This venue had an interesting begining. I started it for both rational and irrational reasons, which is a bit ironic, considering my name and the philosophy I adhere to.

I started this venue and made a new name, new account, new everything because I was(and still am) disgusted by the state of the libertarian right. The libertarian right was going nowhere, they were so full of mindless racists and naive kool-aiders, it started to pour into Objectivism. I ended up meeting people who’s whole contribution to the dialogue was accusation towards other races and a fatalistic hand gesture, hopeless to change anything because browning of the US already doomed them to oblivion.
I rejected those people.

Objectivism is not only a better venue, but it’s significantly deeper and serious. Serious enough for me to jump there head-first and still only scratch the surface. I can’t say I am all that deep and knowledgeable about it. I can’t say I have all the answers. But I know it’s the right philosophy to improve myself, my life, my happiness and even the world around me.

So, after several videos of covering misconceptions, having fun and bringing up obscure points, I’ve sat down and asked myself: what should be my mission, what am I capable of, and what can be done in this life to improve the world? Is improving the world even a viable idea?

The result of my reflections is as follows. I will continue covering misconceptions about Objectivism. I’m good at it, and there’s a lot of them around. I will start some new series on relevant daily topics. Some say everything was said and done before, but our enemies keep coming up with things that need to be refuted.
But most of all, I want to do a series on explaining, propagating and advertising Objectivism as a solution for real-life problems.

I will make a “Why did they lost” series. It will be a series where I cover influential or obscure yet so relevant books I know a lot about, that managed to show the thinking of those who professed to bring about good yet ended up in a trap.

A new entry is always in the making.

EVE online mоstly known for giant battles, but it is also full of ironic coincidences, like the first big war being fought over an area populated by a rich group of Objectivists, and interesting political experiments. We going to talk about the latter today.
Approx in center of the game map, right on the border with safe and prosperous high-sec, exists a region of null space, meaning player-owned, unguarded by police NPC. It is named Providence and from times immemorial, this region’s owners, CVA, were adhering to the policy of NRDS – Not Red Don’t Shoot.
This policy used to be common, but obvious hardships within made most people abandon or modify it. In the nutshell, it consists of people being allowed inside the border of the player-owned space, as long as those players adhere to simple rules and weren’t know to openly aggress towards the coalition. Effectively, providence operates an open border system, except it excludes those who were found to violate it’s laws and added to the Kill-on-sight list.
If the player is not listed there and has no history of open aggression towards Provi-bloc he is entitled to live within its borders, mine it’s endless, be it mediocre ore supplies and engage in mission running with a simple rule of first-come-first-serve.
This policy immediately leads to several complications, which, in my opinion, proponents of open borders need to learn and keep in mind.

First and the most obvious point is that it allows criminal cartels to send in some sleeper agent, who will abide by the law of the land only until the moment of betrayal comes. It also allows for easier ambushes and attacks in general, because neutral intruder won’t be killed on sight until he commits a crime.
Not to mention that their devotion to NRDS made them a favorite target for trolls and grifters, who keep biting away at Provi territory.
This led provi-bloc to become frankly paranoid, they use every tool imaginable to check the activity of every newcomer as thorough as possible. They rarely deport for past mistakes, but they sure are good at finding them.

Second – it leads to the federalization of the whole structure, players bind together territorially and create elaborate webs of trust, trust that must be proven in all cases for you to be part of this chapter of space.
This led to whole chapters abandoning others in battles or being pretty much autonomous, ignoring all that happened outside of their space. This is worrying development, always leading towards a crush.
Providence was taken over several times, but they always colluded together and worked diligently, even zealously to get their home back. I think it shows that only a group of devoted, idealistic people can purposefully run this kind of arrangement.

Third and the last thing I will address is that allowing in whole alliances and corporations of neutrals leads to very low cooperation in general. People bond together in a very irregular way, and since there isn’t an official meta-structure, simple defense fleets turn into a logistic nightmare. Providence displays a need for one overarching ruling alliance in such complex arrangements as a trans-galactic space state. Or at least for one clear constitution that governs human behavior.
In conclusion, even tho Providence right now is a prosperous and productive coalition fighting for its life and liberty, all the things in its development point towards a giant need for clearly structured military back-bone that other coalitions always worked so hard on developing.

I’ve been reading modern Russian ancedotes and it got me thinking about how we’re least likely nation to ever buy Objectivism and yet we’re the ones who would get Objectivist fiction the best.
You see, a lot of Atlas Shrugged is actually our day-to-day reality. From meaningless, fluffy named laws that conciеve the truth for the purpose of robbery, to family relations that end up being nothing but ugly parasitism.

Russian culture from days immemorial had same qualities that our modern anecdotes have: naked hatred for productive people, frantic, zealous search for identity, any identity at all, and a desire for free riding, a lust for blind luck that will make everything go our way.

The latter even has a weird term for it, a term that is whispered and always pronounced with a romantic hope – Avos’, meaning “maybe it’ll happen”. Russians are known for leaving everything to Avos’, because, well, maybe blind luck will favor me for nothing at all?

Going back to Objectivist fiction, consider these stories, read them and ask yourself what you see here:

1. I knew a guy who started working early. Smart guy, real good with computers, he wanted more than his poor family could ever give to him, so he found decent position and started working.
   At first he was only making $400, good money in those years, his own mom wasnt making that much. He still wasnt making anywhere near median income, so his mother berated him for it, saying that he’s wasting his time and still not making good money. My friend grew silent and after a while found a better job, providing him with flopping $1000, real good chunk at those times.
   What was the result? Was he told a signle good word? No, he was still berated by his mother who called him selfish and ordered him to give away 60% of his income to his older brother. You see, brother was a real man, selfless and a family-minded, so he, unemployed, hapleslly married and poor, was the one who actually needed and deserved the money my friend was making.
2. Another story I know is of someone who started working early just the same and managed to move from his abusive family(who used to steal from his savings and beat him senseless for school grades) after saving a good sum and finding a gf. Right after, his father also moved out of the apartment, leaving his hysterical mom alone.
   Mum wasnt gonna just give up and leave her family nest ruined. She started calling her son late in the night and crying that she always loved him and that she will not allow him to be so selfishlly independent just yet.
   After those calls were left unanswered, cries turned into insults and threats of finding out where he lives, and inflicting damage on his rear end with old soviet belt.
   My pal made a mistake, he actually told his dad where he lived and even gave him a key, just in case of emergency. His mom stole that key and broke in his apartment, breaking everything he had(How dare you keep your food in plastic containers, it poisons the food!), crushing his TV, PS3(American spy device!), Brazillian coffee(Coffee is bad for heart and makes you psychotic!) even an expensive wine bottle he bought in Poland(If I ever see you with alcohol of sigarettes I am calling a madhouse!).
   After crushing all his belongings in a blind rage, his mom called her friends and together they met her son in a ravaged apartment, yelling at him for being such a selfish bastard who forced his mom to do all this, just because he wants so much independence.
   They ended up in a cell for a month, the selfish bastard sued his mom for damages and made her pay.
3. If American booomers are famous for hating on technology, soviet parents are famous for considering everything new and fancy to be a worthless phase. My own cousin ran from his family home after he spend 15 years in there being hated for everything he loved. His passion towards rock music was ridiculed, guitars he bought on his own money were broken into pieces, rock stars he loved were constantly insulted and mocked. He ended up stealing money so he can get the things he wanted without them noticing, and after getting beaten for that as well, he ran and lived on the streets. Which, of course was pointed out as clear-cut example of his egoism and selfishness that was the true reason they treat him this way.

Is this all that different from Rearden’s family? Is it any wonder Russians scoff at liberty and long for Stalin’s iron hand to maybe favor them one day with a blind luck?

Aside from typical accusation of being a philosophy for atomized individualistic robots, Objectivism also has a weird reputation with family values. Every time Rand is mentioned, we get something akin to believe that Objectivism either doesn’t address family values, family structures and morality of family at all, or has a particularly nasty view on it.
Everyone, from mediocre guy on the discord server to supposed philosopher Stefan Molyneux acts like having a family is somehow incompatible with being genuinely individualistic, since family requires all those things Objectivism and individualism rallies against – lies, conformity and sacrifice.

But indeed, what does this mean? Why is it that people readily admit necessity to be honest, productive, and self-interested with strangers, business partners and clients, yet play tricky game of hide and seek when it comes to family, meaning a relationship with a person they are ready to spend their live with? How is it that my client should be respected and treated carefully, but a child I brought to life, to this fantastic phantasmagoria of blue happiness, deserves only a lying parent who comforts to his whim, just because it will somehow or other benefit the kid and us all as society?

I believe problem here is twofold. This topic, when it isnt a simple misunderstanding of Objectivist principles, stems either from a lie called “optics”, a desire to drive a stake in one place so whole building collapses, or from a weakness, a cowardly desire to compromise with mysticism.

Let’s look closer into both of them. Latter is clearer, former is trickier, it’s a proposition that since families require things Objectivism abhors, the philosophy is nothing more but vacuous, so to say, exists as a pipe dream for perfect randian superhumans. Only they are capable of living life so honest that they wont tell their kids about Santa and wont lie to them about gods, duties towards ancestors and ghosts, who order them to be good boys. Normal people are nowhere near that level!
They need lies and sacrifices in families and, stemming from here inevitably, they also must sacrifice themselves to nations, races, states, duties, gods, whoever and whatever possible, so long as they can comfortably feel themselves justified when little Billy quietly believes in a “practical” lie instead of asking real life questions.

To paraphrase Elssworth Toochey, we’ve fixed the coin. Heads – sacrifice. Tails – sacrifice. Give up your soul to your family – or give it up to loneliness. But give it up, give it up, give it up.

Indeed, believe that reasonable life is just a pie in the sky leads man to believing in all things unseen in the real sky, sky daddies, sky duties and sky worship.

Apart from these collectivist tricksters stands a person who is uncomfortable with a mere idea that he’s supposed to tell his wife and children the truth.
Why, if he starts doing that, there might be nothing left of relationship with a wife he doesn’t love anymore and children he might not even ever wanted! If he’s to speak only truth, what would he do with faith? If loving husband tells his loved ones only truth, there might come a day when he tells them something he cant justify, where there is no rational answer, no reason to believe something, other than believe itself. There might come a day when his mysticism comes to question. People arent comfortable with that. Especially when it comes to their children. So they hide in comforting lie, that telling their son about magical fat man will help raise him a better christian or ease his departure into adulthood, give him a shining story instead of robbing him of naivety of childhood.

In the end, these two positions ask us to choose between tricksters, striving to drown us in collectivism again, cowards who hate the truth because it robbs them of the unearned and third option of those presented is a naive liar who does it for the good of others, for the mystifying practicality of mysticism.

In conclusion, I want to say that all those options and fogs of cowardice are indeed the only option of someone who accepted that family relations must be something so sacred, it must be hidden and defended from reality.
I would say that rather from being somehow against families, Objectivist philosophy is the only one advocating for proper family relationships, those of selfish individuals, cooperating for long term benefit, not those of two animals, destined to sacrifice one another out of fear.