ARI people on the election


Recommended Posts

Shysters

This article, about ARI and the presidential election, was complete as of a few days ago.  Then I discovered more ARI people had weighed in so I added a stub section (“stub” as Wikipedia uses the word) called “More Shysters” and will add to it in a few days.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark said:

Shysters

This article, about ARI and the presidential election, was complete as of a few days ago.  Then I discovered more ARI people had weighed in so I added a stub section (“stub” as Wikipedia uses the word) called “More Shysters” and will add to it in a few days.

Marc,

For O-Land, the following quote from your article is extremely important. (My bold.)

Quote

... he gives an example: the moratorium (or postponement) of rents. He neglects to mention that it applies only to property owners with government-insured loans. In so far as this is statist (it is marginally statist at worst), still it is nothing compared to what Nixon did before his first term was up (wage-price controls). And yet come the next election (1972) Rand supported Nixon against the leftist Democrat.

That last should be emphasized.  Rand urged people to vote for Nixon even though in his first term he had mandated a freeze on all wages, salaries, and prices. It makes any statist thing Trump has done look trivial. She supported Nixon despite his flaws because his opponent was a flaming statist far worse than he was. 

Rand thought conceptually and was reality-oriented.

She knew that to impose a wage-price freeze on all of society, Nixon was not the man to pull it off, not for real, and that the project would soon tank. (Which it did.) 

If the current anti-Trump ARI geniuses were around back during that time, I have little doubt they would have supported McGovern (the equivalent of today's Bernie) in the "I hope both loses, but I hope McGovern loses less than Nixon" format. Why? Because the wage-price freeze was like Directive 10-289 from Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand both wrote AS and knew better. 

As an aside, many, many Republicans back then thought words disconnected from reality could work in shaping reality. Like Nixon's wage-price freeze.

I remember President Ford, not too long after Nixon, tried to deal with inflation, not by stopping the issuance of new currency to pay for government spending and so on, but by manufacturing silly little WIN badges and other WIN merch. WIN meant "Whip Inflation Now" and it was nothing but a slogan aimed at trying to persuade average people to spend less.

image.png

When I think about the modern ARI anti-Trumpers and their arguments, I feel they belong to the WIN campaign kind of intellectual depth. Maybe not as dorky, but in terms of severing reality from words, they are right there alongside it.

I don't recall Rand ever mentioning the WIN campaign. I can't imagine her taking it seriously, even though Greenspan was working with President Ford at the time.

On another note, whenever I see this anti-Trump bullshit coming out of ARI, I keep thinking "Military Industrial Complex." I don't know, but if I were to bet, I bet these guys hate the peace agreements President Trump is pulling off in the Middle East. Just hate them. No war, no money for cronies...

Besides, their preferred method of dealing with Muslim countries whenever there is an Islamist terrorist threat is to bomb first and ask questions later. After all, what's a few--or a lot of--dead Muslims, including women and children, to them?

Sometimes I've thought about the CIA's Operation Mockingbird (or its progeny) re Yaron Brook's infiltration of ARI, but then I look at the others over there... And then I think about it... Nah...

Why would professional Deep State spooks pay for what they can get for free from useful idiots?

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ayn Rand Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit think tank. As such, it is prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. A 501(c)(3) organization conducting voter education that (a) favor one candidate over another, (b) oppose a candidate in some manner, or (c) favor a candidate or group of candidates, constitute prohibited participation or intervention. Link.

Does Mark ever consider this when he writes his articles?

So how can ARI people bash Trump? Do you really believe ARI's tax status would be threatened in today's political environment by bashing Trump? On the other hand, do you really believe ARI's tax status would not be threatened if it bashed Biden in today's political environment? ARI's tax status also bears upon the tax-deductibility of donations made by contributors to ARI.

When Ayn Rand supported Nixon at Ford Hall Forum, she was not doing so as a principal of a 501(c)(3) organization. 

People who work for ARI -- but when not acting in that capacity -- are not so limited by 501(c)(3) rules. That is a gray area and I have no expertise about it.

