'The Objective Standard' Is Retarded, as Is Mainstream O'ism

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Sun, 2013-01-27 21:30

Here is a blog commentary on Martin Luther King from The Objective Standard. Of course the idiots at TOS, which I take to be in line with the ARI, have not done their research and they thus are pro-MLK. Martin Luther King ended up a rabid Leftist; he was basically a Communist at the end of his life. His better rhetoric was completely undermined by his egalitarian, Leftist sentiments. But he was black so by today's standards that means he must be sacrilized. And of course, the ARI / mainstream O'ism falls right in line with this. They might as well be fucking Leftists.

Really, I am starting to HATE organized Objectivism and actively root for it to FAIL. This is not Rand's philosophy. This is hippie semi-leftist crap. There is a black intafada against white people, white women are being raped in mass by blacks, venturing into a black inner city after dark is practically a death sentence for whites. And yet not one fucking mainstream Objectivist would ever admit that. There is a climate of open hostility and hatred against whites from EVERYONE and these stupid fucking idiot "Objectivists" praise Martin Luther King? Fuck them.

You don't change a culture unless you are willing to challenge it and wage WAR against its deepest premises. White hatred as an expression of the Left's egalitarianism is at the fucking CORE of the soul of the Left. But no one in the mainstream O'ist movement even acknowledges this. Pathetic.

http://www.theobjectivestandar...

I'm not arguing for white pride. I'm arguing for a recognition of the Left's anti-white racism as the major expression of its racial egalitarianism. And acknowledging that it is a racial egalitarianism should be an intellectual's job. (There is also a gender component to the Left too but that would require Objectivism to acknowledge the evil of feminism. But all mainstream O'ists are fucking feminists!)

The Objectivist movement is weak and cowardly. I can almost admire the Muslims. They believe in world conquest and they will not stop until they achieve it. They've got balls even if they are evil. We on the other hand? I want to spit.


Typo Alert

Doug Bandler's picture

Did you mean that as written or did you intend to say "no small part"?

OOPS! Yes, I meant "in no small part" but when I type too fast I destroy the English language. Its criminal what I do to the language of Shakespeare and Chaucer and Milton. But yes, its your "total passion for the total height" philosophy. Passion IS crucially important for a well lived life. If I had internalized that as a kid I might have been spared much disappointment even if I didn't have a grasp of evolutionary psychology. Hell, I'll think I'll say that you can err on the epistemology side as long as you have an overall commitment to self-correction through continual education but never let passion wane. That's a soul death and there may be no coming back from that.

Perhaps I should patent it.

If you could you would be filthy rich. You could BUY the Objectivist movement. Crown

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This is in no part due to your influence

Did you mean that as written or did you intend to say "no small part"? If the latter, I couldn't be more chuffed. KASS is cool! And it's even helped with your anchovist pursuits? KASS is an aphrodisiac! Perhaps I should patent it.

Flabby Glutes and Fences !!!

Doug Bandler's picture

Their flabby glutes are splintered from all the fences they sit on. They are social metaphysicians, interested only in praise.

This is something only a stridently bold, proud yet nevertheless homosexual man can say!! Lindsay you are one of a kind. Really, Ayn Rand should have made you her intellectual heir. Objectivism would have conquered half the world by now.

As for being a hero. Wow. I have more issues and hangups than you can shake a stick at. BUT, I have become a far more passionate, fire-breathing, rationally rage-ful (well sometimes rational) man (and I am being rewarded for it by the ladies, even though most of them are ditzes). This is in no part due to your influence. I should have gotten it from Rand but I treated her purely as an intellectual figure. I forgot that she was a passionate culture warrior as well. I really missed alot in my youth. Oh well, live and learn.

I'm sure you wouldn't wish that upon an innocent old curmudgeon.

I would only wish that on an old curmudgeon but NEVER on an innocent old curmudgeon. What kind of monster do you think I am!!

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm so relieved to hear you won't be apologising for your hot-headedness ever again. See, among my heroes there's not a single level-head (at least, no one regarded as such by conventional standards). Level-heads belong on the lowest rung of Hell, in the Linz-Inferno. Level-heads intone, with morbid repetition, "It seems to me," "I'm not sure that ... ," "perhaps," and so forth. They are not interested in the truth; they are interested in covering their Narcissistic butts from all potential criticism. Their flabby glutes are splintered from all the fences they sit on. They are social metaphysicians, interested only in praise.

