Flea

After a blessed but too-short interval in which Linz had another fit of the vapors and took down his sandbox so that we need no longer pay attention to his intestinal vapors, he reopened his doors and posted his latest conspiracy theory, basically that Satan is alive and well and living somewhere like New Jersey: We're back, after I took time out to try to come to grips with the enormity—by which I had become beyond-gobsmacked—of the evil prowling through the universe... [Linzian rodomontwaddle deleted.] I still can't come to grips with any of it, except to think there has to be a force for evil at loose which is greater than the sum of parts such as this parade of cockroaches. I don't mean an Occasional Cortex look-alike with a pitchfork. I mean an incomprehensibly, cosmically vicious antecedent force into which such sub-maggots gleefully tap. He then asked for debate from the crowd of yes-saying courtiers who still hang out there, and of course provoked his enforcer into repeating Catholic thought on the matter. Because, you see, the Objectivist identification of the power of ideas has no hold on the mind of a man who is immune to the power of ideas. It's all a conspiracy! He's a typical emotionalist who responds, not primarily to ideas, but to pretty colors, sounds, and twitches of the loins when seeing pretty-boys like Reagan and Kennedy. (Women, you see, think with their loins, and thus, he has said, should be stripped of the vote. Then after claiming that only gay men are man enough to fight in the armed forces alongside the manly men they haven't converted yet, he turns right around and shows himself to be by his own standards a particularly effeminate gay man by fawning over how manly Reagan and Kennedy and Lanza were, never mind whatever wretched or evil ideas they might have held, like some star-struck girl who needs to have the vote stripped from her.) So, he's already said that Catholicism is better than Objectivism because it has produced great art (in fact, the Church did nothing of the kind; it patronized some and tolerated others, and actual Church composers probably hold no interest for the guy), and mark my words: As soon as his enforcer informs him by private channels that in fact the Catholic prohibition on homosexuality is not doctrine set in stone and binding on all believers but simply propaganda for the unwashed masses to prevent the privileges of the clergy from spreading to the laity, he'll be popping communion wafers every night to go with the three bottles a night of communion wine he already downs before posting his latest thoughts emotings. (His enforcer will then smile at his superiors and say, "Didn't I do good gaining us another ally?" And they will sigh, shake their heads, and mutter something like, "We have to deal with the crooked timber of humanity every day--but a bent toothpick? What was he thinking?")

So, after Bandler finally let the Holocaust denial flag fly one too many times and Linz banned him, SLOP sort of lay there basking in the sun like a fetid marsh stewing in its own juices until Linz's new Great White Hope, Bruno Turner, came along. They did podcasts and everything! The idea being that Yaron Brook is a lousy public speaker, so they'd produce something far better. The one I was able to watch any of began with Linz butchering Italian--I guess Linz decided that if Brook could butcher a beautiful language, then he'd butcher a beautiful language even more grotesquely. Anyway, some people, including, one gathers, regulars there, made comments sotta voce to Turner that he of course reported to Linz, like any good enforcer does: Bruno, we'll never go broke overestimating the number of craven cowards, cultists and lickspittles within OrgOism. That includes the very people right here you've just rightly called out on other threads for their uselessness and gutlessness. It includes the jellyfish who attacked me to you in secret Faecesbook societies when we started our series. (Seriously, who thought it wouldn't get back to Linz? Maybe that was their way of informing him his performance in the series was lacking, or maybe they thought Turner was a man of enough honor not to report something told to him in confidence? And who knows if Turner even reported their comments correctly?) So, Linz sicced his new enforcer on the denizens of his own swamp. Turner wrote (highlights given; I urge you to read the whole thing), One of her philosophy's most crucial points is complete and total atheism, as opposed to agnosticism. Given her rejection of God is in more than one place indicated as being based on "moral" grounds (i.e. her distaste), she in fact comes out to be a hater of God and anything that could possibly be above human beings. Her "ideal man" is in fact her god; in other words she is an idolater. Her idol is a fictional character of her imagination, and her philosophy is the attempt to change human nature to become such a being. To the extent her idol is a "light bringer" he is very close to being a satanic symbol. Rationality, which in its pure form can only be of God, as recognized by nearly all the major philosophers, is in her philosophy given place only within man. However, since a man can obviously never obtain pure rationality, because he is in fact a creature of dual nature - animal and rational being - he can never attain this ideal. Linz then indicated 100% agreement with the non-religious sections of this screed. Luke Setzer and Gregster then asked the obvious question whether Turner is a Christian, and being a forthright brave new intellectual in the Perigo mold, Turner ignored the actual question (a simple "yes" would have sufficed) and went on the attack: " You useless cucks, who contributed NOTHING to MOGA, can you argue with what I said?" After more back and forth with Turner posing as an independent thinker while considering it a valid argument to count up the number of previous thinkers who argued there must be a god (far from the only logical fallacy in his new patented SLOP Swampwater), Linz's camp follower Olivia replied: If the world of Objectivism actually bred “first hand” thinkers, the movement would be successful beyond words. Appallingly, it did not, hence the cultism... and the “Ayn Rand said... Ayn Rand said” squawking mentality which always relies on a written prescription from her on every single topic, for all time. Luke’s “anyone who rants this is clearly not an Objectivist” line is a classic example. Just like many Christians say “anyone who doesn’t believe such-in-such, is clearly not a Christian.” As a thinking human being, I have been influenced by many philosophers, writers and thinkers, but what sits well in my own conscience when everything gets weighed up in my own mind will be the motivating principle into actions or arguments. Again, the question of whether a site that claims to be Objectivist is still actually Objectivist in any meaningful sense is studiously ignored--can't have your cake if you eat it. Luke Setzer replied in part: Thanks for making it abundantly clear that this is no longer an Objectivist site. Y'all have fun. I will be sure to renew my monthly contributions to ARI this coming week despite my disagreements with them on immigration since they expose fine young people like this one to the philosophy. At least they are not prattling about how rotten are the foundations of Ayn Rand's thought while also praising the rationality of God and concurrently saying they want to MOGA, a hash of contradictions if ever I heard one. Indeed. (Though I would urge him not to contribute to ARI; among other reasons, his money would would mostly go to salaries.) No response to this has been posted yet; I doubt it will be particularly insightful, just Linz dismissing from his sight yet another of his former friends and admirers, with abuse piped in from the heroically posed enforcer and camp follower. This wouldn't be worth comment except for the fact that Linz calls his site Objectivist--it's in the damn name. One wishes he would show the independence of mind and heroic endeavor needed to finally create his alternate theory of Non-Sacrificism or Selfism or whatever other watered-down alternative to "selfishness" (which alienates people, doncha know, and a brave herioc individual can't have that!) he keeps claiming he is hatching. Please do, Linz--if it's as good as you claim it is, we'll all be the better, and if (as seems rather likelier) it's more SLOP Swampwater, then at least you will clarify what is currently as foggy as the modern world you so hate. But to do so, Linz would have to do at least two things: (1) Get off his lazy ass and actually produce something, and (2) assuming he were as honest as he claims, stop calling his site "Objectivist." A person who argues, as Linz does, that the body-soul dichotomy is in fact valid, that abortion should be banned once the fetus has a heartbeat, and that Rand was an unemotional Vulcan, among other things--why would he want to call himself an Objectivist? (The amusing part about her supposed lack of emotion is this complaint: "She had no idea of convivialism—with good food, good wine, good fellowship, good converstion—except in the entries in her journals when Roark, Dominique, Mallory and Mike got together after work. These are very brief, non-defining passages, alas." So basically, because she didn't have her protagonists get together after work for a cold one or two [I leave it to you to consider whether he is even correct here], and because she didn't make that a Leitmotiv of her fiction, then she was an unemotional Vulcan. In other words, she didn't include everything under the sun in her novels, regardless of whether they even pertained to the plot--that is, she actually was so much of an unemotional Vulcan as to exercise esthetic selectivity! A supposed Objectivist condemning Rand for not being a naturalist? That's some truly fetid SLOP Swampwater!) So, if Rand was so wrong on so many basic issues, if the coy theist enforcer and the studiously irrelevant camp follower are the only good ones of the bunch, why continue calling yourself Objectivist? That's obvious: It's the only branding the guy has. If he left off "Objectivism" and renamed his site more accurately as, say, "Emotionalist Spittle Duct," how many hits would he get in searches? None. He would fade even further into irrelevance. So, like any second-hander, he keeps the name while doing nothing to earn it and, indeed, doing his damnedest to undermine it for his admirers, but not forthrightly enough to save his integrity or, alas, lose his brand. He poses heroically as the great alternative to Rand, ready to correct all her mistakes and create something new and valuable and admirable, but in actual deed he just sits there holding court in an ever-diminishing salon, a bullfrog in a fetid swamp, damning the small channel of Objectivist water trickling into it through the occasional Google hit while making damn sure not to dam(n) it all off, because then his tiny corner of the world would all dry up and he wouldn't be able to market any more SLOP Swampwater. Second-handers are pitiful, Objectivist second-handers most of all.

In a bit of free time, I read some of John Kim a.k.a. Madmax/Doug Bandler's older postings at SOLO Passion. At the risk of beating a brain-dead ass, I'll share this bit of what is either stupid ignorance (stupid in that he didn't even check Wikipedia for basic facts) or a deliberate lie--though in that case probably a deliberate lie he stole from some slightly less stupid driveler, since he doesn't seem to have the "brain power...or temperament to create" anything original: "Blacks do not have the brain power at the population level nor the temperament to create advanced civilizations. I know, that is a depressing assertion but one clearly obvious by a study of history. When the blacks finally conquered Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, they ruled over a mixed race society. That ancient civilization would come to and end. There would be no 27th Dynasty." What he meant was the 25th Dynasty (760-656 BC), a period when Egypt had been taken over by the Nubians. It was in fact a period of restoration of traditional Egyptian culture that, contrary to Kim's assertions, was followed by the native 26th Dynasty, which ruled for 140 or so years--it was then succeeded by what Kim declares to have not existed, the 27th Dynasty, which was a period of Persian rule, followed in turn by three more native dynasties and finally the last Persian dynasty before conquest by Alexander the Great. Well, John Kim seems really intent on claiming himself to be a fully pure member of a superior white race, but if he even is, I guess the intelligence genes didn't get transmitted or expressed in his case.

John Kim, a.k.a. Madmax/Doug Bandler, is dripping more of his diseased drivel over in SOLO. For example: "BTW, the fact that Charlize Theron did not reproduce her stunning Nordic genetics is a true crime (Google her up to see interviews she gives in Afrikaner; ie Dutch. What a stunning Aryan woman). To see her with her adopted black African "son" makes me want to cry. I don't care how much a person wants to preach "individualism" but if whites do become extinct, women like Charlize Theron bear partial responsibility. She didn't earn her Nordic beauty. She was bequeathed it. And she betrayed it." In other words, he says to Theron, "You didn't build that." A woman's beauty isn't due to her own activities but is purely due to genetics, and so it belongs to the race and shouldn't be betrayed by choosing not to have children. That is, "Du bist nichts; dein Volk ist alles." And you know, that Hitler chap wasn't really so bad. He had his reasons, and they were good reasons: "And an objective study of WW2 and Hitler would lead to the conclusion that the Nazis were in large part a response to the *Jewish dominated* Communist movement which was responsible for the mass starvation of tens of millions of gentiles (Ukraine and Armenia, etc). The Jews as Communists engineered the slaughter of over 20 million Christians. The Nazis paid them back by killing 4-6 million Jews. If you dig deep into any attempted mass slaughter you will always find a deeply seated ethnic grudge. And such grudges are often not arbitrary. There are legitimate reasons people have ethnic hatred." So yeah, the Jews just had it coming. Here's a snapshot of SOLO "culture" in a week or so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co

(ETA correct attributions) Bandler started as an opponent of your type around 2007, then morphed into your type by about 2011 or 2012, as Neil Parille pointed out and Larry Auster publicized back in 2012, quoting a comment in which he logged on as Madmax and signed off as Bandler. More than that, Bandler posted on SOLO long before his morphing, so in 2010 he started a thread critiquing Larry Auster for his racial views but considered him the best thing since cat's pyjamas by 2012. He doesn't seem to have made any bones about his change of views; it's one of the few things he does seem to be honest about.

(I miscut that; it's a quote from Michael Moeller.) Yeah, Bandler's a piece of work. Here's part of his latest rant: "Still, if I was going to marry (and I still might) it wouldn't be to an Hispanic or Asian woman, even though I admit it is much easier to find a more virtuous woman from those groups than it is to find a virtuous white girl (and that is a real cultural tragedy that you'll never see the ARI write about). I would only marry a white woman because I would not want to have interracial children. I wouldn't feel connected to them. I don't care how that sounds." Well, unfortunately for him, by his own admission (under his old name Madmax) he himself is interracial: "For myself, growing up as a half-Asian in an all white suburb, I never had much exposure to black or Latin people until I spent a year in Brazil." (And I seem to remember him writing in one of his posts that he was raised by a single mother, which leads one to suspect that like father, like son, and a poor reflection on both.) Perhaps he was lying then; perhaps he's lying now. In either case, it's just another in his long history of lies and false personalities. Now we know why the high priest of "authenticism" admires him so much: Authenticity requires, well, authenticity. Authenticism doesn't even require talking the talk, much less walking the walk; it just has to elicit that tingling in Linz's loins when he hears the bellow of primal rage.

What I read of him had a way of calling to mind a famous quote from Alexandre Dumas:"My father was a mulatto, my grandfather was a Negro, and my great-grandfather a monkey. You see, Sir, my family starts where yours ends." Skimming his flounce-gram you'd think he was about to quote Sinatra's signature song My Way. No wait, here's a performance by, could it be, DB himself? You give him far too much credit. Start at 8:20 of the following and you'll see a more accurate depiction of Bandler's self-image. Note, however, this character lives out his ideals in reality (or at least the reality of the film), rather than posturing in the mirror and crying himself to sleep at his utter inability to match walk and talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoFRbvpPTgU

Hmm, so Doug Bandler praising fascism in the name of liberty is not noteworthy? (I note that while the silly boy loves to flirt with self-proclaimed fascists, he probably doesn't care to sign on with some of the more, shall we say, challenging challenges to his mentally challenged world view: Just thought I'd mention all this, 'cause it looks like Daunce Lynam missed this post of his.