A penny for your thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On another note, whenever I see this anti-Trump bullshit coming out of ARI, I keep thinking "Military Industrial Complex." I don't know, but if I were to bet, I bet these guys hate the peace agreements President Trump is pulling off in the Middle East. Just hate them. No war, no money for cronies...

From Mark's article:

Quote

Then Mr. Brook tells us that Trump has  “moved the Republican Party dramatically away from any kind of free market.”  Any kind?  Again an over-the-top pronouncement. We should engage in free trade with free countries. Who would have any problem with regulating trade with the likes of China?

"Who would have any problem with regulating trade with the likes of China?"

Well....  How about those whose interests were well served by the pre-Trump arrangement with China?

Trump having jostled the applecart of the China arrangement, the Chinese unleashed a designer-special virus.

I think that globalist cadres aren't all of them happy with the results and that if Trump doesn’t win, there's going to be a world-power-balance shift to China which might make globalists rue their former "trade" set-up with China.

Ellen

PS:  The ARI people are just idiots in the scheme, probably financially backed, as Michael indicates, but not of significance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/27/2020 at 2:09 AM, Mark said:

Shysters

This article, about ARI and the presidential election, was complete as of a few days ago.  Then I discovered more ARI people had weighed in so I added a stub section (“stub” as Wikipedia uses the word) called “More Shysters” and will add to it in a few days.

 

DELETED. Thanks Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still do not understand the big O, little o objectivist dislike of Ronald Reagan, nor Ayn Rand's.  And their hatred of Donald Trump is moronically lacking any DEEP reasoning. Look at any of Rand's political stances and from Laissez-Faire Capitalism, moving away from deep state cronyism, openness, and onwards from there, I know she would support President Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quit donating to ARI some years ago, I think even before the 2016 election, and I was only contributing the minimum needed to receive their newsletter thing.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the Chinese Communist Party was funding ARI?

:) 

Without knowing the major donors and backstage money arrangements, I can see the plausibility. A lot of elitist people in America were making oodles of crony cash from the globalism racket. I wonder if any ARI bigwigs were, too.

That would mean they would fund ARI, but, depending on the globalism crony deals they were involved in, their money would come from companies owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Free trade and all, right?...

:)

They can speculate about Trump, I can speculate about them. I wonder if my speculations would bear fruit under harsh scrutiny.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I quit donating to ARI some years ago, I think even before the 2016 election, and I was only contributing the minimum needed to receive their newsletter thing.

Ellen

Someone convinced me to stop donating to ARI a few years ago here on OL.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, merjet said:

I didn't donate to ARI before 2017. I donated to TAS.

I haven’t donated to TAS for a number of years either, though I used to give them a couple hundred a year.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a good place for this news.

Peikoff is voting for President Trump.

He just said so.

And the guy interviewing him on the group call said most of the people there agree with him. I don't know where his happened, though, nor who these people are.

At least there's one O-Land luminary from the ortho side I no longer have to be irritated with re Trump.

I don't care about further opinions on President Trump from that quarter, just the vote.

It would have helped had Peikoff said this earlier, though. Still... he said it now and I'll take it.

O-Land is a mess, but this little drop of common sense (finally) in the ocean is welcome.

Now how about all those snarky O-Land Superior Ones? 

Still trying to join The Lincoln Project now that Top Guru has spoken otherwise?

I wonder if this will result in an ARI shift away from Brook...

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found something. The video above was the tail end of a video from Ayn Rand Centre UK. The video is called Celebrating Leonard Peikoff. There must have been some reason to celebrate him, a birthday or something.

When I find out more and learn more about this event and the participants at the end, I will add it to this post. The thumbnail gives some of the participants or maybe the main ones. And the hosts name is Razi Ginzberg.

[EDIT: It was an online celebration for Peikoff's 87th birthday.]

[EDIT AGAIN: From what I understand, Peikoff was not part of the line-up, but he crashed the party as a surprise.]

This video was streamed on on Oct. 15. Here is the full thing:

Go to 1:31:52 and hear Peikoff say the kaboom about voting for Trump:

Quote

I am voting for Trump. That's it. OK? ... [laughter and small talk of general agreement]... I'm not arguing but I heard someone say that no Objectivist would vote for Trump and I'm still steaming over that. I'm trying to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.

:)

btw - I looked around and the online Objectivism community on the fundie side is awfully quiet so far.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some years ago in a moment of sanity Peikoff denounced hispanic immigration (a stand-in for Third World immigration) in the strongest terms, only to completely reverse himself later after a public discussion with Yaron Brook. If he is sincere about his position on Trump he will get rid of Brook.  He has the power to do it – recall the case of John McCaskey.

Carl Barney is an unrepentant – indeed self-righteous – former Church of Scientology franchise owner who afterwards went into another fraud:
 * republicreport.org/2020/big-win-for-students-colorado-court-slaps-carl-barney-colleges-with-3-million-fraud-verdict
 * republicreport.org/2020/devos-must-cut-off-taxpayer-dollars-to-college-chain-hit-with-fraud-verdict
 * republicreport.org/2020/independence-university-ceo-tells-staff-school-will-fight-effort-to-end-taxpayer-funding

When Peikoff was producing podcasts, he had on his website a permanent thank you to Barney for sponsoring them. A few months ago he gave Barney permission to publish all his recorded lectures and to use the “Ayn Rand” trademark. Peikoff celebrated his last birthday at Barney’s mansion, videos of which Barney posted on his website. Now, by participating in a celebration this year which included Barney’s fulsome praise, Peikoff further associates himself with Barney. Rand chose an idiot for her “intellectual heir.”

Critics of the Ayn Rand Institute who haven’t given up on the organization entirely want to find a hero there, someone they can root for to clean the place up.  Peikoff is not that person.  Even if he were to pull the plug on ARI he has already turned to Barney’s Prometheus Foundation and indirectly to the Objective Standard Institute (headed by Craig Biddle and financed by Barney) which are just as bad or worse.  The only value of the video clip of Peikoff saying he’s voting for Trump is that it shows him, for now at least, baldly contradicting Yaron Brook and the other shysters at ARI (see the original post above).  The squabbling might get some of ARI’s robotic followers to think for themselves.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I found something. The video above was the tail end of a video from Ayn Rand Centre UK. The video is called Celebrating Leonard Peikoff. There must have been some reason to celebrate him, a birthday or something.

When I find out more and learn more about this event and the participants at the end, I will add it to this post. The thumbnail gives some of the participants or maybe the main ones. And the hosts name is Razi Ginzberg.

[EDIT: It was an online celebration for Peokoff's 87th birthday.]

This video was streamed on on Oct. 15. Here is the full thing:

Go to 1:31:52 and hear Peikoff say the kaboom about voting for Trump:

:)

btw - I looked around and the online Objectivism community on the fundie side is awfully quiet so far.

:) 

Michael

Don't know if this will work, but here's a link to a Facebook Peikoff study group post about it. Someone asked why ARI wasn't talking about the above. I haven't read the comments fully, but what I did see, so far, was a lot of deflecting from the elephant in the room (Yaron Brook)..."Not an official ARI function [ARI UK?]"..."It was an off-the-cuff answer..." "It wasn't a fully-defined answer; however, Binswanger and Bernstein have a worthwhile discussion, and this is a very hard question to decide..."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PeikoffCourses/permalink/1862776257194770/

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Don't know if this will work, but here's a link to a Facebook Peikoff study group post about it. Someone asked why ARI wasn't talking about the above. I haven't read the comments fully, but what I did see, so far, was a lot of deflecting from the elephant in the room (Yaron Brook)..."Not an official ARI function [ARI UK?]"..."It was an off-the-cuff answer..." "It wasn't a fully-defined answer; however, Binswanger and Bernstein have a worthwhile discussion, and this is a very hard question to decide..."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PeikoffCourses/permalink/1862776257194770/

TG,

The link works for me. And the thread is open to Facebook users, at least it was to me.

I'm not joining the group, though. Many of those are not my kind of people and I am pretty sure it goes both ways--I would not be welcome.

In that discussion alone, they already threw one guy out.

:) 

The sense of shock is palpable if you are sensitive to reading in between the lines. I am (generally--though sometimes I lay an egg :) ).

In this case, I like to see second-hand smugness busted up. To use a phrase many of them use, it's good for my moral hygiene.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now