A Randian Derides “Libertarians” Who Don’t Support Ted Cruz

quite a comment list here. Ted Cruz is loathsome adams family worm I doubt his own mother likes. He nearly lost to hard core communist gun grabber beta cuck orourke in frigging texas. that takes talent. who the hell wakes up and says yeah i guess i’ll go vote for ted cruz.

Before reading the articles here, I thought Ted Cruz was fairly similar to Rand Paul. At least good for a filibuster or something. Never would have guessed in a million years he just another Bush crony.
https://www.junkonyourtrunk.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Nope%20Noper%20No%20Tag%20Line_0.jpg?itok=xAvGlKq4

If Ted Cruz is half as brilliant as his supporters claim, why can’t he fake having a personality?

Jane Jacobs was just another thieving Ted Cruz scumbag. All she wanted, was different scumbags to be installed at the top of the pyramid, her tyrants would still be making all the individual mundanes at the bottom of the pyramid scheme slave their lives away building yet more monuments to force and inhuman ant hills. I discard old rotted fish heads upon her grave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs

This is not to say you cant learn a lot of how mainstream insects work by reading her. She is a kind of alternative queen bee I suppose, but never the least bit troubled that you have to serve as her drone and live for the inanimate hive. There is not a atom of authentic humanity in anything she writes.

Just a less common, unique-seeming statism covered in a veneer of a glittering possible utopia that would of course be another dystopia, because it is entirely predicated on the use of captive martial labor of men made mutant human centipedes each of the eating the shit of the one before them, and feeding the one behind them.

Oh the dystopic places Doctor Seuss and Nurse Jacobs would have made us go. If only they had the power to rule instead of the power to create great statist art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVUKD3ufRwk

Remember 10% of your income must go into war bonds, and be sure to finish your entire plate of Green Eggs and Ham, its the law
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/08/10/dr-seusss-wartime-propaganda-cartoons/

Mises and Rothbard each sent letters lauding Rand’s unparalleled accomplishment with Atlas Shrugged…

MISES AND ROTHBARD LETTERS TO AYN RAND

January 23, 1958

Mrs. Ayn Rand
36 East 36 Street
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mrs. Rand:
I AM NOT A professional critic and I feel no call to judge the merits of
a novel. So I do not want to detain you with the information that I
enjoyed very much reading Atlas Shrugged and that I am full of admiration
for your masterful construction of the plot.

But “Atlas Shrugged” is not merely a novel. It is also—or may I
say: first of all—a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society,
a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled “intellectuals”
and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies
adopted by governments and political parties.

It is a devastating exposure of the “moral cannibals,” the “gigolos of science” and of
the “academic prattle” of the makers of the “anti-industrial revolution.”

You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told
them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions
which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who
are better than you.

If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, it still is the
truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State.
I warmly congratulate you and I am looking forward with great
expectations to your future work.
Sincerely,
Ludwig Mises
LM/ms

October 3, 1957
Mrs. Ayn Rand O’Connor
36 East 36th St.
New York 16, N.Y.

Dear Ayn:
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE to begin by saying “and I mean it”; there is no
exaggeration or hyperbole in this letter. Anything less than complete
honesty would be unworthy of Atlas Shrugged.

I just finished your novel today. I will start by saying that all of
us in the “Circle Bastiat” are convinced, and were convinced very
early in the reading, that Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel ever
written. This is our generally accepted initial premise, and the discussions
over the book have naturally been based upon it. But this is
just the beginning. This simple statement by itself means little to me:

I have always had a bit of contempt for the novel form, and have
thought of the novel, at best, as a useful sugar-coated pill to carry on
agit-prop work amongst the masses who can’t take ideas straight. A
month ago, if I had said a book was “the greatest novel ever written,”
it wouldn’t have been too high a compliment.

It is one of the small measures of what I think of Atlas Shrugged
that I no longer pooh-pooh the novel. I have always heard my literary
friends talk of the “truths” presented by novels, without understanding
the term at all. Now I do understand, but only because you
have carried the novel form to a new and higher dimension.

For the first time you have welded a great unity of principle and person,
depicting persons and their actions in perfect accordance with principles
and their consequences.

This in itself is a tremendous achievement.
For with the unity of principle and person there emerges the
corollary unity of reason and emotion: and the reader, in grasping
your philosophic system both in speech and through acting persons,
is hit by the great emotion of an immediate and rational perception.

