http://kiok.com/humor/gross/lo...

You don't have to taste it or smell it or even look at it ... just feel it ... mmmmmm ...

It’s a good warm-up Linz!

I still think Linzio you should be forced to reproduce. And perform the howwible disgusting act! No get arounds by grace of science and all that. You must do it the way nature intended!

I voluntarily had salmon with my salad today. Will that do?

Bruno is in good company. Quoting Rand:

“In this respect [harmony of features], a good example would be the beauty of different races of people.  For instance, the black face, or an Oriental face, is built on a different standard, and therefore what would be beautiful on a white face will not be beautiful for them (or vice-versa), because there is a certain racial standard of features by which you judge which features, which face, in that classification is harmonious or distorted.”

She didn’t write this on paper, it’s from the Q&A following the 11th lecture in “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series, as quoted in Binswanger’s very own Lexicon.

Linzio you are pewfectly viwtuous. Globalist hate babies too, especially if they're blond!

Homos be homos. I don't care! Just y'all don't come too close, okay? No monkey business!

I still think Linzio you should be forced to reproduce. And perform the howwible disgusting act! No get arounds by grace of science and all that. You must do it the way nature intended!

..in fact most human beings in general are not beautiful.

Beauty is a desirable natural attribute, and it is relative in the sense that the observer has his own frame of reference.

Having more beautiful people and fewer ugly people around you is desirable in and of itself, because beauty is desired for its own sake.

Living around people that have to be considered beautiful by detaching yourself from your own frame of reference is alienating by definition.

You're a woman of course Olivia, so you should melt away at the sight of them babies!

I'm sure age does shift the insticts to a more universal sentiment. After a certain age a woman can no longer reproduce, so her dislike for other people's children has to diminish, or else how is she going to love her grandchildren?

As for "waycism!!!" Linzio, just find yourself in a place or country where no one looks like you. In fact they all have pitch-black skin. And stay there for a few days and weeks. Then suddenly a white person come through town. What do you do? You stare. He probably does the same. And you start talking to each other as if you knew each other. No ulterior motive involved, just a pleasure in and of itself of seeing someone alike-you. Or puwe waycism if you pwefer.

which brings us to homosexuality and the evolutionary dead-end it is. I wonder how that pwactice fits in with evolutionary biology.

You'we all howwible waycists!

I detest all babies, and advocate the death penalty for having them. But at least I detest all babies equally. How virtuous is that?!

A newly befriended girl of East African origin told me: I love seeing black babies, they are so beautiful. I told her: I love seeing blond babies, they are so beautiful. A philosophy that cannot account for this kind of perfectly natural human drive to prefer not simply one-self but those who are alike-one-self is simply flawed.

I love seeing all babies - I just see a beautiful, perfect little innocent human: black, brown, blonde, asian or whatever.. they all completely melt me. But that’s now at a mature age. My first child was born 30 years ago when I was 18. When I cast my mind back though, to the time when I was actually mothering tiny humans, the idea of breastfeeding a baby that was not my own totally repulsed me. Viscerally. I remember a friend who dropped her baby off to me to babysit for the whole afternoon when I had another newborn daughter, told me if her daughter woke and needed feeding to just breastfeed her. I told her to get stuffed - there was no way I was going to indulge in that hippy crap. I’d rather let her daughter scream all afternoon, or else leave me a bottle for her. Biologically it was a strong line not to be crossed. I didn’t even like the two of them sharing a cot - it felt like an invasion to my own daughter’s natural environment and resources.

Re: Doug

Multiculturalism is not a failed policy because of low IQs. It is a failed policy in and of itself, because it introduces more than one demos within a politeia. You could easily only introduce high IQ immigrants of any race, and get the same problem. The idiocy of introducing millions of specifically low IQ people who become looters and moochers just makes things worse.

You could easily have brought in only la creme de la creme of Latin America, Arabia, Africa, and the rest of it. They would give no specifically low IQ related problems. They would however remain aliens, and slowly make the country into something which it was not, given sufficient numbers. However, if the numbers are limited (both qua immigration at large and as citizenship concessions), it probably would be beneficial.

You are not smart because of your race qua race, you are smart because of the specific ancestors in your genealogical tree. There are plenty of smart families within generally low IQ races. The whole family is smart and remains so each consecutive generation. What most of the rest of their race happens to be is of little relevance, if they continue breeding wisely that is.

What I just outlined above by the way is the kind of thinking that people need to start re-engaging in. Aristocratic families in Europe, and elsewhere I'm sure, knew this perfectly well for centuries. Breed with the smarts, produce the smarts. Since there are smarts of all shapes and colors, the argument is universal.

Check out some of the uber-smart African immigrant groups within the United States itself. I'm sure if you were to inquire to them directly they could probably give you a history of their family, where the smarts have been around for centuries. There are of course smart people that come from dumbed down families, and viceversa, but that is beyond the point, there are always exceptions.

I agree with something Bandler said?!  Lol then I re read it and saw it was Bruno.   Italian restaurants are good!

Somewhere in between writing The Fountainhead and writing Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's ideal man went from being "born that way" to having "self-made" himself that way, not that the two are dychotomical, but in earlier years she understood the second couldn't come without the first. That's the mistake.

As for European civilization, it is based on 1) the traditions of Greece and Rome 2) the Christian tradition 3) the European nations. "Objectivism-Orthodox" rejects two out of three, and keeps one only so slightly. Hence, no, I wouldn't give Objectivists the reins to the West even if my decision alone were sufficient to do so. They would literally destroy the West, which to them means "Enlightenment values" which is historically ignorant and simply false.

The best people out of the libertarian tradition (a label which includes Objectivism, as Mark Hunter points out) are those orbiting around Hans Hermann Hoppe and his yearly conference of the Property and Freedom Society. These people have abandoned - in effect and in theory - the "classical liberal" tradition, a process I am tentatively undergoing myself. I am currently reading Roger Scruton's How To Be A Conservative among other things. I would certainly choose to give him the reins over anyone at the Ayn Wynand Institute and the like.

I already told Kyrel I do not consider myself a liberal. Reading his talk of trans-humanism and immortality and all the rest of it, clearly exemplifies the liberal ethos. In contrast, take this line from Scruton: "[W]e are the collective inheritors of things both excellent and rare, and political life, for us, ought to have one overriding goal, which is to hold fast to those things, in order to pass them on to our children." This is much more akin to my developed adult taste.

As I will touch upon in my upcoming review of Ari Armstrong's book challenging Rand's ethics, my form of egoism is much broader than my "individual self-interest" and includes my family, my nation, my civilization. Animals are hardly intelligent, and yet they are smart enough to sacrifice and even die for their offspring. A childless philosophy is a dead philosophy. A newly befriended girl of East African origin told me: I love seeing black babies, they are so beautiful. I told her: I love seeing blond babies, they are so beautiful. A philosophy that cannot account for this kind of perfectly natural human drive to prefer not simply one-self but those who are alike-one-self is simply flawed. Furthermore she went on to say she doesn't particularly like pale skin and prefers darker tones. I told her, again, the opposite is true for me. A [more] rational egoism then has to account for what we can call "esthetic preferences", which are rooted in physical appearance but go well beyond it, into shared history, shared language, shared character traits.

So called "ethno-centrism" then is not just "okay" but good, and is in fact one of the reason our countries still exist today, and we are yet to achieve the -literally- disgusting "world wide cosmopolitan nomadism" (I hear one can predict with 95% accuracy whether one is on the right or left by the degree of his disgust sensitivity). Nomadism is a term I will start using, since it is precisely what the Globalist project is about. Atomized individuals "migrating freely" from one side of the globe to the other in search of the next "job opportunity". Something which by the way is perfectly compatible with Rand's moral system. So much for Objectivism not having any influence. Ever wonder why feral leftists never attack ObLeftivist conferences? It will occasionally happen when the true face of "the Objectivist movement" rears its ugly head: a cabal of Israelis pushing for American dollar and blood to sacrifice in the Middle East.

The American Nation, of which I am a part of, has been succesfully castrated, and the leadership of America is now in the hands of "the other", to use a Yawon-ism. The American nation's foreign policy was, and still is in the beating hearts of its people, anti-interventionist and completely disinterested in empire. More importantly, it is allied with no one, it has no interest in foreign entanglements, as George Washington starts out in his famous speech "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all", and more importantly later "The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave".

PS. The best restaurant is always an Italian restaurant. No close seconds.

"that Mark Hunter was a low-life. Anonymity, racism and all the rest. How do these sub-humans look themselves in the mirrors?!"

If you've read Mark's work then you would know that he is the MOST informed Objectivist out there on foreign policy and mainstream politics. Lindsay, he makes you look like a Fox News nitwit which you and Olivia both are. Plus calling him a racist Lowlife? What a stupid comment. We don't accept your hyper-individualist views. They are contributing to the demise of the West.

Yes Linz and Olivia, you are assisting the Left; ie the "filth".

You're lucky that someone like Mark Hunter even cares about trying to redeem Ayn Rand's name and legacy. For my part I realize that Rand is the WORST of the libertarians because she is the most anti-science. And by that I mean racial science; ie biology.

I like Bruno but he still clings to Rand as an important figure but I think he's seeing that Objectivism is a dead end if you want to save the European race and the civilization that only they are capable of maintaining. Oh and included in that civilization is all that music you love so much; ie Mario Lanza. Good luck ever seeing another Lanza in Afro-Hispanic-Asian-Arabic America. Hey but at least you'll have great restaurants.

Abother wasted opportunity.  Simple.  Grant her asylum, watch the hordes of Muslims in the country start burning cars and flipping out.  Kill them.  Why? Because the ones that aren’t becoming violent are probably adopting western values.  The ones that are flipping out need to go have a meeting with their god so they can finally be happy.  The invaded country just needs to arrange the meeting...

..overrode Sajid Javid, Britain’s Home Secretary, to personally block asylum for Asia Bibi.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/c...

... but which kind of moderation and where does it draw the line?
If you allow persecution for religion as a valid reason, then I'm also entitled as a dyke or as a 10-y'o child-bride or starvation or take your pick of your favored excuse-du-jour that would lead to direct or indirect threat of life. And who makes these decisions and checks up on them? That might be a logistical nightmare in itself, even if you could get a majority to agree, which you most likely won't.
And I do approve of your irony of 'flipping those muslims the bird' but do you want to turn that into legal immigration, no matter how satisfying it would feel?
Though I am in favor of 'some' moderation it should not be along the lines of religion or gender or basic ressources but along the lines of the ability of the applying refugee to make a better life for herself in the approving country. Kind of 'immigration based on merits', not based on charity and morals. Then the moderation would only come in the form of 'how much start-up-invest is required or desired' and you wouldn't have to worry about the numbers of immigrants creating merit in your country.
An immigrant who spent his prior life tilling the earth with no industrial skills or know-how would be ill-advised to come to Germany where our own farmers are already struggling, while there are many other countries where their knowledge of the land would be welcomed and where they would not be persecuted.
Merit basis would also take care of such stupid discussions we have here in Germany if an officially approved immigrant should be entitled to have three wives (and ensuing children) and to be supported by social welfare - then I also want to have ... well only two wives and ensuing children : D
Or would Asia Bibi not be entitled in your opinion if she happend to be a third wive? Probably before she converted - cultural bias does clash with religious bias, which on occasion is terribly inconvenient ; )
VSD
PS: Chinese and Muslims have already taken over world-wide - check the 'made in ...' label in the clothes you wear right now or the computer you use to read this or the gas you put in your car (my guess it's not made from American crude and even your iPhone does not come from America) ... check the state and police security and control reaching right inside your home simply because some bearded brownies could use your mail to plot the next 9/11 (wasn't Amazon just recently accused of using Chinese spy-chips?) ... we asked them in - not through immigration but through ill-advised capitalism: buy the cheapest ressources and sell the most expensive weapons back - money rulez no matter the consequences ; )
didn't Ayn already coin the phrase 'rational' capitalism?
the biggest irony however is that we're now wasting all that ill-gotten money on social welfare for those we got it from : D money is only a value when it is earned by merit ... at least that's what I got from Francisco's little speach ...

Asylum should be limited to few, special, and egregious cases, otherwise the logical conclusion is to let them all in.

I think the case at hand can be considered a special case, and the granting of asylum could also be construed as politically positive, as essentially a bird flip to all Shariahns worldwide, the Pakistani variety in primis.

However, the purpose of government is to protect its underlying nation, otherwise it is an empire. Logically then, all forms of immigration whether asylum-based or not should be strictly limited, and especially the granting of citizenship.

"Proposition Nation" is a contradiction in terms, and is a concept that should be laid to rest as soon as possible if Europeans worldwide are to have a future. "Rand was in favor of it" is not a logical argument in favor it, and I'm not so sure she was in favor of it anyhow.

Just look at the consequences, look at voting patterns, look at crime. There will be no "Proposition" resembling what you wish for left, only nations within the nation, warring tribes fighting over political and territorial control.

A true "proposition nation" would have to be some form of extremely limited aristocracy, and you can just forget about that, it ain't happening. Leave it to rest.

Defend Western nations qua Western nations, or say goodbye to them and prepare for Chinese and Muslim takeovers worldwide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS.

"Years ago Antiwhites (to borrow Bruno's usage) made unrestricted, flood level immigration legal. These days "illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good" surrenders your country as surely as open borders does, just not as rapidly.

Exactly correct. Immigration should be restricted tout court.

I had to Google "proposition nation" to learn what it meant:

https://www.amren.com/features...

Ayn Rand clearly embraced the "proposition nation" idea while Mark Hunter rejects it.

I am not sure why he wastes his precious time here.

... that Mark Hunter was a low-life. Anonymity, racism and all the rest. How do these sub-humans look themselves in the mirrors?!

I’m loathe to engage you, since you’re another man, or woman, who hides behind fake names and cowardly anonymity, like Bandler. I also remember some of the more unhinged opinions you’ve expressed in the past, like how repugnant you find it to see couples who are multi-racial, Caucasians married to Chinese or Latinos etc. You seem to harbour a visceral disgust for ethnic people which makes you, in my mind, deeply unbalanced about the topic at hand.

On that note, the only thing I will say to you is that there are cases for asylum where the ideas the person holds should have more weight than the colour of their skin, or their country of origin. Obviously with proper asylum cases those things are up for scrutiny and I’m all for that. I know you will hate that very concept, because you are actually a genuine case of xenophobia, but I say that women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel have added great strength and intellectual promise to America in today’s weird climate. One was an asylum seeker, the other an immigrant - and though they are both arguably very rare, they both would not cut your grade of approval on the basis of their skin colour and ethnic origin. You probably find them repugnant. If I’m wrong, you can say so, but that is what you have led me to believe so far.

Years ago Antiwhites (to borrow Bruno's usage) made unrestricted, flood level immigration legal. These days "illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good" surrenders your country as surely as open borders does, just not as rapidly.

Two more points ...

In the case at hand, if this one person must be let in why not her husband and children (five in number), and perhaps later brothers and nephews? Why not more and more?

Who are they? Indeed who is she? Even for those readers who believe the "proposition nation" lie, if blaspheming and persecution is sufficient qualification there isn't much content to the proposition.

her case is only immediate because you have heard about it on the news - Hondurans in gangs, starving children in Yemen,

So? How else would one hear about such things? I’ve also heard about Hondurans in gangs and starving children in Yemen on the news too - but those contexts are quite different.

Since I have to apparently spell this out for you: Hondurans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorians etc in gangs are not applying for asylum in any proper way, they’re about to crash the American border en masse, with or without permission, in the hope of the old “catch and release” treatment.

Starving Yemeni children are caught in an actual hot war waged by two major Islamic countries. If people want them hauled out into safer countries, then the Islamic nations can sort that one, they have many nations to choose from if they were serious about such an initiative.

many others have applied through correct channels and many others have died waiting for their application to be granted - so again no difference why she should have preferential treatment, unless everybody in the news gets extra kudos?

So your reasoning goes: many others have died while waiting for their application to be granted, therefore Asia Bibi and her family should go the same way.
That’s pretty lousy.

context is exactly everything: the context of a right or the context of your personal charity - which many people here in Germany did: vouched personally for the fugitives they deemed worthy of their help

No Vera. That is not the context. Muslims from all corners of the Islamic world crashed Europe while country shopping through many lands before they arrived in Germany and France. Many, many, many who were not worthy of help have been accepted for resettlement, which has been a disaster for Western European countries. This was a mass migration/invasion... and if you cannot see a difference between that and Bibi’s request for political asylum in the West, then I don’t know what to tell ya.

The context is a multiculturalism-obsessed world which unduly fawns over Muslims, from the United Nations on down. A protected class of minority because of Western stupidity. Muslims are particularly fawned over because of their actual use of violence - everyone knows their threats are not empty.

How many European magazines/newspapers ever publish blasphemous cartoons about the Prophet now?

That is the context I’m speaking of.

Olivia:

her case is only immediate because you have heard about it on the news - Hondurans in gangs, starving children in Yemen, drowned people washing ashore are not immediate - except maybe that picture that went around the world of the coast guard picking up a dead baby on the beach ... so everybody on your radar is entitled but not everybody suffering the same circimstances?

many others have applied through correct channels and many others have died waiting for their application to be granted - so again no difference why she should have preferential treatment, unless everybody in the news gets extra kudos?

on the contrary: I mean it that I want her to succeed to leave Pakistan - but not only her and not only because she's now famous but because everyone in similar circumstances should have the same right and not be lumped in with the sub-humans and dismissed.

context is exactly everything: the context of a right or the context of your personal charity - which many people here in Germany did: vouched personally for the fugitives they deemed worthy of their help ... same goes for the murdering raping muslims: we have more than enough laws and police to deal with such offenses - we just don't - for whatever reason the law is again ignored - probably for personal reasons again like guilt-tripping?

Gregster:

I'm not even going to answer your name-calling ... you also seem confused whom you support and whom not ... not to mention that you still have not answered the question: should all individuals suffering similar circumstances be granted asylum?

til you get your facts straight I'm going to enjoy my celtic music (might at least get those facts straight) and pull a warm wool cap over my ears as it got rather frosty here in Gud ol Djörmänie ; )

VSD

I support any individual who stands up to the Muslim maggots. Not that this woman did. She was merely accused of blasphemy, by subhumans who believe in ghosts. And that is what religionists are—subhuman. That is, if you believe human life is the standard of value. You can listen to your hippy folk music and pull the wool over your ears as much as you wish.

https://ruleofreason.blogspot....

I’m not sure I agree with him about Trump not taking up this cause because of his relationship with Saudi and the whole Kashoggi debacle. Pakistan is a country he knows had a diseased relationship with the United States, hence his axing of aid to them.

Rand Paul has apparently had a word to Trump about the Bibi case... https://www.politico.com/story...

Why her and not the millions of others?

Because her case is immediate as she’s being hunted, along with her daughters and husband, after she has been set free. Just because we cannot take the “millions”, it does not automatically follow that we ought not to take one.

So everybody please explain your reasons, why you think Asia Bibi should be granted asylum in your respective country,

Unlike the Hondurans etc who are about to try and gate crash the American border, Asia Bibi has applied for political asylum through the correct legal channels. Her case is a genuine one of persecution, she’s not getting into a rubber boat to cross the Mediterranean with a pack of men with fake passports and nefarious motives.

...VSD who wishes Asia Bibi all the best - along with every one else in similar circumstances, whether they get the emotional press she does or not

Sounds rather disingenuous on your part, when you know full well that “all the best” for her means being torn apart by Islamic mobs because her case is famous in Pakistan - not to mention emotional, whether she wants it to be or not. I imagine she is craving some anonymity right now, if that were at all possible, but it isn’t and that is not her fault.

And context is everything: Christian Pakistanis are not exactly roaming their countries, or the world, committing murders and rapes. Muslims on the other hand...

Good point by VSD.

If the reason Olivia gives for letting in this one Pakistani were valid it would open the door to an unending stream of Pakistanis, Hondurans, ...

ARIwatch.com

... let me start out by stating that I think Asia Bibi should be allowed to travel and live in any country she wishes as long as she has some reasonable chance of making a life there without living off the charity of other's the rest of her life.
Having gotten that out of the way I am struck by the alacrity of all the anti-immigrationists around here to defend her coming to America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even Germany, who just granted her preapproved asylum.
Why?
Because she is a Christian compared to the 'Muslim Savages'? I'm all in favor of keeping religion at home and out of the state - anybody disagree - apart from those Pilgrims across the pond?
Because she's been on death-row? Where's the difference to all those countries ravaged by war with a constant threat of death right at home?
Because she finally got out of jail after spending 8 years on her death sentence? How many Honduran children and teenagers spent 8 years in gangs with the constant threat of death hanging over their head? They got out now and are welcomed openly in America? Just like Asia Bibi will now start her own trek to some promised land?
Because conditions are just terrible in her home country? Guess Yemen children would agree - and claim their siblings starving by the 10.000s as valid reason?
Because our wonderful politicians here in Germany magnanimously granted her asylum after idiotic discussions in parliament? Didn't they just make a big spectacle out of themselves questioning the constitutional right to asylum? So why did they still have to discuss it with politicians if it's (still) law? Do they know more about her circumstances to be able to preapprove her asylum?
And why the heck only now after 8 years - where was the moral outrage 8 years ago - 20 years ago in millions of cases exactly the same or worse?
This is exactly the kind of discussions going on blasting everything from superstition, fry quacking, moronnials, ugly wimin, savagery, arisis, right down to the puppy-love fan club. But hey - Asia Bibi is different - she deserves our unconditional support.
Why her and not the millions of others?
I am missing a lot of principle and detesting the hypocrisy it's getting replaced with.
So everybody please explain your reasons, why you think Asia Bibi should be granted asylum in your respective country, while in the next blog / posting you're blasting others with the same claim as sub-human, which seems to be the newest fad around here.
VSD
who wishes Asia Bibi all the best - along with every one else in similar circumstances, whether they get the emotional press she does or not

I am embarrassed to be Canadian.  Western democracies should be fighting to take her in, not give her the cold shoulder.  As for the Muslims that would be outraged locally, they can always move to Pakistan and voice their displeasure there.  It would be a good way to sort out those that need to be deported from those that have actually embraced civilized western rule of law.

it would take a miracle.

I read today that Berlin are considering taking her in... that is until their latest arrivals start rioting and burning cars.

This situation is beyond reprehensible, especially in the case of Britonistan's turning her down. Alas, the same evil forces are at work in NZ, and I fear there's not a hope in Hell Asia will be allowed in. The local Islamosavages simply won't stand for it, and they'll be supported by Phil the Phascist (who'll be supported by ARISIS's two Auckland shills). But we must fight these evil bastards at every turn. This is a good move, Lady S. Let's hope for a pleasant surprise (nay, a miracle).