Most of my heroes are dead. You, one of my heroes, are alive. If you became a level-head, my pantheon of living heroes would diminish even further, and I should be bereft, bothered and bewildered. I'm sure you wouldn't wish that upon an innocent old curmudgeon.

In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.

I will not apologize for my hot headedness ever again period

Doug Bandler's picture

"The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel words."

Rand couldn't have said it better than that.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You are a hothead. I like that. Please, never apologise for it! "The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel words."

Tom

Doug Bandler's picture

I have enjoyed your comments in this thread. You are level headed. I like that. Unfortunately, I'm a hothead. And hotheads have their purposes although they spout off alot of garbage too. I am sure I am guilty of that as well.

Regarding Conservatives, yes Rand did rip into them in her non-fiction essays especially 'Conservatism: An Obituary'. Conservatism is a very flawed ideology but mainstream Conservatism at least is a mix of good and bad; i.e. Classical Liberalism and blood and soil tribalism. My contention is that Leftism is just plain evil from top to bottom and it is Leftism, specifically its egalitarianism, which is now driving the culture and politics of the West. Mainstream O'ism does not get this. I would wager that even Yaron Brook would resist that statement.

As for British Conservatives, I'm sure they're a mess; probably worse than their American counterparts (although Thatcher was special, even better than Reagan and not religious too!). Also, I think the BNP are flat out Traditionalist style racists / nationalists (or at least lean in that direction). Cultural Conservatives everywhere stress state control of culture. Plus they don't believe in "unrestrained freedom" but "well ordered liberty" which is not what Objectivists / libertarians mean by liberty. So yes, the Conservatives are not as a whole good allies in this cultural / political war against the Left. But sadly they are all there is. Objectivism is so radical and so new that there just isn't a population base large enough to influence culture.

The end result for me is that, while Objectivism does have a tight road to travel in that it must not be too cozy with Conservatism, it should nevertheless stress the evil of the Left and Leftist dysfunction in its advocacy efforts. It should name the Left explicitly as the primary driver of evil in the West. It can of course go deeper into philosophic fundamentals. But it does not do this and most Objectivists would resist because of, IMO, flawed thinking.

But my point with this thread was to show that an influential mainstream O'ist organization was parroting mainstream Conservative nonsense by praising Martin Luther King for being "really a swell guy with a good vision if you just ignore all that anti-capitalism stuff". As has been shown here, King was a rabid Leftist black racialist egalitarian collectivist who occasionally used some good rhetoric. Plus he is a saint of the Left who is a rallying cry for the Left's and the black community's anti-white racism. Mainstream Objectivism is oblivious to this. That is what pisses me off. Thus this thread.

How NOT to fight a culture war

Tom Burroughes's picture

Oh, and if we are going to fight a culture battle, or indeed push for a free society in general, it does not exactly help if we use crazy language that only makes people think - ordinary folk, not Leftists - that we are batshit insane. This "conservative" below is an example of why I can understand ARI, Hsieh, and others in taking a dim view (scuse the pun, Dr Peikoff) of conservatives, at least in the main:

http://thinkprogress.org/healt...

Facepalm.

Yes!

Jules Troy's picture

I really liked Andrew Breitbart a lot!  I miss him, he was a thorn in the left's side.

Some thoughts: I hate rap

Tom Burroughes's picture

Some thoughts:

I hate rap music more perhaps even than Doug does. The whole crappy culture that it represents is a tragedy for those who get beguiled by it. And any so-called objectivist who tries to impress and sound "cool" deserves to be kicked hard in the ass. There is nothing more pathetic than someone trying to ingratiate themselves with a culture they should despise because they want to be "part of the scene". Objectivists are not about "going along with the crowd". Rand would have been appalled by this.

