Memo to Republicans: No More Nixons, No More Doles, No More Bushes, No More McCains, No More Romneys!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2012-11-07 08:43

Dear Republicans,

I wonder which part of the following sentiment has eluded your attention or comprehension: "Liberty-lovers, in and outside the party founded against slavery, are beyond-exasperated with your putting up presidential candidates who appease and endorse slavery"?

Barack Obama is at least honest in his commitment to slavery. He says, "We're all in this together," and, "We are our brothers' keepers." By that he means the natural state of human beings is to be in involuntary servitude to each other. He means, in the words of Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." At gun-point. Obamarx doesn't hide this belief; he states it openly. Wealth created by some should be "spread around" to others who did not create it. If you own a business, "you didn't build that"—and you owe to those who did (sundry government parasites). He explicitly committed himself to a "fundamental transformation of America"—and proceeded unashamedly to effect it: from a semi-free, semi-capitalist nation to an unfree, socialist one.

This creature, having wrought havoc for four years, has just been re-elected by filth unfit to live, let alone vote, to continue wreaking havoc for another four years, thanks in part to yet another Republican campaign that refused to attack him and his ilk for their evil. Ad-wankers ruled.

Obamarx libeled Mitt Romney as a murderer, a felon, a sociopath who didn't hug his garbage-collector. The respectable beltway Republican response, via the self-same maligned Romney, and the self-same ad-wankers, was to insist that Obama is a "nice guy."

Obamarx accused Romney of being rich and sucking up to the rich. This, in the land to which millions of poor repaired in the hope of becoming rich by their own effort. Romney's response was to insist that he wouldn't be lowering the proportion of the tax burden, already disproportionately high, currently shouldered by the rich.

Romney, in an unguarded moment, correctly identified nearly half the population of modern-day America as dependents with an entitlement mentality, for whom "freedom" means "free stuff," paid for by others. When challenged by cheerleaders for these dregs, Romney buckled, and dribbled mush about being President for 100%.

Obamullah directed operatives charged with protecting Americans from Islamosavages in Libya to "stand down," leading to the deaths of several Americans, including an ambassador, and the trashing of an American consulate. He then lied to the American people, claiming he had issued a directive to the operatives to take all measures necessary to protect Americans. He lied about the motivation of the Islamosavages, saying it was umbrage against an anti-Islamofilth video, when in fact it was a premeditated Islamo-terrorist attack designed to commemorate 9/11. Milksop Mitt's response was to avoid the issue altogether: a betrayal and desertion that stinks in the nostrils of every decent human being on the face of this earth.

Obama is "The Anti-American President." When the Romney campaign's John Sununu correctly observed that the President needed to learn what it means to be an American, he was forced by Romney to retract and apologize.

Ayn Rand is the antithesis of such evil irrationality. When VP nominee Paul Ryan's earlier enthusiasm for Rand was raised by the shills for socialism in the mainstream media, Romney made him disavow it.

Republicans, liberty-lovers are tired of your respectable wimps. We are tired of your pandering to filth. We are tired of your sickening platitudes about self-subordination to a "higher cause," your rhetorical echoes of Obama, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. We want a Howard Roark, who will unabashedly stand up for every individual's right to live for his own sake, by his own lights. (Somewhere this was described as the inalienable right of every human being to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I wonder, Republicans, if you know where?)

That's probably too much to ask from the party of Nixon, Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney. But you are supposed to stand for freedom against slavery. If, Republicans, your ignominious defeat at the hands of Obamarx today doesn't tell you to stand up fearlessly and aggressively for what you claim to represent, then there is no hope.

My hunch is that it doesn't and there isn't.

And that spells the end of America.

In liberty,

Lindsay Perigo


This is good

Jules Troy's picture

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&...

This is well worth watching.  I really liked his chalk board analysis.

I also liked how 2 polar opposites find some common ground.

Republicans start to line up behind compromise with Barack Obama

Marcus's picture

Fiscal cliff: Republicans start to line up behind compromise with Barack Obama

Republican leaders were under mounting pressure from their own ranks on Sunday night to allow President Barack Obama to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to stop the US going over the "fiscal cliff".

"John Boehner, the House Speaker, was urged by senior Republicans to relent over a new top rate of income tax in an attempt to win cuts to America's expensive entitlement programmes.

Bob Corker, a senator for Tennessee, said Republican leaders should acknowledge their weak hand in the negotiations to avert across-the-board tax hikes and deep cuts to public spending from January 1.

"There is a growing group of folks that are looking at this and realising that we don't have a lot of cards on the tax issue before year-end," Mr Corker told Fox News.

Economists have warned that the combination of higher taxes on all American households and $600 billion (£360 billion) of cuts to government spending could throw the country back into recession.

Mr Obama says that he will not sign a new deal without raising the top 35 per cent tax rate – but has signalled that he would be willing to compromise at 37 per cent rather than the 39 of his opening bid."

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I acquainted myself with Ann Bernhart some months back when Joe Maurone posted about her. I liked her ferocity of spirit immensely. If we could combine that with intellectual rigour, so that it's not placed at the service of superstition ...

I'm not sure how exactly you think Kant's CI may have influenced Goblianity to become supine and politically correct. Eager to know.

I know but...

Doug Bandler's picture

The problem Auster, as a Goblian, has is this: Romney is just behaving as any true turn-the-other-cheek, love-thine-enemy Goblian would. On what grounds does a Goblian object to Goblian behaviour?

I would say this, Auster is not a NT Christian. He is a more OT oriented Christian. His interpretation of Christianity rejects the "turn the other cheek" approach that most of today's Christian Conservatives accept. Auster thinks that Christianity provides the framework for genuine individual and national pride. I think he's wrong but he would flatly reject self-sacrifice as Christ's essence.

Christians like Auster who stress OT messages like pride in "one's people", pride in "one's god", pride in "one's nation which is under god" are not wimpy like Romney. Google up Ann Bernhart. She's the Florida Conservative woman who is extremely anti-Marxist and anti-Obama and anti-Islam who burned a Koran right on YouTube. She's a gutsy lady and a real OT Christian. She thinks that America's Constitution was founded on the OT Biblical principle of "subsidiarity" which is an interesting argument that is at best only partially true. She's no wimp and she is heroic and admirable in many ways. She's also scary as shit especially if your gay. No fan of homosexuality is she. This is the division I see with today's Christians and Conservatives. I had a friend who used the expression "hippy Christianity vs Crusader Christianity". I think my NT v OT language is better but its the same point.

But Romney, Bush, McCain, even Reagan were all NT Christians that capitulated to the Left. They believe that shaking hands with Leftists is a sign of their decency and moral virtue. But they ignore the fact that the Left is out to DESTROY them. Its pure NT self-immolation. The question I don't have an answer for is why and how were Conservative so neutered over the last 60 to 70 years while still remaining Conservatives and Christian? What's going on with Christianity? Is the Left and Progressivism affecting it somehow? Did Kant change Christianity with his CU? I don't have the answers to these questions. But my point is that SOMETHING is going on with Conservatives. This weakness of theirs is unfathomable given the overwhelming evil of the Left. But then what the fuck is going on with Objectivists given the evil of the Left when Ayn Rand has nothing but hard Leftist villains?

Conservatism is mutating in a way I don't understand. But then the original Christian altruism has mutated into today's egalitarian Leftism in a way I don't fully understand either.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The problem Auster, as a Goblian, has is this: Romney is just behaving as any true turn-the-other-cheek, love-thine-enemy Goblian would. On what grounds does a Goblian object to Goblian behaviour?

Milksop Mitt's latest cravenness is a reminder that Goblianity remains pernicious, however much greater the immediate threat currently posed by Islamogoblinism might be. The latter says, "We'll subjugate you"; the former says, "Be my guest -- and please, feel free to torture and kill me as well."

More Republican Weakness

Doug Bandler's picture

Auster comments:

Romney is saying that Obama’s ads that portrayed Romney as waging “a war against women,” as “the enemy” of Hispanics against whom “revenge” should be wreaked, and as a killer of grandmothers were ok by him. He’s saying that Obama’s illegal passage of Obamacare is ok by him. He’s saying that the contraceptive mandate is ok by him. He’s saying that Obama’s toppling of constitutional limits on the power of government is ok by him.

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

The Republicans are going to be nice all the way to the second fall of Rome. Its disgusting.

More good commentary from auster

Doug Bandler's picture

This is not totally in line with Objectivism but it does get at why a guy like Romney has no principles. Auster argues that it has to do with Mormonism itself.

Mormonism consists, at its core, of many ridiculous assertions that no rational person could possibly believe. How, then, does Mormonism attract and keep so many adherents? Because the core of the religion is not this folderol about a family of sixth century B.C. Jews sailing from Mesopotamia to North America or Joseph Smith discovering a 2,000 year old platinum scripture written by an angel buried behind his farm in upstate New York, but the patriarchal way of life it teaches. This is deeply appealing to people, and it works for them. That’s why they are Mormons. At the same time, in order to be Mormons, they have to turn off their rational faculty when it comes to questions of truth. They disregard questions of truth, and focus on the pragmatic, ethical aspects of Mormonism.

This describes Romney perfectly. As a Mormon, he has turned off his faculty of the rational search for truth, but at the same time he follows the healthy and solid Mormon maxims on how to live a good life. As a result, he is a man devoid of principles, even while his personal character is exemplary.

I agree with this but of course I would add that traditional Christianity also deals with ridiculous beliefs although not as ridiculous as Mormonism. Auster then adds this interesting observation and comment:

Mormonism consists, at its core, of many ridiculous assertions that no rational person could possibly believe. How, then, does Mormonism attract and keep so many adherents? Because the core of the religion is not this folderol about a family of sixth century B.C. Jews sailing from Mesopotamia to North America or Joseph Smith discovering a 2,000 year old platinum scripture written by an angel buried behind his farm in upstate New York, but the patriarchal way of life it teaches. This is deeply appealing to people, and it works for them. That’s why they are Mormons. At the same time, in order to be Mormons, they have to turn off their rational faculty when it comes to questions of truth. They disregard questions of truth, and focus on the pragmatic, ethical aspects of Mormonism.

This describes Romney perfectly. As a Mormon, he has turned off his faculty of the rational search for truth, but at the same time he follows the healthy and solid Mormon maxims on how to live a good life. As a result, he is a man devoid of principles, even while his personal character is exemplary.

I think this is true. Mormonism gives people a good, decent structure to live their lives. Yes its packaged in ridiculous nonsense, but Mormons are almost always very good and productive people. I think Mormonism is an example of religion at its best; ie giving a moral structure and a set of virtues to practice to lead a good life. That should have been philosophy's job but the philosophers had other ideas. I wonder if the Mormon community might be a model foe Objectivists. That is if Objectivists would stop culturally aligning with the Left.

No more Karl Rove!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's clear this morally flaccid bastard played a role in the Romney campaign similar to that of the oleaginous blandifiers of whom I wrote in The Blandification of [N]ACT in New Zealand in 2011. In the former case, of course, the stakes for freedom were much, much higher, and global. "Respectful tone"? Towards someone who's sped up the lunge toward socialism exponentially? "Don't call him [Obamarx] a socialist"?! This is despicable. I heard Karl Rove say it on Fox, but I had no idea he had Romney's ear to such an extent. I hope Rove, Frank Luntz and all other such smegmatic slime are permanently excised from the body of the Republican Party on which they leech. Fat chance, I suppose.

Karl Rove as Peter Keating

Doug Bandler's picture

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/...

Rove outlined a plan which shaped Romney's campaign philosophy. Here is what Rove advocated:

"What had emerged from that data is an “acute understanding of the nature of those undecided, persuadable” voters. “If you say he’s a socialist, they’ll go to defend him. If you call him a ‘far out left-winger,’ they’ll say, ‘no, no, he’s not.’” The proper strategy, Rove declared, was criticizing Obama without really criticizing him—by reminding voters of what the president said that he was going to do and comparing it to what he’s actually done. “If you keep it focused on the facts and adopt a respectful tone, then they’re gonna agree with you.”"

Sickening to read but Romney listened to him. Diana West concludes with this:

None of these and many other subjects crucial to national destiny could be expressed in Rove's all-important "respectful tone." That meant they were eliminated from campaign discourse. But the reason they defy a "repectful tone" in the first place is that they constitute outrages beyond respect. This makes them central to a challenger's campaign, both morally and politically, a lesson lost on Karl Rove. Outrage -- also fear that liberty is being stripped away by the central government -- drives voters to the polls, as we saw in 2010. The "respectful tone" from GOP challenger Romney, however, probably convinced some possibly crucial number of Romney voters that all was basically well and it was okay to stay home.

Which makes Karl Rove the architect, all right -- of GOP voter suppression.

This weakness from mainstream Conservatives really interests me. Where does it come from? Christianity? There are non-weak Christians; ie Larry Auster for one. Progressivism? Pragmatism? Protestantism? I don't fully understand why Conservatives have become so weak in the face of the Left. But Rove is a manifestation of that weakness if ever there was one. Just look at the man's face. It has cowardly weasel written all over it.

Who is John Galt?

Richard Goode's picture

Romney's Con Speech

Marcus's picture

Parting shot

mvardoulis's picture

I agree it would be nice for Obama to be exposed for even a portion of what he actually is during his second term, like a last blow for liberty before the United Police States invariably collapses under the tyranny of this second coming of FDR (with a tan, this time).

A very tragic truth, Lindsay, in your closing. The long-lost Republicans, apart from Reagan and Goldwater, who were marginally pro-liberty, haven't been much of anything in the last 100 years apart from being the right-wing-statist counter to the left-wing-statism of the Democrats:

"If, Republicans, your ignominious defeat at the hands of Obamarx today doesn't tell you to stand up fearlessly and aggressively for what you claim to represent, then there is no hope. My hunch is that it doesn't and there isn't. And that spells the end of America."

Republicans don't believe in what they claim to represent (if they even know at all) and it is the end of America.

Lets hope he testifies

Doug Bandler's picture

Lets hope the House gets Patreus to testify and that the truth is that the Filth gave the order to stand down and spread that bullshit story about the riots being started by the anti-Islam video. I just want Obama's life to have some misery.

As reported in Fox News...

Marcus's picture

"Closed-door House and Senate intelligence committee hearings are scheduled Thursday on the incidents surrounding the fatal Libya attacks. Petraeus -- who reportedly conducted his own, on-the-ground investigation is no longer scheduled to testify.

However, Feinstein and Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said Sunday that Petraeus could later be called to testify.

"I wouldn't rule out Gen. Petraeus being called to testify," Chambliss said on ABC's "This Week."

Read here

Allen West seems to have gone down...

mfgreaves's picture

I was stunned to see this:

http://thegrio.com/2012/11/10/...

Mike

Romp v Bronco

Marcus's picture

"New details emerged revealing that his Republican opponent Mitt Romney had been confident of victory right up until the first voting figures came through on election night. A source inside his camp said that at planning meeting after planning meeting he had been assured of victory.

Not only had Romney planned an $25,000 fireworks display in Boston Harbour to mark his win but he had written only a victory speech, the reason his concession speech had been so brief. In a sign of how confident he had been, he had established a 200-strong transition team paving the way for the shift to the White House that even on election day was hiring more staff."

Jules, that account...

Marcus's picture

...does not add up either.

In the second debate Romney did take Obama on the issue.

After that he must have known that this was a popular issue to confront Obama on, even though Democrats made out he had been slapped down.

So the idea Romney held off because of his original "gaffe" seems unlikely.

In other words

Jules Troy's picture

Mitt's a pussy, he should have gone for the throat, fuck sensitivity.

What took the lead out of Romney's pencil...

Marcus's picture

...according to independent.

The inside story of the US election – and Barack Obama’s victorious strategy

On 11 September, amid developing reports about an attack on US diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya, Romney aides found a political opportunity. Hours earlier, the US Embassy in Cairo had issued a statement responding to outrage in Egypt over an anti-Muslim film made in California. Romney's advisers viewed the statement as misplaced sympathy for the attackers. Within hours and with the blessing of his foreign policy advisers, Romney approved a statement that accused Obama of sympathising with anti-American interests in the Muslim world. It was sent out shortly after 10pm.

By early the next day, it was clear to Romney that they had acted too quickly. The campaign learnt that four Americans had been killed in an attack on a US mission in Benghazi, Libya, including the ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Even to some Republicans, Romney's hasty statement looked insensitive. "We screwed up, guys," Romney told aides that morning. "This is not good."

His advisers told him that, if he took back his statement, the neoconservative wing of the party would "take his head off." He stood by it during an appearance in Florida. Two days later, Obama travelled to Joint Base Andrews to meet the four flag-draped coffins. From then on, including during the final debate on foreign policy, Romney was reluctant to engage Obama on the Libya attack, a useful way to discredit his otherwise strong record on national security issues. "The governor felt snake bit by the reaction to our public pronouncement," said one senior adviser. "I think it made him shy about aggressively prosecuting the Benghazi case against the Obama administration."

The US erection!

Marcus's picture

#1 on viral charts!

Bronco Bama!

You win 'The Optimist' - Jules

gregster's picture

If the republicans are to survive at all they are either going to have to embrace objectivism..

Jules

Doug Bandler's picture

I agree. I don't think that it was an accident that the discoverer of Objectivism was someone who experienced Communist/Socialist oppression. I don't think an American could have come up with it. There just wasn't the pressing need. It had to be someone who actually saw and internalized the evil of egalitarianism, altruism, collectivism, socialism.

