.jpg)
Long live Mark David Chapman.
OK, he's nuts, but it was a job well done.
--
Oh, Oysters! said the Carpenter,
Shall we be trotting home again?
But answer came there none.
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
QUESTIONS FOR OBJECTIVISTS
Q: Will there never come a season
That will rid us of the curse
Of a "philosophy of reason"
And a literature that's worse?
A: No.
--
Having been so uncouth as to cast aspersions upon "history's greatest philosopher" -- Ayn Rand -- it seems only gentlemanly of me to grant my prey -- excuse me, my adversaries -- a right of reply.
Indeed, I shall give the Objectivists the first word.
--
Perhaps they will be kind enough to answer the following questions, to which I have been unable to find an answer in 45 years of cobweb cogitation:
a) How do Objectivists make their decisions? Forget about supplying me with an "objective" definition of the words "objective", "rational",
or "self-interest", just tell me: by what standard, what criterion of any kind, do they decide things?
For example, we are told that if we "value" A over B, we must choose A; anything else would be "irrational", "altruistic" and "self-sacrificial".
(The absurdity of the Objectivist definitions of the word "value", "sacrifice", and many other terms will be discussed elsewhere.)
On the contrary, if we "value" B over A, then we must choose B! Uh, duh...
Choosing A over B if we really "value" B more, would, again, be "irrational", "altruistic" and "self-sacrificial". Choosing B if we really "value" B more, is not "self-sacrifice"; we are making a "profit".
For example, if my father (who was too old for the draft) "valued" serving his country by climbing up rocky crags on Okinawa armed with nothing but a bullhorn -- and, I presume, a .45 -- instead of staying home with his young bride, who was probably already pregnant -- then he should have done so. If not, not. Easy-peasy.
If a woman "values" a new car or set of furniture over the life of her unborn child, then she should choose the new car or set of furniture and abort her baby.
But how do they actually decide these things? The question in any code of ethics is "what should I value?" "What should I do?" Objectivism provides no answer.
Objectivism is a religion which consigns you to the hellfire of Ayn Rand's "contempt" (another favourite Rand word) for failing to achieve her level of perfect "rationality" (that's a joke!), but which provides no answers to the real problems of human life. People are treated as cardboard cutouts, computer game figures, with only two "modes": "profit" or "self-sacrifice", which is ipso facto "immoral". They have no feelings -- only "values".
So how do Objectivists decide these things?
According to her journals -- which have never been published in their entirety and have been heavily "edited" -- Ayn Rand went to the theater instead of feeding her family, although her family were starving -- literally starving (this was in Leningrad, in 1921, towards the end of the 5-year Russian Civil War, in which up to 10 million people are believed to have died of starvation, disease or other causes -- including combat deaths and torture; the whole country was swarming with criminal gangs of war orphans, known as bezprizorniki,
often as young as 7 or 8, attacking people -- adult males -- in huge swarms, like piranhas, on the street, in broad daylight; a loaf of bread or a few sticks of firewood cost something like a month's wages, but there were no jobs; there was no heating, no food, no housing and no lighting; but Ayn Rand went to the theater!
(Where did she get the money? She claims she saved up her street-car fare, money given to her by her starving family -- an obvious lie, but let's ignore that.)
(The obvious inference is that she earned the money through prostitution, like tens of millions of other Russian women, but that's not the point, is it?)
She "valued" "A over B". By what "rational", "objective" standard did she not value "B over A", the other way around? No answer.
So by what standard -- not an "objective" standard, not a "rational" standard, just by what standard of any kind -- do Objectivists decide these things?
My brother's book contains a lengthy footnote with a long list of obviously self-sacrificial, altruistic actions -- many of which he would never have performed personally in a hundred years -- after which he claims that doing these things is not "altruistic" and is not "self-sacrifice" if one CHOOSES TO DO IT. So by what standard does one make the choice?
For example, he says that it is not "altruism" or "self-sacrifice" for John Galt (the Rand hero par excellence) to stop to help one of the archetypical Rand villains if his car has "broken down on a lonely road", provided Galt CHOOSES TO DO IT.
Stopping to help a motorist whose car has "broken down on a lonely road" is a very good way to get murdered, especially today, as many people have found out to their cost; so how does Galt make this decision? (It is not revealed whether or not Galt knows who the "motorist" is; presumably it makes no difference.)
(At this point it should be noted that saying that "It doesn't matter what you do as long as you CHOOSE to do it" is like saying "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere". At this rate, why bother advocating any idea system of any kind?)
--
Another question:
In the philosophy of Ayn Rand, all principles are taken to an extreme on the grounds that to do otherwise would be "logically inconsistent". To say that something is a "matter of degree, not principle" is a great reproach in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
This means that no "principle" may ever be "tempered" by another principle! (for example, to use everyday examples, justice tempered by mercy; truthfulness tempered by good manners, etc.).
So, in the many situations which may conceivably be subject to regulation by any one of several different principles, how do Objectivists decide which principle is applicable?
Where is there any "rational", "objective", principle telling us which "rational", "objective" principle to apply? There is none.
So the questions are: a) how do Objectivists make their decisions; and b) how do they decide which "rational", "objective", principle is to apply when there are 2 or 3 possible alternatives?
IMMIGRATION
For example:
Is the problem of unrestricted and unlimited mass immigration -- remember, we are speaking of six billion people now, then ten, then twelve, etc.; there are no limits -- to be decided by the "rational" "self-interest" of the citizens of the United States -- the tax payers -- for the most part, the working and middle classes who actually built the country through hard work?
After all, these are the people who "own" the country (or used to), according to all the Objectivist twiddle-twaddle about "property rights", "private property", "individual rights" and "freedom", are they not? Or am I thinking of some other country?
Well, of course not; you know what the answer is: it is to be decided by resort to altruism and "self-sacrifice" pure and simple. Immigrants are coming for a "better life"; so the tax-paying citizens of the United States will just have to make way, and their "rational self-interest" be damned!
I repeat: the "owners" of the country, according to Ayn Rand's own theories of "property rights" and "private property", are simply supposed to hop into the dustbin of history and disappear from the face of the earth -- along with their industries, wages, property values, pensions, personal security, culture and children's future. Who told the goyim they had any rights? Well, Ayn Rand, for one. Who else?
(Rand's followers are too stupid to notice this. In fact, they are as fanatical about immigration as they are about everything else. There is a massive contradiction here, and don't think for one moment that it's coincidental.
It might be noted that Rand personally was extremely racist. More on this later.)
So how are these decisions made? I await an answer (after 45 years).
In the absence of an answer, I shall, of course, have to assume that the whole "Objectivist philosophy" is just another "neo-con", "cultural Marxist" fraud, and that the whole point is to destroy America through immigration, miscegenation and abortion; to destroy the White Race by the same means; to destroy marriage and the family -- again, through abortion, miscegenation, promiscuity -- (disguised as "worshipping the rationality of the other person" -- and the added ingredient of perversion --although Rand personally was "anti-gay", her followers are not; all other perversions are welcome, too); and -- last but not least -- to destroy religion (Christianity, of course, never Judaism ) by the same means, as always (but not necessarily in that order).
These are the "stale" (to use a favourite Rand adjective) old pre-Marxist (and Marxist) programs of "atheism, Free Love and abortion" (adopted by Vladimir Lenin for propaganda purposes) -- a preview of "if it feels good, do it"; the hippies, and Jerry Rubin.
And why not drugs (if it's in your "rational self-interest")? Who's to decide?
--
I knew a lot of Cuban refugees at one time. One of them told me his uncle had a nice house down by the beach. One day a jeep full of so-called "soldiers" drove up armed with automatic weapons. They stuck an automatic rifle in his face and said. "Get out!"
He said, "What do you mean, 'get out'? Where are I supposed to go? What am I supposed to do?" They said, "We don't care. Just get out". So he ended up in Florida with 2 suitcases.
--
Imagine there's no countries,
No religion too,
Nothing to kill or die for,
etc.
What planet do these people live on? Is there really "nothing to kill or die for" when fifty (or fifty million) illegal immigrants and drug addicts break into your house to rape and slaughter your family? How stupid can people get?
John Lennon was like Ayn Rand: a hypocrite; except that he admitted he was a Marxist. The only other real difference was that he made more money (270 million jewbuckniks as opposed to arch-"capitalist" Rand's measly estate of only about $650,000).
So if you really want to rake in the shekels, pretend to be a commie.
--
Long live Mark David Chapman.
OK, he's nuts, but it was a job well done.
--
Oh, Oysters! said the Carpenter,
Shall we be trotting home again?
But answer came there none.
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
---
Another grave problem: if "there's no countries", where are all the filthy-rich, hypocritical pop stars and pop "philosophers" going to run away to when all the immigrant Marxist drug dealers show up with their Kalashnikovs?
This ought to be an assigned writing topic in philosophy classes.
C. PORTER
17 SEPTEMBER 2015
"Depravity wants only a pretense"
-- Aristotle, Rhetoric, Chapter 11, Book I
Recommended reading:
RED VICTORY by Bruce Lincoln
THE DEVILS by Dostoevsky (make sure you read the Michael R. Katz translation)
THE DOUBLE LIFE OF FIDEL CASTRO by Juan Reinaldo Sánchez and Axel Glydén
MAO: THE UNKNOWN STORY by Jung Chang
LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN: INSIDE THE MIND OF MARK DAVID CHAPMAN, THE MAN WHO SHOT JOHN LENNON by Jack Jones
THE AYN RAND CULT by Jeff Walker
THE PSYCHOTIC LEFT by Kerry Bolton
REFLECTIONS ON THE FAILURE OF SOCIALISM by Max Eastman
GODFATHER OF THE KREMLIN: THE DECLINE OF RUSSIA IN THE AGE OF GANGSTER CAPITALISM by Paul Klebinov
(the author was murdered in July 2004, soon after publishing this book)
AYN RAND, RUSSIAN RADICAL by Chris Sciabarra
(this highly pretentious, nearly worthless book is a typically academic exercise in name-dropping and box-ticking -- i.e., Marx quarelled with a load of people, so there's a big long list of names; Ayn Rand mentioned a load of people in her journals, so there's another big long list of names, etc., but without any information as to what was said! The author nevertheless uncovers multiple instances of Rand's pathological mendacity, which he is too cowardly to call by its true name. So "pink" is this "Greek-Sicilian" that he talks of a "Silver Age of Philosophy" in Russia during the Russian Civil War! Like many Objectivists, he is, in practice, an extreme-left winger. It does not appear that he can read Russian)
AYN RAND: GODDESS OF THE MARKET: AYN RAND AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT by Jennifer Burns
(same comment as above with regards to Rand's mendacity; a bit less name-dropping)
---
"IMAGINE"
(updated slightly)
Imagine there's no bullshit
No commie millionaires
With 270 million invested
In real estate, antiques and shares
Imagine no bullshit "philosophers"
No fake"capitalist" commie Jews
Communizing America through immigration
While they clean up we lose
Imagine no "outsourcing"
The way it used to be
Imagine a living wage,
Our very own industry
Imagine a replacement birth rate
A healthy middle and working class
No abortion or pornography
Not just "peddle your ass"
Imagine healthy children
No "gay marriage" too
Imagine a healthy family
Minus the filthy Jew.
Imagine the old-fashioned virtues
It's easy if you try
Imagine love and devotion
Motherhood and apple pie.
Imagine all the commies
Machine-gunned on a beach
Suum cuique dare
= Give what's due to each
With music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwx65qY3Ovs