Doug, she may have made few references to conservatives explicitly in her novels, but some of the political operatives in Atlas Shrugged, say, or the snooty critics of Howard Roark's architecture in The Fountainhead, sound like a lot of conservatives to me. This may be more of an issue here in the UK than in the US (as for Europe, forget about it). There is a strong, big-state, paternalist Tory tradition in the UK that regards capitalism, individualism and freedom with scorn or at best, suspicion. Cultural conservatives such as the journalist and doctor, Theodore Dalrymple, while they might have smart and insightful things to say on things like welfare, are often very hostile to the worldview that Rand represented.

In her collections of non-fiction essays, she was pretty hard on conservatives ("The Wreckage of the Consensus"), and they were pretty nasty to her (she never forgave Bill Buckley for publishing a vile review of Atlas by Whittaker Chambers). She had big reservations about Reagan in 1980, although she liked his 1964 speech at the Goldwater campaign. Does anyone honestly think that the Religious Right, and how it has influenced people's views of Republicans, has done the case for limited government any favours? I certainly don't.

Objectivists need to get more involved in cultural issues, and some are doing so. One person that Objectivists should learn from is the late Andrew Breitbart, who realised that Hollywood is as crucial as Washington.

Regarding Rap Music

Doug Bandler's picture

Many of them sign up to parts of it, such as rap, or, apparently, Martin Luther King.

Its funny that you mention rap music. About a year ago or so, the O'ist historian Scott Powell had a blog post where one of his students put some of the knowledge he learned into a rap song format. Scott bragged about this. When I saw the video of this 13 year old kid in a Lakers jersey and dark sun glasses rapping about European history, I wanted to puke. And then I wanted to spit. The fucking kid was imitating a black inner city thug and apparently no one saw a problem with this.

Rap music* is the EPITOME of nihilistic-urban-black-anti-white-anti-everything culture. It stands for the Left's assault on BEAUTY and standards as such. It also stands for black America's hatred of both Western Civilization and the Founder's America. And yet this idiot teenager is choosing this repulsive form of music to express his new historical knowledge. And that fool Powell is BRAGGING about it!! If you have to sell your subject matter with rap music YOU HAVE LOST THE WAR!!!!!!!**

I commented on it and he said that "it wasn't that big a deal". Fuck me.

I love Rand. Really, I worship her. But I am starting to DETEST the Objectivist MOVEMENT. Mainstream O'ists are really no better than Leftists except they understand economics. That is not enough to change the world. Ask the Christians or the Modern Liberals. They both knew how to wage a culture war.

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

* I must confess that I do both know and listen to some rap music but only because of one reason; BECAUSE YOUNG, SEXY, HOT WHITE GIRLS LISTEN TO IT. If it weren't for that I would spit at rap music. But alas, one must dive into the cesspools of Airhead America if you want to dive into a sexy young woman's treasures. I HATE that fact but I am a slave to my biology. But I would never brag about knowing rap songs. In fact I'm embarrassed about it and I wish I didn't have to. Actually, I wish they didn't exist.

** Which is another reason why I say that Objectivism is not a mature movement. That so few O'ists understand that the culture is RADICALLY SICK is evidence that they see nothing wrong with the state of the world. Its just that we don't have enough capitalism or maybe drugs should be legalized or we really should have private roads. No. The Left has created a sick culture and we are all swimming in sewage.

Lindsay - On the Fucking Money dude

Doug Bandler's picture

That whole wing of Organised Objectivism would have to admit it got it wrong, in other words, and that's never going to happen. So the fatwa not only was never renounced but is still in force, in spirit if not in letter, and warm fuzzy articles about Martin Luther King are the order of the day. Instead of clarion calls for revolution we hear timorous invitations to a "conversation." Objectivism has been rendered Politically Correct. Galt help us all!

Ayn Rand was never afraid to take on the culture; these guys are. Many of them sign up to parts of it, such as rap, or, apparently, Martin Luther King. Rand ceased writing about it not because she was afraid of it but because it had become too disgusting to contemplate; these guys want to prove they're as "cool" as the next hipster. "Human Resources" Objectivism is not allowed to say anything is too disgusting to contemplate.

Let them repudiate the fatwa and all its attendant nonsense. Let them stop the nonsense of condemning Reagan with a vehemence greater than that directed at Obafilth. Let them stop assisting Obamarx in his mission to destroy the best parts of the legacy of Reagan. Let them recognise that conservatives are confused; the Left, evil.

Objectivism, Tom, is now peopled by Panglossian pussies who insist in public that everything is already for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But it's crap, and dressing up in suits and shades and brandishing Ipads won't make it not-crap.

Wow Lindsay!! No one else in Objectivism land can summarize the flaws of the movement as precisely and wittily as you. You get what I am saying. The overwhelming majority of the Objectivists do not. The emphasis of mainstream O'ism is so misplaced that it is DAMAGING to the advancement of Rand's ideas. Which is a joke given her novels. The novels are ALL about CONDEMNING the LEFT! There are NO CONSERVATIVE VILLAINS in her novels. Objectivism came into existence to combat Marxism primarily. I know it rejects all forms of irrationality but Rand knew what the principle threat to America was and it wasn't modern Conservatism.

The Left CONTROLS this culture as we are now seeing. Mainstream O'ism DOES NOT understand this. That is why I get so angry. Know the world in which you live. Understand what its parameters are and who is most responsible for those parameters. Know who are your overlords and what they stand for. Our overlords are Leftists. Conservatives, who are irrational in their own way, are as much the subjects of Leftist overlords as we are. We are all slaves to egalitarianism. And Martin Luther King was a main promoter of that egalitarianism. HE IS A SAINT OF THE LEFT. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF DISQUALIFIES HIM FROM POSITIVE COMMENTARY. Which is why I CONDEMN 'TOS'. I thought 'love thy enemy' was a Christian precept not an Objectivist one. But what do I know. I'm a racist. Oh and I hate women too.

Neil

Doug Bandler's picture

Unlike so many ersatz advocates of liberty, Martin Luther King Jr. revered both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Granted, while in his early twenties, King held that “capitalism has out-lived its usefulness,” but he likely did not know what real capitalism is.

Thanks for pointing that out. That is pathetic on the part of 'TOS'. He "didn't understand what real capitalism is?" You have got to be fucking kidding me. That could serve as a rationalization for the entire Left. Gee, some gung ho fighting spirit there. Real principled defenders of liberty.

We have our differences Neil, but you get many things.

tvr

Doug Bandler's picture

Thankyou for posting MLK's statements. The 'TOS' should have done the research you did and seen that King was no lover of liberty. MLK is exactly what I called him: "a rabid Leftist". But the 'TOS' and I am sure the ARI would never say that. No, that would mean they would offend blacks and that is something they are terrified of. Just like the Conservatives. Yeah, Objectivism really packs a punch. /sarcasm off.

I asked Alice

Don E. Klein's picture

Doug Bandler: "You know what I meant."

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

You might try Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature instead of reading the “fucking news”.

Lindsay, my criticism of the

Tom Burroughes's picture

Lindsay, my criticism of the Objectivist movement is more that it hasn't done nearly enough on a field that is a bit of a bugbear of mine: the teaching of history. Yes, Andrew Bernstein has done some good work on reframing the Industrial Revolution and contested the myth of the "robber barons", but there is a lot more that needs to be done. One reason why we are losing this war of ideas is because of the way history is taught. It is still - with some exceptions - filtered through a leftist prism in which rosy-cheeked English peasants gamboling around the green countryside were driven off their Utopian idyll and forced to work 16 hours a day in dusty factories while men in top hats strolled around in their mansions. Chuck in the genuine horrors of the slave trade (the opposite of capitalism as based on the non-initiation of force) and you can see how people can be sold the ideas of socialism. Look at English novels, plays and films. Look at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games (it was biased, although there was something rather fine about the bits concerning a steel factory).

I made all these points to Brook, and he agreed with me. And this is about the cultural stuff, not just simple economics. So yes, you have some good points here, as Doug does, but I think the condemnation is harsh and not fully justified. In fact, I intend to keep nagging them on this stuff and maybe produce some material of my own.

As a side issue, you can see why more and more parents are homeschooling their kids. And not just Born-Again Christians.

Tom

Tom

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You're not getting it. Brook and the whole of organised Objectivism are complacent about what Obamarx stands for. Have you read the book? Few have praised it more highly than I, but it suffers from the fatal flaw of failing to acknowledge the cultural problem, which is driven, proximately, by the Left. Ayn Rand was never afraid to take on the culture; these guys are. Many of them sign up to parts of it, such as rap, or, apparently, Martin Luther King. Rand ceased writing about it not because she was afraid of it but because it had become too disgusting to contemplate; these guys want to prove they're as "cool" as the next hipster. "Human Resources" Objectivism is not allowed to say anything is too disgusting to contemplate.

"Cool" -- Airhead America -- is the dead-end of Marx, Dewey, Gramsci, Alinsky, Marcuse, Chomsky et al ad infinitum. And yes, they all stand on the shoulders of Jeezy, son of Gobby (or rather, impale their incontinent orifices on his knobbly knees), and all that sacrifist sewage, which includes significant dumps by Kant. But the form of sacrifism posing the biggest threat right now is not Goblianity, it's socialism, which Brook et al, in their ongoing servitude to the fatwa, proclaim to be dead. If they don't, let them say so explicitly. Let them repudiate the fatwa and all its attendant nonsense. Let them stop the nonsense of condemning Reagan with a vehemence greater than that directed at Obafilth. Let them stop assisting Obamarx in his mission to destroy the best parts of the legacy of Reagan. Let them recognise that conservatives are confused; the Left, evil.

And let them realise that the current crisis demands more than a rehash/update, however brilliant (which theirs is) of arguments for the efficacy of the free market. There is much more to the looming cataclysm than economics.

Objectivism, Tom, is now peopled by Panglossian pussies who insist in public that everything is already for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But it's crap, and dressing up in suits and shades and brandishing Ipads won't make it not-crap.

"Objectivists" are jerking off while Western Civilisation burns. What is about to happen will serve them right.

By the way, I met Yaron Brook

Tom Burroughes's picture

By the way, I met Yaron Brook of ARI last week - he has been on a speaking tour to the UK, going to places such as London and Oxford. He gave a talk to the Adam Smith Institute, a sort of smaller version of CATO. (He is plugging the book that Linz wrote about the other day).

Brook was blunt in his assessment that, in the battle to advance the argument for capitalism at a time when so many blame the recent crisis on "bankers" or "capitalism", what might be loosely called "our side" is losing. Brook is not complacent about what Obama is or stands for. ARI has its faults (insert as preferred) but unless he is a weapons-grade liar, he understands the fight we are in. The fact that these guys come down as hard on conservatives as "liberals" (such a shame that word has lost its original meaning) should not be meant that they are PC pussies, as Doug might argue.

As for Diana Hsieh, I regard her best work as on ethics and philosophy and she is frankly as good as anyone over here on those areas. I listen to her podcasts with Greg Perkins and think they are pretty good 99 per cent of the time.

As for Doug's points about race/culture, I regard the culture as the problem. Goodness knows, we white Europeans have perpetrated enough violent horrors down the years, as have other ethnic groups that are often seen as more law abiding these days, such as the Chinese (Mao) or in Cambodia. (I also am highly dubious about a lot of what is said about race differences on things such as IQ, at least when inferences are drawn about behaviours, crime, etc.)

Doug is right about science - but as Rand said, racism is a form of collectivism, and the most crude. It involves making generalisations about groups that, given current knowledge, are in my view largely unwarranted. There are two reasons why Objectivists should keep alert to the tinge of racism: it is wrong, and secondly, because at a time when our ideas are mocked by a lot of people, it is an additional issue we can do without.

I haven't yet read Steve Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature", that purports to show that humanity has, despite gyrations, gotten more peaceful over the eons. Has anyone in this parish read it yet?

Who was MLK?

tvr's picture

Martin Luther King, Jr was the polar opposite of Ayn Rand in almost every way. He was an evangelical minister who vociferously promoted the virtues of selflessness, railed the 'evils of capitalism', and advocated for a collectivist state and race-based entitlements.

He and Miss Rand had but one common enemy: racism. But they did not even agree on the nature of that.

Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech is what he is remembered for, but let us not forget some of his more revealing quotes so that we may reminisce the fact that it is not the man or what he stood for that should by celebrated, but rather the one singular shared idea, capsulated in a phrase from his "I have a dream" speech, namely: that men should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Going by his own testimony, I submit that what Dr. King would have wanted to have seen implemented in the US, had he lived long enough, is something along the lines of South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Program, which is an individual right's-infringing monstrosity.

