Mitt Romney's Private Views

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Tue, 2012-09-18 14:38

http://content.usatoday.com/co...

In that secretly recorded video of Mitt Romney at his fund-raiser, he stated:

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president [i.e. Barack Obama] no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

This is what is known as truth.


( categories: )

New Topic

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Marcus -- Good point. Maybe Lindsay or the Solo Passion webmaster could move the most recent comments and give them a new title. Not sure how hard and time-consuming this is technically...

Good post, Robert

Ross Elliot's picture

I know many women in business and women as mothers. Most of them are quite formidable and very focused on their tasks.

Frankly, from my experience, I'd want to go into business with a woman, as I know, again from experience, that women often do some things better than men, and therefore the partnership would make us stronger, not weaker.

This thread has gone seriously...

Marcus's picture

...off topic.

Anyone want to start a new one?

Islam and women and me

Doug Bandler's picture

By the way, Doug, how do you square your own dismissive view of women's rational faculties with your views on Islam and Muslims, given that the latter group is often chided - rightly - for failing to accord women independent status and respect? Seems a bit of a contradiction here in your stance.

That's a good question. Islam in not unique in regulating the sexuality of its women. Christianity did so as well, although not as brutally. Hell, even the Ancient Greeks isolated their married women in their houses and would not let them out alone. (Prostitutes had more freedom.) But I now understand why. Women are wired to be sexually aroused by high value, dominant, charismatic men. You let a woman roam around a city full of such men and SHE WILL FUCK some of THEM. That is nature's way. And BTW, what did Rand herself do when she encountered charming young Branden? Yeah. She dressed up in a mink coat, high heels and nothing else. And she was in her 50s.

So men in traditionalist societies have always regulated women's sexual behavior. Is that right? No. Not by the standards of individual rights. But do I understand why they did it and why the Islamic world still does it. Yes. It sucks to have your woman take it up every orifice by a man she considers of higher value than you. So before 1960, every society regulated women. Social shaming was the technique that existed in America before the 1960s. Hardly violent but very effective.

My question is whether a society of unregulated women can survive? That question is linked to the liberty question; ie can a truly liberal society not self-liquidate itself? We all think that Rand has provided the philosophic tools to achieve just that. But I still remain cautious.

Women are the most dangerous animal on this earth. No matter how much I agree with the Objectivist politics, I still fear women's freedom. Precisely because they are wired to be emotional incubators. And reason is very difficult for them. Bottom line: they are wired to fuck and breed. Yes they provide much of the joy in life. But they also provide most of the danger and misery.

So I am mixed emotionally on women's sexual freedom. I openly admit it.

Olivia

Doug Bandler's picture

Awesome comment especially the last paragraph. You are what the seduction community would call a "Game aware" woman. Yes. Women have it harder then men in one sense in that they have to control their emotions without giving in to them or losing them. Not easy. But in another sense, the human species still favors women over men. Their eggs are far more valuable then the near infinite number of available sperm. Men are more expendable and this plays out in many ways in every society.

On another note, you managed a brothel!!

Sounds like you have lead an interesting life. I like you more and more.

Man vs. Woman

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Olivia is 100% right: the "battle of the sexes" makes for a fascinating discussion! Smiling Men and women have so much in common, and are such natural allies and complements to each other, and yet they're still evidently damned different. Today's dominant, man-hating, sexist/bigoted, feminist ideology -- the enemy of men, women, and the male-female relationship -- makes it hard to understand all that.

This is a rich and complex subject, on which I have a ton of opinions, but, ultra-quickly...

I think Doug is right that Objectivism would be considerably more respected if a male had invented it; and that women are naturally amoral, and follower-types, not leaders; and that women are considerably more given to emotional expression and distress (and wonderfulness). I also think Olivia is right when she says that, "The ability to feel authentically AND be able and willing to be rational about feelings, rather than be totally led around by them, is rare in either sex. Women are mostly unwilling and men are mostly unable."

But to get to the many important truths therein, this discussion needs as much female input as possible! Star

Male/Female dichotomy.

Robert's picture

Far be it from me - a biologist - to downplay the differences in male/female physical plumbing and psychological wiring. But I believe that you lot are forgetting that male and female are both creatures with minds living in the same reality.

In other words, if you want to flourish you have to use your brain at full capacity that means understanding and utilizing - in the appropriate proportion - both the emotive and analytical sides of your mind.

One gains this ability by existing - sans apron strings - in the real world. And that's the important bit: sans apron strings. Because human beings will walk the path of least resistance if one exists.

"Thinking like a man" to me refers to that endangered breed of men who've struck out on their own and through trail and error have figured out how to make it in the real world. I'd argue that that isn't a male trait. That's a tested, veteran-of-the-school-of-hard-knocks trait. If you want a female example of this, I give you Olivia's essay above. From brothel keeper to entrepreneur in multiple not-so-easy steps. If you want a less ass-kissing example, I give you those who traveled the Oregon and Mormon trails. I give you the female fighter aces in the Soviet air-force in WWII, Boadicea, Marie Curie and Violette Szabo. With time, I'm sure I could find more. But shouldn't have to because I'm not out to prove that women are a millstone around the neck of the human race.

I have an experiment for Doug & Kyrel. Think of the most useless female drop-kicks you have known/slept-with/jilted or been jilted by. How many of them had been tested by life in a significant way. I am referring to things like:

(1) Immigrating to a foreign country without a pot to piss or a window to throw it out of.
(2) Having and properly raising a child (as opposed to a wild beast) without support of government or father.
(3) Searching for and paying for a house - away from their parents - and on their own dime.
(4) Paying for college as they go by working nights doing any job that comes their way.
(5) Enlisting in the military and then participating in combat.

You see my guess is that the bulk of the women to which you refer are probably under 30, recent graduate of college, possibly employed by some corporate entity that follows the modern practice of attempting to inculcate themselves into the private lives of its employees*, childless, rarely without a boy-friend, and lives within 60min drive of their parents. In other words they haven't lived alone and self-sufficiently - ever. And that's assuming that they were otherwise intelligent, capable individuals.

How did I do?

Now let's have a look at Ayn Rand - that female throwback. Grew up in Russia under Lenin & Stalin. Escaped to the USA. Self-taught, self-employed as a writer. Do I really need to say more?

Every notable man or woman in history that I've ever read about was tested as an adult or rather was tested and became an intellectual adult as a consequence. And it was after passing or surviving that test that they became notable. You could say that it changed their outlook on life.

Now if you want to argue that women and men start from different points in order to arrive at this intellectual nirvana - I'm in full agreement. If you want to argue that certain individuals learn faster and easier than others - I'm in full agreement.

But it strikes me as disingenuous and unscientific to make moral declarations about 50% of the human race by cherry-picking examples whom (I'm assuming) for reasons of culture, sloth or youth, have not yet been tested by life. Your assumption as far as I can discern is that if they were tested, they would be found wanting because of their sex.

Show me that a majority of women or men are incapable of upping their game in the face of a serious and unavoidable test and ~then~ I'll take your hypothesis seriously.

Meanwhile, here is a counter explanation for you to chew:

Women and men ~are~ more frivolous today than in the 18th Century. That is self-evident. This society ~allows~ them to escape the otherwise terminal consequences of their frivolity.

FFS we live in a society where for $5-inflated dollars, I can order a side of bacteria-free, prime-beef, cooked in one of twenty different ways, accompanied by 30 different out of season, fresh, clean, prepared vegetables on my choice of bread, wrapped up and ready to go 2 minutes from ordering. And neither me, nor the chef, nor even the proprietor of the marketplace has had to raise, slaughter and butcher the cow, plant and harvest the vegetables, mill the wheat or even bake the sodding bread - ~if they choose not to~.

