Thursday, April 9, 2020
A few months ago, we were hectored to destroy the entire global economy because some obnoxious, autistic teenager was triggered. Now that goal has been achieved. It's no coincident. It's enemy action.
Someone finally realized that the state can seize dictatorial power by invoking public health. Those laws have been ticking bombs for many decades.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Holleran continues by noting that the University of Pittsburgh Press is publishing a series of works on Ayn Rand's philosophy. Unfortunately, these books are written by academic philosophers for academic philosophers. Therefore, it's doubtful they will have any impact on American culture. Such unread, and largely unreadable, books fly off university presses. They will sit unread in university libraries until the end of days.
This academic book project brings us to the main theme of Holleran's article. It is yet another effort by those affiliated or in agreement with the Ayn Rand Institute to appease, pander and suck up to the left, including the academic left.
Let's begin with Holleran's description of Ayn Rand:
A Jewish atheist who escaped from Russia to the U.S. in 1926, Rand became, by the time of her death in 1982, America’s foremost woman thinker." (emphasis added)The above is a classic example of definition by non-essentials. Ayn Rand never, ever described herself as Jewish. She had no interest in the Jewish religion. There is no evidence that she had any interest in Jewish culture. Of course, Ayn Rand was an atheist. But, she never defined herself with that negative concept. She defined herself in positive terms. In her famous short introduction to Objectivism, or Objectivism while standing on one foot, the word "atheism" is not found.
Why describe Ayn Rand in such a way? After all, George Soros, Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx are also "Jewish atheists." Probably for that very reason. It's calculated to appeal to leftists who will assume that a "Jewish atheist" is far left of center or at least sympathetic with their cultural Marxist nihilism. The evidence is the careful massaging of her message by Anthem Foundation Fellow Gregory Salmieri.
Ayn Rand described herself as a "radical for capitalism" who fights for the "supremacy of reason." This will not do for Holleran or Salmieri. Instead, they appease and evade. They water down Rand's ideas to make them palatable for leftists. For example, this doozy:
“We’re at the point in history of Rand’s passing from being a controversial contemporary figure in the history of thought,” said Salmieri. “It’s time for reference works.”Rand "controversial!" Hush your mouth! Objectivism isn't "controversial."
“I think that readers who associate her with conservatives or libertarians might not know that she viewed government as good and necessary. Her thoughts on freedom of speech and intellectual freedom relate to the views of John Locke and the founding views of America. She held that there are principles governing how societies operate — that there’s a real need for a government and that government [should] stick to certain proper functions and fully perform those functions. I think the structure of her view is not well understood by people who just think of her as a kind of propagandist against Big Government.”Her views on individual rights (missing from the above) are extremely "controversial" to the left. Only evaders refuse to see that the academic left avidly seeks to destroy what's left of Lockean liberalism in America. Their hostility to free speech doesn't require any further evidence. The "founding views of America" are what the left most hates - along with the Founders who created the country.
Salmieri said the notion of Rand as an exclusively right-wing thinker stems from the left/right dichotomy that dominates American politics.
“This was particularly [prevalent] during the forties through the early seventies — when Rand was writing — and the issue that most obviously separated them was the growth of the welfare state.” Because Rand was critical of communism and socialism, Salmieri said, she was strongly opposed by the left. (emphasis added)No. What separated Rand from the left was their rejection of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and political freedom. Ayn Rand excoriated the left on such cultural issues as environmentalism, women's lib, modern art, affirmative action, and above all, its egalitarianism. Needless to say, these remain core anti-values for the left.
Salmieri has claimed elsewhere that the right/left political divide is largely meaningless because both are of mixed premises. The motivation is to create the impression that both are equally irrational, altruistic and dangerous to freedom. Such nonsense is contrary to observable reality. Earlier this week "rightists" who support gun rights peacefully demonstrated in Richmond, Virginia despite the leftist government's threats. Meanwhile, the left engages in vicious and violent suppression of free speech at every opportunity. Antifa riots and mayhem are their specialty. "Rightist" speakers on college campuses require armed guards. The inability to distinguish between the relative merits and demerits of the right and left is itself a form of evasion. It's the refusal to differentiate between Edmund Burke and Robespierre or between Joe McCarthy and Joe Stalin.
Ayn Rand was not "critical" of communism and socialism. She properly defined each as evil that leads to mass death and makes human life impossible. Her first novel We the Living was publish in 1936. It is set in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s. In it she dramatizes how communism must destroy the best for the worse. There are countless examples in Rand's non-fiction writing to demonstrate that she wasn't "critical" of communism and socialism. She trenchantly proved that there is little difference between the two and that both are irredeemable evil. This is why the left hates her and smears her at every opportunity.
The left, including academia, is now absolutely dominated by their hatred of the good for being the good. This nihilism permeates their entire political and social agenda. Ayn Rand wrote "The Age of Envy" in 1971. It is a tour de force that lays bare the naked evil of the left. She identifies its pathology that has metastasized in our day into a society wrecking cancer. Only an extended quote can do it justice and make my point:
Altruists are no longer concerned with material wealth, not even with its "redistribution," only with its destruction - but even this is merely a means to an end. Their savage fury is aimed at the destruction of intelligence - of ability, ambition thought, purpose, justice; the destruction of morality, any sort of morality; the destruction of values qua values.This is what Salmieri refers to as "critical," as if Ayn Rand was some academic of "critical studies" who ignored fundamentals and "criticized" based on non-essentials. He continues by describing Rand's political views thus,
The last fig leaf of academic pretentiousness is the tag used to disguise this movement: egalitarianism. It does not disguise, but reveals
Today's advocates of "equality" do not pretend that they wish to improve the lot of the poor; they do not wish to exploit the competent, but to destroy them.
If anyone doubted the possibility of such motives, the ecological crusade should remove all doubts.
But, the hippies were not enough. They were surpassed by the caricature to end all caricatures: Women's Lib.
Salmieri cited Rand’s desire to preserve freedom of speech, secularism, abortion rights, end of life decision rights and equal protection of minorities. (emphasis added)Salmieri has spent his entire career in academia and has adopted its Newspeak of evasion. Note the absence of the concept of individual rights in his examples. When academic leftists speak of "equal protection of minorities" they mean equality of results between racial/ethnic groups. Everyone knows this. Salmieri isn't stupid, he fully understands the implication of this phrase to his left-wing audience. It's the reductio ad absurdum of the left's collectivism and egalitarianism. Furthermore, protection from whom? White racists, of course. Part of the left's pathology is their belief in "white privilege" that causes different achievement rates between groups. And, like a "good" academic, Salmieri concurs that "white privilege" exists and is a problem. The race obsessed academic left's hatred for white people is yet another issue that Salmieri shamelessly evades.
As for state sanctioned and enforced homicide, known as euthanasia, I would like to see the reference in Rand's work supporting it.
The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has a long history of rewriting Objectivism in order to make it more attractive to the academic left. In part, this is because most of ARI's principles are more comfortable socially with political leftists. In part, because many of ARI's leaders are from the political left. They just don't like or understand the "Deplorables" who elected Donald Trump.
Another obvious reason for ARI's leftist lurch is the necessity of not offending its founder and patron Leonard Peikoff. In 2012, Peikoff published The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West are Going Out. Based on his thesis, Peikoff makes the following prediction for America:
Not just a religious totalitarianism, but a religious-fascist totalitarianism - that is my prediction of the American future.Peikoff really believes that Jerry Falwell, or his equivalent, is poised to takeover the USA. Meanwhile, the left continues to gut Western Civilization with the enthusiastic help of their Mohammedan allies.
It seems to be a major job description for ARI intellectuals to rationalize Peikoff's absurd prediction. Hence, they attack Donald Trump as the second coming of Hitler. Hence, they always punch right while seeking the left's sanction. Hence, they ignore the existential threat posed by mass invasion from savage cultures. Official Objectivists consider American "right-wing" Christians as the main enemy. Official Objectivists judged academic Marxists as potential allies. In reality, they are the destroyers of everything as Ayn Rand well understood.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Diana West's American Betrayal is the best work available exploring the massive treason that occurred during the Roosevelt administration. She begins at the end of the story by demonstrating how the American people are still betrayed on a daily basis by their leaders. Both the American people and their political leaders have been conditioned to tell and believe an endless series of Big Lies. Such Big Lies as "Climate Change," "diversity is our strength" and Jeffrey Epstein's "suicide" are still daily currency. Although, the liars are fooling less and less people with each passing day.
West's opening chapter addresses one of the biggest lies of our time: the whitewashing of the Mohammedan Death Cult. After 9/11, George W. Bush famously commented repeatedly on some non-existent "religion of peace." Meanwhile, in classic Bush Crime Family tradition, he dedicated American policy to the best interests of the Saudi Entity. Obama was even worse. He purged both the FBI and military of any truth tellers about Islam who remained in government service. He covered up the motives of the Fort Hood jihadist.
As enemies of the West, godless Communism and godcentric Islam are strangely, eerily similar, in their collectivist, totalitarian natures, in their dysfunctional ideological reliance on the Eternal Foe for forward thrust, and, above all, in our blindness to all related and resulting implications of our struggle against them. (Pg. 21, emphasis in original)Of course, Zero (Obama) is the personification of both these anti-life ideologies.
Such [Western] ennui, if that's the right term, is no match for the persistent animus toward capitalism, individualism, and "bourgeois" culture that, again, seemingly paradoxically, has long outlasted the rotted Soviet superstructure. Indeed, in the person of President Barack Hussein Obama, two decades after the disintegration of the USSR, such animus pulses through his administration. (Pg. 24)In order to explain where our blindness originated, West then moves on to the first Bush administration. She documents Bush's incessant appeasement of and abject surrender to Mikhail Gorbachev. Bush's calumny climaxed with his notorious Chicken Kiev speech in which he attacked the legitimate national yearnings of the Ukrainian people. It appeared that keeping the Soviet Union in business and its empire intact was as important to Bush as it was for Gorby.
The elder Bush's obsequious position viz a viz Gorbachev is important to West because the issue leads to an important question: who actually won the Cold War? Sure, the Soviet Union is gone. But, their fifth-column flourishes* to this day. In other words, we won over there but lost the much more important philosophical war at home.
Here, since even before the earliest days of the twentieth century, the riddling, boring penetration of Marxian beliefs - through the influx of true believers from Europe and Russia, through the conversion to true belief of new Marxists at home, and through campaigns of Soviet disinformation and other "active measures" - advanced mainly unchecked. The ideological war abroad ... was lost on all fronts in the battlespace at home: in the academy, in the media, in the popular culture, in the arts, and in the zeitgeist up and down Main Street and even, or perhaps especially, along capitalism's main thoroughfare, Wall Street. It was as if we opposed an enemy Over There without noticing the great chunks of his ideology had taken root, flourished, and borne collectivist and thus anti-American fruit Over Here. (Pg. 35)The above quote is the core of West's thesis.
One of West's key pieces of evidence was the rapid moral degeneration of the West after 1932. That year is important because it marks the first, and one of the most egregious, Big Lies propagated to the American people by journalists and politicians who had sold their souls for a pat on the head from Joseph Stalin. I'm referring to their cover up of the Holodomor. Walter Duranty is the most famous of the Big Liars. His reports in the New York Times denying the Ukrainian Terror Famine are well-known.
