Biden Administration’s Appeasement of Iran Is Driving The World To a Nuclear Holocaust

Biden Administration’s Appeasement of Iran Is Driving The World To a Nuclear Holocaust

Allistor Heath writes in the Telegraph echoing Leonard Peikoff’s call to End States The Sponsor Terrorism:

If Joe Biden were a serious president, he would announce that the mullahs in Tehran have crossed a red line, that they are an existential menace to civilised nations. He would declare that enough is enough, that no country can shoot hundreds of drones and missiles at one of its neighbours with impunity, that no government can go on funding terrorism, rape, torture and murder on an industrial scale. He would understand the need to deter other rogue states through a show of strength.

He would state that the Iranian regime must be treated like the global pariah that it has become, that all of its proxies must be destroyed, and that, above all, it will never be allowed to get anywhere near nuclear weapons. He would put together a coalition, including as many of Iran’s Arab neighbours as possible. He would impose extreme sanctions. He would allow Israel to finish off Hamas. He would help hit Hezbollah.

If all else fails, he would use American military power to destroy Iran’s nuclear’s installations, just as Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and the Al-Kibar site in Syria in 2007. He would not invade Iran or impose regime change: that would be up to Iran’s wonderful, long-suffering people. But he would contain and neutralise one of the key players in the axis of evil, and make the world a safer place.

In the real world, in common with David Cameron, Biden clings to a policy of appeasement when it comes to Iran and its proxies, even though this strategy failed to contain fascistic, imperialistic powers in the 1930s and will fail to do so again in the 2020s. This isn’t even a tactic to buy time while an actual plan is put into place: our politicians are praying that today’s crisis will somehow solve itself.

It won’t. The West’s refusal to face reality means that it is increasingly likely that Iran will eventually gain a nuclear weapon, and quite possibly use it against Israel, itself a nuclear power, with the explicit view of triggering a millenarian moment. The world is careering towards a three or four-pronged third world war involving Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea: the Islamic Republic is the weakest link, the least difficult one to deal with today, if we had the sense to act.

Iran is about to start a nuclear world war – and the West is determined to lose” is an important read.

 

Distrupt Tesla: The Assault on Tesla Factory and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Distrupt Tesla: The Assault on Tesla Factory and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

German left-wing fascists attack an EV car factory — because it represents capitalism. The assault on Elon Musk’s factory is like the attack of Rearden Steel in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

The similarities of Elon Musk to the fictional character in the best-selling novel Atlas Shrugged — businessman Hank Rearden — are in principle uncanny, which just shows the philosophical genius of Ayn Rand.

mobi 768x1086

According to the organizers:

In Grünheide, near Berlin, 1 million new Teslas will roll off the production line every year, joining the avalanche of cars on the motorways. After three more expansion phases, the plant on the outskirts of Berlin will be the largest car factory in Europe. We want to stop that. More than 250,000 new cars are already produced there every year, adding to the useless electric and combustion engine junk that clogs up our roads and that no one needs in a future where mobility belongs to everyone.

The mysogynistic Twitter fascist Elon Musk has used his brand to establish the electric car as a ‘green’ alternative to the internal combustion engine. But electric cars are not the solution. They are the continuation of the individual transport madness by other means. And that is neither sustainable nor green. The production of an electric car creates a huge ecological footprint through the consumption of resources and thus drives the global climate catastrophe even further.

 

Pride is No Sin

“Pride” is the commitment to achieve one’s own moral perfection” according to philosopher Leonard Peikoff in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Invoking Christian mythology, Jordan Peterson recently made this statement against the virtue of pride.

Peterson gets pride wrong. In the words of Ayn Rand’s famous character John Galt in her novel Atlas Shrugged:

Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned—that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character—that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice—that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself—and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul’s shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.

The moral amibition of pride is the quest to achieve moral pefection. It is as Aristotle note, the crown of the virtues:

“Pride, then, seems to be a sort of crown of the virtues; for it makes them greater, and it is not found without them. Therefore it is hard to be truly proud; for it is impossible without nobility and goodness of character.”

 

Anti-Israel: The Gradual Transformation of the Democratic Party

Anti-Israel: The Gradual Transformation of the Democratic Party

Writes Glick on “Biden ends the US-Israel alliance at a fortuitous moment“:

“By placing a hold on congressionally approved offensive weapons to Israel, Biden is bowing to antisemites who are opposed by the overwhelming majority of college students and the general public. And he is siding with them six months before Election Day.

