Obleftivism's Egalitarianism - Objectivism's Selectivity

Bruno's picture
Submitted by Bruno on Wed, 2017-12-06 19:57

This article first appeared at Bruno Turner's Oath Valley - Where Objectivism is not Obleftivism

Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy, which holds both political and moral views. Unlike the case with some left-libertarians, who hold (some) political principles of liberty but are part of the cultural and moral left, certain "Objectivists" have no excuse for this bifurcated behavior.

The principle of political liberty can be upheld from a certain range of moral frameworks, as is demonstrated by history and experience; albeit in an inconsistent manner. Objectivism however demands a consistent view of both moral philosophy and political philosophy, the one underlying the other. If one upholds culturally and morally leftist views, while adhering to certain other principles of John Galt's philosophy, then one can be properly called a left-Objectivist, or, as Lindsay Perigo aptly baptized these types, Obleftivists.

The most fundamental characteristic of a leftist is his belief in both Equalism and the political corollary of Egalitarianism. Equalism is the belief that there are no biological (pre-moral) differences between individuals and groups that give rise to different abilities or moral outcome. Those differences that do exist are ascribed to either moral fault on the part of some "oppressor" or to undeserved luck. This belief leads equalists to hold Egalitarianism as a political corollary. The link between Equalism and Egalitarianism is well exemplified by Rawls, the modern egalitarian par excellence.

Briefly, since individuals and groups differ in ability through neither fault nor merit (!) of their own, the state may properly enforce equalizing measures through coercion.

The Obleftivists' Equalism and Egalitarianism shines bright when they labor to use the blank slate theory (tabula rasa) in conjuncture with the free will theory to justify the rejection of all selective standards an immigration policy based on the national self-interest inherently demands.

Since differences in ability or moral outcome are held to have no pre-moral basis, they must exclusively be moral in nature. Since morality is chosen, and since the free(er) system into which they labor to enter is morally superior to that of their origin, each new arrival will be "induced" into choosing to cherish the principles of freedom. To deny this, according to Obleftivists, is to deny free will; likewise to deny that there are inherent pre-moral barriers to achieving a proper free-willed choice is to deny tabula rasa.

A careful observer will see that the argument from free will is here contradicted by the assumption of the phenomenon I labeled as "inducement". Obleftivists don't seem to be bothered by this contradiction.

To be fair, instead of openly espousing this "inducement" process, one of the Open Borders Obleftivists takes the route of baseless assertion: "Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues". Since they are, by assertion, inherently self-selected, the need for them to be "induced" into virtue is disingenously tossed aside.

A free society can be maintained exclusively if the culture at large recognizes the inherent superiority of a free system over the semi-free or fully enslaved abominations that rule most rest of the world.

It is (now) a plainly obvious and commonplace realization that the post-1965 immigration from largely unfree and, at best, semi-civilized societies has shifted the American culture in the direction of enslavement.

I will limit myself here to point out that so called birth right citizenship (ius soli) should be immediately terminated and that the naturalization process must be revisited and made more effective and stringent, with the goal of exclusively acquiring new citizens (additions to The American People) that will, at a minimum, preserve American freedom, and, ideally, enhance it.

Immigration "without citizenship" has been dealt with by other anti-Obleftivists, but, more to the point, it is not on the table as a realistic option. I won't labor here to explain why, because the advocates of "Open Borders" themselves only use the "immigration without citizenship" argument as a mask to justify pure and unlimited immigration; from the horses' mouth we get such pronouncements as "Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology."

If unlimited immigration without citizenship were the goal to be achieved, then the advocates of this position would need to be first and foremost the champions of a complete shutdown of immigration until citizenship laws are significantly altered.

Obleftivists want open immigration; and they want it now. That is the reality of the situation. This in effect amounts to the advocacy of unlimited numbers of unvetted semi and total savages entering the country, with the consequent nefarious effects to the culture we see today in America and most other Western countries.

These newcomers are equal neither in moral nor pre-moral stature unless they are specifically selected for such traits. Selectivity for excellence in newcomers' potential and actualization is the requirement of a rational immigration policy.

A free system stands or falls based on the culture underlying it. In the name of the self-preservation of a rational and free culture, which stands or falls based on The People's willingness to uphold it, selective immigration must be the foundation of a free system.

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

Let's be sure to select as additions to The People exclusively those who are capable of freedom, for they are the only group that needn't masters to be tamed. Whether prospective newcomers are corrupt, vicious, or simply savage, is but detail. These groups must be kept at a distance. We the civilized must separate ourselves from the uncivilized, lest we be replaced by them through demographic displacement; the ultimate result of said scenario being our loss of control over our own system of government.

In other words, Ayn Rand is welcome to America. On principle. Any savage supporter of shariah law is not. Any semi-savage supporter of the mexican reconquista of the South-West is not. Any parasitical leech wishing to suck the blood out of the American welfare system is not. Any future democrat or Bernie Sanders supporter is not. Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, killer of Kate Steinle, is not. On principle.

"[A]n 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

I note ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... one of the now-unemployed grid girls has tweeted this:

The world has gone mad! Supposedly these feminists are ‘defending us’ when actually because of these idiots we are losing our jobs! In the 8 years of promo - mainly being on the grid I have never once felt uncomfortable! I do this because I enjoy it and I have the choice.

4:42 AM - Feb 1, 2018

Ugly Wimmin have struck again. To Iran with Ugly Wimmin!

No more Grid Girls

Bruno's picture

Formula 1 Racing is now officially Cultural Marxist Evil approved.

No more "grid girls" because they want to respect "modern societal norms". Saudi Arabia will be happy.

Formula 1 may you be delivered to the way of the NFL. May you be plagued by a total crash in viewership.

No more grid girls... as if the "new" turbo nonsensical engines and their electric junk boosters were not bad enough.

Ever since these sad and pathetic silent engines have been implemented, it has never been the same. The "old" (and better) pure power gasoline engines of old gave us the magnificent "weeeeeooooooooooo" sounds. I haven't followed the races since they have been abandoned for these "environmentally conscious" garbage motors they use now.

No more grid girls? One more reason not to watch. Cowering to feminazis! Formula 1 hits the deep end of Social Injustice Warriorism.


Obleftivists have a wide open mind...

Bruno's picture

... their brains spilled out! (Over the skies of Mongolia, I am told).

Passport Holder "God" Mosquito Bite Brook seems unwilling to rise up to the challenge.

Hello, Obleftivists? Anyone home? ... echo... echo...

I say it again!

Selective immigration must be the foundation of a free system.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

When disgusting homeless criminal bums come to you city, neighborhood, or home, and choose to live there without your permission, it's a good thing because these unwanted invaders who take over are all "self-selected". So no worries! Indeed, to oppose their invasion and take-over is immoral tribalism and you owe these evil invaders and destroyers an apology! Sticking out tongue

"Open-Minded" vs. "Active Minded" applied to immigration

Jmaurone's picture

This essay brings to mind (my mind, anyway,) Rand's admonishment of the false dichotomy of being "open-minded" vs "closed minded. Instead, she pushed for being "active minded."

WHY would this NOT apply to something like immigration? "Open borders/closed borders" vs. "actively selecting" immigrants?

(This essay was the first time I've heard the term "self-selected" immigrants, so thank you for that...)

(A refresher on Rand's words on the matter, for the ARI:)

“Open Mind” and “Closed Mind”

[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

“Philosophical Detection,”

No chance!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No chance of common sense entering the Objectivist conversation while evil Obleftivists rule.

Here's the nub re immigration, from Bruno's article:

In other words, Ayn Rand is welcome to America. On principle. Any savage supporter of shariah law is not. Any semi-savage supporter of the mexican reconquista of the South-West is not. Any parasitical leech wishing to suck the blood out of the American welfare system is not. Any future democrat or Bernie Sanders supporter is not. Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, killer of Kate Steinle, is not. On principle.

Challenge to Obleftivists: refute that!! Come on, Bwook, you evil open immigwationist: go on your wadio show and shweik as to why that's wong.



Bruno's picture

Thank you, gentlemen!

We're at the point where Common Sense itself must be re-introduced into the Objectivist conversation.

Obleftivist cultural marxism must be repudiated.


Common Sense

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Good essay, Bruno. Smiling Self-interest does indeed demand an immigration/emigration policy in which a nation's destroyers be kept out or expelled. Westerners need to allow in and recruit hard-working freedom-lovers, while keeping out and deporting welfare-loving freedom-haters. The biologically and culturally inferior are objective threats, especially under democracy. They tend toward love of welfare and hatred of freedom. It isn't collectivism, tribalism, racism, or bigotry to note this.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

More meat on the bones of anti-Obleftivism and #MOGA! Glorious!

A free society can be maintained exclusively if the culture at large recognizes the inherent superiority of a free system over the semi-free or fully enslaved abominations that rule most rest of the world.

Obleftivists behave as though they don't recognise the concept of "culture-at-large"; they regard such talk as "collectivist" and "tribalist"—and then proceed to advocate the admission of the lowest collectivists/tribalists on earth.

Comment viewing options

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