71685 stories
·
2 followers

9/11 Livestream: The Attack, the Response, and the Radicalness of Objectivism

1 Share

9/11 was one of the most consequential events of the 21st century. Yet twenty-five years later, the attacks and their aftermath are still widely misunderstood. In two consecutive talks at our student conference in Austin, Onkar Ghate and Elan Journo analyzed America’s failures before and after 9/11, drawing on more than two decades of work on the subject. They show how the self-abasing morality of altruism shaped American policy, leading the US to betray its ideals, appease its enemies, sacrifice its soldiers, and lose its wars. This double lecture is a must-watch for anyone who cares about America and wants to make it secure.

Among the topics covered are:

  • Introduction by ARI’s CEO, Tal Tsfany

  • How 9/11 was experienced and perceived in the immediate aftermath

  • The religious, modernity-hating motivation behind 9/11

  • America’s emboldening of Islamists in the decades before 9/11

  • America’s abject, craven response to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad

  • The intellectual rot 9/11 exposed and Objectivism’s potential to change it

  • How American altruism crippled its troops’ ability to fight

  • How America refused to recognize or defeat its enemies

  • The devastating consequences of our altruistic approach to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars

  • Q&A

Resources:

The livestream was recorded on September 11, 2026.

Thanks for reading New Ideal by The Ayn Rand Institute! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.



Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
15 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Nicola Willis: The Face of Theft [updated]

1 Share

"Nice supermarket chain you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it ... "

When the Greens suggested a policy calling for a government supermarket, National called it "communist." "Soviet." Now, Nicola Willis wants to forcibly "break up" private supermarkets in a bid to lift its flagging electoral fortunes.

It's of a piece with David Cunliffe's 2006 dismemberment of Telecom, a privagte company, and the First Labour Government's nationalisation of the BNZ.

 I was (initially) impressed with Business NZ's response, which came out swinging. "BusinessNZ is alarmed at National's proposal to pursue the separation of supermarket chain Foodstuffs," said BusinessNZ's Catherine Beard.

New Zealand has long benefited from a reputation for regulatory stability, respect for property rights and predictable policy settings. Measures of this nature risk undermining that reputation at a time when New Zealand needs investment, productivity growth and economic confidence ...

This is a very concerning move by the National Party and sends a chilling signal to businesses across New Zealand ... We consider this to be in the same league as Labour's ban on oil and gas exploration and New Zealand First's promise to split up the gentailers.

Exactly right. 

If National really gave a damn about regulatory stability, respect for property rights and predictable policy settings, it would be ashamed of itself. But this of course is the same party which had a Prime Minister who made up budget settings on the hood (so much for predictable policy settings), and went on to introduce the RMA (so much for private property rights). 

And of  course the hypocrisy is baked in: when Labour's Michael Cullen introduced his Welfare for Working Families in order to get over the line in a narrow election, National leader John Key described it then as "communism by stealth" -- only to embrace it three years later. (As it happens, Willis was then a senior advisor to Key during this capitulation.)

So National has form.

But if only Business NZ's Catherine Beard had left it at that. Instead. she heads swiftly from the broad uplands of principled opposition to Willis's pledge to strong-arm a private business, and straight into the undergrowth of compromise. 

Ms Beard said any proposal to structurally separate Foodstuffs would require rigorous scrutiny of its unintended consequences.
"Scrutiny."
Increasing competition in New Zealand's grocery sector is a worthwhile goal, but structural intervention of this scale raises significant questions about whether it would actually deliver lower prices for consumers. 
A "worthwhile goal." Raises "significant questions."

Guess which responses will be read by Willis and her scumbag team.

At least Jordan Williams and Michael Reddell were more forthright.
UPDATE:

More commentary. First, Henry Cooke:
National, a party founded to protect private enterprise from the predations of state intervention, will campaign on "pursuing" the breakup of Foodstuffs into two competing
chains.
National came into government promising a resource management regime based on property rights. It's going into the next election promising a property rights regime based on a hopeful Cost-Benefit Analysis and vibes.
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
16 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

How the USG should respond to AI

1 Share

As I explain in these videos, AI doom is nonsense. AI is not nonsense, though.

At a high level, USG should respond to AI by giving up on its faux 18th-century nonsense hat-and-musket larp ideology and all its consequent paperwork, deciding today is the first day of the rest of its life, and hiring a good king. If this task seems too much for us, idk. Try a CEO search firm?