Biden’s actions energized Republicans to move harshly against his policy in the Republican-controlled House and in the Senate. Democrats in swing districts and purple states either hope to keep their heads down or speak out directly against the policy.

All of this places upper limits on what Biden can do to Israel before the elections. The White House’s efforts on Thursday to walk back his statement in the face of the furious backlash against it make those limits apparent.”

According to Glick, Biden’s appeasement of Hamas is a continiation of Obama’s Anti-Israel policies:

Thanks to Obama and his senior officials, coupled with the funding mechanisms they built and institutionalized, a steadily growing number of Democrats embraced the view that far from the last great hope of mankind and the leader of the free world, the U.S. was traditionally the world’s greatest aggressor. U.S. allies were viewed as accomplices to this evil, and as such, undeserving of support.

America’s enemies, on the other hand, were viewed as victims, and “innocent” by nature and incapable of doing wrong. Since the most anti-American actors in the world are Iran and radical, jihadist Arab states like Syria and Qatar were necessarily worthy of support and could be blamed for no wrongdoing.

The chief aggressor in Obama’s CRT taxonomy is Israel. And the chief victims are Israel’s existential enemies: Iran and the Palestinians. Empowering the latter against the Jewish state was seen as both a moral imperative and the key to repositioning the transformed United States on the “right side of history.”

Slowly, but surely, over his eight years in office, Obama incentivized abidance by CRT catechisms. Its primary expression in foreign policy was hatred of Israel and support for Palestinian terrorists and Iran.

Concludes Glick:

“Unfortunately, however, Biden’s willingness to side with Hamas (and Iran and Hezbollah) against Israel as Israel fights a war for its very survival also demonstrates that if he wins a second term, Israel will face a nightmare scenario of relations with Washington.”

Read the full article.

Teaching Critical Thinking Gets Teacher Warren Smith Fired

With over 4 million views this video of teacher Warren Smith went viral:

Utterly inspirational.

Then this happened:

As the saying goes, let no good deed go unpunished.

Draft is a Black Mark on The Heroic Zelensky

Draft is a Black Mark on The Heroic Zelensky

The real black mark on Zelensky is his institution of a military draft. (Of course, the same could be said for Putin who is far worse).

“Of all the statist violations of individual rights…the military draft is the worst. It…establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state…” — Ayn Rand

 

Justice for Elon Musk: Tesla Asks Shareholders to Reapprove Elon’s $47B Stock Bonus

Justice for Elon Musk: Tesla Asks Shareholders to Reapprove Elon’s $47B Stock Bonus

Earlier this year, a Delaware Court ruling in Tornetta v. Musk (which can be found as Annex I to this Proxy Statement) struck down one of your votes and rescinded the pay package that an overwhelming majority of you voted to grant to our CEO, Elon Musk, in 2018. The Tornetta Court decided, years later, that the CEO pay package was not “entirely fair” to the very same stockholders who voted to approve it — even though approximately 73% of all votes cast by our disinterested stockholders voted to approve it in 2018. Because the Delaware Court second-guessed your decision, Elon has not been paid for any of his work for Tesla for the past six years that has helped to generate significant growth and stockholder value. That strikes us — and the many stockholders from whom we already have heard — as fundamentally unfair, and inconsistent with the will of the stockholders who voted for it.

The 2018 CEO pay package required Elon to deliver transformative and unprecedented growth to earn any compensation. It was a big risk, and many thought that the plan’s targets for benefits to stockholders were simply unachievable. But our company and our leaders have always had big dreams and it is fundamental to the entrepreneurial spirit of Tesla to take big risks for the chance at big rewards. This has led to the incredible innovation and progress — and economic gains — that we have achieved at Tesla. In 2018, we asked for unbelievable growth and accomplishments. Elon delivered: Tesla’s stockholders have benefited from unprecedented growth under Elon’s leadership and Tesla has met every single one of the 2018 CEO pay package’s targets. And — most importantly for the future of Tesla — the 2018 CEO pay package built in further incentives to benefit Tesla stockholders by requiring that Elon hold onto any shares he receives when he exercises his options for five years — which means he will continue to be driven to innovate and drive growth at Tesla because the value of his shares will depend on it!

The Board stands behind this pay package. We believed in it in 2018, as we asked Elon to pursue remarkable goals to grow the company. You, as stockholders, also believed in it in 2018 when you overwhelmingly approved it. Time and results have only shown the wisdom of our judgment.

