Facts

 Objectivism Versus Scientology:

In Objectivism an axiom is a statement that defines the base of knowledge and is a self evident truth. The three axioms of Objectivism are that Existence Exists, that Existence is Identity, and that Consciousness is Identification.  The axioms of Objectivism flatly contradict Scientology in holding that the Universe existed prior to the evolution of consciousness.  That things are what they are regardless of what one chooses to believe.  That to be conscious is to see things are they truly are without regard to the claims by an self proclaimed authority figure.  An Objectivist would clearly see that L. Ron Hubbard was putting out complete nonsense and therefore would be classed as a Suppressive Person in the doctrine of Scientology.  Because it's a deliberate body of falsehoods created by a con artist Scientology must hold that the act of identification--which is to see things as they truly are--as something that must be forbidden and punished.  In a world ruled by Scientologists the truly conscious must be be put down with lethal effect. 

 

On Culture

Reason is replacing irrationality in our culture.

On Selfishness

Narcissism, especially in the political realm, isn't concerned with the injuries and burdens inflicted on other people.  The more destructive the consequences of obedience to those who obey the narcissist, the better.  Human sacrifice with beating hearts cut out and victims flayed alive, that's great.  Millions worked to death in slave labor camps in Siberia, that's better.  As far as the narcissist is concerned.  It's not just an issue of tax policy. Before one can say, "this is wrong, I won't do it", one has to say "I".  Conscience is the expression of the ego in the moral realm.  To make a moral judgment and to act on it are basically selfish acts.  It's the self that sees through its own eyes and acts on its own knowledge of right and wrong.  You can't really be selfish if you can't live with yourself.  Rational Selfishness as Ayn Rand tried to define and advocate was limited to acts which benefited one's self but caused no affirmative harm or inflicted a cost on another person.

An Old Review

This book review was originally published in Volume 2, Number 3 of THE RESISTER. Price and book service contact information should no longer be accurate.




Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand. Penguin Group, Penguin Books USA, Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, USA. ISBN 0-451-17192-6 Paperback. vii + 1084 pages. 1957. $7.99.

Reviewed by
D. van Oort


Atlas Shrugged is the opus magnum of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, and is the first work of fiction to be reviewed in these pages. Its theme is the role of the mind in the affairs of man. Atlas Shrugged illustrates this dramatically and memorably by showing just why, for the first time in history, the men of ability should go on strike against the advocates of incompetence and the purveyors of envy, and what will happen when they do.

"Who is John Galt?" Throughout Ayn Rand's brilliant expose of the decline of the industrialized west disguised as a novel, this is the question that pervades every page. "Who is John Galt?" is not a question, it is a smear spit out by every incompetent, every altruist, every hater of intellect who demands to know how competent men dare to be competent, how selfish men dare to despise altruism, and how intelligent men dare hold the willfully ignorant in contempt. "Who is John Galt?" is the unspoken demand by the mob that men of competence, ability and intelligence serve them as slaves. "Who is John Galt?" is the sneer muttered by stock-yard animals who cringe before the individual who denies the collectivist-altruist premise, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The heroes of Atlas Shrugged answer the altruist-collectivist demand for their servitude by refusing them the one thing the altruist-collectivists cannot shackle--their minds. This resistance is beautifully stated by the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, when the collectivists demand that he return to "do something" to save a world they are willfully destroying:

"We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind."

Atlas Shrugged is set in a despicable near future, one much nearer today than when the book was first published in 1957. From the beginning, Atlas Shrugged was denounced and slandered by critics from both the socialist liberal appeaser and conservative Buckley-ite compromiser schools. Precisely because its theme is the role of the mind; because its scenario is a world increasingly of, by, and for the mindless; because it illustrates so beautifully the types of ideologies that lead to power blackouts in New York City and the creativity that leads to the discovery of new types of energy; because it predicted events and policies that have occurred since, and because it is the story of the most intractable of resisters on strike against those very ideologies, events and policies that are choking the life out of us today--this book is not dated. Indeed, it is prophetic. Atlas Shrugged is coming of age with a vengeance.

Throughout the novel, John Galt, defying every disgusting premise of altruism and collectivism travels the country on a mission of sedition to recruit true capitalists to his strike. In response to demands that he return with "the men of the mind" he defiantly states:

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind."

As with any legitimate work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged projects an ideal. So why would the ideal productive genius, Francisco d'Anconia, destroy his copper mines and become a useless playboy? Why would a brilliant young philosopher, Ragnar Danneskjold, sail the high seas as a pirate, waylaying ships transporting looted capital to various "People's States"? Why would the most brilliant of them all, John Galt, whose greatest invention is looted by the unworthy heirs to the once-great company he worked for, wage a clandestine war against the world by removing the men most hated by it? Why would the heroine, Dagny Taggart, after struggling against the combined efforts of the world to destroy her transcontinental railroad, vow to kill this man, and upon breaching the strikers' security, meet him and fall in love with him?

And what kind of new ideology would they forge from the ashes of two thousand years of mysticism, altruism and collectivism? What will be the greatest gift they give to the world, they, the ideal who are only concerned with themselves? This is their gift:

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU."

Atlas Shrugged is a long book, a great read for a long winter. But be warned; Atlas Shrugged is much like these pages it is reviewed on, because not everyone can handle it, and not everyone would like for you to read it. In spite of that, it is proper that Atlas Shrugged repeatedly tops the Book of the Month Club's bestseller list, because the type of person who reads this book is the type who makes his decisions on his own, for his own reasons, and for his own benefit.

If you have reason to seek a real literary masterpiece, and if you think you can benefit from a genuine ideological challenge, follow the tale of a few great men and women in a mindless world of "People's States" and cringing appeasers, as they launch the ultimate resistance movement for the ultimate reason, and stop the motor of the world.

Atlas Shrugged will reward you like no other book known to this reviewer. It will do so with entertainment, suspense, one hell of a premise, and a few years worth of things to think about.

But don't take my word for it. Judge for yourself.

Atlas Shrugged may be ordered from: Second Renaissance Books, 143 West St/PO Box 1988, New Milford, CT 06776. 1-800-729-6149 (orders only).

 

Quote Of The Day

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

-- Ayn Rand

Message In A Novel

There's a message in Atlas Shrugged. 

Nonproductive people need productive people, productive people DON'T need nonproductive people.

There are those who say the message of Ayn Rand is Fascist.  To those I have a message: We don't need those who don't think for themselves.  Calling someone a Fascist is just name calling.  Name calling isn't an argument.

In short: Fuck You.

Personal History

The rot in Leftist student groups goes back several decades.  When I was involved with the U of M Objectivist Club there were several speakers.  One of the speakers was Dr. Peter Schwartz.  A campus Leftist student group replaced our posters for the event with posters that included swastikas and obscene language.  It should be no surprise Leftist student groups are now supporting Hamas.

Quote Of The Day

More Facts

Objectivism treats Reality as independent of consciousness.  Scientology treats Reality as dependent on consciousness.  Right and Wrong are determined by authority figures like L. Ron Hubbard.  This is simply wrong.

Bitching On The Anniversary

On this day in 1776 a bunch of subjects of the British crown declared themselves and their fellow Americans to be the free citizens of a free nation.  Needless to say King George III and the British Aristocracy objected to this revolutionary act with deadly force.  Although the United States Constitution clearly prohibits the establishment of an aristocratic class one has been brought into effect by judicial fiat.  Homosexuals -- a group once commonly identified as depraved or mentally ill -- have been granted a separate and superior status with respect to the citizens of our nation.  Anyone who refuses a demand from a homosexual on any grounds are now subject to civil punishment.  Given this it wouldn't be a surprise when the refusal of a demand by a homosexual will result in a criminal penalty as well.  In reality this is called oppression.  In the last year the Pink Triangle of the Homosexual Collective has changed from a sign of victim status to being a symbol of the oppressors.  It has become a symbol of tyranny like the Red Star of Soviet Communism and the Broken Cross of National Socialism.

 

I'm reposting  a rant on the subject of Gay Rights.


The Myth Of Gay Rights


What is a right?

In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.  There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]

So what is a Gay Right?

The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals.  In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.

Why disassociate from homosexuals?

In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code.  In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they're to be shunned.  In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.

In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony.  When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination.  Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]

Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?

In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction.  The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life.  And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]  

Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block.  In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation.  This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective.  When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.

A permanent end.


Footnotes

1.  Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

2.  In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society.  For this he should be taken out and shot.

3.  The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation.  It was wiped out in action.

 

On Reparations

Black Lives Matters want racially based "reparations".

"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave."”

"The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."

-- Ayn Rand

BLM is advocating slavery.

A Book Review

Those who're ignorant of history are a highly sought after voting bloc.

Here's a repost of a very important book review originally published in THE RESISTER.  If you haven't read it, you should.

BOOK REVIEW
-----------

The Ominous Parallels--The End of Freedom in America. Leonard Peikoff. New York: NAL Penguin, Inc., 1982. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 83-60247. ix + 316 pages plus references and index.. Soft cover $10.00.


Reviewed by Red Barchetta

This book asks: "What caused Nazi Germany?" Unlike lesser attempts to explain that blood bath, The Ominous Parallels answers: "The same philosophies that are prevalent in the United States of America." Dr. Peikoff argues convincingly that in both countries the intellectual, educational and political leadership share, explicitly or implicitly, the same core ideologies. These ideologies submit that reality is subjective--a malleable illusion; emotions are the proper guide to human action--especially the emotions of race and the tribe, which cannot be understood by outsiders; self-sacrifice for the sake of others should usurp a man's own desires--and the state must take any necessary action to ensure that sacrifice. These ideologies demand that "individual selfishness" does not obstruct the path of "the public interest."

From Part One, Chapter One: " 'To be a socialist,' says Goebbels, 'is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.' By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals."

The underlying theme in The Ominous Parallels is how philosophy shapes cultures, and reading this book, it is difficult to escape a feeling of hopeless dread; of being caught in racing floodwaters and swept madly toward a destruction you are helpless to prevent. Given the theme of this nation's descent into fascism, and Dr. Peikoff's uncompromising method of proving it, that is the proper effect.

The conclusion of The Ominous Parallels is not that we are helplessly destined to go to the same lengths down the same road as Germany. The conclusion is that it is time for us to choose whether or not we will; that if we fail to consciously decide, the decision will be made for us. Contrary to the bleating of irrationalists then or now, it is only a coherent philosophy of reason and individual rights which will give us the means to choose not to become our own slaughterhouse.

Dr. Peikoff shows that such a philosophy is not prevalent in the United States because, although this nation was unique in being founded on philosophic ideals (rather than arbitrary land-grabs and tribal warfare), it was ultimately lacking a coherent detailed formulation of those ideals, as well as the Aristotelian philosophers to create one. Independence from Europe was only won physically--not ideologically. "The land of poets and philosophers was brought down by its poets and philosophers," says Peikoff. The resulting bowel movement of docile Nazi sheep who obeyed their Fuhrer because they obeyed their philosophers could indeed be us, for their philosophers--their pragmatists and Kants, their Hegels and Marxes--are ours by adoption.

We do have one trump card, "...the philosophical breach between the American people and the intellectuals." In Germany, the intellectuals and the people were united in ideology, feeling at home in their country and with each other. This, says Peikoff, is not yet the case in America. Peikoff's book will help to keep it that way.

After reading The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff I got the impression that the three things that separate the old school German National Socialists from the present day members of the Left here in America are a bath, a clean uniform, and a can of Zyklon-B.

A  shorter version of the book, titled The Cause Of Hitler's Germany is now in print.

I’ll quote from page 44 of The Cause Of Hitler’s Germany by Leonard Peikoff:

“There was Friedrich Nitetzche, the prophet of the superman and the will to power, who was acclaimed by Hitler as one of his predecessors. The extent of Nitetzche’s actual influence in regard to the rise of Nazism is debatable...Nevertheless, he is a fervid romanticist, who revels in the post-Kantian anti-reason orgy, and there is much in his disjointed, aphoristic writings that the Nazis were able to quote with relish.  A view of the universe as a realm of clashing wills, ceaseless strife, and violent conflict; a glorification of cruelty and conquest, of ‘the magnificent blond brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory’; the view that a few superbeings, ‘beyond good and evil,’ have the right to enslave the inferior masses for their own higher purposes–this is part of the Neitzchean legacy, as interpreted (with some justification) by the Nazis”

Replace the blonde with black and this covers the Black Lives Matter point of view.

