it.

However, there's no need to worry. The issue has been resolved and Take Two is on its way, so stay tuned! The interview will be published on my Youtube channel at this link:

Linz was on fire and he absolutely devastated Obleftivism.

I remind you that the interview will be focused on the issues contained in his Open Letter to Objectivists; Make Objectivism Great Again! Repudiate Obleftivism! - which I invite everyone to revisit here:

The interview format has proven to be an excellent medium to go into more detail as to what Obleftivism is and why it is morally bankrupt, why the so-called "Right to travel" of Binswangerian tradition is nothing less than a manifestation of an intrisicist view of rights, and the extent to which the Ayn Rand Institute is capitulating to evil.

Remember: It's MOGA time!

It's time to Make Objectivism Great Again!


gregster's picture

Harry's been on F*c*book in detail over his evacuation woes. I don't get why he didn't take the Merc to Atlanta.


Neil Parille's picture

Yes he lives in a gated community in Naples, Florida. I'm told he evacuated to Atlanta but is worried about his house and Mercedes . . . .

Membership has its privileges

Doesn't he live

Brant Gaede's picture

in a gated community?



Neil Parille's picture

Binswanger believes the USA and Europe should have no borders. Just incredible.

A useful idiot, rather than an imbecile.

gregster's picture

I rushed that last comment. Yes, I was being too generous describing Brook as an imbecile. You are correct Linz, this is evil he is promoting. He is purposefully evil. Evil is that which "negates, opposes or destroys the good." That certainly describes ARI's perversion of Objectivism.


Brant Gaede's picture

B may be evil but HB--ref. Greg's 9-3 post--is dumb with gross brain lock. Muslim Mom and Dad and their little boy get vetted into this country and the little boy grows up into a big boy who gets in touch with his roots and goes jihad and this country gets torn apart from the inside.

HB is an ideologue but much less intelligent than Rand was. She would never have tolerated rendering this country defenseless. Rand was always at war and would never have been fooled by the different clothes America's enemies might wear. Rand would understand instantly that the ARI was one of those enemies to the max and would have taken a blowtorch to LP & Co.

It's not often I ask myself any more, "What would Rand do?" This is the biggest exception I can think of.



Not an imbecile!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Bwook is not stupid. This is conscious evil we are confronting.

Just finished with Bruno. We said what needed to be said. I hope everyone does his part in helping it go viral.

My view

gregster's picture

I've been busy and am looking forward to reply in detail. And for now a brief response.

Yaron Brook does not consider the full context. The facts are that moslem immigration into the un-free west is purposeful and damaging and those promoting it are deluded and/or altruists.

Moslems have declared war, not all of them of course. But democracy has failure built-in, and to enable aggregates of these primitives is suicide.

I would ban them as a general rule, in self defence, unless certain individuals contribute value.

Their territories should be isolated--pig-penned.

The sponsors of terror should be annihilated.

Moslems in the west meanwhile will have to be monitored in case they retaliate (more than they are already). Once caught plotting they too will be deported, or jailed then deported.

We need to let them appreciate their own squalor a little longer. It's obvious fuck all of them are emigrating back to moslem territories. I say let them put up with their own iniquities for a few centuries more.

Open immigration can't operate in a rationalist vacuum such as Brook's. He's a dangerous imbecile.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Wow! Great post, Bruno. Smiling

How sad and bizarre that the West today allows and encourages immigrants who are proud anti-assimilationists, and open haters of the people and country they're moving to. How sad and bizarre that the West allows and encourages explicit enemies to immigrate. The West today has a very poor guiding philosophy -- something wildly irrational and illiberal. It seems, and operates, as a death wish.

Obleftivist psychology and Western preservation

Bruno's picture

It's all fine and dandy to propose open borders as long as immigrants don't go on welfare and don't gain citizenship.

Even assuming that in such a situation there wouldn't be economic and cultural turmoil, the fact is that these welfare and citizenship laws are going in the exact opposite direction, meaning they are being expanded rather than restricted.

I assume that these intellectual "elites" believe that as long as they can live in private gated communities, the cultural onslaught will not affect them.

In other words, they are being "selfish" in a relatively short term perspective, not giving much thought as to what their country will become decades into the future.

This also means that they feel absolutely no kind of in-group preference for their own countrymen as opposed to any and all peoples from around the world.

Now, since it is in fact through physical, individual people that culture lives on and preserves its character, this means that the elites also feel no in-group preference for Western culture. They're calculations are purely economic in nature; people are viewed not as persons but as economic widgets to be shuffled around at will based on short term economic expedience.

American persons are given no preferential treatment, in fact they are purposefully disregarded. Cheap labor from abroad comes first and foremost. Not the alien persons, but they're economic utility. If other considerations were taken into account, this approach would be disregarded as being hopelessly short-sighted culturally speaking.

Even a communist or a radical muslim, or whatever else sort of culturally incompatible alien, can perfectly function as an economic widget in the short term; but in the long term these persons will affect the culture in a drastic way and cause a serious political shift.

The cultural consideration façade, which the elites must put on lest being completely open to devastating criticism on such grounds, comes in the form of an intrisicist view of rights and a paradoxically determinist view of free will.

In other words, since Western culture is the best, ideological aliens from abroad will automatically and inexplicably (i.e. deterministically) be "induced" into free-willing themselves into adopting Western values. This is a sort of rationalism on a scale that is hard to find anywhere else in the history of Western thought.

If one limits his analysis to a paper-only context, without reference to actual living human beings, then one might get away with this sort of rationalism; but by looking at both history and the facts at hand, it is clear that peoples most certainly do not limit themselves to acting as economic widgets, they possess individual preferences, and cultural, ethical, religious, and political values.

Once the historic Western populations become minorities in their own countries, the relatively small number of assimilated immigrants will not be able to stop the vast majority of aliens which retain their culturally incompatible framework from fundamentally transforming the West into something which will be completely unrecognizable as Western in any meaningful sense.

As can easily be inferred, this kind of cultural disintegration could be prevented if only the above mentioned "assimilated immigrants" were selected at entry based on exactly such a criterion; willingness to assimilate. At the very least, citizenship laws must be drastically restricted, so that even a couple of generations later, un-assimilated immigrants may be deported if necessary.

This is what preserving Western nations qua Western nations means. Unwillingness to fundamentally transform the country's character, even if ideological aliens protest. Those who do protest, should be deported. Or, if they are particularly economically valuable, never be granted citizenship. What this means in practice is the complete and total refusal to adapt our way of life to the aliens'; viceversa the aliens must adapt themselves to our ways or be kicked out.

Since Objectivism is not an economic theory, but a philosophy which centers itself on the recognition and pursuit of rational values; it is clear that a teleological assessment of the value of an immigration policy must be based on a rational hierarchy of socio-political values. The highest, non-negotiable, value is a free country with a free system of government. If an immigration policy causes the free system to radically shift towards statism and serfdom, it is an evil immigration policy. If the immigration policy preserves and enhances the freedom of the country, it is a good immigration policy.

PS. The interview with Lindsay Perigo is coming shortly and should be available on Youtube by Saturday evening or early Sunday morning, NZ time.

- Bruno Turner, #MOGA

Obleftivists should learn from Ronnie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here's Ronnie, a year before announcing his Alzheimer's, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. "History comes and goes; principles endure." What Obleftivists like Yawon and Binswanker need to learn from Ronnie's and Donnie's exalted ilk: patriotism, decency, authenticity, and a commitment to individual freedom that amounts to something—as opposed to their grandstanding, obnoxious, unappetising, Narcissistic anal-retentivism:


Neil Parille's picture

I don't think Binswanger has given much thought to his immigration policy.

Assume that the US announces that effective January 1, 2018 we have open borders. There would be millions of people entering the US via the Southern border in the first few days. Trespassing on private property would be widespread. Now Binswanger could argue that the police should stop it. But the number of police per person in border areas would drop dramatically.

And it's hard to take Binswanger seriously given his opposition to immigration for Israel. Why would mass immigration into Europe be good, but bad for Israel?

