Six Steps (Non-Exhaustive) toward the Saving of Western Civilisation

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2015-11-18 08:40

When Western Civilisation comes to an end, as it assuredly soon must if it doesn't quickly mount a dramatic rearguard action on its own behalf, its epitaph will be words that have been cited often, but not often enough: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Evil triumphs not through its own strength (on its own, unnurtured by filthy compromisers, it has none) but from being appeased and thus enabled by the (purportedly) good. We live in a time when it is deemed unsophisticated even to refer to good and evil; the social-climbing fools and cowards who conform so cravenly to this nostrum are, minus a rearguard action such as I posit here, about to be vanquished by the very evil they imagine it uncool to acknowledge. They will get what they deserve: dhimmitude or death (and I for one won't mourn them).

Here's what a rearguard action must consist of, at minimum, if it is to have any hope of being effective:

1) Declare war on Islam. Not "radical" Islam, but all of it—the whole stupid, stinking savage superstition in its entirety. That's where the threat is coming from and that's what must be confronted. "Radical" Islam is not some anomalous malignancy on a benign ideology; Islam itself is a malignancy. When Ben Carson says, "I believe that we need to put a lot more pressure on the clerics, the imams, to make a very distinct line between what ISIS, ISIL, the radical Islamic jihadists are doing, and what traditional Islam is about," he is making a fatal mistake. "Traditional Islam" is precisely about "what the radical jihadists are doing" and the imams are in it up to their demented eyeballs. To take but one verse among a plenitude of similar abominations from the Koran, a work unrivaled in its barbarism even by the Bible:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels with the message: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.

Since the President of France has, rightly, seen fit to identify the latest smitings as "an act of war," he should invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter to declare war not just on ISIS but on all of Islam. To the Islamapologist imbeciles who will knee-jerkingly object that "Islam is not a state" I quote exactly what Article 5 says:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

It says "an armed attack." It doesn't specify by what category of entity. This was an armed attack.

2) Close the mosques. Don't just "seriously consider" closing some of them, as Donald Trump urges; do it. All of them. 80% of these repositories of superstition in the United States preach jihad. "Death to America!" "Freedom go to hell," etc. They are attended by 95% of all American Muslims. Close them down at once. This doesn't stop the savages from believing in or peacefully promoting belief in Allah, as long as they don't conspire to incite and/or carry out murder in his name; it is not a violation of the First Amendment. It is a mandatory act of self-defence in wartime, just as we would have closed down any hub of Nazism in WW2. Any mosque wanting exemption should have to apply for it, and prove its commitment to NIOF—the Non-Initiation of Force principle. (An impossible requirement? Good!)

3) Close the borders. Not one refugee. Not one Muslim. No Trojan horse in the name of the sacrifism that has undermined Western Civilisation all along. Kick Political Correctness' ass to the other side of the moon. One of the Paris murderers was a documented refugee. One is all it takes.

Again: Not one refugee. Not one Muslim.

NATO, as part of this War on Islam, should send all refugees (and repatriate European Muslims as appropriate) to Mina, the tent city (luxurious as tent cities go—the tents are even air-conditioned), routinely used by pilgrims to Mecca. It can accommodate three million. If the Saudi regime objects, exterminate it, as one would all vermin (part of the War on Islam must be to recognise that the Saudis are as vile as, and the fathers of, ISIS, and they're all as vile as the Iranian Shias, etc.). When Mina is full, create another one. As many as it takes. And make the Saudis pay. (Cue Mr Trump!)

4) Withdraw all public funding from universities where Political Correctness reigns—in the form, for example, of speech codes forbidding "micro-aggressions" such as "America is the land of opportunity" and "There is only one race—the human race." Next to the mosques, universities are the worst repositories of unreason and anti-freedom. Taxpayers should not be made to fund their own destroyers.

5) Forcibly remove Obama from the White House and detain him at Guantanamo, the place from which he couldn't wait to release more detainees just hours after the Paris massacres. There he should remain pending trial for complicity in war crimes and High Treason, for which he should, if found guilty, be executed. I've referred to him often enough as "Obamarx" and "Obamullah," the "Anti-American President." His repulsive utterances at the post-massacre press conference in Turkey (the massacre having occurred just hours after he had claimed ISIS to be "contained") must surely have sealed his traitor status except in the anti-minds of the most zealously evil.

By withdrawing prematurely from Iraq and failing to make good on his "red line" promise against Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, Obamullah directly paved the way for ISIS to flourish. Then to say, just hours after the streets of Paris had been strewn with dead young bodies cut down by the self-same ISIS, that this event was a mere "setback," was an obscenity eclipsing even his dismissal of Fort Hood as "work-place violence," of ISIS as "the JV team," etc.

Impress upon all befuddled commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity, who constantly profess themselves gobsmacked by the President's seemingly incomprehensible conduct, that he is not merely innocently misguided, naive, mistaken, confused or dumb—he is an active, conscious agent of evil. He made no secret of his agenda to "fundamentally transform" America when running for the presidency in 2008. He has largely succeeded. This fan of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers is not in the White House to walk among the Washingtons and Jeffersons and Lincolns and Reagans—he's there to obliterate them. He must be removed from there forthwith. America—and Western Civilisation—doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the 2016 election. The Generals must do their patriotic duty.

6) Regarding professed libertarians and Objectivists in our midst for whom their warped version of doctrinal purity (e.g., open borders, regardless of context; "Christianity is just as bad," "Not all Muslims are terrorists," etc.) trumps the clash of civilisations: denounce them as the "useful idiots" that they are. They are the Children of Chamberlain, the Friends of ISIS, low-life moral equivalencers, pathetic bleeding-heart deserters. They are disgusting, and of no use in the battle for reason, freedom and decency. They have forgotten that retaliatory force against those who initiate it is not just a right, but a sacred duty.

The foregoing is a start. Note that, even though this is a Declaration of War, not one bomb or killing is required, necessarily. And I suspect not one bomb or killing would be necessary, so refreshingly, radically, terrifyingly unambiguous would this gesture be in its moral clarity. Just don't hold your breath. Moral clarity nowadays is conveyed only by the evil, it seems.


