Mark

Consider the notion that the government could suck several trillion dollars from producers and give them to war profiteers. How would this would affect the economy, that is, the welfare of those of us not "in the loop." Would the adverse effect be negligible? How does one argue against the absurd? Reductio ad absurdum won't work!

You soften your statement with the modifier "hard core." In fact Rand Paul did abandon them. Gerald Celente starts at 6:23 minutes. (Alex Jones - he of the noxious voice -- on this subject starts at 3:33 minutes.) Remember also that Rand Paul voted for the NDAA. Remember further that he didn't introduce his (milquetoast) anti-TSA bill until after he personally was affected.

Great appreciation, Gulch8. “I just hope Ron Paul goes away.” – Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, in an interview with Amy Peikoff, July 17, 2011. Nothing showed the true colors of ARI more than their trashing of Ron Paul, which included misrepresenting his views. Unfortunately Robert Bidinotto did the same.

From the beginning of Tamny’s book review: From what follows apparently Tamny thinks that Allison agrees. Nowhere in his review does he mention the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, setting up Homeland Security including and especially the TSA, fusion centers, expanding FEMA, or any of the other boondoggles (and tyrannies) for which 9/11 furnished a pretext. We're talking trillions of dollars sucked out of productive Americans and given to parasites. There's no question the effect on the economy is significant, significant as in huge, yet nary a mention in the review. How about in John Allison's book? Perhaps the book focuses on banks and their regulation to the exclusion of everything else, after all that's Allison's field. If so, he should state that at the beginning, prominently, and Tamny should have mentioned it instead of what he began his review with.

It's tonight (Monday, Nov 5) at 9 EST. The live feed is http://freeandequal.org/live/

"Obama is an unprecedented threat to America." -- Leonard Peikoff What poppycock. Obama was preceded by Bush Jr., whose violation of individual rights far exceeded Obama's and whose legacy Obama only builds upon. More immediately, Obama is preceded by four years of himself. It is naive to think that Romney, whose advisors are the same neocon crowd that surrounded Bush Jr, would be any different from Bush Jr. Romney is an empty suit, filled with neoconservative advisors.™ I hate Obama too -- who besides other faults toadies to the neocons, though not so much as Romney -- and four more years of him will be bad for America. It will be a continuation of the slide to totalitarianism that accelerated after 9/11 beyond anything I could have imagined. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, coming out of the Romney camp to indicate Romney would not continue this slide. The apocalyptic pronouncements of an evil so great that we must do this or that uttered by the ARI crowd are getting tiresome, like the boy who cried wolf. In this case the sheep are wolves too, that is, the major candidates are both wolves, there's no choice in this election about getting eaten alive. The Republican and Democrat might as well be one party. I'm coming round to gulch8's point of view. Though Gary Johnson wants to tax the working poor more than they are now, and let into the country yet more of the Third World hoard, probably the best outcome -- looking to the future – is that his party gets at least 5% of the popular vote. As one wit remarked, we don't need a third party, we need two parties!

It's a worthy news story. For a choice selection of links about what's going on see Vote Fraud

Not to mention it gets other people to do what whYNOT wants. How this guy can sling Objectivist phrases, turning them into cant.

A comment on whYNOT’s choice of words. He claims that Israel’s fight for its survival is my principal “bugbear.” Now “bugbear” is a disparaging epithet to be sure. An imaginary monster used to frighten children, bugaboo, hobgoblin, something that keeps annoying or worrying you, an object of dread or apprehension – these are some definitions and synonyms. The word belittles one's concern. Speaking of bugbear in its denatured meaning of simply concern, obviously the fate of Israel very much concerns -- bugbears if you will -- whYNOT. As for me, I do not address or care about Israel’s survival per se. I do care about the effect of Israel and its neoconservative supporters on America. The effect is a major loss, as I elaborate at length elsewhere. Pakistan has nothing to do with what we’re talking about but naturally, if whYNOT wants to know, I oppose all foreign aid including to Pakistan. The following is one of the most vicious pieces of bambysham I have ever read: There is “innocence” in the sense of not guilty of a crime, and there “innocence” in the sense of naïveté and ignorance. The author of the above means the later. This second sort of innocence is a negative not to be desired, ever, especially when you need knowledge to defend yourself against con-men who prey on the innocent in both senses. Adults are suspicious when the occasion calls for it. More and more people are waking up to the U.S. foreign policy fraud, including the “Israel is our ally” part of it, and this is what really annoys Israel Firsters. To them, failure to furnish Israel money and war materiel constitutes “retreat from the world.”

