Jacob Smith

Given below are the main points of my argument with O’ists / ARI. Most of these points are hap-hazardly spread in my dialogue with an O’ist. I have brought them to order below. The argument happened because he read a series of my FB-Posts listed at the end of this article, one of them challenging the POTUS and All Americans. Everything was normal, he praised my Challenges – but all hell broke loose after he saw the words “modifying Christianity”, as if I was releasing Satan on America – blasphemy, heresy had happened, God and religion were vitiated. The rest is described in the article below, which also includes my other complaints about O’ists. Legend: FFs, FF-C, FF-Govt -- Founding Fathers, FFs’ Constitution, FFs’ Government hi-fi -- small groups of conservative, free-market etc intellectuals and think tanks like Objectivists (O’ists), Austrian economists, C4L (Ron Paul), Libertarian & Constitution Party, Cato, Heritage etc Gist of the present argument arising out of my phrase “modifying Christianity”: O’ists also vote every two years (Senate/House/POTUS); they vote for one of the two parties. Temporarily we will keep aside the somersaults / contradictions in Dr. Peikoff’s political guidance I have reproduced in my FB-Post No 57 (PS: Alan Greenspan’s example just added). But O’ists do select one of the two parties, and they may be changing parties in every election based on party policies, candidate’s abilities, past record etc. Given the political atmosphere, it will not happen that any candidate will fully align himself with O’ism; in fact he will be seeking popular vote, so he will be far away from O’ism. And yet O’ists will be selecting the least evil of the two parties as per their thinking. I am also doing the same in my own way and my argument is that Christian-libertarians are better than Dems because of the points given below, and once democracy / welfare state is exposed as the villain, as the cause for the present fall, America will likely return to her founding times! O’ists consider Christians / Libertarians as bitterest enemies, don’t allow any mention except negatively. I have quoted Presidents Pierce and Cleveland about govt refusing purified water to citizens, charity to those affected by natural calamity, FFs’ policies leading to the “Wall of Separation between the Church and the State” – who achieved such a hands-off govt? Predominantly Christian-Libertarians! When Ayn Rand cried on seeing the shores of America for the first time, what was the significant factor? Sea-shores exist all over the earth – these shores belonged to predominantly Christian-Libertarian Americans! When she said in her article “Rights of Man” that 19th century America was the most civilized (moral) society ever to have lived on earth, who were those people? When she cried, she needed them, they didn’t even know her till far later after the novels – without them she too was nothing. All others, whether genius (Einstein, Ayn Rand, Von Mises etc), not-genius but intelligent people (like Asian computer professionals) or even thieves and beggars as illegal migrants, entered America afterwards – the most difficult task of foundation-work, building civilization in uncharted jungles, building the great New World, was done by brave men who were predominantly Christian-Libertarians and at the same time die-hard individualists! They got vitiated because of intellectuals’ inability to analyze democracy and welfare state. Genius brings progress, not ordinary people; but genius is weak, murdered in most places on earth, and needs protection of “enlightened” mass of citizens, which America gave to AR. As part of being loyal to your own philosophy, you can strongly criticize them, it serves the purpose of cleansing, improving, refining, betterment, adding positive to America (and just as an aside: were you allowed to criticize in Russia / Germany from where you fled?) – but not to acknowledge their virtues and to consider them as bitterest enemy is in AR’s own words moral embezzlement! IF NECESSARY, I WOULD HAVE TOLD THIS EVEN TO AR; if she thought that only genius mattered and human ballast (the phrase she used in “For the New Intellectual”) was nothing, she should have developed and shown her genius in Soviet Russia itself and not cried on American shores. (She also said that rights are available to man from nature, as his nature – see to what extent they are available beyond the US of A.) Enlightened mass is a COLLECTIVE ASSET, to be given its due – and they are also not asking for more – waiters, porters, helpers, police, soldiers are living (and even dying) as what they are, with thanks to the genius who has ensured more payment to them as compared to an independent minded genius (Rational Egoist) in third-world countries! But their collective value is much more than ordinary people elsewhere on earth, and has to be acknowledged – they were predominantly Christian-Libertarians when AR needed their protection. Being an Ayn Randist, I am not endorsing Christianity, out of question – and as far as Libertarianism is concerned, I have read only a little bit about their theories – but I believe that the clue to FFs’ achievement was their major policy which was close to libertarians. It was based on reason only, but in govt-formation it made individualism the most important parameter, not reason – remember important point that this was limited to as far as govt-formation is concerned, not beyond. Reason for this is the way intelligence is spread in society, called as the Normal Curve, which the FFs took into account, while O’ists do not – this is an important lapse on the part of the O’ists. Because of Protestant Christianity even the lowest level people had become individualists, and reason was exercised by people as per their ability, men going ahead as per their capability without hindrance, and others following, which made America so very great. O’ists think the lowest people should understand / adopt their theories, else they are the bitterest enemies, while their own cadres expressed foolishly wrong opinions to oppose me in gangs! This normal curve, the fact that lower strata needs different treatment, can give rise to problems which have to be catered to, are points which don’t even strike O’ists, or they don’t admit them. A huge number of people (hundreds of millions) at the lower levels of the social pyramid cannot understand any hi-fi philosophies like O’ism and require one of the two mass philosophies referred to below. In essence, I am not making any real modification to Christianity except attracting productive people to my analysis of democracy and welfare state, conveying to them the evil of CHARITY VIA GOVT in a uniquely new manner, and rallying them to go back to FF-C; I am not equipped to modify Christianity because I have not studied it enough! IT IS ALSO A WAY OF HIGHLIGHTING LIBERTARIAN-CHRISTIANS’ CONTRIBUTION TO BUILDING AMERICA! Not mentioning it is moral embezzlement. PS: . IMPORTANT POINT missed in the above: Libertarians too have existed since Greek times, GW was an ardent fan, often got the drama CATO played! Though FFs were predominantly Christians, their solution was closer to Libertarian! Libertarians should be included in the above. I remember having read though I cannot give the reference at the moment, Ayn Rand calling them as Libertarian-hippies with the addition that they copy O’ism’s politics (capitalism) without accepting O’ism’s metaphysics and epistemology – this is not exactly correct – like John Locke, FFs etc, Austrian economists too have roots of Libertarianism, individualism etc in Greece and Rome, have European theorists like Bastiat in 18th and 19th centuries – in fact it is known that AR learnt a lot from Von Mises and others! As AR admitted, FF-Govt was the most moral govt because it was the most capitalist! I would have overlooked AR’s over-stepping as negligible, but for the punks – what is the punks’ standing to continue the same attitude? This happened in the entire interaction with the O’ist Punk because he shifted all argument (i.e. purposely neglected the important points in my write-up) to a single point of contention, that of Christianity. These are the reasons why AR’s opponents (as I came across in Tea Parties and other places) claim that she did not bring anything new, it is all there in the FF-C! (This is the other side of the coin of hi-fi fighting as bitterest enemies, benefiting evil. All individualists should know the end-result of their fights.) Other than NOT analyzing democracy / welfare state, not taking the Normal Curve of spread of intelligence into account is another major drawback of O’ists. They consider their’s to be fool-proof philosophy, “shining ethics” etc (this also applies to other hi-fi like Libertarians) – if they investigate the question that if people buy Ayn Rand’s books in millions then why are they not subscribing to her philosophy in the same numbers, why don’t O’ists matter in elections, then they are more likely to get answers to America’s fall, to the actual socio-political situation in America. They talk too much about reality, but are divorced from it because they don’t take into account these points. Where things went wrong? While calling 19th century America as the most civilized society on earth, Ayn Rand also briefly refers to the so-called “economic bill of rights” enunciated by the Democratic Party Platform (DPP) of 1960 – this is such a daring, huge looting on the part of welfare-statists that it requires entire books to explain it properly, not the mere partial article she dedicated to it – no communist has ever dared to openly make such demands from productive people to bestow upon parasites. (In fact the New Deal based on looting via Currency Inflation, perhaps even Woodrow Wilson’s idealism, required better books exposing democracy / welfate state – what we got was books on capitalism, which would not solve the problem!) It was her followers’ function to work on DPP-1960’s massive jump and explain it to productive Americans. If they had ever tried to investigate, they would have realized that the Republic imperceptibly changes to Democracy, doles vote block is formed, and then doom! They would have found that the US is mimicking the Roman Republic / Empire exactly, and that this was the problem to be investigated / resolved. Plato had already shown, even if not described to the required extent, how the fall would unfold – if they are so much into philosophy / intellectuality, this should have told them they are not on the right path. Emancipated lower strata taking over, starts the end game. Even now, after huge erosion making it look like everything is lost, they are still not analyzing democracy / welfare state, but merely harping on capitalism on one side and Christian-libertarians as villains on the other! No attempt to teach the lowest strata about their pet-favorite “reason” but merely keep arguing with middle-classes and above. I am not at all a Christian, my point is: All individualists can join hands with Christians only for the sake of govt formation, provided they take it back to FF-Govt – Christians are even today predominantly individualists. Beyond that you can continue your development, strong criticism of Christianity etc – on the other hand, welfare state is a total no-no because by definition it is anti-individualism. In fact to call welfare statists as anti-individualists is too mild. (Even today the DPP of 1960 is unbelievable)! they are the most evil kind of looter-dacoits the earth has ever produced; their politicians are the most evil murderers – if intellectuals had properly analyzed and exposed them, productive Americans would have issued threats of civil war long time back and stopped their activities; else they would have been hanged! this is the biggest case of intellectual default (O’ists are a part) over entire history of mankind! It is very urgent to correctly expose democracy and welfare state as the highest evil, which should bring Christians back to FF-C – that is the real solution to America. SO MUCH O’ISTS CRITICIZE EVERYBODY ELSE OTHER THAN THEMSELVES, LET US LEAVE ASIDE THEIR SOLUTIONS LIKE DR. PEIKOFF QUOTED ELSEWHERE (PS: GREENSPAN ADDED), BUT WHERE ON EARTH DO THEY EXPECT TO BUILD A BETTER SOCIETY / COUNTRY? IF AMERICANS, WHO ARE BUYING AYN RAND’S NOVELS IN MILLIONS, EVEN NOW THE MOST ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY ON EARTH, REJECT THEM, WHO ELSE ON EARTH WILL ACCEPT THEM? LET THEM ACCEPT NOW THAT THEY ARE MISSING SOME POINTS I HAVE BROUGHT OUT, LET THEM GIVE ME A CHANCE AS POTENTIAL, NOT RED CARPET, NOT ENDORSEMENT, BUT JUST A CHANCE AS A POTENTIAL! OK, I will give in some more detail, the difference between “enlightened” and actual human ballast, i.e. masses in undeveloped, communist etc countries – supposing AR had remained under the Soviets and not migrated, what would have been the effect – leave alone Atlas Shrugged, the crowning achievement coming at an advanced stage in her life, far prior to that, the moment she showed any signs of an independent, individualistic mind – not even that – as soon as she showed in her behavior that she was not mentally attuned, was not in harmony with the surrounding society, she would start suffering till either she adjusted, or she died! The dictator in Kremlin would never know that a worm was being crushed at the bottom by the system, by the hierarchy, because hundreds of thousands get adjusted to the system, else slowly perish. The dictator’s assistants are spread from topmost point to the bottom-most along the length and breadth of society to ensure that “reason”, O’ists’ pet-favorite, is nipped in the bud. If you read it correctly, this action is continuously going on in We The Living! (In the long lecture after Cortlandt, this is what Toohey tells Keating about Roark’s condition in “unenlightened” societies.) People like Ayn Rand (Newton / Einstein type) are too, too, too very far away in intelligence as compared to the lower levels – the difference is too much. To expect ordinary people to understand difficult mathematical, philosophical, scientific etc concepts, is foolishness! But till they are individualists, and allow you – what nonsense “allow you”? – they are the ones who ENSURE that you too get your rights, till then THEY ARE A BIG VALUE, TO BE HANDLED / TREATED ONLY IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, AND NOT AS TRASH, FOOLS ETC – not as human ballast but as ordinary but “enlightened” people! You actually have to live even in seemingly better countries like India to understand their value, understand why so many of third world countries are too eager to migrate. Now the erosion of American society has progressed too far, there is a chance of Americans soon changing to “unenlightened”, but as of now they are good; intellectuals are defaulting! To allow civilization to perish just because one claims oneself to be superior / holy, without any effort to use world’s most enlightened society, is definitely a moral crime! Following repeatedly repeated because of the punks’ insistence, wrong twists, superior attitude etc: Maintaining your unique, separate identity, developing and spreading your work including strongly criticizing others (Christian-Libertarians in this case) is DIFFERENT from CONDITIONALLY supporting them in the formation of govt, condition being that they take it back to FF-Govt. No marriage, no merging is involved here, no need to get hyper-sentimental like the O’ist-punks, but emphasizing that democracy / welfare state is the most important enemy. BUT conditional support too is not enough – MORE IMPORTANT PART IS ANALYZING DEMOCRACY / WELFARE STATE SO AS TO RALLY THE INDIVIDUALISTS TO GO BACK TO FF-GOVT. Even O’ism is not a panacea because of simple reason: fight between good and evil is eternal, and O’ists are not the perfect “Masters of Reason” they assume to be. Not low-level punks but important people in their cadres assertively make foolish comments. Apart from Dr. Peikoff’s political views (and Greenspan), see the other examples of important O’ists I have given. (So also one need not consider Ayn Rand as infallible.) “Masters of Reason” attitude, intransigence etc is allowed to Ayn Rand because of her achievement, not to others. Every year universities the world over produce thousands of intellectuals; being in that profession doesn’t give O’ists the right to do what I describe herein. You may be doing some good work, BUT: may be evaluating it far beyond its actual value; I will tell you a secret about it – the posh office, the huge salaries, the big houses, luxurious vacations, the bank balances etc that you enjoy along with the work you do (which means the tension-free life you live, the conditions under which you work) is a gift to you from the likes of John Locke, so that you can easily point out his lacks / short-comings, derogate him. This is like the statement in AS, “The rest is a gift to you from Rearden!” Try to be in fugitive Locke’s shoes, or even in present day semi-free India, then you will realize the value of their works! It’s easy to analyze, criticize, denounce those people – but you are standing on their shoulders, their achievements have made things possible for you. To evaluate them, one needs to understand their background, what they had inherited against what you have, what they added vs what you are adding over your inheritance. One reason why I stretched the argument about Christianity: To check the O’ist’s arguments as they unfolded -- apart from merely harping on Christianity out of my several important points, the punk came out with only one big contradiction which I have highlighted – because of my 15-16 years’ experience with O’ist punks I was expecting more. Another reason was to check whether other important punks come in to gang up -- only Hermandez gave one like. Later Michael Liebowitz (writes books, articles, interviews ARI top brass) and his associate Xenia Loannou sent friend requests to “improve” my thoughts by accepting her group’s thoughts, see quote elsewhere. Also: I don’t remember most names seen in the past, many claimed to have been directly in contact with Ayn Rand, some studied under her etc. Some of the names seen in last 1-2 years are James Stevens Valliant, Peter Schwartz, Craig Biddle, Michael Liebowitz, Stephen Hicks, Robert Tracinski, Keith Weiner, Jim Ashley etc on the many forums I visited – plus Hermandez, Steve Margolis contacting me from ARI etc. BUT: when I encountered ideas like Aristotle as mill-stone to civilization (O’ists ganged up to support the post-graduate saying this against me), Hermandez praising the “great” United Nations, Xenia’s advice that I accept her group’s thoughts etc, nobody made an opposing comment! And everywhere I saw people ganging up, using contradictions just for the sake of opposition, fallacies, stony silence as reaction to my good article, etc, which I have described elsewhere. This answers the question why derogation and self-boasting seen in my comments -- several years’ experiences on O’ist-forums led to the doubt, whether O’ism improved people or produced fools who are called as nut-cases and shunned by most of America – but: I will add that such people are part of society: some people with half-baked knowledge do play that role, more of them gathered under O’ism perhaps because the novels, the characters etc gave them extra confidence to behave that way. Point is: O’ism is a difficult philosophy, more so for lower strata, so it’s enough even if the lower strata are only individualists. Contradictions, sometimes even lying, were so much part of their ganging-up that the only answer I found fit was derogation and self-boasting. (*PS: A lot can be written about the topic below but here only the following is reproduced because I incidentally came across it while writing this article. It is from one of the Ayn Rand Forums on FB, see file “p – O’ists and others”. Original Post: Ayn Rand was probably as narcissistic as her followers - or worse. The "virtue" of being selfish and to hell with anyone else. Part of one comment: There’s nothing new under sun, there is no philosophy or “ism” that will work for everyone all of the time. Even the great Alan Greenspan who was part of Rand’s inner circle has admitted that trying to follow Rand’s economic theories played a role in the economic collapse of 2007. Does any one human being really have the universe sorted? Unquote I have more about Greenspan in my published book – here he seems to be holding Ayn Rand responsible for the crash of 2007. My comment: OP is controversial, led to lot of pro and contra arguments on that forum, I simply neglect it. But the OP and the quoted comment lead to an inference that O’ism is neither panacea nor easy to practice, and individualism is a better parameter for basis of govt. But no matter what the controversies, I will continue considering Ayn Rand as personal goddess for saving my life, and practice her philosophy in my own way, not ARI or O’ist-punks’. I never address her as Rand, only as Ayn Rand or Miss Rand; AND YET: I would have told all the above to her – she recovered my mind which was irrecoverably chained at the bottom of cesspool due to fanatic religious upbringing, but once recovered, it will always work on its own! Snip copied to file “p – O’ists and others” – On 01Sept2023 Michael Liebowitz asked on the forum “The Official Ayn Rand Group”: For Objectivists: Are there any ideas of Ayn Rand’s with which you disagree? If so, which ones? I thanked Michael saying that I wanted an opportunity to post the present article against O’ists, not AR. Nick Jonson commented on it, to quote: Nitin Desai Yes Objectivism's abject impotence in culture and politics needs addressing. Unquote Part of my answer: O'ism is not impotent; it is not correctly being used! Ayn Rand's philosophy becomes too high level of intelligence for the masses that have a huge influence on socio-political life. Thanks There is no doubt that Ayn Rand has given a treasure to mankind / civilization – many libertarians admit it and even Christians, though she has strongly criticized Christians even in Atlas Shrugged! Questions are whether she admitted their contribution to her development, and so also the undeserving punks who assume monopoly over her work. Ayn Rand’s is a mixed response of calling America as the greatest country of reason etc, as well strongly denouncing Libertarians and Christians, but understandable because of her fundamental work – the punks on the other hand deserve slaps. Further: For a long time I didn’t get chance to study Ayn Rand personally, and much after 2000 when I got some hold of the internet, I didn’t take too much interest – but obviously because of my relation with her, some information did creep in. I believe she also had problem with friends, with so many coming in and getting thrown out. Perhaps she became intolerant with so many hobnobbing after her success, BUT: difference in intelligence also must have mattered, despite they being upper strata! With many high-level O’ists like Peikoff, Greenspan etc failing at critical points, O’ism is definitely a difficult philosophy, and the world’s complexity is more so! AR’s friends was her personal matter, so no further comments -- govt on the hand surely needs to take into account substantially low intelligence of an overwhelming majority of men and world’s complexity, and individualism is the best parameter to base it on! So also AR is not the first atheist in history, the way the O’ists assume in their behavior, like I said above that all hell broke loose as soon as the punk saw the phrase “modifying Christianity” – atheism predates Christianity by more than at least 500 years, and atheists were found all over the known world of that time, even in India it was an independent school of thought. Well-known example is of the Epicurean Paradox denying the supernatural, because of which the Jews hated them. When Christianity took over Rome, Hypatia the Greek mathematician was torn apart limb by limb because she called Christianity as fables. That is enough about atheists being ancient. Important point is that in modern times atheists have increased heavily even in as undeveloped countries as India – so even if one joins hands with Christians for the purpose of forming FF-Govt only, over period of time, reason will penetrate deeper into society, except that it is a time-consuming process, and for buying time FF-Govt is the best alternative. The most important issue at the moment is to undo democracy / welfare state which are almost taken over by the ever-increasing parasites and proceeding to the abyss much faster than the efforts of all the individualists. If this doesn’t happen soon, everything will be submerged into the fast approaching Dark Ages of nuclear times, God knows what will escape its destruction. Mob action will be equally disastrous, rational egoists will suffer same fate as Greek Mathematician Hypatia. About mass philosophies: Details are available in FB-Post No 56, here I have to keep it brief – there have been only two of them, religion and communism – they are necessary for the masses because masses cannot understand hi-fi. Both the philosophies have kept most of the earth uncivilized, but Protestant Christians, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, became “enlightened” after Acquinas, and contributed to whatever civilization mankind ever reached (which is eroded today). So acknowledge FFs’ achievement via Christianity, no moral embezzlement. They achieved the level where you can strongly criticize them, elsewhere that is not allowed! Why minorities make revolutions and why O’ism will not do so (see details in the above FB-Post) – O’ism will not matter, AR’s name / novels will be used by Christians / Libertarians (note that welfare statists know that they cannot afford to touch Ayn Rand except as villain, are enemies by definition, and are well aware of it, while Christians & Libertarians use AR for their own purposes which the O’ists don’t like) – BUT: as I said, whether the outcome will be good or bad will depend on whether they have an analysis like mine which will take them back to FF-Govt, else dark ages. Important à Also see list of points nobody else has handled except me – point no K titled “WHAT THE BOOK DISCUSSES – AMERICAN MISCONCEPTIONS, DEFICIENCIES, NEW KNOWLEDGE ETC” in FB-Post no 56 – exposes important misconceptions of Americans, deficiencies of the original Republic, negatives of both the parties, and analyses / exposes democracy, welfare state, UN etc in never-before manner. About unity among individualists: may see pt no 3 above 3. G in part2 Even with ARI, I was looking at whether they considered me to be a potential and gave only that much of a chance; not endorsement, not red-carpet, but a chance to show my writing and then give final judgment. The reader will get lot more information about my writing and also what kind of O’ist punks are roaming the intellectual streets, in my above mentioned FB-Posts. Peikoff and Greenspan are the tops who got criticized a lot, but see the arrogant behavior of the other O’ists. More points (some of them important), details etc about the above topic will be supplied to interested people. LIST OF FB-POSTS WHICH LED TO THE ARGUMENT WITH THE O’IST FB-Posts were submitted even to ARI, and I will also send this article to them. (Some changes made later, not uploaded on FB – among others, important new Challenges to Rep-Conzs are incorporated.) – all posts are close to the top of y FB-Account, but have to scroll down to reach to them. PS: FB-POSTS ARE LOCKED AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE OF SOME ISSUES / OBJECTIONS – I CAN OPEN THEM ONLY AFTER A FEW DAYS, BUT SOME OTHER ARRANGEMENT CAN BE MADE IF PEOPLE SHOW INTEREST. FB-Post no 51 Dtd 20 Oct 2022 US EXPANSIONISM, THE EVIL ROLE OF THE UN, AND THE NECESSITY FOR INDIA TO CHANGE Will the UN World-Government destroy civilization? FB-Post no 52 Continued from FB-Post no 51 Dtd 20 Oct 2022 US EXPANSIONISM, THE EVIL ROLE OF THE UN, AND THE NECESSITY FOR INDIA TO CHANGE Will the UN World-Government destroy civilization? FB-Post no 55 Dtd 11 DEC 2022 CHALLENGES TO POTUS (and to ALL Americans) -- not latest, but gives enough idea FB-Post no 56 Dtd 11 DEC 2022 PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIANITY – LOCKE - AYN RAND - VON MISES WILL NOT SAVE AMERICA MODIFYING CHRISTIANITY ON LINES OF MY BOOK WILL SAVE FB-Post no 57 Dtd 06 JAN 2023 HI-FI COMMENTS ON MY FB-POSTS 51 to 56 AND COMMENTS ON COMMENTS partial review of Dr. peikoff’s political views versus mine

Stephen, I think you have concluded wrongly from my previous response! Desai is not asking for money from people; he is not rich, but is able to carry on, and beyond that he is doing high level work as a follower of Ayn Rand – perhaps his is the highest level of such work. Obviously advocating capitalism in India is foolishness if the same is not working even in US – whatever India is, are just names for dishonest people to loot honest ones, and he knows that it is not going to change so very soon – at the moment India is heading for collapse, and in the long run the West too is headed there – Desai is well aware of whatever you have written above. INSTEAD, AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, HE IS READY TO SHARE PROFITS WITH ANYBODY WHO HELPS HIM – and once he gets an intitial push, huge profits are possible! What he needs is public awareness about his writing, spreading among rational people that a man with very good ideas is fighting in a backward country, and: FOR OUR SAKE, for the sake of justice, rationality, for the sake of a good world we talk about or pretend to fight for, we need to uphold him – he needs a rational appreciation of his ideas / works because they are far above whatever is available in the market, but NOT as charity but as rational evaluation, and even to be honest to ourselves and to live upto the good within ourselves. If we don’t support him, at least do the best of whatever possible to us, then our lives are pretentious, phony! If you have read his FB-Posts correctly, and not as mere cursory reading / time-pass, you will find that he has brought out many points which are not commonly discussed – America as continuation of Greek civilization / Roman Republic, republic turning into democracy for the third time, plato’s small description repeating for the third time AND THE PLAYERS PLAYING EXACTLY AS HE DESCRIBED, the development of a doles-vote-block and using it for self-promotion while achieving America’s destruction, “Civilization turning full circle” i.e. the way Christianity took over Roman Republic America too is poised to be taken over – discussion about these important points is not being seen in mainstream America and Desai has many, many more ideas / details about these points. (One big point remains which I will bring out in my next OP, but will take a few days, needs thoughtful input – I have made bold statements about it in my previous post which I repeat here. Desai has something which Ayn Rand and many other well-meaning, well-educated, erudite intellectuals don’t have, though of course he considers Ayn Rand to be a personal Goddess – he has solution to America’s problems, ability to stop the erosion, the slide to abyss – THIS BIG STATEMENT I WILL PROVE IN MY NEXT POST.) As far as other peoples’ role goes, I will use you, Stephen, as its best example – after meeting you here I saw you on Ayn Rand / FACEBOOK and Open group on Objectivism. + referring to your above quote: “Now that I am retired …...” Means you are a man of means and also active – to be frank, Objectivism is too very small a movement, means too less adherents in a democracy, and the men who carry AR’s books in tea-parties etc are also minorities – wait for my next post about them, will tell how far they can go. If you are true to the principles, the philosophy you profess, it is incumbent on you to do the utmost that Desai will get a hearing (you are just an example, other like-minded people should also do the same). He has the solution to America’s / civilization’s problem and it is the work of our type of people to help him BY SPREADING THE MESSAGE. We are not favoring him by doing so but living upto the best in ourselves, living upto the principles and the philosophy we claim to hold. That he is ready to share profits, HE WANTS TO DONATE IF THERE IS PROFIT, etc are side issues, main points are: he deserves support of people like us, he is far more beneficial to civilization than other people in the market, and that we have to be true to ourselves. (As said in my previous comment, I can even get a contract made about profit sharing.)

Stephen, I had like to thank you for a “not normal” gesture – I had negated some of your points and expected that as usual you would take it negatively, as ego-problem etc, which is quite normal on these forums – you gave a pleasant surprise friend! There is an important point which could benefit you and / or others here if you take pro-active interest. As you know, India is a backward country, predominantly evil rules in various forms. People with Western thoughts are exceptions and some of them come into deep trouble. One such person is “our” Nitin Desai – we cannot feel for every person in trouble, BUT: in this case there is an important qualification about which I am making a bold statement – he has something which Ayn Rand and many other well-meaning, well-educated, erudite intellectuals don’t have, though of course he considers Ayn Rand to be a personal Goddess – he has solution to America’s problems, ability to stop the erosion, the slide to abyss – THIS BIG STATEMENT I WILL PROVE IN MY NEXT POST. At the moment, just as reminder I will quote some of my own statements from our ongoing dialogue. Quote 1. “Our” Nitin Desai has loads of ideas, and it will be a sort of moral sin if we don’t do anything at all to help him bring them out – it will mean we are not loyal to our own principles, that life is a mere pretense and time-pass for us without any serious commitment, unbecoming to our assumption of Objectivism. 2. I am in touch with Desai, the author of those FB-Posts, concerned that his knowledge / writing should not go waste. UNQuote If you, or anybody here, participate in helping him promote his writing, I can arrange to make a contract that you too will gain from it – there will be publicity, there can be some money also – above all, there will be the satisfaction of being true to our philosophy, our own self, true to what we hold as good!

Stephen, The two Nitin Desais referred to in your link are different, are more famous – one is Bollywood and the other is a top level bureaucrat of UN, today the most evil institution on earth, and the biggest danger to America because the Dem-Libs are partnering with them, want them into US – Rep-Conzs are weak against them in intellectuality. “Our” Nitin Desai is an Ayn Rand follower and unfortunately (as is sure to befall him in India), instead of being famous, he has suffered fanatic orthodoxy during upbringing and is ostracized for changing his status in society. But he has loads of ideas, and it will be a sort of MORAL SIN IF WE DON’T DO ANYTHING AT ALL TO HELP HIM BRING THEM OUT – it will mean we are not loyal to our own principles, that life is a mere pretense and time-pass for all of us without any serious commitment, unbecoming to our assumption of Objectivism. About American founding fathers knowing capitalism: Unfortunately, many statements are available in AR’s book on Capitalism that 1780s to 1900 was the best capitalistic period in human history, capitalism was practiced the best then, neither previously nor later! Based on their achievements, later-day thinkers added further knowledge about capitalism – Isabel Paterson, Austrian School, Ayn Rand etc to name a few – BUT: these only refined to high-class theories what the founding fathers had built into American constitution / way of life. They had held prolonged discussions with Adam Smith considered to be father of capitalism, and Europeans like Montesquieu. laissez-faire capitalism actually existed between 1780s to 1900, the term originated around 1650 in France ß see AR’s book. Against that, despite refinement, today we are gone, Soviet Press ridiculed Western countries about welfare schemes! Desai has NOT said Greeks fell because of democracy but that democracy introduced weakness into them – people of lower strata rebelled too often against the rulers, which is what Plato has criticized democracy for and described in a few sentences, not even paragraphs – it aggravated their fall. But as far as Romans are concerned, the fall was mainly due to the republic turning into democracy, the friction between Patricians and Plebeians, finally taken over by the dictator. Majority of American concepts including liberty, Republic with checks and balances etc came from antiquity only, more from Rome! Washington, B Franklin and many others were ardent admirers of several Romans like Cato as the topmost example. Even today when people like Rand Paul use filibustering, it is a Roman practice. I will tell more about this topic in next few posts; I am in touch with Desai, the author of those FB-Posts, CONCERNED THAT HIS KNOWLEDGE / WRITING SHOULD NOT GO WASTE. Thanks and regards,

Thanks Doug, will try this out.

Thank you Stephen, Most important: Lot more information and answers to your several questions are available on that author’s FB account, link: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000921224448 See Post nos 51 to 54 available at the very top. NOTE: the author says, FB-Posts are only a brief summary, he has written books on the topics, but because of persecution, cannot publish them. Continuing with the response to your comment on my previous post, again Thank you. Your long comment is a huge morale-booster for me – I thought my post would be neglected or be lost due to digression of useless comments. As a starter, I would still thank if you or somebody advised me how to edit my post, I could not find the means, and I want to remove that unlawful word from my post. As I read somewhere, Ayn Rand is most read in India after the US – but I think it is only as stories, without implications to day to day life and Indian politics – of-course another factor too is there – 1% of India is 14 million, so even if so many read Ayn Rand, they will not matter – in India the illiterates are too many, and those who can sway them, means deceive them by speeches etc, govern the country – so Ayn Rand / English readers don’t matter politically. Some inconsequential aspects of Western Philosophy may exist during graduation, but usually only those aspects which have at least some consonance with ancient Indian philosophy. Plato appears every year during graduation for the obvious reason – his mysticism matches with India’s – books are available showing how he is similar to, or the same, as ancient Indian philosophy (Upanishads to be specific). Generally, Ayn Rand types of Westerners are considered as murderers for preaching evil of ego and selfishness! (That is why that author of FB-Posts has said elsewhere that he is persecuted / ostracized.) It would be too much to expect Bastiat to be known in India barring some individuals. Following topics you evoked are handled in the above FB-Posts: Plato’s remarks on democracy, Socialism and Nehru (Gandhi is Father of Nation), present leader / regime uses religion / hate of minorities to build it’s vote-block. UN as world-govt: There is so much misunderstanding about British colonization, about the UN that we will HAVE TO talk about it in detail if we want a real understanding, and which we will do subsequently – presently, just see the above FB-Posts -- Ayn Rand on UN too appears there. Americans don’t like their past relation with the British, BUT: present successive govts are worse, and surely taking America to the abyss. Ancient Indian philosophy, Rig Veda etc – other than Western philosophy of individualism (which today’s western rulers are destroying) all other philosophies are savagery, end into sacrifice and non-egoism so that rulers can crush the ruled under them – the essence of that philosophy, viz unselfishness and non-egoism, is so much infused in Indians’ heads that it cannot be taken out – so see its consequence on today’s rule in India in the above FB-posts. Thanks again and hope to continue the dialogue further.

Thank you Stephen, Your long, studied comment is a morale-booster. I thought it merits a separate post in response because of the topic at hand, and the innumerable issues you raked up. Please see my next OP titled: "Response to Stephen Boydstun’s long comment on my OP about US Expansionism and Evil of the UN."

This post contains 1 legally disallowed term "retarded" which I was not aware of at the time of posting. I request people to help me in rectifying it because I could not find how to edit the post. Thanks in advance. Jacob Smith

I came across an article by an Indian who seems to have some knowledge about American philosophy / politics. To keep it small, I am reproducing an important part of this article – if people are interested I will reproduce it entirely. Within what I have quoted below, there is an important sub-article: The most important problem of democracy in brief: Unless we find an answer to that problem, we will never stop America’s slow, imperceptible slide to the abyss. QUOTE US EXPANSIONISM, THE EVIL ROLE OF THE UN, AND THE NECESSITY FOR INDIA TO CHANGE Will the UN World-Government destroy civilization? Following write-up is mainly against “democracy” which is not analyzed in human history so far – it explains how, in the long run, all governments on earth will fall due to democracy, and how democracy will ultimately destroy civilization. Presently, Western governments are proceeding towards that fall, colonization and “UN World-Government”, are parts of that erosion. PROLOGUE In the year 1999–2000 I worked in Iraq under the UN’s Oil for Food Program. During this posting I realized that the UN, subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize for its “humanitarian activities”, was a massive fraud perpetrated on man-kind by the West, created to play the role of East India Company, to give a semblance of legality to the colonial activities of the West. I also found that like the planned fall of so many countries all over the earth, India too could fall in the coming years, for which the foundation was possibly being laid now. I have identified five strong reasons why the West will want to destabilize India in the coming days. The US today has its military and controlling influence over more than 100 countries on earth, this being a continuation of European conquest of the five continents, the baton having been passed from the Europeans to the Americans after WWII. It is not being realized so much because American style is different from European style. While observing the above, I also realized that the US easily succeeds in its global endeavors because of the inherent weaknesses and drawbacks of these undeveloped countries – as part of their backwardness, THEY MURDER RATIONAL USE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THEIR SOCIETY! I suffered very heavily during upbringing, it almost destroyed my life – but when I said that the UN is a danger to India, I suffered extreme persecution from educated upper caste Indians led by Brahmins! A further characteristic of these undeveloped countries is that they adamantly refuse to acknowledge their drawbacks, do not allow self-introspection and self-criticism, but rather murder self-righteously from behind what they call as “our ancient culture / civilization”. This binds them into a vicious circle of strong opposition to, and yet, a continuous defeat at the hands of the West. TODAY, i am almost ready to challenge the american president; it will happen fast if i get support from indians – instead i am afraid for my life! Because of all the above, there is a contradictory requirement that the men of undeveloped societies have to simultaneously guard themselves from the Westerners, and at the same time, learn a lot from them. Overall, there is a far greater need for undeveloped societies to change and improve, rather than keep cursing the westerners. In the write-up below, I am very briefly developing the above points one by one: 1. America’s / West’s greatness and erosion due to democracy, 2. UN as the most evil organization on earth which will finally destroy civilization and, 3. Need for undeveloped societies to change. I have written books about these topics, but it is not possible to produce them here, and DEMOCRACY BEING UNCHARTED TERRITORY, i.e. not much work having been done on it, it is difficult to understand without proper / lengthy explanations, but still I will give a gist below. AMERICA’s GREATNESS AND DEGENERATION DUE TO DEMOCRACY if people are interested I will supply this part later. The most important problem of democracy in brief: I will explain this problem briefly as follows: There were 25 FFs (Founding Fathers) – they had strong differences of opinion to the extent of endangering the fledgling republic, but honesty was a major virtue everybody possessed then (erosion due to democracy had not happened – in fact their only big weakness was that they had not locked the republic properly.) Society was strongly under their influence i.e respected their thinking, VOLUNTARILY considered them to be Patricians. But because democracy was never analyzed before, the weakness of democracy was not recognized which has become glaring today – while each of the FFs had a single unit value as far as voting is concerned (i.e. determining America’s course / future), today there is a massive parasitical “doles vote-block” that has nothing to do with their thinking (means does not want to work at all), in fact declares those great men to be racists, enslavers, capitalist exploiters etc – Mitt Romney is reported to have said (during presidential campaign) that these are approximately 50% of America, but I am conservatively estimating them at 33%, still they are millions of Americans!! I found it reported on the net that 14% or 32 million Americans are considered illiterate while many above them are hardly literate! There are also the mentally retarded cases, the lunatics, the die-hard criminals who never did productive work nor intend to ever do it, and so on and on. All these votes, bereft of any thought except FREEBIES – and abuses for emancipator-FFs -- have the same unit value as the FFs – imagine 25 votes of FFs, the most enlightened, magnanimous men, versus today’s millions who hate them / their thinking, having the same unit vote-value adding to millions of votes – do you think that this kind of a political system, or rulers determined by such people, will remain stable, will not collapse sooner than later? (In fact it is holding on for so long only because of the greatness of those people, of their enlightenment.) I have talked about challenging the American President: the above question can be taken as the first challenge, and in fact the challenge can be taken by entire America, Europe, and India, by anybody on earth who has knowledge about statecraft!! Collapse is imminent, faster in case of undeveloped societies, and delayed to the extent of development in developed societies! This is “the most important problem of democracy in brief” -- solution is needed for that, and I have it as further parts of my book! So let us see the effect of these millions of voters in the following sub-articles. END OF QUOTE FROM THE AUTHOR’S BOOK, BUT QUOTE FROM HIS ARTICLE CONTINUES (Here I cannot reproduce the around 50-100 pages of how America is proceeding towards collapse due to democracy, but only give its gist: when politicians and the lower strata of society (millions of parasites of the “doles vote-block”) realize that the latter have huge influence in electing politicians, initially mediocre politicians will get elected, then slowly dishonest ones will emerge, dishonesty will keep rising and finally the principle “murderer wins over the pick-pocket” will manifest, the dictator will take over. See how fast this has become true about India below, it being only a matter of more time with the West. Here I will add a gist of another sub-article in my book, “Civilization turning full circle” – at great cost of martyrdom, punishments like burning at the stake, ostracism and confiscation of everything, losing everything in wars, with huge life-long efforts, fights and posthumous eulogy (example Galileo), heroes extract mankind out of tribalism, slavery of totalitarian murderous dictatorships and other long horrible Dark Ages. The civilization and knowledge they bring also liberates the lowest strata people who have no idea of heroism, of the fight and the sacrifices, and have no idea of individualism, of the fact that they have to sustain themselves. Eventually, in the long run, THEY FIND THOSE FROM UPPER STRATA OF SOCIETY WHO SEE SELF-INTEREST IN PROMOTING THEIR PARASITISM, who make and continuously increase demands on the productive people till the demands divide society, till it ends in today’s social atmosphere described above (author’s article), till it ends in dishonesty winning over honesty, vices winning over virtues. That way the lowest stratum ends civilization! Same as “the most important problem of democracy” described above.

The wrong part about it is as follows: Woodrow Wilson was the first one to delink dollar from gold, followed by fellow Dem FDR’s note-printing program. It was opposed tooth and nail by GOP as their major political plank. But when the Dems took socialism to the hilt, GOP could not produce good intellectual arguments – means in fact they failed in defending America’s original theory of individualism, which they claim to uphold as Conservatives. So instead they took the other irrationality as their election plank – the Dems’ main plank was “love for the poor” (socialism); the GOP’s became “capitalism” form behind which they perpetrated plutocracy, helping the money-bags via war-mongering, etc. That GOP became a party hand in hand with MNCs is not a causeless myth, it was so after Dems’ massive socialist push. War-mongering was meant to support the MIC (military industrial complex) of MNCs, and to support it, Nixon delinked dollar from gold, shamelessly hanging Woodrow Wilson’s photo in White House so as to pre-empt opposition from Dems. (Reagan continued the line with his famous quote – “Debt does not matter”). There is nothing wrong in some MNCs shifting base to low-tax locations – but as a planned move because of inability to uphold one’s proudly proclaimed philosophy (individualism and opposition to socialism), it is shameful. The other points related with this: China was far beyond mild socialism – it was arch-communism, also projected as a scarecrow by Conzs – but it was on death-bed because of Mao’s actions, and the same Conzs shamelessly resuscitated it – means opposition to socialism, China as a the most evil empire and threat to America and plus bringing China out of grave and strengthening it. To resuscitate China Nixon gave the world one of his three famous shocks – first one was overnight delinking dollar from gold without the world having any idea; for the second shock, Kissinger became unwell in Islamabad and suddenly appeared in Beijing, till then the most evil monster. That was because their MNCs needed to use cheap China labor. The third time Nixon himself too got shocked along with the world – Watergate!! For an appreciable time after the New Deal most MNCs were with GOP – only after the realization that Dems’ doles vote block was solid, they could not be kept away from power for too long, and the need for immigrants to do software etc works (including banking for Wall Street too), a substantial number of money-bags shifted to Dems. Also see contradiction: a major reason for GOP’s opposition to migrants is loss of American jobs – but shifting all factories did not do that? Not merely low tax, they also wanted cheap labor; but for that the solution is not shifting all factories, war-mongering etc, but to defend properly against Dems’ socialism, for which they do not adequate intellectuality. Both the parties are equally cheap and have contributed to the erosion of America, though Dems’ socialistic push is sort of the more harmful blow. While I detest both the parties equally, it was for the first time that Michael Spencer’s blog shed light that they are not doing this purposely so as to destroy America, but that democracy is more of a culprit, the competition being to get more votes – since the majority goes on increasing as we go to the lower side of the social pyramid, their policies are aimed at winning these voters, hence giving in to evil. This is the first time that I saw such good analysis about why America is slowly but surely sliding without breaks. Also: it’s a bit surprising what Spencer has to say about the policies of the two parties – below I am quoting from his website Quote What American politicians have done is not a “first time genius” – they have just repeated a classic and well-documented performance! See how old the original is: A man named Plato wrote, to surprising accuracy, what the Romans would exactly do a few centuries later, to be again repeated by Americans 2400 years after him. I am not an admirer of Plato’s philosophy; rather consider his “Philosopher-Ruler” to be every rational man’s biggest enemy. But Plato has made one of the most important and original studies of the decay of society, Greeks and Romans learnt a lot from it, and Americans improved upon Romans. Yet nobody has been able to bring a solution to the problem of erosion of republic into democracy and then collapse. Plato is describing what I have called above as ‘compulsions of majoritarian democracy’. Unquote I am quoting only a very small part, but I do believe that all those serious about restoring rationality in American society should study this website. The ideas are absolutely unique, nobody has studied democracy the way he has, and are absolutely necessary if we want to stop the slide. Especially for Objectivists who consider Ayn Rand to be infallible goddess and really believe O’ism will conquer the whole world in future: Michael Spencer has dedicated his book to her, but the fact remains that neither Ayn Rand nor any of her followers studied democracy. They wrote extensively on Capitalism and Dictatorship, but democracy is a mixture of these two and also has characteristics of its own, and cannot be stopped without studying those characteristics. See further details on Spencer’s website.

The wrong part about it is as follows: Woodrow Wilson was the first one to delink dollar from gold, followed by fellow Dem FDR’s note-printing program. It was opposed tooth and nail by GOP as their major political plank. But when the Dems took socialism to the hilt, GOP could not produce good intellectual arguments – means in fact they failed in defending America’s original theory of individualism, which they claim to uphold as Conservatives. So instead they took the other irrationality as their election plank – the Dems’ main plank was “love for the poor” (socialism); the GOP’s became “capitalism” form behind which they perpetrated plutocracy, helping the money-bags via war-mongering, etc. That GOP became a party hand in hand with MNCs is not a causeless myth, it was so after Dems’ massive socialist push. War-mongering was meant to support the MIC (military industrial complex) of MNCs, and to support it, Nixon delinked dollar from gold, shamelessly hanging Woodrow Wilson’s photo in White House so as to pre-empt opposition from Dems. (Reagan continued the line with his famous quote – “Debt does not matter”). There is nothing wrong in some MNCs shifting base to low-tax locations – but as a planned move because of inability to uphold one’s proudly proclaimed philosophy (individualism and opposition to socialism), it is shameful. The other points related with this: China was far beyond mild socialism – it was arch-communism, also projected as a scarecrow by Conzs – but it was on death-bed because of Mao’s actions, and the same Conzs shamelessly resuscitated it – means opposition to socialism, China as a the most evil empire and threat to America and plus bringing China out of grave and strengthening it. To resuscitate China Nixon gave the world one of his three famous shocks – first one was overnight delinking dollar from gold without the world having any idea; for the second shock, Kissinger became unwell in Islamabad and suddenly appeared in Beijing, till then the most evil monster. That was because their MNCs needed to use cheap China labor. The third time Nixon himself too got shocked along with the world – Watergate!! For an appreciable time after the New Deal most MNCs were with GOP – only after the realization that Dems’ doles vote block was solid, they could not be kept away from power for too long, and the need for immigrants to do software etc works (including banking for Wall Street too), a substantial number of money-bags shifted to Dems. Also see contradiction: a major reason for GOP’s opposition to migrants is loss of American jobs – but shifting all factories did not do that? Not merely low tax, they also wanted cheap labor; but for that the solution is not shifting all factories, war-mongering etc, but to defend properly against Dems’ socialism, for which they do not adequate intellectuality. Both the parties are equally cheap and have contributed to the erosion of America, though Dems’ socialistic push is sort of the more harmful blow. While I detest both the parties equally, it was for the first time that Michael Spencer’s blog shed light that they are not doing this purposely so as to destroy America, but that democracy is more of a culprit, the competition being to get more votes – since the majority goes on increasing as we go to the lower side of the social pyramid, their policies are aimed at winning these voters, hence giving in to evil. This is the first time that I saw such good analysis about why America is slowly but surely sliding without breaks. Also: it’s a bit surprising what Spencer has to say about the policies of the two parties – below I am quoting from his website Quote What American politicians have done is not a “first time genius” – they have just repeated a classic and well-documented performance! See how old the original is: A man named Plato wrote, to surprising accuracy, what the Romans would exactly do a few centuries later, to be again repeated by Americans 2400 years after him. I am not an admirer of Plato’s philosophy; rather consider his “Philosopher-Ruler” to be every rational man’s biggest enemy. But Plato has made one of the most important and original studies of the decay of society, Greeks and Romans learnt a lot from it, and Americans improved upon Romans. Yet nobody has been able to bring a solution to the problem of erosion of republic into democracy and then collapse. Plato is describing what I have called above as ‘compulsions of majoritarian democracy’. Unquote I am quoting only a very small part, but I do believe that all those serious about restoring rationality in American society should study this website. The ideas are absolutely unique, nobody has studied democracy the way he has, and are absolutely necessary if we want to stop the slide. Especially for Objectivists who consider Ayn Rand to be infallible goddess and really believe O’ism will conquer the whole world in future: Michael Spencer has dedicated his book to her, but the fact remains that neither Ayn Rand nor any of her followers studied democracy. They wrote extensively on Capitalism and Dictatorship, but democracy is a mixture of these two and also has characteristics of its own, and cannot be stopped without studying those characteristics. See further details on Spencer’s website.

The original dollar printing program was started by Woodrow Wilson to help BOE in evading rationality (‘Sir’ Alan has written a good article about it in “Capitalism -- The Unknown Ideal”, but later he turned renegade, turn-coat etc -- Why? -- because GOP had taken over the agenda from the Dems and is printing far more dollars for their military-industrial complex (MIC) and plutocracy than the Dems’ welfare state. It is GOP’s MNCs that have driven American factories to China to evade huge taxes, min wages etc while talking nonsense about China and Russia being threats. All those factories were owned by their plutocrats at least when the pushing happened and China was resuscitated, brought out from grave. But now the things have gone too far and mere discussion about dollar’s value, Fed’s printing program, economics etc is not going to help -- discussion can be done for academic purposes, but I don’t think it will help. These Von Mises, Friedman, Ayn Rand -- all may be geniuses, but genius is a liability in the game they call as “Democracy” (see Toohey’s lecture to Dominique after the Stoddard trial); none will get 5% votes while Dame Hillary commands around 50%. What is needed is a fundamental change, viz. going back to Founding Fathers’ (FFs’) constitution, which also involves countering GOP’s MIC and plutocracy, not merely the Dems’ welfare state. The Fed, the power-grab by the Federal Govt, all of it will come under question -- all of it has one single root -- democracy, into which FFs’ Republic has slid decades back. Bretton-Woods was meant to do away the dollar-printing factory because of the experience of the Great Depression. GOP was not that very bad a party, in fact they were opponents of New Deal and dollar printing, etc but the reason why Nixon became Wilson’s son (he hung his photo in White House to justify delinking dollar from gold) because of GOP’s inability to counter Dems’ welfare state. Demo Party Platform of 1960 is a massive downward jump -- the Man’s Rights that they declared therein is as good as a covert civil war, except that it is slow-poisoning by the drop by drop, ml by ml, mm by mm method of the welfare state, therefore not identified as civil war so far. But America is eroded because of the actions of the Dems post Wilson! All these complex issues, how to undo democracy and go back to FFs’ Republic etc are all explained by Michal Spencer in the blog which I visited thanks to Democles. This discussion about dollar collapse has lot of knowledge -- the problem is that knowledge has very low value in the system that is ruling us today, democracy.

I always had this question in mind too. One does not keep changing partners and it is not so easy to fall out in love with a person who is very good already but just because one sees someone better. If you can stop loving a person that easily as women in AR books , I doubt whether you had ever loved them at all

Morality exists where choice exists. In such a case of a desert island, if the man has no choice but to steal, and if it is nothing big, then it is quite understandable and excusable. Circumstances of man have to be taken in view before deciding verdict on him or else it will be like the case of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables

"Struggle" is not necessarily same as "Pain". The whole reason of doing what you like and making it a profession(as Roark had explained in "The Fountainhead") is that you can live a happy life since you spend most of your life working so the work has to be something which gives you happiness. If you are into a profession which you don't like the least, then it becomes painful. But working hard for a thing you are passionate about, may be considered a struggle but not a pain

All virtues belong to the subcategory of 'values'. But Objectivist virtues(or virtues of any philosophy) are not universal values(that is, values for everyone). Objectivists virtues are values for Objectivists but may not be so for Altruists.

Rand admired Hugo's sense of life

Poetry is one of the form of literature. It is not a different category of art altogether such as music or dance or painting. Romantic Manifesto does not deal with different forms of art within the same category

Yes it is Socialism.

Murder and forcing others is out of question. No one is advocating here that if someone's work is considered to be of less value than someone else, they should be forced to do something or their rights can be violated by the individuals that have more value. When we talk about values of an individual, we assume that the only system appropriate to reward them according to their respective values is Capitalism. And in such a system, forcing others to work for yourself(if that was what you meant) or forcing them in any other way is out of question. I was primarily replying to the question of this topic here. Someone had said that he/she doesn't see why an electrician or a plumber can be of any less value than a scientist or a businessmen. So my simple answer was that the work of a plumber cannot stretch beyond range of a moment and can possibly not affect that many people as a work of scientist(which can affect nations even and which is impossible for a plumber to achieve though he may be an honest, rational man who is productive in his own profession) and saying that a scientist is more valuable than an electrician doesn't mean electrician is a moocher. There can be contextual analysis of some specific unique cases but on a general principle, there will be some difference between a productive scientist or a businessman and a productive electrician and both possessing faculty to reason etc is not even the topic here; it is about their relative worth.

It is a good video, though doesn't answer "Why modern are is so bad" but tells that it is bad. Ayn Rand had something very logical to say about this and she attributed the aesthetic principles of modern art to Kant

When we make any abstractions, we cannot look at all the specific cases. We possibly cannot look at every individual doctor, scientist etc to determine their character and then reach to a conclusion. Philosophical analysis cannot be done in that way. When I talked about scientists , businessmen etc , the assumption was that I was talking about productive, self-made ones and not some distorted cases who have reached positions they do not deserve or are not fit for. But by principle, a scientist or a writer has much more value to offer than a bricklayer or a maid. When we talk about value , the question is "of value to whom and for what". Now a work of scientist or a businessman has some value to offer to thousands of people, but same is not true for the work of a maid, whose work is sought by maximum a handful of people and which of which hundreds of substitutes can be found. If not one maid, I will get another tomorrow. But I will not get two Edisons as easily as I will get two maids. And the work of Edison is benefiting even me today, though he himself died long ago; is that true for the work of a maid?. It is simply beyond the scope of his/her work. So there is no reason why thousands of people should consider the work of a maid to be of equal value, but on the other hand, those same thousands would find the work of the scientist valuable because they are benefited from it and even after centuries they continue to be benefited; whereas the work of a maid is more of less range of the moment and does not extend any further. Anyways, this assertion that every human , no matter in what profession, is of equal value, leads to a marxist society at the end. Because if you say that a clerk in a company provides work of equal value as a CEO of that company, then it is only a logical consequence that both should get the same output in terms of same salary etc. And saying that their is no distinction between the skills, intelligence, output etc provided by any of anyone profession(Except totally unemployed ones and as long as all perform their respective works honestly) is same as saying that all men should get equal value in terms of rewards and that is the same thing which Karl Marx, the founder of Communism advocated. He refused to see that there was any difference between a manual worker and an entrepreneur and hence why should an entrepreneur get anything more?

Objectivism never considers electricians or average workers or moochers or parasites. But it is a fact that they are not as 'great' as businessmen, scientists etc. You will have to read Ayn Rand's concept of 'intellectual pyramid' to understand this. The value created by an average manual worker is though productive, does not extend much to anyone except himself and is mostly range of the moment. But the values created by the top most members of the intellectual pyramid extends to all the members below them. Even after centuries, we are benefited by work of a scientist or a philosopher, hence it is of a much greater value than the work of bricklayer which does not extend to that extent and neither does it require the same amount of intelligence, however, that does not mean they are moochers. But they not being moochers is not same as them being equal to great inventors of the world.

Such a form of Government depends on the acceptance of Objectivism, or atleast some amount of rationality by citizens. And since it is only in individuals' hands to decide whether they will be rational or not, and if yes, then will they be in a sufficient number to bring about such a change, is a question which hence cannot be predicted just like Ayn Rand said she would not venture to predict if Objectivism will be a widely followed philosophy on earth one day or not

Whether participating in a war is altruist or not, depends on particular individuals and the reason why they are participating and no general or universal answer can be drawn. If in a free country like America, if someone volunteers to participate for a cause they consider to be just and for which they are even willing to risk their lives, then it is not altruistic. But if in some communist country, someone goes to war only as a duty or for a blind obedience to state, then it is altruistic.