"HB: We should be at war, but we're more nearly 'at surrender.' We should punish Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and maybe a few other states by bombing them heavily—or that's what we should have done on 9/12/2001. Don't let the left turn you away from that issue.The question of whether Arabs are allowed to enter is a red herring. We are not responding militarily to the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor attack on us. The enemy must be crushed, and jihadism sent back to the remote alleys of primitive lands where it belongs."

Has he ever explained how this will end the threat of Jihadism in the west?

So Greg

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What's your stance on all of this?

Binswanger on "are we at war?"

gregster's picture

Immigration and Terrorists

Burke Chester Tuesday, February 19, 2013

I once asked Dr. Binswanger here if he would apply his same immigration policies to Israel, and he said no because Israel is at war.

We are at war with Islamic terrorists. So this leaves us with the question of how great the threat must be before we could do the same as Israel. It appears to me that this is the question that needs to be addressed.

HB: We should be at war, but we're more nearly “at surrender.” We should punish Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and maybe a few other states by bombing them heavily—or that's what we should have done on 9/12/2001. Don't let the left turn you away from that issue.The question of whether Arabs are allowed to enter is a red herring. We are not responding militarily to the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor attack on us. The enemy must be crushed, and jihadism sent back to the remote alleys of primitive lands where it belongs.


gregster's picture

The screening and border protection would be undertaken by private companies. That is what they were discussing on Binswanger's list.

Here is a post which shows his thinking then:

Immigration and terrorists
Peter Schwartz 18/02/2013

HB's Feb. 3 Forbes column on immigration provides an excellent argument, on moral and practical grounds, for eliminating all barriers to immigration.

There is one point, though, with which I want to take issue. I think the government should have some means of checking people who enter the country.

It is true that if we adopted the correct policy toward the sources of Islamic totalitarianism, the threat of organized terrorism would ultimately be eliminated. But since we are as far away from a proper foreign policy as from a proper domestic policy, we can't ignore the fact that Islamist terrorists are currently trying to come into America to do us harm.

We don't need prohibitions on immigration. Nor do we need a police state on our borders. All that's required is some contextual evaluation of newly arriving immigrants. A citizen of Japan may require a cursory check of his identity, while a citizen of Iran or Saudi Arabia may require more extensive investigation before being allowed in. (Just as someone coming from Canada may be presumed to be free of infectious diseases, while someone from a primitive country such as Madagascar may require a medical exam.)

HB: A simple solution: the inspection, checking, and exams may be done privately, by the airlines or the owners of the airport terminal. But it is a violation of rights to impede anyone's freedom of travel without probable cause. And I don't consider coming from Madagascar or anywhere else on this planet to be probable cause for disease-inspection. Nor would a court of law.

There is no violation of rights here, since there is reason to beware of possible danger—i.e., we know that the jihadists are trying to get their killers into this country. The situation is similar to that of a police roadblock set up to search for criminal suspects, when there is an objective basis for suspicion.

Immigration would remain unrestricted. No one would be barred from entering the U.S., unless some evidence was uncovered indicating that he was a threat. And would-be terrorists would have a harder time gaining entry.

HB: I understand your point of view, but I've come 100% away from this attitude. The same reasoning that recently turned me against gun control applies to immigration inspection: there must be no preventive law, no state interference or invasive checking without objective evidence about the particular individual. (Tom Bowden has pointed out that the police can monitor the ports, terminals, etc. without having to forcibly detain or interfere with anyone.)

This much is beyond dispute: no inspections and no measures however draconian can keep out terrorists. 1) All 20 of the 9/11/2001 terrorists passed inspection. They were all here legally. It's trivially easy to either get the legal documents or forge them if one cannot. 2) there are thousands and thousands of miles of unguarded borders for the US—not only the sea coasts—easily reached secretly with a small boat or small submarine—there is also the 2,000+ mile border with Canada (and Canada has its own sea coast, even less patrolled.). 3) There are plenty of domestic terrorists to use—such as Maj. Hassan.

All that even draconian inspections can do is make it more inconvenient for Islamists to get their operatives here. Yes, more inconvenient is better than less inconvenient, but it does not trump the right of free travel for the rest of us.

On the issue of police roadblocks, I don't know offhand what to think. Roadblocks are probably wrong. The interference with the innocent (which can be severe here due to the traffic pile-up) is not justified by the valid desire to catch a criminal. (Again, under capitalism the owners of private roads would decide whether to have a roadblock or not.) But at least in the case of a roadblock, a specific crime has been committed and a specific person is being searched for. That is quite different from screening for whoever has an infectious disease or for whoever has been sent to commit an act of terrorism.

These screenings and detainments are both immoral and impractical. Government cannot obstruct the innocent in order to check for the possibly guilty. An individual in the state of nature would have no right to do these preventive-law things, so the individual cannot delegate his (nonexistent) right to the government, to authorize it to do them. That is, I couldn't set up a roadblock (assuming there were no government) to look for someone, I couldn't demand that individuals entering the region prove to me that they don't have any infectious disease, I couldn't stop everyone from owning guns—so neither can my agent, the state.

The above is a little over-simplified, but it makes a point.

Linz re Binny

gregster's picture

Bruno says otherwise in his part 3. As for Binswanger, he mentions barring people at times of war. Problem is, he seems to be waiting for the government to declare war. The same preventive-law-making government he mistrusts.

Here's a post of his thoughts from 2013:

Contra border-inspections
Harry Binswanger 26/02/2013

In a post yesterday, Chip Joyce wrote:

All arguments for border checks are implicitly arguments for random checks of persons within the country. There is no difference in principle about stopping and questioning a person whether he is crossing a border, or a street.

I agree, but there's an objection that could be raised. It's this. After someone has been stopped and questioned at the border, then the government can't stop him again somewhere else later on, because the burden of proof would have been shifted: anyone who is legally here, having being screened, would be presumed innocent.

But Mr. Joyce said “in principle,” and the principle is: subjecting a group to government interference in order to (somehow) find out which individuals in that group are a threat. And by that principle, the flood-gates of government harassment are opened. That's preventive law, and it is the basis of all regulation.

Exactly as with gun control, the issue is: what constitutes an objective threat? My position is the government may interfere with an individual's actions only when he has used force or there is objective evidence that he has or will do so.

Concerning government inspection, there are three cases: the clearly wrong, the clearly right, and the (initially) unclear. It is clearly wrong for the government to stop random people on the street, haul them off to the police station, and grill them—in the hope of being able to apprehend people who might commit a crime in the future. It is just as wrong to do that in the hope of being able to apprehend unspecified people who are already in violation of the law (e.g., parole-violators). It is just as clearly wrong to do more than very minimal checking of everyone at borders. (If requiring that people entering the country show a valid passport is wrong, it isn't clearly wrong, the way the other cases are.)

Now here's a case in which it is clearly right for the government to detain and question someone. A bank has been robbed and witnesses say that the getaway car was a blue 1999 Toyota Camry driven by a man with red hair, and a police car in the neighborhood sees a redheaded man driving one. Or, someone driving into the country from Mexico has sores on his body that look very like those indicative of a serious, highly infectious disease (the same would be true of seeing such a person anywhere inside the country). Or, a man observes the 18-year-old who lives next door, who is always angry and dresses like a Goth, bringing dynamite into his house.

The difference between these two types of cases indicates how to handle the unclear cases: there must be something about the specific individual to be questioned that warrants questioning him. I believe this is what is legally known as “probable cause.” (That term doesn't mean, as the word “probable” might lead you to think, that it must belikely that the individual has or is about to do something illegal; “probable cause” is simply the legal term used to distinguish an evidence-based action from an arbitrary one.)

It is wrong for the government to interrupt the free actions of an individual in the absence of any evidence that he, in particular, is guilty. It is wrong for the government to inspect every construction project in the absence of any evidence that any given project is proceeding in a way that threatens damage to others (by, say, the structure collapsing on neighbors). It is wrong for the government to forbid everyone to own a gun in the absence of evidence that any given person is going to use it to initiate force. It is wrong for the government to inspect every entrant to the country for infectious diseases, in the absence of specific evidence that he is diseased. It is wrong for the government to make entrants satisfy the state, as a condition of entry, that they are not terrorists.

But if there is a known terrorist, call him Mohammed Abu Ghazili, that the CIA says may be trying to enter the country, it is right for the government to institute surveillance for him at the entry spots, assuming that doesn't mean subjecting the millions of non-Ghazilis to hours spent in waiting lines.

Borderline cases certainly exist. But, by virtue of being borderline cases, it is not important which way they are decided—as long as a court can be involved to determine if “probable cause” exists.

We must also isolate emergency cases, when the government can and should screen groups. I can think of two: war and a plague. In wartime, obviously, no citizens of enemy nations should be allowed entry—unless they can prove they are defecting, which entails their spending a long time de-briefing, etc. and not being at complete liberty thereafter. Secondly, if there is a plague wracking a given region, that could warrant, for the duration of that emergency, medical checking at the border of people from that region to prevent their infecting the domestic citizens.

Either emergency might well warrant requiring entrants to establish where they are coming from, to prevent enemy agents or plague-infested people from entering. The idea is: that is probable cause to inspect people coming from there (but not from other places). Whereas, to question and inspect a random person who is past the border, the police would need specific grounds for doing so. Merely that he is from the plague-ridden region (and how would they know that?) would not constitute probable cause for inspection, since the person would already have been cleared at the border. But bear in mind that even this minimal interference—which would not affect people coming from most places—obtains only in war or time of plague.

It is not proper for the government to deal with problems by screening, inspecting, and questioning groups in the attempt to find individuals who, as yet, have committed no crime. The proper and practical way to proceed is, domestically, to use force only in retaliation against an objective threat, and in foreign policy take decisive military action against terrorist-sponsoring states.

On a practical level, the idea of mass screening for criminals and terrorists is hopelessly ineffective. (Again, this is different from surveillance to catch someone specific who is already on a “wanted” list.) We could not have somehow determined that any of the 9/11 terrorists were going to commit any act of terror. They were all here legally. And whatever screening we set up can be very easily overcome by the organizations behind the terrorism.

And what on earth does it mean to screen for “criminals”? “Criminals”—by what country's standards? And if they are criminals by, say, British, standards, why aren't they in a British jail? Did they escape? If the UK informs our authorities that a certain person has escaped from jail there, is a fugitive, and if they provide a mug shot of him, certainly our government could, if feasible, monitor the incoming people for the fugitive, and even detain and inspect anyone who looks sufficiently like him. But that's not remotely the same as setting up a permanent apparatus of inspection of everyone, including 80-year-old grandmothers, to see if they are “possibly criminals.”

Years back, when there was a lot of Mafia activity in Sicily, the fact that someone was from Sicily would not have been grounds for detaining him and trying to determine if he was a Mafioso, or “maybe” was going to become one here.

The principle is: to interfere with someone's freedom of movement, the state needs some evidence specific to him, rather than simply the fact that he hasn't proved himself innocent. In short: no government interference, except in war or plague, without probable cause.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I can't wait to hear this interview! Smiling


Brant Gaede's picture

Rights are a human invention justified by human nature. There are not arbitrary. They are a skyscraper of the human mind.

In regard to a nation's borders--as I said elsewhere on SOLO--it's a matter of protecting [people and] property. If property is not private it is taken from and/or withheld from the private and made public and it is the job of the government to protect both by controlling who comes into this country. And as a private person I cannot invite a foreigner into this country without government sanction to visit me on my private property and stay there for I cannot confine him to same--which would be slavery. It is only slavery which justifies "open" immigration. Therefore ARI is a de facto advocate of slavery.


Perigo gets it. Obleftivists don't.

Bruno's picture

The issue runs much deeper than Obleftivists having their facts wrong. They have their philosophy wrong. What Obleftivists argue for is incompatible with Objectivism. That's why they're Obleftivists.

"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."

- Lindsay Perigo, Open Letter to Objectivists—Make Objectivism Great Again! Repudiate Obleftivism!


For more on this, stay tuned for the interview. MOGA!

If immigrants are "self-selected" for virtue...

Bruno's picture

Why are they voting in favor of Socialism? Why are we importing ideological aliens from abroad who are working to subvert America's tradition of limited government by aligning themselves with socialist candidates?

"... an individual may cross an international border if that individual’s entrance into the country in question will serve the moral goal of keeping the country free. If the person desiring entrance will not further the goal of keeping the country free, then that person can be properly excluded. The person need not be riding in a battle tank or carrying a rifle to be properly evaluated as a threat to freedom. He may simply be a person from an incompatible culture."
- Ed Powell, “The Underdeveloped, the Undeveloped, and the Not-to-be-Developed Cultures”


Trump vs Hillary

Bruno's picture

Spoiler: Trump won thanks to the white vote.

Source: https://ropercenter.cornell.ed...

2016 Presidential Election by population group:

African-Americans: 88% for Hillary
Hispanics: 65% for Hillary
Whites: 37% for Hillary

Obama vs McCain

Bruno's picture

Spoiler: if only white Americans voted, Obama would have never become President.

Source: https://ropercenter.cornell.ed...

2008 Presidential Election results by population group:

African-Americans: 95% for Obama
Hispanics: 67% for Obama
Asians: 62% for Obama
Whites: 43% for Obama

Obama vs Romney

Bruno's picture

Spoiler: if only white Americans voted, Obama would have lost.

Source: https://ropercenter.cornell.ed...

2012 Presidential Election results by population group:

African-Americans: 93% for Obama
Hispanics: 71% for Obama
Asians: 73% for Obama
Whites: 39% for Obama

A few points

Neil Parille's picture

1. Open immigration Objectivists such as Amy Peikoff, Brook, Biddle, etc. support screening for criminality and terrorism/terrorist sympathies. They never say how you would screen people from countries without adequate criminal background checks. Or what of countries that permit domestic abuse?

2. Even under open immigration, you would presumably allow in most people who want to come to the west. So to the extent one is concerned about a demographic shift, it would happen eventally under open immigration.

3. Republicans do better with Hispanics on the issue of immigration than other issues.

"Hispanics" and big government

Bruno's picture

"Hispanics" on the role of government:

"Overall, 56% of U.S. Hispanics either identify with the Democratic Party or are independents who lean Democratic, while 21% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party


Regardless of party affiliation, most Hispanics prefer a bigger government that provides more services (67%) to a smaller government providing fewer services (21%)."


Alexander Hamilton vs Obleftivism

Bruno's picture

"The opinion advanced is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?"

—Alexander Hamilton, January 12, 1802

Let's play a game of argumentum ad verecundiam. Who's the more authoritative voice, Hamilton or Binswanger?

As for Yaron Brook

Bruno's picture

His position is in constant flux, but broadly speaking, I take it he believes in such a thing as a border patrol and screening. The screening should be exclusively focused on: criminality, diseases, terrorists.

Meaning, again, that the great and vast majority of human beings on the planet could freely enter.

Never mind the consequences of importing ideological aliens, foreign enclaves, no-go zones, shariah zones, high welfare usage, and so on and so forth.

Some of these issues are directly linked with the West's adoption of the welfare state, but as Ed Powell points out in his essay on immigration:

not only are refugees not barred from receiving welfare, they are specifically given special types of welfare handouts not available to either citizens or immigrants.[57]

The conclusion that follows from these facts is that the prerequisite for allowing more immigration (not to mention open borders) is to end the welfare state entirely. Not “end it for immigrants”—that has been tried and failed[58]—end it entirely. No selective ban on welfare for immigrants will last when up against the lawlessness of the Left. So, if you want more open immigration, my suggestion is to argue for it as a follow-on to the end of the welfare state, rather than as something that is desirable now. Advocating open immigration now, before ending the welfare state, is equivalent to advocating the destruction of the United States by national bankruptcy.

But much more importantly, on CULTURE:

Human beings are not fungible economic widgets. Just because a person wants a job in the US and an employer wants to hire that person, does not mean it is in the self-interest of the United States (“the moral goal of keeping Americans free”) to allow that person to enter. “Import people, and you import their culture. Import them on a small scale, as with the Normans, and they may assimilate, but in doing so, they will still influence yours. Import them on a larger scale, and they’ll keep their own culture, which will conflict with yours. Import them on a large enough scale, as with the Saxons, and your culture will be the one assimilated. And if that happens, you find yourself at the mercy of whatever the newcomers decide to do with you.”[82]


Absolutely open immigration, without border patrols.

Bruno's picture

Greg, have you not read this through? How could the Government screen for infectious diseases without any border patrol?

Also, is infectious diseases really the issue here? Clearly not. We are talking about letting in everyone and anyone regardless of their background or ideology, as long as he isn't infectious. Meaning, I would presume, the overwhelming and vast majority of human beings on Earth can come in freely, period.

"This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports.

After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened, exactly as is entry into Connecticut from New York.


The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence, and thus can claim no rights himself. So, in principle, there's no objection to barring criminals from entering the country.

There is, however, a procedural objection, and a decisive one: how are government officials to determine whether or not a given man about to enter the country is a criminal? Since potential or actual criminals do not carry signs announcing this fact, how can the government ferret it out—without violating the rights of the innocent immigrant?


The crucial point is often overlooked: in its efforts to capture or bar criminals, the government may not violate the rights of the innocent. That means, no detention at borders, no demand to produce "papers" or "passports,"— such procedures violate the rights of the innocent. In order to interfere with a man's free movement, the state needs to show "probable cause"—which means specific evidence against the specific individual, not the indiscriminate subjection of everyone to a screening process.

There is no more authority to demand papers at the border than there is for the police to board a city bus and demand papers of everyone on it. A man, citizen or non-citizen, is to be presumed innocent. He does not have to satisfy the government that he is not a criminal, in the absence of any evidence that he is.

At the nation's borders, instead of "inspection," there should simply be a sign: "Welcome to America."

Bold added.


???? x 2

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I haven't heard any Oists disagree that crims, terrorists, and infectious persons are not welcome.

And who has said otherwise? Binswanker/Bwook's position goes beyond that: that any people from anywhere on the globe have the right to travel to/remain in the United States (or any Angloshere country) by dint of their "human" status (the intrinsicist view of rights). That includes ideological aliens, whom Binswanker/Bwook specifically welcome, on the grounds that savages self-select for virtue. Infectious diseases and criminal records are irrelevant red herrings by the Randroids whom the half of you on that side of the fence still itches to defend, Greg. Parochial Rasputin loyalties no doubt. See my Open Letter. So how have I misrepresented these traitors' positions?

Conditional Open Immigration..

gregster's picture

I haven't heard any Oists disagree that crims, terrorists, and infectious persons are not welcome.


The rights of one man end where the rights of his neighbor begin. Only within the limits of his rights is a man free to act on his own judgment. The criminal is the man who deliberately steps outside his rights-protected domain and invades the domain of another, depriving his victim of his exclusive control over his property, or liberty, or life. The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence. Thus, an immigration policy that excludes criminals is proper.

Likewise, a person with an infectious disease, such as smallpox, threatens with serious physical harm those with whom he comes into proximity. Unlike the criminal, he may not intend to do damage, but the threat of physical harm is clear, present, and objectively demonstrable. To protect the lives of Americans, he may be kept out or quarantined until he is no longer a threat.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Who is "partially misrepresenting their position"? How?

What fence- I want a wall

gregster's picture

I realise Bruno is doing the interviewing. Don't call me a fence-sitter. We can't start by partially misrepresenting their position. Smiling

It helps ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to have a millennial (Bruno) who's not a moronnial doing the interview, someone literate in Objectivism and idealistically appalled by the atrocities of Obleftivism, someone with star quality as opposed to a dwone like Bwook. In any event, the content is explosive. Obleftivism will never be the same! Thank Galt!! Even Gweg might have to get off the fence!! Evil

I am sure..

gregster's picture

.. I'm not the only one looking forward to any and all SOLO interviews. We miss Perigo's political interviewing of old.

One thing though, the open immigration objectivists do put some conditions on the types of people they would welcome. It's just that few of them specify tight scrutiny of the slime who are conducting a purposeful populating of the West in the cause of their Hijrah.

Comment viewing options

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