I think that also explains why so many left-liberals still believe in socialism/egalitarianism. If you are a leftist professional making 200k per year and you live a comfortable life in some white enclave far enough away from all the black/minority crime that your worldview creates, you may actually think that welfare-statism works. After all, "my wife and I give up half our salaries and we lead a good life". You just don't need to think further.

Rand did. Sadly, nothing less than economic/cultural devastation may be necessary to bring enough people to the understanding of what it is they have (had) and what it is they lost. But by then it will be too late. The rest of us can just watch. Depressing.

Doug

Jules Troy's picture

I was amazed at the comment by one publisher when Ayn Rand was looking to get "Anthem" published, they wrote her back and replied to her "you just don't understand socialism".

These are the people we have to destroy utterly if we are to survive...

Good Column by Diana West

Doug Bandler's picture

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/...

I really like Diana West. Yes, she is a Conservative. But she understands Islam and the Left. She spoke at an ARI sponsored event about Islamic terrorism recently. I was actually more impressed by her than by John Lewis and Elan Journo. They kept using the weasel term "Islamist" while she used the proper term "Islam". The woman has guts.

Some excerpts:

Why did the Romney campaign fail? Maybe the country is now GOP-proof. That is, maybe a Constitution-guided, free-market, limited-government candidate no longer can “appeal” to the majority of the electorate. It could be that the death knell rang early this year once 67.3 million of us, or one in five Americans, had come to depend on federal assistance, formerly known as “the dole.”

Here is a weak point in West's analysis though. Romney did not run a "limited government" campaign. Only if you compare him to the Left but not if you use an objective standard. But even Romney's limited government rhetoric scared off many voters.

It was exactly such an economic message that formed not just the core of Romney’s campaign, but all of it. On one level, this exclusive focus on economic issues to the point of tunnel vision marked a campaign determined to play it safe. On another level, it was a huge gamble, a roll of the dice on which Romney staked everything.

This is true. Romney bet everything on the economy. He didn't attack Obama. West questions this:

Why? I think this risky strategy evolved from the defensive crouch the average center-right politician assumes even to enter the intensely hostile environment our mass media have made of the public square. Seeking to avoid media retaliation, Romney advanced a cramped line of attack. For example, we have in Barack Obama a president more demonstrably socialist than any since FDR, but if Mitt Romney were to have mentioned that or called Obama a socialist – with fact-based backup from, say, Stanley Kurtz’s scholarly book “Radical-in-Chief” – the media catcalls would have begun.

Ah, so true. Romney did not have the fire in the belly to conduct a full frontal assault on the media which means... TO ATTACK THE LEFT. Very few people today in any field have the guts to attack the Left. Lets face it, if you do you will be HATED by such a large contingent of people. The pressure is enormous. Romney just didn't have it in him.

f he had asked Americans if they applauded their president’s ongoing efforts to undermine the First Amendment to appease Islam, the press would have painted him as “Islamophobic,” or a “hater.”

If he had pointed out the fact that Obama’s political mentors include a Communist Party organizer once on an FBI watch list for arrest in the event of war with the USSR; an ex-terrorist leader of the Weather Underground; a former spokesman of the PLO; and an anti-white, anti-American, black separatist minister, it’s a sure thing the press would have decried “personal attacks.”

So true. And yet this is what was required to tackle Obama and win the Presidency.

Few people can shrug that off. Rather than venture into such dangerous territory, the campaign seems to have ceded character and ideology issues as a matter of self-defense. “Taking the high road,” the campaign argued that President Obama was a good man but a bad president. It was as if the election turned on a difference of opinion within the spectrum of political normal rather than a last-ditch chance to stop Obama’s collectivist vision of “transformative change” from destroying what’s left of the republic.

Read that bold section again. Obama is not "a good man but a bad President." He is an evil man and an evil President; ie "The Filth".

The most perplexing nonissue of all has to be Benghazi-gate, the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Libya in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This real-time White House scandal was unfolding on several levels in the final weeks of the campaign, offering damning insights into Obama’s foreign policy, his performance as commander in chief and his bald-faced willingness to lie to the American people. Romney didn’t want to talk about it.

No. Romney didn't want to talk about a scandal bigger than Watergate. Such is the consequence of accepting the altruist ethics. Its interesting, the Left is dedicated to apply altruism in practice but they are not hampered by it. They will use the most deceptive Machiavellian tactics to undermine the Conservatives. But the Conservatives still believe in some type of Anglo decency and in treating the Left as honest competitors. This perplexes me.

Why couldn't the Conservatives see the evil of the Left until just two days ago? What prevented them? Altruism? Everybody is altruistic in their explicit ethics (they all cheat it of course). I think that deep down, to admit that the Left is evil and out to destroy your country would warrant an intense emotional response. It would acknowledge that you are fighting for your life. I think the Republicans and the Conservatives are desperate to avoid that conclusion. Thus the fiction that America is a "center right country". But why are they so invested in that belief? Could it be that to admit that the Left wants to destroy your country and criminalize anyone who disagrees with them would mean that you are in a war to the death and the Conservatives just don't have the stomach for war? Has this all been one massive case of denial**? I don't have that figured out yet.

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

Incidentally, I think many mainstream O'ists are inflicted with this too. ARI's attempt to reach honest leftists is an example of this I think. As is Ari Armstrong's belief that many who voted for the Democrats would have voted for Romney if he had been more consistently libertarian. I think this is a denial of the reality of evil. Something Ayn Rand never did. Witness her novels.

Rreallyyyy good stuff Doug

Jules Troy's picture

If the republicans are to survive at all they are either going to have to embrace objectivism and hold nothing back.  Call evil for what it is and evolve as a party and support individualism or America will be truly dead.  The fact that Milksop Mitt did not touch Benghazi at all is a sign that he just does not have the balls that are needed, his "me tooisms" sealed his fate.

One thing is certain, with the dow dropping 312 points yesterday,and 112 today America is in for one ugly ride both economically as well as personal liberties that will be sure to be vanishing as Obamamarx has free reign to do what he thinks is "best" for America.

Dark times ahead.

Jonescu

gregster's picture

Good words often from that man. Well spotted Doug. This at Canada Free Press.

“Herman Cain was a worthwhile candidate before he was accused of making a few women “uncomfortable.” Nothing that has happened over the past month has substantially altered that fact. It is high time to take another look out over the presidential horizon. Gingrich, the walking contradiction, is a Johnny-come-lately (or Johnny-come-again) to almost every conservative posture he is presently claiming as his own, and the most flagrant opportunist in the field; Romney and Perry are merely men who promised their moms they would run for President some day (while Jon Huntsman promised his mom he would run for Vice President); Paul has Ayn Rand’s domestic policy but Michael Moore’s foreign policy.”

And he predicts why Romney will fail at American Thinker

The greatest real cause for concern with Ryan popped up in Romney's introduction of him in Norfolk, Virginia. Romney lauded him as a man who does not "demonize" opponents, and who can "find common ground" with "people of both parties."
Those are pretty words, but they completely miss the tone of the moment. Western civilization is in a pitched battle for survival with forces that would undo the great practical achievements of modernity -- political and intellectual freedom, widespread prosperity, and material comfort -- in favor of a return to the mass degradations of the worst forms of authoritarian government. The vanguard of those regressive forces has found its American home within the Democrat Party. Its continued success depends entirely on the opposition failing to recognize the seriousness of the stakes.
This is not the moment to lead through "collegiality." If "Finding common ground" is the campaign slogan for 2012, Obama wins, and America is all but lost.

I think he may be influenced by Rand

Doug Bandler's picture

Is he an Oist, do you know?

Here is a list of his articles:

http://www.americanthinker.com...

I just read through a few of them and it does seem to me that he is influenced by Rand. He uses the term collectivist far too often to be a rank Conservative.

Note the article he wrote about Ron Paul's foreign policy. He basically called him a Saddam-ite but obviously not in those terms.

Here is an excerpt from on of his essays:

A rational man thinks that "collective" well-being is good, but not at the price of punishing, diminishing, or oppressing the individual. A leftist ideologue thinks the opposite -- no price exacted upon individuals is too high to pay for the goal of collective well-being.

The difference, of course, is that individualism is consistent with reality, while collectivism is not. Thus, in the individualist's perspective, there is no inconsistency between the good of individuals and the genuine well-being of the collective entity -- the state, the populace, etc. -- because the collective is correctly understood as a secondary reality, dependent on the primary reality, namely individual human lives.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

And more good stuff:

All the Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neill clichés notwithstanding, the time for meeting the Democrats halfway -- for reaching across the aisle -- is long gone. The only hope for the survival of freedom in America and the rest of the world is for freedom's defenders to stop making deals, stop reaching across the river Styx, and stop apologizing for believing that government's relentless multi-generational expansion must be reversed if civilization, prosperity, and liberty are to be restored.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Damn, that to me definitely sounds like a Randian influence.

Magnificent!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Doug, that piece by Daren Jonescu (who he?) you linked to is exemplary in its KASSness. I especially enjoyed:

This election was the last chance to spare America the final degradation of ceasing to be a constitutional republic altogether. That battle has now been lost. The things most needed now are clarity and forthrightness. The danger most imminent now is that, having forsaken the principles of liberty, the nation will simply forget that those principles ever existed. Therefore, from now on, to whatever extent possible, every candidate running against the Democrats in any election must be the most unapologetic, relentless constitutional conservative available. He or she must call out the Democrat as a leftist, a socialist, an authoritarian, and every other simply accurate designation appropriate to the situation. And he or she must be intellectually prepared to prove that case against the Democrat, and to make the moral, constitutional case for individual freedom.

To borrow from Chris Matthews-Filth, this sends shivers up my leg. This is what the voice of Objectivism should sound like! (Is he an Oist, do you know?)

We know but...

Doug Bandler's picture

If we are using the traditional American Left-Right model, America hasn't been a center-Right country for over a century.

Yes, we know that but the mainstream Right didn't until recently. It just fucking dawned on them that America has crossed the line into an official Euro-style welfare state. I could have told them that when I was 19. But my point is that many are starting to wake up to the reality of what's happening to the country. Ayn Rand was telling them this in the fucking 50s for god sake.

An Example

Doug Bandler's picture

From Daren Jonescu from American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com...

America is not a center-right country, whatever that means. It is—notwithstanding its still-sane minority (which includes almost everyone reading this)—a socialist-leaning nation that lags behind the rest of the progressive world only due to a slight residual guilt complex regarding all that old Constitution stuff. The events of the past couple of days suggest that even that little bugaboo has now been largely overcome by the majority, for whom most inhibitions about accepting their chains—and chaining their neighbors—are now gone….

Most Conservatives would never have viewed America as a "socialist leaning" nation. Only libertarians or Objectivists used that language.

Therefore, from now on, to whatever extent possible, every candidate running against the Democrats in any election must be the most unapologetic, relentless constitutional conservative available. He or she must call out the Democrat as a leftist, a socialist, an authoritarian, and every other simply accurate designation appropriate to the situation. And he or she must be intellectually prepared to prove that case against the Democrat, and to make the moral, constitutional case for individual freedom.

The beginnings of KASSness maybe?

“I know he’s a good man, and wants what’s best for America.” I hope this is the last presidential election in which conservatives will have to hear this validate-your-opponent claptrap from their standard-bearer. Barack Obama is neither a good man nor one who wants what is best for America. He is a bad, conscienceless man, who wants to undo America in the name of a very foreign model of social organization….

That's just one step away from calling him "filth" which is the proper way to describe him.

No more apologies. No more embarrassment. No more veiled language when on the big stage. The left won the day by making the most radical, anti-human irrationalism of this epoch seem safe and normal, while portraying freedom and individualism as the dangerous, radical path.

Yes they did. And the got away with it. Fucking terrifying.

The electoral battle between leftism and liberty is lost, and perhaps will now remain so for a good long time, regardless of the name of the winning party in any given election.

Notice the term "Leftism" and not "Liberalism". I think that is significant. Perhaps the "Right" will now see in mass that it is the LEFT that is our primary enemy and that it is LEFTISM that is opposed to liberty. It is LEFTISM that needs to be destroyed first. The battle between Conservatives and libertarians comes later.

The moral war, however, is still in its early stages. It is an educational war, which means a war of ideas, which means a civilizational war. It is going to get ugly, and we are going to lose more battles than we win. As you know, however, the ultimate victor is the side that wins the last battle.

“Forward”? Bring it on.

The "moral" war. Ah there's the rub. What morality are we talking about? But if the Right does begin to see this as a moral war to the death with the Left than we are talking about a different political climate than has existed before. The idiotic belief that America is a "center-right" country is now dead. People are starting to wake up. I think this bodes well for spreading Rand's ideas. Although the Left will be ferocious in their attack. They smell totalitarian conquest.

Even Rush Limbaugh and Sean

Kyle Jacob Biodrowski's picture

Even Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are saying that America is no longer a "center Right" country.

If we are using the traditional American Left-Right model, America hasn't been a center-Right country for over a century.

Conservatives haven't conserved freedom for ages.

Major indices plummet

Doug Bandler's picture

The dow jones continues to plummet aand you know why..

Yes, all the equities are plummeting. The financial industry is loaded with Leftists. I know. The overwhelming majority of investment bankers and finance types voted for Obama because they believe in his "vision". Its hard for me to restrain myself when I hear this shit but I do.

But, after the selling is done, there will be a bounce and equities are very sensitive to inflation. So I wouldn't be surprised if stock prices rise at some point in the future. Our economy is so "fixed" that its a joke. Laissez Faire? We're not even in the same universe as that.

But Obama has four more years to "fix" the economy. That's what the media keep telling us. Fuck. The U.S. has become a Leftist ideological state run by Democrat thugs with a media that is as bad as 'Pravda'.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that almost the ENTIRE Conservative media is mourning the death of America? And demographics has become a huge topic. Even Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are saying that America is no longer a "center Right" country. Maybe the Right is starting to understand the evil of the Left.

However, I see alot of criticism of Romney to the effect that he wasn't a true Conservative because he was pro-gay-marriage and pro-amnesty and pro-choice. So Conservatives are still Conservatives.

Anddd

Jules Troy's picture

The dow jones continues to plummet aand you know why..

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

" Moeller has always disputed my characterisation, but I fear it's the reality, and I wonder what he'll be thinking when the gallons of therapeutic vodka have worn off.

My *actual* thinking was the Airheads are no more representative of the young generation than the 60's hippies were of their generation. They vote in the same proportions. In fact, it was the generation before that that gave Nixon the landslide over McGovern, and now there is no buffer in the older generations.

The right is outnumbered. That's a fact, and that is what has changed in my thinking.

I am not sure why you are fixated on the young Airheads. It's the 60's hippies now that are educating them and running the entire show -- from the schools to the government to media on down. The sowed the seeds in earlier generations and are now capitalizing on their victory with political power. The young Airheads are simply their children. It takes a village, as Hillary would say, and they put the decrepit structures of that village in place.

Michael

False

ding_an_sich's picture

"In essence, those under 30 are conceptually stunted. Their attention spans are minimal and they can't think in terms of principle. The Comprachicos have done their work."

This would imply that all individuals under 30 are conceptually stunted. But it's really better to say that "almost all those under 30 are conceptually stunted". I suspect that even this is missing the mark, but at least it doesn't commit a hasty generalization.

Factions fighting for party control

Marcus's picture

Tea Party says Romney was too moderate while leaders like Marco Rubio urge outreach to minorities as path to success

The Tea Party got the memo!

Relations between establishment Republicans and the newer Tea Party activists threaten to become messy. Within minutes of the result being announced, Jenny Beth Martin, head of the Tea Party Patriots, blamed the loss not on the changing demographics or social issues but on the candidate.

"What we got was a weak, moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment wing of the Republican party,"
Martin said. "The presidential loss is unequivocally on them."

Yesterday...

Marcus's picture

...I saw a news reporter outside the centre where Romney gave his concession speech.

A well-dressed young man about 20 years old said the Republican Party needed to get God and Religion out of their politics.

The interviewer asked what young Republicans think about that and he replied, "I am a young Republican."

So you see, there is still hope!

In essence, those under 30

Kyle Jacob Biodrowski's picture

In essence, those under 30 are conceptually stunted. Their attention spans are minimal and they can't think in terms of principle.

I'd like to refute this claim, but I'm too busy posting on facebook, watching television, posting emoticons, imagining what gravity tastes like, dancing to dubstep, ... what am I talking about again?

Principle? Isn't that some kind of school teacher. 

Sticking out tongue

LMFAO

Doug Bandler's picture

They have no attention span but are always attention-seeking (there's an irony!). The consider themselves "hip" and "cool" and Obamarx to be one of them. They are stupefied and cretinous. They would assume "economy" is a rapper. They are incapable of uni-tasking: they have to be scratching their heads, chewing gum and burbling all at once or they'll have anxiety attacks. They don't listen, except to headbangers. They are wanton and unreachable. And they have the vote! Of course they'll cast it for Obamarx, who offers them cool free stuff. They were well epitomised by that bimbo female in that campaign ad, and by Sandra Fuck.

Damn Lindsay! Imagine if the ARI were to have this as a press release! Fuck. I am so depressed right now that I am desperate to see some KASSness anywhere. But this is what we need. Someone to call it as it is.

Generation Airhead may be the first truly Gramsci-fied generation in history. And the smart phone and FecesBook don't help. In essence, those under 30 are conceptually stunted. Their attention spans are minimal and they can't think in terms of principle. The Comprachicos have done their work.

GOP civil war

Richard Goode's picture

Linz

Kyle Jacob Biodrowski's picture

Shouldn't you be reaching for the broccoli?

You'll need to get used to the taste.

Remember to exclude the seasoning, cheese, and ranch dressing.

You'll be eating plain broccoli in 2016, courtesy dear leader.

Kyle

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Michelle Obama 2016!

That had not occurred to me. Now that you mention it, it seems inevitable.

I once made a joke on air about a law against "lookism"—discrimination on the basis of looks. At least I thought it was a joke. Three weeks later a leftie Member of Parliament, one Phyllida Bunkle, whom I called Carbuncle, was proposing a law against discrimination on the basis of looks.

Be careful what you joke about.

Michelle 2016. Oh Gobby. (Reaches for vodka.)

Come on Linz, get with the

Kyle Jacob Biodrowski's picture

Come on Linz, get with the program!

Freedom? Freedom's out of style. Obama's cool and hip, he might have even done blow and smoked pot, how cool is that! That's good enough for my vote. Don't be a hater and a racist, vote for Obama! Dear leader loves you!

Conceptual thought? Is that some kind of new age trend?

We've gotta be flexible, man, principles are for old guys.

Sandra's a nice lady who likes to fuck on other peoples dime. Cut her some slack!
Don't tell me your one of those misogynist, bigots who doesn't like to pay for someone else's fuck.

Michelle Obama 2016!

Eye

I've often said ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... disenfranchising the under-30s would deal a mighty blow for liberty. The Comprachicoed Ones are Generation[s] Airhead. Moeller has always disputed my characterisation, but I fear it's the reality, and I wonder what he'll be thinking when the gallons of therapeutic vodka have worn off. The bulk of under-30s are incapable of conceptual thought and clamorous for instant gratification. They have no attention span but are always attention-seeking (there's an irony!). They consider themselves "hip" and "cool" and Obamarx to be one of them. They are stupefied and cretinous. They would assume "economy" is a rapper. They are incapable of uni-tasking: they have to be scratching their heads, chewing gum and burbling all at once or they'll have anxiety attacks. They don't listen, except to headbangers. They are wanton and unreachable. And they have the vote! Of course they'll cast it for Obamarx, who offers them cool free stuff. They were well epitomised by that bimbo female in that campaign ad, and by Sandra Fuck.

Single women

Doug Bandler's picture

I have a hunch that single women were huge supporters of Obama; single women of all races but even white chicks, fucking traitorous sluts that they are. Single males also voted for Obama at a clip of about 48% which means there are whole lot of fucking stupid ass white men out there too. By the time those men get married though they end up voting 60% for Republicans so some of them wisen up a bit.

But yes, this is the fault of the Comprachicos; ie the Left's total domination of the universities and the public school system. That's not going to change. So you have an assault on the remnants of liberty coming from all fucking directions: from the Left, from non-whites (even fucking Asians), from single women, from the parasitical class of moochers, from everywhere.

And the hard working white male just gets it shoved up his *** over and over. And he gets called a racist/sexist/fascist on top of it all.

You know I almost wish that the mainstream Objectivists were right and a Christian dictatorship would arise and slaughter the fucking hell out of modern liberals; in bulk. Yes, I know that is a mean sentiment. I'm full of them.

Demographics expose the comprachicoed

gregster's picture

Florida:

Voters over 65:

Romney 62.5% Obama 37.5%

Voters under 30:

Romney 33.3% Obama 66.6%

NEW YORK -- Young voters represented a greater share of the national electorate Tuesday than four years ago, once again voting for President Barack Obama by a huge margin, boosting his reelection.

Voters from ages 18 to 29 represented 19 percent of all those who voted on Tuesday, according to the early National Exit Poll conducted by Edison Research. That's an increase of one percentage point from 2008. Obama captured 60 percent youth vote, compared with Mitt Romney's 36 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

H/T HBL.

Changing Landscape Indeed

Doug Bandler's picture

The Dems have changed the landscape and made people completely comfortable with government handouts and entitlements as the new norm.

Yes the landscape is changed. The biggest change is the non-white population. The second biggest change is single women actively voting for a socialist state. Single women and minorities are NEVER going to vote against the Left in any significant way. That is not going to change barring philosophical revolution.

Really, I hate discussing demographics. But the reality is that with 1) the ideas that are dominant now and 2) the demographics the way they are... it looks grim for BOTH America and the West.

Although I will add this, I wonder if associations with the very religious right hurts Republicans? I see that some Objectivist make this argument; like Ari Armstrong. The argument is that by being opposed to abortion and gay marriage, etc, that women and more secular independents are scared away from the Republicans. I wonder. Lindsay is arguing for more KASSness in economics and foreign policy. If the Republicans were more libertarian and less culturally Conservative, would that matter? Or is just all about the altruism which is my suspicion? Any ideas on this?

My sentiments exactly

Doug Bandler's picture

Only Lindsay could right something like this. The ARI will probably right something anemic.

I have offered one explanation of why the Republicans are so weak: they are heavily influenced by the New Testament. I think that there may be more to it. The Left is influenced by post modern philosophy. Stephen Hicks has demonstrated just how this played out. From Kant to Rorty and then the influence on the culture.

But something has gone on with modern Conservatives as well. They too have become undermined by modern altruism. They too have accepted egalitarian premises. There is a divide between political Conservatives and non-political Conservatives. The average Conservative on the street is probably far more anti-Obama than a Romney could ever be.

Could the Republicans be pushed to truly challenge the Left? What would push them? The only things I could think of are 1) economic and societal collapse and 2) Rand's influence.

We'll see what happens with both.

Salute!

Jules Troy's picture

Talk about turning lemons into lemonade, lets rock it!!

A new strategy...

Robert's picture

Watch this

Bill starts getting to the meat of the argument about 40min in.

Basically he is talking about an end-around strategy. Funding parallel institutions (education etc.) by 'crowd sourcing' (selling membership to the business to a ~large~ number of people for a nominal fee per month.) You'd still pay your taxes, you'd still obey the laws. But you'd avoid government interference via the liberal application of technology.

