Monday, February 20, 2017

Fake News: Islam Is Blameless!



The Amish Strike Blow for Freedom of Movement!

Lancaster, Penna. Feb. 22 – We are still reeling from the news of Christian terrorism when a fast-moving Amish buggy deliberately side-swiped a tractor-trailer hauling steel plates to go into the new border wall with Mexico, sending the trailer into a ditch, injuring the driver and his companion, and scattering the fifty one-ton plates in the the highway divide on State Route 30. The driver and his co-driver were taken to Lancaster General Hospital.

An Amish Weapon of Terror

The “road rage” snarled traffic for hours, backing traffic up for several miles from as far away as East Petersburg. Arrested at the scene was Amos Yoder of Lancaster, a farmer and the driver of the buggy, and his son, Elmer, age 17.

In a statement, Mr. Yoder said they took the perilous action to protest the “Mexican Trump wall” and President Trump’s immigration ban of Muslims. Mr. Yoder said he would like to see more illegals and Muslims settle in the region.

“We have always opened our hearts to the dispossessed and the oppressed in this country. We are not worried about the government settling Muslims in our midst or allowing Mexican illegals to flourish here. We are a peaceful people and are not concerned about Muslims or wayward Mexicans raping our daughters and women, or invading our homes to rob us, even though we could not protect ourselves, for we do not believe in violence. They would never cause us harm. They know this.”

When asked how he and his family could know anything about Muslim rapes and murders and how Islam is a religion of peace, when they have no electric conveniences at home such as a  television, he said that he and his family watch a lot of news on TV in a local Wal-Mart store.

  Lancaster Police and the state Highway Patrol have deemed the incident an “unmistakable act of terrorism.” The incident puts paid and contradicts the recent statements by Pope Francis that there is no Christian terrorism, or Jewish terrorism, or Islamic terrorism, and statements made by German leader Angela Merkel that Germany needs more Muslims. Mr. Yoder and his son have been remanded to the custody of the local office of the State Police and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas to await arraignment,

This, of course, is a “fake news” report that could have easily have been broadcast by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the BBC, or MSNBC. They are all fake news outlets. It’s fake except for these quotations from Angela Merkel and Pope Francis. Those are very real. Also very real is the government’s concerted campaign to salt the Lancaster region with especially Muslim “refugees” so that the largely “white” communities there are upended with populations of different colors and creeds and non-peaceful outlooks on the world. Angela Merkel claims that the European Union still has a “responsibility” to take in more so-called refugees, and pleaded to Islamic governments to help convince people that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

Angela Merkel can’t seem to make up her mind.

Amid the tragedy there’s the horrible irony that just some three months ago German national daily Die Welt here published a piece with the title:

Truck drivers wanted’ – Merkel gives refugees tips”

Die Welt reported that Merkel was working hard to “rapidly integrate the refugees” and called on industry to get involved. Merkel said that refugees would be able to trade in their driver’s licenses for a German one for 500 euros, but that of course loans need to be offered to help them finance it. Paying back the loan should be no problem, Merkel said:

When one earns, he can then pay this 500 euros back. Everywhere truck drivers are being sought.”

This was said in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin festival truck attack on Germans.

Germany is in shock after yesterday’s terrorist attack on a Berlin Christmas market, which is a stark symbol of German culture. The latest figures show 12 dead and 48 injured – some seriously. Also the Polish driver of the hijacked truck allegedly was killed.

The Daily Star reported on February 19th:

The embattled leader says Europe has an obligation to take displaced people from Syria and Iraq. She also said Islam "is not the cause of terrorism" and that combating extremism needs the cooperation of Muslim countries.


A reelectable revanchist?
But previously, in October 2016, she sort of panicked and said that some migrants must be deported from Germany. Breitbart reported:

After an influx of almost 900,000 migrants last year, some Germans fear their country is being overrun by foreigners. Merkel has attracted criticism for her migrant policy and her conservatives have lost some support to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD).

An understatement with a red Magic Marker, to be sure.

In the past, when smaller numbers of asylum seekers arrived, those who were not granted the right to stay were not deported rigorously enough and that needs to change now, given the high number of refugees and migrants, Merkel said.

“We need a national push to deport those who are rejected. That’s indisputable and we’re working hard on that at the moment,” Merkel told a conference of the youth wing of her conservatives in Paderborn.

That’s not going to happen. If she tried it, there would be “peaceful” rioting and camp-burnings by Muslims. So, it’s unlikely she will be doing much “pushing.”

Deporting those migrants was only one element of Germany’s refugee policy, Merkel said, adding that the integration of those who are granted protection must be expedited.

Unless I’m consulting the wrong thesaurus, integration is not the same thing as assimilation. And assimilation is not what most Muslims in Germany have in mind, unless it’s into the German welfare state. And Merkel’s policy is that it’s the Germans who must integrate into Islamic “culture,” if there is such a thing.

A Breitbart article of February 18th reports Merkel’s oscillating position on Islam:

“So co-operation with the United States of America is most important for us, but what’s also very important to me is that Islamist, Muslim states have been incorporated in this coalition, because I think those countries, first and foremost, have to give a contribution.”

According to Chancellor Merkel, however, working with such states is the only way “we will be able to convince people that it is not Islam that is the problem, but a falsely understood Islam, and the religious authorities of Islam have to find strong language in order to delineate themselves and distance themselves from this fundamentalist and terrorist [version of] Islam.”

Was the Pope “channeling” Mohammad? Was Merkel? The planets must have been in magical alignment for them both to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism within 48 hours of each other. Did they have a conference call to coordinate their statements?


In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.

What he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.

In keeping with the Marxist notion that men’s characters are formed by their economic and material conditions and circumstances, Francis added:

“No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent,” Francis said, while also suggesting—as he has on other occasions—that terrorism is primarily a result of economic inequalities rather than religious beliefs. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.”


Pope Francis: “Upon this staff I will
nonviolently build a caliphate,
depending on the environment.”
At brief glance at his statement, reveals that Francis seems to be denying the role of economic determinism, a core tenet of his politics. He also, in the same breath, conceded that terrorism – specifically Islamic terrorism – does indeed exist, but failed to cite examples of Christian or Jewish terrorism.

On that note, I am unable to recall the number of Christians or Jews (whom Francis did not mention) who are terrorists and who have made headlines in my lifetime.

They are as imaginary and fake as the Amish terrorist.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Muslim Mania and Other Insanities

The world is having a conniption fit seizure, “triggered” by Donald Trump.  The main victim of this ongoing seizure is the MSM. Call it cultural and political epilepsy, it’s not pretty to look at.  I am reminded of a childhood experience with witnessing these seizures.


The Bridges to Islam, or Interfaith Dialogue.

Muslims know that Islam is not negotiable.

In grade school, for a reason never explained to me or to anyone else, my class for years was burdened with a boy (Robert) who was not only mentally ill and deficient in how to perform every day actions (such as reading or tying his shoe laces), but was subject to unarticulated fits in class when he drooled, frothed at the mouth, and became violent, so violent that it would require all the strength of a nun (and the nuns in my school were mostly burly and hefty; one of them, the gargantuan Sister Barbarossa, could beat up a school foot ball player) to subdue him – Robert was as strong as a bull – but also need the help of the bigger boys to literally hold him down in his seat-desk until an ambulance showed up to take him away.

 The episode that sticks in my mind now, however, is when he stood at the top of a small cliff that overlooked the neighboring school playground and began to throw rocks at us. Big rocks.
It was never revealed why Robert was even in the school and not in a facility that could treat and handle his condition. It was a Catholic, private school (Nativity Parish School) and cost money to send a child there; so doubtless he was enrolled there by state mandate, or because of some dangerous physician’s recommendation, and so someone else was paying the bill.

The behavior of the MSM towards President Trump and his surprising, “shock –to-the-system” election in November are so similar to Robert’s frequent and frightening outbursts that I couldn’t help but dwell on the parallels. In fact, it has been the MSM’s behavior that caused me to recall Robert.
Wikipedia writes:

Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal nerve cell activity in the cortex of the brain…. The word epilepsy is from Ancient Greek: ἐπιλαμβάνειν " to seize, possess, or afflict."
Daniel Greenfield’s article “If We Don’t Let In Muslims To America They’ll Kill Us” of February 10th highlights the madness that has gripped the MSM and many politicians. His column title was taken directly from a statement by Connecticut Senator  Chris Murphy:

Trump's executive order is "going to get Americans killed," Senator Murphy declared.

The Connecticut Democrat was joining a chorus of the clueless warning us that if we don’t let Muslims into America, they’ll join ISIS and kill us.

Singing their brains out in the same stupid chorus were Senator McCain and Senator Graham (“a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism”), Senator Ben Sasse (“the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims”) and Senator Heitkamp (“confirms the lie terrorists tell their recruits: that America is waging a war on Islam.”)….

Senator Cardin went one better by whining that keeping potential Islamic terrorists out, “promises to make the U.S. less safe and places our courageous servicemen and women in even greater danger as they fight against terrorism.” Just tell it to the Marines shot and killed by a Muslim immigrant at a Chattanooga recruiting station and Naval reserve center.

There’s only one problem with this hostage crisis theory of immigration. It’s insane.


The “masculine” David by Michelangelo (1501-04)
Galleria dell’Accademia, Florence
The manly way to confront Islam
Greenfield asks the logical question,

"If keeping Muslim migrants out of America will make them kill us, why would we let them in?"

But logic and reason are not buffered into the minds of anti-immigrant activists and fascists. You may as well prescribe Xanex to a raving berserker and expect him to count backwards from 100.

I remarked in a comment on Greenfield’s column:

But do politicians like Senator Murphy really hate this country so much that they'd want to expose it and its citizens to harm? I don't know. Examining the contents of insane men's heads is not a wholesome or inspiring profession. But the fundamental problem with him and his ilk in the whole anti-immigration ban movement from Capitol Hill to the Women's March to the rioting Antifa ninja goons of Berkeley and the immigrant riots that are reducing Paris, France to a shell of it former self to the 9th Federal District Court and Judge Robart's bench to Angela Merkel's policies, is that their hold on causo-connections in reality, in their thinking, and in their actions is tenuous, if not non-existent. That deficiency does not sire logic, but instead advances the fulfillment of a tenacious Marxist fantasy that imperils nations and civilized society. If they wish it to be true, then it will become true.

 I’ve always said that when you tell the “needy” and the “oppressed to  “come and get it,” your pockets will soon be empty: Altruism kills. It kills nations and cultures. Look at France, Sweden, and Germany.  Doing the “right thing” – the altruist thing – to atone for past real or alleged crimes against groups, by allowing millions of savages entry into a civilized nation, is costing those countries untold millions in damages and countless crimes committed again the indigenous citizens. It was a longish comment but there were relevant points to make. There have been no rebuttals that count for anything, except for emotionalist rants.

Unswerving fealty to the Progressive/Marxist philosophy that currently governs economics, political principles, social relationships, education, freedom of speech and the First Amendment, et. al, has no basis in reality but is rooted in the death grips of fantasy worship and wishful thinking and a desire to bring the great down to the level of the mediocre. That agenda has always failed and will always fail, no matter how many times it's advocated and imposed and regardless of the evidence of the consequent and incalculable death and misery it's caused. They say, "Drink the poison, it's nutritious! Eat your spinach, never mind that it's laced with arsenic!"

More insanity has emanated from our holier- than-thou Social Justice Warrior in the Vatican “Islamic terrorism doesn’t exist.”  Pope Francis announces and chooses to not let anyone off the hook of his self-righteousness:

In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

On an “ecological” note, he did not condemn the Paris rioters for burning cars and tires in the street, releasing clouds of poisonous black smoke into the sky. I guess the smoke was irrelevant. After all, Pope Francis will not be coated with it.

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.

What he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.

Au contraire, Francis, afraid of “offending” the most sensitive members of the most belligerent religion in modern history, Christian and Jewish terrorism doesn’t exist. Only Islamic. Like any politically correct halfwit, he chooses not to acknowledge facts and Islamic terrorism.

Still, Pope Francis, the Argentine communist, like senorita Nina, will not dance with reality, and absolutely refuses to engage with it.

Speaking of immigration to the U.S., Ann Corcoran of The Center for Security Policy, details the ongoing influx of Muslims into the U.S. in her Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America (Center for Security Policy, 2015), an influx that is deliberate and, for all practical purposes, “on time” and growing per Islamic doctrine and per the American government’s skewered immigration policy, that favors “refugees” from “war-torn” regions and from most Islamic pest holes. She writes:

Islamic doctrine holds that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and, therefore, that emulation of his life is evidence of the highest level of devotion for the faithful. According to the sacred texts and traditions of Islam , Mohammed left his home town of Mecca in the 7th century and traveled  with a small band of followers  to the city of Yatrib (now Medina) , in what has become known as the hijra (migration). He did so with the intent of establishing a new base of operations from which to conquer and rule.

Hijra remains the model to this day for jihadists who seek to populate and dominate new lands.  Their migrations are not for the purpose of assimilating peacefully in a new host nation, adopting as their own its traditions and legal systems. Rather, Mohammed’s followers, in keeping with the example established by their prophet , are driven first to colonize and then to transform non-Muslim target societies – whether through violent means or via stealthy, pre-violent ones favored by the Muslim Brotherhood when it is not powerful enough to use violence decisively. (p. 7)

The “girly” David by Andrea del Verrocchio
(1473-1475) Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence

Corcoran quotes the unstoppable Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who stands a good chance of upending the Dutch government come the next elections later this year.

After citing former Libyan leader Moammar Quadafi’s famous observation that Europe would be conquered without guns and swords, but with Muslim migrants over-running the Continent, Dutch Parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom Geert Wilders….said in his endorsement of [Sam Solomon’s] Modern Day Trojan Horse:

*[O]ne can see that the threat from Islam doesn’t just come in the form of Islamic terrorism by suicide bombers trying to wreak havoc in our cities. More often, it comes in the form of gradual and incremental transformation of our societies and legal systems, or what is termed ‘Islamisation of our democratic societies by the vast growing numbers of Muslim immigrants who are importing Islam into Western way of life.

Many in the West do not see the dangers  that Islamisation poses to our civilisation. Especially he ruling elite, who refuse to take action to counter  Islamisation by prohibiting  Sharia Law, or to take measures to regulate mass immigration. (emphasis added)

Wilders says it more clearly and with more authority than I can muster from having observed only a small but significant wedge of the Muslim immigration process taking place in America over the last seven years. [p. 13-14]

Corcoran clarifies some issues that have been largely lost in the vociferous hullabaloo about the “evil” of President Trump’s alleged “Muslim ban,” issues lost, forgotten, or papered over by the government and its open-borders, pro-immigration fence gossipers.

The Refugee Act of 1980 expanded the migration from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, but was aimed at anther immigrant population – largely low-skilled and poorly educated “refugees,” supposedly all fleeing persecution, who are in need of government [i.e., taxpayer] support. In the early days of the program, most were escaping Communism….The most attractive legal avenue to enter the U.S. is as a “refugee” or successful asylum seeker, because, in such cases, one is given a case worker to help secure employment and is immediately eligible for all forms of welfare. (brackets mine)

It should be further noted that there is often confusion about the definition of a refugee and someone granted political asylum (an asylee). A refugee or asylum seeker must prove that he or she is persecuted for one of several reasons  -- political persecution, religion, nationality, or race – and cannot return safely to one’s country of origin.