Middle class US children currently glide from elementary, to middle to high school and thence to college without once ~having~ to sully themselves with working for a living if they choose not to.

Yes, yes education bubble and all of that. We are all on the cusp of being tested, and tested heavily, by reality. But this and the last several generations of Western peoples are some of the most pampered in history. 18th Century royalty did not enjoy the life-style available to middle America in the 1950s-1990s.

And 18th Century royalty - according to Thomas Paine - were some of the most worthless specimens of humanity that ever existed. A complete waste of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. See my point?

No? Well allow me to appeal to an authority:

The unexplained life is not worth living for a human being - Socrates.

Human kind stepped from the kiln of natural selection. Our survival tool - our minds - have, time and again, allowed us to usurp the surly bonds of nature and create civil societies that have eased our way in life. And time and again, those societies have reached a zenith and fallen - betrayed from within by the physical and intellectual and moral sloth of people (men mainly - women in ancient civilizations were universally treated as second-class citizens AFAIK) who benefited from their bounty and protection.

By the way, the fact that Ancient Rome was undone by male leaders should return your theory to the Edwardian/Victorian mausoleum from whence it came.

Somehow we as a species - not just a gender - need to escape that death-spiral. We need to be able to enjoy the fruits of our civilization without loosing sight of the pillars that hold it up. Philosophy might be the key to that riddle.

___________

*e.g. - birthday lunches, corporate retreats, weekend get togethers at the bosses place, day-care, health-care, gym in the basement, charity-drives blah blah fucking blah

Doug

Tom Burroughes's picture

Doug wrote:

"Women are by far more amoral than man". (I assume you meant to write "men").

Another generalisation, for which I see no clear-cut evidence whatsoever. Consider all the various amoral wars of conquest down the centuries - all largely caused by men.

By the way, Doug, how do you square your own dismissive view of women's rational faculties with your views on Islam and Muslims, given that the latter group is often chided - rightly - for failing to accord women independent status and respect? Seems a bit of a contradiction here in your stance.

The fact is that for a large chunk of human history, women were treated as little better than chattel property, and in certain parts of the world, they still are. I hope and trust that those who claim to respect human dignity and liberty, as fans of Ayn Rand's ideas should, understand just how unusual the modern West is in breaking away from this state of affairs.

Marcus...

Olivia's picture

Ha, yeah, typical woman, full of contradictions! Smiling Other people having sex is just not that interesting to me. Maybe I've been desensitized. Probably. I'm certainly fascinated when I'm doing it though. Eye

...the woman who sold pussy would not read fifty shades of grey because of all the sex in it?

I would read it if it were good literature, but alas, apparently it's about as well written as Twilight, which I believe is as bad as: "Green leaves were swaying in the wind, greenly."

Romney...

Marcus's picture

...gonna kick hisself some black butt today!

No, ah well, dreams are free.

Olivia...

Marcus's picture

...the woman who sold pussy would not read fifty shades of grey because of all the sex in it?

Wow!

But, Doug...

Ross Elliot's picture

"Allowing women the right to vote in the context of a Leftist welfare state has been a DISASTER. "

...we live in a leftist welfare state now.

In the current context therefore women should not be allowed the vote?

No? But we live in a leftist welfare state and women only perpetuate that. Right? How can we, as men, allow this "disaster" to continue?

Surely we can't.

Fascinating topic really...

Olivia's picture

this gender stuff.

It is particularly interesting to me because my boss is one of NZ's top female entrepreneurs, 35 shops through NZ and Australia, fully NZ manufactured with spectacular premises she had built herself in a country town. It is a wonder of modernity, efficiency and exceptional capability - Annah Stretton, one of NZ's foremost fashion labels. In her first year of business twenty years ago on a farm, whilst raising two babies to boot, she turned over a million dollars, from there it's just grown and grown. Her husband works for her company.

In her books on business and the speaking circuit she does the rounds on, she very strongly encourages women to "think like a man". She calls it "black and white thinking". She often declares the emotional side of women to be totally counterproductive to business and exhorts the multitude of women who work for her to discipline themselves to stay tuned purely to facts, more the way men do. In this respect, I find her very easy to deal with as an employer and very supportive to us/me. She wants us both to make good money... and of course I want that too, it's that simple. http://annahstretton.blogspot....

A few years ago I worked for a fairly short time as a mangeress in a brothel. That was controlled by the worst types of women, bloody horrible micro-managing bitches! It was like working in a communist country everyday, emotions dominated, telling tattle tales of bullshit and female hyper-dramas swayed a lot of decisions with the women who owned the joint. Funnily enough, some of these women in charge had backgrounds in "womens' studies" - and here they were soliciting fresh-faced, relatively naieve 18 year old girls into prostitution. Was too much for me. It was very feelings based and malevolent, where it actually could have been quite fun. But then again, most parties involved were always desperate, so "fun" could only ever be an act. Because the product being sold was pussy, the womens' turbulent emotional landscapes had to be factored in, but the best whores, and those who steadily earned the most, were the older ones who were not emotionally self-indulgent at all, but knew how to connect with men emotionally and make it all about them as the customer. They were a very weird hybrid of female and were well past contemplating the morality of anything... anything goes as long as it's money-focused.

It is healthy for women to be emotional creatures - therein lies their strong tenderness and the well-spring of the virtues men crave, but there are times when to be independent and make their way in life (and often to do right by those who depend on them), they have to put that side of themselves to one side. Bracketed. Be it only ever bracketed and not a permanent elimination, else their femininity is done for.

In my book, a woman can chide another woman to think more like a man, but that should never come from a man because healthy men shouldn't want a woman who doesn't feel deeply anymore.

The ability to feel authentically AND be able and willing to be rational about feelings, rather than be totally led around by them, is rare in either sex. Women are mostly unwilling and men are mostly unable.

There is your answer right there

Doug Bandler's picture

Sure, we can't be freed from our biological functions by gender

And that means something. There is a masculine and a feminine realm. Rand got this. There is NO gender egalitarianism in her novels. Males are psychologically dominant. Even in Branden's 'The Psychology of Self Esteem' which he wrote under Rand's tutelage, Branden went down the EvPsych bunny hole stating male "psycho-sexual" dominance as the essence of the male-female relationship.

The meaning of this is that our species has built in incentives. It has often been said by men that know "that civilization is man's way of impressing women". To this point, great civilizations have been built by men. Allowing women the right to vote in the context of a Leftist welfare state has been a DISASTER.

Now, under laissez-faire would the female franchise be destructive? In theory no. But I'm distrustful of women. Their wiring will always make long range rational thought difficult. And they will always need a provider if they want children, which most of them will. The sate is such a temptation in its role as provider; a temptation I think most women will succumb to. Although I would love to be proved wrong on this.

Further, women will always be as good or bad as the men in their society, and often much worse. Women have natural barriers to being moral. Their relative physical weakness makes morality a luxury many of them can't afford. Women are by far more amoral than man. And yes there are and have been exceptions. And yes I know Rand was a woman. But I think it would have been better for philosophy if she had been a man. More people would have listened to her. Objectivism would have received far more credibility if it had been discovered by 'Adam Rand'. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

As for the idiot comment. I know that I am challenging orthodox Objectivism on a number of things, but idiot I am not.

Jesus, Doug...

Ross Elliot's picture

"The human race is built on masculine strength and masculine toughness and masculine reason. Yes, women can use reason at times but for the most part they are emotion-driven incubators. That's the way they are designed. Women did not build civilization. Men did. I think Rand would agree. She understood the frailties and weakness of women. And she knew enough to idolize men. "

..are you on good terms with your girlfriend?

Ever lived with an intelligent woman? Ever been in business with an intelligent woman? Capitalism is about freeing individuals from control. Sure, we can't be freed from our biological functions by gender, but our minds and our property can be. Why do you think that, under capitalism, a woman is not as capable as a man?

Oh, you do? Then what the fuck is the import of you comments? Nothing. They're archaic.

Hey, Doug, did you ever consider that Rand was a woman?

'Nice, Ayn. Thanks for the leg-up. Great philosophy. I concur. But don't get uppity with your part-time reason. Sit back, girl. The men can handle it from now on.'

Idiot.

“Why is it that today women

Tom Burroughes's picture

“Why is it that today women generally have more balls then men? The answer is egalitarianism and feminism. Today's men have been gelded by the Left. That is not a good thing for society. The human race is built on masculine strength and masculine toughness and masculine reason. Yes, women can use reason at times but for the most part they are emotion-driven incubators. That's the way they are designed. Women did not build civilization. Men did. I think Rand would agree. She understood the frailties and weakness of women. And she knew enough to idolize men.”

Steady on here. It depends what you mean in this case by “feminism”. I don’t think men have become emasculated in a country such as, say, the UK, because women now contemplate having a career as well as wanting to raise children, for example. As for your other statements about women, they are generalizations to some extent. And don’t forget that Rand felt quite easy with creating female heroines, so she hardly thought that women could be shut out of any depiction of heroism. Personally, I put more blame on the Welfare State and other trends for the ills of our society.

As far as I can tell, Rand did not say that her views did not apply to the ladies, or that women were not rational enough to benefit from her insights.

“Tara Smith looks like a together woman. She keeps her focus narrow and deals with ethical theory. She is a potent intellectual.”

Agreed. I have met her several times - she's very insightful.

It is interesting to note...

Marcus's picture

...that after Romney's supposed "gaffes" the poll numbers are unchanged.

Unfortunately it still looks like an Obama win by a whisker. (Unless those intending to vote Romney are not being honest for fear of looking uncool.)

So if Romney can shine in the debates he might just pull ahead.

Jesus, Kyrel...

Ross Elliot's picture

"I find conservative women visually disturbing, especially the church-goers. They rarely look as good close up as from far away. Their looks are on the surface, and they even seem whorish to me. They genuinely like sex but, as a matter of principle and point of honor, they drain your wallet as much as possible first."

...who are you hanging out with?

They like sex but they drain your wallet?

Find a sexy, intelligent girl that has her own wallet. They exist by the million.

Leftish girls are generally fatter? No, they're not. C'mon. They're often as hot as hell, but you just wouldn't want to slide your cock into them because your cock has principles.

Miscellaneous

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- It may well be that general, loose, open-ended discussions like these on Right vs. Left, however fascinating to everyone, don't shed much light on reality.

Leftism/postmodernism in some sense is more dominant than Rightism/premodernism since this is the ideology which has mostly ruled the world, and driven it 'forward,' for about 220 years. Still, both sides seem about equally mistaken, with neither truly evil. Virtually everyone has been brainwashed into conservo-progressive philosophy, including you and I, until we first encountered AR, and then changed our minds. But ignorance mostly rules today.

I find conservative women visually disturbing, especially the church-goers. They rarely look as good close up as from far away. Their looks are on the surface, and they even seem whorish to me. They genuinely like sex but, as a matter of principle and point of honor, they drain your wallet as much as possible first. Leftists seem to do this far less, and to like sex for its own sake far more. The best ladies are de facto neoliberals who read Cosmopolitan, and are neither Right nor Left.

Leftist girls are fatter, but their taste for fellatio seems a clear virtue, not vice. And the Obama family seems about as good-looking and virtuous as the Romney family. Compromising conservatives and deal-makers like Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner are very disturbing to look at.

Rand's villains were all Leftist, generally, but that was an error on her part. The world would be a better place today if some of those evil characters had been (unprincipled) conservatives and (hypocritical) religionists. Her books were unrealistic and mistaken in that regard. It was also an error in philosophic strategy, if not understanding.

Fighting, red meat, rabble-rousing conservatives may be the best people around right now, in our sad, small, Right-Left universe, especially blacks ones. But the 'conservative' writers seem far superior to, and far different from, the politicians. I don't trust any politicians on the Right, not even Pat Buchanan, who was about 100% fiery and intellectual before he ran for President in the 1990s, and just about a 100% sell-out during the campaign. Conservative elected officials are hopeless beyond hopeless. If the US President, Congress, and Supreme Court were all conservative they would advance America in the libertarian direction just about zero, in my view.

But that's the point, Doug...

Ross Elliot's picture

"But my point is that this is true Conservatism. Romney, Bush, McCain, Rove, Hannity, etc, are all something else. I really don't know what to call them. There are weird mix of watered down Left-liberalism, watered down Classical Liberalism and watered down Conservatism. "

...that's exactly what a Conservative is.

You can't look to Conservatism for any answers. Sure, vote Conservative to get rid of Obama. Hell, I would. But that doesn't solve the problem.

You could of course vote Libertarian, but that wouldn't get rid of Obama, would it?

Nasty choices.

Tom

Doug Bandler's picture

Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson - two of the great pro-liberty writers of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, were both women. And then in Britain, we recently had the decidely non-daffy example of Margaret Thatcher, who frankly put most of her male contemporaries to shame in terms of guts, determination, ability to think things through, etc.

But ask yourself, why is this? Why is it that today women generally have more balls then men? The answer is egalitarianism and feminism. Today's men have been gelded by the Left. That is not a good thing for society. The human race is built on masculine strength and masculine toughness and masculine reason. Yes, women can use reason at times but for the most part they are emotion-driven incubators. That's the way they are designed. Women did not build civilization. Men did. I think Rand would agree. She understood the frailties and weakness of women. And she knew enough to idolize men.

Also, is a serious Objectivist writer such as Tara Smith "daffy"? Or Diana Hsieh? I think not!

Tara Smith looks like a together woman. She keeps her focus narrow and deals with ethical theory. She is a potent intellectual.

Diana Hsieh is fucking ditz. I have zero respect for that fool. She is no intellectual. Her phd might as well have come from a Cracker Jack box.

And for why women are daffy, well that will take you down the Evolution Psychology bunny hole. I'm sure that will come up in another thread.

Very Fucking Wrong

Doug Bandler's picture

Leftists have the courtesy and honesty to stab you in the chest; Rightists are reptiles that always stab you in the back. Leftists tell you what they believe, however foolish; Rightists militantly refuse to say, even to the point of death, even when they're right. Leftists have hope and give you some; Rightists are devoid of it. Leftists have spirit and ideals; Rightists are drudges who have nothing. Leftists basically look like normal, healthy, likeable people; Rightists quietly look like freaks -- like there's something seriously wrong with them and they've got something dreadful to hide. Leftist women are hot, luscious, open, free, and exuberantly loving; Rightist women are cold, garish, closed, inhibited, and empty inside.

Wow, you missed the boat on this one.