We do not agree with what the Delaware Court decided, and we do not think that what the Delaware Court said is how corporate law should or does work. So we are coming to you now so you can help fix this issue — which is a matter of fundamental fairness and respect to our CEO. You have the chance to reinstate your vote and make it count. We are asking you to make your voice heard — once again — by voting to approve ratification of Elon’s 2018 compensation plan. –

Notice of 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

“States Rights” Are Actually Delegated Powers

“States Rights” Are Actually Delegated Powers

There is no such thing as “states rights”, the proper term to use is state powers.

States have no rights but only powers delegated to them.

Amendment X:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

You cannot delegate individual rights as they are unalienable, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

What governments have are powers. Observes Ayn Rand:

“[George Wallace] is not a defender of individual rights, but merely of states’ rights—which is far, far from being the same thing. When he denounces ‘Big Government,’ it is not the unlimited, arbitrary power of the state that he is denouncing, but merely its centralization—and he seeks to place the same unlimited, arbitrary power in the hands of many little governments. The break-up of a big gang into a number of warring small gangs is not a return to a constitutional system nor to individual rights nor to law and order.” [“The Presidential Candidates 1968,” The Objectivist, June 1968, 5]

I do agree, in principle, to limit the federal government to its explicitly stated powers enumerated in the U.S. constitution, as the federal government has far overreached its powers.

Decentralization (or centralization) in government is only good to the extent that it enables the protection of individual rights. What the right mix is of central vs decentralization in any given context is a practical matter.

***

What of the American civil war?

There’s no such thing as the right to fight a war for slavery, which is the “custom” that the South was fighting for in the American Civil War. Law is not an end in itself.

Objectively law does not exist in a vacuum, but has a purpose. Under Americanism, that purpose is stated in the Declaration of Independence: the protection of individual rights. So any state in the Union cannot legally fight a war that undermines the basis of law itself. Any republic which legally protects slavery is illegitimate to that extent. The civil war was the way this defect was remedied.

Prior to the 13th amendment the North was working to legally limit slavery and its expansion so that the non-slave states “free states” would eventually outnumber the slave states of the South. The South saw the writing on the wall. If the North was not gradually working against slavery, the South would have stayed in the Union.

Florida Law Banning Social Media For Minors Violates Parental Rights

Florida has passed a law, signed by Governor DeSantis,  that bans anyone under 14 owning a social media account as of from January 2025. The bill states children that are 14 -15 years of age must have parental consent to create an account on sites like X, Instagram, and Facebook”

“A social media platform shall prohibit a minor who is 14 or 15 years of age from entering into a contract with a social media platform to become an account holder, unless the minor’s parent or guardian provides consent for the minor to become an account holder…”

Apparently it will use “anonymous age verification.”

This bill should be overturned as it is a naked violation of parental rights.  It is up to parents to determine what their child have or do not have access to.

The state does have a role in going after child trafficking and exploitation which some claim is an issue on Instagram, but this bill is not the way to do it.

Justice for Elon Musk: Tesla Asks Shareholders to Reapprove Elon’s $47B Stock Bonus

Musk on Immigration

Here is what I found:

1. Musk did not say illegal immigrants vote. I took what he said to mean that they are likely to vote if naturalized. (He may be wrong or right on this).

2. As an immigrant himself, Musk is for greatly expanding legal immigration. He is against border anarchy.

3. Some make the argument that immigrants who enter illegally because of the Biden administration are more apt to vote for Democrats (based on interviews with them). I agree, that whether they do vote or not is an empirical matter.

4. Thanks to Biden’s executive order, illegals count toward the census which determines house seat counts in Federal elections:

“Accordingly, the executive branch has always determined the population of each State, for purposes of congressional representation, without regard to whether its residents are in lawful immigration status.”

Some estimates show that the net effect of placing them in Democratic strongholds is to give Democrats a lock on an additional 20 plus house seats.

5. Illegals in some states do end up voting in Federal elections due to the lax state ID standards for voting, etc. See this thread:

Musk may be wrong or right on some facts. I see that he is open to changing his views when presented with facts which he sees as facts. I think his errors are due to the noise out there.

Ultra-Millionaire Tax

When the 16th amendment was ratified, the federal income tax was to be no more than 2%. What will be the future rate increase and who will Warren’s confiscation of wealth tax be expanded to when the principle that she can steal people’s wealth is put into law?

According to the Tax Foundation, “The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.99 percent average rate, more than eight times higher than the 3.1 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.”

Socialist Senator Warren lies by omission in order to confiscate the wealth of billionaires. “Fair share” for Warren and her ilk is a euphemism for legalized theft.

Good Journalism

What makes a good news organization?

1. The requirements to call oneself a “new organization” should be set by private citizens in their capacity as consumers of the news, and not the government.

2. Journalism should be reporting “just the facts.”

3. Goodjournalism is reporting all the relevantfacts, so readers can form their own opinion.

4. News reporting should not replace the opinions of “experts” at the expense of the facts (experts can be called in to give their educated opinions on facts when necessary.)

The problem with the lack of trust in traditional media outlets is that verification is time-consuming in a division of labor society, where the amount of information is greater than the time available for a single individual to examine it.

When trust is lost it’s hard to get it back.

“Progressives” Against Free Speech

“Progressives” Against Free Speech

The free speech trifecta, therefore, covers the three areas of greatest concern for the free speech community: censorship, blacklisting and weaponization. The resulting opinions could curtail or magnify such abuses. For example, the social media case (Murthy) seemed to trouble the justices as to where to draw a line on coercion. If the court simply declines to draw such a line and rules for the government, it will likely fuel new censorship efforts by federal agencies.

What is disconcerting about the views expressed by Justices Kagan, Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in two of the cases is not that they are outliers. The problem is that liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link, often dismissive or hostile to free speech arguments.

When Justice Jackson defends the right of the government to coerce speech, she follows a long legacy of speech relativists on the court, including the earlier Justice Robert Jackson. He had warned that the court needed to approach speech prosecutions with “a little practical wisdom,” so as not to “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

The current Justice Jackson seemed to channel the same practicalities over principle in stressing that “you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective.”

The view of speech as harm or violence is all the rage on college campuses, and also in many Western countries where free speech is in a free fall. France, Canada and the United Kingdom now regularly arrest people for expressing hateful or controversial viewpoints. Those same anti-free speech arguments are now being heard in our own Congress and colleges in the U.S.

It is not clear how the court will decide these cases. One fear is that it could retreat to blurry lines that leave us all uncertain about what speech is protected. In an area that demands bright lines to prevent the chilling effect on speech, such vague outcomes could be lethal.

The government loves ambiguity when it comes to speech regulation. It now may have found new voices on the left side of the court to join in the ignoble effort of combating free speech. That renewed effort to introduce “a little practical wisdom” could mean a lot less freedom for Americans.

 

Free Book: Recovery A Guide to Reforming the U.S. Health Sector

recovery coverHealth care in the United States is not a free market.

  • U.S. residents are less free to make their own health decisions than residents of other nations.
  • Government controls a larger share of health spending in the United States than in Canada, the United Kingdom, and most other advanced nations.
  • State and federal governments subsidize low-quality medical care and penalize high-quality care. They block innovations that would otherwise reduce medical prices.

Recovery shows that making health care as universal as possible requires ending all barriers that government places in the way of better, more affordable, and more secure health care.”

Order the book on Amazon or download a free copy.

Amy Peikoff: Privacy is Not a Right

Amy Peikoff: Privacy is Not a Right

When it comes to privacy, Amy Peikoff is the gift that keeps on giving:

Examples like this are why it’s crucial to understand the true nature of #privacy.

Privacy is *not* a right. Rights, properly understood, cannot be “balanced” against one another anyway. But in this example, a thief’s “right” to privacy is held to potentially outweigh the package owner’s right to property. This is a complete inversion.

Privacy is a *state*–a state which human beings can create and maintain for themselves, using their fundamental rights to property and contract. …. If you understand privacy this way, you see how ludicrous it is to say that someone’s [right to] privacy can be violated by another’s legitimate assertion of his or her property right. Privacy, in reality, depends on having a right to property. Use privacy to undermine rights to property, and you end up undermining privacy itself. If you are on someone else’s porch, stealing a package that is not yours, you have zero right–call it privacy, or zingoflip or anything else you want to call it–to not be exposed.

Other gems:

As philosopher Ayn Rand observed, in her novel The Fountainhead, the progress of civilization has afforded human beings more privacy, which they have been able to use to think, to produce, to improve their health, and selectively share and enjoy their values. …

 

… Privacy–a crucial component of human flourishing–depends on govt respecting our rights to property & contract.

 

…We have the right to use our property—or to make contracts with others—to create states of privacy for ourselves and those we value.

 

…The third-party doctrine holds that, whenever you share information with a “third party” (bank, telephone co., social media, etc., etc.), you no longer have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in it and so there’s no 4th amendment warrant requirement.

Recommended Reading:

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest