#MOGA! Ghastly Ghate!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2017-11-27 23:22

In an article earlier this month marking the one-year anniversary of the election of Donald Trump, Obleftivist Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow and Chief Content Officer with the Ayn Rand Institute, began:

No one can speak for the dead. But as an expert on Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I’m often asked what Rand would have thought of President Trump, especially now, on the one-year anniversary of his election and in light of stories in the Washington Post and elsewhere trying to link Trump to Rand.

In fact, Ghate had already presumed to speak for the dead in the title of this exercise in Trump Derangement Syndrome, "The Anti-Intellectuality of Donald Trump: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump." The self-proclaimed "expert on Ayn Rand's philosophy" proceeded to carry right on doing so:

My wager is that were Ayn Rand alive today, she would condemn the whole Trump phenomenon. Far from seeing him or his administration’s actions as even partially influenced by her ideas, she would see Donald Trump as the kind of political figure whose rise she had foreseen and warned us against.

When Trump was elected, Ghate had opined:

On November 8, 2016, the United States took its first step towards dictatorship. … the Republican control of the presidency, the House and the Senate should give anyone pause who is concerned about, say, the campaign’s demonization of immigrants and of trade or the attempt to impose a Christian variant of Sharia law.

Ghate doubled down on this hysterical mendacity in his anniversary article:

Trump demonized Hispanics, immigrants, journalists, free traders and elites [in the 2016 campaign].

We need merely remind ourselves that Trump "demonised" only those Hispanics and immigrants generally who were in the US illegally, especially those who committed additional crimes; he "demonised" only dishonest journalists (whom he accurately called Fake News); he "demonised" only free traders (so-called) who supported lopsided deals with totalitarian regimes ... we need merely remind ourselves of these things to see that Ghate is egregiously distorting the truth. As for "the attempt to impose a Christian variant of Sharia Law" ... aside from the on-its-face absurdity of such a claim, why would Obleftivists be bothered by a Christian variant when they are so unbothered by the real deal? "Stop being afraid" [of Islam], the ARI's Yaron Brook has said. "Islam is not a threat. Islam is a mosquito bite." "The real threat to Western Civilisation is Donald Trump."

Thus do Obleftivists become enablers of Islam—which is why I call them ARISIS.

Ghate continues:

A few months before her death, Rand told an audience of her fans, no doubt to the surprise of many, that she didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter, whom she regarded as a small-town power luster. “There is a limit,” she told them, “to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils.”

Rand did welcome Reagan’s strong language toward Soviet Russia and his promises to cut spending and taxes. But she warned that his invitation of the so-called Moral Majority to the halls of power would be a long-range disaster. By tying the (supposed) advocacy of freedom and capitalism to, in Rand’s words, the anti-intellectuality of “militant mystics,” who proclaim that aborting an embryo is murder and creationism is science, Reagan’s presidency would discredit the intellectual case for freedom and capitalism and embolden the anti-intellectual, authoritarian mentalities in the country.

Rand had a bee in her bonnet about Reagan's anti-abortion stance. Otherwise it's hard to imagine her not following her own original lesser-of-two-evils advice, as in the case of Nixon vs McGovern. Leonard Peikoff certainly did. He voted for Reagan in 1980. I suspect that had she been alive in 1984, by which time Reagan had enacted his tax cuts and stood up to the Soviet Union, and the dire fears of a Christian theocracy were not materialising, Rand might have too. Certainly it's very hard to imagine Rand, who notoriously thought no woman, let alone pure evil such as Hillary Clinton, should ever be President, voting for that trash in 2016—but that's what Brook effectively enjoined Objectivists to do when he put it out that Trump "needs to be defeated heavily." (Brook, too, has subsequently doubled down on his Trump Derangement Syndrome, recently calling him a "cancer.")

Trump’s salient characteristic as a political figure is anti-intellectuality. Because Rand saw this mentality as on the rise (she called it the anti-conceptual mentality), she had a lot to say about it, and it’s illuminating how much of it fits Trump.

In Rand’s terms, to be intellectual is to sustain through life the conviction that ideas matter. This means that knowledge, abstract principles, justice and truth are of personal importance to you, embedded in everything you value and informing your every action. “To take ideas seriously,” Rand says, “means that you intend to live by, to practice, any idea you accept as true.”

This is a demanding responsibility. To be intellectual requires real independence of judgment and enduring honesty and integrity.

It’s not just that Trump lacks these virtues; in comparison to, say, Jefferson, Washington or Madison, most of today’s politicians do. It’s that Trump projects disdain for these virtues.

On cable news, it’s now a regular feature for reporters like CNN’s Anderson Cooper to catalog Trump’s latest lies. But to call them lies misses the point.

Anderson Cooper—Anderson Cooper—calls out Donald Trump for lying?! That would be akin to Adolf Hitler calling out someone for anti-Semitism. Cooper, Lemon, Tapper, Cuomo and the other vermin at Fake News couldn't lie straight in their beds. Fake News has run with the Trump/Russia collusion story for a year now while ignoring the Clinton/Russia collusion, Obama's and Clinton's Uranium One treason, Hillary's Benghazi lies, her Pay-for-Play rackets, her criminal negligence with e-mails, her illegal deck-stacking against Bernie, etc. Unsurprising that Obleftivists like Ghate find the Clinton News Network credible. Next thing they'll be treating James Comey as credible also.

The place that loyalty to abstract standards occupies in a moral person’s mind, Rand argues, is typically replaced in an anti-intellectual mentality by “loyalty to the group.” Observe Trump’s special focus on this. Loyalty is desirable — if it has been earned. But Trump demands it up-front. As former FBI Director James Comey and others have remarked, a pledge of loyalty was among the first things Trump asked of them.

Bingo!

A liar retains some respect for the truth: he tries to conceal his lies, weave a web of deception and make it difficult for his victims to discover the facts. Trump does none of this.

He states, for instance, that his inauguration crowd was the largest ever — when photos of his and past inaugurations are easily accessible.

This is important?! More important than tax cuts, the regulation-slashing, the booming economy, the military revival, the assault on ISIS, the drastically diminishing number of cultural aliens entering America illegally? Ghate wants to play "Gotcha" with crowd sizes? I'm pretty sure the point was made that given the numbers watching live on television or the Internet all over the world those numbers were a record, but does it matter?!

He declares to a national audience that “nobody has more respect for women than I do, nobody” — when the Billy Bush tape of him boasting that he grabs women “by the pussy” is fresh in everyone’s mind.

Well, no Obleftivist would ever speak that way in private, would he? Anaemic, effete elitists just don't say such things, do they?! Mind you, their fellow-leftists in the Democratic Party, Hollywood and the media haven't exactly emerged unscathed from the recent avalanche of actual sex scandals, now have they?!

In defense of his Saturday Charlottesville statement, he says that unlike others he waits for the facts to come in before making judgments — when his Twitter outbursts are read by millions.

Most of the people wanting confederate statues to remain were good people, not neo-Nazis. Ghate is flat-out lying here, and touting Antifa's narrative as he does so.

The wider phenomenon this demand for loyalty represents is a profound tribalism, a world divided into the loyal and the disloyal, insiders and outsiders, us versus them. To get a flavor, listen to any Trump rally.

Oh, those smelly Deplorables! Patriots and other Irredeemables!

Rand argued that in a period of intellectual and cultural bankruptcy, if the anti-intellectual mentality is on the rise, tribalism will be ascending culturally and, politically, a country will drift toward authoritarianism and ultimately dictatorship.

You mean, Onkar, the kind of tribalism one sees at ARISIS, on a national scale? The unthinking obedience to the party line, the refusal to debate dissenters without ridiculous pre-conditions such as "no sweeping criticism of Yaron"? The kind of tribalism that doesn't allow for comments on articles on its websites? More lemming-like behaviour such as we saw during Peikoff's original Vote-Democrat-across-the-Board fatwa? Yes, Onkar, it would be a shame to see the USA become a macrocosm of ARISIS.

During the 2007–8 financial crisis, sales of Atlas Shrugged soared, in part because people wondered how Rand could have foreseen America’s economic collapse. Sales should be soaring again — because the book is not primarily about economic collapse, but about cultural and intellectual bankruptcy.

At the novel’s start, we witness a crumbling world, with posturing intellectuals who have long ago abandoned the intellect but who continue to preach irrational, shopworn ideas, which everyone mouths but no one fully believes — or dares challenge. Part of the point of the story is that these pseudo-intellectuals will eventually be replaced by their progeny: people who more openly dispense with the intellect and who are more explicitly boorish, brutish and tribal, i.e., by anti-intellectual mentalities.

This is best symbolized by the appearance on the political scene, late in the novel, of Cuffy Meigs. Although I suspect we are only at the beginnings of a similar political descent, the parallels, unfortunately, exist. Meigs is a short-range amoralist uninterested in arguments or reasons or facts, who carries a gun in one pocket and a rabbit’s foot in the other. President Trump carries the nuclear codes in one pocket and Infowars in the other.

Oh my, we can't have that! Not Infowars! More smelly Deplorables! Shudder! Please, switch back to CNN! (Though I could have sworn it was the savages to whom Onkar and Yaron wanted to keep the borders open who were "explicitly boorish, brutal and tribal"!)

Now here's a funny thing. Van Jones, far-Left commentator for CNN, was one of the attendees at what was supposed to be a secret gathering of leftie low-lifes calling themselves the Democracy Alliance in Carlsbad, California, a couple of weeks ago. Jannel Ross, a "reporter" for the Washington Post (a publication avidly devoured by Yaron and Onkar, no doubt) was another attendee. The unspeakably evil Nancy Pelosi and George Soros were the most famous of the elite who were present. The agenda, of course, was how to stop Trump. There's a cluster of Obleftivists in and near Carlsbad—wonder if Onkar was tempted to send any of these surrogates along to help out? There'd have been nothing incongruous in their being there. Trump is "the villain of our time," according to Brook—and ARISIS luminaries, from the safety of their Ghated communities, seemingly will carry water for any scum out to thwart or remove him. Obleftivists have become the elite's bit-players.

Unless we are ready to radically rethink our culture’s fundamental ideas, with the same intensity of thought our Founding Fathers exerted in rethinking government, our long-term trajectory is set and will play out. But the choice is ours — this is the message of Atlas Shrugged.

On that we can agree! Helping to "radically rethink our culture's fundamental ideas" is the job ARI should be getting on with. It doesn't achieve that by attacking Donald Trump on the grounds he's not a card-carrying Objectivist, especially when the alternatives are pure evil. Lining up with Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Democrats, Nasty Wimmin, Social Justice Warriors, Islam, Academia, Fake News, fry-quacking moronnials and all the rest of The Filth, as the Obleftivists do, serves no cause but those ones. Obleftivism is Fake Objectivism.

#MOGA!


Michael Heumer

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- Actually, I checked him out a few years ago, but forgot about it. Not impressive. And he's an anarchist. But he seems both intelligent and educated (if sleazy), so possibly that debate is worth hearing.

Huemer

Neil Parille's picture

I believe he was an Objectivist. He has written a lot of stuff on ethics.

Missing Debate Video

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- Is Michael Heumer fairly competent on Objectivist theory? I googled that debate and, altho' it seems to have taken place in 2009, the YouTube video of it was evidently deleted (what a surprise). But if the libertarian Heumer is a semi-decent intellectual, who also knows a fair amount about Objectivist thought, then that debate might be great to watch! Smiling

Kyrel

Neil Parille's picture

I offered to debate Valliant. He wasn't interested. Then I offered to make a donation to dontletitgo.com and he claimed interest, but, as I said, put so many (15) conditions on the debate that no self-respecting person could agree to them.

I believe Ghate debated non-Objectivst Michael Heumer a few years ago on the issue of ethics. That's one of the few debates I know about on a specific issue of Objectivist philosopny.

Debating a Randroid?

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- How did your prospective debate with James Valliant come about? I'd love to hear the details! Smiling You are aware, aren't you, that never in the history of man has a pseudo-Objectivist cultist debated anyone normal, or respectable, or semi-competent in Objectivist theory. Their history of cowardice is complete. Any such debate would be like sunlight to a vampire: their defeat and doom would be assured. Why would Valliant even pretend to entertain such a notion?

Evaluating Donald Trump

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Trump's rather shocking and scary dearth of philosophy, intellectualism, principles, and moralism seems to be exactly what lets his direct reason, common sense, and pragmatism dominate his philosophical, political, and personal viewpoints. Then he uses his hard work, high energy, decent intelligence, winner persona, go-getter approach, self-confidence, blinkered viewpoint, and narcissism to emerge as a semi-solid, semi-strong fighter for Westernism, Americanism, economic capitalism, and social libertarianism. His neoliberalism is pretty weak, but seemingly better than the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans, whether leaders or voters. He's a bit of a rebel and revolutionary. Donald Trump is also a kind of unthinking, sleazy Ronald Reagan. But because Objectivists, libertarians, and sundry neoliberals now exist in the world in noticeable numbers, Trump virtuously draws a bit of influence from them, which was far less true of Reagan.