Peikoff covers how the German intellectuals laid the cultural foundation for the rise of National Socialism.  And as we're now seeing the same foundation has been laid for Black Racial Collectivism.

Now if the black ubermensch types want to act as old school National Socialists then we must treat them as such.  We must crush them without mercy and execute their leaders.

 

A Link

I have a link you may want to click on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4jOKPpWDr0

Opinions

If you're not willing to use force to obtain justice you'll ultimately end up with an unjust world.

As an Objectivist I expect to be judged.

Those who believe they're superior beings aren't.

The theory of Communism was invented by a group of professional parasites in order to give the appearance of modernity and moral legitimacy to the stone age practice of beating up and killing productive people and taking their stuff.  Of course that's about the nicest description I could give to it. Normally I think of the practice of Communism as being the behavior of those who chose to act as subhuman predatory animals.  And as with any other predatory animal that attacks human beings I believe that they should be hunted down and killed.  Parasite mentalities as a general rule see themselves as superior beings and other people, the productive population, exist solely as either tools that they can use to pursue their goals or as trash to be disposed of.  Killing those who rightfully refuse to be the slaves of the self appointed superior beings isn't an act of murder, in their minds it's simply the disposal of hominid garbage.  In practical terms a Communist is a mortal enemy of Mankind and killing a Communist can be no more wrongful than putting down a rabid animal or destroying any other active hazard to human life.

Personal History

When I was involved with the U of M Objectivist Club we never harassed any opponent of Objectivism.  Although we were harassed by Campus Commies.  Scientology has to harass it's opponents.

Opinion

Ayn Rand’s primary work Atlas Shrugged depicted a world, especially the United States, politically dominated by the Looters.  The world, especially the United States, becomes a reflection of their values.  Looters need Productive People. Productive People don’t need Looters.

Date Of Birth

Evil entered the world.  L. Ron Hubbard was born on this day in 1911.  L. Ron Hubbard actually conned a rocket scientist.  L. Ron Hubbard helped the Soviets during the Cold War.  L. Ron Hubbard will eventually be remembered as the vile man he actually was.  I'm on public record as calling L. Ron Hubbard a completely useless waste of mass and energy.  When L. Ron Hubbard was receiving a penny a word writing for the pulps Ayn Rand was a world class author who had her work published in hardcover and adapted for motion pictures.  All of Ayn Rand's work is still in print by the New American Library.  Some of L. Ron Hubbard's later literary work is printed by Bridge Publications.  Who owns the New American Library?  The stockholders.  Who owns Bridge Publications?  Bridge Publications is a department of Scientology. 

If you want to see a world run by Scientologists all one has to do is look at Auschwitz.

In Objectivism an axiom is a statement that defines the base of knowledge and is a self evident truth. The three axioms of Objectivism are that Existence Exists, that Existence is Identity, and that Consciousness is Identification.  The axioms of Objectivism flatly contradict Scientology in holding that the Universe existed prior to the evolution of consciousness.  That things are what they are regardless of what one chooses to believe.  And that to be conscious is to see things are they truly are without regard to the claims by an self-proclaimed authority figure.   An Objectivist would clearly see that L. Ron Hubbard was putting out complete nonsense and therefore would be classed as a Suppressive Person in the doctrine of Scientology.  Because it's a deliberate body of falsehoods created by a con artist Scientology must hold that the act of identification, which is to see things as they truly are, as something that must be forbidden and punished.  In a world ruled by Scientologists the truly conscious must be be put down with lethal effect. 

We must understand that Scientology isn't a religion.  We must understand that Scientology is a con game invented by L. Ron Hubbard.  We must understand that outside of the Collectivist movement L. Ron Hubbard was one of most vile men who ever lived.  Bad people often believe they're good people.  We saw this with the harassment of Paulette Cooper.  If the United States had a real government Scientology would be treated as the criminal organization it actually is. 

