The premier Objectivist publication reminds us about Donald and Kim
As this is nominally an OBJ house, a reminder of the OBJ worldview might be in order.
There is a reason I'm an Objectivist.
And it is practical to be an Idealist
There is a reason I'm an Objectivist.
And it is practical to be an Idealist
John Flynn was a respected journalist and author who opposed the New Deal, Roosevelt, and both fascism and communism. Ayn Rand recommended the 1956 edition of his 1948 book The Roosevelt Myth in her Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and corresponded with him in the 1940s, some of which is included in The Letters of Ayn Rand. Leonard Peikoff referenced Flynn in his Ominous Parallels.
The first three links I provided were to Flynn's book, As We Go Marching, which opposed and warned against the rise of fascism in the US folllowing Italy and Germany, and from which I quoted three paragraphs on Churchill's admiration for Mussolini from the 1920s to 1940. One link was to amazon and the other two were to pdf and epub downloads of that book which are provided at no cost by the Mises Institute.
The fourth link https://mises.org/profile/john-t-flynn was to the Mises Institute short biographical profile of Flynn -- not "gush", as forum readers can see for themselves. It includes in a brief description of his book against fascism:
"The growth of a huge bureaucratic apparatus, the partnership of government and business, social welfare schemes, huge public debts, and the need to resolve economic problems by creating a permanent war economy — all of these phenomena had become dominant first in Italy, then in Germany, and then in the United States under the New Deal. The theme of the book is that while the US was fighting fascism in Europe, the seeds of that doctrine had already been planted at home; the war itself would accelerate their growth."
As Ayn Rand observed herself, in addition to the general growth of statism, that every war this country has gotten into has resulted in more controls and less freedom after the war than before. John Flynn, like Ayn Rand, was not a "narcissist, a fascist and a liar".
The links are to writings of John T. Flynn or to a gush on Flynn published by Mises Institute.
A reply to this is a challenge, not on content but to maintain civility.
But choosing clarity over obfuscation, John T. Flynn was an narcissist, a fascist and a liar.
Over and out.
From John T. Flynn's 1944 As We Go Marching: A Biting Indictment of the Coming of Domestic Fascism in America
"It was after the vulgar brutalities of the march to power, after newspapers had been burned and editors beaten, political clubrooms sacked, after the sacred cudgel by God's grace had done its holy violence on its enemies and others had been gorged with castor oil, after thousands had been thrown into concentration camps and countless other brave men had been driven from their country, after Matteoti had been assassinated and Mussolini had proclaimed that democracy was 'a dirty rag to be crushed under foot,' that Winston Churchill, in January 1927, wrote to him, saying: "If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.' He assured the Duce that were he an Italian he would 'don the Fascist black shirt.' And a year later, in Collier's Magazine, he wrote extolling Mussolini above Washington and Cromwell.
"Does this mean that Churchill approves of beating and suppressions? Hardly. Its significance lies in the revelation of the extent to which evil deeds will be excused or tolerated or even defended when some cherished public or religious or social crusade is the excuse. Man's capacity for cruelty—even the good man's capacity for cruelty—in the prosecution of a spiritual crusade is a phenomenon to affright the soul." p.70
"I recall these testimonials here merely because of their bearing on American and British opinion upon what happened in Italy. We cannot count on all good people in America rejecting fascist ideas. To many the pursuit of the hated Red justified the elements of violence in the episode. To others the imperious need of meeting the challenge of labor justified the cudgels. Mussolini was all right as long as he played along with the democratic powers. 'I do not deny,' said Mr. Churchill as late as December 1940, in a speech in the House, 'that he is a very great man. But he became a criminal when he attacked England'. Mussolini's crime lay not in all the oppressions he had committed upon his own people, not in his trampling down of liberty in Italy, in attacking Ethiopia or Spain, but in 'attacking England.' It is precisely in this tolerance of ordinarily decent people for the performances of such a man that the terrible menace of fascism lies for all peoples." p. 73
https://www.amazon.com/As-We-Go-March...
pdf: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/...
epub: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/...
It isn't "fake weirdness from the left/progressives". Flynn was a classical liberal known for his opposition to Roosevelt in his 1948 The Roosevelt Myth and for his leadership role in the opposition to America entering WWII for years before Pearl Harbor. https://mises.org/profile/john-t-flynn
Fascism was philosophically attractive in Britain and America for the same reasons it was in Germany and Italy, as described by Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for Germany.
From the mid-thirties Churchill, outside government, was a solitary public voice urging re-armament and correctly assessing the new German leadership.
There are indeed some weird stories about Churchill, I reckon all fake.
Now, that weirdness is from the left/progressives.
The popular myth is that efficient central planning and patriotism maintained production. Evidence is now coming out on the lines MM stated. It was juggling the books to cover running down capital.
The muscle mystics of the American rightwing think that Hitler was almost OK, if only he had done a couple of things differently... Leftwing socialists say the same thing about the Russian communists.
A consistent national policy in foreign affairs is a complicated problem. It begins with a rational-real foundation that recognizes objective reality. Arguing politics in a vacuum is unproductive. Among the ways to analyze the world stage is to reduce it to Crusoe Concepts. If you had a neighbor like Kim Jong Un or Adolph Hitler, how would you relate to them? And before you answer... If you filled your car at a gas station and went inside to pay and saw a picture of Jesus behind the counter, would you shop there again? Why or why not?
Neither is preventing a nuclear attack from the "Rocket Man" dictator, who has become closer to the ability to carry out his threats. Pandering to him, appeasing him, and helping him to "become better" with economic help, do nothing to stop him. That is true for us as well as South Korea, China, Russia, and the rest of them. If North Korea blows up the Korean peninsula or more, it would be it's responsibility, along with those who appeased it, but the US would be blamed for it, especially from American progressives and ideological ostriches and appeasers.
Appears Trump is putting America first and that of allies who have had to endure "Rocket Man" shooting missiles over their heads.
Shall we free China and North Korea like we freed Hitler's Europe? Don't think that will work out well. .
Haven't read The Art Of The Deal but it's my guess Trump may be used to flattering people he thinks he can make a deal with~also being quite capable of walking out when he can't make a deal he likes..
Yes, gushing insincere flattery is going too far with a murdering dictator. .
Trump is speaking to the world to sell his presidency and his 'deal'. We don't know what he is saying in private to North Korea, or to China -- which has not yet been leaked -- and we don't know what he is willing to give away in his deal, including how much he would protect the dictatorship against his victims.
Sometimes Trump's 'deals' are at least a temporary practical improvement and sometimes they are worse, but he never does anything out of support for the rights of the individual and he never denounces collectivism.
Trump does not have to publicly sanction and lie about evil. When a political leader publicly embraces things that are so horrible that you have to project that he really doesn't mean it, when he is such an unprincipled Pragmatist that you have to conclude that nothing he says has any meaning at all, when his statements are so bad that you have to imagine that he must secretly mean something else in some unknown clever scheme, then we are in real trouble.
Yet refusing to believe what politicians say is all too common. It occurs over and over with government policies whose effects are too horrible to contemplate so people don't believe it's coming and we will get by "somehow" and everything will be all right, "somehow" -- despite what it sounds like. All it shows is that Americans have a better sense of life than the politicians and are naive to the possibility and reality of evil -- and to the danger of Pragmatism.
His "putting America first" has always been a collectivist nationalism, oblivious to principles and the rights of the individual, and often sacrificing people under his own statism.
Or how needs of the fittest North Korean communism works.
Load more comments...