The difference between the two is how they reach America. A refugee is selected and screened abroad and flown here (at taxpayer expense), while an asylum seeker reaches our borders on his or her own steam and then asks for asylum to be granted. (p. 15)


The androgynous David by Donatello (1440s?)
Museo Nazionale del Bargello
I should mention at this point Ted Kennedy’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, or the Hart-Celler Act, as vile and malicious a piece of legislation as was ever conceived vis-à-vis immigration issues.

The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. Previous laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans.[2] In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual’s place of birth.

Doubtless, the Hart-Celler Act fueled the passage of the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, which is the central focus of Corcoran’s book. The Hart-Celler Act purports to fight “racism” by being racist to its roots. In practice this is not how it works out. Christians and other non-Muslim refugees and asylum seekers, even though they have been demonstrably persecuted or the object of literal genocide (such as the Yazids and Christians) have been given short shrift, while the government, working with so-called “charities,” bestow overwhelming preference to Muslims of all hues , most of them assimilation-resistant and often overtly hostile to assimilation.

Indeed, these Muslim groups expect Americans to assimilate in deference and in submission to Islam. Assimilation to a host culture (and obeisance to its legal structure) has never been the goal of Muslim “resettlement,” but rather conquest by demographics. This is in conformance to the Muslim Brotherhood explanatory memorandum of 1991, not only in terms of demographics, but also in “civilizational jihad” against a country’s core institutions, such as its legal foundations (to elevate Sharia law over Western law) .

The federal government is the taxpayer-filled trough from which many “private” so-called charities dip their snouts to enable especially Muslim resettlement in the U.S.  Corcoran identifies the culprits (although I would call them swine, also because their administrators profit personally from the gratuities to be had from the refugee dole). The following are the main “charities” listed by Corcoran together with their federal tax returns per their total revenues:

The Church World Service (CWS):  total revenue – $76,185,774
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) secular: total revenue –  $15,244,802
Hebrew Migration Ministries (EMM) (Officially The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA: total revenue – $17,365,325
Under the name of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS): total revenue -- $25,418,714
International Rescue Committee (IRC) secular: total revenue – $456,122,865
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) secular: total revenue – $39,205,548
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS): total revenue – $43,563,804
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): total revenue – approx. $70,975,237 (according to its Annual Report 2014
World Relief Corporation (WR): total revenue – and $56,842,649
(pp.  51-56)

No chump change here. The top salaries of many of the administrators are uniformly over $200,000 a year. While they are eager to bring in countless “poor,” the administrators enrich themselves, beyond the dreams of actual wage-earners and people who do productive work. You can bet that they do not live anywhere close to a Muslim “community.”

 Corcoran further notes:

The USCCB, by the way, resettles the largest number of refugees in the US with the help of Catholic Charities located throughout America. They make no effort to single out Christians for resettlement and in fact, in 2013…were requesting that the U.S. State Department bring more Rohingya Muslims from Burma (Mynmar) to America. (p. 55)

Alruism is where the money is.

….As we learned earlier in this report, the US resettles more refugees than all other nations combined. (p. 57)

Corcoran’s book is an invaluable, revealing study, which among other things, sheds unflattering light on the “big business” of refugee resettlement. It is a kind of police “rap sheet.”

These well-compensated refugee “resettlers” all suffer from moral epilepsy. They are willing to throw rocks at America as long as there's money in it.

