About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, January 18 - 4:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Various political leaders enabled the Muslim invasion of Europe. The article Killing Europe analyzes Yaron Brook’s / ARI’s understanding of the invasion and what he/they think should be done about it. The article is rather long, but as the hare twists and turns so must the hound.



Post 1

Wednesday, January 31 - 12:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think this is a decent essay. But it's quite long and I haven't gotten around to reading it all yet. 



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, January 31 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We Objectivists think in principles. as everyone should.  We are fascinated by and focused on what principles are the right ones for a given context and how they implement.  That is the perspective we bring to everything - finding and applying the proper principles. 

 

But we are also emotional creatures and always are subject to emotions - often attempting to direct us to some preformed conclusion - often without any notion of accuracy.  And, if we don't catch that erroneous process, we end up using our minds (improperly) juggling around princples to justify a conclusion that was improperly instituted in the first place.

 

I think we see a lot of that when Mark writes about Yaron Brook and ARI.  He has a clear obsession with attacking them.  He starts with anger and hatred and fiercely launches attacks using (or misusing) Objectivist principles.  But, that doesn't mean that any given argument he makes is wrong.  I found myself agreeing with many (but not all) of the conclusions in this article.

 

There is a property right that American citizens have in the legal structure of our nation and it gives us, using democratic government, the moral/legal right to establish and maintain a border and to choose who can come in.  So, in that sense, I agree with Mark's observations of the problems Europe is having.  And I disagree with Yaron Brook, and the many other Objectivists who - because they don't see that property right - will mistakenly apply other Objectivists principles and finding themselves defending open borders.  And that makes no more sense than failing to see a property to ones' home and then trying to explain how higher self-esteem, or confidence, will turn around the angry, demanding, homeless people that have decided to move in.

 

In addition, prolitical correctness, which is so omnipresent in our culture that some aspect of it is ever ready to leap into anyone's mind when it matches a collusion, especially one improperly chosen.  Look at how someone as far from progressivism as Yaron Brooks ends up calling people xenophobic because they don't want to see their culture transformed by massive levels of immigration of a people that don't assimilate. 

 

I saw both sides of the open border argument getting caught up in progressivism's identity politics - aka tribalism/racism.  If someone questioned my right to have a lock on my front door, I would not be swayed by an argument that I was just trying to keep people of color out of my house, nor would I be arguing that my door lock was for the purpose of keeping out people of different cultures or colors.  Reducing an argument to an attack on someone as being racist or zenophobic is the demonizing technique progressives learned from Saul Alinsky.  As a way of conducting argumentation it is, by itself, destructive to our culture (and the long-term, damaging to the mental well-being of the individual who abuses his mind in that way).

 

I didn't finish the article.  It was long, and Mark's hatred for Yaron Brook and ARI comes through too strongly, killing my reading enjoyment.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, February 7 - 1:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think Mark is an alt-rightist. He opposes the destruction of the West thru the immigration of Third World savages -- which is good -- but he evidently doesn't much advocate immigration of people of high quality and merit. Rather, he seems to openly champion racism. Mark evidently supports "ethno-states", "white nationalism", and "people who want to live in white neighborhoods." He even thinks Pakistanis, Bengalis, and other non-whites have "different standards of human physical beauty and by white standards they are grotesque."   

In my view, the correct answer on immigration -- which will save Europe, and America too -- is this: Keep and kick the bad people out, while allowing and recruiting the good people in. Their race, sub-race, nationality, and tribe is irrelevant. This approach and policy, based on justice and merit, is also consonant with individualism and Objectivism.



Post 4

Wednesday, February 7 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I fully agree with Post 3.



Post 5

Monday, February 12 - 7:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I actually enjoyed reading this long article by Mark. It printed out at a full 20 pages, but I read every single word. It's good that someone is scrutinizing the tedious, half-wit Yaron Brook and his radio show, as well as the oh-so-dubious Ayn Rand Institute. But in embracing racism as an ideal, I think Mark has made a serious philosophical error.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.