Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Yaron Brook Discovers the Fifth-Column

Unfortunately, the fifth-column Brook calls out on his latest video are patriotic Objectivists who don't hate President Trump. More on this later, after the context is set.


Brook is really in a black pilled mood during the course of this tirade. He's all doom and gloom. He begins by criticizing the "far left" for its overt nihilism. But, he mainly characterizes the left as "nutty" and "insane." Of course, he did not identify the left (including the "Squad") as evil, which they obviously are. 

Brook then lashes into the "right." As is typical, he creates a strawman on who/what the "right" is and then attacks his own creation. He contends that the "right" is as hostile to individualism/freedom as the demented left. His view indicates a profound ignorance on the "right." He apparently doesn't frequent such popular "right" websites/blogs as PJMedia, Breitbart, Daniel Greenfield or the Gateway Pundit among many others.  

Instead, Brook cites Stefan Molyneux as an example of "right-wing" racism. He provides a single quote to support his contention. It could be anti-Semitism on Molyneux's part. Or, more likely, Molyneux was just pointing out Jeffrey Epstein's own, peculiar form of ethno-centrism. But, we can't have any of that. Brook also cites socialist Richard Spencer as representative of the mainstream "right." Then, of course, he lumps Donald Trump in with these two disparate individuals: 
Americans think they have to choose between the Squad and the crazy nuttiness of the left, and Donald Trump and the crazy nuttiness on the right.
How does he know this from his gated condo in Puerto Rico? When was the last time Brook actually talked to and listened to anyone in middle America? Actually, patriotic Americans know the choice is between a decent, if flawed, nationalist right and a globalist left that wants them dead and replaced. Brook even implies that it's time to strike;
This is what Ayn Rand meant by going on strike. Disassociate yourself and fight. Fight from the high ground.
Then, he states that his idea of striking is to speak out on Facebook and to get Rand's books into the hands of as many people as possible. John Galt did not strike by globe-trotting and giving speeches for an income of several $100,000 a year. John Galt did not strike from the "high ground" of a luxury condo in tax haven Puerto Rico.
 
Yaron Brook's Barricade of Freedom, Marius and Enjolras are not Available for Comment

At around the forty minute mark, Brook really lets his hair down and goes after who's really bothering him. Only an extended quote of his rambling diatribe can do it justice:
Those of you who are apologists for Donald Trump, please never use the word 'Objectivism' to associate it with yourself. Because you cannot be Objectivists. You are not Objectivists, if you apologize for this guy. 

And you are not doing anyone a favor by selling-out, selling-out the fundamental ideas that we are for. For the sake of what? Popularity, defeating the left? 

You're sell-outs, you're the fifth-column within Objectivism.
No, Yaron. The real sell-outs are making six figures at the Ayn Rand Institute. And, Yaron is at the top of the list. Popularity? Yes, the ObjectivistResistance is real popular with Brook and his minions. We have been called every name in the book by these Obleftivists. We have been demonetized by Brook's Soviet Valley heroes. But, the Resistance will keep fighting for the fundamental ideas we believe in.  

It should be noted that Yaron Brook would never characterize such creatures as Congressjihadi Ilhan Omar as fifth-columnists. That's exactly what they are. In fact, Obleftivists were in high dudgeon over Trump's statement that the America hating fifth-columnists should go back to their shitholes. But, he will use that term, which originally referred to Communist traitors, to describe Objectivists who are patriotic Americans. 

I don't ever apologize for Donald Trump. I do support his reelection and many of his policies. He loves America and wants a free, prosperous decent country. For this thoughtcrime, people like me are continually and viciously smeared by Brook and his AynRandbots. Yaron Brook doesn't get to decide who is or is not an Objectivist. He is not the Objectivist Pope. 

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

The Ayn Rand Institute's Altruism as Appeasement

In the last decade, or longer, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has veered sharply to the political and cultural left. This sad reality has been documented on this blog and elsewhere. During this period these Obleftivists have sought moral sanction and social acceptance from the enemies of the American people (academia, Soviet Valley, globalist corporations, the media). 

