Subject: Porter on Objectivism

excerpted from a commentary by Carlos W. Porter, July 15, 2001

[A] paper, by an anonymous "student of Objectivism" at Lawrence University, is a typical example of Objectivist theoretical writing. The topic is: "Does a Woman Have a Right to an Abortion?" Any other topic (for example, revisionism) might equally well be substituted, since the "Objectivist" style of argument never varies.

Note [in the paper all of] the unfounded assertions; the undefined terms; the trick definitions; the terms defined in terms of other, mutually undefined (and undefinable) terms only; the "bait and switch" or "expanding definition" technique in which definitions are made to expand and contract at whim; the false analogies; the appeals to philosophical authority in purely factual matters (in a philosophy of "reason", no less!); the Talmudic hair-splitting; the sophistry; speciousness; the constant attempts at moral and intellectual intimidation; the jargon; verbosity; pretentiousness; arrogance; pitilessness; obnoxiousness, and chuztpa generally.

To sum up: it is a philosophy typically, totally Jewish in conception and style.

The Objectivist philosophy is like a jigsaw puzzle in which every word is redefined to jibe perfectly with some other word, again, arbitrarily redefined, in such a way as to produce an effect which is purely specious. It is an attempt to force reality into a mould dictated by purely verbal formulae with very little examination of fact...

If I need to decide whether or not to turn left at the next corner, ten thousand pages of philosophizing about "reason", and "reality", and the "perception of reality", are totally useless: what I need is correct factual data. Since "reason" -- as distinguished from "rationalization" -- is impossible to define "objectively" except in a very general, abstract way, this throws the whole Objectivist philosophy of "reason" into a cocked hat before we even start! Just as one example of the many which might be mentioned: the Jewish founders of Objectivism, Rand/Rosenbaum and Branden/Blumenthal, spent 18 years screwing each other even though they were both married and Rand was 25 years older, thus contributing to both Rand's husband's alcoholism and Branden's divorce; it was Rand's sexual jealousy that destroyed the Objectivist movement. Of course, their sexual affair was "rational", because that was what they wanted to do. Branden/Blumenthal has admitted all of this, saying that Rand was a "genius at reasoning, and just as much a genius at rationalization", a statement which must necessarily be just as true of Branden himself, since they were both involved (see: MY YEARS WITH AYN RAND, by Nathaniel Branden, or THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, by Branden's ex-wife Barbara Branden/Weidmann, another kike).

It should be noted that Seneca's philosophy of "Stoicism" is not refuted by the fact that Seneca was a wealthy money-lender, because at least we know what "Stoicism" consists of; it is a coherent, practical philosophy. We do not know what "reason" consists of, except very abstractly. All pretence to the contrary notwithstanding, Objectivists are far less able to "perceive reality" than other people, because they have so many preconceived notions as to what "reality" should be like. In actual fact, they are some of the most irrational and unreasonable people one could ever have the misfortune of meeting.

The Objectivists reject altruism, alleging that "sacrifice means the surrender of a lesser value for a higher value": the "surrender of a lower value for a higher one" -- according to the Objectivists -- is not a "sacrifice", but a "profit"; the "surrender of a higher value for a lower one" is "anti-life". Note how typically Jewish this is: either you are making a "profit" or you are "immoral"! Perhaps it is this kind of thing that caused E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars Magazine to say that Rand "proposed as the ideal American a caricature of the avaricious Jew."

To a sane person, "sacrifice" means forgoing a lower value for a higher one when the higher one is more long-term or more abstract, even when the lower one is something we may want desperately -- such as our lives, property, comfort, and/or the lives and well-being of our families. This occurs, for example, in any war, and constantly throughout life generally. To work and save instead of spending and enjoying is a "sacrifice", but ordinary people do these things as a matter of course. The Objectivists revert to an infantile morality of self-gratification, justified by thousands of pages of Talmudic hair-splitting and sophistry. This is only one of the many examples of Objectivist trickery in definitions.

The assumption that "only individuals exist" another fallacy. In reality, the family, the community, the nation, the race, have an existence and a reality of their own, which transcends that of the individual. This is not an abstraction; it is a fact. How far would you get in farming if you said, "There's no such thing as varieties of corn, only individual ears of corn"? "There is no such thing as breeds of cows, only individual Anguses, Holsteins, and Guernseys, etc."? This is called the "problem of universals", on which the Objectivists take a totally unrealistic position. They use this false premise in order to "prove" that a person who "sacrifices" himself for the nation or an ideal is sacrificing himself for "other people", which is, according to them, ipso facto "immoral".

...sacrifice is not an end in itself. It is part of life, a painful necessity. No one wants to die for his country, his principles or ideals. That is just as one example. Working and saving to support one's family is another. It is called responsibility. Life is full of these decisions, on a much smaller scale. Objectivists reduce all moral decision-making to a mere haggling over "values" -- i.e., prices!!! -- like true Jews.

The Objectivist philosophy can be boiled down to the following:

Man's existence depends upon his reason; therefore, "anti-reason" (i.e., anything "interfering with reason", any "initiation of the use of physical force", i.e., any regulation or law), is "anti-life"; therefore, all laws regulating morals offences, abortion or immigration are "anti-life".

Objectivists imagine that this is totally irrefutable, but in fact it is totally arbitrary: Note the pattern:

MAJOR PREMISE: Man's life depends on x;

MINOR PREMISE: All that which interferes with x is "anti-life";

CONCLUSION: Therefore, y (which "interferes with x") is "anti-life",

the x being whatever value you wish to supply. Of course it has to be something fairly plausible, or nobody will believe it. In reality, "Man's life" depends upon a great many things. One could just as easily say:

a) Man's existence depends on getting enough sleep; therefore, all that which interferes with sleep is "anti-life"; therefore, requiring me to report for work at 9:00 is "anti-life".

b) Man's life depends upon getting born; all that which interferes with getting born is "anti-life"; therefore, contraception and abortion are "anti-life".

c) Man's life depends upon procreation; all that which interferes with procreation is "anti-life"; same conclusion as above.

d) Man's life depends upon defecation; all that which interferes with defecation is "anti-life"; therefore, people must be allowed to defecate anywhere they want (admittedly, this is a reductio ad absurdum).

Apart from the fact that "Man's life" is an extremely questionable starting point for a philosophy of ethics, it would be just as "rational" -- in view of the fact that "reason" cannot be defined objectively with regards to any particular situation -- to say "Man's life comes from God; all that which is anti-God is anti-life"; etc. Neither "reason" nor "God" can be defined objectively. The Objectivists choose one such factor, arbitrarily selected and incapable of definition, and ignore all others; in Objectivism, every principle is taken to an extreme on the grounds that failure to do so would be "logically inconsistent".

I believe that "Man's life" depends on life in a society of his own kind, which protects him, his family, his religion and his property, from conquest and enslavement by some other society or community. This is the reality, even among primitive tribes; very few people depend for their "survival" upon "reason". A Hottentot may know how to use ostrich eggs to conserve water, but if he violates the tribal taboos in some manner, he is expelled from the tribe and is killed by other tribes or starves. An "individualist" will object: "We are not Hottentots"; but the principle applies nevertheless.

There is another contradiction: Objectivists speak of "Man's life" while claiming that "only individuals exist". If you object that many people do not live by "reason", quite the contrary, the Objectivists will object that they are speaking of "Man qua Man", a bit of Latinized jargon meaning that they are speaking of "Man as Man", in other words, man as an abstraction, defined in such a way as to prove their point: a circular argument.

SUMMARY: The Objectivist philosophy is based on the following syllogism: Man's life depends upon reason. All that which interferes with reason is "anti-life"; the "initiation of physical force" interferes with "reason"; therefore the "initiation of physical force" is "anti-life". The "initiation of physical force" nearly always takes the form of law, i.e., a policeman coming around with a gun to "force" you to do something in violation of your "reason", i.e., without your consent. Therefore, most laws, and ALL regulations, are "anti-life", because they constitute the "initiation of physical force". Anti-abortion laws are "anti-life"; obscenity laws are "anti-life"; immigration laws are "anti-life". Let us imagine a rural community which wishes to pass an ordinance prohibiting taverns or saloons (South Pasadena California split from Pasadena California for this very reason). To the Objectivists, this is the "initiation of physical force"! There are no taverns; no one wants to open one; but some Jew might come down from 500 miles away and want to open one. It is obvious how deceptive and destructive this is: the community is prohibited from enforcing standards in any way, no matter how large the majority -- even 100%. This does not, of course, prevent Jews from enforcing their standards upon us.

For this same reason, the nation cannot enforce its abortion laws, drug laws, obscenity laws, immigration laws, etc. The community, the racial, religious or ethnic group, is barred from enforcing standards of any kind. The mere existence of immigration laws is an "initiation of physical force", an injustice. This is not an exaggeration. The Objectivists advocated the abolition of all immigration laws as long ago as the mid-1960s, claiming that prior to the First World War, one could travel anywhere in the world without a passport (THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, 1968). The intent and purpose of Objectivism was to get "right-wing" people to accept extreme "left-wing" social programmes. Jews always get the same results out of whatever philosophy they happen to advocate at the moment.

Objectivists have little or no concern with facts, and rarely resort to factual argument; the entire philosophy is a hot-air balloon of interlocking abstract definitions floating in space; the only Objectivist book that I know of with any degree of detailed factual argument is CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, published in 1965. At rare intervals, some air is let out of the balloon, the crew floats down to earth to pluck up some factual argument on some complex topic, usually in the form of a value judgement expressed in a sentence or two, to serve as "proof" of some arbitrary assertion; after which the balloon floats back off into the stratosphere. In FACT, although not in THEORY, Objectivism is a form of mysticism -- a shortcut to knowledge based on the use of a prescribed verbal formula.

The hypocrisy of this philosophy is best revealed by a glance at the world around us. The Objectivist philosophy was supposed to do away with the "ethics of altruism", which was defined as a morality of "riders and carriers, of eaters and the eaten", a "morality of cannibals". Yet today's society is the most "altruistic" in the history of the world, the "eaters and riders" being Jews, blacks, minorities, drug addicts, etc. etc. etc., and the "eaten and the ridden" being the White Race generally. This is not an accident. It was planned that way. Could anything be more Jewish?

The entire commentary is available here

See also: