#MOGA! The Interview - Make Objectivism Great Again!

Bruno Turner's picture
Submitted by Bruno Turner on Sat, 2017-09-09 15:24

Ladies and Gents, here it is! The long awaited interview has hit Youtube. From the video's description:

"Dinky little savages": that's what Ayn Rand called them...

Obleftivists would have you believe even dinky little savages have the inalienable and absolute "right to travel" and settle into civilized Western countries.

The so-called "Ayn Rand" Institute has converged, alongside the Cato Institute and other Koch brothers funded organizations, with the cultural marxists. They can now properly be called Obleftivists.

My guest today is Lindsay Perigo himself, the author of the MOGA open letter (http://www.solopassion.com/nod...).

MOGA's opening statement is a quote from the great lady herself and here I share it with you:

"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

And further, Perigo tells us:

"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."

I invite everyone to read the entire statement, which you can find here: http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

I know you want more MOGA, so here's a link to my special video series dedicated entirely to the open letter: https://www.youtube.com/playli...

Thank you for watching!! Remember, it's MOGA time. Join us in the open discussion over at solopassion.com !

I'll see you soon. Remember to Like this video, Subscribe to this channel, and MOST IMPORTANTLY: SHARE THIS VIDEO AND MAKE IT GO VIRAL!

Let the sound of Lindsay Perigo's call to arms reach all those still enchanted by Obleftivist lies! Expose Obleftivism for what it truly is.


The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon

Bruno Turner's picture

By Rudyard Kipling

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

Britain is run by traitors

Bruno Turner's picture

"Operation Constrain: Jihadis suspected of fighting in Syria ‘could jump queue for council houses and get help finding jobs'"

https://www.standard.co.uk/new...

It is not the British people making these choices, but their government. Don't count them out just yet.

Love it!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Compelling arguments for Rule Britannia, even though Britons are sliding into Dhimmitude, contrary to "never never never shall be slaves." It won't be long before the dinky little Islamosavages succeed in having Rule Britannia banned from the Proms.

Obleftivists are actively promoting America's slide into Dhimmitude as they downplay Europe's, so if Rule Britannia gets up their treasonous snouts, so much the better.

#MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Send them back

Bruno Turner's picture

A philosophy such as Obleftivism, which on principle wishes to allow our beautiful nations and cities to take the form of this ugliness and barbarity is a dead philosophy.

Lindsay has aptly renamed Yawon's radio show Dying Obleftivism.

This right here is what Open Borders means. This right here is the future of your nation, your country, your cities and towns. No, these are not images from Somalia. This is "America" today:

https://twitter.com/RealJamesW...

Britons never shall be slaves

Bruno Turner's picture

The Va Pensiero had been used during the Italian wars of Independence (and Unification). It was a hymn to Nation, that concept so foreign to Obleftivists.

Funnily enough, it was then re-used by the Italian Northern League as the anthem of independent Padania [North Italy].

Its only fault is being a Zionist anthem, making it a little too comfy for "American" [read Israeli] Obleftivists. We need something even more triggering.

My personal favourite has to be Rule Britannia by Thomas Arne, written in 1740 before the American revolution. An anthem of the Anglosphere, the most glorious civilization ever to have existed this side of the Hyperuranion.

Oh yes, Athens was a great civilization, and Rome too. And Rome yet again, qua Christianitas, during the so called Middle Ages. Paris had its brief little moment too. But London, oh London... and where is she now?

Rule Britannia reminds us all of the true roots of America, her founding stock and her founding philosophy. It reminds us that "our Greatest ally" can only ever be Her Majesty's Commonwealth.

It reminds us that America is not simply the descendent of a fallen star of the Hyperuranion. That star may have fallen and touched the New World's spirit, but Liberty was embraced and found its home in the receptive soul of Britain's children.

The Anglosphere still centuries later, now divided, still possesses the remnants of unity, in its language, history, culture and unique civilization. The tradition of the Magna Charta, the sanctity of property rights and personal freedom, the Common Law.

The civilization of the Briton has never been understood by the Old Continent, and never embraced. Rand's missed opportunity to differentiate between the British isles and the Continentals was a regrettable mistake.

May this anthem rekindle the British spirit and guide it to the Reconquista of the Anglo-Saxon's fallen Capital.

May it guide America in a quest to rediscover herself, and prevent the Reconquista that stirs the Aztec.

1

When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

2

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

3

Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful, from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

4

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

5

To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

6

The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crown'd,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

Rule Britannia, performed by the American Thomas Hampton.

Post Scriptum al Vivaldi:
Perdonami Giuseppe, il mio Cuor appartiene alla Civiltà della terra emersa in dono al Bretone.

Anthem for #MOGA?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

O, mia patria, sì bella e perduta!

Oh my country, so beautiful and lost!

Substitute "philosophy" for "country" and think of reclaiming our homeland from open borders, Politically Correct, Islamappeasing Obleftivists. Besides, Verdi's beautiful melody, with its reminder that tune is key and headbanging is part of The Filth, makes it a cinch. Click on "subtitles" for subtitles. Smiling

Va, pensiero, sull'ali dorate;
va, ti posa sui clivi, sui colli,
ove olezzano tepide e molli
l'aure dolci del suolo natal!

Del Giordano le rive saluta,
di Sionne le torri atterrate...
O, mia patria, sì bella e perduta!
O, membranza, sì cara e fatal!

Arpa d'or dei fatidici vati,
perché muta dal salice pendi?
Le memorie nel petto raccendi,
ci favella del tempo che fu!

O simile di Sòlima ai fati
traggi un suono di crudo lamento,
o t'ispiri il Signore un concento
che ne infonda al patire virtù.

Go, thought, on wings of gold;
go settle upon the slopes and the hills,
where, soft and mild, the sweet airs
of our native land smell fragrant!

Greet the banks of the Jordan
and Zion's toppled towers...
Oh, my country, so beautiful and lost!
Oh, remembrance, so dear and so fatal!

Golden harp of the prophetic seers,
why dost thou hang mute upon the willow?
Rekindle our bosom's memories,
and speak to us of times gone by!

Either, akin to the fate of Jerusalem,
give forth a sound of crude lamentation,
or let the Lord inspire you a harmony of voices
which may instill virtue to suffering.

Objectivist Cultism and the Betrayal of Philosophy and Thought

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Olivia writes:


"I think [Brook], Amy and the rest of the ARI advocate for things that they see as in accordance with Rand dogma. It's cultism. Because Rand once made a verbal statement about being an immigrant herself and only being alive because America took her in, they advocate for open immigration.

Because Rand was a defender of Israel, they advocate for the destruction of all Israel's enemies - the Muslim nations.

Because Rand was a defender of free markets, they advocate against Trump because he wants to restrict American manufacturing to U.S soil not foreign soil, hence promoting a certain type of mercantilism... and Trump wants to close borders.

Because Rand was a passionate Atheist, Leonard Peikoff advocated for voting Obama over Bush because he thought a Christian theocracy/dictatorship was imminent... and all the lemmings fell for it and probably supported it by voting Obama. (Remember how many immediately dropped off Solo at that time?)

These people cannot think for themselves! They cannot make a single decision if they cannot find a verbal or written mandate from Rand herself. That is the disgusting betrayal of her legacy and philosophy - a philosophy which taught that the mind of each individual man and his ability to think was utterly paramount (and sacrosanct)."

I think this overstates it a bit. But essentially Olivia's observation is correct. The religion- and cult-style Objectivists (sic) don't even come close to practicing the virtues of reason and individualism enough. To be truly loyal to Ayn Rand, you have to rationally, independently, freely, fearlessly think.

?

Brant Gaede's picture

Really beginning to wonder if Paddock was even the shooter or at least the only shooter.

So far there's been little presumption of innocence.

Forensically there is much more to come.

--Brant

Alas ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I don't trust them to report honestly, if by "they" you mean the FBI et al. Corrupt as fuck. See Comey. They are now part of the problem.

https://pamelageller.com/2017/...

Indeed...

Olivia's picture

Given the disgusting comments from ugly wimmin like that CBS reporter: http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...
that she was not even "sympathetic" to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican...”...anything is possible from the Left. We'll see when they form a profile as they put the facts together.

Clearly ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the "evil fuck" put a lot of planning into this. Trump Derangement Syndrome's paramilitary?

That clip is both heartbreaking & heartwarming...

Olivia's picture

For the people to come together and sing their patriotic beautiful song in unison... then to know how that evil fuck would've been watching them do that knowing full well the brutal murder he was going to wreak next.

Overwhelming on all fronts.
God Bless America!

Just before the massacre ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Las Vegas Shooting

Neil Parille's picture

Is very strange:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

ISIS has now tripled-down on its claim that Paddock was inspired by them. They generally don't claim involvement unless they were directly involved or inspired someone on-line. (Although they haven't been so careful lately, maybe because they are losing territory.)

ISIS

Brant Gaede's picture

Maybe the shooter was a convert, maybe not, but it would best explain what he did. And maybe his lady had good reason to leave the country prior. Bet she's not coming back.

So, here's the problem: converts who go crazy to prove their bona fides plus young men growing up who get back to their roots and do shit. Let's say the shooter was a convert. Would he have done this if he knew his body would be wrapped up in pig skin and put in a common grave commonly full of dumped pig entrails and slaughterhouse left overs?

If that kind of thing was done there would likely be the unexpected consequence of terrorism on a more massive scale down the road but no body to defile. But that crap is coming anyway so bury these bastards with the pigs.

The ultimate threat is contaminated jet fuel putting pig molecules into the atmosphere raining down on every Muslim on earth.

--Brant

Ha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Because Rand was a passionate Atheist, Leonard Peikoff advocated for voting Obama over Bush because he thought a Christian theocracy/dictatorship was imminent... and all the lemmings fell for it and probably supported it by voting Obama. (Remember how many immediately dropped off Solo at that time?)

Not exactly "immediately." A ferocious war waged for months. Yes, many lemmings left SOLO ... before voting Democrat and hurling themselves over the cliff. Smiling And wasn't it instructive, seeing just who remained silent?!

ISIS say the Las Vegas shooter was a convert to Islamosavagery:

https://pamelageller.com/2017/...

Maybe he was Antifa. Whichever, he was part of The Filth.

My theory...

Olivia's picture

But I am curious to know everyone else's theory as to why Yawon advocates nuking Muslim nations while insisting that Muslims are mere "pests" and "mosquitoes" of whom we should cease being afwaid—and the weal thweat to civilisation is Donald Twump.

I think he, Amy and the rest of the ARI advocate for things that they see as in accordance with Rand dogma. It's cultism. Because Rand once made a verbal statement about being an immigrant herself and only being alive because America took her in, they advocate for open immigration.

Because Rand was a defender of Israel, they advocate for the destruction of all Israel's enemies - the Muslim nations.

Because Rand was a defender of free markets, they advocate against Trump because he wants to restrict American manufacturing to U.S soil not foreign soil, hence promoting a certain type of mercantilism... and Trump wants to close borders.

Because Rand was a passionate Atheist, Leonard Peikoff advocated for voting Obama over Bush because he thought a Christian theocracy/dictatorship was imminent... and all the lemmings fell for it and probably supported it by voting Obama. (Remember how many immediately dropped off Solo at that time?)

These people cannot think for themselves! They cannot make a single decision if they cannot find a verbal or written mandate from Rand herself. That is the disgusting betrayal of her legacy and philosophy - a philosophy which taught that the mind of each individual man and his ability to think was utterly paramount (and sacrosanct).

Rand was the pre-eminent American mind of the 20th Century, and thank Galt she was such a prolific essayist and novelist. People can be directly inspired by her first-rate mind through her writings and television appearances, because they sure as hell won't find any inspiration in the dogmatic, clingy third-rate minds who promote her as some type of 'movement'.

When selling freedom and living by example fails...

Jmaurone's picture

Regarding the idea of "selling freedom", and living by example, a related anecdote: I once wrote to Leonard Peikoff for his question and answer session podcast, asking him his opinion of the Free State Project, and its chances of making an impact. His answered:

"If the founding and flourishing of this free nation did not demonstrate to
the world for all time the superiority of capitalism over all other systems,
can you really believe that a sprinkling of confused--the most complimentary
word I can think of--libertarians huddled in New Hampshire will do the job?"

I think he had a point. At this point, they've only succeeded in preaching to the converted, and have been met with more resistance and indifference than converts (and infighting and unorganized flailing, I'm told, from a friend of mine who made the move, got heavily involved, only to become jaded with it.)

Linz and Bruno

Jmaurone's picture

Linz, Bruno, thank you. Linz, I may post an abbreviated version.

Bruno, regarding this: "I believe it is especially important to understand that far from making Objectivism an "easier sell", its inherent rationality necessitates a far greater effort to be exerted on the part of both its sellers and buyers, so to speak."

I once wrote an article about "selling" Objectivism. It was years ago, and I was caught up in a more youthful wave of optimism. I obviously meant well, but I didn't fully understand just how resistant people could be to change, and that people have to want to change, and that in extreme cases, they have to hit rock-bottom first. I didn't know then what I know, now...

Selling Freedom: The Choice of a New Generation?

Not that it was "wrong", per se, but I'm thinking, now, that the target audience for such a "sell" would have to be a younger generation, to those who have not been corrupted philosophically. Samenow says something similar, in INSIDE THE CRIMINAL MIND, that early childhood intervention is crucial when the first signs of criminal behavior appear, when children are still learning, before thought patterns become too entrenched to be easily altered.

Joe

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I meant to congratulate and thank you last night NZ time for your extended, heartfelt, wise and trenchant post on this thread, but then became overwhelmed by the Vegas shootings. I congratulate and thank you now. Feel free to post it as a thread unto itself if you wish. The Rand quotes you included there and subsequently are extremely apposite in the circumstances. It's good to see you back.

Peter Schwartz must be encyclopedically ignorant of the actual content of Islam. Verse after verse of the Koran enjoins the faithful to subjugate or kill unbelievers. There is no such thing as a "good Muslim," if by "Muslim" we mean someone who takes his stupid, stinking, savage superstition seriously. The only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim ... or a dead one.

Thank you Jmarone

Bruno Turner's picture

For sharing such a deeply personal story. I appreciate your thoughtful insights.

I think you are touching on a very important issue in regards to radical philosophic-political movements and their difficulty in penetrating into the culture at large.

I believe it is especially important to understand that far from making Objectivism an "easier sell", its inherent rationality necessitates a far greater effort to be exerted on the part of both its sellers and buyers, so to speak.

Not only is Objectivism radical and demands its followers be radical, but it will take even greater radicals to improve upon Objectivism, offer corrections where need be, but most importantly expand it in the areas where Rand remained silent or only touched upon briefly.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating some innocuos additions to the list of virtues such as that of "benevolence", whatever good that is supposed to do, but rather using the core of Objectivism properly, its epistemology, and applying it; to new information that we have available today, to areas of the Objectivist political theory that are still incomplete, and so forth.

Those who are not part of that group of even greater radicals will not understand what I am referring to. That's fine. As for the rest, it's MOGA time.

Qui habet aures audiendi audiat

"So-Called" Moderate Muslim

Jmaurone's picture

"The so-called moderate Muslim—if that term is to have any real meaning—is someone who renounces force. He practices his religion but acknowledges everyone’s right to reject or ridicule it. Such a person is no threat to our freedom; he can, in fact, be an ally in this conflict. But anyone who believes that the denigration of Islam must not be allowed is in the camp of the jihadists. That camp consists of not only the people who perform the beheadings and the machine-gunnings of non-believers, but also their tacit supporters. This includes all the Muslim states that have penalties for any type of blasphemy or apostasy—i.e., the practitioners of legalized jihadism—along with all the people who endorse such penalties. The jihadists and the jihadist-sanctioners are the enemy we need to stand up to. "

"So-called" moderate Muslim...hmmphh...as Bosch Fawstin puts it, "a good Muslim by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards."

The days of fact and value...

Tore's picture

...are long gone.

http://peterschwartz.com/defyi...

This shitty article was written by Peter Schwarz in 2015.

Peter Schwarz, the very same who had a shit-fit because Kelley talked to libertarians.

Granted, libertarians were weird assholes in the eighties, but still.

"The so-called moderate Muslim—if that term is to have any real meaning—is someone who renounces force. He practices his religion but acknowledges everyone’s right to reject or ridicule it. Such a person is no threat to our freedom; he can, in fact, be an ally in this conflict."

Civil War

Jmaurone's picture

Whether or not the shooter turned out to be motivated by ISIS, Hillary, or whatever, their enablers are already revealing themselves in this:

"CBS Legal Exec: No Sympathy For Vegas ‘Because Country Music Fans Often Are Republican’"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10...

If they thought the NFL ratings were dropping, "they ain't seen nothin', yet..."

What is it you say, Linz? "To Hell with CBS! Off to Iranistan with them!"

ISIS claiming responsibility

Jmaurone's picture

There are reports, now, that ISIS is claiming that the shooter converted, some months ago...

Meanwhile, Canadian government discourages "backlash" against a definite Muslim terrorist attack...again, projecting their own evil on to the victims...disgusting.

https://globalnews.ca/news/377...

"I've written that one problem with Americans is that they don't believe in the reality of evil. You better take evil and irrationality seriously: not in the sent of regarding it as important...but in the sense of not evading its existence."
-From AYN RAND ANSWERS: BEST OF HER Q&A

"It is not merely the existence but the power of evil that Europeans believe in. Americans do not believe in the power of evil and do not understand its nature. The first part of their attitude is (philosophically) true, but the second makes them vulnerable. On the day when Americans grasp the cause of evil's impotence-its mindless, fear-riddden, envy-eaten smallness-they will be free of all the man-hating manipulators of history, foreign and domestic."

-Ayn Rand, "Don't Let It Go"

Up in arms/up in smoke

Jmaurone's picture

"But why aren't the rest of you real Objectivists up in arms??!!"

"It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas— except under a dictatorship."

Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It (p. 203). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Speak up now, people, before it's too late. They're already gunning for free speech, and that is supposed to be the line in the sand for Objectivists. That is non-negotiable.

I will say that Clinton's loss was a bit of an short-term uplift, to say the least.

Vegas shooter

Jmaurone's picture

Most likely NOT a 7th Day Adventist. But I have nothing concrete to offer, and my personal speculations would be useless, not having the facts. I'm just waking up for work, and just hearing about it...the only confirmed details on the shooter is that his name is Stephan Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, and a woman who was traveling with him, Marilou Danley...no "known" terrorist associations, at the moment...

So

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Who the hell did this shooting in Las Vegas if not a Muslim? A Seventh Day Adventist?

You Americans are getting what you deserve, from your long, cowardly silence. Yawon Bwook should be first among the casualties, having advocated limitless Muslim immigwation into Amewica. But why aren't the rest of you real Objectivists up in arms??!!

Vegas

Jmaurone's picture

I'm not seeing that this attack is Islamic in nature (yet, anyway)...but the media certainly downplayed the Islamic terrorist attack in Canada yesterday, in comparison, didn't they. So not just America, but Canada, too, getting what they deserve, after being all self-righteous about open borders...

Islamofilth strikes again ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... in Las Vegas. And everyone's too afraid to say so. 20 dead at least. Disgusting.

Joe:

not only is the left going "full throttle", but like a criminal or malignant narcissist whose had their "supply" cut off, they've dropped all pretense of tolerance and civility, and showed their true intent. ("Trump Derangement Syndrome", indeed...just the tip of the iceberg...) And it won't be countered if enough people stay silent, for whatever reason.)

Countless cowards stay silent. America deserves what it's about to get.

The Long March...

Jmaurone's picture

Ed, that's an interesting flip-side. While I do think that the left has done a lot of damage, and has infected too many minds, but there is a significant portion who hasn't bought into them, so I think you're on to something...

Regarding the American spirit, Rand also wrote in "What Can One Do":

"Only one thing is certain: a dictatorship cannot take hold in America today. This country, as yet, cannot be ruled— but it can explode. It can blow up into the helpless rage and blind violence of a civil war. It cannot be cowed into submission, passivity, malevolence, resignation. It cannot be 'pushed around.' Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say 'Yes, sir,' to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet."

That was 1972. She was prescient enough to follow that paragraph with this warning:

"If America drags on in her present state for a few more generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The characteristically American one is being eroded daily all around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological level of Europe’s worst rabble."

That was 1972. Forty-five years on, I think we're just about there, with the civil war. And I think there is that blind "explosion", philosophically speaking, going on that she spoke of; hence the rise of Trump when everything suggested a clear win for Clinton. Largely because there IS that demographic replacement of inimical peoples to our culture that Ed speaks of. For a long time, the American sense of justice and benevolence has been manipulated, but people have been pushed in their limitations of tolerance, and sense something is off in the Left's holding of the "moral high ground." And that has the left LIVID. And, like malignant narcissists, they are pulling out all the stops to "blame the victim", via projection, with their accusations of racism and hate, and everything else they've been spouting (even as it is the likes of Antifa and such spreading the violence.) But since their prime source of supply is cut off, like narcissists charming new victims, the left is courting those in other cultures to come here to replace those who are wising up to them.

So, yeah, the left is not as omnipotent as they'd like to believe. But, going with Rand's remark about sense of life not being permanent, and about Americans who have lost or never developed it, I think that goes with Samenow's observation about the futility of rehabilitation of criminals who've never been habilitated to begin with. And against those who still hold on to it, we have the conditions for a civil war. Combine THAT with an influx of outsiders inimical to the American way of life, and you've serious trouble. Because not only is the left going "full throttle", but like a criminal or malignant narcissist whose had their "supply" cut off, they've dropped all pretense of tolerance and civility, and showed their true intent. ("Trump Derangement Syndrome", indeed...just the tip of the iceberg...) And it won't be countered if enough people stay silent, for whatever reason.)

Slow change

edpowell's picture

Following on from Joe's comment about Rand's belief that cultural change would be very slow, I think it's in fact much slower than even Rand or Gramsci realized. Even when the Left owned all of academia and the media in the 1960s and their progeny were rioting in the streets, America still elected Nixon and the (gasp!) Reagan! How after the Left holding the intellectual heights for decades do the American people still hold onto their mostly pro-freedom ideas?

I think in the after the 2010 election thrashing they received even though the Messiah was president, the Democrats finally realized that the only way to change the culture in the US is to go full-throttle in the demographic replacement they set in motion in 1965. If you can't change the American culture, import people inimical to that culture in large numbers.

If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter..."

Jmaurone's picture

"I think we all need to explore further how we can satisfy our deep emotional bonding needs rationally in a world so thoroughly riddled with irrationality."

Thank you, Luke. Yes, that.

Bruno and Joe -- Emotional Bonding Needs

Luke Setzer's picture

Bruno and Joe, thank you for your courageous and thoughtful posts.

I think we all need to explore further how we can satisfy our deep emotional bonding needs rationally in a world so thoroughly riddled with irrationality.

"The Sounds of Silence", or, "Nobody Fucks You Over Like Family"

Jmaurone's picture

Linz wrote:
______
Note the outstanding, thoughtful, courageous perspicacity of Bruno's posts on this thread. And how they've been ignored. Too hot to touch, maybe? Surely PC cowards don't rule here on SOLO as well as everywhere else?!

Come on, anti-Obleftivists! Let's get this show on the road!!!! Forget rotten respectability and "decorum." Stand up for what's right!!
______

I once wrote, using Albert Jay Nock's essay, that we were culturally "speaking to the remnant." But who are the remnant, per se? I'm wondering, now, how many generations it will be...

This brings to mind the anecdote told about Leonard Peikoff's naive view that ATLAS SHRUGGED would change the world with its publication.

“I know that I am challenging the cultural tradition of two and a half thousand years,” [Rand] said. She was ruefully amused when Leonard Peikoff’, the youngest of the collective, seemed to hope that within a few years of publication, America would return to complete political freedom and a laissez-faire economy. Branden quotes Rand as responding that “That’s not how things happen, or can possibly happen,” she insisted. “I will have an influence—Atlas will have an influence—but it will be a very slow process. We won’t begin to see its concrete results in action for many years. I may not fully see them at all.”

Putting that with Linz's post...I've been thinking about this, the silence, and the possible causes, for some years, now...I used to say that the older Objectivists had too much vested interest in the culture as it was to really advocate for Objectivism. I've long been outspoken, myself, but a personal experience of mine has led me to at least one theory as to why, as it had me silencing myself. I'm hesitant to share it on a public forum, because it IS so personal, and a. I'm still reeling from it, and dealing with it, and b. I don't want it to be about me, and reify my personal experience as the whole. I don't want this to come of as a lecture, either, or as preaching, because I know how difficult it was for me to get to this point. Still, I think there's something there that does relate to the larger situation, and many people who advocate for Objectivism, libertarianism, etc are going to be , if not already, sorely tested on a personal level...It's something that goes along the lines that the problem is "out there", but not at home. and it's given me a new appreciation of ATLAS SHRUGGED, beyond intellectual...it's visceral, now.

For the better part of last year into this year, I was dealing with an ill family member, and my time was split between work and tending to emergency after emergency, with little-to-no help from family (just the opposite, it was burden-upon-burden being thrown at me.) Compounding this was learning, by accident, something about the ill person's role in a traumatic episode of my childhood that, had it not been family, I would have left and never returned to that hospital, again. It revealed who that person truly was, deep down, as well as the extended family, in general. It got to a point to where it became too much, and my own health suffered, I had to choose between my own needs and theirs... and it was a literally becoming a case of self-sacrifice.

During all this, I was not only over-burdening myself carrying their weight, but biting my tongue, in the process...not just about the personal, but the political, economical, ethical, etc...(I'm objectivish in a family mostly made up of leftists vs religious right conservatives...) Nothing new for me, really, as I've previously kept a distance, but this time around, the absurdity of it became apparent. I was biting my tongue NOT to receive help from them, but to HELP them, to keep the peace in a time of emergency (not just in person, but online, etc; I found myself self-censoring my political views during the election, etc; feeling it wasn't the time or place...even as those I was considering were not returning the favor...) I even QUESTIONED my own beliefs about altruism and sacrifice, in the face of what I was feeling towards wanting to help family in distress vs. not being being self-sacrificing. (What was happening to me was beyond helping out someone in an emergency, and really asking me to discard "Galt's Oath.")

Now, I've discussed my ideas with family before, but was blown off. And with older relatives, I was never taken seriously, anyway, even when I gave them the respect I felt they deserved as my elders. Since people wouldn't listen, I hoped to change them by "living by example". But the distance between us on a daily basis kept me from having to confront it, practically, until now. But things were now revealed to be more than just differences on policy or what-not; we were advocating for different goals, period. And theirs were not only wrong, but anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-life, and it showed in their personal lives. A hodgepox of religious altruism, a tragic "sense of life", anti-intellectualism, leftist politics, entitlement mentality (especially among the females in the family), drug abuse, emotional manipulation and cultural decadence that destroyed the possibility of family. And my silence while helping clean up their mess was only making it worse, not just for me, but for everyone, in general, by aiding and abetting the very things I was advocating for. It wasn't until personal boundaries were crossed that I finally wised up. It wasn't just a matter of political differences in a family context, where one's opposing beliefs were only a part of the dynamic, and something that could be overlooked (as Rand put it, "love is exception-making"). No, the beliefs were part of, and INTEGRATED, into the dynamic and conflict (and in this case, the "emergencies" were not causeless, or accidental, but consequences.) What I learned, about the cover-up and about the people involved, was enough to make me not only walk away, but become openly opposed to them.

That's the personal. How it relates to the larger picture:

I had to make a choice, one of the hardest anyone can face. If I hadn't learned it accidentally, I'd still be laboring to work with what was was already a strained family relationship. But even knowing what I know, now, it still wasn't easy, and still isn't. I still experience moments of doubt and guilt. Unearned guilt, yes, but there, nonetheless. I imagine many such scenarios playing out across the country, to varying degrees of seriousness. (In fact, the less serious they are, they harder they are to see for what they are, and make it easier to justify the the enabling.) Most people have yet to have such epiphanies, and may never have that revelation. I put up with things from family that I wouldn't have from others, out of a misguided sense of being "on the same team", ultimately, even if that team was dysfunctional. What I didn't realize is just how much that team was not on the same side. I suspect that is the case throughout much of the U.S.. Many people who are holding back are doing so out of a sense of not wanting to hurt family or friends in the process, or may even be questioning their own views in order to keep that family and friend connection.

In other words, the problem is not just "out there", but closer to home. Some of it is about worrying about losing one's job or place in the community. But it's deeper than that. And most people don't want to believe the worst about their family, or friends. They don't want to fight with them. They think they're on the same side. And that benevolence is keeping them silent.

But that benevolence is potentially being used against them.

Now, most people in the US are NOT Objectivists, let alone libertarian, for that matter. In my case, I think that's what helped me wise up, sooner, where those with a more conventional outlook are at a disadvantage. Still, it really challenged me on a deep level, despite my philosophic outlook, to a very serious degree, precisely because of the family ties, which are the oldest and hardest to break. But it wasn't just that it was family, I learned, but the kind of people that were in my family, and it clashed with my Objectivist leanings. It had me re-reading those passages in ATLAS between Rearden and his family...how could he just walk from his family, parasites or not? (Think of how long it took Rearden to come around,in the novel...how long he stayed quiet, and rationalized their abuse...) My own situation had me in therapy, for my own good. It was clashing with my own desire to help and change mine...at the same time, I was reading the scene where Dagny was in the Galt's "anteroom", where the new strikers slept their first night, which was usually the hardest...fighting that desire to go back and help...

What I learned, during all this, was that I was missing what was really going on. Because of my personal situation, I've been trying to help people who did not want help (not the kind of help I was offering, anyway, beyond the immediate kind of help of money and effort spend tending to their material needs...) I learned about malignant narcissism, bordering on criminality, and the dynamics of how such people use words differently than what we think they're saying, play mind games, manipulate emotions, and prey on the integrity and benevolence of family and friends. (A book was recommended to me, INSIDE THE CRIMINAL MIND, by Stanton Samenow. The theory presented is that criminals are not biological determined, but are driven by bad ideas and thoughts, and don't "think" like non-criminals, and don't want to. And the idea of rehabilitation is flawed, because they've never been habilitated, to begin with...)

It happens that there WAS criminal behavior in the person in my case, but even if there weren't, it was recommended because it applied to those who may not be criminal, in a legal sense, but in a moral sense, as well, and to demonstrate that these kind of people rarely change, whether they are malignant narcissists, borderline-personality disordered, whatever the case may be. Some people, in rare cases, DO change, but usually from within, as opposed to from someone changing them, and it's usually something drastic that wakes them up. (They become disgusted with themselves.) Their thought patterns and sense-of-life are SO entrenched, so entrained, that to change and realize their guilt would shatter them. (Think James Taggart.) And they prey on the benevolence of others, and rely on their integrity and morals to keep them in their grasp. (And use techniques like gaslighting and such to keep people off balance, make them think THEY'RE the problem...one reason why some women stay in abusive relationships...
0 So much so, that their enablers good motives, benevolence, and integrity are used as a trap, to keep them trying to fix things, while the goal post are constantly shifted, to the point where they are driven to despair.

(There are elements of this described in ATLAS, of course, and as Barbara Branden quoted Rand, she knew that change wouldn't happen overnight, partly because of elements like this. But I think that Samenow and others writing on criminality, malignant narcissism, etc are filling in something that Rand, at that time, may have missed, that led her to be too open around certain people and optimistic in her expectations regarding those she hoped to win over.)

The point, then, is that I suspect that much of the silence Linz speaks of is partly based on a similar dynamic. The "decorum", the "rotten respectability"...well...imagine that on a family level...The biting of tongues "for the greater peace", so to speak, whether out of benevolence, preferring to effect change by "living by example", a misguided sense of empathy or fair-play, giving a "benefit of the doubt" for a peaceful solution or a holding-out expectation that people will change, or even want to change. It's not just a problem of the enemies without, but within. In the larger cultural atmosphere, many families are a mixed bag of convictions and premises.

(Rand advised, in her Q&A, that it was not a good idea to try and covert parents, because they will always see you as their "little boy" or "little girl." There's something to that...but she was not writing about instances of extreme differences and times where convictions became of paramount importance in troubled times, either. This didn't address extreme circumstances, such as the one between Rearden and his family in ATLAS...)

The same is true of the Objectivist community. Not only is it libertarianism vs Objectivism, but now organized Objectivism is experiencing a new kind of schism, one that has NOTHING to do with the previous "affair"-based schism.

If I didn't know what I know, now, I'd be more confused about it.

Here's the rub: If these kinds of people rarely change, because their thought patterns and sense-of-life are SO resistant to change, then the same may be said of their enablers, who have most likely have had their ideas and beliefs similarly reinforced throughout the years. And why just reading Rand is not enough. Like the criminals who rarely change, the enabler has to have something drastic happen to them, too. (I was lucky enough to read her at 21, but unlucky enough to have had years of reinforced abuse before that, hence the conscience of crisis.) Some will be lucky enough not to have experienced such, but others, no so lucky. Most will probably not turn libertarian or O'ist, which is why someone like Trump was necessary to beat Hilllary, let alone holding out for a Galt-like event. But, just as a Galt is not going to spring forth, Athena-like, fully-formed from the head of some political swamp-draining of Zeus's head, neither are many Objectivists going to suddenly shed their current family and cultural associations overnight, and some will even abandon O'ism or even libertarianism as futile, choosing their reinforced family and cultural associations. Some will turn on Objectivism...some will attempt to destroy it from within.

I'm thinking that Rand was also right when she said, in "What Can One Do?", from PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT, that "It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason."

However, she did continue to say that "it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas— except under a dictatorship. If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side— because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality."

What she wrote, there, goes just as much for the personal as it does the political.

Just as Leonard Peikoff's naive optimism had to be put in check, and if it's correct that many people, whether criminal or enabler, are too resistant, after a certain point, to change their convictions, then we have to temper our expectations on whom to rely. Rand did offer this, in the same essay:

"In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone. History is made by minorities— or, more precisely, history is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities. Who belongs to these minorities? Anyone who is able and willing actively to concern himself with intellectual issues. Here, it is not quantity, but quality, that counts (the quality— and consistency— of the ideas one is advocating)."

I really hope so. Even though Rand put Peikoff's expecations in check, I think she may have fallen pray to a bit of too-early optimism, as well, regarding the "changability" of some people.) It was hard enough for me to cut ties. It's going to be that much harder for others, if they can, at all. For the most part, we'll have to temper expectation with reality. Those who will speak, will. Those who can change, will have to change themselves. Those who can't, or won't, are ballast, as best.

Not all will be willing or able to "actively concern themselves" with intellectual issues, let alone speak out on them. It's more disconcerting that some of those people have integrated themselves into organized Objectivism. And like on a personal level, malignant narcissist family members can prey on others in the family using the fact they're family to do so, hypocritically projecting their faults on their enablers, I'm betting that there's an element of that happening at ARI, using the O'ist's emphasis on integrity against those who would speak out. (i.e., Yaron Brook and his gated community vs. his open-border stance. But it goes older than than, with the Brandens...just think of what they did to harm O'ism from the inside-out...and it hurt a lot of people to believe such was possible from them.) So be it. If people can't or won't change, those who speak out have that much more work to do...for themselves, let alone the world at large. Objectivism is a self-correcting philosophy, despite the members of the organization. But as long as that "family" dynamic goes unchallenged, from the personal to the political, to OrgOism, it's only going to drag down the other-wise good people who remain silent.

But that said, organized Objectivism aside, Objectivism IS a self-correcting philosophy. I just hope that individual Objectivists can do the same, if burdened by corrupt family, etc. But just as Rand said that change wouldn't happen overnight, neither will the self-correcting. And I hope that it won't take something too drastic to happen, whether personal or cultural, for that to happen.

"Forget rotten respectability and "decorum." Stand up for what's right!!"
______

I refuse ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to listen to a word from this incoherent, upward-inflecting Islamo-Marxist Obleftivist ever again. No one deserves a punishment such as that. It's like an authentic opera-lover being made to endure Florence Foster Jenkins. But I am curious to know everyone else's theory as to why Yawon advocates nuking Muslim nations while insisting that Muslims are mere "pests" and "mosquitoes" of whom we should cease being afwaid—and the weal thweat to civilisation is Donald Twump. My theory is that Yawon is saying, very badly, what he's being paid to say; and he doesn't give a damn about Western Civilisation; and that "nuke evewy Muslim in sight" is a wuse designed to camouflage his embwace of Islam. He advocated voting for Hillawy, wemember? He is the worst kind of twaitor beyond even the worst villain in an Ayn Wand novel. He is a double agent working for Toohey.

Yaron Again

Neil Parille's picture

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/y...

From 1:10 on -- if we nuke the Islamic world we'll get less Islamic terrorism.

Ignoring of the good for being the good

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Note the outstanding, thoughtful, courageous perspicacity of Bruno's posts on this thread. And how they've been ignored. Too hot to touch, maybe? Surely PC cowards don't rule here on SOLO as well as everywhere else?!

Come on, anti-Obleftivists! Let's get this show on the road!!!! Forget rotten respectability and "decorum." Stand up for what's right!!

#MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Luke

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here's a link to Fact and Value so that people may copy and paste lest it indeed be taken down. I always thought it was a non sequitur to proceed from the truths Leonard states here to excommunicating David Kelley because he spoke to a group of libertarians (note how ARISIS is now in bed with the worst bunch of libertarians of all!). But those truths are real and powerful:

http://www.peikoff.com/essays_...

Some especially apposite segments, given those who equate "decorum" with McConnell/Bwook-type appeasement:

Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy. In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas — e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who “channel” with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc. In all such cases, the ideas are not merely false; in one form or another, they represent an explicit rebellion against reason and reality (and, therefore, against man and values). If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one’s mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as “honest.”

The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements are necessarily evaders on a major scale; they are not merely mistaken, but are crusading irrationalists. The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth. They go along with corrupt trend-setters because their neighbors demand it, and/or because a given notion satisfies some out-of-context desire they happen to feel. People of this kind are not the helplessly ignorant, but the willfully self-deluded. ...

...................

An employee, to take a relatively modest positive example, offers a man an idea for improving the operation of his business. His idea, the boss concludes after weighing the evidence, takes into account all the relevant facts; he’s right. So far, this is pure cognition, the outcome of which is expressed in a statement like: “I agree with you.” But no decent person, whether he knows philosophy or not, would stop there; he would not say unemotionally, like a dead fish: “Your idea is correct. Good day.” On the contrary, precisely because the new idea represents a new grasp of reality, the moral kind of boss is enthusiastic, i.e., he evaluates the idea. He cannot avoid seeing two things: this employee of mine had to innovate, struggle, think to reach the idea when no one else did, and: the idea will cut my costs, increase my customers, double my profits. The boss, accordingly, is excited, he likes his employee, he praises him, he rewards him. He not only says about the idea: “true.” As an inevitable corollary, he says about it: “good.” That “good” is the evaluation or the “ought”; it represents the practice of justice and the tie to life.

The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel words. Peikoff truly called this out, and I applaud him for it. I wish he'd come back and excoriate the Bwooks of this world, and their enablers who preach that being mealy-mouthed is a virtue.

Imagine Yawon's weaction to Muslims being called "dinky little savages"!! Yet that's exactly what Ayn did. How dare she??!!

Fact and Value

Luke Setzer's picture

I am wondering when Leonard Peikoff's "Fact and Value" will vanish down the memory hole to accommodate Yaron Brook's new "Living Objectivism" claptrap.

Astute!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Someone calling himself "wp r" on YT has posted this:

"This is nothing less than an endorsement of full bore Marxism. Delivered in an incoherent mumbling, babbling style that comes straight out of leftist US academia."

So true! The incoherent babbling incoherent style is straight out of leftist US academia, along with the mindless, repetitive upward inflecting. I was about to say there is no style/content dichotomy, but just remembered Ben Shapiro, who utters great things in the most disgusting moronnial fry-quack. What is true is that there's no necessary style/content dichotomy. In Obleftivist Yawon's case, style and content are perfectly aligned in their evil.

#MOGA!

It's still there on my screen

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Lindsay Perigo
22 minutes ago
This is not "living Objectivism"; it is dying Obleftivism. Yaron Brook is a corrupt proponent of Islamo-Marxism under the guise of Objectivism. Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave. This is evil on stilts. http://www.solopassion.com/node/10516

I tried but I can't see the comment!

Bruno Turner's picture

Maybe Youtube has pre-censored it. It does that sometimes...

Quick!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Go here and comment before they take my comment down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Call me Euwopean!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Europeans ... don't like these people [muslims], they don't want these people, they reject these people, they don't - like Americans - integrate them ... Europe in its foundation, in its very core is ethno-centric, that's a nice way of saying tribalist - barbaric and tribalist ... "

Europeans obviously have much more going for them than I thought. Count me in as a barbaric tribalist! I don't want Muslims or their stupid, stinking savage superstition either! Who among defenders of Western Civilisation would?

"I predict ultimately the return to concentration camps and mass murder and mass slaughter."

He means of Muslims by Europeans. Obleftivist Yawon is off his wocker.

Babies are "racist"

Bruno Turner's picture

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...

Researchers have discovered that six- to nine-month-old infants demonstrated racial bias in favor of members of their own race and bias against those of other races.

In other words, "ethno-centrism" = "racism" according to the cult-marx mainstream, even though it seems to be pretty "hard-wired" into us; meaning, it is a "metaphysically given" fact and hence outside the scope of either moral praise or moral condemnation.

The cult-marx approach being severely rationalistic in the service of the egalitarian religion and oblivious to the animal in "rational animal", goes the exact opposite of simply accepting the metaphysically given:

https://wearyourvoicemag.com/i...

Under white supremacy, black women can be lots of things — but they aren’t seen as dateable. Guess what? White people who believe this are racist.

In other words, if you prefer to date inside your own race you're a "racist!".

According to professional matchmaker Emma Tessler, who authored a stinging report on her client’s dating habits for The Establishment, an overwhelming majority of the folks she interviewed admitted to having racialized dating preferences.

Reports Tessler, “90% of my clients report having racial preferences,” adding, several sentences later, that “of the 90% of the reported racial preferences, 89.9% are preferences for white people.”

The cult-marx author of the piece comments "Eighty-nine percent. That’s abysmal."

Online dating service OkCupid, considered by some wonks to possess the most progressive and sophisticated algorithm among today’s dating apps, reached a similar conclusion. Tessler documents the results drawn from the stats reported on OkC’s blog:

“White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else — and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively.”

Uh-oh! Those damn white men are too sexy! It must be the patriarchal-white-male-supremacist system we live under. For sure.

Similarly, Obleftivist Quent Cordair, 21 Sept 2017, on his FB ( https://www.facebook.com/quent... ) says:

Pew projects that by 2042 whites will be in the minority in the U.S.

If reading the prior sentence saddened or gladdened you, made you feel more or less secure, the judgment and assumptions behind your emotion might be worth revisiting. You might be racist.

Got it? Did you feel any emotion whatsoever learning that whites will be in the minority by 2042, in the country their own ancestors built? "Racist!"

Nevermind the fact that one might simply be concerned with the data on demographics and voting patterns I go into here: http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Such as:

2016 Presidential Election by population group:
African-Americans: 88% for Hillary
Hispanics: 65% for Hillary
Whites: 37% for Hillary

2008 Presidential Election results by population group:
African-Americans: 95% for Obama
Hispanics: 67% for Obama
Asians: 62% for Obama
Whites: 43% for Obama

As you can see, the parallel between the Obleftivist camp of Cultural Marxism and the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) or Leftist per sè camp is clear.

I could go on, and find relevant quotes on Obleftivists denying there is any such thing as a connection between the biology of the brain and a person's relative intelligence; but this should suffice for now.

The connection is clear. The connection can be conceptualized in many ways, such as Rationalism or Platonism or Metaphysical Idealism or Intrinsicism. Or put simply: Cultural Marxism.

A rejection of any and all facts which collide with their egalitarian ideal.

Just think of Obleftivist Harry Open Borders Binswanger's contention that:

Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being ...
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 ...

As Lindsay so effectively pointed out (http://www.solopassion.com/nod...), what Harry Binswanger is affected by is Rationalism and Intrinsicism.

He is an Obleftivist, affected by the same Cultural Marxism as his brothers-in-spirit in the Social Justice Warrior and Alt Left camps.

Europe qua Europe = Evil

Bruno Turner's picture

Europe's identity as a European continent inhabited by Europeans is tribalist and barbaric.

Translated into practical terms this means that Europe (and the USA for that matter) have always been collectivist and evil before they decided to open their doors to millions of ideological aliens from the Third World. Evil-whitey has been a collectivist-tribalist for his entire history, apart from the last fifty years or so.

Also, the fact that Europeans "don't want these people" (i.e. millions of muslims) is considered a bad thing by Mosquito Bite Brook. We should embrace the muslim and african hordes and "assimilate them" lest we be tagged as evil ethno-centric white supremacists.

Why is Israel not "assimilating" the Palestians? Are they ethno-centric or something like that? Oh right... "Israel is an exception".

It has been said many times that jews' "ethno-centrism" is all about self-defense, because the entire world is anti-semitic. Fair enough! The problem is that apparently Mosquito Bite Brook seems unaware of the massive anti-white racism sweeping through the West's education system, media and entertainment industry and more.

The jews can do it, but if whitey were to be ethno-centric as a self-defense mechanism against such an abuse, he would be considered evil and racist.

Oh and let's be clear, I'm not criticizing Israel for being ethno-centric. Au contrair, I'm just pointing out the hipocrisy and inconsistency we are made to accept. I'm quite happy with "ethno-centrism". In practice, in most of Europe at least, that means nothing more and nothing less than maintaining each nation's current demographic balance. That's it, just keeping it as it is. Does that sound like an evil disaster of some sort?

As I've said previously, if we wish to avoid ethnic conflict we must enact strict immigration selectivity.

"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." - Ed Powell

"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

I would also add that, in America especially (which is already multi-ethnic), the anti-white propaganda must be obliterated vociferously. Being anti-white must become as socially unacceptable as using the n-word.

Thank you everybody!

Bruno Turner's picture

I'm glad to see y'all picked up on the fact that Linz and I were having fun, despite the topic.

I remember noticing the "robotic-ness" of many Obleftivists when I first (and last) attended OCON in 2014. Many there seemed to have a hard time even smiling.

Anyhow, follow the link Neil just posted to hear the latest Obleftivist bile. Yaron Mosquito Bite Brook really surpassed himself this time.

Here's a spoiler:

"Islam is not a threat, Islam is a mosquito bite" - Yaron Brook, 22 September 2017

And more:

"Europeans ... don't like these people [muslims], they don't want these people, they reject these people, they don't - like Americans - integrate them ... Europe in its foundation, in its very core is ethno-centric, that's a nice way of saying tribalist - barbaric and tribalist ... I predict ultimately the return to concentration camps and mass murder and mass slaughter."

"The solution after WWII was to break up into even more nation states ... [insert rant here against many Europeans nations for creating their own nation state] ... It is absurd. Nutty. Crazy. Insane. This is tribalism at its worst ... To blame the problems of Europe on Islam is absurd and ridiculous."

"Christianity has killed more people than Islam has ... the Thirty Year War killed more people on a per-capita basis than WWI or WWII ... Christianity in its history is a hundred more times more anti-semitic than Islam ever was."

"I'd rather fight for reason and individualism and lose, than fight for Christianity and win, even if [the latter] means the defeat of Islam."

"If you wanna blame anybody for the death of Europe, it's not muslims, it's not Islam ... what's killing Europe is Europeans."

Note: the quotes are mildly edited from the audio form, to grant the sentences some form of intelligibility (not an easy task to accomplish with Mosquito Bite Brook's rantings). Go and listen to the audio yourself for the "pure" (impure) version.

The Latest From Yaron Brook

Neil Parille's picture

Always hard to follow him. It appears that he dislikes the nation state:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/y...

Note he has to start out by attacking Ukraine for its alleged lack of culture. Too many white Christians there, I guess.

From Mark Hunter

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Quote:

Those of you on Twitter, please consider retweeting three recent tweets of mine, replies to Yaron Brook and Jonathan Hoenig. Thanks.

tweet

tweet

tweet

Luke

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'd encourage you to draw his attention to Bruno's videos and the burgeoning rebellion against Obleftivism. I'm sure he already knows, but it doesn't hurt to ram it home. These people are evil treasonists, and need to know we're onto them.

No More Contact

Luke Setzer's picture

Linz, no, no more word. I opted not to pursue a dialog with the CEO despite his invitation. It sounded slippery. I still get their periodic e-mail newsletters.

Luke

Lindsay Perigo's picture

We need a thousand more videos like this one to raise awareness of the creeping contradictions that have infiltrated the orthodoxy. Great damage has come from mediocre minds riding her coattails for cash from unsavory sources. Sad!

Actually, no we don't. This one will suffice, if people just take the trouble to address the substance of it. I'm frankly out of patience with folk who applaud this video but say nothing about its content. I know it's a challenge to contemporary attention spans, but surely we're not that far gone?! Let's try just the intrinsicist view of rights for starters. Or the on-its-face corrupt evil of Yawon's capitulation to Islam in the name of Ayn Rand. Is that so hard?!

PS: Luke, did you ever hear any more from your contact at ARI, the one who said they're not "globalists"?

Racket on Stilts

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

ARISIS is a racket on stilts. Yawon gets paid half a million a year to say, in the name of Ayn Rand, Muslims in Europe are mere "pests" and the weal thweat to Western Civilisation is Donald Twump. I don't begin to understand why rank-and-file Objectivists are not rioting in the streets over this. The man's an evil crook. Binswanker, Warts, Gouty ... they're all evil. They have sold out Objectivism for who knows how much to who knows which highest bidder. Filth!

MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Racket

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Luke -- Blue-collar philosopher Eric Hoffer called it in 1967:

"Up to now, America has not been a good milieu for the rise of a mass movement. What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation."

Frequently this is rendered as:

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

Scholastic Objectivism

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Brant -- No, it's Scholastic Objectivism. Very limited, effete, and denuded of its natural power and magnificence.

In conclusion all that needs to be said

Brant Gaede's picture

is that there is nothing radical in Objectivist Orthodoxy--that it isn't Objectivism; that it isn't Ayn Rand.

--Brant

Investigative Journalism

Luke Setzer's picture

Many thanks to you both for taking the time and effort to post this stinging analysis. Viewers need to be aware of the "name-tagging" fallacy, namely that "the label is not the thing." With respect to the "official" users of the name of Ayn Rand, just because a publication has the name "Ayn Rand Institute" (ARI) on it ultimately means nothing.

We need a thousand more videos like this one to raise awareness of the creeping contradictions that have infiltrated the orthodoxy. Great damage has come from mediocre minds riding her coattails for cash from unsavory sources. Sad!

I would like to see a future video of investigative journalism tracing these sources, their quantities of donations, and the skewing effects these have had on the content of publications from these "libertarian" organizations. Most importantly, we need to answer the question: "Who profits in what ways from making ideas such as 'open borders' into mainstream cultural thought?"

Hurrah!!!!

Kasper's picture

Brought tears to my eyes.

#MOGA! The Interview - Make Objectivism Great Again!

Chanakya's picture

@Bruno, @Lindsay,

Nice interview.

Grazie Olivia!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Bruno and Linz,
what makes this interview great is that you two are amusingly fun together as well as enlightening - a wonderful combination - and a rare one... especially in Objectivist circles which are usually so goddamn dry.

Aren't they just? The essence of Objecti-anal-retentivism!

We had fun. But the serious point of it all—that OrgOism has been hijacked by conscious evil, in the form of Obleftivist Islamo-Marxism as propounded by Yawon Bwook and ARISIS—must be treated in deadly earnest. Obleftivism is an unspeakably vile, ignoble perversion of a noble philosophy.

MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just want to say....

Olivia's picture

Bruno and Linz,
what makes this interview great is that you two are amusingly fun together as well as enlightening - a wonderful combination - and a rare one... especially in Objectivist circles which are usually so goddamn dry.

Excellent

gregster's picture

You both make a compelling case against ARISIS. Peikoff was OK a few years ago standing against that immigration bill but he's been shuffled out. He lacked courage to argue with Brook then. Brook hushed him up within that one joint-evil podcast.

Is something for good or for evil? Is the supposed right of a "dinky little savage" significant in one's values hierarchy, or is it a value to firstly preserve your enlightenment culture? Is de-fanged christianity combined with "nationalism" really a greater threat than hordes of "dinky little savages" invading to exploit your ill-judged goodwill, and to take over and impose their own barbarism?

Rand undoubtedly would disown all of Orgoism.

Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible.

Excellent Interview

Neil Parille's picture

Thanks Bruno and Linz.

The Ascent of Man and the Philosophy

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I agree with Olivia. This is a great conversation about issues which really matter! Smiling The Objectivist Movement and Community needs to have one like this every week! It's lame and failed if it doesn't, or if it's deeply afraid of such a thing. Let's challenge all authorities and accepted Objectivist wisdom; let's see which views and arguments can stand up to scrutiny! No more abuse, censorship, and excommunication of Randian "dissidents", i.e., those who actually think about Objectivism and take its various claims and analyses seriously. How sad and weak if The Atlas Society and The Ayn Rand Institute have no such real and serious discussions and debates!

I'm going to savor this conversation and listen to it slowly. I've only perused the first 12 minutes so far. But here's my initial reaction:

I think the goal of the current Objectivist Movement and Community is not to "make Objectivism great again" but to "make Objectivism great" for the first time ever. And neither TAS nor ARI seem up to the job.

The Objectivist philosophy, properly considered and applied, in my view, leads to a vivacious, dynamic, and heroic life of great excitement, pleasure, and joy. But it needs to be applied with principle and passion. Not the dry, dull stuff of TAS, nor the weird, malicious, cult stuff of ARI. To give the devil his due, ARI's version of Objectivism at least has a type of nervous energy and frenzy to it, which counts for something. But it seems so pedantic and unhealthy overall. I think that, as individuals and society, we need a Third Way.

I managed to watch...

Olivia's picture

this before running off to work this morning. Magnificent bastards both of you!! A great interviewer and a great interviewee discussing topics which really matter. Well done Bruno and Linz! I look forward to many more.

Comment viewing options

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