New ad for the Yaron Brook Show
The above cartoon is not hyperbole. Obleftivists don't just uphold abortion as a right in the first trimester and as a necessary evil. ARI has accepted and trumpets the full blown leftist view of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy (and thereafter?) as a positive good, as "sacred." ARI's strict adherence to their open borders (for America, not Israel) dogma hardly requires more discussion. As for the sacred right of self-defense, Yaron Brook has this to say
I don't think guns matter. If they took if they took all our guns it doesn't matter and if we kept all the guns it doesn't matter that much. What matters a thousand times more is what's happening in our schools. 
The question is why ARI is self-destructing in this manner. In part, Obleftivists live in existential fear of being blacklisted by the Cultural Marxist gatekeepers who rule public discourse. They seem to understand that if ARI moved to the "right," it/they would be smeared and purged in the manner of Lauren Southern, Stephen Molyneux, Katie Hopkins and Paul Joseph Watson. It's much safer to appease the left by joining the witch hunt against such people. But, the question remains: why? 

The answer can be found in Ayn Rand's seminal essay "Altruism as Appeasement." This article should be read along with "The Comrachicos" and "The Cashing-in: The Student "Rebellion."" "Altruism as Appeasement" was published in the January 1966 issue of The Objectivist and was republished in The Voice of Reason. Rand examines the all too common phenomenon of intelligent people morally appeasing the left in order to have a seat at the table with the cool kids:
It is an attempt to apologize for his intellectual concerns and to escape from loneliness of a thinker by professing that his thinking is dedicated to some social-altruistic goal ... Some degree of social metaphysics is almost always involved in the psychology of such a man, but it is hard to tell whether it led to or resulted from his surrender ... Basically, a social metaphysician is motivated by the desire to escape the responsibility of independent thought, the realm of values, in order to be permitted to use his mind
She notes that such sell-outs exist on the right as much as the left. She takes to task "conservatives" who appease the left. It's an apt examination of who are today called "cuckservatives," such as George Will. But, the more dangerous variety are liberals. They have surrendered to the loony left and continue to appease the monsters. One has only to look at the Democratic Party to substantiate this sad reality.

Ayn Rand's argument is that this sell-out happens at an early age in high school or college. The question remains, once sold can one buy back one's soul? Yaron Brook was raised by socialists. He has stated that he was a socialist until high school. He must have internalized the values and thinking methods of socialism during his most important formative years. There is ample evidence that he still remains on the cultural left and seeks its moral sanction. Both this blog, ARI Watch and others have documented Brook's cultural leftism. 

Yaron Brook will argue that he has replaced the altruism of socialism with the self-interest of capitalism. However, Brook's version of "self-interest" is a crude materialism based on short-term expediency to maximize short-term profits. Ayn Rand's description of the late stage appeaser fits Brook perfectly:
The pretense at any belief in altruism vanishes from his mind in a very few years, and there is nothing left to replace it: his independent capacity to value has been repressed - and his fear of the brute [President Trump's deplorables] makes the pursuit of values seem hopelessly impractical ... One of the bitter penalties of the appeasers is that even the most brilliant of them turn out, as persons, to be conventional, empty, dull. If their initial crime was the desire to be "one of the boys," this is the way in which they succeed. 
The above could very well explain how so many Obleftivists have arrived at their shallow materialism. 

The hallmark of cuckservative or Obleftivist appeasers is their practice of always "punching right." They are notorious for reserving their moral outrage and sharpest barbs for those on their right. From attacks on President Trump, to ignoring or supporting the Deep State's coup attempt, to muting or memory holing Ayn Rand's hostility to second wave feminism and modern "art," Obleftivists only have enemies to their right and appease the left at every opportunity. They will also allow the left to choose the issues and frame the debate on contemporary culture and politics. As Ayn Rand described the appeaser's inevitable slide to complete moral degradation:
Moral cowardice is fear of upholding the good because it is good, and feat of opposing the evil because it is evil. The next step leads to opposing the good in order to appease evil, and rushing out to seek the evil's favor. But since no mind can fully hide this policy from itself, and no form of pseudo-self-esteem can disguise it for long, the next step is to pounce of every possible or impossible chance to blacken the nature of the good and to whitewash the nature of the evil.  
This quote from 1966 by Ayn Rand accurately describes ARI's trajectory of the last ten to fifteen years, or since Yaron Brook took over. 

Yaron Brook's policy has long been to hire like minded "intellectuals" at ARI. For example, there is Ben Bayer, instructor and fellow at ARI. A recent interview of Bayer by the American Philosophical Association (APA) is most revealing on the phenomenon of intellectual opportunism as self-interest:
I first got excited about philosophy in high school as a member of the debate team. At first, I was interested in it for purely instrumental reasons: I needed to know about how to argue for and against the positions of Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Mill, Nozick, and Rawls ... Initially I also read Rand’s book for purely instrumental reasons. I wanted to enter an essay contest about the book and win some money for college. I knew I would disagree with Rand’s individualist philosophy, but I thought that I could still write an impressive critical essay.
He continues by claiming that the character of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead changed his moral outlook:
I was also scared by the fact that I recognized too much of myself in Roark’s rival, Peter Keating, the conventional architect who derived his standards, interests, and values from other people. I began to reconsider my views in moral and political philosophy.
One can review his recent work for ARI in order to decide how much Peter Keating remains in his sub-conscious. And, there's this:
I went on a road trip with my family while listening to U2’s Joshua Tree on my Sony Walkman.
Not Rush. Not authentic American rock and roll such as Aerosmith, Lynyrd Skynyrd or the Steve Miller Band. Nope. It was Bono's anti-American anthem that was required listening for all leftists back in the day. Note how Bayer is careful to not say anything that would trigger the APA leftists. The entire interview with the ever loathsome APA can be cited as an example of appeasing the left by accepting them as one's moral equal. For further details see "The Chickens' Homecoming" by Ayn Rand from the June 1970 issue of The Objectivist and reprinted in Return of the Primitive

Ayn Rand identified a concept she discovered as "psycho-epistemology." Her definition: "Psycho-epistemology is the study of man’s cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious." And, as Leonard Peikoff elaborated, "“Psycho-epistemology,” a term coined by Ayn Rand, pertains not to the content of a man’s ideas, but to his method of awareness, i.e., the method by which his mind habitually deals with its content."

It is fair and reasonable to question whether the cultural leftists at ARI have or can repair their psycho-epistemology that was programmed by socialism at a young age. For that matter, can any young person associated with ARI escape the pressures of "group think" so obviously at work there? 

It's no accident that such key Objectivist concepts and insights as psycho-epistemology and social metaphysics have been Memory Holed by ARI.  

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Review: Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the State, 2017

I am going to assume that most readers of this blog have some knowledge on the saga of Tommy Robinson. He was one of the founders of the English Defense League (EDL) in 2009. He became the public face of this protest movement. For this "crime," he has been viciously persecuted by the British state and its media minions. 


Last month, Tommy released a documentary video that presents incontrovertible proof that the BBC is bribing and cajoling his old comrades into lying about his actions and motives. Last year he was sent to prison for reporting on the Moslem rape gangs that the British state enabled for decades. 

In order to set the record straight, Tommy published an autobiography two years ago. Amazingly, it's still available on Amazon. Buy it while you still can. Also in 2017, Tommy co-wrote Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. It's been removed by Amazon and many other book sellers/burners. It's available here
In February 2019, under pressure from Muslims, Amazon banned the No.1 best-selling Koran.  Using the most authoritative scholarly sources, this book decodes the Koran and shows non-Muslims what is being taught in Mosques and in universities in the West.  When the Koran chapters are placed in chronological order, the meaning of Islam changes from preaching peace to commanding genocide and apartheid.  It is demonstrated that the Quisling elite know the true meaning of Islam, but since 9/11 they have set about systematically deceiving the electorate in Western democracies.  Amazon's ban is the final stage of this organized deceit.
Tommy was one of the main EDL leaders from its founding in the summer of 2009 until October 2013. The book provides background on its subject's upbringing and early life (he was only twenty-six years old when the EDL was founded). However, the main narrative thread deals with the period from spring 2009 to 2017. In an opening chapter, he describes how his hometown of Luton was invaded by mostly Pakis who came to dominate the criminal gangs of Luton. It's a heartbreaking story of how a working class city was largely destroyed by Britain's traitor elite. Contrary to mainstream lies. Moslem "no-go" areas quickly developed in Luton and other British cities. As Tommy relates, previous black immigrants to Luton had assimilated and were accepted by the locals. Islam doesn't engage in hijrah to assimilate into infidel cultures. 

In the following passage, he relates the murder of popular local man Mark Sharp by a Moslem mob. Of course, in Pakistan, and other such shitholes, mob violence is how Moslems keep the infidels in their place. It's not surprising that they bring this delightful cultural practice with them - with the connivance of the courts and police. What started out as a mere traffic altercation soon escalated into murder by Moslem mob: 
There were four of them, and he was alone with his young son, but they still rang up reinforcements before they set about him right there on High Town Street.
All of them were armed, metal bars, part of a snooker cue, and they battered and battered Mark to his knees before one of them finished him off with a knife in his head.
Two of his attackers got life for murder, but three of the others were acquitted of murder and were given just four years for manslaughter. The judge told the jury they could downgrade it to manslaughter if they felt Mark had done, or said anything, 'enough to make a reasonable [!] young Asian male act'. (p. 48)
The above murder and trial is just one of countless examples of the vicious violence and legalized injustice the British people of Luton (and elsewhere) must endure in the name of multiculturalism and dieversity. One result of this murder is that English people began leaving Luton in droves. This process is no accident. It's just a small instance of the European elite following the United Nation's "Migration Replacement" program for white majority nations. 

The founding of the EDL was in response to repeated, murderous provocations by Moslem invaders that are more than enough to make any reasonable Englishman act. In this case, the result has been a decade long vendetta by the British state against Tommy and other EDL protesters.

On 10 March 2009, the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment paraded through Luton upon their return from combat operations in Afghanistan. As is well known, Moslem "extremists" where there to heckle the troops and call them many vile names. What truly appalled the patriotic people of Luton was the police enabling the "protest" of the invading savages: 
The police had taken Sayful's group through the building and outside via a back door, then placed them where they were perfectly positioned to shout their abuse at the soldiers. They had placards calling our troops 'Butchers of Basra' and saying 'Anglian soldiers go to hell'. And the police had simply guided them to a vantage position where they could hurl insults, while guarding them from people who were understandably pissed off by it all. (p. 93)
This incident of the police protecting and enabling the invaders from the native population caused Tommy to take stock of what was occurring in his country. When the people of Luton organized a peaceful demonstration under the umbrella group United People of Luton (UPL, forerunner of the EDL), they faced incessant official harassment and stonewalling to prevent any such peaceful action: 
But what had happened over those few weeks in 2009 had brought a lot of things home to me, not just with regard to what was happening to my town, but to my country too. It wasn't just the threat to every aspect of British life posed by Muslim radicals, but what looked and felt like a conspiracy of the British state to not only allow it, but encourage it. (p. 101)
Much of the book recounts Tommy's attempt to run the EDL as an rather ad hoc organization and earn a living for his family. By 2013, it was clear to him that these goals were mutually exclusive. The reason for this conflict was not only the demands the EDL made on his time and energy. The British state engaged in a massive operation to "get Tommy." All manner of trumped up charges and arrests for minor offenses kept him in jail or the courtroom. On one occasion he was kept in solitary confinement for 22 weeks, although 28 days is the legal limit for such treatment. Basically, while incarcerated Tommy was subjected to the type of physical and psychological torture usually reserved for IRA terrorists. In poor health, his finances ruined and his family threatened by jihadists and the British state, Tommy decided to leave the EDL in 2013. 

One narrative thread recounted in the book is Theresa May's personal vendetta against Tommy. This profoundly evil woman's persecution of Tommy started while she was Home Secretary and continues to this day. In June 2011 one of May's constituents arranged a meeting between the patriot and the traitor. The patriot describes the traitor's contempt for the victims of her treason: 
I showed her a video of a white girl getting beaten up by a Muslim gang, but she wouldn't look at it. And so I kept rewinding it and replaying. She eventually looked because she could see I wasn't stopping, but all she would say was, 'I can't comment'. I told her, 'No, but you would comment if it was a white gang attacking a woman in a burkha'.
I was there for about 20 minutes and she just sat as passive as you like, not sure what the hell to do for the best. She knew what to do the minute I stood up to leave though. Within an hour it was all over the national news that she'd been ambushed by Tommy Robinson of the EDL... In the end all she did was sit back and say, all hoity-toity, 'My government has made its views clear on Muslim extremism'. (p. 193)
Yes, May's government has made it clear that it will enable and cover-up for Moslem rape gangs at every opportunity. 

Tommy Robinson is a hero. He has something rare among people today: a sense of justice and the courage to act. For this reason the British state, the left and Moslem "extremists" have targeted him for destruction. Read his book to better understand the magnitude of the evil that currently rules Western nations.

Friday, February 22, 2019

Ellsworth Toohey on the Foundations of Property Rights


The Fountainhead is my favorite Ayn Rand novel. The book includes one of the "best" villains in literature, Ellsworth Toohey. He is completely self-aware of his motives for destroying the good for being the good. He is a remarkable foil for the book's many heroes and near heroes. As self-conscious evil, Rand was able to allow Toohey to articulate the motives and methods of the value destroying altruist. The following comments on an aspect of this point will contain spoilers. If you haven't already read The Fountainhead, get yourself to the nearest bookstore. 

                            Ellsworth Toohey addressing the Twitter Mob, c.1949

One of the greatest scenes from The Fountainhead is Toohey's confrontation with media magnate Gail Wynand. Wynand has just fired Toohey. Toohey is suing for wrongful termination and using the union to pressure Wynand to take him back. At issue is who will have editorial control over the New York Banner. Wynand is the owner and publisher. But, Toohey has infiltrated his creatures into key jobs on the paper. Wynand may own the paper, but Toohey has control of much of its infrastructure. How Toohey does this is a great example on how the "Social Justice Warriors" (SJWs) of today "converge" institutions from private businesses to government bureaucracies to academia. 

In their dramatic confrontation, Toohey explains to Wynand his errors that allowed the convergence of the Banner

So you were a possessive man, Mr. Wynand, and you loved your sense of property? Did you ever stop to think what it rested upon? Did you stop to secure the foundations? No, because you were a practical man. Practical men deal in bank accounts, real estate, advertising contracts and gilt-edged securities. They leave to the impractical intellectuals, like me, the amusements of putting the gilt edges through chemical analysis to learn a few things about the nature and source of gold. They hang on to Kream-O Pudding, and leave us such trivia as the theater, the movies, the radio, the schools, the book reviews and the criticism of architecture. Just a sop to keep us quiet if we care to waste our time playing with the inconsequentials of life, while you're making money. Money is power. Is it, Mr. Wynand? ... That's why I'll be back. And when I am, I'll run this paper. 
Wynand quickly realized he was beat. So, he closed the Banner in order to keep Toohey fired. Wynand is a tragic figure in The Fountainhead. He sought power over men and only too late realized his mistake. Nevertheless, he had far more moral courage than any big businessman today. 

The book's famous climax is when the hero, Howard Roark, blows up Cortlandt, a government housing project, nearing completion. Nobody is hurt in the explosion. But, his action results in the destruction of $millions in government property. The fact that the project is government financed complicates the issue, but not by much. 

The mediocrity Peter Keating had the contract to design Cortlandt. But, he was too incompetent to meet the specifications. He knew Roark could solve the many design problems and went to him for help. Roark said he would do it only if Keating would guarantee that Cortlandt would be built just as designed. Keating agreed. But, he lost control of the large government building project. Roark's elegant design was vandalized by nihilists seeking an unearned commission and reputation. 

Needless to say, Roark had no legal recourse. So, he destroyed the abomination. Roark's defense at trial was that there were more important values than property rights involved. In this case the values of individualism, integrity and intellectual property rights outweighed the destruction of physical property. 
                                       Howard Roark's Defense Speech

I won't attempt to summarize Roark's famous courtroom speech. But, here's a relevant quote:
He [Peter Keating] had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that ... To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been.   
Property rights are a key component of Ayn Rand's political philosophy. She was clear that without property rights (as in a socialist state) all other political rights would disappear.  However, in The Fountainhead and elsewhere, she was equally clear that property rights rest on an intellectual and moral foundation. As Toohey said, destroy that foundation and property rights go by the board regardless of parchment laws. The hierarchy of concepts and that valid abstractions are contextual are key elements to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

There are numerous adherents to Rand's philosophy who do not understand these key points. They're best referred to as "Obleftivists," since there is little to distinguish them for left-libertarians. 

A classic example of Obleftivists "thinking" in terms of floating abstractions is their defense of the Jihad Victory Mosque at Ground Zero builders' "property rights." Not only did they display their lack of understanding of the foundation for property rights but also their complete ignorance of Islam and the nature of warfare. 

The controversy over the mosque reached such proportions that Leonard Peikoff spoke on it. He tried to clarify the issue and the nature of property rights. Alas, his efforts largely failed among Obleftivists. They are so enamored with their floating abstractions that they would have handed the global jihad a massive propaganda victory. A victory that would have embolden the jihadists and demoralized their victims.
Let’s start with property rights.  Property rights are limited and they are contextual.  You cannot do anything you want with property even though it is yours, not if its ramifications objectively entail a threat to the rights of others ...
In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights ... Now, let me give you an analogy if it’s not self-evident. Japanese strike pearl Harbor. We declare war. Japan, the Japanese, are then given a large spread of land in Pearl Harbor to build a temple celebrating — I don’t care what. The Japanese superiority or Shinto peacefulness or — I don’t care what.  Now, if you can even conceive of that as justified because of “property rights,” then I say you haven’t a clue what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying.  Because what permitting that amounts to is “Roll over. Kick me. Kill me. I have nothing to say.” Leonard Peikoff, Podcast of June 28, 2010
Obleftivists have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from this episode. A recent and ongoing example is the crisis on the southern border. An analogy is often made by defenders of American sovereignty that securing the border is as necessary as locking one's front door. Obleftivists respond that one's home is private property, unlike a two-thousand mile long border zone. So, they say, this is a bad analogy. 

Actually it's an excellent analogy. What's being related is the need for security to enjoy property or any other value - not that the border zone is private property. In other words, security makes property and property rights possible. Many property owners along the border agree. Their property and lives are being destroyed by invaders. Their government has a moral duty to provide that basic security. The government's refusal to do so is an act of treason.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

France's Death Ride (1914-1918) and Cultural Confidence

French General Henri Gouraud is most well-known for commanding the Fourth Army on the Western Front in 1918. He brilliantly used an "elastic defense" to stop the last great German offensive in World War One (15 July 1918). The American 42nd Rainbow Division was attached to Gouraud's army where it held a key part of the line.
 
Henri Gouraud (1867-1946)

The Rainbow's chief-of-staff, Brigadier General Douglas MacArthur was fascinated by Gouraud. As MacArthur wrote in his memoirs:
He seemed almost to be the reincarnation of the legendary figure of battle and romance, Henry of Navarre. And he was as good as he looked. I have known all of the modern French commanders, and many were great by any standards, but he was the greatest of them all. Petain and Foch rank with the best of any era, but Petain always exaggerated the enemy potential and thereby failed to exploit fully his successes, and Foch was too inflexible once he had outlined a plan, and consequently missed opportunities. But Gouraud was without a weakness.
He was also an inspirational, patriotic leader. On 7 July 1918 he issued a message to his army. No Western general today is capable of so dramatic an order that exudes cultural and moral confidence and certitude: 
In your breasts beat the brave and strong hearts of free men. None shall look to the rear; none shall yield a step. Each shall have but one thought: to kill, to kill, until they [the Boche] have had their fill. 
Therefore you General says to you: You will break this assault and it will be a happy day.
After the World War ended, Gouraud was tasked to clear Syria of Turks and the supporters of the British puppet, and pan-Arab nationalist, Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi. After the French victory at the Battle of Maysalun. Gouraud reportedly visited the tomb of Saladin. I've reserved the best quote for last. Gouraud supposedly kicked the tomb and said:
Awake, Saladin. We have returned. My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent.
Alas, they don't make Frenchmen like this anymore. Most of the best died in the World Wars. The socialist-globalist refuse are now eagerly surrendering their country (and the entire West) to Saladin's progeny. Let's hope the Yellow Vests can save their nation, and therefore, the West before it's too late.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard Double-Downs on Open Borders Dogma

Obleftivists of all flavors firmly believe that there's such a thing as a "right" to cross an international frontier. Like all leftist utopians, they reject the fundamental nature of the nation-state and its central importance for anyone having any rights lawfully secured. According to these altruists, civilized nations owe the uncivilized a civilized existence. 

Craig Biddle, the editor of the Objective Standard, has posted a video on Facebook providing his latest thinking on open borders uber alles. His contempt for the actual reality of mass third-world immigration into Western nations is quite breath-taking. Western elites explicitly use mass immigration as a tool for social engineering to create a "new people" more easily ruled. That's the charitable interpretation of elite motives. It could just be that they're sociopaths who want to watch the world burn. Either way, the destructive results will be the same.

At lease Biddle admits that he begins with a "worldview" and then attempts to shoehorn reality into his floating abstractions. Note that his defense of open borders is purely deductive and is based on a floating "principle." The actual reality of what mass immigration has done to the country and other civilized nations is irrelevant to his "principles." These are the deep thinkers who supported the "property rights" of enemy agents to build their jihad victory mosque at Ground Zero.

"The border is not suppose to be wall or line that keeps people out. It's simply a line that demarcates where the US government laws apply." No rationalism here. And, except for applying laws that protect American national sovereignty that ensures that American law will continue to be enforced. Obleftivists reject the Westphalian nation-state. They view the national border as only a line of jurisdiction. They view the border between the USA and Mexico like they view the state line between Kansas and Nebraska.
California: From Reagan Country to Pelosi Land
No Obleftivist has yet morally condemned the media for its high-tech lynching of Catholic school boys for the crime of smiling while white. The establishment's vicious hatred of whites doesn't bode well for a white minority America - except for those who profit from anti-white pogroms and genocide. Obleftivists deny that a genocide is beginning in South Africa. They would have to occasionally look at reality to understand what the globalist agenda is really about. Instead, they fervently support selling the People's Liberation Army more rope and the demographic invasion and destruction of Western Civilization. 

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) Only Has "Experts" on Trump Derangement

They just can't help themselves. Trump Derangement dominates ARI's "thinking" on every issue. ARI's foreign policy "expert" is Israeli/Brit Elan Journo. His essay "The Betrayal of Charlie Hebdo" published a few days ago on ARI's blog illustrates this problem. Journo evades the central issue raised by the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Then, he digresses into the usual anti-Trump boilerplate.
Globally on social media, many echoed the slogan “Je Suis Charlie” in solidarity.
But when the moment faded, it became clear that the threat to freedom of speech emanates not only — or even primarily — from the “jihadists’ veto.” The deeper problem is us. There’s pervasive antipathy to the principle of freedom of speech. Unless we understand and value it, we will lose this crucial right.
The left has always been hostile to free speech. This fact is hardly news. The West's most dangerous enemy has always been the left. ARI "experts" seem to understand this on some limited, superficial level. Sadly, this knowledge has not prevented ARI from jumping into bed with the cultural Marxists. For example, that one must vote Democrat because the USA in imminent danger of being taken over by Jerry Falwell. Or, that one must vote Democrat because moderate secularist Donald Trump is actually Satan. The fruits of appeasement of evil to gain academic and media respectability are never sweet.

Regarding the above quote: unless that ideology is globalism; or, open borders for America; or, "free trade" with Red China; or, second wave feminism; or, late term abortion; or,  whitewashing Islam with the evasive "totalitarian Islam;" or, Donald Trump as the "villain of our time." 

The central issue raised by the Charlie Hebdo attack is the Islamic/leftist alliance against Western Civilization. This alliance is dedicated to eradicating all Western values. It's equally obvious that to fulfill it's evil agenda, the alliance is equally dedicated to replacing Western nations with the Balkanized chaos of mass migrations of hostile settlers who hate the West as much as the alliance. Obleftivism has no problem with the last part of the plan to eradicate the West. Demographic invasion is now a "right." ARI has degenerated into just another Koch Brothers' libertarian mouthpiece. It is not Objectivism. Avoid it like the intellectual plague it is.
 

The left controls all of the West's cultural institutions. From science, the media, academia to sports and large corporations. They have silenced all dissent to the leftist narrative in these areas. They are now trying to take over the internet and drive out all dissent from social media. President Trump seems to understand the magnitude of the threat. The Obleftivists at ARI do not. Instead, they uncritically worship the fascists of Silicon Valley and are prepared to tolerate purging the internet of all who refuse to toe the party line of cultural Marxism. One can argue that Trump is not doing nearly enough, or going about it in the wrong way, to stop this threat to open public discourse. But, one can't honestly deny the danger or that something must be done to stop Soviet Valley's power grab in connivance with Democrats. (Another issue involved here is that corporations are creatures of the state. The concept of the "artificial person" needs to be revisited. Obviously, both corporate and libel law need much reform). 

Instead, Journo castigates Trump as the enemy of freedom and holds him partially responsible for the left's hostility to all rights.
What’s so alarming about Trump’s evident antipathy to freedom of speech is that so many Americans have acquiesced in it — perhaps even sharing his outlook.
See, the answer to the jihad in Western Europe is hating on Trump for his desire for much needed libel law reform, for his attempt to deal with the traitorous Swamp, for his truth-telling about the evil media, for his America First trade policies, for his desperately needed wall. Meanwhile, Obleftivists continue to hate on Poland and Hungary for their "crime" of not importing cancer. Nowhere in his essay does Journo have the courage and honesty to state that the source of jihad is Islam. Nor does he mention that the purpose of jihad is to impose sharia law, which would mean the end of Western Civilization and all rights along with common decency.
 

In his "analysis," Elan Journo doesn't mention Macron's, and the rest of Western Europe's elites', treason to their own people. He also doesn't mention the Yellow Vest protest against those same traitors. The Yellow Vest protests are the most encouraging event to happen in Western Europe in a very long time. So, of course, ARI ignores it.

In the following brief, seven minute video, Paul Joseph Watson provides more insight into events in Europe that all the ARI "experts" combined. I suspect that one reason ARI hasn't mentioned the Yellow Vest protests is because of their hostility to it. ARI Obleftivists are supporters of the fascistic EU superstate and Yaron Brook has stated his antipathy to Brexit. ARI "experts" smear opposition to EU nation-wrecking and fascism as "populist." "Populism" in their book is, but of course, "racism." Given ARI "experts" blind adherence to globalism and cultural Marxism, it's no surprise that they miss much and understand little.