Oblivia

Neil Parille's picture

"Look at the likes of Neil... for years he has just trolled around what other people write in order to play some weird game of gotcha. It is utterly without spirit, individuality, creativity or passion. I think it is autism , organised Objectivism seems to attract that kind of personality type."

Wow. I think I am more or less mentally balanced. I've tried to write some interesting stuff, sorry if you don't appreciate it.

Oh yawn...

Olivia's picture

I offer commentary that is outside the Overton Window but also understands the Objectivist mindset. I was a Randroid for two decades. I know their arguments better than they do.

That's why it's so boring! There's Rand and then there is just each individual whom she touches.... I have never understood Objectivism's institutionalised thinking on anything and do not care to.

What I am showing is that Objectivism is no challenge to the political class.

You've got that right, was it supposed to be? As a "movement" it is useless to politics partly because too many within its ranks are spiritless and care more about being seen to say the "right" thing, rather than just getting on and doing the right thing. Intellectual movements are like that. I don't know why that is such a surprise or grief to you.

Look at the likes of Neil... for years he has just trolled around what other people write in order to play some weird game of gotcha. It is utterly without spirit, individuality, creativity or passion. I think it is autism , organised Objectivism seems to attract that kind of personality type.

Boring? Me? Olivia has committed a microaggression against me!!

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I'm so sick of coming here and being mind-numbingly bored to near suicide with every single fucking comment from everybody, except Lindsay, Kyrel and myself!

I offer commentary that is outside the Overton Window but also understands the Objectivist mindset. I was a Randroid for two decades. I know their arguments better than they do. My arguments and rants (I give a few) are not boring. They may be "trolling" but they are not boring. They may be designed to piss someone off or be snarky but they pretty much always make a solid point that no one else will make.

What I am showing is that Objectivism is no challenge to the political class. It exists within the Overton Window. Why? Because it does not challenge immigration in general and Islamic immigration in particular. It capitulates to the mainstream right on these two most important issues. Trump is spitting on the Beltway crowd. You would think that OrgOism would be celebrating the potential collapse of the political spectrum as we have known it for decades. But they are not. They are going hard core anti-Trump calling him a fascist. Just terrible.

As for me; I'm just being my alt-right self. I still love Rand but I also love the high trust societies that come with all white nations. And I love a nation that does not have to even deal with Muslims and their crazy religion. I just am your window to the growing alt / paleo right wing nationalist movements that are rising. In America its Trump. In France, its La Pen. In England, its UKIP. In Hungary, Its Victor Orbon. There is something happening here that's big. Something that is truly challenging the Left. I find that uplifting. I hope I am not the only one.

Thanks

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Thanks for that high compliment, Olivia! Hope I'm worthy! Smiling

Oblivia

Neil Parille's picture

I think Doug and I, among others, have plenty of interesting things to say.

I listened to Bosch's friend Amy's show last weekend and she started out by saying "if you are one of those people who think all Muslims should be killed this show isn't for you." Who has ever said such a thing?

I agree with Doug: there are moderate Muslims but there is no such thing is moderate Islam. So-called Moderate Islam is just as much an incbator for Jihadism as so-called Radical Islam.

Neil

Neil....no kidding! You are slow on the uptake!

Olivia's picture

Best I can figure it out, this is how Peikoff, Binswanger, Brook etc. argue:......Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I don't understand this argument.

Are you a robot Neil?! Who the hell cares what any of these people think about anything??!! If Rand taught anything valuable it was to use your own mind to assess EVERYTHING pertinent to yourself and beyond. I'm so sick of coming here and being mind-numbingly bored to near suicide with every single fucking comment from everybody, except Lindsay, Kyrel and myself!

What the hell is wrong with people?! And where is the god-damned humanity which is meant to think, feel and converse about our lives and the times we exist in with any kind of active, beating, intelligent pulse?!

By the way....

Olivia's picture

I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that Marine Le Pen will become President of France.

To quote myself.

See that Marine Le Pen has just won a landslide victory in the regional elections in France. This is a turning toward the far right. Pure nationalism. Their major election is in 2017. I see that she is courting the "moderate Muslim" vote, partly because they cannot vote for liberals who are soft on gay-marriage, and partly because they really know how extreme their co-religionists are and the murder they know is an inevitability. Interesting times for France, but sadly long overdue to have much effect.

Oh fuck off!

Olivia's picture

That's grossly unfair to Bosch. The guy gets daily death threats for god's sake!
He is of the opinion that so-called moderates are a HUGE part of the problem, which they are.
Islam is disgusting, the motherlode of revolting ideas, as Sam Harris once pointed out (and now corrects himself for) - the "extremists" are the ones who take it most seriously and wage jihad, the "moderates" are the ones who don't wage it directly, but enable it. That is Bosch's point, and he is correct.

I've Been Blocked...

Grant Jones's picture

by Fawstin. As near as I can tell, he's having some conniption fit over real Objectivists saying that there should be mass Moslem deportations from America and the civilized world (no duh). He didn't name names. I have no idea where this latest outburst is coming from. Daddy issues?

I saw that ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... when I went to Faecesbook to post the link to my new op-ed. What's this about? What are his views on "moderate" Islam? Is he getting this from Amy?

Bosch Fawstin Loses It

Grant Jones's picture

Fawstin is having some sort of melt down on Facebook. He's banning and blocking everyone who doesn't agree with his views on the nature and existence of "moderate" Moslems.

Obama's Speech

Neil Parille's picture

Rather foolish of me to say he wouldn't talk about gun control.

Even more blather about Islam than I expected. He said we shouldn't discriminate against Muslims and all that.

But this couple had a 6-month old child, the husband had a good job, and they decide to go an murder people even though the US gives them an opportunity for a better life than they would have in Pakistan, by far.

Why shouldn't we fear such a religion?