Scientology will eventually become extinct.  L. Ron Hubbard didn't design Scientology to outlast him.  L. Ron Hubbard was wrong about a lot of things.  My first paying job in the private sector was a part time gig at two candy shops in downtown Minneapolis.  Both candy shops had picture windows, Hubbard's method of cleaning windows was NEVER used.

The false prophet L. Ron Hubbard was a piece of excrement (yes, I know I'm insulting excrement) that took advantage of the First Amendment of our Constitution.

I made a proposal on this blog to amend The Constitution:

All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Scientology by name?  A name is only a mental label for the concept.  Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Scientology.  The doctrine of Scientology also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary.   Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Scientologist will occur.  It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment.  A fundamental attribute of the doctrine of Scientology is the denial of real laws.  The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people.  In declaring actual laws to be invalid Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes that would be carried out by Hubbard and other Scientologists for their own personal benefit.  This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society.  In reality the people are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation.  In reality Scientology has to go.  In order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights.

Although Scientology is a vexatious litigant and won many civil suits.  Scientology will eventually lose in the court of public opinion. 

 

Opinion

In my opinion cowardice can cause a person to do horrible things.

Opinion

Who is Oswald Mosley?  Oswald Mosley betrayed the British nation during the Second World War.  Harry Binswanger betrayed Humanity.  Harry Binswanger banned me from his internet mailing list for advocating murder.  I realized Harry Binswanger owned his mailing list.  

What did I do to upset Harry Binswanger?  I attempted to post the following on his mailing list.

Anyone who’s read my blog knows I’m not a fan of Islam.

For those who’re victims of the public schools with the mainstream media, a group of Muslims managed to hijack four commercial airliners and crashed three of them into each of the main towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We’ve yet to properly respond to this atrocity. By a proper response I mean that we should’ve erased the abomination commonly known as the Kaaba from the face of the Earth with a high yield thermonuclear weapon. And in doing so we would’ve demonstrated that the deity known as Allah was without question a false god and the doctrine known as Islam was an absolute load of nonsense.

Of course there will be those who would’ve point a finger at me and scream that I’m expressing hatred. So what?

If we would hang a traitor once in a while (pour encourager l’outres) they wouldn’t be so annoying.

A lie is a lie regardless of how many people choose to believe it or are compelled to believe it. But the truth is the truth, learn to live with it.

The doctrine of Islam forbids rational thought. But how one deals with another person determines how that person responds. When the Muslim renounces responsibility for their own thoughts and actions they can no longer be rationally identified as being human. And we who remain rational humans can no longer identify and deal with a Muslim as a proper person who’s responsible for their own life and actions. We can only see them as toxic organisms to be removed as a hazard to our lives. And worse the indoctrination of children in the doctrine of Islam condemns them to extinction as well.

The rational people of Earth are left with no alternative but to kill them all. On the day of the extinction of Islam I’ll feel no guilt about it, and neither should anyone else.

Islam, like all other anti-human (you know, EVIL) ideologies, can only be opposed through the education of the general population of its actual doctrines and effects, and through the consistent exercise of retaliatory force upon those Muslims who cross the line into violence. When we do this (and we have to) the problem of Koran disposal will take care of itself.

Harry Binswanger banned me advocating murder.  I advocated self defense.  This is murder.


 

A victim of Islam is lying on the pavement in Nice, France.  Oswald Mosley died naturally.  Harry Binswanger is in his seventies and will likely die naturally instead of properly at the end of a rope.  

Editorial

Harry Binswanger has accused me of advocating the murder of Muslims, in fact I advocated self defense.  

Shall I explain?

Everyone in Islam is taught from the moment of birth to hate and murder non-believers.  It doesn’t matter what one’s metaphysical position is.  If someone is an Atheist, a Christian, a Jew, or whatever, one is automatically on the target list.  We’re losing the fight for our lives and Harry Binswanger is clearly on the other side.

I understand that because we perceive the universe as individuals that disagreements can exist.  But there's no excuse for cowardice when one's faced with actual evil.  Evil must be confronted and destroyed or else it'll overtake us.

And remember: 

Update 1430 CDT:

The complete collapse of the Soviet Union was unexpected.  The current rebellion against the Cuban Communist regime was unexpected.