> ... word back from Yaron Brook via Twitter that he had not been able to attend the Gotham Tea Party event. Did he give the reason?

Perfection is unnecessary. Israel is not good, and -- this is the main point -- not good for the USA. (See post #15.)

Regarding Israel blackhorse says "They are the freest nation in the middle east ... ." True, but a relative evaluation is no substitute for an absolute. Here's another relative: Israel is far more statist than any country in Europe. The fact is Israel is very statist and becoming more so. Blackhorse insults California and New York when he claims they're no better than Israel. "This is Our Ally?" (link in post #15) argues that Israel is an unworthy, indeed treacherous, ally of the USA. I'm concerned about the U.S. government supporting tyranny. Blackhorse might read “The Banality of Evil” -- about the U.S. in Uzbekistan -- referenced in post #17. Then there is Iran and some other countries.

Michael (honorable administrator), Thanks, I thought it was in an essay. It's odd how even her seemingly off hand sentences stick to ones mental ribs. Michael (mere member), Hmm ... Faces, especially female ones, are very expressive. I don't know about frowning probably indicating rational thought. Certainly one can think deeply without frowning, and indeed generally one should avoid frowning. I take Ayn Rand’s poetic statement as a metaphor for the unnaturalness of man, his difference from the lower animals, which don’t frown or get bent out of shape.

Comments ... 1st paragraph: Any alliance with Israel harms the USA. 2nd: We ought to have an attention span longer than yesterday. Israel "up to any sneaky tricks" mocks its very serious past treachery costing many billions of U.S. tax dollars and hundreds of American lives. As for recent Israeli treachery there is plenty described on ARI Watch and on the Israel section of the Links page. 3rd: Peacenik vs. Warmonger is not a helpful dichotomy. Both terms are as derogatory as they are undefined. The issue is America First vs. U.S Imperialism and Foreign Entanglement. "Picking up ones marbles" etc caricatures an America First foreign policy. From the general tenor of whYNOT's post I suspect that by "self-interest" etc he means just the opposite of the true meaning of those words, very like the so-called Ayn Rand Institute/Center when they couch altruism (with the Israelis as beneficiaries) in the words of self-interest.

Somewhere in Ayn Rand's work there's a sentence containing the word "frown" in a positive way. Something along the lines of: in the evolution of human behavior the first frown was the touch of God. I don't think she used the word God but the idea was similar. She didn't use the word behavior either, or evolution -- her exact wording escapes me, but I'm sure of "frown" and the notion that it was an advance. Any idea where this is?

The Nazis have nothing to do with Fred Reed’s point: that some Moslems have valid reasons for hating Americans, at least the Americans who instigate, support, or fail to oppose, certain actions of the U.S. government. It’s true that it’s not all about Israel. See, for example, The Banality of Evil by Craig Murray. By the way, let’s get it right: I’m a well done bigot.

What's with this Israel and We? I am not Israel. Israel is on the other side of the earth, not the 51st state. It's not America. As for being our ally, This Is Our Ally? What Israel does isn’t surprising given its roots in terrorism and totalitarianism. Iran is the new excuse, after the demise of the Soviet Union, for our government to maintain a colossal military machine. Yet Iran is no more -- arguably less -- a threat to America than the Soviet Union was. The real threat to us is our own government -- threats carried out, for example the TSA. Address that far more important problem first, then worry about "savages" who somehow have a working knowledge of metallurgy, aerodynamics, engineering mathematics and nuclear physics. Recently I happened to read the following by Fred Reed, in “A Brief History of the United States”:

Reply to blackhorse post #9: Popeye is known for "I yam what I yam." Geller should be known for saying what she says. A mind reader can argue anything otherwise. (By the way it's "metaphor" not "aphorism.") Answer to william.scherk's question: The quote about "bringing this war to the civilians" was said by Yaron Brook during an interview on The O'Reilly Factor (link to transcript). William's point of course is that you'd be hard pressed to tell which of the three possibilities he mentions said it.

Whenever I hear an Objectivist -- the ARI variety -- utter the word "context" I release the safety-catch on my ... uh, I meant to say: you know you're about to have the wool pulled over your eyes. If Iran acquires a nuclear bomb and threatens Israel with it (not just in self defense, one supposes), Ms. Geller would have Israel nuke Iran and while it’s at it -- in the context of Europe having an Islamic immigration problem of their own doing -- nuke Europe too. Why Europe? -- the naive reader might wonder. Well, a couple of generations ago the Europeans exterminated all their Jews. Today the Europeans have let in millions of Islamic immigrants in order to kill the Jews -- I mean the rest of them, I mean any that the Europeans, those monsters, missed the first time. Therefore Europe deserves to be nuked along with Iran.

(more or less from "Birds of a Feather") Here are two complete paragraphs from Pamela Geller's “Atlas Shrugged” blog (she steals the novel's title) entry of February 24, 2010, about Muslim immigration to Europe (bolding removed, the extended ellipses hers): Here is more on the Jews fleeing Europe (Sweden and Paris, for example) that I have been covering. Israel is essential. And I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez’ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina ............... “Not to mention Europe. They exterminated all their Jews, but that wasn’t enough. Those monsters then went on to import the next generation of Jew killers.” She goes on to criticize Muslim immigration to Europe, because the immigrants hate Jews. One can agree that Europe’s policy of unrestricted immigration is a big mistake, but as a reaction to this mistake isn’t nuking Europe kind of, oh I don’t know, extreme?

Per the Gotham Tea Party website: Pamela Geller & Yaron Brook are scheduled to speak at the next Gotham Tea Party meeting. When: Tuesday, October 30, 7:30 - 9:30 pm. Where: Annie Moore’s Pub 50 East 43th Street (between Vanderbilt & Madison) Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Cost: $15 at the door or $10 in advance. A fitting pair of speakers. Mr. Brook will probably agree with Ms. Geller as much as he does with Daniel Pipes: 99% on everything.would not be far off. ADDED: The photo linked to under "Yaron Brook" above shows Pamela Geller in the center, flanked by Yaron Brook and Caroline Glick, all at a "Restoration Weekend" organized by David Horowitz in 2008.

See also (recent) Evidence of Vote Counting Fraud by Michael Duniho.

How conveniently short is the memory of Leonard Peikoff! Where was he when Bush Jr set up the police state apparatus that Obama maintains and extends? Bush Jr. didn't amble towards a dictatorship, he made a flying leap. Expect further leaps from Romney and his neoconservative friends. Compared with Bush Jr Obama is a piker, and Romney will be Bush Jr. part II. Mr. Peikoff writes: It's long past time an official Objectivist noticed that. Trouble is, Mr. Peikoff insinuates that the danger started with Obama, and that Romney would be less dangerous than Obama when there's good reason to think he would be more.

About 1:45 minutes into the video Yaron Brook says "... part of what collectivists do is they try to explain individualism in wrong, unappealing terms." Only a few months ago what Yaron Brook did was try to explain Ron Paul in wrong, unappealing terms. After his remark above he chatters about the virtues of individualism, rationality, productivity, honesty, integrity, independence, pride, self esteem, etc. As many ARI watchers have noted, the most disconcerting thing about ARI people is their monumental hypocrisy. They are fine, even eloquent at times, in mouthing generalities, but what it means to them in practice is something else again. After “freedom and individualism and Americanism” you get ... well, everyone by now knows what you get. The gap between the fine words and the particulars brings to mind the Cold War epithet “masters of deceit.”

[withdrawn]