Since, due to Satan’s many snares and wiles, this is not about to happen, let’s stick to describing how a national CEO would respond to the AI crisis (it is a crisis!) right now.

AI is a tool. It is not magic. AI does not act. Humans act, with the power of our tools. The power of this tool has not even created new risks. It has made old risks, which we should have addressed long ago, unacceptably urgent.

The first risk is cybersecurity. The USG should work with frontier labs and major open-source repositories to categorize every significant project by risk. Projects with safety risks (insecure languages, ambient authority, etc) should have a red-team rating. Anyone using the project can see when, how, and by whom it was pentested. The USG should identify high-risk codebases and itself organize testing, ideally with prerelease frontier models.

In parallel, the SEC should require a software-safety audit in every public company’s reports. All internal software exposed to the public, and all open-source dependencies, must be pen tested, or the company has unacceptable hacking risks and must not pass an audit. To ensure national security, all this work must be done by US citizens and/or US AI labs.

The second risk is biosecurity. The USG must establish and maintain a biosecurity filter which all DNA synthesis must pass. It does not just “grep for smallpox,” but finds anything like a viral motif. The filter is automated and runs in less than a minute, in a secure enclave which does not save or export data. It is not open source.

All DNA synthesis labs must run this filter. All new benchtop synthesis machines must connect to it remotely over the Internet. All old benchtop DNA synthesizers must be turned in for upgrade or replacement in the next six months, after which they are illegal to possess. Foreign governments need to be given no good reason not to comply with these measures, or at least build their own.

That’s over. That’s all. That’s the memo. Go back to your deranged golem fantasies.

Subscribe now



Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
16 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The anti-American Right

1 Share
Hook ‘em, Horns.

After days of thinking about the possibility that AI might kill all of humanity, it’s almost a relief to be able to write about a lighter topic — like how the xenophobic Right is threatening to tear my country apart.

Who is Bo French? No one of much consequence. He’s a mostly failed Texan politician — the heir to an oil company, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who alienated his business partners, who lost two Republican primaries for the Texas House of Representatives before finally becoming the chair of a county-level party chapter. He finally got his first political success this year, when he won a narrow primary victory and became the GOP nominee for Texas Railroad Commissioner. He currently trails his Democratic opponent in the polls.

Bo French isn’t that important, but this week he set off a national firestorm when he tweeted the above photo of a bunch of Indian kids celebrating University of Texas football at a Longhorns game, along with some alarmist anti-Indian rhetoric:

It was hardly a surprise that French tweeted something like this. He’s tweeted plenty of stuff along the same lines in the past. Here are two famous examples:

He’s also repeatedly called for the deportation of 100 million people; since there are only 50 million foreign-born people living in the United States, this means French was either getting his numbers wrong, or (more likely) calling for deporting tens of millions of American citizens. Reading his tweets, it’s not hard to imagine which citizens he’d choose for deportation.

It wouldn’t be fair to say that French’s race-war ideology has taken over the GOP. Plenty of Texas Republicans, including outgoing Senator John Cornyn, Senator Ted Cruz, Representative Jared Patterson, Representative Lacey Hull, and others publicly denounced his tweet. Karl Rove declared that he’d vote for the Democrat over French. Governor Greg Abbott, who has endorsed French despite his history of similar tweets, was milder in his criticism, but still affirmed the fundamental Texan-ness of the football fans in the picture:

“That is not my message,” Abbott said. “A selective picture of Longhorn fans celebrating our biggest home victory-ever-actually shows a way that Texans unite. We all support our college football teams.”

“The way we win the state is the same way we win football games,” Abbott added. “We unite under the brand of Texas.”

But despite these official condemnations, it’s easy to tell which way the wind is blowing among the GOP base. All of the Republican tweets denouncing French were heavily attacked on X. Rightist journalists, activists, and even a few GOP politicians poured out of the woodwork to support French and affirm his message. Here are a few examples:

French himself, who had been pressured to delete his poll about Jews and Muslims last year, now felt encouraged enough to double down on his anti-Indian tweet.

I can’t tell you whether the New Right — represented by French and his supporters in the right-wing media — will prevail over the Republican establishment. But watching the movement go after a bunch of Texas college football fans tells us something important about the New Right as a movement.

What it tells us is that if you’re a nonwhite immigrant, or the child of nonwhite immigrants, it doesn’t matter what you do — the New Right will still view you as an enemy and as an invader.

It doesn’t matter whether you or your parents came to this country legally. How many times have we heard rightists shout “Illegal vs. legal!!” in response to anyone who defends immigration? Many regular Americans care about “illegal vs. legal”, but the New Right does not. Everyone in that UT photo either came to America legally, or was born to parents who came here legally. It didn’t matter to Bo French, or the people who defended him.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re high-skilled or low-skilled. How many times have we heard rightists complain that immigrants come to America because they want welfare benefits? And yet everyone in the UT photo is going to spend their lifetime paying taxes to support native-born Americans on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security Disability. Indian Americans in general are the highest-earning group in the country, and those who go to a good college like the University of Texas are going to beat that average.

That matters to many regular voters, but it doesn’t matter at all to the New Right. Yes, they’ll shout about poor (nonwhite) immigrants on welfare. But when they encounter nonwhite immigrant groups who make lots of money, they suddenly pivot to accusing those groups of stealing their jobs and their spots in colleges. There’s just no way to win.

It also doesn’t matter whether you assimilate or not. Yes, if you speak a foreign language or build a Hindu temple or wear traditional Indian clothing, the New Right will scream their heads off about it. “Alien invaders!!”, they’ll cry. But if you put on a University of Texas sweater and go to football games, they’ll still scream “Alien invaders!!” when they see you in a photo. It’s who you are that bothers them, not what you do.

Nor does it matter whether your entire ethnic group is well-behaved. Indian Americans are incarcerated at only 25% of the rate of non-Hispanic White Americans. And basically none of the people in the photo that frightened Bo French will ever go to jail. That probably matters to some voters, but not to the New Right.

In fact, it doesn’t even matter if you vote Republican. As a matter of fact, Donald Trump won a pretty solid victory among Asian people in Texas (which includes Indians):

Source: CNN via Wikipedia

It’s not clear whether Bo French and his fellow New Rightists are even aware of this fact, but what is clear is that it didn’t matter to them at all.1

This is why there is no pro-immigration argument that will ever sway members of the New Right. You can give them research showing that high-skilled immigrants raise employment and wages for native-born Americans, and they’ll either disbelieve it or (usually) ignore it. You can talk about Nobel-winning scientists and Operation Paperclip all you want, and it won’t make a dent. You can cite statistics about immigrant entrepreneurship and job creation, you can talk about how Satya Nadella saved Microsoft and Sanjay Mehrotra is the reason why America still has a presence in the memory industry. They will counter with some fabricated anecdote about how their friend got fired from their company because Indians came in and only hired other Indians.2

So why am I even talking about this? If the New Right can never be persuaded to stop thinking of brown faces as invaders, then why discuss this topic at all?

Well, two reasons, actually. First, it helps us more clearly understand the New Right as a movement — how they think and what they want. Most importantly, they see the world in terms of collective zero-sum competition between groups.

To the New Right, if Indians get into the University of Texas, it means that White people must have been “replaced” at that university — or at American universities in general. Bo French himself tweeted that the presence of Indian students at American universities is evidence that “they hate white Americans and prioritize everyone else”. They do not even consider the possibility that the Indian kids got in because of individual merit. If an Indian American succeeds, that represents not the success of that singular individual, but a win for Team Indian in general.

And the New Right worldview sees any win for Team Indian — or Team Asian, or Team Hispanic, etc. — as a loss for Team White. Nowhere do they consider the possibility that the system might not be zero-sum. The fact that the number of freshmen admitted to UT grew from 15,000 in 2011 to 19,000 in 2021 means nothing to them. The historical fact that Italian and Jewish and Polish and Japanese Americans attained economic success sixty years ago without consigning WASP Americans to poverty is lost on them — as is every other example in which immigrant groups and existing groups succeeded in America side by side.

Crucially, this zero-sum assumption is why the New Right constantly shrinks their tent instead of expanding it. In principle, even if you see the world as a collective interaction between groups rather than individuals, that interaction doesn’t have to be zero-sum — you can have alliances between groups, for mutual benefit. The Christian conservatives of the 1970s and 1980s accepted Catholics, “white ethnics”, and some Jews into their coalition as “co-belligerents”, and won many battles as a result.

The New Right had a golden opportunity to do something similar after Trump’s victory in 2024. Hispanic and Asian voters (and even some Black voters) shifted strongly toward the Republicans, and toward Trump specifically. But instead of embracing that influx of new voters and building a big conservative tent to defeat wokeness and progressivism and the Democrats, they went all-in on race war.

Stephen Miller relied so heavily on racial profiling for his mass deportation efforts that many Hispanics felt that Trump had betrayed them. Muslim voters might have gone back to the GOP, but rightists made resistance to Muslim immigration a “civilizational” crusade. Jewish voters turned off by the antisemitism of the Left might have switched their allegiance to the GOP, but the New Right allowed Nazi apologetics to fester within their ranks.

Now it’s Indians’ turn to feel the sting of unprovoked rightist attacks. All those kids in Texas wanted to do was to cheer for their football team; instead, a political movement is calling for their ethnic cleansing simply because they showed up at the stadium. As a result, despite the best efforts of Republicans like Cornyn, the GOP is poised to mobilize and piss off a group of Americans who are just about as numerous as Jews — and who earn even more money.

It’s this pathological inability to understand alliances and coalition-building that will ultimately doom the New Right. Like the far Left, this is a movement built to exclude and divide and splinter — both because of the querulous personalities of rightists themselves, and because of the intransigence of a racial ideology that abhors any impurity. If they ever managed to see off the Hispanics and the Asians, the rightists would start in on the Greeks and the Italians, and so on. There’s no victory in sight — only eternal conflict. These are not nation-builders; they are nation-dismantlers.

Coming to grips with the extremism and intransigence of the New Right also helps us understand what an unpopular fringe they really are. The New Right screams and shouts and acts very aggressive on X, but this aggression is just a way of concealing their numerical weakness. Most voters are not part of the New Right, and they don’t think that immigrants are invaders or that immigration is “replacement”. Most Americans say that immigration is a good thing as of today:

Source: Gallup

Essentially none of that 73% majority is going to be part of the New Right, and some portion of the 21% minority probably isn’t either. That means the New Right is a fringe movement — a very loud, very aggressive group of people who are adept at bullying regular Americans on certain social media platforms, but who ultimately lack the numbers to overcome the mainstream in a direct contest.

Just watch some of the reactions of the UT students who were targeted by Bo French and his racist social media hordes:

Consider how regular and non-alien those young people seem, compared to the screeching bigots attacking them on X for going to a football game. I guarantee you that the majority of regular, normal, non-internet-poisoned Americans will watch those videos and just want to say “Hook ‘em Horns”.3

That means that the immigration argument is winnable. A reasonable liberal position on immigration — one that respects the law, honors the democratic will of the people, and treats immigration as a privilege rather than a human right — has a good chance of winning over the majority of the country. The New Right can only succeed if they manage to divide and conquer the pro-immigration majority, as they did in 2024; immigration supporters should focus on making common cause with the persuadable center, in order to make sure 2024 isn’t repeated.

That means not treating all immigration skeptics the same. Republicans like John Cornyn, who like to see Indian American kids cheering for Texas football but who hate to see asylum seekers rewarded for illegally crossing the border, should not be lumped in with those who simply see any brown face and think “invader”. Xenophobes exist, and they are growing more powerful within the GOP, but not every Republican voter is a xenophobe, and not every restriction on immigration is xenophobic.

If Democrats understand and accept that fact, I think they will be able to turn the tide.4 Throughout America’s history, pro-immigration forces have won a lot more battles than they’ve lost, but it was never easy. It always required compromise, reassurance, moderation, and coalition-building. This is not the time for Democrats to respond to the maximalism of xenophobes like Bo French with maximalism of their own.


Subscribe now

Share

1

This also applies to the small and rather pitiful number of immigrants who go online and shout that immigration is “replacement” and “invasion”. It will not save them.

2

Not that anyone in the New Right actually cares about the research on this topic, but…It’s actually true that Indians, like basically every group in existence, do have some tendency to hire their co-ethnics, though whether this represents a bias is harder to say. What we do know is that Indians do it much less Vietnamese, Chinese, Mexican, South Korean, Filipino, Polish, or Russian people, but much more than Dominicans, Guatemalans, or Jamaicans.

3

And I say that as someone who grew up in College Station, Texas…

4

Indeed, the tide may already be turning; Trump is now underwater on the immigration issue:

Source: NYT via Sahil Kapur

But 52% to 47% is still a fairly slim margin; Dems can do better than this.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
9 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The miserable legacy of Jamie Oliver’s war on school dinners

1 Share

The post The miserable legacy of Jamie Oliver’s war on school dinners appeared first on spiked.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
20 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Why is Zack Polanski campaigning in Urdu?

1 Share

The post Why is Zack Polanski campaigning in Urdu? appeared first on spiked.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
20 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories