Mark

A Tyranny Perpetual and Universal? Is the leftist dream now within reach? If President Trump loses, we will find out. Great article by Michael Anton, famous for the essay “The Flight 93 Election” during the last election.

Ellen, Spiro Agnew, 13 November 1969 ---------------------------------- Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. ... Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations? And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves? ... [He criticizes how newscasters treated Nixon’s last public address.] The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power. ... [He describes how large is the audience of the three television networks.] Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what 40 to 50 million people will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. ... these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others. ... [He gives a few examples and repeats someone’s claim that the powers of the networks represent “a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.”] Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City ... ... [and he repeats someone’s claim that this is “the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.”] Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? ... ... [He repeats a few TV commentators confessing to their bias and gives an example of it from one of them.] Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government? The views of the majority of this fraternity do not ... represent the views of America. That is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the President’s address and how the networks reviewed it. ... ... As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve. Now I want to make myself perfectly clear. I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kinds of censorship. I’m asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases. The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view ... that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. ... ... ... [He elaborates at length on the power of the limited number of networks compared with the many newspapers. He gives further examples the networks misrepresenting current events.] And in the network’s endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: ... What is the end result—to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability. ... Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent. ... Normality has become the nemesis of the network news. Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. And the American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals. That the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country. That violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus. We know that none of these conclusions is true. Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York. ... ... ... when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well? In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States—its institutions and its citizens? Tonight I’ve raised questions. I’ve made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate to the great responsibilities they hold. And the people of America are challenged, too, challenged to press for responsible news presentation. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer; where the consumer can be the most effective crusader. ... ... we’d never trust such power, as I’ve described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government. It’s time we questioned it in the hands of a small unelected elite. The great networks have dominated America’s airwaves for decades. The people are entitled a full accounting their stewardship.

Excellent article by Susan Hanson over at American Thinker: The Ayn Rand Institute Does Not Speak for Ayn Rand One small correction: In the immigration debate – a very friendly debate – between Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff, Peikoff eventually capitulated – totally – to Brook on the issue. The author’s “[They] had a debate about their disagreement about immigration” period, is incomplete. Naturally I was disappointed that she made no reference to ARIwatch.com On the Yaron Brook Show of 30 August 2020 he spoke of how depressing things were and that (52:34): “... there’s this article about how I don’t speak for Ayn Rand and I, I, you know, I, I, I, you know, [burbling]— misinterpreting what I say, taking me completely out of context, um, and taking Ayn Rand out of context, all of that just adds up to making it difficult to get motivated to continue.” Poor put upon Yaron.

Assailant previously worked for US/Israeli intelligence-linked firm

Four years later, in 2017, Jennifer Grossman was still toadying. See Who is Richard Minns? towards the end.

Lawyer Taking on CPS in California is Murdered by Patrick Howley “Marc Angelucci, the lawyer who was suing the California Department of Social Services and others for alleged abuse of the Child Protective Services (CPS) system against a parent, has been murdered.” This is the second such case I've read about without even trying to find them. The first was Nancy Schaefer: By Nancy Schaefer ... The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services Brief speech soon after losing election (video, starts 0:55) The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services (video): Part 1 Part 2 Her death ... Oddities in case by Garland Favorito Update by Garland Favorito

This article Ron Paul put his name to describes even more Covid Corruption: Big Holes in the Covid 'Spike' Narrative

Hydroxychloroquine Should Be Available Over The Counter When it comes to HCQ availability the forward countries and the backward are reversed

How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created 36 ways and counting by Meryl Nass, M.D.

Just as in 2004 there was disagreement between Peikoff and ARI – Peikoff supported the Democrat, ARI the Republican – there is disagreement in 2020 only in reverse, at least as far as Brook is concerned. According to the Federal Election Commission’s Schedule A, Form 3X “Itemized Receipts,” Peikoff donated $250 to Trump’s Make America Great Again Committee, received on February 26th. A paltry sum. I guess it’s the thought that counts.

So says Yaron Brook. See Biden is Our Only Hope

From Hollywood Producer (and Friend of Jeffrey Epstein) Steve Bing Dead After Falling Off a Building Although no suicide note found, Bing’s death was quickly ruled as a suicide by law enforcement. The reported reason for the suicide: He was depressed about the lack of human contact during the quarantine. In other words, this exceedingly rich man, who has bought “human contact” his entire life, killed himself right as COVID lockdown measures are loosening. The circumstances behind this death are as bizarre and illogical as those surrounding Epstein’s “suicide”.

He’s a guest writer on ARI Watch; see the OL thread Carl Barney vs. Objectivity.

The WHO has outdone itself in corruption. They recently started a trial of the drug hydroxychloroquine, intentionally giving patients a near lethal dose so as to – obviously – make the drug look dangerous. Meryl Nass and others saw what they were doing and exposed it. Only then did WHO stop the trial. The following articles are by Dr. Meryl Nass. Even worse than 'Recovery,' potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine study in patients near death WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant 1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose. 2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2. 3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death. 4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials. 5. The conclusions to be drawn ... ... a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors. ... b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials. ... c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more

Joseph Rowlands’ discussion group “Rebirth of Reason” is back in business after having been down for over a year due to a technical problem with its unique hosting software. (More or less down; if you were good with computers and persevered maybe you could get a post through.) But after such a long period of morbidity it looks like most people gave up on the group. So again, it’s back. Here’s a link to it: Rebirth of Reason

The following, dated June 17, 2020, is from the Letter regarding MIT's initial decisions about the fall by Rafael Reif, an immigrant from Venezuela and the current president of M.I.T. ... campus life will feel very different this fall. These changes will include: Mandatory Covid-19 testing before return and regularly thereafter Mandatory public-health education Daily health attestations via an app or website Mandatory wearing of masks Physical distancing Contact tracing Staggered scheduling and reconfigured work spaces Enhanced cleaning protocols Access to buildings through a single point and only with an MIT ID No large gatherings or lectures Much less travel

Peter, The worst of what was said about Jane Fonda is an urban legend, it isn’t true. And what little was true she came to realize was a huge mistake on her part, and she admitted it publicly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Visit_to_Hanoi Contrast Fonda with John McCain. He wholeheartedly collaborated with the Vietcong throughout his captivity then later pretended he was a hero. That was news to me until I read about it in an article by well known investigative journalist Sydney Schanberg: John McCain and the POW Cover-Up

No one here said ARI or Brook supported the 2008 bailouts. I quoted Salsman saying that they did. Brook’s usual method of expression is the podcast and I have neither the time nor desire to listen to hours upon hours of his jeeringly self-righteous strident voice or watch his body spastically jerk about emphasizing what he says. That said, I doubt he said right out that he supported the 2008 bailouts. It would be too obvious a contradiction with Objectivism even for him. AlgernonSidney, thanks for the link to Amesh Adalja praising Fauci to the skies. ARI supported local and federal lockdown at first, now they don’t – and pretend they never did. I updated The Center of Mass Shifts Further Salsman’s “Rand Camp” was canceled, not because of his outburst but because the resort – or at least the hotel – was closed because of the virus concern. They plan to hold it next year, May 2021.

It turns out, according to Craig Biddle, that OSI is incorporated in Glen Allen, VA (like TOS) but he himself has moved to Laguna Hills, CA. What was the point of moving there if not to be near Carl Barney? Peikoff did stupid things when he was younger so we can't be sure his current liaison with Barney is just due to old age. Barney would not call himself a Scientologist but in my opinion he is still influenced by its ideas and procedures.

Biddle is based in Glen Allen, VA but OSI is doing some of its business from Laguna Hills, CA which is where Barney is. I suspect Barney controls this new show, and since Peikoff just gave Barney permission to broadcast his past lectures as well as use Rand’s name, Barney may do it through OSI.

This thread has renewed interest because Saturday Biddle announced the creation of the “Objective Standard Institute.” I added some of the details to the end of The Center of Mass Shifts Further (After opening that page, if you had visited before you might need to press your browser’s refresh key, typically F5 or Ctrl R, to the see the update.)

CATASTROPHE: 20% of Human Test Subjects Severely Injured from Gates-Fauci Moderna Coronavirus Vaccine By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “Moderna allowed only exceptionally healthy volunteers to participate in the study.”

Cross-posted from Unz.com — I’m not a diehard China skeptic but I do hate totalitarianism. Instead of succumbing to martial law or waiting for a dangerous rushed-to-market vaccine (see Paul Craig Roberts on that), concentrate on curing, or ameliorating the effects of, the disease. Faucci and co-conspirators should be tried for murder for willfully ignoring strong evidence that Zinc (e.g. Zinc Sulfate) + Hydroxychloroquine + Vitamin D + Vitamin C cure the disease. About the first two see this. About the first see this and this. About the third and fourth see this. They also recommend anti-inflammatories.

