Mark

The U.S. government's alliance with Israel is indeed a gratuitous one we would be better off without. I respectfully disagree with Brant that the past history of Israel is irrelevant to us today. Israel has a past history of belligerency, mendacity and deceit towards the U.S. and it should be considered when evaluating current events. In other words Israel will start World War III unless the U.S. does what Israel wants. If true, this extortion is all the more hateful considering the history of Israel's thermonuclear bomb. Take it from someone who has read a lot of Jewish apologetics: self deception is part of Jewish culture. Jews steeped in this culture (of course some reject it completely) are able to utter blatant falsehoods such as "everybody hates the Jews," "Jews throughout history have been innocent," "Israel is always hated for its virtues," "a medical advance comes out of Israel every day" with complete sincerity. Their self-deception makes them believable, that is, it makes them good liars. Speaking of the history of Israel, I’m still waiting for Ed to comment on the attempted assassination of President Truman. I don't think uttering context over and over will help him much. 　

Ben Gurion, mentioned by Ed Hudgins earlier, modeled Israel after Soviet Russia. "We are following a new path which contradicts developments in the whole world except Russia." More here. It’s doubtful a terrorist such as Menachem Begin, whom the Israelis later elected prime minister, looked to England for a model. Ditto for the proto-Israelis who attempted to assassinate President Truman in 1947.

The above is one long self-deceiving fairytale. The Zionist Ben Gurion, in the 1920s an admirer of Lenin and Stalin, will never make a good poster boy for individualism. By 1962 he had moderated his views. Here he is looking 25 years into the bright future (Look magazine quoting his statement): Free, and paid for, I suppose, by an enlightened global tax. Ed Hudgins wrote: Why not come right out and say that the Israeli government treats Arabs and Jews equally? Because the discrepancy with reality would be too blatant. (Israel can’t treat Arabs and Jews equally if it is to remain a Jewish state.) might be --> are some --> many Egypt is the standard of human rights by which anything better is deemed all right – neocons in the U.S. make the same argument to justify state institutionalized torture. That’s disingenuous. If someone distributed pamphlets ordering Jews to register, and the local newspaper reported it, then people would see reports that Jews are being ordered to register. That’s exactly what happened in the Ukraine. Though Ukrainians are suspicious of Jews because of the history of the early Soviet Union (Kaganovich et al) – the children starve to death first, the parents watch them waste away and hear them whimpering for food – the registration story was exposed as a hoax almost immediately, which was weeks before Hudgins wrote his article. Israel is less free than Sweden and at least the Swedes neither receive nor demand foreign aid. Poor put upon Israel, if only people would leave them alone. I wish they and their fifth column would leave us alone! Yaron Brook made some of the same points as Hudgins in a recent talk, which I review here: "Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Semitism."

Former judge Andrew Napolitano has a video arguing for the right of secession. It’s on YouTube. The Civil War was the first giant step towards big government. Even so, the “Ayn Rand Institute” – the quotes are derogatory – makes heroes out of Lincoln and Sherman. Several times ARI writers have used Sherman’s march through George (a.k.a. march to the sea) as a model for what to do in Iraq. Mark ARIwatch.com

"Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Semitism" reviews the talk Yaron Brook gave last month. It quotes him where necessary so it's self-contained. (There’s a video of the talk on YouTube if you can bear it.) Mark ARIwatch.com

In the late 1920's John Dewey visited Soviet Russia and wrote glowing reports of what he saw for the New Republic magazine, later collected in a book. Here it is online: Impressions of Soviet Russia Ayn Rand doesn't mention this anywhere. I wonder if she knew of it. Mark ARIwatch.com

From New Libertarians: New Promoters of a Welfare State by John McCaskey Brink Lindsey, then [2006] Vice President for Research at the Cato Institute, called on libertarians to abandon the doctrine that a good government is one that protects the rights of its citizens, abandon the non-aggression principle, and instead adopt the moral standard of social justice advanced by Rawls. By Lindsey’s reasoning, free markets are not moral because they protect individuals’ rights to keep the fruits of their own labors and to freely contract with other individuals doing the same but are moral because they benefit the poor. ... The proposed new libertarianism would be a marriage of left and right, “liberaltarianism”; it would be a marriage of Rawls and Hayek ... Brink Lindsey and his collaborator on this, Will Wilkinson, left -— or, many speculate, were made to leave -— the Cato Institute. But ... There was now a new libertarianism to be reckoned with ... Lindsey took the proposal to academic venues across America. ... Then, in October 2012, after the organization appointed a new president, John A. Allison, Brink Lindsey returned to the Cato Institute as a Senior Fellow. He has since become, again, Vice President for Research.

