The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Philosophical Fakery

I present a guest column by Lindsay Perigo of New Zealand. He
exposes the fake philosophizing of Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute,
about Donald Trump, whom he accuses of being a fascist, among other unjust and
wholly ludicrous appellations. There are many people who have imbibed Brook’s
Here is his preface and a significant addendum:

November 4, 1962:  For decades, the ‘liberals’ have regarded
‘nationalism’ as an arch-evil of capitalism. They denounced national
self-interest—they permitted no distinction between intelligent patriotism and
blind, racist chauvinism, deliberately lumping them together—they smeared all
opponents of internationalist doctrines as ‘reactionaries,’ ‘fascists’ or
‘isolationists’—and they brought this country to a stage where expressions such
as ‘America First’ became terms of opprobrium.

From The Ayn Rand Column, column no.
20, “Nationalism and Internationalism,” pp. 59-61.


[This is an expanded version of
the opening statement I had prepared for my aborted debate with Yaron Brook on
Amy Peikoff’s BlogTalkRadio show, “Don’t Let It Go.” I withdrew from
the debate when I realized I could not in all conscience comply with her last-minute
request that I refrain from making “sweeping statements” critical of
Yaron. Warning: the following contains a number of sweeping statements critical
of Yaron.]

Bunker Hill: June 1775

In Yaron Brook’s BlogTalkRadio
show of November 12 last year, the Ayn Rand Institute head said he was
“horrified” at what 57 million Americans had just done. Yaron called
Trump “the villain of our time,” “this creature, this vulgar
creature,” an “authoritarian,” more anti-American than Obama, someone who might
well abolish freedom of speech, someone whose proposal to build a wall on the
Southern border was “stupid,” someone whose election was far more
dangerous than that of Hillary Clinton, who would have been merely “an
extension of the Obama status quo.” Yaron’s sentiments were echoed by his ARI
colleague, Canadian Onkar Ghate, who wrote, “On November 8, 2016, the
United States took its first step towards dictatorship.” Further on, Ghate
said: “ … the Republican control of the presidency, the House and the Senate
should give anyone pause who is concerned about, say, the campaign’s
demonization of immigrants and of trade or the attempt to impose a Christian
variant of Sharia law.” On his BlogTalkRadio show just finished as I write (the
morning of Feb 6, NZ time) Yaron asserted that Trump is “paving the way to
This, we are told, is the voice
of reason. I contend it is the voice of Trump Derangement Syndrome. More than
that, it is the resurgent voice of Leonard Peikoff’s 2006 fatwa to the
effect that Objectivists should vote Democrat across the board, even in the
presence of “good Republicans,” because the Republicans were about to usher in
a Christian theocracy. Sheer lunacy. Leonard briefly came right in 2013 …
I am against the immigration bill a hundred percent, not just one
clause or another, for one very simple reason. It happens to be the case that
we are teetering on the edge of dictatorship. It happens to be the case that if
the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over
that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of
all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or
anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democratic. So if you are
talking about a bill, I don’t care whether it’s fair / unfair in any other
respects, you are talking about a bill that will infuse into this country a
massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction
of this country. That is what immigration means today. And there’s no use
asking me in theory what do I think, there is no theory now, we’re on the end.
So it’s a question of buying time.
… before reverting to form.
I contend the current Trump
Derangement Syndrome within OrgOism (Organised Objectivism), most prominently
displayed by Yaron Brook, is a manifestation of what I call Obleftivism,
i.e., Objectivism hijacked by Islamo-Marxism. In what follows, “Yaron” and
“Obleftivism” should be treated as interchangeable.
Yaron implies “the Obama
status quo” that Hillary would have preserved is somehow innocuous and
tolerable, to be preferred over a President who has promised to lower taxes
hugely, to lessen regulations by 75% and who has already moved to roll back
Dodd-Frank; over a President who will allow the energy sector to function and flourish
again and has already green-lighted the Dakota and Keystone pipeline projects
blocked by Comrade Obama (“no big deal,” said Yaron this morning); over a
President whose appointments to the Supreme Court will be based on adherence to
the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench; over a President who
will stop the inflow of terrorist savages and other Third World low-lifes in
its tracks; over a President who can bring himself not just to say
“Radical Islamic terrorism” (in my view, “Islam” would suffice) but also to go
after it.
Obleftivism seems blind to the
cultural ravages of unfettered immigration by ideological aliens; indifferent
to, possibly even unaware of (from the smug safety of walled, white,
well-guarded gated communities) the robberies, assaults, rapes and beheadings
perpetrated by them. (MS13: more prolific beheaders than ISIS!) Obleftivism
says “Let ’em in, let ‘em in, let ‘em in”; the more the merrier; they’ll soon
get the hang of freedom and become like us—and anyone who opposes this
suicidal, sacrifistic policy is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot and all the rest
of the standard leftist epithets. Trump’s wall is “stupid,” says Yaron—from
behind a wall. I say, build a wall along the Northern border as well. Someone
has to keep Onkar Ghate and Justin Trudeau out, not to mention all the Muslims
Trudeau is letting in to Canada. I say, relocate the Somalis who have wrought
havoc in Minnesota to tents pitched on the golf courses inside Yaron’s gated
community; assuredly he’ll give them a warm welcome?!
Obleftivism refuses to
acknowledge, let alone proudly proclaim, that Western Culture is The Best;
that it’s entitled to protect and preserve itself qua Western culture,
manifested in a plenitude of ways in specific Western nations; to say such
a thing, according to Obleftivists, is “nationalism,” or even worse,
“patriotism”—both odious signs of [gasp] “collectivism.” Obleftivism seems not
to have absorbed the significance of Ayn Rand’s appropriately negative
appraisal of pre-humans elsewhere in the world:
It is to the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, and the cannibals—to the
underdeveloped, the undeveloped, and the not-to-be-developed cultures—that the
Capitalist United States of America is asked to apologize for her skyscrapers,
her automobiles, her plumbing, and her smiling, confident, untortured,
un-skinned-alive, un-eaten young men!
Obleftivists claim that attacking
the Clinton News Network, National Putin Radio and other mainstream media for
their stinking dishonesty, Fake News and bias is an assault on freedom of
speech, when in fact the real assaults on free speech are coming from
academia—students and staff—the media, moronnials, Social Justice Warriors,
Ugly Wimmin, Black Lives Matter, Hollywood, and sundry other garbage, under the
rubric of Political Correctness—to whose vicious depravity Obleftivists seem
oblivious or indifferent. How about a call to arms on behalf of Milo
Yiannopoulis, whom Yaron Brook derides (oh, to have one Objectivist with
Milo’s star quality!!); on behalf of Gavin McInnes, pepper-sprayed by
Islamo-Marxist filth at New York University?! How about a call to arms against
one of the principal organisers of the Ugly Wimmin’s March, Linda Sarsour, who
once tweeted of Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “I wish I could take
their vaginas away—they don’t deserve to be women”?! (Ms Ali, of course, is one
of hundreds of millions of genitally mutilated Muslim women. She is now a
prominent, heroic former Muslim.)