All on Facebook: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Salsman (date unkown, quoted by Yaron Brook 5/5/2020) Richard Salsman To Todd Hartle. Do you mean it, really? The Yaron Brook Show? sorry to say, but it’s garbage. Second-hand trash. Unoriginal. Borrowed. Filched. Second-handed, Keating-Like, if you know what I mean. Worse, it’s uninformed. It took me at most 5 listenings to know it. So sad. he should know better. he is now a mere wannabe Jordan Peterson. Pathetic. I’d say go elsewhere – else go insane. But who really cares? Most people, including many ex-Objectivists like YB, negotiate themselves out of the life of principle and integrity and consequently most detest those who retain those virtues. Sunshine patriots, they cravenly flee to and podcast from the decadence of places like Starnseville – aka Puerto Rico. Real heroes. To Hell with them, I say – but no one need be victimized by choice, unless they’re clueless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Salsman, 4/29/2020 Ayn Rand’s Objectivism provides a consistent, comprehensive case for liberty, egoism, rights, and capitalism. One might think, therefore, that an institute many decades old with her name on the door would help the wider world know that crucial fact. Alas, tragically, it is no longer so, indeed hasn’t been so for many years, but especially in the years that one OG [Onkar Ghate] has been granted the title Chief Content Officer (CCO), or, more accurately, Chief Censor. A wholly unqualified charlatan who couldn’t get a job in academia, nonetheless he is venerated by the likes of YB, TS, HB and a host of other sycophants, who attempt to elevate themselves by trying to dissipate the great legacy of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. That’s impossible, of course, but they do still try. Now watch, if you can stomach it, this dishonest and pathetic performance by OG, the CCO at ARI whose simple task is to explain why AR’s philosophy is DISTINCTIVE. He cannot do it; his ramblings are vague, dilatory, subjective and wholly lacking in rational content. By the way, this is NOT a spontaneous, extemporaneous Q&A but a preplanned, “thought-out” opening statement devoid of any coherent argument. Her philosophy, he intones, is “new!” — “different!” — “pathbreaking! — “unconventional!” Different, how? No answer. True, in what way? Blank out. Why should I care? Because I’m OG, and here’s how it hit me, subjectively, in Calgary, many years ago. This is waste; this is ridiculous; this is corruption. Why would anyone fund such tripe, who possessed even a scintilla of conscientiousness, or pride? It is using Ayn Rand’s illustrious name as a shield for incompetence. Don’t fall for it, Objectivist sheeple. It is the now the oak tree in Atlas Shrugged, if you know what I mean. I yearn nostalgically for the 15 years when the great Mike Berliner built that place, grew it, made it real, professional, viable, COLLEGIAL. All that’s mostly gone now, due not to MB of course, but to all those inferior successors who squandered his achievements and preferred to carve out personal sinecures. In the process they trashed and ostracized more than a few wealthy businessmen, who eventually left - shrugged - out of pride. Yet it still stands, like that oak tree, sentry at its side, the “Chief Content Officer,” ensuring unending content-less-ness. ARI supported the bailouts of 2008-09, then the Lockdown of 2020. There’s “content” for you - no different than what you’d find at Heritage or Brookings. The CCO remains, ever as smug, ever pretending to promote Rand’s views, hoping contributors won’t notice and won’t stop funding the fraud. But the CCO, thougn [sic] funded, is irrelevant; the truth will out, eventually; reality is the best avenger of all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yaron Brook 5/5/2020 If you don’t know who Richard Salsman is, you should skip this post – it’s not worth your precious time. I’m posting this primarily for my Facebook “friends” who know Richard and might have missed his diatribes against The Ayn Rand Institute and its intellectuals, including this about me (see below before reading on). Now I think this speaks for itself. It reeks of anger, resentment and envy. There isn’t even a point being made to respond to. Sad… It’s especially sad if one knows, that for years I fought (against the advice of many, whose judgment I trust) to help Richard. ARI provided him with loans when he was in graduate school, and I actively helped raise the money that made possible his current academic position at Duke (in 2014). But no acknowledgement of this. And now, apparently I’m so awful that he must condemn me publicly in such offensive terms. Although, I must admit that I’ve seen him do this before to people I respect. I’m sure I often say things that many of you disagree with and/or that my style might offend some. I’ve been at the forefront of speaking about and applying Ayn Rand’s ideas to current events for 20 years. It’s inevitable that I offend some people. But, there are rational, respectful ways to express one’s disagreement, especially about intellectual issues. Unfortunately, Richard’s post seems unhinged, and rabidly personal. In such cases, there is nothing to discuss. I hope that most of you can see the irrationality and injustice of Richard’s outburst. However, if you agree with or find plausible even part of what he has written here, then please “unfriend” me now. And if you see it for what it is – emotionalist drivel – then consider, in the name of justice, “unfriending” Richard. It’s not the first time someone has written horrible things about me over the years, and I’ve kept quiet. Why speak up now? For a few reasons. No longer being the CEO of ARI frees me to express my personal views more forcefully, and Richard is considered a respectable member of our community – after all he is identified in academia with Objectivism, he’s a Contributing Editor of a journal with “Objective” in its title and he’s about to teach an “Ayn Rand Camp,” with the support of a Foundation supporting other similar efforts. Ultimately, his recent, dishonest attacks on ARI and intellectuals I admire and respect were the final straw. I’m sure Richard and others will respond to this. I have no intention to engage and very much hope this is the last you will hear from me about this topic. [attached graphical quote of Salsman’s reply to Todd Hartle] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Salsman 5/6/2020 In two recent posts I harshly criticized a handful of people who I know to have misused ARI to besmirch solid Objectivists and Objectivist organizations whom they oppose and in consequence have risked devaluing Ayn Rand’s reputation. That bothers me very much. It’s just not right. A just rebuke is warranted. But I here apologize because FB isn’t the forum for that, since the matter requires lots of information, background, context, and judgment that most readers don’t have. Those who know it, know it, those who can’t, can’t. It’s hard to be fully objective in so narrow a context. I wasn’t. Contributors to ARI, of course, would (or should) inquire about such things, but I leave that to them, as I should have in the first place. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I say in so many words in The Center of Mass Shifts Further, there is no one to root for in this fracas. PF/TOS is no better than ARI. It will be interesting to see if Barney goes through with Salsman‘s “Rand Camp.”

See the last part of The Center of Mass Shifts Further.