And it broke all the links on other websites. All, I think, except for the domain name. Also, in the renovation ARI removed a huge amount of their earlier material. Most of the missing non-multi-media pages can be found on the Internet Wayback Machine. The addresses for the ARI articles advocating invading Iraq, praising the virtue of dying for freedom around the world and how great Israel is, are listed at Disappeared from ARI I may have missed a few, I’ll double check when I have nothing else to do, LOL. Background for the latest fiasco: The Ayn Rand Institute vs. John McCaskey This describes how Peikoff forced McCaskey off the ARI board in defense of Harriman’s book (which was based on some of Peikoff’s ideas). Because of the renovation I had to change one of the links (November 11 "A Statement ...") to the Wayback Machine copy.

Eric Daniels may have left ARI, he's no longer on their website anyway. Anyone know? He specialised in American history and gave a number of talks on free speech and censorship. May of last year he was still associated with ARI. Added: According to LinkedIn he is now "History and Science Teacher and Curriculum Developer at LePort Schools" and has been since July 2013. I'm still curious why he severed relations with ARI or vice versa.

It's hard enough trying to convince Americans of the virtues of liberty yet Students for Liberty is trying to convince the whole world. Why waste time, money and effort on Nigerians when your own house is burning down? Young Americans for Liberty is better than it used to be. (I corrected Gulch8's URL, which takes you to a website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese -- has Gulch8 gone Catholic?) When I checked this group last year they were promoting open immigration -- which was odd since they claim to be the continuation of Students for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was/is opposed to amnesty and birthright citizenship (anchor babies). However it looks like they have more or less corrected themselves. The website now has at least one article opposing immigration as long as there is welfare in the U.S., like now. It's stupid to bring in more and more socialist voters and expect a libertarian outcome. This is one theme of the latest article on ARI Watch: Immigration Enthusiasts

The words "if you get my drift" appeared after "average IQ below average." It was just a way of saying that though it sounded odd it made sense. (The first average refers to the immigrants, the second to everybody in the U.S., or what used to be everybody.) But it’s obvious now that the words obscured rather than clarified, I deleted them. Thanks for pointing out the problem. In this article, re-titled "Immigration Enthusiasts," I wanted to concentrate on what is incontestable: that Third World immigration is a political disaster, and that about it the people at ARI are barefaced liars. To prove the second point I quoted Yaron Brook, and last night added quotes from yet another Binswanger immigration article I discovered. (I mention this in case you read the ARI Watch article before last night.) About Peikoff: He had been pro open borders for years, then around the second Obama election became very strongly against it (Hispanic anyway). He invited Yaron Brook to discuss the issue on a podcast, and eventually caved in: passively, that is he didn’t agree with Brook, just said he isn’t sure, maybe Brook is right, he respects Brook, etc. Sooner or later I’ll update the article and quote him. I got tired of transcribing, which is very unpleasant work to do exactly, and just indicated what he said rather than quoting. When Peikoff retires it looks like official objectivism (ARI) will be totally controlled by the glibest of liars. I’m trying not to use the word psychopath but it may well fit. Yaron Brook's lies have become so transparent it’s hardly necessary to point them out. Question: Is immigration mentioned in The DIM Hypothesis? (I haven't read the book.)

"You have been placed on moderator queue. This means that all content you submit will need to be approved by a moderator before it will be shown." Michael still doesnt care for yours truly. Isn't that sad, LOL. Again all or nothing, Mike, thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eva made me rethink the confusing title. Also, I became uncomfortable with the word "parade" after I put it up. (The cheerful song about teddy bears gets in the way. Da dumty dumty da dumpty dump -- I trust that is sufficiently clear!) I'll change the title to "Immigration Enthusiasts." Yes, I need to say more about cultural Marxism. The rubric is as vague as neoconservatism, a constellation of ideas rather than an integrated system. It's associated with the Frankfurt School. They're Marxists who saw that Marxism wasn't getting anywhere with the Western "proletariat" so they abandoned the economic part and focused on undermining Western institutions and culture by inculcating pathological self-criticism. It's an act of destruction. They moved to the U.S. There's an easy to read history at "Marxists Internet Archive" that's consistent with what I've read in more analytical articles. I don't know who put it up or what their agenda is: www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school