The ARI Argument

Neil Parille's picture

Best I can figure it out, this is how Peikoff, Binswanger, Brook etc. argue:

1. Islamic nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia fund radical Islamic groups in and outside the West.

2. Terrorist attacks such as Boston and San Bernadino are carried out or at least directed by Saudi Arabia, Iran or their proxies (ISIS).

3. Destroy Saudi Arabia, Iran and their proxies, terrorists groups in the West would lose their direction or inspiration.

Even if this is true in part, don't the Western Jihadists have any initiative? Are they robots? Wouldn't seeing Saudi Arabia or Iran threatened incite them to terrorism? Are the Pakistanis in San Bernadino too stupid to shoot up a building without some handler in Saudi Arabia telling them?

Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I don't understand this argument.

Yaron Brook - Radical Islam Is Like A Tonsil Infection

Neil Parille's picture

Listen to him from 28 min - 33 min.

We can defeat it with reason, capitalism, and the US military.

It's a "minor infection."

"Radical Islam" has been around for 1400 years. Islam is the majority religion of 48 countries. And yet Yaron Brook things it's a "minor infection" and doesn't want to give any details about how his foreign policy prescriptions would end the threat of terror from Muslims in the West. How would it have prevented San Bernadino? How would have prevented the guy yesterday in London who stabbed someone? No explanation is ever offered.

I hope Rand's followers aren't giving any money to this guy and the ARI.

Obama Speaks Tonight - Predictions

Neil Parille's picture

The Great Leader Speaks tonight. He has obviously been a little tone deaf on the terrorism issue lately.

Will he change course on Syrian "refugees"? yes [ ] [ ] no

Will he mention gun control? yes [ ] [ ] no

Will he lecture Americans about anti-Islam sentiment? yes [ ] [ ] no

I think 1 - no; 2 - no; 3 - yes.

I couldn't listen ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... beyond the first two minutes. Yawon was whining about being depwessed having to talk about this subject. I heard the whole yawning, passionless, self-indulgent ("I just want to be able to go being able to pay my illegal Mexican gardener below-zewo wages") iwwelevancy of the ARI in those two minutes. If anyone listens to more who can report otherwise wishes to do so, I'm all ears.

Yawon should take his cue from Judge Jeanine, who really unleashed against Islamofilth today. Ayn Rand would have done likewise, but I guess she's irrelevant to the Ayn Rand Institute these days.

Yaron Brook Continues to Call for Open Immigration of Muslims

Neil Parille's picture

Ok, I didn't listen to the entire thing today, but I didn't hear him say that his suicidal policy of open immigration of Muslims is insane.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/y...

Here's The Point

Neil Parille's picture

If you import large numbers of Muslims (moderates, radicals, nominals, whatever) the worst elements of Islamic culture will reassert itself.

Amy Peikoff doesn't understand this.

Harry Binswanger doesn't understand this.

Leonard Peikoff probably doesn't understand this.

Objectivism as suicide pact

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

There is no other conclusion to be drawn other than Objectivism itself is the problem. Its understanding of individualism is not grounded in reality. Objectivists refuse to consider Muslims as a groups and EXCLUDE them from Western society. They do this because they are desperate to maintain ideological purity. As a result they are coming down exactly on the same side as the Left and mainstream Conservatism. Thus we see that Objectivism really is just another ideology inside the Overton Window.

Objectivism has no future and will NEVER "capture the culture". The pro-liberty movement contained in the Classical Liberal development will continue as long as the European race continues (which sadly may not be long). Its inherent in white biology (you see the pro individualist, pro merit philosophy as early as 'The Iliad'; its inherent in Euro genetics but I'm not sure if its inherent in any other race). But all right liberal variants including Objectivism and American constitutional republicanism itself are unsustainable. Their contextless individualism and their belief in the moral equality in potential of all people (something inherited from Christianity) prevents these movements from judging and excluding groups of people who are incompatible with liberty. Conservatives blindly worship the Constitution, Objectivists blindly worship "Atlas Shrugged". Both are modern gnostics incapable of seeing the reality of the world and its dangers.

Islam is low hanging fruit. If an intellectual movement can't see the inherent belligerence of this religion and the danger of its people living amongst you than that movement deserves to fail. As Larry Auster used to say: Jihadists are the soldiers, "moderate" Muslims are the civilians and the Islamic Ummah is the nation. And that Ummah has declared war on infidels everywhere, always and forever. You don't get that, you know nothing about the world in which you live.

Amy Peikoff used to be a pretty young girl (back when I saw her in one of the summer ARI conferences during the late 90s). Now she is your typical middle aged, childless liberal woman. She has nothing to contribute to any intellectual movement. She should stick to playing with her dogs. Oh and by the way Amy, your eventual Muslim overlords thinks dogs are unclean. They'll probably put your cute little pedigrees on spits when they eventually take over. But think of it this way, you'll look great in a veil.

Amy Peikoff and San Bernadino

Neil Parille's picture

Amy Peikoff supports "open immigration" of Muslims into the USA, so long as the Muslims are "heavily screened."

Syed Farook was born in the United States. His wife, Tashfeen Mali, was born in Pakistan. Farook met her in Saudi Arabia and she came to the USA after they got engage on a finacee visa. According to the New York Times, this reqired background checks and two interviews (one in Saudi Arabia and one in the US).

Thanks Amy.

EDIT: Farook was 27 years old, born in the US, and was making $72,000 a year (more than I was making when I was 27 and I could spell). People like Amy Peikoff can't understand that while there may be moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Have large numbers of Muslims in a country and all that bad elements of that religion will reassert itself. Farook's extended family didn't care that he had a bomb making facility in his house.

You're welcome.

Grant Jones's picture

You're welcome.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Lindsay, your "Authenticism" better be some book. I fear the future dominance on the right is going to come from nationalist movements. With treacherous crap coming from the likes of Binswanger and Biddle and libertarians like Bryan Caplan, libertarian movements will have no future.

As I've already made clear, the battle for Western Civilisation, warts and all, trumps that for Objectivist purity. In my view, Objectivism itself would agree with me. Meaning, Rand would agree with me. But OrgOism doesn't. Thus the need for "Authenticism." Which will go beyond Rand when she was being silly, a la Romance and Rationalism.

