Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1

Post 20

Friday, January 20, 2017 - 6:40amSanction this postReply

My opinion: A Case of mistaken Identification (An analysis of where the left-wingers voiced hatred against Donald Trump’s victory should really be directed).


“They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change,
and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes,
from what and to what, that without the law of identity no such concepts as “change” is possible.”

(From “Galt’s Speech”, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand”


When the Clinton, during her recent electoral campaign, said that Ayn Rand wrote books only suitable for children, Donald Trump countered by starting that he presented Rand’s books as gifts to his associates, customers, etc., which granted him a cheering applause from his adherents, and proved that Rand’s ideas attract a far greater acclaim than Hillary would like.


I mention this “unimportant” bit, since it was one of these small but significant cobblestones that made Clinton trip to disaster. There were others, the main one being the theme of this analysis, the proof that committing mistaken identifications produces consequences that definitively close the door to any possible backtrack.


Times are a-changing, as they say, a result of pounding home the right premises for decades-on-end, concepts now advancing on the right lane towards ever higher aims.


Both left- as well as right-wingers – among these last ones those adhering to religious assertions such as the Sermon of the Mountain that Marx later on merely secularized – are now facing the result of what happens when the correct premises finally find as small as available a loophole through which they can advance their own particular purposes. The left-wingers themselves  are facing now the major mistaken identification of the many they have made in their existence. Blinded by the belief of thinking that people would permanently act as left-wingers wish them to do, they missed recognizing that the man-on-the-street has his own aims and only follows a certain party as long as he considers that it best accomplishes his own purposes. Fabians, who thought that they had found a way to deceive the general public, are learning since long, by the hard way, that it never works thus. Life has its hidden tricks. Experts on evolution can tell whole stories about it.


By the time the recent American election process was over, and it had been firmly established that the Republicans, through Trump, had won in a landslide sweep, all left-wingers and their media (practically all the mayor TV, broadcast, newspapers, magazines, etc. as well as the modern so-called social-network conglomerate) were appalled by Trump’s triumph, a victory the main forecasters foresaw as being absolutely impossible. It reminded me of a certain European politician who, a few months before it happened, told his fellow citizen that they should forget for all times to come, that the Berlin Wall would ever crumble to smithereens. But it did happen, mind you.


Immediately a campaign of hatred against Trump began, a campaign that were doubly amazing since it had always been the left-wingers who claimed that, well, things being as they are, defeat must be humbly and silently accepted, a position that, as history confirms, those opposing the leftwing position always followed when they were beaten by the victorious leftist majority. Not so on the leftwing side now, as facts have shown. As a matter of fact, the movement of hatred increased in vigor to the point of lamentations and tears and will continue to increase even more since it has been known that a majority of Trump’s set of Secretaries of State and further officials have read Ayn Rand and, not just that, but , Heavens!, heartily agree with the main part of her ideas.


Some reporters took the time to visit areas of the United States known to be major mainstays of the Democratic Party, whose faithful left-wing adherents voted the Democrats for decades on end. Asking randomly selected inhabitants, known as faithful Democrat’s adherents, for the reason of what moved them to a the sudden change of mind that favoured Trump, they steadily received the answer that it lay on the fact that the party no longer defended neither their convictions nor did the Democrat’s program uphold the voters personal rights to a decent living, personal independency and principles.


While Objectivists have a clear view of the fact that leftwing premises side with rubbish, these statements should have been for the leftwing newsmen and politicians a real eye-opener. However, it seems that the conditions under which their brain operates doesn’t allow them to reach the right conclusion, namely that Trump did not win the elections through any dark maneuverings – as left-wingers now internationally and widely hold – but that the Democrats lost because an appreciable amount of their adherents considered that the party’s premises no longer attach to their voters understanding of rights and purpose of life. This paints a bleak prospect for the Democratic Party, the point of no-return for those that took the main decision of crossing the dividing line, a determination identical to the deconversion of former believers turning into atheists. So-to-speak: Caesar crossing the Rubicon.


Thus, the left-wingers now strident opposition to Trump’s victory – there have been even voices calling for a martial law to impede Trump to become president – is really a case of mistaken identification, since the error was made by the Democrat’s program, candidate and politicians and what they meant for those that now changed their vote purpose. Of course, the left-wingers aristocracy now cringes in its own mud, of which they accuse Trump instead of looking at themselves for the errors committed, since they now fear to lose their fortunes, fame and high positions under the now fading old conditions. This, of course, is another error of analysis, for, as an example, a good movie actor will continue to be a good movie actor in his own right.


Bur left-wingers and all their associates and sympathizers were unable to ascertain the change of mind of many voters. Lack of perception and a rejection of the evidence also revealed the forecasters own lack of sensing what lay ahead, a failure for which their business will have to pay dearly.


The new situation of the left-wingers utter defeat, specifically in the nation where it took place, is the expected after-play of the demolition of the Marxian empire in the 90’s of last century. It will have tremendous effects on a worldwide scale. In addition, though Trump is far from being  a reflection of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, this is the beginning of the correct turn toward Objectivism’s future advance and establishment.


Which should be a lesson in itself.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, January 27, 2017 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply

The main strengths of President Trump, in my view, are that: (1) he's a successful businessman, and thus naturally a capitalist (even tho' this doesn't work with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many others); (2) he's a hard worker and fairly smart (like the hustler Bill Clinton, who quietly went in a libertarian direction); (3) he's a pragmatist and non-ideologue, thus he tends to stay away from the disasters of the philosophy of right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism.

Hopefully Trump will be a hard-nosed and no-nonsense go-getter, problem-solver, and man-of-action who is determined to "win" for himself and America. Perhaps Trump, the political novice, will apply a high level of simple reason and common sense to most of the issues and problems he faces. This will naturally take him in a pro-liberty direction. Nothing is more moral and practical than individual rights, and this profound truth may moderately dawn on him, especially over time and as he gains experience. Thus far Trump seems to be governing in a far more libertarian manner than he campaigned on. So far he's doing significantly better than I expected.

Post 22

Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 11:45pmSanction this postReply

To Post 21: Congratulations. I like your comment.

Post 23

Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 4:55amSanction this postReply

Steve Bannon, former executive chair of Breitbart News, now has Trump's ear on a regular basis as his Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor.  Bannon is to Trump as Karl Rove was to George W. Bush.  So I have been reading Breitbart News daily since the inauguration.


I have to admit its content has offered a much welcome and long overdue contrast to the postmodernist Yahoo! News I have been reading daily as part of my personal e-mail check.


Hillary Clinton tried to paint these Breitbart people as a group of unhinged "fake news" white nationalist racist misogynists.  Anyone with a brain who bothers to read and think reasonably about the content can ascertain they are not regardless of Wikipedia's assertions to the contrary.  Like many here on RoR, they have legitimate concerns about the direction of the nation and world as well as ideas on how to counter the decline of Western civilization.  Yes, there are the occasional trolling kooks who make racist and misogynist comments, but they are a tiny minority in the big scheme of things.  Most of them strike me as decent people whose company I would enjoy immensely outside the occasional, random, silly divergences into Judeo-Christian mysticism.


One recurring theme I see refers to "the globalists."  Outside of George Soros, I am not sure who "the globalists" are.  Can anyone refer to a reliable text on "the globalists" that grounds itself in reality rather than speculation and conspiracy theory?


All that said, I am starting to see something of a "rational nationalism" taking shape wherein "good fences make good neighbors" between nations.


We live in interesting times.


(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/29, 5:02am)

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 12:02pmSanction this postReply



Cambridge's online dictionary defines a "Globalist" as "someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country"


Focus in on the word "should" and the phrase "what is best" - because they tell you that the issue is about what standards drive political decisions - and that leads one to ask what is the purpose and by what standards should we make political decisions.  But most political factions don't want to examine that because they feel some kind of emotional commitment to a set of talking points that are on the policy level.



Elements of the left and the right have some wacky takes on globalism.  Here in the US, the wacky ideas on the right - conspiracy theories and Paleo Conservative protectionism and isolationism aren't very prevalent or of much concern.  The real hard-driving globalism has been, and continues to be from the Progressives.



Progressives hold "globalism" as a part of their overall intellectual portfolio.  The see it in the following lights:
- as a way to take redistribution to a higher level,
- as a way to counter and to make reparations for what they see as "imperialistic" and "colonial" tendencies by countries like ours and Great Britian's.

- A wider arena for categorizing the rich (instead of just damning the rich in our country, they can damn our country for being rich).

- As a wider platform for attacking capitalism (inside the US, regulate Americans... Outside of the US, attempt to regulate America)
- Emotionally, it feels like a way to put America in its place, reduce us, knock us down a peg or two, get rid of that 'nonsense' about us being 'exceptional'. 
- All of these are made possible by the philosophic base of moral relativity - "We shouldn't think of our system, or of us, as being any better than others."
- They see it as empowering the oppressed or less fortunate or disavantaged in other nations (Progressivism is always a drive for power, but it justifies itself altruistically)
- They see it as a continuation of the centralizing of power (going past the national border)
- It works to break nationalism, which is a level of soveriegnty, a level that stands in the way of expanding control to those centralized elites.

   (The only real soveriegnty is from the individual because of individual rights, but he delegates to states and they partner to form nations

      - that set of levels are bound together by the law common to the national jurisdiction - laws which should arise from those individual rights. 

        Break that chain and soveriegnty has no more integrity/strength)
- Globalism works well with the concept of open borders, which in turn works to destroy national soveriegnty.
- The forms of global control are an extreme of collectivism in that the individual is totally cut out of the picture. 

    Neither you nor I get even a vote on anything the UN does, or the WTO, or the World Bank, just as the Brits had no vote on what the EU decided.


Globalism is justified in the name of peace, and in that we are interconnected by modern high speed communications and travel, and interconnected by modern global trade.  There is an element of truth in all of these, but they are moral/practical trojan horses in that they are used to justify trade that is less free than capitalism would provide, and are as likely (or more likely) to lead to war, and have certainly been leading towards more regulation and less democratic control at the grass-roots level.


There are real conspiracies that arise from time to time and they are usually short lived and ineffective.  And far more exist just as theories, and don't exist as facts.  But, thanks to modern progressivism, we have to examine anything they call a conspiracy theory since they are practically trained to yell, "Conspiracy theory!" when they want to attack something that is a threat but that they can NOT address honestly.  (Think about when Hillary called the accusations that her husband was having sex with Monical Lewinsky "a Right wing conspiracy theory."  That is a perfect example.  How else could the Clintons have attempted to keep their moral standing and power in the face of the mounting accusations and the facts?)  Too often, claims that something is a conspiracy theory or is fake news is akin to yelling, "You're wrong! The emperor is NOT naked!"  Intellectual cover-up.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply

Thank you, Steve, that was helpful.  So "globalism" is not about free trade between nations, but it is about "social justice" redistribution and the transfer of power to unaccountable elites.  That makes sense and helps me better to understand commenters when they use the term.


I hope the current administration finds a way to charge George Soros with incitement to violence and other crimes to put him out of commission.

Post 26

Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply

So "globalism" is not about free trade between nations, but it is about "social justice" redistribution and the transfer of power to unaccountable elites.


Yes, that is the case with progressives.  But there still are some who attack "globalism" when they are actually attacking free trade because they want tariffs and to use restrictive trade to punish nations they don't like or for protectionism of national industries.  It is one of the things I don't like about some of Trump's policies.



I'm hoping that Jeff Sessions, once appointed as Attorney General, will issue strict guidelines on the difference between peaceful assembly and free speech, on one hand, and threatening behavior, violence, blocking people's way, destroying property, and the inciting of violence on the other hand.  Then arrest every single demonstrator that goes over the line... and then do like they do with crimnal prosecutions.  Grant a lessor sentence to those that give evidence on people higher in the food chain.  But, I doubt that they will ever get up high enough to get Soros before he expires of natural causes.


Progressives adopted that communist model of using propoganda/news to magnify and exaggerate the number of protestors and to build what looks like a giant movement out of what starts with a few activists.  They try to make it seem as if there was a spontaneous uprising of normal people who are morally outraged over something... with the implication that we should all feel that way.  But, all of the rest of us - those who aren't Marxists or progressives - attempt to convince people to support some kind of legislative change or election choice by using social media, books, press releases, etc., and do so mostly on our own time - when we aren't making a living.  The game-plan, to the extent that there is one, is to encourage more authoritarian behavior by the government in hopes that will increase the number of sympathizers.  Progressivism is big on trying to trigger reactions.  Like trolling.  Like setting up a strawman to incite responses (e.g., attacking the nuttier of the religous right in hopes that it both demonizes all of GOP and also triggers more moderates/independents to react with disgust and join the progressive side).

Post 27

Thursday, February 2, 2017 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply

Manfred -- You said: "Donald Trump countered by stating that he presented Rand’s books as gifts to his associates, customers, etc." If true, this is a hopeful sign. Of course, Ayn Rand is hard to comprehend unless you're still young and idealistic. Still...even if these Trump associates and customers only read and comprehended 25% or so of what the radical Rand said, that could mean a considerable change and step up from right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism. It would be especially sweet if Trump himself comprehended and agreed with 25% or so.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, February 2, 2017 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply

@ Kyrel Zantonavitch: Thank you for your comment. I fully agree with you. An analysis similar to yours moved me to write, at the end of my comment: "In addition, though Trump is far from being  a reflection of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, this is the beginning of the correct turn toward Objectivism’s future advance and establishment." For the first time in history, what's happening with Trump's presidency - and wonderfully to all left-winger's horror - there's a very good chance that it might lead in the right direction, since many of the Tea Party adherents are also fans of Rand's ideas, and there are quite a few of Trump's staff that agree with her.

Post 29

Sunday, February 12, 2017 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply



To me, "Globalist" means people as described here "http://theglobalelite.org/globalists/".  Basically they are the people behind the scenes who control the banks, media, and various multinational corporations.  They have pretty much unlimited resources at their disposal and they are untouchable by law enforcement.  They promote ideas such as Steve listed in order to manipulate and retain their position of power.


For example, the establishment of The Federal Reserve was promoted (by these "Globalists") to the public as a way that they could be protected from exploitation by local banks.  Sure, it did that, at the price of becoming slaves via money supply inflation on the monopoly on money enforced by our government. The Federal Reserve branches, and the largest banks (such as JP Morgan) are owned by these "Globalists".




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1

User ID Password or create a free account.