Monday, February 06, 2017

Philosophical Fakery



I present a guest column by Lindsay Perigo of New Zealand. He exposes the fake philosophizing of Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute, about Donald Trump, whom he accuses of being a fascist, among other unjust and wholly ludicrous appellations. There are many people who have imbibed Brook’s Kool-Aid.  Here is his preface and a significant addendum:

November 4, 1962:  For decades, the ‘liberals’ have regarded ‘nationalism’ as an arch-evil of capitalism. They denounced national self-interest—they permitted no distinction between intelligent patriotism and blind, racist chauvinism, deliberately lumping them together—they smeared all opponents of internationalist doctrines as ‘reactionaries,’ 'fascists’ or ‘isolationists'—and they brought this country to a stage where expressions such as ‘America First’ became terms of opprobrium.


From The Ayn Rand Column, column no. 20, “Nationalism and Internationalism,” pp. 59-61.

http://www.fornewintellectual.com/2017/02/ayn-rands-view-of-nationalism-and.html
___________________________________________________________________________________


[This is an expanded version of the opening statement I had prepared for my aborted debate with Yaron Brook on Amy Peikoff's BlogTalkRadio show, "Don't Let It Go." I withdrew from the debate when I realized I could not in all conscience comply with her last-minute request that I refrain from making "sweeping statements" critical of Yaron. Warning: the following contains a number of sweeping statements critical of Yaron.]


Bunker Hill: June 1775
In Yaron Brook’s BlogTalkRadio show of November 12 last year, the Ayn Rand Institute head said he was "horrified" at what 57 million Americans had just done. Yaron called Trump “the villain of our time,” “this creature, this vulgar creature,” an “authoritarian,” more anti-American than Obama, someone who might well abolish freedom of speech, someone whose proposal to build a wall on the Southern border was "stupid," someone whose election was far more dangerous than that of Hillary Clinton, who would have been merely “an extension of the Obama status quo.” Yaron's sentiments were echoed by his ARI colleague, Canadian Onkar Ghate, who wrote, "On November 8, 2016, the United States took its first step towards dictatorship." Further on, Ghate said: “ … the Republican control of the presidency, the House and the Senate should give anyone pause who is concerned about, say, the campaign’s demonization of immigrants and of trade or the attempt to impose a Christian variant of Sharia law.” On his BlogTalkRadio show just finished as I write (the morning of Feb 6, NZ time) Yaron asserted that Trump is “paving the way to fascism.”

This, we are told, is the voice of reason. I contend it is the voice of Trump Derangement Syndrome. More than that, it is the resurgent voice of Leonard Peikoff’s 2006 fatwa to the effect that Objectivists should vote Democrat across the board, even in the presence of “good Republicans,” because the Republicans were about to usher in a Christian theocracy. Sheer lunacy. Leonard briefly came right in 2013 ...

I am against the immigration bill a hundred percent, not just one clause or another, for one very simple reason. It happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of dictatorship. It happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democratic. So if you are talking about a bill, I don’t care whether it’s fair / unfair in any other respects, you are talking about a bill that will infuse into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country. That is what immigration means today. And there’s no use asking me in theory what do I think, there is no theory now, we’re on the end. So it’s a question of buying time.

... before reverting to form.

I contend the current Trump Derangement Syndrome within OrgOism (Organised Objectivism), most prominently displayed by Yaron Brook, is a manifestation of what I call Obleftivism, i.e., Objectivism hijacked by Islamo-Marxism. In what follows, “Yaron” and “Obleftivism” should be treated as interchangeable.

Yaron implies "the Obama status quo" that Hillary would have preserved is somehow innocuous and tolerable, to be preferred over a President who has promised to lower taxes hugely, to lessen regulations by 75% and who has already moved to roll back Dodd-Frank; over a President who will allow the energy sector to function and flourish again and has already green-lighted the Dakota and Keystone pipeline projects blocked by Comrade Obama (“no big deal,” said Yaron this morning); over a President whose appointments to the Supreme Court will be based on adherence to the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench; over a President who will stop the inflow of terrorist savages and other Third World low-lifes in its tracks; over a President who can bring himself not just to say “Radical Islamic terrorism” (in my view, “Islam” would suffice) but also to go after it.

Obleftivism seems blind to the cultural ravages of unfettered immigration by ideological aliens; indifferent to, possibly even unaware of (from the smug safety of walled, white, well-guarded gated communities) the robberies, assaults, rapes and beheadings perpetrated by them. (MS13: more prolific beheaders than ISIS!) Obleftivism says “Let 'em in, let ‘em in, let ‘em in”; the more the merrier; they'll soon get the hang of freedom and become like us—and anyone who opposes this suicidal, sacrifistic policy is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot and all the rest of the standard leftist epithets. Trump’s wall is “stupid,” says Yaron—from behind a wall. I say, build a wall along the Northern border as well. Someone has to keep Onkar Ghate and Justin Trudeau out, not to mention all the Muslims Trudeau is letting in to Canada. I say, relocate the Somalis who have wrought havoc in Minnesota to tents pitched on the golf courses inside Yaron’s gated community; assuredly he'll give them a warm welcome?!

Obleftivism refuses to acknowledge, let alone proudly proclaim, that Western Culture is The Best; that it’s entitled to protect and preserve itself qua Western culture, manifested in a plenitude of ways in specific Western nations; to say such a thing, according to Obleftivists, is “nationalism,” or even worse, “patriotism”—both odious signs of [gasp] “collectivism.” Obleftivism seems not to have absorbed the significance of Ayn Rand’s appropriately negative appraisal of pre-humans elsewhere in the world:

It is to the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, and the cannibals—to the underdeveloped, the undeveloped, and the not-to-be-developed cultures—that the Capitalist United States of America is asked to apologize for her skyscrapers, her automobiles, her plumbing, and her smiling, confident, untortured, un-skinned-alive, un-eaten young men!

Obleftivists claim that attacking the Clinton News Network, National Putin Radio and other mainstream media for their stinking dishonesty, Fake News and bias is an assault on freedom of speech, when in fact the real assaults on free speech are coming from academia—students and staff—the media, moronnials, Social Justice Warriors, Ugly Wimmin, Black Lives Matter, Hollywood, and sundry other garbage, under the rubric of Political Correctness—to whose vicious depravity Obleftivists seem oblivious or indifferent. How about a call to arms on behalf of Milo Yiannopoulis, whom Yaron Brook derides (oh, to have one Objectivist with Milo’s star quality!!); on behalf of Gavin McInnes, pepper-sprayed by Islamo-Marxist filth at New York University?! How about a call to arms against one of the principal organisers of the Ugly Wimmin’s March, Linda Sarsour, who once tweeted of Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “I wish I could take their vaginas away—they don’t deserve to be women”?! (Ms Ali, of course, is one of hundreds of millions of genitally mutilated Muslim women. She is now a prominent, heroic former Muslim.)


Eugène Delacroix: Liberty Leading the People (1831)
All the while, in fact, Yaron minimises the enormity of the Muslim threat within America, saying, “The United States has zero potential to end up like Europe,” and, “Everyday Muslims are no threat.” How exactly does this "useful idiot" propose to differentiate the perpetrators of the killings of 145 Americans by Muslims in the United States since 9/11 from “everyday" Muslims? Blankout!

“Everyday Muslims” are required to believe in Jihad, Sharia Law and a worldwide caliphate. They are stiffened in their resolve by such jolly verses from the Koran as, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” They’re also enjoined to lie (Taqiyya) about their agenda. So again, how does Useful Yaron propose to distinguish everyday Muslims from actual Muslims: i.e., Muslims who take their religion seriously? (Agenda alert: Yaron makes the exact same argument minimising the threat from Muslims as did a Cato Institute representative on the Martha McCallum Fox News Special a few days ago: the chances of being struck down by a Muslim terrorist are three trillion times lower than of being mugged or struck by lightning or a car, or some such. Hmmmmm. Cato. ARI. Pro-open borders Koch Bros. Funding.)

Then again, from the smug security of a gated community, what difference does it make whether it’s Muslims or Mexicans doing the beheadings?

Yaron said this morning that Trump’s description of the activist judge in Seattle who up-ended his temporary travel ban as a “so-called judge” was “despicable.” I’d say it’s the judge—a Black Lives Matter cheerleader—who’s despicable. I say, may the ban be quickly reinstated; may it revert to the President’s original proposal: Not One Muslim!

I’d like to offer a helpful philosophical observation to Obleftivists at this point. Objectivism does not contend that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Objectivism views that as an intrinsicist view of rights. Objectivists, if asked, would eschew such a view.

Yet when a prominent Objectivist (Binswanger) ends up saying, “Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from entering America”; or, “The border between the U.S. and Mexico (and between the U.S. and Canada) should be exactly like the border between Connecticut and Massachusetts: you see ‘Welcome to Massachusetts’ and otherwise you are unaware of the difference”; or, “The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration.

Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease”; or, “Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not enough, they deserve an apology” ... then you know you’re dealing with intrinsicism on steroids, and that the good ol’-time “rationalism” so well exposed by Leonard Peikoff has still not been weeded out. There are no “intrinsic” rights implanted in us by a mystical creator or nature; “rights” is a concept arrived at after tortuous millennia of excruciating cogitation by advanced human beings at the forefront of Western thought. Those whom Ayn Rand called “dinky little savages” do not have an automatic, inbuilt right, just because they look like humans, to travel to, much less remain in, Western countries. Civilised countries have the right to be selective as to whom they admit—as selective as Galt’s Gulch if necessary.

Obleftivists think that the type of people to whom Ayn Rand pleaded, "Don't let it go," have, in electing Donald Trump, let it go: "it" being the uniquely American sense of life of which she wrote so eloquently. I contend that in electing Donald Trump, they, in the nick of time, reaffirmed it, and reassured us that they are still around. (Beyond miraculous, when you think about it, given all the professors and Obleftivist “intellectuals” like Binswanger who have held sway since Rand wrote that. Makes you think that “sense of life” must be in Americans’ DNA! Horreurs! Determinism!!)

Ayn Rand said, of judging political candidates, “A voter’s choice does not commit him to a total agreement with a candidate—and certainly cannot commit a candidate to an agreement with every voter who supports him. Under a two-party system, a voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely between the lesser of two evils.”

Yaron Brook would have you believe that Rand, who chose Nixon over McGovern, would have preferred Hillary over Trump. Hillary is easily more evil than McGovern, and arguably the most evil person ever to have run for the presidency. Yaron proudly says he doesn’t care!

Trump is not the lesser of two evils, however; he is outrageously good—even though he is not the card-carrying Objectivist Obleftivists seem to demand! The very words “President Trump” are music to my ears, equal to Rachmaninoff. President Trump, President Trump, President Trump! This is even better than hearing (and as a broadcaster, reading) the words “President Reagan,” to whom OrgOists were equally asininely opposed (except for one of their leaders who voted for Reagan without telling anyone, Ayn Rand included).

Molly Pitcher (or Mary Ludwig Hays)
 taking her husband’s
place at the Battle of Monmouth (June 1778)

I am ecstatic at the spectacle of America’s ascension back to greatness. Every day, President Trump, in full view of the world he defies, relentlessly advances his audacious agenda; every week, Obleftivist Brook, in full view of a few lemming-like acolytes on Faecesbook and in parochial parts of the world, trashes it, because it might include tariffs and does include Twitter attacks on the smelly Islamo-Marxists at CNN and NPR, Yaron’s favourite sources of Fake News and Politically Correct commentary.

I am a Deplorable, irredeemably. And I deplore Obleftivism.

Obleftivism is Fake Objectivism!

It's party time in America! Yaron Brook is a party-pooper!

Make Objectivism Great Again!