Why liberals/leftists/Democrats cannot smile

 ANTs = Automatic Negative Thoughts

Trump to CNN's Kaitlan Collins: “I don't think I've ever seen you smile. I've known you for ten years. You know why you're not smiling?" 

What ANTs do liberals/leftists/Democrats have that make them so unhappy that they cannot smile?

Here’s an Objectivist analysis of common ANTs that can make some liberals/leftists/Democrats feel chronically unhappy or unable to “smile,” plus the corrective principles to replace them with reality-based, self-empowering conclusions:

• Obsessing over the bad (malevolent-universe premise): “Everything is rigged and getting worse; nothing works unless the system is overthrown.” Error: context-dropping and fixation on negatives. Correction: keep full context—integrate positives, progress, causal levers you can act on. Ask: compared to what, over what time span, and by what measures? [1]
• Blaming others/playing the victim: “People like me can’t get ahead because the system/they won’t let us.” Error: determinism and evasion of one’s causal agency. Correction: isolate what is man-made and alterable in your sphere; take pride in efficacious action; don’t treat obstacles as metaphysical fate. [1]
• Fortune-telling/doom forecasting: “If the other side wins, democracy ends and we’re doomed.” Error: the arbitrary—assertions without evidence or probability bounds. Correction: classify claims by evidence (possible/probable/certain), specify mechanisms and base rates, update with data; reject the arbitrary. [1]
• Mind-reading opponents: “They hate us and will do X,” absent evidence. Error: social metaphysics—treating imagined consciousness as knowledge. Correction: judge by observable words and deeds only; independence over crowd fear. [1]
• All-or-nothing purity tests: “If this bill isn’t perfect, it’s useless; if a leader errs once, they’re evil.” Error: false alternatives and failure of measurement. Correction: quantify: how much, how far, what trade-offs; evaluate by essentials and degree. [1]
• Labeling/package-deals: “They’re fascists; I’m complicit/privileged/tainted,” used as floating verdicts. Error: replacing facts with loaded packages. Correction: define terms by essentials, reduce to concrete evidence, and apply justice by degree. [1]

In addition:

Here’s a compact, practical expansion on how to identify and replace Automatic Negative Thoughts (ANTs) using Objectivist principles—what to look for, how to audit a thought, and how to install rational replacements that become your new “automatic.” [1]

Core stance (why ANTs feel “true” and what to do)

• ANTs are automatized verdicts from earlier premises, not tools of cognition; they feel compelling because repetition sped them up, not because they’re validated. Your job is to slow them down, reduce them to facts, and re-automatize a rational method. [1]
• Treat every ANT as a proposition to verify or discard. Demand evidence, define terms, keep context, measure degree, then act on what you can change. [1]

A quick diagnostic: spot the Objectivist error behind each ANT

• All-or-nothing: false alternative, failure of measurement. Signal words: always, never, perfect, ruined. [1]
• Obsessing over the bad: malevolent-universe premise, context-dropping. Signal: “If I’m not worried, I’m not paying attention.” [1]
• Fortune-telling: arbitrary assertion without causal account or base rates. Signal: doom certainty. [1]
• Mind-reading: social metaphysics. Signal: “They must think…” without evidence. [1]
• Labeling/package-deals: floating abstractions. Signal: global tags like “failure,” “tainted,” “fascist,” “evil” absent defined essentials and degrees. [1]
• Guilt/shame by default: altruist premises. Signal: feeling wrong for success, joy, or self-interest absent actual wrongdoing. [1]
• Blame/victim stance: determinism, evasion of agency. Signal: “I can’t because they/system/fate.” [1]
• Comparison/feeling less-than: second-handedness. Signal: “I only matter if they approve.” [1]
• Regret paralysis: confusing alterable with fated. Signal: “It’s too late; the past defines me.” [1]

Objectivist de-automatization protocol (10 steps)

1. State the thought as a clear proposition. Example: “If X wins, my life is over.” [1]
2. Classify the evidential status: arbitrary, possible, probable, certain. The arbitrary gets dismissed on sight. [1]
3. Reduce to perceptual facts and causal mechanisms. Ask: What concrete facts would make this true? What causal path links A to B? [1]
4. Define terms by essentials (no package-deals). If you use a label, write its definition and check whether the facts fit. [1]
5. Keep full context. List counterevidence and relevant positives; knowledge is contextual. [1]
6. Measure degree. Replace binaries with “how much, how often, compared to what, over what time range.” [1]
7. Separate metaphysically given vs. man-made. Accept the unalterable; act on the alterable. [1]
8. Apply justice. Judge self/others by evidence, essentials, and proportionality; distinguish honest error from evasion. [1]
9. Form the rational replacement principle you will act on in similar cases. Make it specific and reusable. [1]
10. Practice deliberately until the new method becomes automatic. Repetition with full awareness builds rational automatization. [1]

Micro-scripts to replace common ANTs

• Fortune-telling to probability: “What is the base rate? What specific mechanism would cause this? Given current evidence, this is possible but not certain; I assign X% and will update with new data.” [1]
• Mind-reading to evidence: “I don’t know what they think; I only know what they say and do. I’ll ask or rely on observable facts.” [1]
• All-or-nothing to measurement: “Even if it’s not perfect, what percent meets my goal? What are the marginal gains worth to me?” [1]
• Guilt to justice: “Have I violated facts or rights? If yes, I correct and make amends; if no, I reject unearned guilt and pursue my rational values.” [1]
• Comparison to independence: “My standard is reality and my chosen goals. I’ll measure progress against my plan, not others’ status.” [1]
• Regret to action: “What is alterable now? I’ll extract the lesson, decide, and execute one improvement today.” [1]
• Blame to agency: “What is within my control? I’ll name three levers I can pull and take the first step now.” [1]

Practical tools you can start using today

• Fact ledger: For a recurring ANT, keep two columns: evidence for/against; write your probability with reasons and update weekly. [1]
• Concept reduction sheet: When you use a label, write its definition (genus/differentia), list three concretes that fit and three that don’t. [1]
• Probability drill: Before outcomes, record your forecast and mechanism; after outcomes, score your calibration and adjust your models. [1]
• Metaphysical vs. man-made matrix: Make a 2×2 list of what can/can’t be changed; schedule action only on the alterable. [1]
• Virtue audit: Review a day’s choices against rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. Replace “How did I feel?” with “What did the facts warrant, and which virtue applied?” [1]

A 7-day practice plan

• Day 1: Catch and write three ANTs; classify them (arbitrary/possible/probable/certain). [1]
• Day 2: Reduce each to facts and mechanisms; delete the arbitrary. [1]
• Day 3: Define labels by essentials; break any package-deals. [1]
• Day 4: Quantify degrees; replace binaries with ranges and thresholds. [1]
• Day 5: Context pass—add counterevidence and positives. Revise conclusions. [1]
• Day 6: Form one replacement principle per ANT and one concrete action. [1]
• Day 7: Execute the actions; journal results; note emotional changes as data, not proof. [1]

Signs you’re succeeding

• Your thoughts come with explicit evidence and degrees, not certainties by feeling. [1]
• Fewer global labels, more precise descriptions tied to facts. [1]
• Less doom, more targeted action on alterables. [1]
• Self-esteem shifts from approval-seeking to pride in rational effort and productiveness. [1]

Common pitfalls (and fixes)

• Arguing with emotions. Fix: audit premises; emotions report premises—they don’t validate them. [1]
• “Positive affirmations” detached from facts. Fix: the arbitrary has no cognitive status; replace with evidence-backed principles. [1]
• Tribal outsourcing of judgment. Fix: independence—your mind is your court of last resort; others’ feelings aren’t evidence. [1]