Leftist women are hot, luscious, open, free, and exuberantly loving

No. Leftist POLITICAL women are beastly feminists. Young liberal women are the biggest whores on this planet and in case you haven't noticed, there is an obesity epidemic in North America. I'd wager that liberal women are fatter than average than Conservative women. Liberal women reject all standards as per their philosophy. Conservative women still respect moral decency to some extent anyway. And understand, that is what American women are known for the world over - being cock gobbling whores. There is an army of American men that are abandoning American women (really Anglo American women) for the FAR more FEMININE women of South America, East Europe (although they are slowly becoming Americanized) and South East Asia. This is all because of the culture that the Left has created.

Generally speaking, Conservative women are far more feminine and attractive than Leftist women. Feminists are ugly by definition. Modern liberalism has made women masculine and men feminine. They destroy everything they touch.

Leftists basically look like normal, healthy, likeable people

Wrong again. Compare the Leftist politicians like Frank, Reed, Pelosi and the entire Black caucus. They all look like freaks. It has been noted many times that the Republican politicians look like civilized people when compared to Leftists. Just look at the conventions. Democrat conventions are a freak show. Look at the Romney family. They are all beautiful people. You would be hard pressed to find such a family of Leftists.

Understand Kyrel, Leftism is nihilism. If you are a nihilist, you become ugly on the outside because you are ugly in the inside. You and most Objectivists miss that. BUT RAND SURE THE FUCK DIDN'T. Look how ugly she made all her villains and they were all Leftists.

Leftists tell you what they believe, however foolish

The Left's ultimate goal is to ban any thought that differs from theirs. They never say that out loud. Well, they try not to but sometimes it slips.

Leftists have hope and give you some

?!? WHAT FUCKING HOPE. There is no more worthless word in the English language than hope. The Left wants political power to ENSLAVE you.

I can't take any more so I'll just say what Lindsay and I keep saying:

THE LEFT IS FUCKING EVIL

CONSERVATIVES ARE MISGUIDED

There is NO equivalency.

Right v Left

Doug Bandler's picture

Coincidentially the other day on the BBC they discussed what "right-wing" meant. Ricahrd North thinks there are many different right-wings, that's true, just as there are many different left-wings. I don't agree with him though that Hitler was of the right-wing, although these days being anti-foreigner and patriotic is often considered to be a right-wing position, he clearly called himself and his party socialist.

Defining Right and Left has never really been done with epistemological precision. But here is how I see Conservative vs Leftist vs Liberal.

Leftist - A total commitment to egalitarian collectivism. A fierce belief in epistemological skepticism which leads to both social subjectivism and moral and cultural relativism. They are EGALITARIAN COLLECTIVISTS that want state enforced equality of conditions in EVERYTHING.

Conservative - Originally, a true Conservative believed in SOCIETY as the defining social unit not the individual. It was the FAMILY that was a microcosm of the divine order with the father ruling the family the way God ruled the universe. The FAMILY was the way in which children were given culture and learning and prepared to be adults and usher in the next generation. The FAMILY and the COMMUNITY were to be the defining units of society. MAJORITY RULE of the community was the standard. Individuals were given power and rights only as far as they did not threaten society or the stability of the NUCLEAR FAMILY.

Further, societies were bound by RACE, RELIGION, CULTURE, MYTHS, and BLOOD. All of this equals not an egalitarian collectivism but a PARTICULAR COLLECTIVISM (a kind of tribalism).

Liberalism - This is the legacy of individualism. It is the individual which is the smallest unit of society and the building blocks. We all know about this one. Classical Liberalism is the tradition and Objectivism has provided the philosophic base that the Enlightenment never could. Well, we hope. I have some questions here but if Rand proves to have been right about her major points then she will have change the future. Yes, the Russian Rage will be legendary. We hope.

So what is Right and Left? Well, we would like Right to stand for the Objectivist politics but today it is some mix of old Conservatism and old Liberalism (ie usually through today's libertarian lens) with some leftist elements thrown in. Yes, the original liberals were on the "Left" in opposition to the monarchists and the original Conservatives. But the "Left" today refers to basically the Communists, which is what most modern "liberals" really are but they just wont admit it.

When I refer to Leftist I am referring to all Left-liberals, and that means moderate "liberals" like Leiberman and "far-Leftists" like Michael Moore. The whole stinking bunch of them.

When I refer to the Right, I refer to the big tent mess of everyone who is not a leftist. That includes all variants of Conservatism, Classical Liberals, Objectivists. With libertarians it gets difficult because some of them are closer to Leftists than Conservatives. And then you have the anarchists who ape the Left in so many ways.

But that is how I see things.

True Consrvatism

Doug Bandler's picture

Define a true conservative, and then define how that is a good thing.

It isn't a good thing but it also not a Leftist. That was my point. That today's Conservative politicians are really moderate Leftists with some Conservative positions.

As for true Conservatism. Well here is what it would advocate:

* Banning of all divorce
* Ending women's careerism
* Ending the sexual revolution
* Censoring all TV and Movie content
* Ending all immigration and enforcing limitations on non-white immigration
* Enforcing a public respect for Christianity
* Probably enforcing racial segregation all over again
* Ending all public displays of homosexuality and homosexual liberation
* More mercantalist economic policies

Now, I support none of these except that given what the Left has created in today's world I can understand on the emotional level why many Paleo Conservatives hold these positions.

But my point is that this is true Conservatism. Romney, Bush, McCain, Rove, Hannity, etc, are all something else. I really don't know what to call them. There are weird mix of watered down Left-liberalism, watered down Classical Liberalism and watered down Conservatism.

Rand made the point that a conservative is nothing more than an advocate of the status quo. And by definition, she was right. The import was greater: if the status quo changes, the conservative simply toes the line. Hence we have conservatives adhering to the situation that has been made for them by the forces of radicalism.

That is a mainstream Conservative. But true Conservatives believe in very definite things that they believe can NEVER be changed because they believe that human nature is corrupt and needs to restrained by the power of the state. Rand got that right in her "Conservatism, an Obituary."

As for what I want. Well I want Galt. But that's not possible. But I will say this. If the Republicans were to put up a true Conservative that wanted to do all of the above but he also would drastically cut the welfare state and the regulatory burden and he understood the evil of Islam and the need to quarantine it and he had a spine, I would vote for the son of a bitch. At least such a man would have strength of conviction and honor. But even that type of Conservative couldn't get nominated. Only Milquetoasts like Bush, McCain, Romney.

See, true Conservatives AND true Liberals CANT get nominated. Only Milquetoasts can. That is the consequence of altruism AND egalitarianism being untouchable.

Doug

Tom Burroughes's picture

"I bet the outrage against it would have been less and it would have had FAR more credibility at this point. Lets be honest. Women in general are just not to be taken seriously. They are daffy by their very nature. They are emotion driven incubators after all."

Doug, I know enough daffy men to seriously doubt that women are particularly prone to this problem. Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson - two of the great pro-liberty writers of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, were both women. And then in Britain, we recently had the decidely non-daffy example of Margaret Thatcher, who frankly put most of her male contemporaries to shame in terms of guts, determination, ability to think things through, etc.

Also, is a serious Objectivist writer such as Tara Smith "daffy"? Or Diana Hsieh? I think not!

Marcus...

Ross Elliot's picture

...this an old debate.

As I said elsewhere here, the left will believe in free speech right up until they nationalise the last printing press.

And that's the point. If they are nefarious, they understand the result of their policies. If they think that freedom can exist under economic dictatorship, then they are stupid.

Left vs. Right

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Leftists have the courtesy and honesty to stab you in the chest; Rightists are reptiles that always stab you in the back. Leftists tell you what they believe, however foolish; Rightists militantly refuse to say, even to the point of death, even when they're right. Leftists have hope and give you some; Rightists are devoid of it. Leftists have spirit and ideals; Rightists are drudges who have nothing. Leftists basically look like normal, healthy, likeable people; Rightists quietly look like freaks -- like there's something seriously wrong with them and they've got something dreadful to hide. Leftist women are hot, luscious, open, free, and exuberantly loving; Rightist women are cold, garish, closed, inhibited, and empty inside.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

Marcus's picture

You are wrong. (I'll exclude Linz, as he can speak for himself).

All the men described themselves as being passionately of the left at some stage of their adult lives, especially the formative years.

None of them ever described themselves as a right-winger, although others sometimes pin that tag on them.

Also Ross, in case you haven't noticed, there is no contradiction between being a Libertarian of the left or right-wing.

Indeed Libertarians ideologically came from a position of left-wing anarchy, didn't they?

So you get a grip!

And?

Ross Elliot's picture

"The intellectual left gave us Linz, Hitchens, Orwell, Dawkins, Durkin, Rushdie and most of the art that is now provoking Islam into such hate filled violence and that rejects all religion."

What a mixed bunch. I'm sure Lindsay would not rate himself with Orwell, Hitchens or Dawkins. Correct me if I'm wrong. Further, that bunch, excepting Lindsay, were not fans of capitalism. Hitchens and Dawkins are/were at best, atheist libertarians. Orwell was a socialist, albeit one that had some strange idea of benevolent socialism.

Jesus, Marcus, get a grip.

The left isn't all bad...

Marcus's picture

...in fact when it is good, it is far better than anything offered by the right wing.

The intellectual left gave us Linz, Hitchens, Orwell, Dawkins, Durkin, Rushdie and most of the art that is now provoking Islam into such hate filled violence and that rejects all religion.

The political right and left are just as cowardly in deference to Islam. The right due to their "respect" for religion and left due to their rampant "relativism".

However, remember it is Obama "the lefty" who refuses to criticise youtube for airing the Innocence of Muslims, and it is the "left-wing" Hollande who refuses to ban the naked Mohammed cartoons, even though a great expense to the country - both men having said that they would rather protect the right to freedom of speech.

In their day I bet the founding fathers and those who inspired them were considered to be left-wing too. That was the original meaning of the term left-wing. To sit on the left-wing of the Monarch in Parliament. The right-wing and right-hand of the Monarch was the hand of God. Ironically the reason that no Arab will wipe his bottom with his right hand.

No Objectivist could sit anywhere but to the left of the Monarch, could they?

Coincidentially the other day on the BBC they discussed what "right-wing" meant. Ricahrd North thinks there are many different right-wings, that's true, just as there are many different left-wings. I don't agree with him though that Hitler was of the right-wing, although these days being anti-foreigner and patriotic is often considered to be a right-wing position, he clearly called himself and his party socialist.

Huh?

Ross Elliot's picture

"Look, lets be honest, Romney isn't really a Conservative"

Do you suggest that a Conservative is the answer? C'mon. It's Conservatism that has got us where we are. Conservatism isn't the answer. Or do you think so, Doug?

Define a true conservative, and then define how that is a good thing.

Rand made the point that a conservative is nothing more than an advocate of the status quo. And by definition, she was right. The import was greater: if the status quo changes, the conservative simply toes the line. Hence we have conservatives adhering to the situation that has been made for them by the forces of radicalism.

The response is not to be a conservative, but a radical.

The contemporary filth-laden

Doug Bandler's picture

The contemporary filth-laden hybrid that one might call pomomarxism was just coming into its own.

Ah. That's interesting. So it turns out that the Left was once even more secular than it is today. There are many Christian Leftists after all. Take Madonna. That woman always has a Cross around her neck no matter how many men she sleeps with. The hybridization of the Left then would be its basing its collectivist arguments on some mix of secular reason and faith. You do have "new atheist" asshats like Sam Harris that are trying to provide Rawlsean egalitarianism with a Neuro-scientific foundation. But you also have asshats like Michael Moore who claim to be serious Catholics.

No question that they're decent, honorable human beings whose Goblianity is an aberration.

Yes. Good people. All of them. And much better than the Von Miseans or the Paulistas or the fucking Rockwellians. Many of those types are asshats as well. Which is why its tough for me to condemn the Conservatives like so many O'ists do. They just are not evil. Leftists are.

As I've often said, there is no cure for women known to man.

Ha. I think you referred to them as a disease at one point. Too true. Even our patron Goddess of reason herself was a woman. And in that capacity she too was insane. Really, I wonder if it would have been better for Objectivism if its founder had been a man. I bet the outrage against it would have been less and it would have had FAR more credibility at this point. Lets be honest. Women in general are just not to be taken seriously. They are daffy by their very nature. They are emotion driven incubators after all.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As I've often said, there is no cure for women known to man.

Rand *was* tough on conservatives, as it happens, saying they were worse than liberals at one point, and writing an eloquent obituary to them. But the Left in most of her time purported to be, and strove to be, "scientific" and reason-based, a claim lent credence by the Right's constant repairing to faith. The contemporary filth-laden hybrid that one might call pomomarxism was just coming into its own.

I see a steady parade of conscientious conservatives every day on Fox. People like Allen West and Mark Steyn, Hannity and Limbaugh. No question that they're decent, honorable human beings whose Goblianity is an aberration. Equally, there's no question that the Lefties are sub-human filth. Wasserman Schultz, Fluke, The Filth himself, et al, ad infinitum. The sneering face of mendacious pomowankery writ large.

Evil People vs Bad Administrators

Doug Bandler's picture

"The President is not a bad man. He is a bad president." Blandifiers got to Chris Christie. Blandifiers are filth.

Auster made a good comment on this at his blog. He said that the Conservatives refuse to see the Left as a movement of people who want to destroy our civilization and our liberties. They just see them as bad administrators. He is right. But I think the ultimate reason is because the Conservatives just can't bring themselves to challenge altruism. They by and large reject egalitarianism but they just won't touch altruism. Why? Because if they did they would have to rethink Goblianism and you know how impossible that would be. They would have to find a way to get to morality without God. And that is the whole fucking problem and it is also why I am sympathetic with both Conservatives and Christians. They want morality but they can't see how it can be grounded in secularism.

That right there is why the Left is winning and the West is falling to shit. Its also why Rand deserves to be celebrated and glorified. [Although I am still pissed at her for sleeping with Branden. Fucking hypergamy. But that's another story and another bitch and moan session.]

Leftism = Sauron = Great Evil

Doug Bandler's picture

The Right are not the true enemy. They're confused. The Left are *evil*.

Yes. Exactly. As I have been saying lately to anyone who will listen (which is no one). The Conservatives are misguided. Leftists are evil. The Conservatives don't want to destroy a once proud civilization. Leftists do. That is what I feel that most O'ists don't see; ie the Hsiehkovians being the classic case. Its why I am so down on the O'ist movement. Last time I checked, Rand's novels all had LEFTIST villains. Who exactly were Tooey and all of 'Atlas Shrugged's' bad guys? Conservatives? Please. They were all Leftists. Every last fucking one of them.

Its fascinating that Rand completely IGNORED Conservatism. I wonder why. Did she not understand it in the 1950s? What was the state of Conservatism in the 1950s? Some O'ist scholar really needs to research this. Rand completely ignores Conservatism and Christianity in her novels (well she does indict Original Sin and mysticism in general but she never explicitly attacks Christianity). That to me is fascinating.

So to me, it is the sign of a healthy person and a healthy mind when that person has contempt for the Left for the right reasons. Having greater contempt for Conservatives than Leftists is a sign that you are a rationalist fool (yes Dr. Diana Hsieh, I am referring to you), which is what I see from most Orthodox O'ists and also the Brandroids. And I say this as someone who was that type of fool for most of my O'ist "career". I was once a Hseikoffian. I was also once a Tracinski-ite. Fuck, I also once thought being nice to women would get me laid!! What a fucking loser I was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But Kyrel ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Waging war on the Right and regarding it, not the Left, as the enemy is the Hsiekovian strategy, and most of what you have said about Peikoff is unrepeatable.

The Right are not the true enemy. They're confused. The Left are *evil*.

Blandifilth

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Romney is a perfect match for the blandification that has infested political campaigning for years now. Lowlife charlatans from public relations consultancies spin everything to make it innocuous, which is Romney's preferred mode anyhow. No doubt it reflects post-modernism and the refusal to judge (except the act of judging). Note this line that you never heard from Romney, the reason his convention speech was scrapped and rewritten a week before delivery:

“The incumbent president is trying to lower the expectations of our nation to the sorry level of his own achievement. He only wins if you settle.”

Full story here:

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

I encountered the blandifiers firsthand when working for ACT. See The Blandification of [N]ACT. Blandifiers were behind Marco Rubio's line, "The President is not a bad man. He is a bad president." Blandifiers got to Chris Christie. Blandifiers are filth.

Really good comment Kyrel

Doug Bandler's picture

Doug -- In my judgment, one key to obtaining political liberty is having the tea partiers, libertarians, Objectivists, neoliberals, and other pro-freedomers declare war on the Right-wing conservatives. They're the true enemy -- not the Left. Destroy the Right and the Left will fall of its own accord. Declare war on the Right, with as much viciousness and bitter hatred as possible, and it will shock the world. It will also make the issues clear. A handful of Rightists will likely split away and join the pro-freedom group and the rest will go join the welfare state semi-totalitarians where they belong. The current policy of libertarians, Objectivists, and Ayn Rand quietly or openly siding up with the Republicans and conservatives is a pure disaster. It's been over 50 years of stark failure.

Now that is an interesting comment. I think there is something there. What is needed is a genuine LIBERTY movement. BUT, there is one problem there. Without Ayn Rand, NO ONE knows what the fuck liberty is. And here we get back to the "its earlier than you think" meme again. Could we get enough people on board with the "non-initiation-of-physical-force" concept of rights to form such a movement? And if we can't then all we can do is stop the worst political movement right now which is the Left.

We are in a shit position culturally and historically. Rand is just not popular enough and her philosophical / political innovations are not known and have no cultural power.

But I think you have made a valid point Kyrel. The Left is not the only source of darkness in American politics. But for personal reasons I really, really, really hate those fuckers more than I hate Conservatives. So I bitch and moan about them more than your typical Right Wingers.

Death to the Right

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- In my judgment, one key to obtaining political liberty is having the tea partiers, libertarians, Objectivists, neoliberals, and other pro-freedomers declare war on the Right-wing conservatives. They're the true enemy -- not the Left. Destroy the Right and the Left will fall of its own accord. Declare war on the Right, with as much viciousness and bitter hatred as possible, and it will shock the world. It will also make the issues clear. A handful of Rightists will likely split away and join the pro-freedom group and the rest will go join the welfare state semi-totalitarians where they belong. The current policy of libertarians, Objectivists, and Ayn Rand quietly or openly siding up with the Republicans and conservatives is a pure disaster. It's been over 50 years of stark failure.

Doug

Richard Goode's picture

But I don't have a term for the Objectivist politics as apart from Objectivist philosophy.

Yes, you do.

The term is 'libertarianism' (with a small 'l'). As opposed to 'Libertarianism' (with a big 'L').

(Linz is a libertarian, don't you know? New Zealand's #1 libertarian, in fact. He was a founding member of, the first leader of, and most successful vote-deliverer for the Libertarianz Party. And, as it happens, he's just the man to talk to if you don't have a term.)

Kyrel

Doug Bandler's picture

Doug -- I favor the Up-wing over the Right-wing and the Left-wing. I favor the philosophy and culture of neoliberalism. Maybe these new words will gain currency, since they're so badly needed. Right-wing conservatism is hopeless, as well as the death of our planet.

The Right could also be called pre-modern, while the Left is post-modern. We need a new modernism or remodernism or neomodernism.

I agree with this too although I'm not sure I like neo-liberalism. But I don't have a term for the Objectivist politics as apart from Objectivist philosophy. Minarchism? Constitutional Republicanism? Laisse-Faire Liberalism? Classical Liberalism 2.0?

Neo-liberalism could be a good term but the Left has made it into a slur. To them Neo-Liberal means Regan-ite or Bush-ite Republicans.

I think you are right about true Conservatism being pre-modern and Leftism being post-modern. That is one of the points that Stephen Hicks makes in his excellent book on post-modernism.

But as I said, I stress the evil of the LEFT because they have dominion over the culture. They are the FIRST evil that we need to face because they are poised to do the most damage quickly. Conservatism is really on its death bed today. And Christianity is, IMO, dead in its original form. I don't buy Peikoff's prediction of a Christian American dictatorship in 50 years. No chance.

Frediano and everyone else - a question...

Doug Bandler's picture

I agree with you but I am curious why do you think things are this way? I mean why are the Republicans so weak and why is Romney the person they nominated? Look, lets be honest, Romney isn't really a Conservative. He's a moderate Left-Liberal who is moderately religious. He's just like Bush.

The Right won't nominate a libertarian and it won't nominate a true Conservative. It keeps choosing these weak semi-Left, semi-Conservative politicians who sometimes use libertarian rhetoric (but only rhetoric).

Why is this?

I have thoughts but I would like to know what others think.

Romney

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Frediano -- How can any Republican lose with the country in such bad shape and with such a feeling of despair in the air?

Romney is marvelously inept as a candidate, exactly as you say, and doesn't seem to want to win. Maybe if Obama gets re-elected America will be secretly dodging a bullet. :-/

Terminology

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- I favor the Up-wing over the Right-wing and the Left-wing. I favor the philosophy and culture of neoliberalism. Maybe these new words will gain currency, since they're so badly needed. Right-wing conservatism is hopeless, as well as the death of our planet.

The Right could also be called pre-modern, while the Left is post-modern. We need a new modernism or remodernism or neomodernism.

A ham sandwich

Frediano's picture

I so detest Obama's policies and agenda that I would have been willing to vote for a ham sandwich if it was running against him. I knew Romney wasn't 'that guy', but was willing to have him be at least "that guy" who might defeat Obama. His stock went up with the "You told me you weren't available, Brian" comment. However, it is turning out that he isn't even 'that guy.' He might have been a fine enough POTUS, but he is a terrible candidate for POTUS. That is more an indictment of what we've let the process become, but it is the fact. Instead of resurrecting this '47%' video in its entirety and showing the parts carefully excised by this bit of soundbyte propaganda to illustrate just how manipulative the desperate left is, he has weaseled around it, sort of mealy mouth disavowing it; why? It is the truth, and in so weakly defending that truth, he shows us all why he isn't 'that guy.'

His main function, were he able to somehow take advantage of the fact that the existing administration has the worst economic policy performance record in recent or distant history, would be to be the scapegoat sitting in office as the wheels continue to fall off the federal pig. He wasn't going to be 'that guy' who trimmed the pig back sufficient to avert any coming train wreck, and so, he would be the guy to take the political blame. Hell, he is so inept as a candidate, so inartful in his use of modern political propaganda that he might lose and -still- take the blame for the wreck. "Capitalsim did it!"

