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.

 

Saturday, January 5, 2019

Happy New Year and Keep Your Powder Dry

The Democratic controlled House of Representatives looks like the cantina scene from Star Wars. It is a hive of villainy, scum, evil and treason. The Democrats' avowed purpose is to destroy what's left of the USA. Their method is demonstrated by what they are fighting for most vociferously. For example, to continue uncontrolled "immigration" by refusing to fund the Wall while providing "sanctuary" for murdering invaders. America's death-spiral is encapsulated in this picture:
Occasional-Cortex and Jihad Barbie
Appropriately, on the left is Puerto-Rican Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her economy and soul destroying "Green New Deal" is already being touted by an equally evil media. The headbag on the right is Somali invader IIhan Omar. The picture is an excellent illustration of the Left-Islamic alliance to destroy America. Occasional-Cortex's non-American constituents voted for her because she promises to fundamentally transform America into Venezuela as quickly as inhumanly possible. They are also excellent representatives of the anti-American fifth-column the left, and Republican turncoats, have imported for this very purpose. If the American people won't vote for their own immolation, the left will replace them with those who will.

While a nation may survive external enemies, and may even survive imported enemies, it cannot long survive traitors within the wall. Sadly, "traitors" is the best word to describe the voters of Minnesota's fifth congressional district who support Omar. This district, and the last election, demonstrates that the domestic left is America's greatest enemy. They seek the nation's death. That their own death may soon follow is not any of their concern. They are just driven to murder the object of their all consuming hate: American (and Western) traditions and freedom.

Hyperbole? No. Ayn Rand made the nihilistic motives of such haters clear in her seminal essay "The Age of Envy" in 1971. Consider this passage on the Green movement:
...when the great emancipator, the automobile, is attacked as a public menace, and highways are decried as a violation of the wilderness--when bleary-eyed, limp-limbed young hobos of both sexes [!] chant about the evil of labor-saving devices, and demand that human life be devoted to the grubby hand-picking of truck gardens, and to garbage disposal--when alleged scientists stretch, fake or suppress scientific evidence in order to panic the ignorant about the interplanetary perils augured by some such omen as the presence of mercury in tuna fish--when their leading philosopher proclaims that work is an outdated prejudice, that fornication should replace ambition, and that mankind's standard of living should be brought down--when sundry hordes block the construction of electric generators and are about to plunge New York City into the catastrophe of an overloaded power system's failure--it is time to grasp that we are not dealing with man-lovers, but with killers. (emphasis added)
If there is a second American revolution these will be the two sides: those who seek to defend human values and those nihilists who seek to make human life on earth impossible. And, everyone will have to choose a side in this fight. It's later than most Americans realize.

Unfortunately, the left's pathologies have a useful idiot (or worse) in the misnamed Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). Consider ARI's CEO and most vocal spokesperson (see what I did there) Yaron Brook. Under his leadership, ARI has gone all out to garner both academic and mainstream media respectability. Nobody at ARI seems to understate, or wants to admit, that both these institutions are irredeemably evil. They are both a national menace and must be eliminated, not appeased. Evil of such magnitude cannot be reformed. It must not be sanctioned. 
Evil as the hating creatures are, there is something still more evil: those who try to appease them. (Ayn Rand - "The Age of Envy")
ARI sanctions evil by maintaining the facade that this evil are their civilized equals who should be engaged as such. When not pandering to evil, Brook castigates President Trump, and the "Deplorables," as the "villain of out time." In the last decade and a half, Brook has been moving ARI further and further left. Now it is indistinguishable from such left-libertarian organizations as Reason and CATO. He often attacks those on the "right," including real Objectivists, while appeasing the left on the all important cultural-social issues of our day. It's also clear what Ayn Rand would have thought about the mass importation of savages bent on looting and destroying Western Civilization. Unlike ARI, she would have been against such civilizational suicide.

On a positive note, Bruno Turner and Lindsay Perigo have been producing a weekly series of YouTube videos that are first-rate. Being considerate gentlemen, they limit their videos to thirty minutes duration. Their latest video is one of their best.

In this episode, Lindsay makes an excellent observation that should be widely repeated. The West is in an existential fight for survival with barbarians both within and without. The central part of that fight is the preservation of Western nation-states. If these nations fall, so does the West. Globalization is just the method by which the left seeks to destroy the nation-state, and therefore the West with it. President Donald Trump's fight for secure borders, rational immigration policy, ending America's role as global cop, and sane trade policies is the fight to save the West. Sadly, Yaron Brook, ARI and its supporters are on the wrong side of this battle on every issue. 