Sources

1

Conquer Your Negative Thoughts by Daniel G, Amen

• Chronic guilt/shame (unearned guilt): “Enjoying my life is wrong while others suffer; my success is theft.” Error: altruist ethics treating need as a claim against your life. Correction: adopt rational self-interest; feel guilt only for actual irrationality or rights violations, not for achievement or joy. [1]
• Constant comparison/feeling “less than”: “Others are more virtuous/activist/pure; I don’t measure up.” Error: second-handedness—outsourcing standards to status or approval. Correction: set standards by reality and your rational purposes; compare yourself to your own objective goals and progress. [1]
• Regret as paralysis: “History’s injustices mean optimism is naïve; joy is inappropriate.” Error: treating the alterable as fated and the unalterable as a present guilt. Correction: learn what you can, act where you can, accept what you cannot change; refuse to canonize the past as your future. [1]
• “Realism” via doomscrolling: “If I’m not worried, I’m not paying attention.” Error: injustice in evaluation—letting salience/negativity bias masquerade as truth. Correction: enforce context and base rates; maintain a balanced evidence ledger that includes gains and solutions. [1]

How to replace these ANTs (Objectivist method):

• State the thought as a proposition; demand evidence; classify as arbitrary/possible/probable/certain. Dismiss the arbitrary. [1]
• Reduce to facts and causal mechanisms; quantify degrees instead of binaries; keep full context (positives and negatives). [1]
• Reground ethics in rational self-interest: drop unearned guilt, practice pride (moral ambitiousness) and productiveness. [1]
• Distinguish the metaphysically given from the man-made; act where action is possible; accept what is not. [1]
• Practice independence: judge by reality, not imagined observers or tribal pressure. [1]

Note: These patterns can occur across the political spectrum; the root is philosophical premises, not a party label. The cure is the same: facts first, logic throughout, action by principle. If you share a specific ANT, I’ll help reduce and replace it using this method. [1]

An acute case of pustular psoriasis: initial workup and treatment

 A dermatologist has a new patient that he has never seen before and does not know anything about. The patient is a 35 year old white male who presents with an acute case of pustular psoriasis, etiology unknown. What would be his initial work up plan and treatment plan? 

                          Both Plans

Case Summary: A previously unknown 35-year-old white male presents to a dermatologist with an acute episode of pustular psoriasis of unknown trigger. The dermatologist needs to establish an initial diagnostic workup to confirm the diagnosis, identify potential systemic involvement and precipitating factors (e.g., infection, medications, steroid withdrawal, metabolic abnormalities), and formulate an urgent treatment plan focused on stabilizing the patient, controlling inflammation, and preventing complications.

Assessment Summary

35-year-old man with an acute pustular eruption clinically consistent with pustular psoriasis, trigger unknown. Given the acute onset, potential systemic involvement, and overlap with life-threatening mimickers (AGEP, severe infection, SJS/TEN), this should be managed as a dermatologic emergency until stabilized and diagnosis clarified.

Immediate priorities:

• Rapid assessment and stabilization of vitals, fluids, and electrolytes.
• Urgent evaluation for systemic involvement and infection.
• Early dermatology‑led systemic therapy once GPP/pustular psoriasis is strongly suspected and dangerous mimickers reasonably excluded.
• Identification/removal of possible triggers (medications, infection, steroid withdrawal, metabolic disturbances).

---

Differential Diagnosis / Working Diagnosis

Working diagnosis (provisional):

• Acute generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) / acute pustular psoriasis flare.

Key differentials to actively evaluate and exclude:

1. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)
   • Often drug-induced (antibiotics, calcium-channel blockers, antimalarials).
   • Rapid onset after new drug (hours–days), more prominent facial edema; pustules typically non-follicular, superficial.
2. Severe bacterial infection / impetiginized pustulosis
   • Staphylococcal or streptococcal infection; can mimic GPP.
   • May have focal crusting, purulence, systemic sepsis; positive cultures.
3. SJS/TEN
   • Mucosal involvement, epidermal necrosis, positive Nikolsky sign, targetoid lesions.
   • Strong drug association; life-threatening.
4. Other pustular dermatoses
   • Subcorneal pustular dermatosis, IgA pemphigus, pustular drug reactions.
5. Pustular psoriasis variants
   • Localized (palmoplantar) vs generalized; may have history of plaque psoriasis.

---

Workup Plan

1. Initial Triage and Bedside Assessment (first encounter, 0–2 hours)

• Vital signs: BP, HR, RR, temperature, SpO₂.
• General status: Level of consciousness, oral intake, urine output.
• Skin exam:
  • Distribution and extent of pustules (generalized vs localized).
  • Erythema, tenderness, edema.
  • Presence/absence of skin detachment or erosions.
  • Nikolsky sign.
  • Signs of secondary infection (honey-colored crusts, purulence, foul odor).
• Mucosal exam: Oral, ocular, genital involvement (to evaluate SJS/TEN).
• Lymph nodes: Cervical, axillary, inguinal.
• Joint exam: Look for arthritis (psoriatic arthritis).

Disposition decision:

• Admit (preferably to monitored bed or ICU step‑down) if:
  • Fever, tachycardia, hypotension, or systemic toxicity.
  • Extensive body surface area involved (e.g., >10–15% with pustules/erythroderma).
  • Dehydration, inability to maintain oral intake.
  • Renal impairment, electrolyte derangements.
  • Concern for SJS/TEN or sepsis.
• Outpatient management only if:
  • Stable vitals, limited skin involvement, no systemic symptoms, strong outpatient support, and quick follow-up possible.

Given “acute case of pustular psoriasis” and unknown status, plan as inpatient or urgent admission unless clearly mild.

---

2. Laboratory Studies

Order STAT baseline labs to assess systemic involvement, triggers, and therapy safety:

General / systemic:

• CBC with differential
  • Look for leukocytosis (common in GPP, AGEP, infection), anemia, thrombocytopenia.
• CMP (electrolytes, BUN, creatinine, liver enzymes, albumin, glucose)
  • Assess dehydration, renal injury, hepatic function.
• CRP and/or ESR
  • Inflammatory burden; help follow response to therapy.
• Serum calcium, magnesium, phosphate
  • Hypocalcemia can trigger or worsen pustular psoriasis.
• Serum lactate (if septic appearance).
• Blood cultures (×2 sets) if fever, rigors, or hypotension.

Infection-focused:

• Throat swab for Group A Streptococcus (rapid test ± culture) if sore throat or suggestive history.
• Urinalysis ± urine culture if urinary symptoms.
• Chest X-ray (see imaging below) if respiratory signs or systemic sepsis suspicion.
• Swab cultures from pustules/erosions:
  • Bacterial culture and gram stain.
  • Consider fungal culture if atypical features.

Medication / trigger workup:

• Detailed medication history (within past 4–6 weeks):
  • New drugs: antibiotics (beta‑lactams), antimalarials, lithium, terbinafine, NSAIDs, ACE‑inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers, biologics.
  • Recent systemic corticosteroid use and abrupt withdrawal.
  • Changes in antipsoriatic agents or biologics.
• Alcohol and substance history.

Autoimmune/other (as indicated):

• ANA, serum protein electrophoresis (if atypical or chronic recurrent).
• HIV test if risk factors or unclear immunosuppression status.

Baseline for systemic therapy selection/safety:

• Viral hepatitis panel (HBsAg, anti‑HBc, anti‑HBs, HCV Ab) if considering immunosuppressants or biologics.
• Quantiferon-TB Gold or T-spot (if possible before biologic) – may proceed later if urgent but start planning.
• Fasting lipids (for acitretin, if time allows).
• G6PD level (if thinking of dapsone, less typical first-line but occasionally used in other pustular conditions).