As I read your novel, the joy I felt was sometimes tempered by the
regret that all those generations of novel-readers, people like my
mother who in their youth read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, searching
eagerly for they knew not what truths which they never quite found,
that these people could not read Atlas Shrugged.

Here, I thought, were the truths they were really looking for. Here, in Atlas Shrugged, is the perfection of the novel form. It is now a form that I honor and
admire.

But the truly staggering thing about your novel is the vast and
completely integrated edifice, of thought and of action: the astounding
infinity of rational connections that abound, great and small,
throughout this novel. Joey says she used to wonder how a novel
could take you over ten years to write; she now wonders how you
possibly could have written all that in a mere ten years.

Every page, almost every word, has its meaning and function. I am sure that I
have only scratched the surface of tracing all the interconnections,
and a good part of my conversation consists of saying; and what of
page so-and-so: do you see how that fits in? I recall now just a line, I
believe it was in an early speech of Francisco, where the following
nouns appear: reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement.

To some this might seem to be a random string of nouns, but I saw
immediately that one follows from the other in strict logical progression,
that each leads to the succeeding. This is just one example of the
almost infinite treasurehouse that is Atlas Shrugged.

To find one person that has carved out a completely integrated
rational ethic, rational epistemology, rational psychology, and
rational politics, all integrated one with the other, and then to find
each with the other portrayed through characters in action, is a doubly
staggering event. And I am surprised that it astonishes even I
who was familiar with the general outlines of your system.

What it will do the person stumbling upon it anew I cannot imagine. For you
have achieved not only the unity of principle and person, and of reason
and passion, but also the unity of mind and body, matter and
spirit, sex and politics . . . in short, to use the old Marxist phrase, “the
unity of theory and practice.”

This is the sort of book where one is apt to find a phrase or concept
and exclaim: oh, no leftist could say such nonsense, and then go
out and find the same nonsense being spouted all around you. It is
almost impossible, after reading Atlas Shrugged, to take the usual leftist
arguments seriously.

At first I admit I missed the presence of a
great, super-Toohey villain, a Dr. Fu Manchu of evil, but then I came
to realize that this is one of the key points in the book. And then,
when I tried to tell a couple of leftist acquaintances something about
your system, all they could do was curl their ugly lips and sneer
about a “paranoid closed system.” These are the “intellectuals” of
our day!

I now come to the painful part of this letter. For standing as I do
in awe and wonder at the glory and magnitude of your achievement,
knowing from early in the novel that I would have to write you and
express in full how much I and the world owe to you, I also know
that I owe you an explanation: an explanation of why I have avoided
seeing you in person for the many years of our acquaintance.

I want you to know that the fault is mine, that the reason is a defect in my
own psyche and not a defect that I attribute to you. The fact is that
most times when I saw you in person, particularly when we engaged
in lengthy discussion or argument, that I found afterwards that I was
greatly depressed for days thereafter.

Why I should be so depressed I do not know. All my adult life I have been plagued with a “phob ic state” (of which my travel phobia is only the most overt manifestation), i.e. with frightening emotions which I could neither control nor
rationally explain. I have found that unfortunately the only way I
could successfully combat this painful emotion is by sidestepping
the situations which seemed to evoke it—knowing that this is an evasion,
but also knowing no better way.

So in this situation. I have never felt depressed in such a way after seeing anyone else, so I concluded that the best I could do is avoid the reaction by not going to
see you. I had naturally been too ashamed to say anything about this
to you. Strangely, I don’t feel ashamed now; it is as if when writing
to the author of Atlas Shrugged, that book which conveys with such
immediate impact the pride and joy in being a man, that it is impossible
to feel shame for telling the truth.

In trying my best to figure out why I should have been so
depressed, I can only think of one or both of the following explanations:

(1) that my brain became completely exhausted under the
intense strain of keeping up with a mind that I unhesitatingly say is
the most brilliant of the twentieth century; or (2) that I felt that if I
continued to see you, my personality and independence would
become overwhelmed by the tremendous power of your own.

If the latter, then the defect is, of course, again mine and not yours. At any
rate, I have come to regard you as like the sun, a being of enormous
power giving off great light, but that someone coming too close
would be likely to get burned.

At any rate, I want you to know that, even without seeing you,
you have had an enormous influence upon me—even before the
novel came out. When I first became interested in ideas, my first
principle that I had from the start was a burning love of human freedom,
and a hatred for aggressive violence of man upon man.