He had a lot of help in this exercise in Genocide denial. One important source West uses is Eugene Lyons' "Assignment in Utopia." Lyons was a UP correspondent in Moscow who achieved a remarkable "scoop" by scoring a rare interview with Stalin. In his book he describes how the entire Moscow press corps covered up the Ukrainian Terror Famine. West's book is chock full of such obscure sources by reformed fellow travelers and anti-Communists. It's no accident that most of these sources are long out of print. The effectiveness of the cultural Marxist campaign of Big Lies can be demonstrated by just mentioning Senator Joe McCarthy at most any gathering:
In the late 1940's, another newly coined term was shot into our cultural arteries: "McCartyism." Again, it was a derogatory term, suggesting some insidious evil, and without any clear definition. Its alleged meaning was: "Unjust accustaions, persecutions, and character assassinations of innocent victims." Its real meaning was: "Anti-Communism."For the United States the moral decay began in November 1933 with Roosevelt's recognition of the Soviet Union. The moral decline, treason and complicity in naked evil accelerated at that point. In his magnum opus, Herbert Hoover noted that the Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and his own administrations refused to take such a step. As he observed,
Senator McCarthy was never proved guilty of those allegations, but the effect of that term was to intimidate and silence public discussions. Any uncompromising denunciation of communism or communists was - and still is - smeared as "McCarthyism." As a consequence, opposition to and exposes of communist penetration have all but vanished from our intellectual scene. (Ayn Rand, "'Extremism,' or the Art of Smearing," The Objectivist Newsletter, September 1964)
The recognition of Russia by the United States gave the Soviet government a stamp of respectability before all the world. Other nations followed our lead, thus opening their gates to conspiracies which plague them to this day. (Herbert Hoover, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath, 2011, pg. 29)And, as West observed, the Lies continued to multiply, grow and take over. Like weeds on a vacant lot, the Lies drove out the truth and made any American First policy impossible. At first it was necessary to evade the nature of the Soviet Union and "blank out" the existent of its agents operating within the Roosevelt administration.
Next it became necessary to cover up Soviet crimes. For example, the murder of defector Walter Krivitsky. He had joined the Cheka in 1917. By 1937, he was an NKVD general in charge of all "illegal" operations in Western Europe. Thinking that his number was up at the height of Stalin's purges and show trials, he defected in 1937. The Roosevelt administration was uninterested in what he had to say. He was refused a green card and protection. A few weeks before he was scheduled to testify before Congress, Krivitsky committed "suicide" on 10 February 1941 in Washington D.C. The FBI was not called in and the story was buried. Eminent historians Anthony Cave Brown and Charles B. MacDonald tell the whole sordid story in their top shelf book On a Field of Red: The Communist International and the Coming of World War II.
West doesn't spend much time on the Krivitsky case. She does provide much detail and documentation on yet another Big Lie prepatrated by the US government: The Katya Forest Massacre in 1941. The story is well known. The evidence that the Soviets had committed this mass murder of Polish Army officers was overwhelming long before the war was over. But, you guessed it, the "see no Communist evil" policy remained firmly in place.
It did, however, make it more intensively redolent of spoiled fish and, worse, made the Allies complicit for the first time in doing our concerted part to preserve and elaborate on a new Big Lie - this one, to some transformational extent, of our own official making ... Such patterns of censorship and, worse, self-censorship do things to people; do things to our vision and grasp of the truth, our respect for facts, our reliance on judgment. (Pp. 208, 217)Today, much too late, even the CIA admits to the government cover up (or as they delicately put it "controversy) of the Katyn mass murder for the benefit of our Soviet "ally."
The US government's degradation, and treason to common decency, gets even worse. West recounts in painful detail Operation Keelhaul that occurred at the war's conclusion. Keelhaul was the forced repatriation of Russian and Eastern European nationals to the tender mercies of Uncle Joe Stalin. Part of the deal was that Stalin would then release the thousands of Americans and other Western POWs that the Red Army had "liberated" and still held hostage. Needless to say, Stalin didn't keep his word and Washington quickly forgot about the Americans they had abandoned. West continues about the moral sewer that the USA was/is now occupying.
Here was a harrowing new development in our self-destructive relationship with Communist Russia. Having swallowed any number of Big Lies about Soviet atrocities (Terror Famine and on) to maintain sunny relations with the USSR, having perpetrated a Big Lie ourselves about a Soviet atrocity (Katyn) to continue to fight on as supposedly like-minded allies, the Western Allies went further still: We became accessories to a Soviet atrocity - a war crime and crime against humanity. (Pg. 232, emphasis in original)America's moral degeneration was facilitated by the large numbers of Communist agents and fellow travelers in the Roosevelt administration. As noted above, their poison would quickly seep in all areas of American life. West provides amply proof that the Roosevelt and Truman (and subsequent) administrations were penetrated for top to bottom. She provides much evidence that the now sanctified Truman was a two-bit partisan hack in way over his head. When Truman was given overwhelming proof by the FBI that Communists operated freely in the executive branch, his reponse was to launch a cover up that included smearing whistle blowers like Whitaker Chambers. Truman's main concern was the upcoming election in 1948 and not American national security.
The truth of a Soviet occupied Washington is not new. Nor was Diana West the first to recognize it.
The principal recruiter was Harold Ware, who held a first meeting of the Triple A [Agricultural Adjustment Administration] group at a violin studio owned by his sister on Connecticut Avenue. At the start, the cell consisted only of Ware, and three others, all attorneys: John Abt, Nathan Witt, and Lee Pressman; but from that microcosm there developed a shadow Soviet Government of America under the direction of J. Peters, the full range of which the Federal Bureau of Investigation would never be able to determine. (Anthony Cave Brown and Charles B. MacDonald, On a Field of Red, 1981, pg. 340)
There has been much noise about West's contention that Washington was occupied by the Soviet enemy during the Roosevelt, and later, administrations. But, there it is from nearly forty years ago: Soviet Government of America.
There is much controversy surrounding American Betrayal. Most of it stems from mendacious reviews that focused on details and ignored West's main thesis. One such detail is the nature of Harry Hopkin's treason. Was he a Soviet agent with a NKVD handler or did his treason just come naturally? We will probably never know. If there were any "smoking guns" in the National Archives, the documents have long since been shredded.
Another issue is West's views on World War II strategy. I disagree with her on the "second front" and whether MacArthur's forces in The Philippines could have have been relieved regardless of Lend-Lease policy. These are just a few of countless, perennial World War II "what ifs" that honest and patriotic Americans can disagree on. West's critics aren't honest in this regard and, therefore, can't just agree to disagree.
Ignore the critics and read the book for yourself. It's an eyeopening bombshell that all Americans should closely study.
* In her must read The Red Thread, West documents the hard left and neo-Marxist roots of the cabal currently attempting to overthrow a duly elected president.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
And we will argue in this essay that Colón was indeed a murderer, culpable for those crimes against humanity as the head of an authoritarian regime just as readily as Adolph Hitler is held accountable for the murder of some six million Romas (the so-called Gypsies), Jews, and gays in Nazi Germany.The left's rancor has only gotten worse and more demented in the last twenty year.
Oddly enough, the US Mint issued a commemorative coin for the anniversary in 1992.
Columbus Day is still one of ten federal National Holidays. It was established in 1937. According to the feds, "It is celebrated every second Monday of October...." Not quite (although, "woke" federal "workers" happily take a paid holiday to commemorate literal Hitler). In many jurisdictions, Columbus Day has been "fundamentally transformed" into Stone Age Savage Day ... oops ... indigenous peoples day. This movement is just a part of the cultural jihad determined to destroy America.
|Racist Savages Protesting Indoor Plumbing|
Presidents' Day was created largely to denigrate the memory of two great Americans: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. A commemorative Civil Rights Day could have been created for a month like June or August which don't have a fedgov holiday. Or, King Day in January could have been established without messing with Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays. Instead, it was decided to go with airbrushing away the vast part of American history that doesn't fit the leftist narrative. Acknowledging the man most instrumental in the nation's founding and the man who saved the Union by bringing forth a "new birth of freedom" just wouldn't do.
The left's war on Christmas has been largely a failure, except with those mumbling "happy holidays" on December 25th. It's hard to say which holiday will be their next target. Perhaps Veterans or Memorial Day. They hate the military and the troops. Although, their campaign to turn the military into another Post Office type jobs program is moving right along. Or perhaps, Thanksgiving with its Christian and "imperialist" connotations will be next on the chopping block. Time will tell. But, rest assured that the left's campaign to deconstruct America will never end until stopped by patriots.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
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.
Addendum: On 15 October 2020 the Ayn Rand Centre UK posted a video "Celebration Leonard Peikoff." At the very end of which, Peikoff stated:
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
|New ad for the Yaron Brook Show|
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
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.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.
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 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'.Yes, May's government has made it clear that it will enable and cover-up for Moslem rape gangs at every opportunity.
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)
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.