---

3. Imaging

• Chest X-ray if:
  • Fever, cough, dyspnea, systemic toxicity (rule out pneumonia, pulmonary edema).
• Echocardiogram / further imaging only if clinically indicated by sepsis or organ involvement.

---

4. Procedures

Skin biopsy (urgent):

• Perform at least one punch biopsy (4 mm ideally) from a fresh pustule on erythematous skin.
  • Request H&E and direct immunofluorescence (DIF) if SJS/TEN, IgA dermatosis, or autoimmune etiology is a concern.
• Optional second biopsy from edge of involved area if needed to sample different morphology.

Cultures:

• Swab pustules before they are significantly treated:
  • Bacterial culture and gram stain.
  • Fungal culture if morphology atypical or immunosuppressed.

These will help distinguish GPP from AGEP, infections, and other neutrophilic dermatoses.

---

Treatment Plan

1. General Stabilization and Supportive Care (0–24 hours)

• Setting: Inpatient (dermatology + internal medicine; consider ICU step‑down for unstable patients).

• Fluids & electrolytes:

  • Start IV fluids if oral intake inadequate or signs of dehydration (use isotonic saline or balanced crystalloid).
  • Correct electrolyte abnormalities, particularly hypocalcemia, potassium, and magnesium.

• Temperature and environment:

  • Maintain neutral thermal environment; avoid overheating.
  • Active cooling if febrile and uncomfortable (cool compresses, antipyretics).

• Skin barrier and wound care:

  • Liberal application of bland emollients (e.g., petrolatum, Aquaphor, thick fragrance-free ointments) to all involved skin multiple times daily.
  • Non-adherent dressings for erosive or exudative areas to reduce pain and fluid loss.

• Pain and pruritus control:

  • Oral acetaminophen for pain/fever (avoid high-dose NSAIDs if renal risk).
  • Systemic antihistamines (e.g., cetirizine 10 mg daily ± hydroxyzine 25 mg at night) for itch and sleep.

• Infection prophylaxis/management:

  • Strict skin hygiene; avoid unnecessary invasive lines.
  • Start empiric antibiotics only if there is strong clinical suspicion of secondary infection or sepsis while awaiting cultures (e.g., IV anti‑staphylococcal agent ± broader coverage as per local guidelines).

• Medication review and trigger removal (same day):

  • Immediately stop potential culprit drugs, especially:
    • Recent antibiotics (e.g., beta‑lactams) if AGEP suspected.
    • Lithium, terbinafine, antimalarials, or any highly suspect recent new medication.
  • Do NOT abruptly stop corticosteroids if the patient is currently on a significant systemic dose; abrupt withdrawal is a known trigger. If on steroids, plan a careful taper once disease is controlled and alternative therapy in place.
  • Document timing of each medication relative to eruption onset.

---

2. Systemic Therapy for Acute Pustular Psoriasis (once life-threatening mimickers reasonably excluded or in parallel if high suspicion)

Choice depends on severity, comorbidities, and availability. In a previously healthy 35-year-old, aim for rapid-acting systemic therapy.

A. First-line options (acute severe GPP):

1. Cyclosporine (rapid onset)

   • Dose: 3–5 mg/kg/day PO divided BID (e.g., 75–150 mg BID depending on weight).
   • Indications: Severe, generalized pustular eruption with systemic symptoms, need for rapid control, normal baseline kidney function and BP.
   • Monitoring:
     • Baseline and twice-weekly in acute phase: BP, BUN/Cr, potassium, magnesium.
     • Watch for hypertension, nephrotoxicity, infection.
   • Duration:
     • Expect clinical improvement within days to 1–2 weeks.
     • Once controlled, plan a gradual taper over several weeks while transitioning to maintenance therapy (e.g., biologic, acitretin, or conventional systemic).

2. Acitretin

   • Dose: 0.5–1 mg/kg/day PO (e.g., 25–50 mg daily, adjust by weight and tolerance).
   • Pros: Effective for pustular psoriasis, non-immunosuppressive.
   • Cons: Slower onset than cyclosporine; teratogenic (not relevant for female patient in terms of pregnancy but still long-term blood donation precautions).
   • Monitoring:
     • Baseline and periodic: LFTs, fasting lipids.
   • Often used as either:
     • Monotherapy in less acute/systemic cases, or
     • Combined with cyclosporine initially then maintained alone after cyclosporine taper.

3. Biologic therapy targeting IL‑36R (if available and confirmed GPP):

   • Spesolimab (where approved; GPP‑specific).
   • Dosing regimen per local approvals (often single IV dose with potential re-dosing).
   • Typically initiated in specialized centers; ensure infection screening (TB, hepatitis) as feasible.

B. Alternative acute options (if above unavailable/contraindicated):

4. Methotrexate

   • Dose: 10–25 mg once weekly PO or SC, plus folic acid 1 mg daily (excluding methotrexate day).
   • Slower onset than cyclosporine, but reasonable for concurrent or maintenance therapy.
   • Monitoring: CBC, LFTs, creatinine at baseline, then every 1–2 weeks initially.

5. Systemic corticosteroids (caution; generally avoided as primary therapy in pustular psoriasis because of risk of rebound/worsening on withdrawal).

   • Consider only in select situations (e.g., GPP overlap with other steroid-responsive disease or no immediate access to other systemic therapies) and with a clear plan for slow taper and bridging to another agent (e.g., cyclosporine, methotrexate).
   • If used: e.g., prednisone 0.5–1 mg/kg/day with early addition of another systemic and tapered over weeks.

Avoid:

• Abrupt cessation of existing systemic steroids.
• Monotherapy with topical steroids alone in severe generalized disease (insufficient).

---

3. Topical Treatments (adjunctive)

Use in addition to systemic therapy:

• High-potency topical corticosteroids (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment/cream):

  • Apply BID to localized, very inflamed plaques or hands/feet.
  • In widespread disease, consider short-term use under supervision; avoid occlusion over very large areas to reduce systemic absorption.

• Topical calcipotriene (calcipotriol) or combination calcipotriene/betamethasone:

  • More for transition to maintenance after acute pustules subside, especially if residual plaque psoriasis is present.

• Antiseptic washes:

  • Chlorhexidine wash once daily to reduce bacterial colonization (avoid in case of known allergy).

---

4. Lifestyle and Supportive Measures

• Encourage adequate oral hydration (if able) and balanced nutrition with sufficient protein.
• Avoid alcohol and unnecessary OTC medications or supplements.
• Gentle skin care:
  • Lukewarm showers, fragrance-free cleansers.
  • Avoid scrubbing, hot baths, or harsh soaps.
• If smoker: discuss cessation as part of long-term psoriasis control.
• Screen for and manage psychological stress; offer support or referral if distress is high.

---

Patient Education

Key points to explain in simple terms:

1. Nature and seriousness of the condition

   • “You have a severe type of psoriasis where the skin suddenly forms many tiny blisters filled with white cells. This can affect the whole body and stress your organs, so we treat it urgently, similar to a medical emergency, until you are stable.”

2. Why hospitalization/urgent care is important

   • To monitor temperature, blood pressure, kidneys, and fluids.
   • To give strong treatments and watch for side effects.
   • To protect against dehydration, infection, and other complications.

3. Triggers and medication review

   • Emphasize:
     • Possible role of recent medications (antibiotics, mood stabilizers, antifungals, antimalarials).
     • Risk of flares with sudden stopping of oral steroids: “We avoid suddenly stopping steroids because it can trigger or worsen this condition.”

4. Treatment expectations

   • Systemic medication (e.g., cyclosporine ± acitretin or other) aims to quickly stop new pustules and reduce redness and pain.
   • Improvement expected over days to a week, not instantly, but new pustules should slow within 24–72 hours.
   • Need for regular blood tests to watch kidney, liver, and blood counts.

5. Long-term outlook

   • This may be a chronic condition with risk of future flares.
   • After this acute episode, a longer-term maintenance plan will be needed (which may involve pills, injections, and/or topicals).
   • Importance of regular follow-up with dermatology.

6. Self-care at home (when discharged)

   • Gentle moisturization several times daily.
   • Avoid picking or scratching pustules/crusts.
   • Take medications exactly as prescribed; do not stop systemic medications abruptly without talking to the dermatologist.

---

Follow-up Schedule

Inpatient phase:

• Daily dermatology and internal medicine review.
• Labs:
  • CBC, CMP (incl. creatinine, electrolytes), CRP: every 1–2 days initially or more often if unstable.
  • BP and urine output: at least every shift.
• Assess:
  • Number of new pustules, extent of erythema.
  • Pain, pruritus, sleep.
  • Signs of infection or organ dysfunction.

Transition to outpatient:

• Discharge when:
  • Hemodynamically stable; no fever or minimal low-grade only.
  • New pustule formation significantly reduced or stopped.
  • Able to maintain oral intake and skin care at home.
  • Clear systemic regimen and lab plan established.

Post-discharge follow-up:

• 1st visit: within 1 week of discharge.

  • Review clinical progress, adjust systemic therapy/tapering.
  • Repeat CBC, CMP, and specific drug-monitoring labs (e.g., creatinine for cyclosporine, LFTs/lipids for acitretin).

• Subsequent visits:

  • Every 2–4 weeks initially while adjusting therapy.
  • Then every 3 months once stable and on maintenance therapy.

• Discuss and plan maintenance strategy at early follow-ups:

  • Options: acitretin, methotrexate, biologics targeting IL‑17/23 or IL‑36 (depending on regulatory status and phenotype).
  • Integrate any plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis management.

---

Red Flags / When to Seek Immediate Care

Advise patient (and caregivers) to seek urgent/emergency medical attention if any of the following occur after discharge or during outpatient care:

• High fever (>38.5°C / 101.3°F) or shaking chills.
• Rapid increase in redness, warmth, or tenderness of skin; spreading areas of raw or weeping skin.
• Signs of sepsis: confusion, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, trouble breathing, very low urine output, or feeling faint.
• Sudden or severe eye pain, redness, or vision changes.
• New mouth, eye, or genital ulcers, or widespread skin peeling.
• Shortness of breath, chest pain, or severe cough.
• Severe abdominal pain, persistent vomiting, or diarrhea.
• Dark or greatly reduced urine, new leg swelling, or unexplained weight gain (possible kidney or heart issues).
• Severe headache, visual changes, or very high blood pressure.
• Any new rash or reaction shortly after starting a new medication.

---

This integrated plan addresses: immediate stabilization, thorough diagnostic workup (including trigger identification and exclusion of mimickers), rapid initiation of appropriate systemic therapy for acute pustular psoriasis, and structured follow-up with clear red-flag education.

A biological man says "I am a woman": Correction of this Automatic Negative Thought

 A biological man says, "I am a woman."

The Objectivist response to correct this ANT:

• Metaphysically, facts hold primacy over feelings. Biological sex is an objective, causal fact about a human organism; a verbal declaration cannot reverse a biological identity. Treating “I feel like X” as “I am X” commits the primacy-of-consciousness error—subordinating existence to inner states—rather than recognizing that concepts must be anchored to perceptual reality and causal facts [1].
• Epistemologically, the concept “woman” must be defined by essentials, not by shifting feelings or social signals. Redefining “woman” to mean “whoever identifies as a woman” is a package-deal/floating abstraction: it detaches the word from its referents and smuggles in nonessential traits (preferences, roles, styles) as if they were the essence. A rational mind reduces claims to facts; feelings are data about one’s psychology, not validations of biological propositions [1].
• Ethically, each person is free to choose their conduct and presentation, and deserves civil respect. But independence and honesty require that one not demand others treat a contradiction as truth. One can acknowledge psychological distress (e.g., dysphoria) and choose action to pursue well-being, while refusing to erase or deny facts. Pride means accepting reality and building one’s life accordingly [1].

Which ANT is reflected?

• Primary: “Labeling self/others” via a floating abstraction/package-deal. The self-description “I am a woman,” when used by a biological male to negate biological facts, replaces fact-based definitions with subjectivism and emotionalism, a feel-based mental state that functions as a label and evades essentials and degree. That is an epistemic evasion of justice’s demand to define and judge by evidence and context [1].
• Also implicated: acceptance of the arbitrary (treating an inner assertion as knowledge without reduction to facts) and context-dropping (conflating psychological traits or social roles with biological sex). These stem from the primacy-of-consciousness premise Objectivism rejects [1].

How to correct it (Objectivist method)

1. Identify the proposition: “I am a woman.” Ask: What facts would make this true? What is the essential definition of “woman”? [1]
2. Reduce to reality: If “woman” means adult human female, then check the biological evidence. Feelings don’t alter chromosomes, gametes, or dimorphic anatomy. Distinguish psychological experience (real as experience) from biological classification (real as organismic fact) [1].
3. Keep context and define terms: If the person means “I prefer feminine expression/roles,” state that precisely instead of collapsing preference into ontology. Precision dissolves the package-deal [1].
4. Form the rational replacement: “I am a biological male. I experience feminine-coded feelings/preferences, which I am free to express. My dignity doesn’t require denying facts; it requires living by them to pursue my rational values.” This preserves honesty, independence, and justice—toward self and others [1].

Bottom line

• Respect the person; audit the proposition. In Objectivism, self-esteem and flourishing come from reality-oriented thought and action. Treat emotions as signals to be understood and integrated, not as reality-makers. Facts first, logic throughout, action last [1].

Sources

1 Conquer Your Negative Thoughts by Daniel G, Amen

A roast of this [every human on earth has the “legal right” to come to the U.S.A.]

Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston, Massachusetts, is going viral for saying that every human on earth has the “legal right” to come to the U.S.A.

 One-word roast:

• Fallacyfest

Two-word roast:

• Rights inflation

Three-word roast:

• Consent isn’t optional
• 
  

Full roast:

This reads like someone stapled a “Free Entry” sign to the Constitution and called it jurisprudence. There is no statute, clause, or precedent that grants eight billion people a legal right to enter the U.S.; Congress explicitly regulates immigration, visas, quotas, and admissibility. Asylum is narrowly defined, not a universal passport. Calling it a “legal right” is make-believe law.

This is also swapping moral sentiment for legal entitlement. Negative rights restrain government force; they don’t conscript citizens to provide housing, services, and infinite budget for anyone who shows up. Claiming “every human has a legal right to enter” is like saying every passerby has a legal right to your living room—until it’s your doorbell ringing at midnight.

Fallacies and flubs:

• Equivocation: Confusing human dignity with a positive legal entitlement to enter a specific polity.
• Non sequitur: From “people deserve compassion” to “therefore, they have a legal right to cross this border.”
• False dichotomy: Pretending it’s either open-borders-for-all or hatred/xenophobia.
• Motte-and-bailey: Selling “legal right” as if it exists, then retreating to “well, it should be allowed” when pressed.
• Category error: Treating a nation—with property, budgets, and institutions—as a public park with infinite capacity.
• Appeal to emotion: Trying to override consent, law, and tradeoffs with feelings.

From a pro-freedom, anti-statist lens, it’s worse: unlimited entry under a welfare-regulatory state doesn’t create liberty; it mandates a megastate—registries, surveillance, rationing, tax hikes, emergency powers, and bureaucratic gatekeepers. That’s how you take a bad idea and grow the very authoritarian machinery you claim to oppose. The irony? The people chanting this keep locks on their own doors, live behind HOAs, and hire security for their events—apparently, “everyone’s right to enter” stops at their driveway.

You don’t abolish lines by declaring everyone first in line. You just abolish consent—and grow the state.

Integration of the Automatic Negative Thoughts (ANTS) and Objectivism

 

The Automatic Negative Thoughts (ANTS), according to Dr. Daniel Amen, are:

all or nothing thinking, 

obsession with just the bad, 

obsession with negatives, 

guilt and shame, 

labeling oneself and/or others, 

fortune telling and negative predictions, 

mind-reading. causing anxiety and worry, 

blaming others and playing the victim card, 

constantly comparing oneself to others and feeling less than others, 

playing the regret card about the past or present, which prevents happiness.

According to Objectivism. these “automatic negative thoughts” are not primaries; they are automatized verdicts—mental habits formed by prior premises. They are not tools of cognition and carry no authority apart from the facts and logic that validate or invalidate the premises that gave rise to them [3]. 

The cause is philosophical:

wrong metaphysics (primacy of consciousness, determinism, malevolent-universe premise), 

wrong epistemology (evasion, context-dropping, the arbitrary, package-deals), 

wrong ethics (altruism and second-handedness), automatized by repetition and left unchallenged by the choice to focus and think [1][5][3].

Classification of each “ANT” in Objectivist terms (and why)

• “All-or-nothing” thinking: a false alternative and context-dropping that obliterate measurement, treating continuous attributes as binaries; it is a package-deal that collapses relevant distinctions instead of identifying units by essentials and degree [2][3].
• “Obsessing over the bad/negatives”: a malevolent-universe premise plus injustice in evaluation—focusing on non-essentials while blanking out counter-evidence; context-dropping masquerading as “realism” [3][5].
• Guilt and shame (as chronic defaults): typically “unearned guilt” flowing from altruist ethics that treats need or duty as a moral claim against one’s life; guilt is proper only for actual wrongdoing—i.e., facts of rights-violation or irrationality—not for living productively or pursuing self-interest [5].
• Labeling self/others: floating abstractions and package-deals replacing first-hand, fact-based, essentialized definitions; it evades justice’s requirement to judge by evidence, context, and degree [3][4].
• Fortune-telling/negative predictions: the arbitrary, which is neither true nor false and must be dismissed; it commits the primacy-of-consciousness error by treating inner projection as knowledge, ignoring causality and evidence-based probability [1][3].
• “Mind reading”: social metaphysics—subordinating judgment to imagined others; an evasion of the fact that only evidence, not others’ presumed consciousness, can validate a conclusion [3][5].
• Blaming others/playing victim: denial of volition and responsibility; determinism plus evasion. It attacks the virtue of pride (moral ambitiousness) and productiveness, shifting cause from one’s choices to others’ will [1][5].
• Constant comparison and feeling “less than”: second-handedness—the standard becomes other people’s opinions or status rather than reality and one’s rational goals; it breeds envy and the hatred of the good for being the good [5].
• “Regret cards” about past/present that block action: a failure to distinguish the metaphysically given (unalterable) from the man-made (alterable) and to act accordingly; proper method is to learn, correct, and proceed, not to treat past choices as metaphysical fate [1][3].

The causes, according to Objectivism

• Metaphysics: the primacy of consciousness (treating wish/fear as reality), determinism (denial of choice), and a malevolent-universe premise; each severs mind from reality and paralyzes action [1].
• Epistemology: the choice not to focus (evasion), failure of reduction to perceptual facts, context-dropping, acceptance of the arbitrary, and use of anti-concepts/package-deals; these habits automatize into “instant” conclusions that feel self-evident but are rootless [3][4].
• Ethics: altruism and collectivism inculcate unearned guilt, victimhood, and second-handedness; they attack independence, pride, and productiveness, replacing earned self-esteem with moral self-doubt [5].

Objective method to eradicate ANTs (the only moral and practical remedy)

• Choose to focus. Treat each “automatic thought” as a proposition. Demand evidence. Reduce it to the facts that would make it true or false. If arbitrary, dismiss it; if false, reject and replace it; if partly true, delimit it by context and degree [3].
• Use measurement and essentials. Ask “how much?” and “compared to what?” to break all-or-nothing errors; identify the essential characteristics before forming or applying a label [2].
• Keep full context and integrate. Justice requires weighing the total evidence, positives and negatives, by essentials relevant to your purpose; do not allow one aspect to masquerade as the whole [3][5].
• Reground ethics in rational self-interest. Drop altruist premises that manufacture unearned guilt; adopt pride (moral ambitiousness) and productiveness as your policy, pursuing values that sustain your life as a rational being [5].
• Distinguish the metaphysically given from the man-made. Act on what you can change; accept what you cannot; never treat the alterable as fate or the unalterable as negotiable [1].
• Reject social metaphysics. Judge by reality, not imagined observers; independence is loyalty to facts and reason, not to other people’s feelings or status [5].

In sum: ANTs are automatized consequences of premises—philosophical, not mystical. The cure is not to emote differently but to think: identify, reduce, validate, and integrate under the primacy of existence and the method of logic. Nothing less is worthy of a rational being [1][3][5].

Sources

1 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

2 For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand

3 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

4 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

5 Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger

6 the Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

In addition:

Here is a deeper, systematic treatment—causes, classification, and the objective method to extinguish “automatic negative thoughts” by replacing them with rational, reality-based automatizations.

1. Causal chain: how ANTs form and why they feel “automatic.”

• Premises: You accept or default on basic ideas about reality (existence vs. consciousness, causality, free will), knowledge (logic vs. feelings), and morality (rational self-interest vs. altruism). These premises are chosen or tolerated—free will makes them your responsibility. Repetition automatizes them into split-second verdicts. Emotions then express those verdicts; they are not tools of cognition, only consequences of earlier judgments. Therefore ANTs are not primaries; they are automatized conclusions from prior premises and psycho-epistemic habits (focus vs. evasion, context-keeping vs. context-dropping). The only remedy is to identify and replace the premises and retrain the method. Facts first, logic throughout, action last. [1][3][4]

2. Expanded classification: each ANT as an Objectivist error, plus the corresponding corrective principle

• All-or-nothing thinking: Package-deal plus failure of measurement. Treats continuous magnitudes (skill, success, virtue) as binaries, obliterating degrees and context. Corrective: definition by essentials; ask “to what degree?” and “compared to what?” and integrate all relevant measures. [2][3]
• Obsession with the bad/negatives: Malevolent-universe premise and injustice—fixating on non-essentials while blanking out counter-evidence. Corrective: justice and context-keeping; weigh positives and negatives by essentials and purpose. [3][5]
• Chronic guilt and shame: Typically “unearned guilt” sourced in altruism (duty/need as a claim on your life). Proper guilt attaches only to actual irrationality or rights-violations. Corrective: adopt rational self-interest as moral standard; distinguish error (to correct) from evasion (to condemn). [5]
• Labeling self/others: Floating abstractions and stolen concepts—words detached from facts and essentials. Corrective: reduce labels to observed facts; define by genus/differentia; judge by evidence and degree (justice). [3][4]
• Fortune-telling/negative predictions: The arbitrary—assertions without evidence. Treating inner projection as knowledge violates the primacy of existence and causality. Corrective: classify propositions as arbitrary/possible/probable/certain based on evidence; reject the arbitrary on sight. [1][3]
• Mind reading: Social metaphysics—basing conclusions on imagined consciousness of others. Corrective: independence; accept only what evidence supports; other minds are knowable only by words/deeds, not clairvoyance. [3][5]
• Blaming others/playing victim: Determinism and evasion of responsibility. Corrective: volition is axiomatic; isolate your causal role and act accordingly; refuse to surrender agency. [1][5]
• Constant comparison/feeling “less than”: Second-handedness—making others the standard of value. Corrective: set standards by reality and your rational purposes; evaluate progress against objective goals, not status. [5]
• Regret that blocks action: Confusing the metaphysically given with the man-made; freezing the alterable as if fated. Corrective: accept the unalterable; change the alterable; learn, decide, act. [1][3]

3. The Objectivist de-automatization protocol (how to replace ANTs with rational automatizations)

• Step 1: Identify the proposition. State the ANT in declarative form. Thoughts are to be judged as true or false, not felt. [3]
• Step 2: Demand evidence. Classify as arbitrary, possible, probable, or certain. The arbitrary is neither true nor false—dismiss it. [3]
• Step 3: Reduce to facts. What perceptual-level data would make this claim true? What causal mechanism would connect cause to effect? No mechanism, no belief. [1][3]
• Step 4: Define terms by essentials. Eliminate package-deals and equivocations; specify genus/differentia. Precision is moral. [2][4]
• Step 5: Keep full context. Integrate all relevant facts; reject conclusions that require blanking out. Knowledge is contextual and hierarchical. [3]
• Step 6: Quantify. Replace binaries with measurement. Ask “how much,” “over what range,” “with what base rate.” Degrees are the antidote to perfectionism. [2]
• Step 7: Separate the metaphysically given from the man-made. Act only where action is possible; accept what is not. [1]
• Step 8: Apply justice. Praise and blame proportionate to evidence and essentials—toward self and others. Distinguish honest error from willful evasion. [5]
• Step 9: Form the rational replacement. State the true, context-checked alternative principle you will act on. Automatization requires a specific, reusable principle. [3]
• Step 10: Practice to automatize. Repetition under full awareness converts method into speed. You are retraining your psycho-epistemology. [3][4]

4. Special clarifications that remove common fuel for ANTs

• Emotions are not tools of cognition. They report your premises; they do not validate them. Treat them as data about past judgments, then audit the judgments. [3]
• Benevolent vs. malevolent universe premise. The world is knowable and success is possible to a rational being—not guaranteed, but causally open to action. The “malevolent” premise is an error in metaphysics and causality. [1][3]
• Guilt: earned vs. unearned. If you violated facts or rights, identify the breach, make restitution or correction, and resolve by principle; then drop it. If the guilt is for rational self-interest or achievement, it is unearned—reject it as smuggled altruism. [5]
• Probability and forecasting. Replace “fortune-telling” with explicit probability judgments tied to causal models and evidence thresholds; update with new data. This is applied objectivity. [1][3]
• Independence over social metaphysics. Your mind is your court of last resort. Others’ feelings do not constitute evidence. [5]

5. Practical instruments (objective, not “feelings-first”)

• Fact logs: For recurring ANTs, keep a running ledger of concrete evidence for/against the claim; update the probability and causal account. This enforces reduction and context. [3]
• Concept checks: When a label appears (“failure,” “worthless,” “unlovable”), write its definition by essentials, then list facts that fit and that don’t. Destroy the package-deal. [2][4]
• Calibration drills: Before outcomes, write your probability and reasons; after outcomes, score your calibration. This punishes arbitrary prediction. [1][3]
• Virtue audits: Judge actions against the seven virtues (rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride). Replace “How do I feel?” with “What do the facts warrant?” and “What virtue applies?” [5]

6. What not to do

• Do not argue with emotions as if they were arguments. Audit premises. [3]
• Do not use “positive affirmations” detached from facts. The arbitrary has no cognitive status. [3]
• Do not outsource judgment to the collective. That is second-handedness—the breeding ground of endless ANTs. [5]

Bottom line: ANTs are automatized errors in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics—learned, repeated, and left unchallenged. The solution is not to pamper them but to replace them: choose to focus, reduce every claim to facts, integrate without contradiction, and act by rational principle. You are not at the mercy of “automatic” thoughts. You are the sovereign who sets the premises they automatize. [1][3][5]

Sources

1 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

2 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

3 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

4 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

5 Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger

6 The Objectivist by Ayn Rand

Confounding Nazis and ICE by leftists

 

Confounding Nazis and ICE by leftists/liberals/Democrats/socialists leaves no room for a real, true, natural, objective distinction between the two concepts.

To eliminate this problem:

Start with objective definitions—by essentials, not by floating associations.

• Nazi: A totalitarian, one-party, collectivist regime (National Socialism) that abolished individual rights, centralized political power, initiated aggressive war, and institutionalized mass murder and censorship; force was initiatory and unlimited, directed at peaceful citizens and minorities as state policy [6].
• ICE: A rights-subordinate, statutorily created U.S. law-enforcement agency that operates under the Constitution, congressional statutes, executive oversight, and judicial review to enforce immigration and customs law and investigate cross-border crime; its use of force is retaliatory and limited by due process and objective procedure [4].

To erase this distinction is a package-deal fallacy: it collapses unlike units under a nonessential common denominator (“they both use force”) while dropping the essential differences—purpose, scope, and moral status of that force (initiatory vs. retaliatory; unlimited vs. limited; ideological tyranny vs. objective law) [3]. It further commits equivocation on “force,” treating the state’s legitimate, delimited retaliatory force as morally identical to criminal aggression, which inverts the principle that government’s sole function is the protection of individual rights under objective law [6].

How the conflation is done:

• Redefinition by nonessentials: substituting emotive imagery (“uniforms,” “detention,” “raids”) for the essential political-legal character of the institutions involved, thereby turning a rights-destroying dictatorship and a rights-protecting agency into alleged synonyms [6].
• Context-dropping: ignoring constitutional constraints, statutory limits, oversight, and legal remedies that bind ICE, while ignoring the unlimited, lawless character of Nazi power (Gleichschaltung, secret police, censorship, concentration camps) [4].
• Stolen-concept and package-deals: invoking “human rights” to attack the very concept of objective, rights-based law enforcement, which presupposes borders, jurisdiction, and procedures—concepts made meaningless if any enforcement is smeared as “Nazi” by definition [3].
• Moral inversion: equating the defense of a nation’s objective legal conditions of entry and trade with collectivist persecution, thereby normalizing actual totalitarianism and criminalizing the rule of law [6].

Objective tests that keep the concepts distinct:

• Source of authority: arbitrary party decree vs. constitutionally delimited statute and judicial review [4].
• Purpose: ideological domination and extermination vs. enforcement of immigration/customs law and interdiction of cross-border crime (smuggling, trafficking, money laundering) [6].
• Type of force: initiatory, unlimited, and political-terror vs. retaliatory, delimited, and procedurally reviewable [3].
• Accountability: none (censorship, one-party rule) vs. multiple avenues of redress (courts, inspectors general, congressional oversight, media scrutiny) [6].

From the standpoint of Objectivist epistemology, the conflation rests on rejecting definitions by essentials and on evasion of causal identity. A Nazi regime is the political embodiment of collectivism and the initiation of force; a proper rights-respecting government uses force only in retaliation and only under objective law. To equate the two is to discard the principle of non-contradictory identification—facts over feelings—and to blur the line between civilization and barbarism [3].

Politically, collectivists gain by such package-deals. By smearing any enforcement of immigration and customs law as “Nazi,” they seek to delegitimize objective law itself, clearing the ground for rule by pressure groups and executive fiat—i.e., for more statism. In contrast, the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights; a rights-protecting state must maintain objective conditions of entry, trade, and jurisdiction, or it ceases to be a government and becomes a whim-driven mob with badges [6].

On the wider economic-political framework, as George Reisman explains, Nazism is a species of collectivist statism (a command-and-control system that tramples private property and individual rights), whereas capitalism requires a government of strictly limited functions—police, courts, national defense—operating under objective law. Enforcing immigration and customs law, and combating cross-border crime, fall within the retaliatory use of force that a capitalist society delegates to government; they are not steps toward collectivist tyranny, but necessary implements of a rights-based legal order when executed under objective constraints [6].

Conclusion: The “Nazi = ICE” equation is a textbook package-deal and a moral smear. It obliterates the life-or-death distinction between initiatory force and retaliatory force, between totalitarian diktat and objective law. Intellectual honesty requires precise definitions, context-keeping, and the recognition that the protection of rights is not equivalent to their destruction. Any particular abuses should be identified and corrected by stricter adherence to objective law—not by annihilating the very concept of lawful, rights-respecting enforcement [4].

Sources

1 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

2 For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand

3 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

4 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

5 Founders of Western Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff

6 Capitalism by George Riesman

In addition:

Here is additional, objective analysis that keeps the concepts distinct by essentials and exposes the package-deal that equates a totalitarian dictatorship with a delimited law-enforcement agency.

1. Necessary and sufficient conditions—what “Nazi” actually names

• One-party dictatorship and Führerprinzip: the subordination of all institutions to the ruler and party; no opposition permitted (Gleichschaltung) [6].
• Abolition of individual rights: censorship, criminalization of dissent, outlawry of independent courts, and unrestricted secret police (Gestapo/SS) with extrajudicial powers [4].
• Racial-collectivist ideology embodied in law: the Nuremberg Laws; persecution as state policy, not as aberration [6].
• Initiation of force as a system: aggressive war, expropriation, and mass murder (concentration/extermination camps) as instruments of policy [4].
  By definition, “Nazi” denotes a rights-destroying, total state that initiates force without legal restraint; this is not a floating epithet but a concept defined by essentials [3].

2. What ICE is by essentials

• Origin and scope: created by statute (Homeland Security reorganization, 2003) to enforce immigration and customs law and investigate transnational crime; authority derives from Congress and is bounded by the Constitution [4].
• Nature of force: retaliatory and delimited—arrests, searches, and detentions occur under statutory standards, agency policies, and judicial review (warrants, probable cause, habeas corpus, administrative and Article III courts) [6].
• Accountability: inspector-general oversight, courts, congressional inquiry, media scrutiny, FOIA, and internal discipline; errors are punishable within the system because the rule of law is the framework, not a facade [4].
  This is what a rights-subordinate police power looks like in a limited government: it is constrained, reviewable, and purpose-bound to law enforcement, not ideological domination [6].

3. How the conflation is manufactured (the package-deal)

• Equivocation on “force”: treating the retaliatory force of a rights-based government as morally identical to initiatory force, erasing the life-or-death distinction that defines civilization vs. tyranny [3].
• Redefinition by nonessentials: focusing on uniforms, detention, or “raids” to smuggle in an emotive association, while dropping the essentials of scope, legal authority, and accountability that separate a dictatorship from law enforcement [6].
• Context-dropping: ignoring constitutional limits, due process, and avenues of redress in the U.S., while ignoring the Nazis’ abolition of law itself (party decree as law, censorship, secret police, political courts) [4].
• Stolen concept: invoking “human rights” to attack the enforcement of objective law as such—rights presuppose a legal system that defines borders, jurisdiction, and procedures; to damn any enforcement as “Nazi” destroys the very preconditions of rights [3].

4. Objective tests to keep the concepts from collapsing
   Ask these four questions in every claim:

• Authority: Is the action under a constitutionally valid statute with judicial review, or under arbitrary party decree? [4]
• Purpose: Is the purpose to protect rights by enforcing law (immigration/customs, anti-smuggling/trafficking), or to impose ideological domination and persecute categories of persons? [6]
• Type of force: Is it retaliatory and procedurally constrained, or initiatory, unlimited, and terroristic? [3]
• Accountability: Are there independent courts, inspectors general, a free press, and legislative oversight, or none? [6]
  A “yes” to the first option on each question marks a rights-based agency; a “yes” to the second marks a totalitarian regime. Mixing them is a package-deal, not cognition [3].

5. The “concentration camp” smear vs. detention under law

• Nazi camps were instruments of mass murder and slave labor, outside any legal constraint and aimed at ideological-racial extermination; that is their essential identity [4].
• Immigration detention is a temporary custodial measure tied to process (identification, hearings, removal, or release) and is subject to standards, auditing, and litigation; abuses are faults to be prosecuted under objective law, not features of an exterminatory system [6].
  To equate these is to obliterate the concept of genocide itself—a moral inversion that trivializes actual totalitarian crimes and criminalizes lawful adjudication [3].

6. Where the line actually is—objective red flags
   If any U.S. agency were to:

• Override courts systematically; abolish habeas corpus; censor the press; criminalize dissent; operate an unreviewable secret police; or adopt racial laws as policy—then the analogy to totalitarianism would have a factual base [4].
• Institute initiatory, unlimited force as a norm (collective punishment, extrajudicial disappearances, extermination)—that would meet the essentials of a total state, not a rights-protecting government [6].
  The remedy for misconduct in a free society is stricter adherence to objective law and punishment of violators, not the annihilation of the concept of enforcement itself [3].

7. The political-economy context (why collectivists push the package-deal)

• As George Reisman explains, Nazism is a form of collectivist statism: command-and-control over the individual and the economy under nominal private ownership—i.e., fascism—wholly incompatible with individual rights and capitalism [6].
• A proper government in capitalism is strictly limited to the protection of rights (police, courts, national defense) under objective law; immigration and customs enforcement and anti-trafficking investigations fall within retaliatory force delegated for that purpose [6].
• Smearing all enforcement as “Nazi” serves the statist goal of delegitimizing objective law so politics can be reduced to pressure-group warfare and decree—precisely the road to the kind of regime the smear pretends to oppose [4].

8. Methodological safeguards you can apply in debate

• Demand definitions by essentials; reject anti-concepts and floating abstractions [3].
• Insist on causal identity and concrete evidence (statute, regulation, court ruling, oversight record) rather than rhetorical imagery [4].
• Keep full context: distinguish between errors remediable within the system and structural features of totalitarianism [6].
• Expose the fallacies: package-deal, equivocation on “force,” stolen concept of “rights,” and context-dropping [3].

Conclusion
The “Nazi = ICE” equation is not analysis but an evasion packaged as morality. It obliterates the defining difference between initiatory and retaliatory force, between dictatorship and objective law. Intellectual integrity demands precise concepts, evidence, and context. Correct abuses by enforcing the law more objectively; do not dispense with the concept of law itself—that is the precondition of rights and of any civilized society [4][6][3].

Sources

1 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

2 For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand

3 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

4 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

5 Capitalism by George Riesman

6 Founders of Western Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff

What causes some people to confound the concepts "man" and "woman"?

 

What causes some people to confound the concepts "man" and "woman", leaving no real, true, natural, objective distinction between man and woman?

The error: It is a package-deal that functions as an anti-concept—an equivocation that collapses two truly, objectively, naturally distinct concepts (“man” and “woman”) into a single, fuzzy, non-essential amalgam, thereby erasing their natural, biological difference. A package-deal groups things by non-essentials and dissolves real, true, natural, objective distinctions; an anti-concept is a substitute that obliterates a valid concept. In practice, this is often smuggled in by equivocating “gender” with biological sex and then redefining both away from their biological referents [2].

The objective definitions: First genus: Man = adult human male; Woman = adult human female. The differentia is reproductive organization: males are organized for the production of small gametes (sperm), females for large gametes (ova). Chromosomal patterns, endocrine profiles, and reproductive anatomy are downstream indicators of this functional dimorphism. Intersex disorders do not constitute new sexes; they are exceptions within, and dependent on, the same dimorphic framework. Proper concepts are formed by essentials and measurement-omission, not by non-essential traits or subjective claims [2][3].

The cause of the confounding: epistemological subjectivism and evasion of reality—rejecting the primacy of existence, denying the metaphysically given (biological dimorphism), and abandoning definitions by essentials. The method is:

1. replace biological referents with floating abstractions (“identity,” “gender”),
2. equivocate across contexts (language, roles, feelings) to blur categories, and
3. treat the arbitrary as knowledge, demanding others accept redefinitions detached from facts. This is second-handed social metaphysics and emotionalism—consensus or feelings in place of reality—and a package-deal that destroys the unit-economy of valid concepts [1][2][3].

The rational standard: Keep the primacy of existence and the law of identity. Definitions must reduce to perceptual facts and causal functions; where reality sets a binary by nature, concepts must track it. To deny the biological basis of “man” and “woman” is to commit the stolen-concept fallacy—using the language of sex while severing it from its factual roots—and to wage war on objectivity itself [1][2].

Sources

1 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

2 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

3 the Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand, with additional essays by Leonard Peikoff

4 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

5 Logical Leap by David Harriman

6 the Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

In addition:

Here is the additional, essential information—organized by principle, method, facts, errors, causes, and remedies—so you can keep your concepts tied to reality and immune to equivocation.

1. Objective definitions and the method behind them

• The proper definitions are: Man = adult human male; Woman = adult human female; the differentia is reproductive organization—male for the production of small gametes (sperm), female for large gametes (ova) [2]. This is definition by essentials and by causal function, not by shifting social roles or linguistic fashions [3].
• Concept-formation requires differentiation and integration by essentials with measurement-omission of non-essentials (e.g., height, voice pitch, dress), keeping the unit perspective anchored to biological reality [2][4].
• Context is sovereign: “man” and “woman” are biological-sex concepts; do not smuggle into them non-biological contexts such as personality, aesthetics, or social expectations; that is the road to package-deals [2][4].

2. The biological base (the metaphysically given)

• Human sexual dimorphism is organized around gametogenesis and the integrated reproductive system (chromosomes, gonads, internal/external anatomy, and endocrine regulation), which is a natural binary with rare developmental disorders that do not constitute additional sexes [5][6].
• Intersex/DSDs are exceptions within the same dimorphic framework; they presuppose the male/female alternative and cannot abolish it, any more than color-blindness abolishes color categories [5][6].
• Recognition, not “assignment”: sex is identified from perceptual/medical evidence; it is not created by a decree or by anyone’s feelings; existence has primacy over consciousness [1][5].

3. The primary errors that confound “man” and “woman”

• Package-deal: bundling biological sex with non-essential traits (clothing, interests, stereotypes) to dissolve a real distinction into a fuzzy catch-all label [2].
• Anti-concept: replacing valid concepts (man/woman) with a floating abstraction that has no stable referent, e.g., a “gender identity” that overrides biological facts by edict, severing language from reality [3][4].
• Equivocation: sliding between sex (biological) and “gender” (a motley of roles/feelings/words) to smuggle conclusions without proof [2][4].
• Stolen-concept fallacy: using the language of sex categories while denying the biological basis that gives those terms meaning [3].
• Reification of the zero: treating the absence or impairment of typical sexual development as a positive, new sex-class rather than as a privation within the binary system [2][5].
• Intrinsicism/subjectivism package: either treating words as magically determining reality (intrinsic meaning without reference) or treating feelings/consensus as determinants of reality (subjectivism); both abandon objectivity [3][4].

4. The causes—philosophical and practical

• Philosophical root: evasion of reality and rejection of the primacy of existence and of identity/causality; a refusal to define by essentials and to reduce concepts to perceptual data is the basic evasion that enables this confusion [1][4].
• Methodological decay: abandonment of context-keeping and the burden of proof; acceptance of the arbitrary as if it were evidence; refusal to integrate across disciplines (biology, logic, language) [2][4].
• Social metaphysics: deference to consensus, intimidation, or institutional fiat in place of independent judgment; the herd attempts to legislate reality by decree, which is impotence masquerading as power [1][3].

5. Consequences of the confusion (why it matters)

• Science and medicine: corrupted categories destroy research comparability, diagnosis, and treatment protocols; precision in biological classification is a precondition of causal explanation and effective practice [5][6].
• Law and policy: rights depend on objective definitions; when terms float, law becomes arbitrary force; objective law requires objective concepts [1][4].
• Language and thought: an anti-concept warps unit-economy, making clear thinking impossible; if words detach from referents, reason itself is disarmed [2][4].

6. How to detect the confounding, quickly

• Ask: What is your definition? What observable facts place an individual in the class “man” or “woman”? What causal function is the essential differentia? If the answer cites feelings, roles, or social convention, you have equivocation and a package-deal [2][3].
• Ask: Are you distinguishing sex from non-essential traits? Are you keeping context (biology vs. culture) or sliding between them? If they slide, you have an anti-concept at work [4].
• Ask: What would falsify your classification? If nothing empirical could, the position is arbitrary and must be dismissed as such; the arbitrary is neither true nor false [3][4].

7. How to correct it—objective method

• Define by essentials: tie “man/woman” to gametic organization and the integrated reproductive system; omit non-essential measurements; keep the unit perspective [2][5].
• Reduce claims: demand reduction from slogans to facts—chromosomes, gonads, reproductive anatomy, endocrine profile—integrated causally, not piecemeal [5][6].
• Keep contexts distinct: biology (sex) vs. culture (roles) vs. language (words); do not let any one context usurp another [2][4].
• Enforce the burden of proof: treat arbitrary redefinitions as null; insist on evidence and on non-contradictory identification [3][4].
• Name and reject fallacies: package-deal, anti-concept, equivocation, stolen concept, reification of the zero; the integrity of your concepts is the integrity of your mind [2][3].

8. Edge cases addressed without surrendering clarity

• DSDs and atypical presentations are to be classified by their causal relation to the binary reproductive system; an anomaly is an anomaly of a system, not a new system; medicine already treats them as such when it functions objectively [5][6].
• Social descriptions (e.g., clothing, behavior) are not biological kinds; they may be interesting sociologically but are epistemologically irrelevant to the biological concepts of man and woman [2][4].

Summary: Reality sets the terms. Sex is a biological binary defined by reproductive organization; “man” and “woman” are its adult human designations. The confounding arises from philosophical evasion of reality—package-deals, anti-concepts, and the primacy of consciousness—smuggled in by equivocation across contexts. The cure is objectivity: definitions by essentials, reduction to facts, context-keeping, and logical integration without contradiction [1][2][3][4][5][6].

Sources

1 the Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand, with additional essays by Leonard Peikoff

2 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand expanded 2nd edition edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff containing never-before published philosophical material by Ayn Rand

3 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

4 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

5 the Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand

6 Logical Leap by David Harriman