whYNOT

What is going on? Is Yaron Brook et al developing a "social conscience" into Objectivism?! That's a sign of subjectivity and relativism.

I drew a parallel of two considered 'misogynists'. (WC was heard to be rude to one or two women, he didn't suffer fools). I mentioned nothing about Rand, btw. And who said Trump (or Churchill for that matter) was misogynistic? Or even racist? Only his critics, bred in political correctness and social metaphysics. I don't think it's true, obviously, why I said "supposed". And I did not and do not "elevate" misogyny to a virtue - bla, bla. Misogyny, another brand of collectivism. Save the lecture for someone who needs it. Objective argument is to argue in essentials, not quibbling on inessentials. Churchill, for all his perceived or real flaws, was instrumental in keeping Britain free from Nazi fascism. If anyone reads this as Trump, his flaws notwithstanding, being the last line of defense against Leftist/Marxist fascism, be my guest..

You'd have to wonder how history could have changed if another supposed "misogynist", Winston Churchill, had not risen to Prime Minister and another - and nicer one - had appeased Hitler, at that critical crossroads. He was from many accounts, brashly unpleasant, certainly a British Imperialist, one could say, a "Nationalist", and physically unattractive (all black marks against him in today's socially sensitized context) who happened to have a more acute view of reality than any politician, and a foreboding of a future and dominant Nazi Europe which the Britons' freedom and character would never submit to. His unpopular (among the upper class, those elitists) stand against Hitler eventually united the country in the effort of 'sacrifice' and resistance in order to keep this value. But that was also a generation of people with more individual courage and integrity to do what was right, less concerned with stifling, surface pretences of 'social virtue'.

AlexL, we are conceptual beings *because* we first regard and induce instances of reality - in this case - a person's words/behavior, and infer certain traits of character and assess the intent of the person. This is only doable by each individual, one can't "see" for another. I cannot list everyone of those instances re: Trump - I haven't followed nor remember more than a quoted sampling of his often extravagant Tweets and watch the malicious CNN a bare minimum lately. Plenty enough instances and reactions in the past 3years though to extrapolate an inference. Such as when (e.g.) he made a sympathetic-sounding remark for that Ghislaine Maxwell being arrested. Outrage erupted, with the media trying to link him to the sleazy operation, claiming his sympathy meant he must have been one of her clients! (Turns out he was referring ironically to her survival chances in the wake of Epstein's death...). He was playing the media again. Who are so insane with loathing they fall for his ploys every time. So CNN, etc. is exposed for its bad and biased journalism. (A trait of Leftists I constantly note is not being able to see, let alone acknowledge, their own contradictions or hypocrisy - they never seem to be embarrassed when caught out in deceit and corruption; but other people there and abroad do, are amused by the MSM and lose most trust in them). In short, Trump deceives them with his minor asides and sleight of hand, which reveals their premises. Similar with Det. Colombo who only needed to act (purposely) dumb, then, to allow his suspects enough rope to hang themselves with. Like above, the suspects took him literally but not seriously (at their cost).

No, I have not. One has to have observed the course of events closely for oneself. You'd have to have made many inferential deductions to pick up those characteristics of Trump.

As a president intent upon ~American self-interests and independence~, free from prior (economic/military) encumbrances, - yes, I think this is evident. He explicitly has advanced this. An "anti-altruist" president, I said and repeat - in practice and by consequence, I did not say by philosophical conviction. I have also remarked that he is squarely in favor of individual American self-responsibility, which I thought evident. He displays few of the flaws of Nanny-ism which pervade most national leaders with highly submissive populations, and which is increasing in the USA. I did NOT state, and do not mean, he is ethically "FOR rational self interest". That's another thing. There has never been such a world leader. You made that leap. Trump's so-called "narcissism" - I think is grandiosity - is a job-requirement for every politician with aspirations for high Office, some just hide it better under a show of humility and modesty, than others. Although I'd have voted for Obama's first term, for instance, it was clear to me that he also had a (subtle) grandiose - "narcissistic" - tendency which didn't initially put me off him. Should I say this simply? Trump has shown he is against a self-sacrificial America. One which the rest of the world has long taken for granted and depended on while also disparaging. When dealing with foreign countries he's also indicated how they could act in their self-interests ("make a good deal") if they choose. Therefore is "anti-altruist". While he has publicly denounced Socialism, right, he might have mixed premises in policy decisions. As have all presidents. But for full-blown Socialism let the Democrats have their way for some terms. Trump represents the block on that outcome. For a while.

Nice analogy d_w. Some of both, Colombo's (seeming) ingenuous naivete, lulling his suspects into arrogantly exposing their guilt and a bumbling Pyle. lol.

Used to be "the laughing stocK", except that (I believed) from very early it was a mockery hiding the fear of such an undiplomatic, non-PC, non virtue-signaling, and basically anti-altruist president of America, who was rattling and disturbing the new status quo of an anticipated - and sacrificial - global utopia that most of the West has been dreaming into. That used to be so, but like here in SA, where Black Lives Matter has entered via the internet and news media, (thanks, btw ;)) and every two-bit intellectual is spouting anti-white rhetoric to blame for their and some of their people's and this government's inept failures - all of a sudden lately the loud TDS Leftists whom my wife and I know, have gone silent on Facebook. One or two have openly expressed that "Well, Trump might not be so bad, if that's what his opponents are like". Like here, surely that goes in many countries, when sacrificing hits home personally, people are wakening to reality, having second thoughts about Trump, not finding him so ridiculous after all ...

Yup, chaotic and erratic, discomfiting at times. Together with the clownishness, he ¬seems¬ to give the impression of not knowing what he's doing, but I think most of it's bluff by Twitter to throw off or tease his virulent media opponents into frenzies. Such as delaying the election and even extending his term, which he retracts later. He does know what he wants to attain for the US in the long run, and it spells greater freedom plus self-responsibility for Americans, not less. The saying is apt: his supporters take him seriously but not literally, his enemies take him literally but not seriously. I'd not be fooled, he is dead serious.

“The dogmatic Objectivist desperately tries to reduce principles to concrete rules that can be applied automatically, like a ritual, so as to bypass the responsibility of thinking and moral analysis. These are ‘Objectivist’ ritualists. They want Objectivism to give them what a religion promises, namely, ten or one hundred commandments, which they can apply without having to think or judge anything.” — Ayn Rand The responsibility of thinking and moral analysis - yes. And holding to context. As far as open immigration goes, there's no problem with that in itself, but a few little itty-bitty things that make up the context, like the welfare state, minimum wage laws**, affirmative action, and so on would first need repealing. Only then, without those incentives for some/many migrants/immigrants to advantage themselves from the system, could the borders be opened. WITH that context, open migration amounts to altruism. And not "open" in the sense of free access - unless also the mandatory law to carry identification for all existing citizens were repealed; I'd think the migrant-immigrant would still need to be registered on entry and be given identity documents like everyone. **Obviously, wage laws that penalize the present workers, facing the artificial competition in the new people who could find jobs at far less wages, and are prepared to.

The Republican "reform", post President Trump? I take that to mean the GOP will return to being a party of gentlemen who fight clean, Queensbury Rules, whatever tricks their opposition get up to. Not a street fighter like Trump (which Yaron disapproves of, apparently). But what about the reverse, and the Dems' "reform", if Biden doesn't win? It seems quite apparent that they and their electorate are hanging together very tenuously, with only one unifying aim - defeating Trump. For now it is a party which spreads across from the moderates to the extremists and neo-Marxists. Their new bed partners and their destructive, divisive ways have to make the moderate support most unhappy about the Party's direction, but will put up with them for now to achieve the required numbers. But if Biden loses, a fair prediction is that something healthier will come of it, my guess is the Democrat pols/supporters will fragment in internal blame and strife and eventually split their loyalty back into the traditional, centered Democrats, but many swapping allegiance into the Socialist Party. The SPUSA will become a bigger contender as a result, but not strong enough for a long while, if ever. A return then to some honesty and candor in US politics. At very least, the Democrats will change identity to a Social Democrat Party to try to keep everybody under the same roof. The very open secret is that Biden's running mate will be the president when Joe will be 'asked' to retire due to ill health after one term (or before), and all eyes are on who "she" will be. You have to feel a little sorry for him, he must know he's a cat's paw - Trojan Horse, I heard him called - who's only there to present a relatively respectable mask on the disreputable Dem elements, to beat Trump.

This is a great analysis. Reminds one that an Objectivist institution should stay out of broadcasting their political personae preferences, and, particularly not commanding and speaking for Objectivists at large. ("Sell-outs to Objectivism"?!). Rand could and did give her advisement - and too she allowed for caveats in her judgments. But who has the predictive-conceptual capacity of Rand, or her reckoning of a person's character virtues/flaws, or what she saw in their "sense of life". Especially not her abstractive grasp of the essential nature of America. So why try to imitate her? Is it that ARI's internet exposure needs to be more 'relevant'? And why specifically so anti- Trump? Perhaps, I'll surmise, the 'market' for future Objectivists is perceived to be from among the secularist-atheists, while naturally not from the religious-conservatives (although many are known to have accord with Objectivist political theory). Therefore, in the subject matter and tone of many articles/essays I've read in recent times which are otherwise very good, if predictable, ARI writers have consistently leaned towards the Leftists, at times looked to be pandering to them. Please leave each O'ist to his/her own judgment calls in these matters.

A nation that is of value to a person will be inclusive by him of every other citizen who was born there or equally becomes a legal citizen there, in that sovereign nation. The outsider - the other - needs to go through the same process and would be keen to ... if he/she perceives that value too. I see Trump as extremely embracing of all who do. In essence: That you are "here" indicates your value in America and to America. I have never bought into that xenophopic/racist criticism by people who, in the final analysis don't understand Trump's love for the country and view him with cynicism: he's out for himself. What I also could not help gather over the last 20+ years is the gradual decline in pride in the USA by Americans. It came through most visibly from the (Leftist) media and powerfully too by the (Leftist) movie industry, in the content and themes of many or most of its films. The third leg has been well documented by many commentators, being the Leftist professors and teachers in colleges. With almost complete control of those three areas, it's clear that the Left/Progressives/etc. have dominated many citizens' attitudes and it shows. First came self-doubt (America isn't and wasn't perfect, many mistakes and moral grievances were committed). Then loss of confidence, in even the Constitution. Then cynicism. The shame felt by many for their country became extremely apparent just now, destroying monuments/taking a knee/riots/"systemic racism"- meekly accepted as morally-valid assaults on the country. In the last 10 years the drift I notice has been outwards, towards the Old World and merging the US character/political/cultural nature closer with the (supposedly) 'sophisticated, European elitism'. This sea-change of many Americans' attitudes to the USA, the rhino in the parlor, needs to be acknowledged here in the election debate. This is a crucial turning point, for you and for the world - obviously not "politics as normal". The battle is ideological, for the soul of a nation. And if "Biden is our only hope" - America will succumb one way or other to the self-disgust promoted by some/many Leftist Americans.

To "bring factions together", ET, is what individuals do of their own accord. At work and leisure etc. with each other in freedom of association. A government should not be charged with any more than protecting rights and rule of law, irrespective of 'group' and faction identity. And make a bigger mess when they attempt to do so. Even Obama didn't manage to do so, to bridge the much-exaggerated racial divide, while there were high hopes he could. The "faction" which is on the hard Left is presently and clearly doing its damnedest to not be brought together, to go all-out "radicalized", to maintain and increase the division in America - all to intimidate voters in the next election. That is Marxist-inspired fascism already in action, with the implied threat that they will arise and cause havoc and fear at any stage the Left doesn't approve of something. This shock-troop tactic is what I saw happen in Zimbabwean elections and in South Africa. If there's a hint of Trump's supposed racism, that is all gleaned from the racialist media; I notice he is totally color blind as is any resort builder accustomed to working with multi-races on construction projects, and dealing personally with everyone from foreign heads of State down to the worker on the site. His black and Hispanic supporters know that. The nation's divisions - wealth and racial, mainly - were already occurring, pre-Trump. He was the catalyst not the cause of them coming to the surface.

Today's total of pandemic deaths in the United Kingdom: 45,961. Estimated possible deaths by the Imperial College back in April: approx. 5 million for the UK. A little off, yeah? Something similar was the prognosis for the USA which I don't recall right now, but out by also a large factor. Heh. Tell me that's science denial. The experts' own figures. But do your own fact checks.