Eugène Delacroix: Liberty Leading the People

All the while, in fact, Yaron
minimises the enormity of the Muslim threat within America, saying, “The United
States has zero potential to end up like Europe,” and, “Everyday Muslims are no
threat.” How exactly does this “useful idiot” propose to
differentiate the perpetrators of the killings of 145 Americans by Muslims in
the United States since 9/11 from “everyday” Muslims? Blankout!
“Everyday Muslims” are required
to believe in Jihad, Sharia Law and a worldwide caliphate. They are stiffened
in their resolve by such jolly verses from the Koran as, “I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike
off every fingertip of them.” They’re also enjoined to lie (Taqiyya)
about their agenda. So again, how does Useful Yaron propose to distinguish everyday
Muslims from actual Muslims: i.e., Muslims who take their religion
seriously? (Agenda alert: Yaron makes the exact same argument minimising the
threat from Muslims as did a Cato Institute representative on the Martha
McCallum Fox News Special a few days ago: the chances of being struck down by a
Muslim terrorist are three trillion times lower than of being mugged or struck
by lightning or a car, or some such. Hmmmmm. Cato. ARI. Pro-open borders Koch
Bros. Funding.)
Then again, from the smug
security of a gated community, what difference does it make whether it’s
Muslims or Mexicans doing the beheadings?
Yaron said this morning that
Trump’s description of the activist judge in Seattle who up-ended his temporary
travel ban as a “so-called judge” was “despicable.” I’d say it’s the
judge—a Black Lives Matter cheerleader—who’s despicable. I say, may the ban be
quickly reinstated; may it revert to the President’s original proposal: Not One
I’d like to offer a helpful
philosophical observation to Obleftivists at this point. Objectivism does not
contend that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.” Objectivism views that as an intrinsicist view of
rights. Objectivists, if asked, would eschew such a view.
Yet when a prominent Objectivist
(Binswanger) ends up saying, “Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right
possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government
or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or
France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from
entering America”; or, “The border between the U.S. and Mexico (and between the
U.S. and Canada) should be exactly like the border between Connecticut and
Massachusetts: you see ‘Welcome to Massachusetts’ and otherwise you are unaware
of the difference”; or, “The principle of individual rights demands open
immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration.
Entry into the United States
should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of
criminal intent or infectious disease”; or, “Amnesty for illegal immigrants is
not enough, they deserve an apology” … then you know you’re dealing with
intrinsicism on steroids, and that the good ol’-time “rationalism” so well
exposed by Leonard Peikoff has still not been weeded out. There are no
“intrinsic” rights implanted in us by a mystical creator or nature; “rights” is
a concept arrived at after tortuous millennia of excruciating cogitation
by advanced human beings at the forefront of Western thought. Those whom Ayn
Rand called “dinky little savages” do not have an automatic, inbuilt right,
just because they look like humans, to travel to, much less remain in, Western
countries. Civilised countries have the right to be selective as to whom they
admit—as selective as Galt’s Gulch if necessary.
Obleftivists think that the type
of people to whom Ayn Rand pleaded, “Don’t let it go,” have, in
electing Donald Trump, let it go: “it” being the uniquely
American sense of life of which she wrote so eloquently. I contend that in
electing Donald Trump, they, in the nick of time, reaffirmed it, and
reassured us that they are still around. (Beyond miraculous, when you think
about it, given all the professors and Obleftivist “intellectuals” like
Binswanger who have held sway since Rand wrote that. Makes you think that
“sense of life” must be in Americans’ DNA! Horreurs! Determinism!!)
Ayn Rand said, of judging
political candidates, “A voter’s choice does not commit him to a total
agreement with a candidate—and certainly cannot commit a candidate to an
agreement with every voter who supports him. Under a two-party system, a
voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the
candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in
recent times, a voter chooses merely between the lesser of two evils.”
Yaron Brook would have you
believe that Rand, who chose Nixon over McGovern, would have preferred Hillary
over Trump. Hillary is easily more evil than McGovern, and arguably the most
evil person ever to have run for the presidency. Yaron proudly says he doesn’t
Trump is not the lesser of two
evils, however; he is outrageously good—even though he is not the card-carrying
Objectivist Obleftivists seem to demand! The very words “President Trump” are
music to my ears, equal to Rachmaninoff. President Trump, President Trump,
President Trump! This is even better than hearing (and as a broadcaster,
reading) the words “President Reagan,” to whom OrgOists were equally asininely
opposed (except for one of their leaders who voted for Reagan without telling
anyone, Ayn Rand included).

Molly Pitcher (or Mary Ludwig Hays)
 taking her husband’s
place at the
Battle of Monmouth (June 1778)

I am ecstatic at the spectacle of
America’s ascension back to greatness. Every day, President Trump, in full view
of the world he defies, relentlessly advances his audacious agenda; every week,
Obleftivist Brook, in full view of a few lemming-like acolytes on Faecesbook
and in parochial parts of the world, trashes it, because it might
include tariffs and does include Twitter attacks on the smelly
Islamo-Marxists at CNN and NPR, Yaron’s favourite sources of Fake News and
Politically Correct commentary.

I am a Deplorable, irredeemably.
And I deplore Obleftivism.
Obleftivism is Fake Objectivism!
It’s party time in America! Yaron
Brook is a party-pooper!
Make Objectivism Great Again!


Drunken Sailors


Muslim Mania and Other Insanities


  1. Tim C

    Great column, I've been annoyed by "official Objectivist" aka ARI perversions of Objectivism for years.

