Laissez-fairytales:

One of the most glaringly stupid things about Objectivists and Libertarians is their complete unwillingness to admit that the fact that their preferred socioeconomic system  has never actually existed.

For example: the 19th century U.S. was not some sort of Laissez-faire utopia:  A very specific subset of white males were permitted to to damn near anything to anyone else — including most other “Whites”.

Here’s just a short list of those who were systematically precluded from participating in the (supposedly) laissez-faire utopia of the 19th century U.S.:

  1. ANYONE who was female
  2. ALL non-whites (especially anyone presumed to have “one drop” of “Negro” blood).
  3. So-called “American Indians” (Hint: Ayn Rand didn’t give two liquidy shits about what “civilized” (IE: WHITE) settlers did to “savages” — look it up.)
  4. The vast majority of those we would now consider “White” (Anyone not a “WASP”, essentially).

Here’s a simple rule of thumb:  even if someone can get away with self-designating as “White” today (2016): if there’s an “ethnic” or “religious” slur related to their ancestral “homeland”, they were not full participants in the “capitalist” 19th century:

(Ie: wops, kikes, niggers, Polacks, etc.)

The truly ironic thing about the Objectivist movement in particular is the sheer preponderance of folks with Jewish ancestry — the Brandens (real names: Blumenthal/Weidman), Peikoff, “Ayn Rand”, herself (Real name: Rosenbaum):

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN (AT BEST) “SECOND-CLASS” CITIZENS during the 19th century.

Time for a Rand quote (because the stupid bitch did occasionally have a few semi-valid things to say:

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evasion.html

I can’t even begin to comprehend the level of “evasion” required to blank-out the fact that — during that oh-so-utopian 19th century — “Ayn Rand” would have been systematically precluded from access to that ‘capitalist’ utopia:

Think about it:

Ayn Rand was:

  1. Female (do a web search for “gender roles”)
  2. A Jew (her family wasn’t particularly religious, and she herself was an atheist — but she would still have been considered a “kike”, nonetheless).

So, yeah…..Ayn Rand was historically illiterate.  So are her followers.

Delusional bullshit would be excusable except when those perpetrating it claim that “rationality” is their primary virtue.  Mythologizing the 19th-century U.S. as a utopia of “rugged individualism” is a lot of things (corrupt, vicious, delusional etc.) — but it damned sure isn’t “rational”.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s