I always liked economics, and was inclined to theory, but found in my
graduate economics courses that I felt all the theories offered were
dead wrong, but I could not say why. Mises’s Human Action was the
next great influence upon me, because I found in it a great rational
system of economics, each interconnected logically, each following,
as in Aristotelian philosophy, from a basic and certain axiom: the
existence of human beings.

When I first met you, many years ago, I
was a follower of Mises, but unhappy about his antipathy to natural
rights, which I “felt” was true but could not demonstrate.

You introduced me to the whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy,
which I did not know existed, and month by month, working
on my own as I preferred, I learned and studied the glorious natural
rights tradition. I also learned from you about the existence of
Aristotelian epistemology, and then I studied that, and came to
adopt it wholeheartedly. So that I owe you a great intellectual debt
for many years, the least of which is introducing me to a tradition of
which four years of college and three years of graduate school, to say
nothing of other reading, had kept me in ignorance.

And now I find, and marvel at in wonder and awe and joy, that
I have become a better person just in reading Atlas Shrugged. It is still
incredible to me that a person’s character can improve from reading
a work of art, but there it is.

I have checked and found many friends
who have read it have felt the same way. I think that reading it will
bring to the attentive reader, as it has brought me, at least a little
more of the conviction of pride in being a man, of joy in unlimited
roads of achievement open before him, of the feeling that pain does
not matter, of the happiness of being alive on earth, and even of the
feeling that reason and justice will ultimately prevail. He will walk a
little straighter, hold his head a little higher, and be far more honest
(one of the greatest accomplishments of the book is its rational and
emotional demonstration that honesty is a profoundly selfish and
necessary virtue—and not just a luxury for suckers. Magnificent!).

The chief defect in this book—and I am quite serious—is that it
lacks an index. My chief emotion in reading this book was beautifully
summed up in an emotion that Dr. Stadler felt when he first
came across Galt’s manuscript: torn between eagerness to proceed
onward, and the eagerness to look back and think about and digest
the many ramifications of what I had read.

With a novel, this is even more troublesome, since the pull of reading onward is more irresistible. This book cries for a fully annotated index, so that when one
wants to refer quickly to passages on certain subjects, or to a particularly
moving speech or phrase, one could find it without delay.

I know that no novel has had an index before, but none has ever
required it before, and this does. Perhaps you could be persuaded to
come out with a “textbook” edition, complete with index.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to promote the sale
of the novel. I will do anything I can: from writing letters to the editor
to pasting stickers up on street corners.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter I am now sending to the New Leader, in comment on the disgraceful and disgusting column of Granville Hicks, an “ex”-Communist, about your book. (When I said your book will improve the reader, I
don’t mean the convinced leftists: I shudder what the book will do
to their psyche, if they really read it.) I understand, glory be!, that
John Chamberlain will review it for the Sunday Herald-Tribune—
and, confidentially, there is a growing possibility that John may also
review it for National Review, if Whittaker Chambers does not send
a review in on time.

Only twice in my life have I felt honored and happy that I was
young and alive at the specific date of the publication of a book: first,
of Human Action in 1949, and now with Atlas Shrugged. When, in the
past, I heard your disciples refer to you in grandiloquent terms—as
one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, as giving them a “round
universe”—I confess I was repelled: surely this was the outpouring
of a mystic cult. But now, upon reading Atlas Shrugged, I find I was
wrong. This was not wild exaggeration but the perception of truth.

You are one of the great geniuses of the ages, and I am proud that we
are friends. And Atlas Shrugged is not merely the greatest novel ever
written, it is one of the very greatest books ever written, fiction or
nonfiction. Indeed, it is one of the greatest achievements the human
mind has ever produced. And I mean it.

If Zarathustra should ever return to earth, and ask me—as representative of the human race— that unforgettable question: “what have ye done to surpass man?”, I
shall point to Atlas Shrugged.

Gratefully yours,
Murray

That was a whole mess o stuff in that article, what I got from it was – If you refuse to give a shit about “official” names and stories, you might come to believe texas is just a victor’s mistranslation of centurians old “hello friend”

The region of hello friend’s Northern border is officially with the Oklahoma Panhandle at 36.500400°N 103.002280°W;
it’s Southern border is About 5 miles SE of Brownsville, on the Rio Grande at 25.837022°N 97.394150°W; its Eastern border is On the Sabine River, SW of Burr Ferry, Louisiana at 31.031078°N 93.507969°W; and its Western border is 0.6 miles west of the Rio Grande, near Borderland, El Paso County 31.895619°N 106.645657°W or there abouts cording to the local consent’suss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_points_of_U.S._states

English: Texas is Texan
Arabic:
تكساس هي تكساس
Bosnian (Latin):
Texas je Teksaški
Bulgarian:
Тексас е Тексас
Catalan:
Texas és texà
Chinese Traditional:
德克薩斯州是德克薩斯州
Croatian:
Texas je teksaški
Czech:
Texas je Texasan
Danish:
Texas er texaner
Dutch:
Texas is Texaanse
Estonian:
Texas on Texase
Finnish:
Texas on texan
French:
le Texas est texan
German:
Texas ist Texaner
Greek:
το Τέξας είναι texan
Haitian Creole:
Texas se texan
Hebrew:
טקסס היא טקסנית
Hindi:
टेक्सास ज़्यादा टेक्सन है
Hmong Daw:
Texas yog texan
Hungarian:
Texas a texasi
Indonesian:
Texas adalah Texas
Italian:
il Texas è texano
Japanese:
テキサスはテキサス
Kiswahili:
Texas ni texan
Korean:
텍사스는 텍사스
Latvian:
Texas ir texan
Lithuanian:
Teksasas yra texan
Malay:
Texas adalah texan
Maltese:
Texas huwa texan
Yucatec Maya:
Texas le texano
Norwegian Bokmål:
Texas er Texas
Querétaro Otomi:
Texas ar texano
Persian:
تگزاس است تگزاس
Polish:
Texas jest texan
Portuguese:
Texas é texano
Romanian:
Texas este texan
Russian:
Техас является Техасский
Serbian (Latin):
Texas je iz Teksasa
Slovak:
Texas je texan
Slovenian:
Texas je Teksaški
Spanish:
Texas es texano
Swedish:
Texas är texan
Thai:
เท็กซัสเป็น texan
Turkish:
Teksas Teksaslı olduğunu
Ukrainian:
Техас є Техаський
Urdu:
ٹیکساس کے خاموش طبع ہیں ۔
Vietnamese:
Texas là texan
Welsh:
Texas yn texan

These official languages izz some of the dominant modes of thought policework to be found these days. They pass their citizens around from freerange cage to cage. The Rapacy is a big player in that to be sure. But now Them Baptists in the Hello Friend region claim to be more NAPpy headed than them Old Dog Wholly Roamins, but thats just what I seen on virtual paper, not confirmed IRL.

them Historians trace the earliest church labeled “Baptist” back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor. In accordance with his reading of the Gnu Testamint, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.

Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ’s atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect. In 1638, Roger Williams established the first Baptist congregation in the North American colon ease. In the mid-18th centurian, the First Great Awakening increased Baptist growth in both New England and the South.

The Second Great Awakening in the South in the early 19th centurian increased church membership, as did the preachers’ lessening of support for abolition and manumission of slavery, which had been part of the 18th-century tea chings.

Baptist missionary positioners have spread their church to every continent.
The largest Baptist ass so chiation is the Southern Baptist Convention, with the membership of associated churches totaling more than 15 million

Baptists are individ youalls who comprise a group of Christian denominations and churches that subscribe to a doctrine that baptism should be performed only for professing believers (believer’s baptism, as opposed to infant baptism), and that it must be done by complete immersion (as opposed to affusion or sprinkling).

Other tenets of Baptist churches include soul competency (liberty), salvation through faith alone, Scripture alone as the rule of faith and practice, and the autonomy of the local congregation. Baptists recognize two ministerial offices, elders and deacons. Baptist churches are widely considered to be Protestant churches, though some Baptists disavow this identity.

Die verse from their beginning, those eye dentifying as Baptists today differ widely from one another in what they bee leave, how they warship, their attitudes toward other Christians, and their understanding of what is importint in Christian discipleship.

Texas, 8southman, aka Hello Friend, 8southman

TEXAS, ORIGIN OF NAME

Texas’ state motto, “Friendship,” comes from the Native American word that was adopted as the name of the state. Image available on the Internet and included in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.

TEXAS, ORIGIN OF NAME. The word texas (tejas, tayshas, texias, thecas?, techan, teysas, techas?) had wide usage among the Indians of East Texas even before the coming of the Spanish, whose various transcriptions and interpretations gave rise to many theories about the meaning. The usual meaning was “friends,” although the Hasinais applied the word to many groups-including Caddoan-to mean “allies.” The Hasinais probably did not apply the name to themselves as a local group name; they did use the term, however, as a form of greeting: “Hello, friend.”

How and when the name Texas first reached the Spanish is uncertain, but the notion of a “great kingdom of Texas,” associated with a “Gran Quivira” (see QUIVIRA) had spread in New Spain before the expedition of Alonso De León and Damián Massanet in 1689. Massanet reported meeting Indians who proclaimed themselves thecas, or “friends,” as he understood it, and on meeting the chief of the Nabedaches (one of the Hasinai tribes) mistakenly referred to him as the “governor” of a “great kingdom of the Texas.” Francisco de Jesús María, a missionary left by Massanet with the Nabedaches, attempted to correct erroneous reports about the name by asserting that the Indians in that region did not constitute a kingdom, that the chief called “governor” was not the head chief, and that the correct name of the group of tribes was not Texas.

Texias, according to Jesús María, meant “friends” and was simply a name applied to the various groups allied against the Apaches. Later expeditions by the Spanish for the most part abandoned the name Texas or else used it as an alternative to Asinay (Hasinai). Official Spanish documents continued to use it but later narrowed it to mean only the Neches-Angelina group of Indians and not a geographic area. Other putative meanings have less evidence from contemporary accounts to support them: “land of flowers,” “paradise,” and “tiled roofs”-from the thatched roofs of the East Texas tribes-were never suggested by first-hand observers so far as is known, though later theories connect them with tejas or its variant spellings.

Whatever the Spanish denotations of the name Texas, the state motto, “Friendship,” carries the original meaning of the word as used by the Hasinai and their allied tribes, and the name of the state apparently was derived from the same source.

Eric, you have a lot more patience for the pretentious prick to whom this column was written than I do. I would have dismissed his name-dropping, illogical ass immediately. You, however disabused him of his position with yet another fine piece of writing. Thanks for all you do.

It’s hard to face really. How far men have fallen even since a single Jewish girl was born in 1905 in St Petersburg Russia.

You all describe yourselves as from Texas, SW Virginia, Chicago, Boston, Idaho, etc. Not even enough self identity to introduce yourselves without invoking the enslavements of the state.

Texas has always and will always be property of the shape shifter Humpty Dumptys who will decree it means. You begin on the right track by creating the term clover. By saying throw it in the woods. Adopting those of your friends like fish heads, got dam, gnome sayin, and the like but you still ride with the overlords training wheels firmly attached.

You seek stolen merit and illusory valor by saying the founders are your mentors. They are no such things. Only a fondly regarded mirage of the haloed men of means and ways who first domesticated the earlier pioneers and colonists. Who made this entire continent into one giant Wilderness cum Walmart Corporation.

If they weren’t fascist nationalist socialists to their cores, I don’t know who ever was. Don’t ascribe to them all the accomplishments made in America, because they were behind none of them.

The US and Israel are both part and parcel of Britania, and could each excersise their long tendered options to rejoin the UK Commonwealth, and you would only hear less static and nonsense there forth. You’d lose nothing of value whatsoever to abandon the so called myths of United States and Israeli homeland. Both of these being an absolute farce and unnecessary expensive dead weight intermediary of no account.

Alisa once said: I am primarily the creator of a new code Of morality which has so far believed to be impossible. Namely a morality not based on faith, not based on emotion, not on arbitrary edicts, mystical or social, but on reason.

Mans highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, and that he must not force other people, nor accept their right to force him. That each man must live as an end in himself, and follow his own rational self interest.

The BBC article called John Galt a Christ like figure which is an absolute lie.

Jesus claimed to come to fulfill the scriptures of forced human husbandry written before him. If true, this is objectively evil. Good people don’t advocate for a ruling class treating fellow beings like beasts of burden. If that’s what Christianity is, throw it in the woods.

Maybe I am missing some things and am barking at straw men.

This is mostly a one man band here, so I applaud what you’ve done, and am grateful for what I’ve gleaned here.

So throw Alisa in the woods and become a maintainer of your own property. Don’t take on debt. Avoid idiocies like rap and teevees. A good start but there should be more to Being part of Petoria. Much much more, who else is in and willing to contribute.

Petoria invasion
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyk0HcNXTQQ

How to be a good Menckenanian, since Randians are dismissed by local proprietary fiat.

Step 1. Inherit a large cigar factory.

Step 2. Eviscerate this enterprise, leave its employees and their families in the lurch. Turn a large fortune into a small fortune.

Step 3 Use the remaining scraps of value to buy your way into the literary and periodical racket. Develop a large readership based on actual merit. A rich guy brought low has a lot of valuable things to say if he embraces his new low rent normal. H L also had an eye for talent, it was Alissa Rosenbaums (Ayn Rands) fondest hope that he would hire her.

Step 4 Ta da.

Over the weekend someone placed a tombstone in N.Y. City’s Central Park with Trump’s name on it. Trump has received a number of death threats from various nutjobs including Mormon whack job Glenn Beck who said he would stab Trump.
If you look up the U.S code section 879, where it specifically states that”whoever knowingly and willingly threatens to kill, kidnap or inflict bodily harm ……
3. On a major candidate for the office of president or vice president, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or
4.A person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056 (a)( 6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So why isn’t moron Beck now in custody?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
Ted Cruz is a xtian zionist. A total AIPAC butt kisser but then again so is Hillary. Both have pledged their undying allegiance to isrealhell and not to America.
Both are neo-con warmongers.
And of course both spit on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Now imagine if Hillary or Cruz received such threats.

What you’re seeing Eric, is the Republican far-right trying to co-opt the name Libertarian. Much like how they took over the Tea Party. If you recall, they were originally low-tax, small government, and were fairly close to Libertarian thinking.

But then the Neo-cons moved in and took over, and started shouting louder than the original members, drowning out the original message.

I fear the same may happen to the Libertarian movement.

Good God, Sanders is more libertarian that Cruz. And Sanders isn’t libertarian.

Towards the end of her life Rand realized that she had erred in supporting Republicans. She had been focusing on economics alone, but when she realized she agreed with the Democrat justices on a pornography case she realized where the Republicans were just as opposed to her as Democrats were.

By then the damage had been done though. All the deep thinkers had already left her movement. Nathaniel Branden had been exiled, Alan Greenspan was already using the fame of being associated with her to do things she would oppose, and that left the mightily unworthy Leonard Piekoff to uphold her banner by supporting a party she had ultimately rejected.

Northwestfront.org

The Northwest Imperative might be the only hope we have. Libertarianism has great ideas and potential, but the prerequisites for its success just seem unobtanium. To be brief, it falls short by disregarding the aspect of race and a racially based government. Yes, we are all ‘human’, but some groups of humans ARE better than others and the only race to codify freedom and liberty into law has been the white race. Any race can enjoy freedom, but only white people create the environments in which it can take root and thrive. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. The next step a conservative needs to take towards fully awakening is to become a libertarian. And the next step for libertarians is to become racially aware. Take the next step.

Northwestfront.org

Ironically.. Jeblary beds a straining resemblance to Lindsey Graham. Too funny – he really is the poster child for the cuckservative party.

What’s a ‘Randian’?

A one act play about the Rand by a person who met her:

Mozart Was a Red – a play by Murray Rothbard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8

Rothbard on Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejVMFLpQuY

If it’s a Peanuts dilemma we face, guess I’ll be pigpen and live outdoors with snoopy and Woodstock. Better dirty and unchained then clean and caged

Ayn sure loathed Woodstock. She never claimed to be a philosopher tho, Just sketched enough to support her works of fiction so they were valid. The gulch was about value and merit and no trace of govt or minarchism

But while working her day job she did still mention the monarchist state option

Maybe that was possible back in her time in the 1950s and 1960s but not now. Best case is a gulch or 2 remains in the aftermath. See Eric’s rant for the full dissertation,

Nowadays few are even able to lick Bastiats window, much less reason logically, cooperate for mutual honest gain, and peacefully coexist. Merkins have gone full retard and irreversibly so.

Like they often do, the Simpson’s writers say it best! (at least the early years anyway)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlcngdW2Ju4

it is one of satan’s greatest triumphs that the passionate ignorati demand the ascension of evil; the lesser of two evils it is imagined by them, yet evil nevertheless.

Thus evil is promoted.

After a generation or two of such reckless behavior, we find the election process of 2016, wherein the candidates of the criminally insane party are countered by the choice between a carnival sideshow barker and a Canadian promoted by the insiders.

Should be interesting.

Why is it that during every election cycle there are people out there looking for a mounted knight in shinning armor to ride in and transform America into the great Republic that it should be ? Except for Ron Paul,who ran for the Presidency in 2008 and 2012,there hasn’t been a decent,honest,freedom loving Presidential candidate in decades.
With that said,a voting majority of Americans get the government and leaders they really want. Any talk about dismantling the welfare/warfare state and returning America to it’s basic Constitutional roots is looked upon as being archaic.
What,mom and pop without Social Security? Why the “poor” would starve without food stamps. And how could we educate our children without public schools? And,without a large military presence wouldn’t our nation be invaded and overrun by foreigners? Why without big government America would just fall apart.
Politicians are,by and large,only interested in living off of us like parasites. They really don’t matter. The “real owners” of America want you to think that politicians matter, they don’t. They give you the illusion of freedom of choice. So they hold elections every so often so that you can “choose” your masters from a list of candidates that has been pre-selected and pre approved.
In reality,the only master you have is you. You have to run your life your way. You have to set up your life,no matter how difficult,to separate yourself from the fools who want to be led.
In essence,the time for peaceful,political,electoral change has long passed. America is finished as a free country. Best to accept that premise and as Ayn Rand once said,maybe “its time to go Galt.”

Here’s Thomas Sowell on the definition of socialism, why O-Bomb-Ya is not one, and what he actually is.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist/page/full

Hi Eric,

Excellent! I took mstahl’s posts to be offering the kind of reflexive, hysterical partisanship that Statists (of all stripes) rely on. So, I was quite perplexed when he claimed to agree with 99% of what I wrote. My immediate thought was, “really, then I must not have been vey clear”.

However, in his defense, I think the “micro-aggression” comment was quite funny, and intended as such. If insults constitute aggression (as the SJW’s would have us believe), then a comment belittling the size of someone’s penis would be a “micro” aggression. I think he was making fun of the term, not embracing it.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Here’s my macroaggressive response. This schnook is no Randian. I doubt he could so much as flush one of Ayn Kampfs tampons without clogging up the job with an epic fail. And Merely knowing Rand or Rothbatd is no indicator of aptitude or intellect. He was maybe their chauffeur or dog walker in the best case scenario.

Oy, goodness, sayonara, vey, now I’ve gotten the vapors and must lie down until sundown ends this verkakte sabbath’s run of blogorrhea.

If you’ve ever said for a principle to be valid, it must be universal, you might be a verbalist totalitarian.

That syllogism is exactly backwards, and presupposes we must all engage in a grim unceasing struggle of all against all with everyone everywhere.

If you sincerely restricted yourself to live and let live, you would grok that each self selected groups values and principles would be in a market competition with each other. And over time, the best conceptions of right and wrong would advance those who held them, and those that weren’t very good would fall behind.

And everywhere else this is life. But only in neo nazi America are the slackers and poorly principled and unprincipled pursued unto extinction.

There are no sanctuary favelas permitted here. No spots in the backwoods where travelers and natives left in peace to scrimp and scavenge a free humble existence.

Here there is the angry unblinking all seeing eyes in each of your metallic cyborgian heads. Loud ass niggers and Latinos. Smelly drunken profligate deadbeats. Here every creature must be property.and worship everyone else’s property. Nothing is common or of the land. Not even places 100s of miles from another soul may be utilized.

All must be assimilated. Even libertarians accept this and our unable to grasp that no one owes you any answer or predestined response. That each locale has no need of a founder. Or of a principalitarian who parses and enforces what is wrong-act. And what is right act.

See the thing is, I only live in this very minute. I have no exact plan for the next hour or day. I have no answer to your what am I doing today. Or did I do yesterday. Or what I believe in.

My voice is for me to get what I want or need alone. It is not to share with barbaric bubblers and buggerers such as y’all say. I am a true Jew. For I have chosen myself. And I imagine and personify the universe as I like. And I appreciate what you freely radiate. And affirm my debt to you. But may never pay or render th qui though I do already have the quid.

If you are around me long, You will get those answers via observation. But don’t demand I partake in your lip moving vocal cord vibrating robotic puppet fuckery.

Lumping Rand and Rothbard together? Are you kidding?

I’ll let Murray explain…
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

One pull quote: “[P]ower not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement.”

Sounds like your emailer is of the Randian persuasion.