    I must point out one major issue here though – the paragraphs about rights are pretty far off.

    1) Man's rights – as in the colloquial phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in fact "intrinsic." Refer to law of identity and man's nature including volitional consciousness. "Objectivists, if asked, would eschew such a view." – emphatically not so.

    2) Now, this is not to say that anyone with ill intent/lack of desire to integrate into American society and values has a "right" to immigrate. Not because they are inherently without rights due to where they're from, what they believe etc (which would only be lost if they actually initiated force – just as "hate speech" isn't a crime but violence with or without "hate" would be), but because the idea that entry into the country is a "right" is patently false.

    I think the author here is more or less saying the same thing as I am in point (2) above, but the framing for the argument would do better without the confused premise basically denying rights based on man's nature and more clearly stating that entry into the country has nothing to do with rights.

  2. Rob McVey

    @Tim C: Your point 1 about intrincism is a contradiction of Objectivist ideology; the facts you cite need interpretation — by choice — to arrive at values for life. Rand said:

    "'Rights' are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others…" [from the essay Man's Rights]

    'Morality is a code of values accepted by choice.'

  3. Edward Cline

    I'll alert Mr. Perigo about your reservations.

  4. Edward Cline

    Posted for Mr. Perigo, who had technical difficulties posting comments: Rob and Tim C.

    Thanks gents for your comments. Here's the way I'd put it: Rights are not metaphysical existents somehow intrinsic to or implanted within human beings, ready-made. It's the view that they are intrinsic that leads to idiotic claims such as the one I quoted from Binswanger, that every human being anywhere in the world has the right to travel anywhere he wants. Were the magnificent Mr. Jefferson's formulation correct, Binswanger would be correct also (and it all would be so much simpler). But the formulation is not correct. "Rights" is a concept; rights are not facts or things or divine implants. What's intrinsic is the fact that human consciousness is volitional, making it necessary for us to form and enact such a concept if our social existence is to be fully human. Rights are requirements of man's nature; they are not contained within man's nature. It took millennia for someone (Rand) to figure that out explicitly, and we shouldn't be endowing rights upon pre-humans ("dinky little savages") who still haven't figured it out—or, if they have, are intent on negating it.

  5. Fenton Wood

    I'm glad to see that my favorite bulldog still has his teeth sunk into the leg of iniquity and isn't letting go. I remember the excitement of discovering Objectivism in my youth, and I still believe in the truth of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It's sad to watch High Church Objectivism declining into rationalism, willful denial of the facts of reality, open immigration as a categorical imperative, and total irrelevance.

  6. Tim C

    Well then, I suppose I've misunderstood the exact Objectivist stance/reasoning on the nature of man/rights for some time (I might even argue that it is erroneous, though I don't have time for that this morning.) Yes, reviewing and summarizing OPAR on the matter, rights is not a concept needed by an individual man (or individual men operating as savages). But since all of humanity is now beyond that, for all practical intents and purposes each existing man does have rights (until such time as he violates those of another).

    "'The source of man's rights,' states Ayn Rand, 'is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A – and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." (OPAR p. 360)

    I read this as saying that rights are in fact part of Man's identity as Man. Either way, I'd say that it's basically splitting hairs to say either "each man is born with rights" or "each man, because of his nature, should have rights."

    Now, anyone trying to extend man's rights to "the 'right' to enter whatever country they wish' doesn't understand rights, however they are attached to man.

  7. Tim C

    (Now, in my above comment I should mention "all of humanity" doesn't really include the Muslim world. I would argue there that each Muslim is born with rights, but as soon as they are old enough to accept/practice the faith, by denying rights they give them up. Basically – like I say, I don't have a great deal of time to formulate this fully…)

  8. Tim C

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Unknown

    Trump is a socialist on healthcare, as was shown both before and after the election, and is to the left of Hillary Clinton on hyper-protectionism and infrastructure spending.

    Ed, you rejected Objectivism a year and more ago.

    Make Objectivism great again? How? By choosing an economic nationalist that attacks businesses on twitter despite them not breaking the law?

  10. Stereo Realist

    The article referenced at the beginning of your essay has move to here:

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén