Category Archives: Politics

The Hostile Takeover Of The Republican Party Will Continue

Posted on by
Reply

Being a Republican voter is no easy thing.  Social media censor you.  Companies fire you.  The Department of Justice persecutes you.  Democrats assault and harass you.  And all the while, most Republican Party “leaders” stand back and do nothing as they watch.  We’ve got the only political party in modern history controlled by a small group of elected officials who fundamentally disagree with the prevailing viewpoints of 90% of the voters who put them in office.

Election after election, their unstated yet indisputable campaign slogan is simply, “Vote for us because we don’t hate you quite as much as the other guys.”  (I’m not even sure that’s true!)

This disconnect between Republican voters and Republican oligarchs has endured for decades, but I do not think it will survive much longer.  The reason why is that the average Joe has figured out D.C.’s Uniparty game: take one “ruling class” dedicated to power and money and nothing more, divide that small class of swindlers into two nearly identical political parties, pretend those two criminal cabals hate each other when the opposite is true, and present the American people with a choice-in-name-only every election.

You can vote for the Big Government socialists invested in totalitarianism or the Big Government socialists invested in empire and world domination.  (Note: The parties may swap that small distinction depending on the decade.)  That’s American “democracy” in a nutshell — a hallowed ritual for electing criminals to positions of power from where they can commit even grander crimes with impunity in the name of the people.  In exchange for their dedication to fleecing and betraying us, we christen streets, marble halls, and naval vessels after their worst offenders.

Name another profession whose whole business model is centered on creating problems where none exists, so that the same people who created them can spend enormous sums of money guaranteed to make things worse.  Only politicians could declare a “war on poverty,” waste tens of trillions of dollars, and get more poverty.  Only criminal kingpins could declare a “war on drugs” while keeping America’s unprotected borders open to narco-terrorists and subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry in its efforts to hook Americans on opiates.Only an unpatriotic Uniparty invested in making money, not achieving victory, could spend two decades at war, accomplish little, botch retreat, and then repopulate the homeland with nationals from the same countries we’ve been fighting.  If poverty, drug use, and global threats to peace have never been worse, then the politicians are winning!  Stealing taxpayers’ wealth to create crises that require stealing more from taxpayers is the normal business cycle of the ruling class.  Only policy failure can produce success!

Once people grasp this perverse incentive structure for elected criminals, then seemingly inscrutable problems become easy to understand.  Is it true that the U.S. government was actually investing money in the same Chinese bio-weapons lab that may have unleashed COVID-19 upon the world?  Why would the feds use taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous experiments in a communist country that is arguably America’s most serious geopolitical foe?  Those reasonable questions presume that officials infused with a bare modicum of ethics or morality represent us.

Ask instead: has the “health emergency” given our gangster government more authority?  Has it allowed congressional criminals to spend recklessly on an ever-mutating problem?  Has it widened the divide between the powerful and the powerless?  If so, then aiding our enemies in the development of bio-weapons has been a rousing success.  Once you accept that the Uniparty produces for mass consumption both misery and misery’s antidote, then any manner of duplicitous treachery against American citizens makes perfect sense.

Now try your hand at immigration and inflation.  Thirty years ago, Americans had the strongest middle class in the world.  That should have been a good thing, right?  Not if your business model depends on voters being dependent on government checks!  A robust middle class means economic self-sufficiency and independence.  An impoverished population means an empowered government.

Seen from the vantage point of our ruling criminals, they had no other choice than to offshore American jobs in exchange for lucrative trade “deals” (and boatloads of campaign donations) that turned a small number of millionaires into billionaires while hurting everyone else.

Fewer blue-collar jobs meant lower pay, but then government could swoop in, play hero, and hike the minimum wage.  Hiking the minimum wage meant even fewer jobs, but then the government could hook up the new workless class to its sweet welfare drip for life.  Increased government spending increases inflation, which increases the cost of living, which increases government-imposed minimum wages, which increases the cost of doing business in America, which produces even more off-shoring of blue-collar jobs, which leaves even more Americans dependent on government welfare.

Eventually, irresponsible government spending increases inflation to such an extent that an American labor force is no longer economically viable for employers.  So what is government’s solution?  Mass illegal immigration, of course!  And that’s a “solution” that only further reduces workers’ historically low salaries, financially crushing Americans already struggling to survive rampant, runaway inflation.

For three decades, the Uniparty has promised Americans high-paying “service economy” jobs in exchange for exporting their old jobs overseas.  Instead, Americans lost their savings, economic security, future prospects, and happiness.  Cheap flat-screen televisions and laundry machines that break after sixteen months have been their only rewards.

For those not hooked on the opiate of welfare, Big Pharma saw an opportunity in returning veterans struggling with pain to use actual opiates to hook the rest.  In the process, the corrupt ruling class has imported so many foreign nationals that the bonds of American community and culture have been worn thin, and anyone who has had the temerity to object to this monumental transformation of society is accused of xenophobia or racism.

It’s difficult to look at all this carnage and not ask, as El Salvador’s president has, whether there is a “deliberate plan” to “destroy the U.S. from within.”  Seen from the globalist cartel’s obvious goal of restoring a system of feudalism where a small number of lords can control a continent of serfs, the answer is clear: yes!

It’s now been nearly fifteen years since Republican voters began rebelling against the criminal class in D.C.  The Tea Party movement sent a slew of new members to Congress in 2010, but Old Guard Republicans converted some and undermined others.  Undeterred, Republican voters found an outsider in Donald Trump and put him in the White House.  Again, Old Guard Republicans worked with their Uniparty pals to sabotage the Trump presidency, subvert the 2020 election with mass mail-in balloting, and deflate the passions of his ardent supporters.

Those efforts have not had their intended effect.  After two impeachments, a fake insurrection, and several years of political persecution, Republican voters have never been more angry.  They know that Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney are shills for an unelected Deep State, and they despise those political relics for their misplaced loyalties.  They see how easily the Ben Sasses, Liz Cheneys, Adam Kinzingers, and Dan Crenshaws of the party have betrayed them, and they will not forget.

Either Republican voters will succeed in fundamentally changing the Republican Party so that it aligns with and represents their interests, or they will demolish that party and bury its remains deep in the desert.  Any Republican officeholder unwilling or unable to accept this new reality is a politician with a short shelf life.  The 2022 midterms may bring a “red wave,” but until the Uniparty is defeated, there will be no peace.

J. B. Shurk

Mad as Hell

Posted on by
Reply

The core of leftism is that we are all supposed to live for others. We’re supposed to sacrifice any wealth we have for others, so things may be equal. We’re supposed to sacrifice our brains and pretend that a circle is a square and a boy is a girl so that the intellectually inferior or mentally disturbed may feel equal. We’re supposed to wear masks forever and get experimental shots from companies with no liability or cost for what happens, so that we can say, “everybody got vaccinated.” The theme is always the same with leftists: Down with the individual, up with the collective.

The thing about leftists? They subscribe to self-sacrifice — in words and theory, but never in practice. The thing they claim we all must do is what they’re never, ever prepared to do. That’s why you won’t find any of the high profile leftists wearing masks. That’s why Obama builds a home in the midst of rising seas he claims are caused by regular people using fossil fuels (fuels that he uses in abundance, by the way). That’s why leftists are suddenly jingoists when it comes to World War III, so long as all they have to do is change their Facebook or Instagram profile page to sport a picture of the Ukraine flag.

“Look at me. I’m self-sacrificial. I’m virtuous.” This is ALL leftism is. It’s about as substantive as cotton candy.

Leftists are ALL about optics and ONLY about optics. Either they don’t believe what they claim about the alleged virtue of self-sacrifice, or they don’t think what they preach applies to them. Perhaps they think they’re special, because they proclaim the glory of self-sacrifice for all … and since they’re so virtuous in doing so, they don’t have to practice it. The rest of us do.

The arrogance of all this is so incomprehensibly evil that it MUST — I repeat MUST — lead to the biggest social psychological (and perhaps literal) upheaval and/or explosion ever seen before in the history of mankind. It is not sustainable. We cannot go on like this and will positively NOT go on like this. How it all plays out nobody can predict. But it will play out. It has probably already started, and we don’t yet recognize it. Trump is merely the tip of the iceberg of what’s coming — and what SHOULD be coming.

The built-up anger, sense of injustice, feelings of powerlessness and perfectly reasonable rage many of us feel eventually have to go somewhere. And wherever that is, the leftists who so brazenly live in hypocrisy and hubris are not going to like it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

JFK’s War

Posted on by
Reply

People sometimes ask me whether there is any relevance of the Kennedy assassination to where we are today as a country. My answer is direct and unequivocal: Understanding the Kennedy assassination is essential to understanding many of the crises into which our nation has been plunged, especially in foreign affairs but also with respect to out-of-control federal spending and debt. It also provides us with what we need to do to get our nation back on the right track.

Ever since the assassination, the official lie has been that Lyndon Johnson simply continued Kennedy’s policies. That may have been true with respect to welfare-state programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and civil rights, but it has always been a lie with respect to foreign policy. In fact, it was Kennedy’s foreign policy that ended up getting him killed.

In my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I spend two chapters on “JFK’s War,” a vicious war that was waged between Kennedy and the Pentagon and the CIA. Naturally, it is not a war that is taught in American public schools, for obvious reasons. If people were to discover this war, they would be begin to see that the Pentagon and the CIA had much more reason to kill Kennedy than Lee Harvey Oswald, who had no motive whatsoever to kill him.

It was after the Cuban Missile Crisis that the military-intelligence establishment made the decision that Kennedy had to be replaced with Johnson, on grounds of protecting “national security.” The Pentagon and the CIA were livid over how Kennedy had handled the crisis and, more important, how he had resolved it. One member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Curtis LeMay, compared Kennedy’s handling of the crisis to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. He called Kennedy’s resolution of the crisis “the biggest defeat in U.S. history.”

Why were the generals so filled with rage against Kennedy? Because they had wanted him to use the crisis as an excuse to bomb and invade Cuba and replace the Castro regime with a pro-U.S. regime. Kennedy refused to do that.

Now, let that sink in for a moment. Do you see any relevance to what is happening in the world today? 

Yes, the Pentagon and the CIA wanted Kennedy to do precisely what Russia is doing to Ukraine today. They wanted him to invade a sovereign and independent country and to wreak death and destruction among the Cuban people, just like Russia is doing to Ukraine today and, well, just like the Pentagon and the CIA did to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not only did Kennedy refuse to do that, he struck a deal with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in which he promised that the U.S. would not invade Cuba. In return, Khrushchev agreed to remove his nuclear missiles from Cuba and take them home. 

Kennedy’s vow to Khrushchev was anathema to the Pentagon and the CIA and was, in their eyes, a grave threat to “national security.” For them, leaving Cuba permanently in communist hands left America vulnerable to defeat in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and “godless communism.”

Even before Kennedy took office, the military-intelligence establishment was absolutely hell-bent on invading Cuba and wreaking death and destruction with the intent to install another pro-U.S. dictator into power, similar to Fulgencio Batista, the corrupt and brutal dictator who had been ousted from power in the Cuban revolution.

That was what the CIA’s invasion at the Bay of Pigs was all about. In fact, it was after that invasion that the vicious war between Kennedy and the CIA got started. The CIA had told Kennedy that the invasion could succeed without U.S. air support. It was a flat-out lie. They were playing and maneuvering what they considered was a neophyte, naive president. When the invasion began faltering, they figured that Kennedy would have to provide the needed air support to avoid having the CIA’s proxy army of Cuban exiles defeated by the communists. Kennedy refused to provide the air support and the invasion went down to defeat.

Kennedy was livid. He knew he had been lied to and played and manipulated. He fired the CIA director, Allen Dulles, and his two top officials. He began downgrading the power of the CIA. He vowed to destroy the CIA. 

For its part, the CIA was equally livid. In their eyes, the new neophyte president had showed weakness and cowardice in the face of the supposed international communist conspiracy to take over the world that, they were convinced, was based in Moscow, Russia — yes, the same Russia with which they are still so obsessed today.

As an aside, it should be noted that Lyndon Johnson appointed Dulles to serve on the Warren Commission, the entity ostensibly charged with investigating the Kennedy assassination, where, conveniently, he was able to control the investigation so that it never headed in the direction of the CIA and the Pentagon.

After the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon pressured Kennedy into initiating a full-scale invasion of Cuba. That was when the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed Operation Northwoods, a plan based on falsehood and fraud designed to give Kennedy a pretext to invade Cuba and do what the Russians are currently doing in Ukraine. Kennedy said no.

Insofar as the Pentagon and the CIA were concerned, Kennedy’s agreement with the communists to leave Cuba permanently in communist hands to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis was bad enough. But it was Kennedy’s Peace Speech at American University in early June 1963 that sealed his fate. 

In that speech, Kennedy announced that the United States would no longer have a hostile relationship with the Soviet Union. It would henceforth be a peaceful and friendly relationship. Remarkably, Khrushchev was on the same page as Kennedy. He began persuading Castro to begin thinking the same way. In fact, I’ll bet most Americans don’t know that at the moment he was assassinated in Dallas, Kennedy had a private emissary secretly having lunch with Castro in an attempt to restore normal relations between the U.S. and Cuba. But the Pentagon and the CIA most certainly knew about it. 

In other words, Kennedy was taking America in a totally different direction from the one desired by the military-intelligence establishment. If he won the 1964 presidential election, which was likely, he would have had five more years to implement his new vision for America. 

And don’t forget: All this was taking place while the Soviets were still brutally occupying Eastern European countries!

During those five years, the Pentagon and the CIA would have had nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs, and they knew it. No more Cold War. No Vietnam War. No invasion of Cuba. No more hostility against the communist world. JFK even proposed a joint U.S.-Soviet trip to the moon.

Moreover, Kennedy would never have permitted the Pentagon and the CIA to go into the Middle East and begin killing people. Thus, under Kennedy, there would never have been terrorist retaliation, including the 9/11 attacks, and, thus, no war on terrorism. No invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

And no more NATO! After all, why would NATO be necessary in a world of peaceful coexistence between the U.S. and Russia? Don’t forget that its purpose was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. If Kennedy had prevailed in his war with the national-security establishment, NATO would have gone the way of the dodo bird. 

Which means: No NATO absorption of Eastern European countries, including Ukraine. No threat to put U.S nuclear missies on Russia’s border and, therefore, no Russia invasion of Ukraine.

In fact, it is a virtual certainty that there would have been no more U.S. national-security state. Don’t forget that the the Cold War was the reason the federal government was converted to a national-security state in the first place. Given that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA would have been spending their time twiddling their thumbs under Kennedy, it is highly likely that the American people would have demanded the restoration of the limited-government system on which our nation had been founded.

Is understanding the Kennedy assassination essential to getting our nation back on the right track? You bet it is. Understanding his assassination provides us with the direction in which we need to head at this point in our nation’s existence–toward liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world. His assassination need not have been in vain.

“Hire me Because of my Race” is not Admirable

Posted on by
Reply

Anyone who ACCEPTS an appointment to be a Supreme Court justice because of her race or gender is neither decent nor intelligent enough to be a Supreme Court justice.

This is why no analysis of puppet Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court is even required.

Her nomination should be dead on arrival. It won’t be, of course; because we truly do live under institutional racism now.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Dumbshit Russians

Posted on by
Reply

As readers know, I refer often to “dumbshit Americans.” I am beginning to wonder if the same applies to Russians.

As for dumbshit Americans, the evidence is never ending. We now have a Pew Research poll of Americans, if it is accurate, that finds that 36% of American Republicans and 35% of American Democrats support American military intervention against Russia in Ukraine “even if it risks a nuclear conflict with Russia.” The Poll finds that half of the US population thinks that Russia’s concern with her national security is a “major threat” to US interests. https://www.rt.com/news/552095-americans-nuclear-war-ukraine/

It blows my mind that more than one-third of the US population are willing to endure nuclear armageddon for the utterly corrupt, nazi-dominated Washington puppet state of Ukraine. Americans have no interest whatsoever in Ukraine, and Ukrainians are an insignificant percentage of the US population. The dumbshit Americans who are willing to go to nuclear war for Ukraine are the dumbshits who sit in front of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, listen to NPR, read the NY Times and Washington Post. These are people who are brainwashed and live in a false reality created for them by official narratives that serve only the narrow interests of the ruling elite. Most of the dumbshits wouldn’t die for their spouse, parents, or children. But they are so programmed by the whore media that they are willing to die so Ukraine can shell Donbass Russians in their villages and cities. Really, this is stupidity beyond imagination.

I have always thought that Putin and the governing class in Russia were more intelligent, but I am beginning to wonder. Certainly Putin called Washington out at the 2007 Munich Security Conference when he said that Washington’s unipolar world was over, that there were now on the scene other powers with independent interests. However that was 15 years ago. Since that time, other than repel the US orchestrated Georgian attack on South Ossetia and the recent attempt at color revolution in Kazakhstan, Russia has done nothing to protect her vital interests. To the contrary, the Russian central bank placed its foreign exchange reserves abroad where they have been confiscated. The Kremlin has encouraged the West’s opinion of Russia as pussies by permitting eight years of shelling of the Donbass republics by Ukrainian neo-Nazis using weapons provided by Washington and its NATO puppets. And now the Kremlin has permitted all sanction outrages against Russia without applying devastating counter-sanctions. Putin has adopted the role of the government leader who obeys international law alone in the world. Amazingly, Putin thinks this show of righteousness will have an impact on Satan. https://www.rt.com/business/552077-russia-will-respect-private-ownership/ In a world of gangsters, what good does it do for Putin to respect contracts and private ownership?

As I have often thought, the Kremlin has no idea what it is dealing with. Russia is riddled with doubt about the Soviet past and is a sitting duck for Washington’s psyops operation.

As I said would happen, Russia’s go-slow war has played 100% into their enemies’ hands. Russia needed a quick victory to forestall a devastating psyops campaign against her and to intimidate further NATO expansion. What the Kremlin achieved by believing that the West would respect humanitarian intentions is infamy. Instead of discouraging provocations of Russia that will eventually lead to nuclear war, the Kremlin’s liberal goody-goodly war policy, which the West sees as irresolution, has encouraged more provocations Now the Kremlin is faced with in a few days the former Russian province of Georgia participating with NATO in military exercises. Finland, seeing nothing but Russian weakness in Ukraine, as portrayed by the Western pressititues, is now brave enough to apply for NATO membership.

It looks as if it will take the Russian military longer to subdue part of powerless Ukraine than it took Hitler to conquer all of Europe. This does not impress Europeans that it is dangerous to provoke Russia. It doesn’t shake the belief in the expansion of NATO. All NATO members know that the expansion of NATO is an offensive measure, not a defensive one. The purpose of missile bases on Russia’s border is to remove Russia as a constraint on Washington’s hegemony.

The Saker and Andrei Martyanov defend Russia’s military capability, but what good is it if it cannot be used, because the Kremlin doesn’t want to harm many civilians or scare Europe? Putin thinks that Washington’s empire is going to fail, but not when Europe sees Russia failing. If reports are correct, the Kremlin didn’t even have enough sense to get its foreign exchange reserves out of the hands of its enemies, where they have been confiscated, before initiating its limited military intervention in Ukraine.

The question that the Russian press hasn’t asked is why did Russia’s Finance Minister, Anton Siluanov, who has announced that half of Russia’s gold and foreign exchange has been seized by sanctions, permit the incompetent head of the Russian bank, Elvira Nabiullina, to disperse Russia’s foreign exchange reserves abroad where it was easily stolen by the sanctions? This level of incompetence is unbelievable even in a third world country. Why does Putin support these obviously incompetent officials whose every action supports the effectiveness of the West’s sanctions against Russia?

Russia’s problem is that the Kremlin cannot get its mind around the fact that the West is Russia’s enemy, not its partner. The Foreign Ministry seems to think that only misunderstandings need to be cleared up so that Russia can be part of the West.

An article published in 2014 explains Russian impotence despite Russia’s clear, and unused, military superiority. The author explains that “President Putin’s inability or unwillingness to stand up more vigorously to the geopolitical aggressions of the Unites States and its allies stems, therefore, not so much from military weakness, or lack of economic resources per se, as it is from the way its economy has become dependent on oligarch’s economic role and, therefore, on the skittish global markets, or the imperialistic whims of Western powers. Sadly, Russia is not alone in grappling with this dilemma of economic dependency and/or vulnerability to globalization of markets—in essence, to the whims of international financial markets, or the aspirations of the global plutocracy.” https://politicaleconomicsinfo.wordpress.com/putin-blinks/ In all these years, Russia (and China) have done little to insulate themselves from adverse forces operating against them.

In short, Washington conquered Russia in the Yeltsin years when the Russian intellectual class and the oligarchs, who privatized in their bank accounts Russia’s national resources, found that their interests resided in the West and not in Russian sovereignty. The Kremlin, demonstrating its commitment to democracy and openness, has permitted innumerable Western and CIA financed NGOs to operate inside Russia in behalf of Washington.

I am aware that the sanctions against Russia will alert other countries that might have aspirations of sovereignty and that awareness will spread that it is Washington’s hegemony, not Russia, that is a threat to the world. But can this awareness be effective?

The Western pressitutes control the narratives. Facts do not matter to the West, no matter how many times Putin and Lavrov stress the facts. They waste their time and energy.

In the Western world facts are powerless, as is evidence of all kind. In the place of facts there are official narratives that turn lies into truth and that turn fiction into fact. The Russians waste their time responding to false accusations. The accusations are a psyops operation. By responding the Kremlin validates the accusations.

I have come to the conclusion that the Kremlin lacks the awareness that it is dealing with evil that is smarter and more determined than the Kremlin. The Kremlin’s failure to deal with the West with force is leading the world to nuclear armageddon. Washington, sensing Russian weakness and having so many allies against Russia is going to push the provocations to the point that the only alternative to Russia’s surrender is nuclear war.

Even The Saker, a needless apologist for Russia as objective facts support the Russian case, has come to the conclusion that the situation is “headed towards a full-scale military confrontation (conventional and nuclear) between the Empire of Lies and Russia.” https://thesaker.is/russian-special-military-operation-in-the-ukraine-day-20/

This is what I said from the beginning. The fact-based world the Russians think is there is not there. The world in which the Kremlin is operating has no relationship to the world in which Washington is operating.

In his speech yesterday Putin showed a dawning realization that the West was closed to Russia and that Russia faces a conflict with a West that “is simply moral degradation, complete de-humanization.” https://www.rt.com/russia/552096-putin-ukraine-west-speech/

Only a few, and they are not widely heard, are aware that the West’s sanctions and seizure of Russian central bank assets are acts of war as are US and NATO arms deliveries to the Ukrainian neo-Nazi forces. The Kremlin has warned against interference with their military operation. If the Kremlin chooses to regard the West’s actions as interference, wider war will be upon us. That Washington takes such risks reflects its insistence on hegemony and the Kremlin’s toleration of years of provocations.

Meta/Facebook and Putin: A Plague On Both Your Houses

Posted on by
Reply

It’s amusing to hear of Russia banning and declaring Meta/Facebook “extremist,” and therefore illegal.

Facebook does exactly the same thing, and now it’s being done to them. Facebook, as we all know, labels as “hate speech” any speech that it hates — particularly anything conservative, liberty-oriented or remotely rational.

Will Putin’s condemnation and censorship affect the censoring, moralistic narcissists and sociopaths running and working for Facebook? Not a chance.

Neither Facebook nor Putin care about what’s true. They only care about what serves their narratives. If you think about it, they’re exactly the same. Facebook cares about censoring objective truth, and only advancing facts (or falsehoods) that advance their particular socialistic, Communistic, fascist “woke” narrative. Putin likewise cares about censoring objective truth, only advancing facts (or falsehoods) that advance HIS particular fascist, power-hungry narrative.

Psychologically and with regard to objective knowledge, Meta and Putin are one and the same.

The only difference is that Putin is a fascist government, and Meta is a fascist, leftist-supported company. And Meta has got way, way more money than Putin.

Let the two dictators destroy each other. I really don’t care. I’m on the side of truth and freedom. Neither Facebook nor Putin care an iota for either. I’d love to see them BOTH go down. And hard.

The world will be a better place without them.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Wisdom of Ayn Rand

Posted on by
Reply

Observe that the philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man’s identity and rights. But the philosophical systems based on the primacy of consciousness (i.e., on the seemingly megalomaniacal notion that nature is whatever man wants it to be) lead to the view that man possesses no identity, that he is infinitely flexible, malleable, usable and disposable. Ask yourself why.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 28

They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 151

Observe that the philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man’s identity and rights. But the philosophical systems based on the primacy of consciousness (i.e., on the seemingly megalomaniacal notion that nature is whatever man wants it to be) lead to the view that man possesses no identity, that he is infinitely flexible, malleable, usable and disposable. Ask yourself why.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 28

https://apis.google.com/u/0/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=http%3A%2F%2Faynrandlexicon.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Faynrandlexicon.com%2Flexicon%2Fprimacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness%2F2.html&gsrc=3p&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fabc-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Dgapi.lb.en.NnK9YPjtg-w.O%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAHpOoo9KePDGVlGjp-rlXwDM1kUO2Eh4gg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh%2Conload&id=I1_1648051023176&_gfid=I1_1648051023176&parent=http%3A%2F%2Faynrandlexicon.com&pfname=&rpctoken=83494809

They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 151

ness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 151

It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms [existence, consciousness, and identity]. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.