Mouthpieces for Election Riggers


Recommended Posts

New on ARI Watch:

Mouthpieces for Election Riggers

 Yaron Brook & Gregory Salmieri

Quoting the later about claims of vote fraud:

“... given my assessment of the characters of the people [Trump, Giuliani, Powell ...] involved and my assessment of the [legal] system ... I dismiss these claims without looking into them, and I think it’s perfectly valid to do that.”

Just so, he goes on to say, you acknowledge that you haven't looked into them, which makes your dismissing them OK.

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

New on ARI Watch:

Mouthpieces for Election Riggers

 

Mark,

I'd have a lot of trouble trying to endure transcribing that stuff.  I had trouble even getting through reading it.  (I just skimmed some of it.)

 

Quote

Focusing on Giuliani is a ruse. Mr. Brook has long hated Giuliani for prosecuting Michael Milken, the financier who in the midst of a brilliant career went crooked. And well before Mr. Brook joined the organization the folks at ARI, including Mr. Peikoff, hated Giuliani. Later Mr. Brook will end up saying that Giuliani cannot be trusted and his claims about vote fraud are arbitrary.

Do you know if Brook had investments with Milken?

 

Quote

If the alleged products of Objectvism at the Ayn Rand Institute were sincere we would have to ask:  How is it that Rand’s philosophy left so many dead brains in its wake?

I've wondered for many, many years, How is it that Rand's philosophy attracted so many "dead brains"?

Ellen

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony,

That ARI should make that podcast on the 21st of all days, the day of the event they had been working and pining and hankering for, the day that brought the installation of the likes of Kamala president of the United States closer to becoming reality, what can one say?  Can you think of a fresh way to call them hypocrites?

Ellen,

Interesting question, did Brook invest with Milken.  I relayed it to my best source, still waiting for a reply.

 

 

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

Anthony,

That ARI should make that podcast on the 21st of all days, the day of the event they had been working and pining and hankering for, the day that brought the installation of the likes of Kamala president of the United States closer to becoming reality, what can one say?  Can you think of a fresh way to call them hypocrites?

 

 

 

I don't know what to name them.  I'm running out of words. Shameless? Self-contradicters? (Evaders?)

Do they think no one notices? I am flabbergasted that they do this - and all of them in glib unison - in Rand's name and by her philosophy.

And why is there not an uproar from independent (a redundancy) Objectivists?

I admit to making excuses for them, to myself, just a little, that perhaps they can't know the enormity of what they are doing and have been working towards, for the last four years. But how possibly can 'leading' Objectivists be innocent of knowledge?

I will go back to the video for the Rand content, but it is hard to handle such smug self-satisfaction. 

Look forward to you giving them the treatment on ARIWatch, Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, anthony said:

I don't know what to name them.  I'm running out of words. Shameless? Self-contradicters? (Evaders?)

Do they think no one notices? I am flabbergasted that they do this - and all of them in glib unison - in Rand's name and by her philosophy.

And why is there not an uproar from independent (a redundancy) Objectivists?

I admit to making excuses for them, to myself, just a little, that perhaps they can't know the enormity of what they are doing and have been working towards, for the last four years. But how possibly can 'leading' Objectivists be innocent of knowledge?

I will go back to the video for the Rand content, but it is hard to handle such smug self-satisfaction. 

Look forward to you giving them the treatment on ARIWatch, Mark.

If I were to play "Devil's advocate" for ARI, I'd put the blame at the feet of Ayn Rand herself, on this. She dismissed the notion of a grand conspiracy on the level of a "deep state", American or global, consigning such efforts to inept local attempts, and instead gave more credence to the power of  bad ideas to destroy the country (by default of the acceptance of those ideas) than to a concentrated effort by any elite. I think she was naive about it, but then, hindsight is 20/20...

Anyway, here's the quote I'm thinking of, from FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL:
 

Quote

 

If America perishes, it will perish by intellectual default. There is no diabolical conspiracy to destroy it: no conspiracy could be big enough and strong enough. Such cafeteria-socialist conspiracies as do undoubtedly exist are groups of scared, neurotic mediocrities who find themselves pushed into national leadership because nobody else steps forward; they are like pickpockets who merely intended to snatch a welfare-regulation or two and who suddenly find that their victim is unconscious, that they are alone in an enormous mansion of fabulous wealth, with all the doors open and a seasoned burglar’s job on their hands; watch them now screaming that they didn’t mean it, that they had never advocated the nationalization of a country’s economy. they are the best illustration of victory by default: their successes are handed to them by the concessions of their victims. There is no national movement for socialism or dictatorship in America, no “man on horseback” or popular demagogue, nothing but fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists. Yet we are moving toward full, totalitarian socialism, with worn, cynical voices telling us that such is the irresistible trend of history. History, fate and malevolent conspiracy are easier to believe than the actual truth: that we are moved by nothing but the sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.
 

Ayn Rand. For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Kindle Location 745). New American Library.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have something important there TG.

To play a little DA, too, in the broad abstraction what Rand said still holds true: "... by intellectual default..." I think this remains fundamental.

BUT- PLUS, additionally, there has been a "diabolical conspiracy" even she couldn't have guessed at and foreseen, perhaps naively, back then. (But then the whole media/social media has come under leftist control, and the existence of the latter especially she could not have anticipated).

The original New Left has been left behind by concerted, colluding efforts of the New, New Left, and, returning to ARI, they are playing catch-up to this reality.

Well spotted.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anthony said:

I think you have something important there TG.

To play a little DA, too, in the broad abstraction what Rand said still holds true: "... by intellectual default..." I think this remains fundamental.

BUT- PLUS, additionally, there has been a "diabolical conspiracy" even she couldn't have guessed at and foreseen, back then.

The New Left has been left behind by concerted, colluding efforts of the New, New Left, and, returning to ARI, they are playing catch-up to this reality.

Well spotted.

 


Thanks. I cross-posted it on the "Deep State Unraveling" thread as well, which is where I was already planning to post her quote.
MSK commented, in response, that "Itdoes seem like Rand forgot what Karl Marx's life looked like before the Communist Revolution in Russia. It did not look organized like a Deep State....But at some point along the way, it sure as hell did get organized that way."

That made me think of Hitler's "Beer Hall Putsch." I don't remember if Rand commented on that, I know Peikoff did in OMINOUS PARALLELS, but it made me think of her comments on revolutions vs. a putsch:

Revolution vs. Putsch. “The New Left does not portend a revolution, as its press agents claim, but a Putsch. A revolution is the climax of a long philosophical development and expresses a nation’s profound discontent; a Putsch is a minority’s seizure of power. The goal of a revolution is to overthrow tyranny; the goal of a Putsch is to establish it.”

Ayn Rand; Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z (Kindle Locations 8479-8481). Meridian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThatGuy said:

BUT- PLUS, additionally, there has been a "diabolical conspiracy" even she couldn't have guessed at and foreseen, back then.

Yeah, agreed. To be fair to her, she wrote that in the 60's, and hindsight in 2020 is still 20/20...2020 just brought it all out in the open...as for ARI, they've had time to catch up, so hopefully they will...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Yeah, agreed. To be fair to her, she wrote that in the 60's, and hindsight in 2020 is still 20/20...2020 just brought it all out in the open...as for ARI, they've had time to catch up, so hopefully they will...

Right, the new technologies, the cowardly sell-out by independent journalism. I edited something like let's be fair to Rand's context of knowledge into my post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellen,
 
My source didn't know.  These years might be helpful:
... Boesky sang in 1986
... Brook came to America in 1987
... Milken was indicted in 1989.
... Brook, with another person, started BH Equity Research in 1998.
 
Mark
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2020 at 2:32 PM, ThatGuy said:

Yeah, agreed. To be fair to her, she wrote that in the 60's, and hindsight in 2020 is still 20/20...2020 just brought it all out in the open...as for ARI, they've had time to catch up, so hopefully they will...

The other part to this I didnt' mention...I wonder if Rand may have thought that way about grand conspiracies is because of her view of evil as impotent. Would a effective, large scale conspiracy, to her, have meant that evil was NOT, in fact, impotent?  Either way, it brings to my mind a line from WE THE LIVING:

“I wouldn’t mind it if we had been beaten by a tall warrior in a steel helmet, a human dragon spitting fire. But we’re beaten by a louse. A big, fat, slow, blond louse.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes".

“ALTRUISM AS APPEASEMENT”

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

The other part to this I didnt' mention...I wonder if Rand may have thought that way about grand conspiracies is because of her view of evil as impotent. Would a effective, large scale conspiracy, to her, have meant that evil was NOT, in fact, impotent?  Either way, it brings to my mind a line from WE THE LIVING:

“I wouldn’t mind it if we had been beaten by a tall warrior in a steel helmet, a human dragon spitting fire. But we’re beaten by a louse. A big, fat, slow, blond louse.”

 

TG: Obviously and we see Rand warned of, that evil acts among men, and periods of it in certain places certainly could exist. In which case, I assume she'd have had to accept that it could be potent, for a while. But what runs counter to evil is that, first, most people begin to see, visibly, that it's not practical. It does not achieve the promised results. And that to maintain its motion requires increasing personal costs to them and others. Then more intellectuals begin to doubt and question its morality, in secret at first. And the saving grace is good old human nature, men don't like being manipulated, repressed and lied to. Then fewer and fewer allow it sanction. Then evil falls of its own weight. Borrowing from AR, evil action needs the constant nourishment/support from good people to survive - those who ask: Why? - and that's who topple the evil, soul-less ones: Those who own 'souls'.

Impotent? Eventually.

Yes, "grand conspiracies" on a scale which we've not seen before, are possible and exist in the mass media age. Prescient Sci-fi novelists back then could envisage something like this level of mind control. And the greater in number and power the bunch conspiring to control mankind, ("for your own good", never forget) is, the longer their collusion may take to break down. But again, the weight of all these in cahoots tells against them. They necessarily will fall out with each other in their personal hunger for power and wealth, and once began their end accelerates. We only need to keep the intellectual pressure on them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels — and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil".

“GALT’S SPEECH”

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