Wow

Tore's picture

Valliant's a pussy. The ARIans are special, special snowflakes.

They have to be, because if they didn't set up these pre-conditions, their worldview would burst like a bubble. So they ask everybody to kindly be very gentle towards them. Unbelievable. Objectivism is supposed to be about reality.

This will not stand. Especially not in an age where the Internet exists. They will not survive as a movement for long. Winter is coming.

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

Among other things, I could not "attack" the ARI, the Archives or "lie" about anyone not a party to the debate. And the questions on PARC would concern the Brandens' honesty, not their overall description of Rand.

And it wasn't clear whether I could even mention the Burns and Heller 2009 biographies which, of course, would be key to my argument since they generally validate the Branden books and refute most of PARC's contentions.

I think ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... you're entitled to say what the pre-conditions were, unless Valliant asked you specifically not to and you agreed not to. To report what they were doesn't require publishing his e-mail.

As I recall, at the time Diana Hsieh published private e-mails from Chris Sciabarra to her, Valliant's side had no problems with publishing horrendous numbers of them unrelated to the matter at hand. It was I who insisted on confining them to the relevant ones demonstrating Chris's duplicity, since in my view by his conduct he had forfeited his right to privacy on those specific matters—but only on those specific matters.

In any event, I'm sure we'd all be sadly unsurprised by Valliant/ARISIS's pre-conditions, and the remorseless cultism they bespeak.

#MOGA!

Trust Me, I'm A Lawyer

Neil Parille's picture

I don't believe it's a crime or civil offense to post a private email, but if you are as eccentric as Jim Valliant (remember he thinks it's horrible to throw a surprise party for someone) I'd rather not guess.

Just post

Tore's picture

Just post his email.

What's he going to do? Sue you?

Oh, wait, he's a fucking lawyer...

Nope

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Not surprised at all. Plus ça change. Sigh.

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

Yo won't be surprised that one of the conditions was that I not "attack the ARI."

Neil

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I asked Valliant for permission to quote his letter wherein he set forth his 15 conditions for debate, but he refused.

I once honoured Valliant as "Valiant Valliant." He did a good job of exposing the Brandens' opportunistic mendacity. Now, however, it seems he's an abject, lemming Obleftivist cultist coward. James, since I know you're reading this: publish your 115 conditions for debate. Whatever they are, drop them, and I'll debate you without preconditions. Same as I would your fellow-Obleftivist, yellow-belly Yawon. You Islamo-Marxists are sickening, and I will call any of you on it to your evasive faces!

To repeat:

That OrgOism has been taken over by such filth, with nary a word of protest from supposed Objectivists, is incomprehensible to me. Where is the mighty Randian roar??!!

Bruno

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ghate is considered the chief authority on Rand's philosophy at the Anti Rand Insitute.

But he cannot answer re the intrinsicist view of rights which allows Islamosavages to walk right in to America a la Binswanker? All he can do is talk about Trump's non-coercive love of "pussy," when his, Ghastly Ghate's, fellow-lefties are tumbling like dominoes for sexual harassment?! Ghastly Ghate is the chief Anti-Rand Institute authority on Rand's philosophy?! Dear Galt! So he's getting paid more than Yawon's half a million a year to be an Obleftivist treasonist?! Gramsci could never in his wildest dreams have imagined such an unmitigated triumph.

Great Linz

gregster's picture

I thought equally about Ghate’s piece of shit article. You put my thoughts into words accurately. Anderson Cooper?? Even foolish ARISIS readers will be dismayed by the obvious poor quality of Ghate’s propaganda.

"Anti-conceptual mentality"

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Instructive how Ghastly Ghate faults Trump for ACM yet obsesses about the most inane concretes such as "pussy" and crowd sizes. That's an "expert on Ayn Rand's philosophy"?

#Ghate for GTMO!

#MOGA!

PS: SOLOists please note—as per my essay, it's "Ghated communities" from now on! Smiling

Make Objectivism Great Again!

Bruno Turner's picture

Thank you, Lindsay!

You have produced an excellent breakdown of Ghastly Ghate's latest stringing together of leftist talking points, flat out lies, and numerous contradictions.

Ghate is considered the chief authority on Rand's philosophy at the Anti Rand Insitute.

He keeps pointing us towards an important realization Objectivists must make: what his philosophic framework of reference is.

In a middle range article, as Ayn Rand pointed out, the author's philosophy is the given starting point. It is not given proof, it is assumed and then applied.

What Ghastly Ghate assumes and applies is Obleftivism; a corrupted form of Objectivism, infested by Cultural Marxist assumptions.

The growing pushback against the Islamo-Marxist enablers presuming to speak in Rand's name is testatement to the fact that this realization is starting to hit more and more people.

Alas, we are neverthless yet at the beginning of this process.

Obleftivism identified and exposed, there is but one thing left to do.

Make Objectivism Great Again

#MOGA!

Debate 2

Neil Parille's picture

You should have seen the restrictions Valliant tried to put on my proposed debate with him about PARC and Creating Christ.

I asked Valliant for permission to quote his letter wherein he set forth his 15 conditions for debate, but he refused.

Lady OLivia

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As you say Linz, given the fact that they believe Trump is the villain of our time and Hillary would've been preferable, there would be nothing incongruous in ARI folks making themselves available to attend the deep state resistance movement's gatherings against the current President. They have made themselves shills for the resistance after all, as Ghate and Brook have with their writings. Despicable fucks!

Ghate and Brook, along with Hillary and Obama (and Soros, Pelosi and Schumer) , should be in Gtmo (now there's a Ghated community for you!). They are treasonists who are actively supporting an enemy (Islamo-Marxism) in wartime. They are agents of Gramsci, Alinsky and Soros.

That OrgOism has been taken over by such filth, with nary a word of protest from supposed Objectivists, is incomprehensible to me. Where is the mighty Randian roar??!!

Rand and Trump

Brant Gaede's picture

Rand wouldn't like Trump. Rand would hate open open borders. She was all for defending the United States. Since in today's context open borders means coring the country out, she'd reserve open borders for those who would also want to defend this country.

--Brant

Debate

Neil Parille's picture

"You mean, Onkar, the kind of tribalism one sees at ARISIS, on a national scale? The unthinking obedience to the party line, the refusal to debate dissenters without ridiculous pre-conditions such as "no sweeping criticism of Yaron"? The kind of tribalism that doesn't allow for comments on articles on its websites?"

Most people like to see their ideas challenged. Yet most ARI-oriented sites don't allow comments or have them heavily moderated. Wonder why.

You should have seen the restrictions Valliant tried to put on my proposed debate with him about PARC and Creating Christ.

Onkar Ghate...

Olivia's picture

is spectacularly on the wrong side of history with his Trump Derangement Syndrome. What an utter fool! I find it hard to believe that such a mind has read the same monumentally insightful works from Rand as I have read, yet come to such an opposite conclusion. That's cultism for you. Sad.

Now here's a funny thing. Van Jones, far-Left commentator for CNN, was one of the attendees at what was supposed to be a secret gathering of leftie low-lifes calling themselves the Democracy Alliance in Carlsbad, California, a couple of weeks ago. Jannel Ross, a "reporter" for the Washington Post (a publication avidly devoured by Yaron and Onkar, no doubt) was another attendee. The unspeakably evil Nancy Pelosi and George Soros were the most famous of the elite who were present. The agenda, of course, was how to stop Trump. There's a cluster of Obleftivists in and near Carlsbad—wonder if Onkar was tempted to send any of these surrogates along to help out? There'd have been nothing incongruous in their being there. Trump is "the villain of our time," according to Brook—and ARISIS luminaries, from the safety of their Ghated communities, seemingly will carry water for any scum out to thwart or remove him. Obleftivists have become the elite's bit-players.

No Objectivist should be having any truck with such evil entities as Pelosi and Soros - might it really have come to this?? I hope not, yet, this raises a good question, considering how much the forces of evil, including the ARI, have devoted themselves to absolute Trump hatred. As you say Linz, given the fact that they believe Trump is the villain of our time and Hillary would've been preferable, there would be nothing incongruous in ARI folks making themselves available to attend the deep state resistance movement's gatherings against the current President. They have made themselves shills for the resistance after all, as Ghate and Brook have with their writings. Despicable fucks!

Great piece.

Comment viewing options

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