Just don't expect it any time soon. I'm constantly gobsmacked by the Left's evil, and having to ask myself what I've been missing. Your own comments about Reagan also have me scratching my head. I can't publish a book with all the answers when every day I have more questions!!

Bad Conceptual Framework

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

As usual, Objectivists suffer from a flawed conceptual framework in their view of foreign policy and immigration. They still buy into the "Jihadist vs Moderate" view of Muslims. IMO, that is just crappy epistemology combined with a non-reality grounded view of Islamic culture and history. Objectivists can't arrive at any useful views on the subject of Muslims because they can't conceive of groups as groups being the subject of evaluation. This prevents them from seeing that Muslim violence is endemic to Muslim populations. I see this flaw practically EVERYWHERE in the Objectivist movement. That can only mean that there are flaws in Rand's philosophy. Whether or not those flaws are fatal can be debated, but the fact that only a very small minority of Rand influenced people believe in the Muslims-as-the-problem approach does not speak well for the future of Objectivism.

These Muslim slaughters are going to continue. Core Americans are going to continue to hate Muslims and the Left. And Objectivist are still arguing that the Conservatives are just as big a problem as Leftists and Donald Trump is a fascist. How is anyone going to take this movement seriously?

Lindsay, your "Authenticism" better be some book. I fear the future dominance on the right is going to come from nationalist movements. With treacherous crap coming from the likes of Binswanger and Biddle and libertarians like Bryan Caplan, libertarian movements will have no future.

Ha, Grant!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I just saw your hat-tip on Faecesbook. Thanks! Smiling

Bravo

Grant Jones's picture

Biddle's evasion of the real problem of the mass Moslem savage invasion demonstrates his profound intellectual dishonesty. This is why he will only speak or write in venues that he completely controls. He is too much of a coward to defend his massive evasion with those who know what they're talking about on the topic of Islam and its current hijra.

Biddle

Neil Parille's picture

This is Biddle's latest:

https://www.theobjectivestanda...

Biddle believes in open immigration of "rights respecting" Muslims into Europe and Israel, which would turn Europe and Israel Islamic.* Granted, the welfare state is making things worse, but it would happen over time with or without a welfare state.

Note that he can't bring himself to talk about the threat of Muslims in the West. He makes it sound as if its purely a question of invaders from other countries:

__________

Third, any Muslims who attack Westerners because we killed jihadists who murdered our countrymen were already with the enemy and are now just making it known. This information is beneficial to us because it enables us to identify and kill these newly exposed jihadists as well—and to do so sooner rather than later, affording them less time to plan, plot, recruit, murder.

__________

We are allowing a permanent Jihadi underclass because of the welfare state and Islam. Waging war against in Saudi Arabia and Iran isn't going to change anything.

NP

______________

*If Biddle denies that he supports open immigration of Muslims into Europe and Israel he should come here any explain his position. I've read all of his pieces on immigration and he doesn't make exceptions for Europe, Israel and Muslims. See also here: https://www.theobjectivestanda...

War on Islam!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Just yesterday I posted on Olivia's multiculturalism thread:

You know, I watched Giuliani today mouthing the vile PC mantra that "most Muslims are peace-loving," and felt sick. Most Muslims are dormant scum, who will indeed shout with jubilation from the rooftops when the non-dormant perpetrate their atrocities. Trump may not have seen "thousands" but he saw dormant scum reveal their true colours. If America is attacked on a decisive scale, you'll find just about every single Muslim has been in the "dormant scum" category all along. That's where you are all so suicidally naive.

Hours later, active scum struck in San Bernardino. Hours after that, CAIR stepped up, purportedly to dissociate itself from the active scum, parading the brother of the female co-perp, brother-in-law of the male co-perp.

CAIR are not dormant scum—they are active. It's not controversial to say they are in on terrorism up to their scimitar-happy elbows. CAIR should be banned and its members incarcerated. As I keep saying, this is war. Declared by Muslims. We must take them at their word.

Craig Biddle says you can't declare war on Islam, because it's an ideology, not a country. Nonsense! This is a war on Islam, on an ideology that is militantly anti-freedom, and won't be won until we call it that. This doesn't require that we eliminate all Muslims. It requires that we eliminate all Muslims who take it seriously (act on it or show their intent to do so) and diligently monitor all those who appear not to—if the latter are good faith benign (meaning they're not truly Muslim), they'll understand.

Take what seriously? As I quoted from the Koran in the primary post:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels with the message: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.

"War on Islam" means war on everyone who adheres to that. In practical terms it means the steps I outline in that post. And one more:

7) Designate all Muslims in America "enemy aliens" and intern or deport them or execute them as appropriate. This doesn't mean necessarily doing any of those; it means reserving the right to do so and doing so resolutely and unapologetically when appropriate.

Let the handwringers shriek. I am certain that if these measures were implemented within America and other civilised nations, along with a NATO Declaration of War, the binge of destruction urged by Biddle would suddenly cease to be necessary—though I'd be the first to support it if it were.

As I said in my primary post:

Note that, even though this is a Declaration of War, not one bomb or killing is required, necessarily. And I suspect not one bomb or killing would be necessary, so refreshingly, radically, terrifyingly unambiguous would this gesture be in its moral clarity. Just don't hold your breath. Moral clarity nowadays is conveyed only by the evil, it seems.

Biddle has fallen for the Kelleyite illusion that ideas cannot be evil in and of themselves because ideas require active enacters. Funny thing is, David preached this as part of an anti-intrinsicism campaign. On its face his campaign was plausible. But think about it, and you'll realise he was really furnishing a cover for subjectivism. More on this when I get to Authenticism.

Right now, the West has a perfect right—nay, obligation—to declare war on an ideology because its adherents are acting on it. Declaring war on an ideology that has already declared war on you gives you the flexibility and discretion necessary to wage the war effectively.

Theocratic?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

To call today's Conservatism "theocratic" is so unhinged as to be laughable. Amy Peikoff has said the same crap about Rick Santorum. This crazy view is endemic to the Objectivist movement; something which they share with the Left. But the thing Objectivists don't understand is this: today's theocrats are Leftists. Leftism is the latest totalitarian strain of Christianity. Today's left-liberals have created a non-theistic Christianity which has become a secular civic religion. That religion is one oriented around egalitarianism. But its a racial and gender egalitarianism that is waging a war against Whites and men; something which I'm sure Armstrong would deny. I can't take Armstrong or Biddel seriously.

Ari Armstrong

Neil Parille's picture

A few years ago The Objective Standard was something of the house organ of the ARI. Then Biddle split with Peikoff over the McCaskey situation and Yaron Book resigned from TOS's masthead. Since then no A-list Peikoffian has written for TOS. So Biddle has been stuck with second handers like Armstrong.

Here is Armstrong recently:

____________

A major problem with politics today is that egalitarian “eat the rich” primary voters largely drive the Democratic party, while theocratic primary voters largely drive the Republican party.

I like many of Cruz’s policies and pronouncements, but I’m more than a little irritated with him for lurching hard toward theocratic conservatism.

____________

Say what you want about Cruz's opposition to homosexual "marriage" and legalized abortion, these positions don't make one a "theocrat."

Hasn't Armstrong heard of Calvin's Geneva, Saudi Arabia, or Iran? These are/were theocratic regimes.

The guy just doesn't strike me as very bright.

=NP

Greg

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Ari Armstrong is one such person who couldn't juggle his values hierarchy to save himself, let alone the planet.

Great line. Gets to the heart of things with O'ist 5th column types like Armstrong. IMO, types like him are NOT on our side. They are useful idiots for the Left. This deranged hatred of Christianity is a character flaw. Its infantile. What Ari, you still trying to get back at mummy and daddy for being too mean to you and not letting you go to high school parties? So now, any authority must represent "imminent theocracy" and the rebirth of the Medieval era? Is Ted Cruz the new Martin Luther? The new Calvin?

The commenter was right; Armstrong is not just wrong, he is suicidally stupid. Cruz is one of the better Republican politicians we have seen in years. I am still voting for Trump but I at least respect Cruz and would love to see a Trump / Cruz ticket. That would make me happy.

Dear oh dear!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I think that comes under the category of "You couldn't make this up." I thought the fatwa was well and truly buried.

Excellent riposte.

Obleftivist Ari Armstrong

gregster's picture

Peikoff recanted his vote-Democrat-to-prevent-a-theocracy, his DIM hypothesis with regard to America becoming a theocracy being a bigger threat than the Democrats.

Some are slow to catch up. Ari Armstrong is one such person who couldn't juggle his values hierarchy to save himself, let alone the planet. In his piece of Nov 25th, Why I Will Vote for Any Democrat over Ted Cruz:

"The thought of voting for Hillary Clinton, never mind Bernie Sanders, sickens me. But many GOP primary voters seem determined to give me no other choice."

I liked very much the response from Rogan Hazard:

Ari Armstrong recently announced that he will vote for a thoroughly statist, manifestly corrupt and absolutely evil Democrat for President over Ted Cruz because Ted Cruz spoke at an event organised by a man who has expressed views about gays that are hateful and bigoted.
Think about that. Armstrong says he will vote for "any Democrat" over Ted Cruz and since Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee, that means Armstrong will vote for her because Ted Cruz spoke at an event. Yet, Clinton, a career power luster, has appeared at events with and embraced (both physically and politically) actual Muslim terrorists responsible for mass murder, communists who advocate dictatorship and mass murder, and corrupt tyrants from around the world who seek the destruction of the United States.
She has been bought and paid for by America's enemies, including The Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization of Muslim fanatics who not only call for killing homosexuals but actually do it. TMB also advocates the genocide of the Jews and supports and executes terrorist attacks to achieve that end. It has the blood of thousands of innocent victims on its hands.
Armstrong condemns Ted Cruz as a theocrat because of his Christian beliefs and says he will vote for Hillary Clinton, a woman whose most trusted aide is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious terrorist organization dedicated to the establishment by force of a world-wide Islamic theocratic dictatorship.
Furthermore, for the mere price of illicit bribes disguised as donations to the money-laundering organization that the Clintons cynically call a foundation, Clinton will support any Leftist cause or group or grant special favours for any corporation. Her corruption is blatant and manifest and its clear that, with the power of the Presidency, she would institutionalise corruption on a scale uprecendented in American history.
Even as "First Lady" under her pseudo-husband's regime, Clinton engaged in demonstrably criminal activities such as misuse of FBI files to intimidate opponents, destruction of evidence involving Whitewater files, the hiring of goons to intimidate and threaten women who came forward with charges of rape and sexual harassment against her equally criminal husband, and on and on.....and yet Armstrong finds her preferable to Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has a consistent history of fighting against the Democratic Party, the Leftist media establishment and even his own establishment Republican Party for the principles of limited government and individual rights. He's even repeatedly quoted Ayn Rand on the Senate floor and refers to her ideas with respect. Despite all that, Armstrong condemns him for appearing at one event and asserts he will vote for Hillary Clinton, a Saul Alinsky acolyte, a life-long enemy of individual rights, limited government and the rule of law.
The kind of absurd double standard for Republicans, where Republicans must be perfect defenders of individual liberty (according to the rationalist Kantian imperatives) to deserve support is common among rationalists who are attracted to Objectivism but are incapable of considering context or weighing values hierarchically. To say that Armstrong's position is wrong is too mild - it's suicidally stupid.
I'll let Ayn Rand herself shoot down the absurdity of Ari Armstrong's position and, by implication, any pretence that he speaks as an authority on Objectivist philosophy: from “The Disfranchisement of the Right.” The Ayn Rand Letter, 20 December 1971:
“This is an insidious kind of intimidation: it equates a speaker’s views with those of the discussion’s sponsors. A man of integrity is conscientiously precise about the nature of his views on any subject. If his views are going to be judged, not by his own statements, but by the views of those who invite him to speak – if, in today’s orgy of contradictions, when most people do not know their own political ideas from moment to moment, a speaker is to be held responsible for the present and future ideas of any organization he addresses – then his only alternative is to accept no speaking engagements. If so, what happens to our freedom of speech."

From Allen West...

Olivia's picture

What Turkey did this morning may have just sparked the next World War

www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/wha...

For those who know history, recall how we stumbled into World War I after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie Duchess of Hohenberg, by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip, June 28, 1914. The subsequent series of events led to what would become known as the “war to end all wars,” World War I. And of course, it would be easy to assess that the ending of World War I set the conditions for World War II, knowing that the major antagonists, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, both fought in the precursor.

And now, as we sit back and watch the disintegrating situation in the Middle East, we must begin to ask, are we close to a World War IV? (OK, I consider the Cold War World War III; it was not fought by the major adversaries, but instead fought globally by proxy, from Korea to Vietnam to Africa to Central America to Afghanistan, between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.)

The recent downing of a Russian fighter bomber could be the spark igniting a new global conflagration.

As reported by Fox News:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian warplane near Turkey’s border with Syria is a “stab in the back” and it would have “significant consequences” for its relations with Turkey, as NATO called an emergency meeting over the incident.

Putin said the Russian Sukhoi-24 jet was shot by a missile from a Turkish jet over Syria about just over a half-mile away from the Turkish border, which he described as a “stab in the back by the terrorists’ accomplices.” Turkey said it warned the jet several times that it was in its airspace.

Putin was meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah II in Sochi. Prior to the meeting, The New York Times said Putin was “speaking slowly and clearly angry.” NATO called an emergency meeting in Brussels on Tuesday after the incident.

“The aim of this extraordinary North Atlantic Council meeting is for Turkey to inform allies about the downing of a Russian airplane,” NATO’s deputy spokesperson Carmen Romero told the Associated Press.”

We’ve talked here about the very confusing situation of airspace coordination in the Syrian area of operations. You have Russian, Turkish, Syrian, American, and even Israeli combat aircraft operating in the area. Something was bound to happen.

And here’s the real rub: Turkey is a member of NATO, and if it decides to invoke Article V, then the 28 member states of NATO are somewhat obliged to honor that commitment. Turkey does not support the Assad regime and has been supporting Sunni Islamic terrorist groups — such as the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra front and others — to topple Assad. Russia and Iran support Assad and have a considerable contingent occupying Syrian ground — Russians, Iranian Quds force and Hezbollah. And of course we know there are forces on either side who are encroaching upon the Golan Heights, and Israel has launched strikes into Syria to attack Iranians.

And President Obama tells us about his kissing Michelle in Paris and states a conference on climate change will send a message of resolve to ISIS — FUBAR.

Now, I’ve just laid out the “conventional” forces, but what about the militant Islamic terrorist factor? We have ISIS, who conducted command and control of a massive terror attack in Paris, operating in the battlespace. ISIS has not been contained and holds territory spanning two different country borders — Syria and Iraq. Then there are the Kurds, the world’s largest ethnic minority without a homeland. And now freely operating in Iraq, and leading, is Iran supporting the Shiite militias.

What a doggone gumbo that could’ve been evaded with a simple investment of 10,000-15,000 U.S. residual forces in Iraq.

And consider the chess game of leadership. France’s Hollande was in Washington, D.C. today and got a chance to hear about Obama’s romantic interlude; this was after his meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Cameron. Next, Hollande will travel to Moscow to speak with Vladimir Putin. Putin was just in Iran and now in Jordan meeting leaders — anyone recall the last time Obama was in the Middle East talking with leaders? Don’t forget only two of the six Gulf Cooperation Council leaders showed up for his Camp David photo op — oops, I mean summit. Egypt’s el-Sisi, shunned by Obama, has spoken with Putin and Netanyahu went to Russia before the last U.N. General Assembly.

Why do I say all this? Go back and read of all the diplomatic discussions that happened after Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination — quite similar. In the end, they stopped talking, drew lines, mobilized and commenced fighting.

A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition based out of Baghdad said the U.S. indeed heard Turkey on “open channels” issue 10 warnings to the Russian jet before the incident. Reports out of Russia also say a military helicopter was shot at in Syria, killing one serviceman. The helicopter was reportedly on a rescue mission.

Rebels said they fired at the two parachuting pilots as they descended, and that one had died. A rebel spokesman said they would consider releasing the body in exchange for prisoners held by Syria. The fate of the second pilot was not immediately known.

We now have a French carrier group deployed and a Russian naval cruiser with orders to defend Russian troops. Ladies and gents, we can dismiss this, but we’re on the verge of a world war.

And who are the players? Turkey will side against Assad and leverage NATO Article V. France is part of NATO, but their beef is against the Sunni Islamist terrorist group ISIS that’s been supported by Turkey. al-Nusra is a Sunni Islamic terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaeda, but they’re fighting against Assad. Russia supports Assad and is joined in that alliance by Iran and their proxy army, Hezbollah. Russia has had a passenger jet shot down by ISIS, killing 224 of its citizens, and now has had Turkey shoot down its plane — first time a NATO member has done such since the 1950s. ISIS, Turkey and al-Nusra are all Sunni. The Kurds are Sunni, but hated by the Turks, who don’t want them strong and independent.

Nature abhors a void and will fill it. And in this case, there is a clear void in leadership and things have gone to hell in a hand basket. But fear not, Obama will fix the weather and all will be resolved.

What would I do? Organize a true coalition against ISIS; that is the most prevalent enemy. I’d declare an operating battlespace with the objective to defeat the savages. I’d ally primarily with the Kurds, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE and France. I’d invoke NATO Article V to defeat ISIS — and the broader enemy of militant Islamic terrorism and jihadism, to include al-Nusra. My concern would not be on Assad, but I’d revoke the Iranian nuclear deal and tell Iran its Quds Force and Hezbollah are both dedicated Islamic terrorist groups and, where identified, they’d also be attacked and defeated.

My message to Vladimir Putin would be simple: get out of the area and take the Cuban special forces with you — unless you want to fall under American command and control, taking directions from us. And in the meantime, I’d be talking with our eastern European allies and strengthening military-to-military relations and partnerships — reinstating the missile defense shield.

I certainly would not be heading to any climate change conference; that’s not a global priority.

Hollande — and, indeed, the world — is looking for a leader. Putin cannot assume that role. Sadly, we’re stumbling into something potentially horrific, and our president is reminiscing about kissing and pondering fixing the weather. It will be a very long 14 months until January 2017.

www.allenbwest.com

I'd be willing to bet ...

Olivia's picture

my bottom dollar that Marine Le Pen will become President of France.

LInz

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Now that is a great response. I appreciate it because I am not arguing for Old Right Reactionary Nationalism. But just making the point that to a European seeing the potential end of their civilization, an open borders Objectivist would be indistinguishable from Angela Merkel. I'm glad you understood that.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If European nationalism is what it takes, consider me a European nationalist. And a Christian to boot. We can worry about all the rest later. The primary imperative this instant is to rid Europe of the vermin they so misguidedly let in. Just don't ask me to accept that the difference between civilised people and filth is innate. We can worry about that later, too.

It may be that the various strains of European nationalism are not exactly hard core classical liberalism, but they *are* next to Islam, which is the true fascism here (remember the alliances last century between Islamofilth and the Nazis?) The useful idiots who liken the banish-the-Muslims approach to "first they came for the communists" are *worse* than idiots.

Today's Charles Martel...

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

...Would not be a Classical Liberal. He would be a pro-European Nationalist. From my not extensive understanding of European politics it does not look like there is going to be any pro-freedom opposition to Islam and Muslims in the sense that Objectivists would favor. Opposition to Islam is coming from the European Right and that is a pro-white identity movement. Hungary and Poland just elected nationalist parties I believe. Eastern Europe is going to do that to defy the Western European EU left. Eastern Europe wants to remain white. They hate multi-racialism and they sure as hell don't want Muslims.

Now from an O'ist perspective, what can you offer the Eastern Europeans to save themselves from Islam, Muslims and the multi-cultural totalitarianism of the Western European left? What? Open borders? Hatred of Christianity? Hatred of traditionalism? Really? How would you distinguish yourself from the Euro left?

Sadly, I see the only hope for Europe to be some version of nationalism. Objectivism does not have a viable political vision to offer. It seems to lead down the same path to European extinction. As Yaron Brook has said in a recent podcast, only Israel has the moral right for an ethnic political foundation. If Europeans do that then that will lead to "Neo-Nazi fascism". Is it any wonder that Europeans don't want any part of Rand.

Its the 'all back to normal' thing

mvardoulis's picture

Yes, a military coup it would have to be, and as much as I'd LOVE to see it transpire as you predict, with the relinquishing of power by 2016, its the unrest in response to a military coup which makes this suggestion seem less likely to end well. Don't get me wrong, America will be shaken to its roots soon enough regardless, and this seems as good a direction as any, with more potential upside than many other possible directions the country is going. And yes, to hell with Kerry as well, if he doesn't choke on his own feet before trial. A license to vote is an acceptable compromise for me, if we actually open up the electoral process to more than Republicrats and Demoblicans.

Martel

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Therein has lain the cleverest part of the Gramsci/Alinsky/Chomsky/Brandroid slime-fest: no one rises up because to do so would require anger, and these assholes have indoctrinated us against it. Anger, no matter how legitimate, has been treated as a moral failing and/or mental illness.

Excellent post!

Triassic's picture

A truly outstanding post!

I had hoped that the Paris attack would be the "last straw" for those in Europe. I had hoped that they would be so angry that they'd rise up and crowds would *flood* through the Muslim slums, setting fire to anything and everything. Sadly, it looks like I was wrong.

I desperately want to see Cameron and Merkel executed for treason.
I don't have the words to describe how much I despise them (and those like them).

- Martel

Nephew

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It has to be a military coup. That's why I said in my essay, it's the Generals who must step up. The anarchist in you will scream, I know. Smiling I shouldn't think it would be too long. Back to normal in time for the 2016 election, I'd hope. A few new rules by then, though, including a license to vote (you'll hate that too!?) requiring proof of linguistic and political literacy, including knowledge of the Declaration, Constitution, and US history. Meantime, close the borders, close the mosques, disarm Muslims, arm non-Muslims, etc. Yes, they'll wail and whine ... but they won't be blowing anyone up.

Oh, and John Kerry to Gitmo also. Charlie Hebdo had a "rationale"??!!

These guys are traitors, but at least I'd give them a trial.

Here's something from the "you can't make this stuff up" file: up until the weekend massacre, the US was refraining from bombing ISIS oil trucks 'cos the drivers were deemed to be "innocent civilians." Jesus H. Christ!!!!!!!!

Obviously I completely agree

mvardoulis's picture

And yet, even REID has his supporters, as does criminal mastermind Hillary Clinton and (much less surprisingly) her horny husband. Pelosi has fans also. Though none of these would cause the uproar as the unseating of standing President, with all the makings of a military coup. Talk about "popping things off" - can't you imagine it? The revolution would most definitely be televised.

Nephew V

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hillary Clinton should be confined to Gitmo too. And Pelosi and Reid.

Turks being Turks

mvardoulis's picture

They'd still be slaughtering Armenians and Greeks if they thought they would get away with it. "Secular Muslim" country my arse.

Believe it or not

mvardoulis's picture

There are STILL throngs of supporters of Obama. No longer a majority, but nonetheless a significant threat should #5 be even attempted. While I enjoy this list immensely, there would be civil unrest and perhaps a full civil war #5 came to fruition. I'm not saying that it *shouldn't* come to that, but I am amazed at how Obama is still revered in far too many circles.

Up-Wing Liberals

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Many many good points, Doug! Still, you write:

"Classical Liberals just don't seem like they have the necessary cruelty and ferocity to go to war with Leftism."

What is needed is knowledge about, and love for, justice -- not cruelty. And, yes, the New Liberals have more than enough ferocity to crush the philosophical Left and Right. What is needed now is knowledge, not fanaticism. Hope lies with the up-wing -- not the right-wing.

The Cancer of Islam

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Great article by Lindsay! Smiling

Islam is like a disease inside the semi-healthy body of Western Civilization. But the more Islam irritates the system, such as with the Paris Massacre, the more this infection and sickness calls attention to itself. And thus the more it forces the pro-civilization killer anti-bodies and T-cells to rally and grow. Sooner or later they will mass and counter-attack, and then the disease of Islam is going to be brutally eradicated from the West.

No question

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No question that the "useful idiots" of my Step 6 are causing harm. That's why I called them "disgusting." I was not being flippant. We have them here in NZ; some are shills of the ARI, and will only get better if the ARI does. Which is not really getting better at all.

I reacquainted myself with the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes today. It has vexed me for some time, especially as I set out to articulate Authenticism, that human beings' propensity for going along with obvious nonsense just because everyone else does has become worse in my lifetime, notwithstanding the withering assaults on this pathology by the likes of Ayn Rand, for whom my admiration grows ever stronger as I observe the despicable dwarves who populate the planet. It is irresistibly clear, for instance, to any cognitively functioning human with a beating heart that Islam is exactly what I call it: a stupid, stinking, savage superstition. Why do so few point out the Emperor's nakedness? Because social respectability is tied up with pretending not to see it.

Just the other other day I watched Ayan Hirsi Ali talking about the Parisian atrocities, and she was a disgrace. She too has succumbed to this ghastly syndrome of glossing over the obvious truth for social advancement. She is calling for the equivalent of Christianity's Reformation within Islam. Surely she must know that Luther, Calvin and all the rest of the "reformers" were even worse than the Catholics? You cannot "reform" evil, you must annihilate it. There was a time when she said that. Now, she's part of the problem.

One more thing: my Step 1 should not be abandoned as being part of a wish-list. NATO is real. Article 5 says what I said it says. It is clearly applicable to the present crisis. It should be invoked. I suspect the only reason Hollande did not invoke it is that Obafilth pressured him privately not to.

The Filth in Turkey

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This was supposed to be a moment of silence for the victims of Islamofilth in Paris:

Very close to my own list

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

The Left has chosen to ally themselves with Islam no matter what. They do this because they hate White non-leftists to the depth of their black souls and they want to transform European civilization into a multi-cultural, multi-racial egalitarian paradise and anyone who stands in their way is evil to them. The Left can never be reformed. It must be destroyed. But the mainstream Christian Right is also caught in the same philosophical cesspool. The Right is beholden to Christian Humanism which is a late stage development of Christianity which, in my theory, was worsened by Kant's ethics. The Left's secular humanism and the Right's Christian humanism are forcing the West down the same suicidal path.

To save the West, a strong, non-sacrificist, non-egalitarian Right would have to realize that the Left is evil and must be destroyed (not the wimpy reaction that O'riely, Hannity, Kasich, and many Conservatives give). That's why the Universities, Colleges and schools at every level must be targeted. You can't let the Marxists control the education system and expect to defeat them. The Left is starting to manufacture college rebellions like they did in the 60s. "BlackLivesMatter" is an intensifying of this effort. This is only going to get worse.

I like Lindsay's list. And while we won't get that wish list, the hope is that some Republican can do enough to stave off disaster. But I think to myself that modern left-liberalism is ascending and dominant right now. It is becoming a juggernaut. And its roots are deep. I don't know if a culture can move away from such rot without either armed revolt, collapse or hostile enemy invasion.

Lastly #6 gave me a laugh. Its so true. Doctrinaire libertarians and Randians who mouth the banalities that Lindsay mentioned are worse than useless. I think they are actively doing harm. How many people has Harry Binswanger turned off to Objectivism by championing open borders in such a suicidal way as he does in his Forbes columns? And Yaron Brook? He comes across as a Neo-Con with suicidal views on immigration. He's a classic example of the "invade the world and invite the world" philosophy.

Sadly, the only true grit I see at large is coming from the Alt/Paleo Right. But they are not pro-liberty. It looks to me that the only thing that could stop the Left from destroying European Civilization might be neo-fascist movements both in Europe and America. Is there any other ideology that has been able to stop the Marxists? I don't think so. Fascists for all you can fault them have stopped the Left in numerous countries and civilization didn't end. Classical Liberals just don't seem like they have the necessary cruelty and ferocity to go to war with Leftism. Its sad for liberty lovers.

This would be the most just action possible today...

Olivia's picture

5) Forcibly remove Obama from the White House and detain him at Guantanamo, the place from which he couldn't wait to release more detainees just hours after the Paris massacres. There he should remain pending trial for complicity in war crimes and High Treason, for which he should, if found guilty, be executed. I've referred to him often enough as "Obamarx" and "Obamullah," the "Anti-American President." His repulsive utterances at the post-massacre press conference in Turkey (the massacre having occurred just hours after he had claimed ISIS to be "contained") must surely have sealed his traitor status except in the anti-minds of the most zealously evil.

By withdrawing prematurely from Iraq and failing to make good on his "red line" promise against Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, Obamullah directly paved the way for ISIS to flourish. Then to say, just hours after the streets of Paris had been strewn with dead young bodies cut down by the self-same ISIS, that this event was a mere "setback," was an obscenity eclipsing even his dismissal of Fort Hood as "work-place violence," of ISIS as "the JV team," etc.

This mess is his. His whole presidency has been one big act of treason, but in particular his playing down of the threat which his country was fighting in Iraq, and his well-signposted withdrawal of troops was utterly unconscionable for a "leader" of the Free World. The fact that he now wants thousands and thousands of these suspect "immigrants" to traipse through the American homeland is his handing the American people over to be murdered and maimed on their own soil. Pure, evil treason.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.