I live in a state, PA, that has been written off by both the Obama and Romney campaigns as a given win for Obama. Both have pulled their ads. My vote for Romney has therefore been rendered meaningless -- by both candidates, including Romney. And so, since it will have no impact on preventing Obama's re-election at all, I am going to vote for Gary Johnson, who at least strongly advocates positions I believe in. As meaningless as that vote will be, it is the most meaningful vote available to me as a resident of PA.

I saw this coming a year ago. The GOP putting forth Romney is leading with their chin, and Romney isn't that guy. They are sailing right into the left's wheelhouse with Romney, and delivering a sand-bottom blow up clown for them to punch at. The GOP might as well have put Dracula in a tuxedo, given him a monacle and had bloody hundred dollar bills stuffed into all his pockets-- and it only took 18 months for the GOP primary process to deliver this C.F.

The GOP is losing to -this guy-? --- in this economy?

Seriously? How badly must this shadow of America want to lick the boot?

Maybe he is saving it all for a final Sep/Oct debate push, when it matters. We can only hope. But so far, the focused many front attack on Romneyhas succeeded in making him look inept. It doesn't matter that the left's formula is obvious and transparent(screaming 'foul' and 'panic' and 'gaff' at every made-up opportunity); what matters is, Romney's campaign is totally unable to respond in any effective manner, and even when the response and words and podium is theirs to command, what comes out smells weak and ineffective and apologetic. Whats needed is another Biran William's moment, and they have been few and far between. (NBCs Brian Williams, haughtily, to Romney, in London: "So, it it true you will be choosing the world's most boring white man for your VP candidate?" How is that for a journalistic question? But it got a quick and deserved response, almost Reaganesque in its brilliance: Romney: "Brian, you told me you weren't available.") Now, I'd vote for that guy, with pleasure. So what happened to him? Where did he go? You see how much coverage that response has gotten in the month since... Brian Williams had his haughty little turd stuffed forcefully back in his face for him, and he wore it well.

Meanwhile, Slick is on Letterman affably not remembering what the deficit was when he breezed into office and getting big laughs.

Here is how Romney should play this

Doug Bandler's picture

When Larry Auster is good he is very good. Here are his views on Romney and how the Republicans should handle the Left AND the media:

Mitt Romney says in a speech in Israel that Muslims and Palestinians have a different culture from Israel, and that this Muslim culture is not geared toward productivity and success as is Israel’s.

The media go into a frenzy. The main story in the U.S., pushing aside all other news, becomes: Romney has made a “huge gaffe.” He is “not ready for prime time.” He is “unprepared for leadership.”

Romney says in a private speech to donors that Democratic voters are more dependent on government and therefore more pro-big government than Republican voters.

The media go into a frenzy. The main story in the country, pushing aside all other news, including the Muslim world in flames, becomes: Romney has made a “huge gaffe.” He is “not ready for prime time.” He is “unprepared for leadership.”

Romney says in a speech that two plus two equals four.

The media go wild. The main story in the country becomes: Romney has made a “huge gaffe.” He is “not ready for prime time.” He is “unprepared for leadership.”

Now there are many things to say about this astonishing state of affairs. I will just say one of them. Romney and the Republicans need to campaign against the media as much as against the Democrats. They need to make the mind-controlling, lying, Soviet-like media a major issue of the campaign. They need to show how the media control us, how they shape perceptions according to their agenda. The Republicans must show how the media seek to marginalize and silence all non-Democratic, non-liberal positions, and that this is totally unacceptable.

If the Republicans and Romney are not aware of this horrible state of affairs, and if they decline to expose and attack it, what good are they? Do they oppose rule by Orwellian media, or not?

Also: the Republicans, Romney in particular, must stop going like a bull to the slaughter to “debates” run by the liberal media. They must insist on debates that are run by non-liberals.

If Romney and the Republicans would do these things, they could win the election.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

To Kyrel,

I would also add to my list below that the media is run by Leftists with the exception of Fox. Today's media is a Soviet-style indoctrination machine and they are LEFTIST. They are the new PRAVDA. Again, this is why I stress the evil of the Left.

Kyrel

Doug Bandler's picture

You are not wrong. I agree with your basic point. But there is a difference in the degree of destructiveness of both the Left and the Conservatives. There is also a difference in the degree of DOMINANCE that they hold. Yes, both movements are collectivist. But the Left represents a total capitulation to egalitarian collectivism and social subjectivism. There are NO better elements to Leftist thought (there are better elements to Conservative thought; ie their Classical Liberal elements). Their atheism is meaningless to me because it is so wrapped up with their skepticism.

Also, the Left has TOTAL cultural dominance today. Conservatism is second banana by a wide margin. EGALITARIANISM is a secular civic religion for the Left and it is UNCHALLENGEABLE. We live in an egalitarian, thus LEFTIST, culture not a Conservative one. Try to challenge feminism or multiculturalism (which in effect means pro-black anti-white sentiment) and the LEFT will DESTROY you. Look at what the Euro Left is doing to Geert Wilders. Look at what the American Left is doing to that "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman. That man will not get a fair trial and if he does and is acquitted you can rest assured that there will me MASSIVE rioting in this country and the Left will be cheering it on. The Conservatives will be trying to contain and stop it. Big difference.

That is why I stress that the Left is the PRIMARY source of today's evil. It is the dominant form of collectivism that we suffer under. My beef with the O'ist movement is that they don't acknowledge this instead wasting time on some supposed "imminent Christian Theocracy" nonsense.

Yes, your breakdown of the philosophic ills of our culture is right. But the ruling elite today are not Conservatives. They are Leftists and they have their own version of a slave pen that they want to create. I don't live in fear of Christian Conservatism. I live in fear of the Left. I can state that in countless ways:

1) If I say something that a black person finds offensive I could lose my job and the Left will enforce this.

2) If I approach a woman and she does not find me attractive then I could be sued with a sexual harassment charge. Feminism will ensure this.

3) If I have sex with a woman and she gets second thoughts AFTERWARDS I could get slapped with a RAPE charge. This happens far more than you know. Feminism at work again.

4) If I get married, welcome to divorce assrape by the courts. Thank you feminism. Oh and guess what, you don't get the kids and god forbid you ever raised your voice to her, she'll hit you with abuse charges. Thanks Feminism one more time.

5) While its wrong to say offensive things to homosexuals, if you do and someone hears you, you could lose your job. Leftism at work again.

6) Income redistribution, currency inflation, workplace regulation, environmentalism's war on industrial civilization, emboldening Islam, etc, etc, etc. Yes the Conservatives are terrible on all of these but the Left is an order of magnitude worse on EVERY one of them.

That is why I stress the evil of the Left. Conservatives are not evil, they are misguided. (Rush Limbaugh is a good person with some philosophic errors. Ed Shultz is a fucking Leftist lunatic.) Leftists are EVIL. Which is why I say I hope there is a backlash and many of them swing. Yes, by their necks and yes that is harsh.

One mistake...

Marcus's picture

...Romney made was to say Democrats don't pay income tax. Obviously some do and very happily believing it to be a just cause.

Indeed that's the one point the left-wingers are jumping on to discredit him. Apart from sounding all hurt and offended they couldn't deny they believe in Government handouts as a solution. Indeed that's an argument Obama often makes himself.

Objectivism Seems to Need a New Paradigm

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Why do you and so many other Objectivists lean more to the Right, and have more trust in, and less hatred towards, the Right-wing thought-system, than the Left? This mystifies me about the Objectivist community. How is the Right fundamentally different from the Left? As far as I can tell...

In epistemology, the Right is skeptical about reason and adheres to faith and dogma. In epistemology the Left is skeptical about reason and adheres to subjectivism and relativism.

In ethics, the Right believes in self-sacrifice mainly to "god" -- and a bit towards society. In ethics, the Left believes in self-sacrifice mainly to "society" -- and a bit towards god.

In politics, the right believes in welfare statism with a lot of coercion regarding social behavior, and a bit less regarding economic behavior. In politics, the Left believes in welfare statism with a lot of coercion regarding economic behavior, and a bit less regarding social behavior.

So what's the difference?

I think it's a grave error to divide the philosophical possibilities -- the epistemological, ethical, and political world -- into just Right and Left. I think it should be divided into "liberal" and "illiberal," with liberalism defined as the best of Greco-Roman, Enlightenment, Objectivist, and neoliberal thought; and illiberalism described by intellectual opposition to the 2600-year-old Western liberal values of reason, individualism, and freedom.

Control the frame

Doug Bandler's picture

An old NLP adage: "he who controls the frame controls the communication." The Left has controlled the frame for the last 100 years. They can because they have altruism on their side. The Republicans are always framed as the greedy, evil, white, racist, warmongering, war-on-women-waging, capitalist, carbon-foot-print-leaving pigs. And they never challenge any of it but agree but say that they really aren't that bad.

But how could a Republican ever truly fight back against the Left and demonstrate genuine pride? They would have to reject altruism. They can't do that because it is packaged with Christianity. Even though today's Christianity really isn't true Christianity, its all the Conservatives have.

Look at what the Conservatives would have to challenge if they were to say "you are not entitled to a job or the product of other's labor and you should be a self-responsible, self-sustaining person - get a job." The Left would scream bloody murder because Leftist premises DOMINATE our culture.

This is really painful to watch especially since it would be so easy to destroy the Left. If Lindsay were speech writer for Romney, he single handedly could start a revolution.

Quote

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Nice quote, Lindsay. Obama probably secretly believes in economic redistributionism, as a social and political ideal, to this day. That's called theft.

Well...

Marcus's picture

...he did say that his response was about "not drawing those people into my campaign as effectively" - but I wont quibble because he's done a very brave thing and I just hope his supporters in the media will be backing him to the hilt and tea party and objectivists will come out strongly on his side.

However see how Obama is trying to make political capital here saying he wants to represent all Americans when he had been one of the most partisan Presidents in history.

I see Obama is starting to get a bit of flak now from a newly published book which shows how incompetent he is at handling congress and managing his own staff at the whitehouse. Expect this to be ignored by the mainstream media.

In 'Price of Politics,' Bob Woodward chides Obama, Boehner

Ultimately Woodward blames Obama and Boehner for letting too much of the negotiations be conducted by staff. He asserts that neither man "fully understood" what he was debating.

There's more. In an era when an entire generation eschews the telephone, these two conducted much of their negotiations on the phone, producing a communications lapse between the president and the speaker at a critical juncture. "They still disagree about what was said and what it meant." Woodward criticizes Obama for failing to do the hard things presidents are elected to do, and he criticizes Boehner for a failure of leadership and for trying to "sneak a debt ceiling bill past Cantor." In all, he calls Washington political leaders "risk averse."

Books like this often are praised for illuminating how Washington works. This one describes how Washington doesn't work.

My opinion...

Ross Elliot's picture

...is that Romney has to double-down on this thing.

It's sure as hell gonna come up in the debates. He better have a firm retort. If I was a cunning political operator, I'd suggest he makes everyone he addresses feel like they're part of the other 53%, even if they're not.

No he didn't

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In the press conference he talked about how to win the independents and undecideds.

Meanwhile, Obamarx, from 1998:

"I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"—the original Marx.

Romney...

Marcus's picture

...did backpedal to a certain extent.

In the recording he definitely says that 47% will never vote for him so he must win over the independents in order to win. Funny enough the media have been saying that themselves for years but exhibit mock outrage when Romney says it.

Anyway in the press conference Romney said his comments were about how to win those 47% of voters. The media then said he had stuck by his words because he didn't make a grovelling apology to the 47% he offended.

The 47% are who exactly?

Doug Bandler's picture

But there is an even uglier side to this. Who are these 47%? Well, 85-95% of black people vote Democrat because the Left has placed blacks on an ideological plantation. Between welfare state handouts and the demonization of Republicans as evil racists, the Left has created a hatred on the part of blacks for whites and Republicans.

Homosexuals will almost exclusively vote for Democrats. There are exceptions but this is not surprising. I know that homosexuals actually have legitimate grievances here but still, every "victim" group votes Democrat because Republicans are evil white, heterosexual bigots. Or so the Left says and the Left never lies, right?

Hispanics will vote 75-85% Democrat for the same reason as Blacks do. Again the Left is creating a race war in this country. They also want whites to lose their majority status because they know that when that happens this country will be under Leftist control permanently. Or at least until the fall which they don't even know is coming.

Single women will vote almost exclusively for Democrats. Why? Because they are women and hear them roar. Single American women are the biggest sluts on this earth. They associate the Republicans with sexual restraints and today's "liberated" women will not allow anything to interfere with their beloved "hook-up" culture where they can fuck between 100-150 men by the age of 30. After all the Republicans want to limit subsidized birth control. Oh my god, its a war on women!!

There is your 47%. Obama's popularity will NEVER dip below that because those groups comprise the bulk of the Democratic party and the Left. Romney will NEVER win over those people. Which is why I say that immigration is so important. If America loses its white majority, the Republicans will NEVER win another Presidency or Congressional election. The country will become a de facto Leftist state.

The shit is about to hit the fan but Objectivists are oblivious to the above. Many of them are worried about that "imminent Christian theocracy" which Peikoff thinks is coming in 50 years. Like the country has 50 years.

God help the Objectivist movement.

Romney ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... held a press conference, which I saw as it happened, to front-foot the thing. I was afraid he'd back-pedal, but he didn't, other than to say he'd made his point inelegantly since it was off the cuff. Of course, what he said was simply the unvarnished truth. He won't get the vote of Airhead America, the self-crippled who believe among other things that other people owe them the living they are already providing them with and government's job is to seal the deal. Of interest to me is that Romney estimates Airhead America to be 47-49% of the population: the number actually on govt benefits. I estimate it to be preponderant. Naturally I hope he's right. On the whole he still needs to be much more aggressive and big-picture in wooing the waverers. The words that came out of Michelle Bachmann's mouth about Obafilth yesterday need to come out of Romney's.

Dependent on Gov't -- And Thus Doomed

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I think it's marvelous that Romney understands all that stuff above. I didn't know he had it in him. It's the most capitalist/libertarian thing I've ever heard him say.

But if he keeps his views like this deeply private, he might well get elected president and then inact none of them. Just be another Big Brother supporting, anti-capitalist traitor like George Bush Jr.

Possibly this ghastly invasion of Romney's privacy will galvanize both him and his would-be supporters, and ultimately push both in a more pro-freedom direction. Let's hope!

The next few days and weeks in the campaign should be interesting and rather pivotal, due to Romney's frank remarks.

Truth to power...

Marcus's picture

...and where are the cowardly objectivists who should be applauding him for it?

That 47%...

ding_an_sich's picture

if I'm not mistaken refers to the 47% of people who do not pay income taxes. Just because someone from that group doesn't pay income taxes doesn't imply that they're Obama supporters. Smells like a fallacy.

And what about Obama supporters who do pay taxes? I'm sure there are some.

Comment viewing options

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