"You have been placed on moderator queue. This means that all content you submit will need to be approved by a moderator before it will be shown." All or nothing, Michael, including the above. ------------------------------------------------------- On the 17th of June 1953 East Germans rose up against their Communist oppressors and rioted in the streets. In response, the Writers Union, in effect a propaganda organ of the East German government, distributed leaflets proclaiming, not that the government had forfeited the confidence of the people, but rather that “the people had forfeited the confidence of the government.” And the people might win back the government’s confidence by “redoubling their efforts.” The quotes are from Bertolt Brecht’s description in a free verse poem he wrote at the time titled “Die Lösung” – “The Solution.” The poem ends with a wry remark that mocked the rôle reversal of people and government: “Would it not be easier ... for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?” Since the early part of the 20th century Marxists have used persuasion and deceit trying to turn America into a socialist state, with some success. The complete overthrow of America, though, proved elusive. Since 1968 they have been using a surer method: import ready-made socialists. Dissolving the people and electing another, displacing the historic American people with one more to a leftist’s liking. ... Continued at Cultural Marxists On Parade on ARI Watch.

If you point out that the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is a Jewish organization, and if you point out that this Jewish organization supports "hate-crime" legislation, and if you point out that such legislation is anti-American, what are you? Apparently you’re an anti-Semite, a bigot, etc. If people consistently use such words in that way, like Humpty Dumpty, then indeed you are an anti-Semite, bigot, etc. Get used to it. A recent AIPAC, WINEP, etc lie America into debilitating wars, then you’re an anti-Semite, get used to it. (Yes, I know, WINEP is not ostensibly a Jewish group or even AIPAC, but they are nonetheless and if you point it out you’re an anti-Semite.) Some Gentiles want government censorship, unrestricted immigration, perpetual war for Israel, etc. Why single out the poor Jews? Set aside that when some fool insinuates that Jews are the salt of the earth ("No one could imagine some luminary as anything but Jewish." etc.) it’s worth pointing out that there are a few bad apples and that their existence is nothing new – e.g. the Bolsheviks, most fellow travelers of the thirties, and most neocons today. The Jewish groups mentioned above are extraordinarily effective. They are making a big difference to America and the difference is bad news. Note the pretense of not understanding. Another fool went to a Jewish school where from two to four hours of mathematics of homework were required every weeknight, yet he pretends not to know the difference between "some" and "all" or between "All X is Y" and "All Y is X." When I criticize a Jewish group, he insinuates that my real meaning, despite any protest to the contrary, is "All Jews are bad." Only an anti-Semite would notice that the ADL is a Jewish group. Ellen, Your eagle-eye caught the contradiction between SB’s flippant remark and his earlier serious statement. (SB: That’ll learn you not to make flippant remarks.) Speaking of eugenics, especially the Nazi version, and Third World immigration, I’d like to paraphrase (not an exact quote, but close) something originally by Peter Brimelow, about the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, officially the Hart-Cellar bill, the culmination of a 40 year effort by B’nai B’rith and other Jewish organizations: (In fact one might question whether the U.S. was victorious, but that's another story.)

If opposing what B'nai B'rith, JINSA, AIPAC, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and many other Jewish groups have done over the years to destroy America is bigoted, racist, collectivist and anti-semitic, make the most of it. A quote from Voltaire about a prayer comes to mind.

Michael addresses what he thinks is my personality. How shall I reply? That I don't think I'm blind? MSK: Well, he would say that ! My answer to Kolker amounts to this: The idea that "all Jews are good all the time" is all wrong. It’s time people realized the evil done to America by B’nai B’rith and many other Jewish groups. The Christians get all the ink, but I think they’re pikers compared to the Jews. Must I preface Christians with "some" or "the worst" and ditto for Jews, or can I expect Michael to understand what is obvious?

MSK makes Robert Kolker look good, some feat! According to Michael I’m not just mistaken about the Arabs and Jews pre-Zionism, my mistake is due to a deluded psychology. Admittedly my view of the earlier Arabs was partly based on Mark Twain’s autobiographical Innocents Abroad (written from diaries) about an excursion to the Holy Land in 1867. The arabs he saw were farmers and merchants, along with a few innocuous nomads and a couple of industrious servants to the excursionists. The only violence he mentions is trigger happy excursionists firing their guns in the air for the heck of it. He refers once to Riffians – a mountain race – as "born cutthroats," but he doesn’t give details and anyway they’re not considered a semitic race. Despite Mark Twain’s experience it looks like Jews no more lived in peace with Arabs than they did with Europeans and Russians. This even if you don’t buy every one of Kolker’s examples. (If you believe the ADL Leo Frank was the innocent victim of anti-semitism.)

If homeschoolers (who don’t use public schools) then why not people who have no children in any school, home or public? The state will twistedly see this tax deduction as somehow paying for home schoolers, and what the state pays for the state will eventually, if not immediately, control. Instead of vouchers consider this: As more children are homeschooled and public school attendance drops, so the expense of public schools drops and the taxes that pay those expenses drop. That is, if the state were honest. In fact the state won't reduce public school expenditure with lower enrollment and won't reduce taxes even if it were reduced, without a fight. But better that fight than fighting for vouchers.

Any Arab hatred of Jews has nothing to do with earlier pogroms. The anti-semitism of the Arabs is in reaction to the Zionist intrusion and takeover of Palestine. If the intruders had been gentile the same Arabs would have been anti-gentilic – as today they are anyway, because the U.S. government supports and arms Israel. Practically the entire Bolshevik leadership – e.g. Trotsky, Yagoda, Kaganovich, Raikhman, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc (I got tired) – was Jewish and the Soviet leadership was heavily Jewish even years after Trotsky was expelled. At least one pogrom is understandable, though insofar as it was indiscriminate and extra-judicial it was unjustifiable, namely what the Finns did to the Soviet occupiers and their sympathizers, and innocent Jews who had nothing to do with either, when the Finns got the upper hand. Why all the pogroms Kolker lists against the Jews? The populace thought to themselves, "Those Jews are so good, let’s have a pogrom!" If Americans ever come to realize what B’nai B’rith and some other Jewish groups – don’t leave out the neocons – have done to America (made government halfway communist, made whites a shrinking minority, and involved us in endless war) and are trying to do (end freedom of speech with hate crime laws), they will rightly hate them and those who support them – and not because they are good. For all he knows the pogroms Kolker listed had some explanation, if not justification, as in the Finnish example.

Antisemitism and the Failures to Recognize its Recrudescence Sunday - June 9, 2013 at the Intercontinental Hotel, Los Angeles. A panel discussion following the talk “Is Eurabia Inevitable” by Daniel Pipes featuring:Elan Journo – Ayn Rand InstituteMichel Gurfinkel – Valeurs Actuelles, Commentary, Weekly StandardRonnie Fraser – Academic Friends of IsraelCharles Asher Small – Hoover Institution, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. Moderated by Roberta Seid – America Israel Demographic Research Group, StandWithUs.On the first day of the two day event “Europe’s Last Stand? Debt, Demography and the Abandonment of National Sovereignty” organized by the American Freedom Alliance. AFA was founded by Avi Davis, former director at the Streisand Center for Jewish Cultural Arts and at American Associates, Ben-Gurion University. AFA opposes Moslem immigration into Europe and the U.S. but takes no stand on Third World immigration in general. You will look in vain among the 25 speakers at “Europe’s Last Stand” for Peter Brimelow or any other immigration patriot. StandWithUs is an international organization fighting boycotts of Israel. Recrudescence: something bad breaking out again after a brief lapse. Considering the affiliations of the panelists it looks like the reason they're against Moslem immigration is that it's bad for Jews or bad for Israel.

These aren’t questions. How should I reply? We need a Ministry of Truth headed by El Presidente. If for our own good the government regulates what drugs we can take, all the more ought it regulate what articles we can read. As John A. Hobson put it in 1920: Dips into the Near Future (written near the end of W.W. I): "we are all put upon war-bread, why not upon war-truth?" The 1920 pamphlet was satire, and the above is sarcasm. There are two other questions we should ask instead of Selene's. Background: The point of being a non-profit corporation is to get tax and other advantages. 1. Is one of the legal restrictions on non-profit corporations that they never explicitly promote a political candidate? 2. Is that restriction a good law? The answer to the first is Yes. From Nolo: Non-profits are allowed to talk about the issues of the campaign, which might implicitly promote one of the candidates, but they’re restricted from explicitly promoting him. If they violate this restriction they’re supposed to lose their non-profit status. Regarding hit-and-run articles like ARI’s it’s pretty much a scofflaw. Again from Nolo; The second question is complicated. At first glance a libertarian-type would answer No, it’s not a good law, it’s one more restriction on freedom. That however neglects the full picture. The non-profit gets tax breaks that a for-profit doesn’t. The libertarian viewpoint might be that there should be no taxes for anyone, or only a small fee "tax," and in any event all corporations should be treated equally, then there would be no such thing as a non-profit, and the question just goes away for lack of referents. But for the time being there are taxes and there are non-profits. Taking that for granted, is the law good? In return for the advantages should non-profits be restricted from promoting political candidates? Again, at first glance I’d say No. But the promotion of leftist causes by many -- at times it seems almost all -- big money donors, as opposed to many small contributions as in the Ron Paul "money bombs," makes me reconsider. In any case, scrapping all restrictions would be better than the current campaign finance laws, also known as the incumbent protection laws.

The Ayn Rand Institute is above that sort of thing. See its Op-Ed publshed on the eve of the 2000 presidential election: "America’s Real Choice" (November 6, 2000) After weighing Bush vs Gore the article concludes: Weeks before this one ARI published an Op-Ed entitled something like "Gore evil, Bush good" with the theme that the election was not a choice between two evils but between good and evil. Unfortunately it didn't get archived by the Internet Wayback Machine and, like the above, it quicky disappeared from ARI's website.

A formal study isn't necessary in order to be influenced by a milieu of ideas. Most Americans haven't read the founding documents of America, yet until the last generation or so they had a uniquely American outlook on the world. Anyway, whatever the reason that far more Jews lean to the left than non-Jews (percentage-wise), that reason is not inborn.

Though I find Serapis Bey’s manner occasionally annoying, his advocacy of psychotic drugs perverse, and his use of obscenities off-putting, I do want to say a few words in defense of his post which the moderator renamed and moved to the "garbage pile": www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13324#entry184544 SB got the Full Monty, complete with the epithets anti-semite, bigot etc and extended psychologizing to which no reply is possible. I agree with most everything SB said. Pretty much everything except the following: Intelligent people tend towards liberalism because That may have been true in 1850 but these days liberalism is very old hat and novelty is on the other side. This is fine rhetoric but it doesn’t mean anything, beginning with the adjective "extreme". SB mentions Kevin McDonald and Jewish "crypsis." McDonald is worth reading -- especially on the subject of Third World immigration -- but that such complex behavior as he describes is inborn is beyond belief, and also goes against many exceptions among ethnic Jews. I think the reason for any tendency of many ethnic Jews towards leftism, which has been undermining America since the 1930s, is to be found in the Talmud. Even many secular Jews are influenced by this truckload of filth. Ayn Rand not at all. Just as many atheists are still influenced by some aspects of the New Testament, e.g. the golden rule, many secular Jews took in the Talmud’s Jewish supremicism with mother’s milk. ... Yealch. Do I have to read this? Froggy, at least keep out of my OL posts. What I meant: with the culture in which they grew up. To continue ... SB is criticized for referring to "Jews" without the adjective some or many. The qualification can be understood. I don’t think SB is saying "All Jews are whatever." as Zionist Jews do. If he is, he’s obviously mistaken. Referring to WWII: It’s true that the Nazi killings, by firing squad or starvation or disease, weren’t confined to Jews (for example thousands of Catholics in Poland), still, the Jews did get the brunt of the targeting. Erich Maria Remarque is most famous for All Quiet on the Western Front set during WWI (published 1929), but read his lesser known Arch of Triumph (1945) set in France during WWII. No pacifist he. You’ll get an objective picture -- Remarque was not Jewish nor is his protagonist -- of the Nazis rounding up French Jews. It may well be true that there was no order from Hitler to kill all the Jews -- we’d have the documents in our face if they still existed -- but it wouldn’t mean very much. Supposing for argument’s sake that Hitler wanted all Jews killed and it was well-known, it would not be necessary for him to issue an order. Underlings everywhere always want to please the boss. I haven’t studied the gassing question much but those who argue against it seem more reasonable than their opposition. The gassings may well go the way of the soap atrocity story. Even if the number six as in "six million" is promoted for mystical reasons (the Jews – whoops, I meant some Jews – gave out the same six million number in WWI) and the Jewish holocaust exaggerated, the fact remains the Nazis wanted to get rid of the Jews, and they ended by rounding them up in camps along with other dissidents, where many died of starvation and disease or were worked to death.

Wednesday May 29 noon there'll be a panel discussion and luncheon at the Microsoft Government Affairs building, Washington, D.C. featuring Elan Journo of the so-called Ayn Rand Institute rubbing shoulders with fellow neocons Daniel Pipes, Aaron Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Jonathan Tobin of Commentary Magazine. This will be at least the eleventh event since 2003 advertised by ARI featuring Daniel Pipes and one or more members of ARI. From the blurb: “Following the so-called Arab Spring, how should we view the Israel-Palestinian conflict? What should America’s policy be toward the region, and Israel in particular?” Comment: Who cares? Question: Who pays for the food? Question: Must one eat and listen to these creeps at the same time ? Comment: Don’t confuse the U.S. with America. You were supposed to have RSVP-ed by last Friday.