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Harry Binswanger Opines Again on Immigration

Harry Binswanger is one of Obleftivism's leading gurus. He has many NPC followers who parrot his every word and thought. He is also an extreme rationalist as are most of ARI's principle thought leaders. Binswanger is most notorious in patriotic Objectivist circles for his extremely bizarre views on immigration such as this classic from 2014: "After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened, exactly as is entry into Connecticut from New York." 


Binswanger's a smart guy and understands that the concept of national sovereignty and the fundamental nature of the nation-state stand in the way of his borderless utopian fantasy world. Therefore, he seeks to corrupt the concept of "sovereignty" and turn it into an anti-conceptual package-deal

A few days ago, Binswanger posted an essay in which he attempts to narrow the definition of "sovereignty" in order to empty it of most of its content. He did so to justify the population replacement of the American people with those who support statism and are consequently easily ruled. Here's his argument, in part:

“Sovereignty” refers to the government’s monopoly on force. The border defines the area within which the government has that monopoly–the monopoly on the use of force. The border indicates where a particular government has jurisdiction, the area within which its police will enforce its law.
The border is not the property line between the government’s ownership of “its territory” and the next government’s ownership of theirs. The government does not own the country. Nor does any collective. Sovereignty is not ownership.
 What then does “enforcing our border” mean, in a non-collectivist sense? It means not letting neighboring governments start to use their force within our borders. Enforcing the border is enforcing the government’s monopoly over force–it is not the initiation of force to obstruct or stop the free movement of individuals across that border. [Emphasis in original]

As with his previous article that is linked to above, Binswanger crudely reduces the entire question of national sovereignty to a matter of local police jurisdiction like as between Connecticut and New York. In reality, the concept of sovereignty addresses the nature of and justification for any government's source of legitimacy. In the case of the United States, the source of sovereignty is the American people. They have created and support their various governments and task them with acting in our interests and protection of our rights. The American people possess a distinct national identity. Their sovereignty rests on their right to form a polity and to protect its continued existence. Mass immigration from hostile or incongruent cultures is clearly a threat to the American polity's continuance. 

Since the early modern period when European nation-states were being formed, it's been understood that those new states have a sovereign right to control who and what crosses their borders. One purpose of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was to codify this principle of national sovereignty into international law. The goal of this principle was to prevent nations from meddling in the affairs of other countries. It was also an attempt to prevent the oppression that always results from polyglot empires of a "multicultural" nature - as something called the "Spanish Netherlands" had experienced. Needless to say, the nation-state stands in the way of both empire builders and globalist one-world utopians

Foreign nationals attempting to illegally cross into the United States are initiating force against the American people. For literalists who can't think conceptually, this principle is a paradox they will never solve. For example, many open borders libertarians declare that they would not allow in "migrants" with communicable diseases. Why not; don't sick people have rights? Or they state that terrorists would be stopped under their open borders scheme. Unless a prospective "migrant" has been convicted of a crime, is this not the "ideological screening" that has them in high dudgeon? And, don't those convicted of crimes who have served their time have rights?

Of course, none of these "tough" questions arise with a proper understanding of national sovereignty. I'll give Binswanger credit. He doesn't hedge his position. He drops all context and declares that the American people have a Kantian moral imperative to fling open their borders in order to erase their national existence.

The issue is either/or. Either American immigration policy is based on the national self-interest of the American people as they determine it or it is based on the alleged "right" of every and any foreigner to enter the United States regardless of the wishes of actual Americans. As Ayn Rand observed in the 1963 in a different context: 

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation - a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens - has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense). [Emphasis added] Ayn Rand, "Collectivized Rights," in The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 120.

Needless to say, the US government has no right to surrender the country's national sovereignty that belongs to the American people. Ayn Rand makes it perfectly clear in the above statement that the purpose of the US government is to protect the rights of American citizens. The rights of foreign nationals, either real or imagined, are not my government's problem or concern. Although Ayn Rand never directly addressed the issue of the current mass invasion of the civilized West, it's clear that she would never have supported the West's destruction based on pathological altruism. Even Leonard Peikoff understood that individual rights, however distorted and misinterpreted, are not a suicide pact. 

I'll close by noting that even open immigration (for America) proponents usually draw the line when it comes to a certain ethno-religious state. I have no problem with Israel defining itself as the "Jewish State." It's just interesting how some people will twist themselves into semantic pretzels when it comes to rationalizing the one, while also declaring that American culture has no real identity and that mass immigration won't adversely affect, if not destroy, the American sense of life.