What you would have is an obvious, successful and simultaneous example of a capitalist solution to a statist problem. Airhead America is concrete bound - (the honest ones are at least) - and is in need of side-by-side comparative examples.

You wouldn't have to form or reform political parties. You probably wouldn't even bother with politics full stop except to defend your right to do business. And the bulk of that defense would be to structure your business so that it had few handles for the government bureaucratic to grab hold of: No store-front. Contractors rather than salaried/unionized staff. Products designed and labelled to avoid Federal control.

E.g. "It isn't a curriculum Mr Federal Agent and this isn't a school. This is a internet broadcasting studio broadcasting a serialized non-fictional account of American History that forms the source material for the subscribers only online quiz-game..."

On a smaller scale this is already happening. (e.g. Bill's "Declaration Entertainment" Company that has already made one movie and is working on a second. Then there is Hillsdale College and it's on-demand, course on the US Constitution. CATO has an online University whose 10-Podcast course on the apostles of enlightenment-era Liberal-thought was excellent. The ARI/TAS could (and should) do something similar.)

It needs to happen on a ~much~ larger scale and in realms other than education. Bill is already pitching the idea of crowd-source funding a new & private US Space program.

For years I've been arguing that Objectivists should enter politics and been told that it is not yet time.

OK. How about this then. This is an idea for building a virtual Galt's Gulch. A parallel capitalist universe that exists in-spite of the state. And it isn't located on a sodding wave-beaten, flimsy ex-WWII anti-aircraft platform or adapted ocean-liner temporarily puddling about in International waters for 8/10ths of the year.

This is something that you could make money on. This is something that - if it succeeds - will do more to advocate for capitalism than fifty ARI/TAS/CATO-style think-tanks.

Ayn Rand on Romney

Leonid's picture

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." Ayn Rand.

It did.

It Is More Fundamental Than That...

Michael Moeller's picture

Even with Romney being what he is, he still should have won in a landslide over a Marxist like Obama. As Mark Steyn put it:

"A lot of the telly chatter is about how Republicans don’t get the shifting demographics: America is becoming more of a “brown country,” as Kirsten Powers put it on Fox. But New Hampshire is overwhelmingly white — and the GOP still blew it. The fact is a lot of pasty, Caucasian, non-immigrant Americans have also “shifted,” and are very comfortable with Big Government, entitlements, micro-regulation, Obamacare and all the rest — and not much concerned with how or if it’s paid for.

If this is the way America wants to go off the cliff, so be it. But I wish we’d at least had a Big Picture election. The motto of the British SAS is “Who dares wins.” The Republicans chose a different path. A play-it-safe don’t-frighten-the-horses strategy may have had a certain logic, but it’s unworthy of the times."

If America was to reject capitalism, I, too, wish it had been fully represented. Still, I do not find that to be an excuse for an Obama win. He's an unrepentant Marxist, and makes no attempt to cover it up. He should have been soundly rejected, even if the Repubs ran a pig in a suit against him.

The Dems have changed the landscape and made people completely comfortable with government handouts and entitlements as the new norm. I think my biggest fear has been made real, i.e. that Americans have adjusted to a life of government dependency. Just like we've adjusted to $4 gas when it was less than $2 as Obama took office, the American Dream will be a faded remnant of another era. Something that sounds nice in theory to people, but we've got to redistribute the pie and how can I get my share NOW!!

Unfortunately, I have to live it out with the drones.

Michael

Let's not forget..

gregster's picture

..democracy once again is the vehicle leading the US, and us, toward the cliff. Good comment Glenn. It would have been nice to see an election without the surprise hurrricane but Romney didn't deserve to take it with his Mitt-me-tooisms. Business will relocate away from B.O. regulations. Unemployment will rise. I note B.O. did well by buying the bail-out Ohio vote.

the GDP limps to 3% Hey, B.O. could crank that shit to 10% with enough money printing & spending - meaningless.

the new Roosevelt who saved the world from collapse He may get away with being the slowest dunce, when compared to Europe.

Yep — in a nutshell

Jameson's picture

Very good, Lindsay. As much as I'd like to blame a lack of balls over Benghazigate, it's far more fundamental than that.

Worst case scenario: businesses grow despite Obama trying to put them out of business, the deficit plateaus, employment increases a point or two, and the GDP limps to 3%... he'll be canonized as the new Roosevelt who saved the world from collapse and gave everyone a big hug.

Speaking of hugs... Chris Christie St Crispichicken: Judas.

Puke alert!

Marcus's picture

And that is a legacy that we honour and applaud tonight. (Cheers, applause.) In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.

Wishing

Jules Troy's picture

Wishing for "free stuff" is rather different than wishing for freedom, to those that voted this criminal back for another 4 years you will get every thing you deserve...

To those 1% that are going to be brutally persecuted and financially raped until you are but a husk you may want to consider moving to Norfolk Island or some suitable place to start fresh while you can. 

As I wrote before...

Marcus's picture

...it was Romney's election to lose and he lost it. (Although could he have ever won over the black/ latino vote against Obama?)

Sometimes I feel there are two worlds out there that don't add up.

Yesterday I heard election analysts on TV lamenting that the Republicans have lurched too far to the right so that Ronald Reagan would no longer be welcome in the party because he advocated raising taxes.

Geez!

I despair

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wrote this about Romney's Chamberlainism:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Where was everyone then??

How many times do folk have to be hit over their empty heads??!! Where has everyone's moral compass gone??!!

Succint, accurate, desperate

Mark Hubbard's picture

Succint, accurate, desperate and sad, Linz. I don't know how Obama could walk straight afer that speech; well, not walk, slouch - that's how.

I'll admit to accepting at

Sam Pierson's picture

I'll admit to accepting at the time that staying off Benghazi was an understandable tactical call by Romney. But you are right; it stinks. He should have gone after it & after it.

Comment viewing options

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