---

"“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” [Riverside Speech, 'Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero' by Vincent Harding, page 101]

"Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children." [May 1965 speech to the Negro American Labor Council. Quoted in Thomas F. Jackson, From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Struggle for Economic Justice. (2009) p. 230]

"Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness" [I've Been to the Mountaintop (1968)]

"love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does" [Loving Your Enemies (November 1957)]

"Another way that you love your enemy is this: When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time which you must not do it." [Loving Your Enemies (November 1957)]

PLAYBOY: "Do you feel it’s fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"
MARTIN LUTHER KING: "I do indeed".
[Playboy Interview (1965)]

"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." [Playboy interview (1968)]

"The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." [Why we can't wait (1964)]

"There is nothing essentially wrong with power. The problem is that in America power is unequally distributed." [Where do we go, page 137]"

“All My Babies' Mamas”

gregster's picture

"but [MLK] likely did not know what real capitalism is." If MLK did in fact know what capitalism is, then the Objective Standard writer shares a bigotry common with left Liberals.

Today in 2013, the liberal Oxygen channel planned to celebrate dishonorable behavior as representative of the “hip” modern black experience with a new reality show titled, “All My Babies' Mamas”. Canceled due to public outcry, the star of the show was a rapper whose serial sperm donating produced eleven babies by ten women.

“All My Babies' Mamas” is characteristic of liberals' typical bigotry of lowered expectations regarding minorities. Liberals accuse black conservatives who reject liberal racist stereotypes of being traitors to their race, trying to be white and “sellouts”.

Long suffering courageous black conservatives offer blacks “real” empowerment; liberation from crippling victim-hood and entitlement mindsets. Due to liberals' resentment/hatred for America and traditional values, they are repulsed when black conservatives encourage blacks to get an education, work hard, revive traditional black community morality and go for their dreams.

In the 1950s, most black kids grew up in two parent households. Today, most black kids grow up fatherless as a result of liberal policies that destroyed the black family. Only half of black males graduate high school. Clearly, something is wrong in the black community and it “ain't” the white man's fault.

For decades, liberals (Democrats, Hollywood and the media) have been and continue serving blacks excrement while calling it filet mignon. For example: In the name of compassion, liberals routinely demean and even undermine the intellect and character of blacks. Liberals insist standards must be lowered for blacks to get the job or pass the test. Americans are required to show a photo-ID to board an airplane, cash a check and countless other situations. And yet, liberals say showing a photo-ID to vote is racist and disenfranchises blacks.

Will someone please tell me what the heck is so challenging about us blacks finding our way to acquire a photo-ID? By the way, I am black and I have one – a photo-ID. I guess liberals think I am remarkable; similar to the apes in “Planet of The Apes” discovering that Charlton Heston, a human, could speak.

[..]

Liberals (Democrats and the media) have been peddling crap and pimping government programs that cripple blacks for years. And yet, liberals are thought of as heroes to blacks while they beat up on black conservatives for spreading the truth that blacks are diverse, self-reliant, bright and capable of much more.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

LloydMarcus.com and Tea Party Nation

The Founders Were Deists?

Neil Parille's picture

Here is the grave stone of Connecticut's own Roger Sherman. For some reason part of the image is covered, but you can see that Sherman "ever adored the profession of Christianity which he made in youth." Some Deist.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-...

The man signed the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

That gives him a lot of street cred in my book.

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

What is your proof that the Founders were mainly Deists?

I hear this all the time but have never seen any documentation of that.

Perhaps you could call some of the best known such as Washington (perhaps) and Jefferson and Madison, but there were plenty of others who had different views. Charles Carroll was a devout catholic, Hamilton became a Christian toward the end of his life, Roger Sherman was a staunch Calvinist who supported Connecticut's Congregationalist establishment, Patrick Henry was an evangelical, Witherspoon (a Scot Presbyterian minister) was a hard money man and taught many of the Founders at Princeton, etc.

Doug

Neil Parille's picture

I love this from The Objective Standard:

_____

Unlike so many ersatz advocates of liberty, Martin Luther King Jr. revered both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Granted, while in his early twenties, King held that “capitalism has out-lived its usefulness,” but he likely did not know what real capitalism is.

______

The man got a Ph.D. (well, let's not get into that) and was obviously bright. He knew what capitalism is.

This blog post reminds me of conservatives who think that if King were alive today he would be some sort of social conservative. This, of a person who got the man of the year award of Planned Parenthood, which pretty much thinks that abortion and birth control should be forced on the rest of us. I'm a humanity diminisher, but I think most people without government are smart enough to use birth control or, Galt forbid, self control.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Perhaps we've been too slow in realising what's going on: The Hsiekovian fatwa is being continued, not in the form of a commandment to vote Dem-Scum across the board, but of outreach to the Left and eschewing of the Right in general -- hence the disproportionate amount of time and energy being spent on beating up on conservatives, and the relative indifference to the atrocities perpetrated by Obamarx. Remember that the premise of the fatwa was that socialism is dead and the biggest threat to America is a Goblian theocracy imposed by Republicans, which could happen "in our lifetimes." Peikoff has reiterated this in his DIM book. Thus, embrace the Left because it is secular. Never mind that the Founding Fathers were mainly Goblinites (Deists) and that didn't stop them being pro-freedom, or that the Left-Filth's secularism doesn't stop them being virulently anti-freedom.

To condemn Obamarx and his policies would be to acknowledge that socialism is not only not dead, but alive and galloping, not merely a threat but actually happening and proceeding apace (to the mindless cheers of its enablers, Airhead America), while of a Goblian theocracy there is nary a glimpse of a suggestion of an intimation. That whole wing of Organised Objectivism would have to admit it got it wrong, in other words, and that's never going to happen. So the fatwa not only was never renounced but is still in force, in spirit if not in letter, and warm fuzzy articles about Martin Luther King are the order of the day. Instead of clarion calls for revolution we hear timorous invitations to a "conversation." Objectivism has been rendered Politically Correct. Galt help us all!

Read The News

Doug Bandler's picture

This is a confusing and ambiguous assertion. I think you meant one of the following: “raped during mass”, “raped in the ass”, or “raped en masse”. Perhaps you could clarify, and provide some evidence for the claim you intended to make?

You know what I meant. White women are being raped FREQUENTLY by blacks just the way European white girls are being raped by Muslims (and even sold into slavery in some cases). As for stats, I can dig them up, but for now just read the fucking news. Black crime both against other blacks and whites is rampant. Blacks and Hispanics commit violent crime WAY out of proportion to their numbers. In fact if you were to exclude blacks and Hispanics from the crime statistics, American whites are amongst the most peaceful people on earth (and there is a problem with statistics on whites too as they include Hispanics in the numbers which they shouldn't - the Left does this to make whites look more violent.).

Which is why it is a joke when the Left says we have a gun problem. We don't have a gun problem, we have a black problem. Oh but saying that makes me a racist. Fuck. That kind of mindless zombie like conformist shit makes me hate mainstream O'ism. If you don't even have the guts to acknowledge that blacks are the most violent demographic of any of the sub-groups in Western countries then you are a fucking coward as well as being suicidally stupid. (I have read many O'ists adamantly proclaim that to even make initial assessments of a person's potential violence based on skin color is racism. THAT IS ABJECT STUPIDITY given the data. I thought Objectivism was supposed to be a philosophy "for living on earth"? To ignore such overwhelming statistical evidence is so dumb as to be detestable.)

The world has a Muslim problem and a black problem. Two violent populations that are RADICALLY diminishing the quality of life in Western nations (just check out both Detroit and Dearborn to verify this). There, I said it. And I have contempt for those that deny it and pretend otherwise. Yes the causes are cultural. Although I'm not certain if biology doesn't factor into it. I won't rule it out because I won't tell science what its truths are. Oh but the so called "pro-science" Objectivist movement will automatically rule it out. Can't even look at science data, that would be "determinism". Just like the Left, only counting as legitimate science that which you like.

Objectivism is not a mature movement. The philosophy is fine. The movement is a collection of overgrown children who share many commonalities with the Left. This TOS blog commentary is case in point as is ANYTHING written by that lifeless drone Ari Armstrong. I won't even get to Diana Hsieh who is forever sentenced to the Objectivism short bus.

Want rapes to go down?

Jules Troy's picture

Just kill them..or at minimum castrate them beforrre prison.  That way the perp can be everyone'ssss bitchhh.

What is appalling to me is that a guy can go to prison for 5 years for a bag of weed but a repeat offender rapist can be sentenced to less.

Does not compute

Don E. Klein's picture

Doug Bandler: "white women are being raped in mass by blacks"

This is a confusing and ambiguous assertion. I think you meant one of the following: “raped during mass”, “raped in the ass”, or “raped en masse”. Perhaps you could clarify, and provide some evidence for the claim you intended to make?

Very good points

Jules Troy's picture

Very good points Tom.  

Lol at Richard, too late i'm already hooked on reality!

I suppose the reason why Rand

Tom Burroughes's picture

I suppose the reason why Rand decided to set up an organisation - originally NBI - to promote her ideas was due to the rather obvious fact that, being a novelist and dramatist, not a professional philosopher, she thought that her chances of getting her ideas out via the conventional routes were limited particularly in a hostile culture. (This was also before the age of the Internet, when people needed to meet more face to face, which is an obvious point but needs repeating.) She may have been unduly pessimistic on that score. She should have interacted, arguably, more with the professionals than she did and she might have even found out that there were other thinkers who were either sympathetic to her, or at least more willing to give her time and space than she assumed. Had she done so, the situation might have been a bit different.

I suppose one way to look at it is to see how, say, other "non-orthodox" views have developed through various foundations, think tanks, what you will. Take the Ludwig Mises Institute, or the various cluster of free market groups such as CATO, FEE, the Adam Smith Institute in the UK, etc. "Birds of a feather flock together". And conservatives and socialists have their journals, groups (such as the Fabians in early 20th century Britain). None of this strikes me as a cause, without examination, of mockery. Where things become difficult is when people pin all their hopes on an organisation that they think has the only "correct" way to promote X or Y. This is not peculiar to the intellectual world, either. You get it even in business and sports.

Jules

Richard Goode's picture

The biggest trap that I can see is that there IS an objectivist movement.

The existence of the Objectivist movement is a symptom of an underlying problem.

How many philosophers do you know who came up with entire philosophical systems, gave their systems pretentious sounding names, and today have a movement named after them?

How many religious leaders do you know who came up with entire religions, gave their religions pretentious sounding names, and whose disciples today number in the thousands?

Was Rand a philosopher or a religious leader?

I view myself as a laissez faire capitalist and US constitutionalist first

Stop right there!

Well part if it is..

Jules Troy's picture

The biggest trap that I can see is that there IS an objectivist movement.  What did Ayn Rand admire the most in people?  Rugged individualism.  She admired and wrote about the exaltation of human achievement by the bold, the innovative and the independent thinkers.

So do we as objectivists fall prey to a collectivist trap by organizing? Clearly there are differences in interpretation or there would not beeee an ARI, a SOLOP, an Objectivist living site or a RoR etc etc. As there should be, individualism is great, not everyone gets along even though they agree on many things! Free association works much better than "one size fits all".

What I myself LIKE about solop is that people who are NOT "O'sts" can post here! They might be weird or even antithetical to "objectivism" but they have a voice.  Whereas at other sites if you cant pull randisms out of "yur ass" at the drop of a hat you are invalidated or even branded as a racist (like Doug has been accused of being), and then summarily excommunicated by the church of ARI.

I do not see a problem with objectivism!  It is an amazing philosophy and a great one to live by.  Mostly the problem with objectivism is "objectivists! ".  Hell I don't even know what an objectivist is!  Myself? I view myself as a laissez faire capitalist and US constitutionalist first, and a small "o" objectivist second.

Do I myself "fit in" anywere? Who cares, I like what I like, hate what I hate and do not care if I am "being a good o'st".  I have met many good people here and other places that I enjoy reading what they have to say, and find of value.  Can't ask for better than that!  Many people here have my admiration, I am sure that I am simply tolerated or not taken seriously, and thats all good too.  Too many people take shit tooooo seriously.  Lighten up and remember to smile once in a while.  Except Damien.  If he is smiling run away! (Jkingg).

 

Comment viewing options

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