← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 6522 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-05-04
2003-05-04 07:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@May 4 2003, 05:53 ** Everyone likes to knock the old lady, but Ayn Rand was the "start" for almost every racially aware white we know. We were lucky enough to see her for ourselves before she died and even luckier to learn her what real motivations might have been. Way before Kevin MacDonald and evolutionary psychology, we sensed the tribe at the heart of libertarianism. Neocons have nothing on the libertarians and we got to see it up close long, long ago. **
You're right to see the Tribe lurking behind Objectivism/Libertarianism.
Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenberg) devised a movement that fits to a "T" MacDonald's description of Jewish, anti-gentile intellectual movements. It is apologetics for a "plausible" position instead of a search for the truth; it is centered around a rabbinical-type charismatic figure who is the object of worship; it is Jewish at the center but employs some gentile frontmen. Most importantly it's predicated upon the denial of the collective - especially the ethnic collective. There is no society - only individuals. This is nonsense, of course. Humans are social animals. Society does exist. The tribe, and not the individual, is the evolutionary unit of selection. Thus Objectivism/Libertarianism is a Tribal toxin designed specifically to destroy white group consciousness.
As a very young man I read Atlas Shrugged and thought it cool, but the feeling didn't last long. I fail to see how anyone educated beyond, say, junior year of college could take Objectivism seriously.
Now, these ideologies offer some tactical advantages in our struggle against the Racial Extortion Coalition. One would infer from them low (or zero) taxes (preventing wealth transfers to the Coalition), completely free association (thus giving whites some breathing room to organize), the right to discriminate, and so forth. However, we must never forget that this is strictly for the Freepers and assorted others who labour under a deep psychological need to couch their own group survival in universalist terms. We know better. We reject the atomistic underpinnings of Objectivism/Libertarianism as a direct attempt on our collective life.
We use the rhetoric when it suits our collective purposes for tactical defense, but we reject it for any strategic use in building a movement.
We who have taken a deeper look into our own souls need to be very clear on this point, lest our holy deliberations devolve into comforting Freeperite slogan-chanting while the Tribe picks us off one at a time.
Walter
2003-05-04 07:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 4 2003, 07:10 ** Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenberg) devised a movement that fits to a "T" MacDonald's description of Jewish, anti-gentile intellectual movements. **
Too true. Culture of Critique could have focused entirely on her and made the point just as well. But then I'd have missed K-Mac on the liar Franz Boas which is how I realized that Rand was a re-run of a re-run of a re-run.
Just as an addition, the Ideal Rand Age seems to be fourteen years of age. It's how old I was when I read her. At her last Ford Hall Forum speech in Boston in 1978 I canvassed the folks in the first 5 rows and it was amazing: All of us there, deviating only by a few months here or there, had been 14 when we discovered her.
Objectivism (and libertarianism to a lesser extent) are belief systems. Even at 14 I noticed there were clangers in her corpus. But how we all wanted to believe! It's why Alan Greenspan still reads her essays when he's down: Faith like that can be a drug. Nobody ever bought her ideas all the way. She was selling a world we wanted to believe in and we overlooked the clangers.
Among the middle class young Rand is having a bit of a comeback. I know just what the kids are attracted to and why. With luck they'll just use it as a mental exercise and move on. I hope.
2003-05-04 11:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@May 4 2003, 07:49 ** Among the middle class young Rand is having a bit of a comeback. I know just what the kids are attracted to and why. With luck they'll just use it as a mental exercise and move on. I hope. **
After they've finished it, give them MacDonald and Keith.
Her most fundamental assumption - i.e. that only individuals exist and that there is no corporate aspect of mankind, his interests and his "rights" - is demonstrably false.
Once that biological fact is planted, then it's just a question of time before they figure out its a lot of malarkey.
Walter
2003-05-05 03:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 4 2003, 19:32 ** If Marxism is so poisonous for its Jewish origins and large number of Jewish adherents, why don't racialist rightwingers also despise the Rand cult? **
Aw, shucks! The same can be said about the Jesus cult, if someone were unkind enough to put it that way. MacDonald's point about Jewish talent in this regard is simply true, that's all. Whether sociology or greeting cards or Objectivism or gospels, they just do this peculiar sort of work better than most gentiles.
2003-05-06 00:11 | User Profile
Speaking of Rand:
Excellent thread here. SwimmingUpstream and laser absolutely tear OWK a new a-hole. OWK you may know is one of the internet's chief Randite propogandists.
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_libertarian&Number=598646&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=1]Rand and the Intellectuals[/url]
:nerd:
2003-05-06 07:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 5 2003, 22:29 ** The question is not whether Jews dominate a given field, but rather whether the field in question serves specifically Jewish collective interests. In spite of the disproportionate number of Jews (at least historically) in theoretical physics and among violin virtuosi, there is nothing intrinsically "Jewish" about quantum mechanics or violin concerti.
In contrast, Randian ideology serves specifically Jewish political interests in advocating anti-nationalist ultra-individualism and materialism for gentile nations. It basically sells the same recipe for national and racial suicide as Marxism, but with a different economic package. That is why I find "Nazi" Randites bizarre beyond belief.
As to whether Christianity is permanently tainted with its Jewish origins, I will point out that unlike Randism or Marxism, modern Christianity is NOT dominated by Jews nor do the non-dispensationalist theologies further Jewish collective interests.
**
Nice job. That's the most concise dissection of the matter I've ever seen.
I would only repeat that racialists may find Objectivism/Libertarianism of some tactical advantage.
Most of our people feel the need to hide their ethnic interests in fighting the Racial Extortion Coalition behind high-sounding universalisms. It's regrettable, but there you have it. Libertarianism/Objectivism seems to be the language that they've latched on to for these purposes, and allows white gentiles of the type common among the Freepers to advocate lower taxes (to prevent wealth transfers to the Coalition), support CCW statutes (which with their ban on convicted felons getting permits tend strongly to arm whites and disarm blacks), and work for school vouchers (which would be a terrible blow to the Coalition's mulit-culti indoctrination of our children) without appearing (gasp!) "racist." These things are of great tactical importance, and if it is the language most conducive to their good effect, than I say we shouldn't stand in the way.
At the same time, we need to be very clear with ourselves as to what Randism is all about, and never let them into our movement.
Regards,
Walter
2003-05-06 23:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 5 2003, 22:29 As to whether Christianity is permanently tainted with its Jewish origins, I will point out that unlike Randism or Marxism, modern Christianity is NOT dominated by Jews nor do the non-dispensationalist theologies further Jewish collective interests.
It's interesting to hear someone assert that worshipping Jehovah does not further Jewish collective interests.
While I don't agree with Eric Thompson at FAEM very often, an excerpt from his letter (posted today) is as good an illustration as any of why this issue will always cause turmoil:
"Christianity enshrined the tenets of Judaism and thereby judaized White Civilization. Since Whites had morals and religions before jewish labels were imposed upon their religious traditions, Christianity represented jewish cultural imperialism, which took centuries to poison the White body politic. Slow poisons are no less effective than fast ones. The ideology which supports current social decay is essentially Christian, just as Marxism is a nondeistic version of Christianity. Buchanan would like to believe otherwise, but Christianity's destructive record is obvious and its proponents blatant. Doctrines are important: Like food, as distinguished from poison."
There are sound reasons to believe Eric's complaint has substance, and while I agree that he is over-simplifying a serious historical problem, I also know that among downsized and dispossesed whites in America, the Christian answer is wearing thin.
In particular, it's a cliche among white activists that a Christian is always one Brotherhood sermon away from joining the other side.
Eric's whole letter: [url=http://www.faem.com/eric/2003/d0505et.htm]http://www.faem.com/eric/2003/d0505et.htm[/url]
2003-05-08 01:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@May 4 2003, 01:49 **Nobody ever bought her ideas all the way. She was selling a world we wanted to believe in and we overlooked the clangers. **
That was certainly true of me.
Even in high school, I realized that what she was preaching was incompatible with family life. She did say that parents had obligations to their children, but the reasons she gave were unconvincing, and at odds with everything else she wrote (especially her support of abortion). But I wanted to believe, so I suppressed my doubts.
2003-05-08 03:14 | User Profile
The entire libertarian outlook is suicidal to any society that adopts it in the long run. In part this because unfettered capitalism results in the concentration of wealth and economic centralization which in turn make subversion of the institutions of state to serve those that have sufficient economic clout a forgone conclusion.
Naturally, such subversion results in economic elites subverting capitalism so as to prevent the dilution of their influence. Another consequence of libertarianism is globalism as the third world is highly amenable to conquest by wealthy transnational corporations which frequently resort to all sorts of non market mechanisms such as slavery, coup d'etats to restrict labor costs or sovereignty and sponsoring regulatory regimes designed to foster non competitive price increases for the purpose of restricting market entry. The dogma of "free markets" also is by nature multi-racial as unrestricted immigration is vital to an unfettered flow of labor. The end of culture is another product of libertarianism as self indulgent individualism is quite a boon to marketeers pushing mindless consumerism to a nation held together by nothing else.
In the end, the dogma of laissez-faire when combined with mass democracy is self consuming. This should be no real surprise as a society that revolves around crass materialism alienates everyone that has failed obtain a decent standard of living so they feel no compunction in using the ballot box as a means of picking pockets. As the only race foolish enough to buy into atomistic individualism Occidentals are also the only race that lacks aggregate voting power resulting in the current dispossession we all seem to object to on some level.
Needless to say, I am hardly surprised that the occasional jew supports the atomized individualism of the not so rational objectivism for Occidentals while praising an imperialistic ethno-state for jews. Obviously, most jews have found bolshevism/social democracy/neo-conservatism far better suited to the promotion of their racial interests yet such an observation does nothing to counter the reality that Occidental survival has been poorly served by libertarianism for quite some time and still is today. Unfortunately, the theocratic like assertions that a single economic doctrine is universally applicable across time within the West (let alone the world) has prevented America's "respectable right" from noting why the old republic is dead or what can be done to stop the imposition of an ever more degenerate regime upon themselves. Worse yet, the fantasy that the old order lacked the seeds of it's demise or even the fantastic assertion that meaningful change can be accomplish via economic or legal doctrines (i.e. constitutionalism) independent of the societal environment that produced them is the ultimate folly.
Such an outlook is merely hazy nostalgia doomed to continued failure and the inevitable strangulation of what remains of the West by the miasma of demographic decay and globalism.
2003-05-08 05:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@May 8 2003, 03:14 **The entire libertarian outlook is suicidal to any society that adopts it in the long run. In part this because unfettered capitalism results in the concentration of wealth and economic centralization which in turn make subversion of the institutions of state to serve those that have sufficient economic clout a forgone conclusion.
Needless to say, I am hardly surprised that the occasional jew supports the atomized individualism of the not so rational objectivism for Occidentals while praising an imperialistic ethno-state for jews. Obviously, most jews have found bolshevism/social democracy/ neo-conservatism far better suited to the promotion of their racial interests yet such an observation does nothing to counter the reality that Occidental survival has been poorly served by libertarianism for quite some time and still is today.
Unfortunately, the theocratic like assertions that a single economic doctrine is universally applicable across time within the West (let alone the world) has prevented America's "respectable right" from noting why the old republic is dead or what can be done to stop the imposition of an ever more degenerate regime upon themselves. Worse yet, the fantasy that the old order lacked the seeds of it's demise or even the fantastic assertion that meaningful change can be accomplish via economic or legal doctrines (i.e. constitutionalism) independent of the societal environment that produced them is the ultimate folly.
**
What you note of course is perfectly i.a.w. Kevin MacDonald's understanding of western society, individualism, and judaism, as I've pointed out for some time.
**As evident in the material reviewed here and in the previous chapters, at least some influential Jewish social scientists have attempted to undermine gentile group strategies while leaving open the possibility that Judaism continue as a highly cohesive group strategy. This theme is highly consistent with the Frankfurt School's consistent rejection of all forms of nationalism. The end result may be that the ideology of the Frankfurt School may be described as a form of radical individualism that nevertheless despises capitalism - an individualism in which all forms of gentile collectivism are condemned as an indication of social or individual pathology. Thus in Horkheimer's essay on German Jews the true enemy is gentile collectivities of any kind, and especially nationalism. Although no mention is made of the collectivist nature of Judaism, Zionism, or Israeli nationalism, the collectivist tendencies of modern gentile society are deplored, especially fascism and communism. The prescription for gentile society is radical individualism and the acceptance of pluralism. People have an inherent right to be different from others and to be accepted buy others as different. Indeed, to become differentiated from others is to achieve the highest level of humanity. The result is that "no party and no movement, neither the old left or the New, indeed no collectivity of any sort is on the side of truth.
The prescription that gentile society adopt a social organization based on radical individualism would indeed be an excellent strategy for the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive, collectivist group strategy. Research summarized by Triandis on cross cultural differences in individualism and collectivism indicates that anti-Semitism would be lowest in individualistic societies rather than societies that are collectivist and homogeneous apart from Jews. A theme of PTSDA ("A People that shall dwell apart") is that European societies (with the notable exception of the National Socialist era in Germany and the medieval period of Christian religious hegemony - both periods of intense anti-Semitism) have been unique among the economically advanced traditional and modern cultures of the world in their commitment to individualism. As I have argued in SAID - Chp3-5 (Separation and its Discontents) the presence of Judaism as a highly successful and salient group strategy provokes anti-individualist responses from gentile societies......
People in individualistic cultures, in contrast, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and "finding yourself" (Triandis 1991,82). Individuals have more positive attitudes towards strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a prosocial, altruistic manner to strangers. Because they are less aware of ingroup-outgroup boundaries, people in individualistic cultures are less likely to have negative attitudes toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members.... (Culture of Critique, p166)**
**Given that the continued existence of Judaism implies that the society will be composed of competing, more or less impermeable groups, the neoconservative condemnation of multiculturalism must be viewed as lacking in intellectual consistency. The neoconservative prescription for society embraces a particular brand of multiculturalism in which the society as a whole will be culturally fragmented and socially atomistic. These social attributes not only allow Jewish upward mobility, but also are incompatible with the development of highly cohesive, anti-Semitic groups of gentiles; they also are incompatible with group based entitlements and affirmative action programs that would necessarily discriminate against Jews. As Horowitz notes "High levels of cultural fragmentation coupled with the religious option are likely to find relatively benign forms of anti-Semitism coupled with a stable Jewish condition. Presumed Jewish cleverness or brilliance readily emerges under such pluralistic conditions, and such cleverness dissolves with equal suddenness under politically monistic or totalitarian conditions."
Jewish neoconservatives readily accept a radically individualistic society in which Jews would be expected to become economically, politically, and culturally dominant while having minimal allegiance to the lower (disproportionately gentile) social classes. Such a society is likely to result in extreme social pressures as the lower middle classes are placed in an increasingly precarious economic and political situation. As in the case of the intellectual activity of the Frankfurt School, the Jewish neoconservative prescription for the society as a whole is radically opposed to the strategy for the ingroup. Traditional Judaism, and to a considerable extent contemporary Judaism, obtained its strength not only from its intellectual and entrepreneurial elite but also from the unshakable allegiance of responsible, hard-working, lower status Jews of lesser talent whom they patronized. (Culture of Critique, Chapter 8)**