I repost here my reply to you on the O-Lying thread:

_________________

Lighten up Linz. I was suggesting that we could have a bit of fun at MSK's expense.

Of course I realised your original post was light-hearted. But it got serious with MJ's post & your response, to which I responded in kind.

You know very well that "one of Saddam's cock-suckers" is not, as you seem to imply on another [this] thread, a statement about your sexual orientation but about the succour offered to Saddam by you & all who take your position on Saddam's being toppled. That position in my book is treason most foul to liberty, & I shall always condemn it in the strongest possible terms, unhesitatingly & without apology—& most certainly, without "lightening up."

Not consistent with Rand's view? Read the endless threads on this matter in the SOLOHQ archives for my responses to that.

Linz

____________________

Oh, & the idea that ARI's views on foreign policy & defence, as presented for instance in the Brook/Epstein article, are not consistent with Rand's view is demonstrably ludicrous. Compare her own statements about Iran, for instance, with theirs. And their expositions of the broader principles involved.

I am not a philosophy or politics graduate. I graduated in engineering and business and have had a successful career in privatisation.

I cannot, therefore, claim to have an in depth knowledge of all Rand's works. There is nothing of substance, however, that I have read, in her fiction and non-fiction, that I disagree with.

I have also read David and Milton Friedman, Nozick, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and most of the leading Austrian economists. As a supporter of natural rights, Rand and Nozick (to a lesser extent) have been my main influences.

I am a well known as an admirer of Rand in British think tanks. I spoke on Rand's influence on my life at the Adam Institute's celebration of Rand's 100th birthday.

My main issue is with the interventionist foreign policy of the Ayn Rand Institute. To me, it is not consistent with Rand's writings and comments on the Vietnam and Korean Wars. It is also not consistent, in my opinion, with Rand's support for the voluntary funding of the minimal state.

I will leave to others to say whether I should I call myself an Objectivist. At the very least, I am an individualist or libertarian who has been influenced strongly (in my political and business careers) by Ayn Rand.

Kenny:

It also does nothing to improve the perception of this site and Objectivism, especially to "newbies".

Kenny do you consider yourself an Objectivist? There's nothing antagonistic in my question - it's just a question.

Speak for yourself. The repeated use of such language is unnecessary lowers the tone of debate. It also does nothing to improve the perception of this site and Objectivism, especially to "newbies". My views have been stated clearly and loudly and I will not return to the subject.

Speaking as an ex-Saddamite-cocksucker myself ... Kenny: get over it.

The only thing I see wrong with the term Saddamite cocksuckers, is that it falsely implies that Saddam has a penis to begin with. I mean come on! He has to be compensating for something.

Adam
www.adambuker.com

I stand corrected. That's worse, considering Saddam fed some of his enemies into wood chippers feet first and gassed the Kurds.

--Brant

I'll tell you what I do know: Calling Kenny a c-s Saddamite is disgusting. What do you think about that?

Get it right, man! I called him one of Saddam's cock-suckers, not a cock-sucking Saddamite. The latter would suggest I had something against cock-sucking, which I don't.

Just not Saddam's.

Metaphorically speaking.

I'll tell you what I do know: Calling Kenny a c-s Saddamite is disgusting. What do you think about that?

--Brant

"Linz was too big for him to deal with save by closing down SOLO HQ and starting a "new" site."

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you Brant?

Use of such language is merely an attempt to command and control through intimidation. It's a shorthand way of indicating where the river banks of SOLO P are and who and what is outside those. It has nothing to do with thinking and intellectual give and take. The target is all who read and post here, even those who wholeheartedly agree with the principal on every important issue. I'd condemn Linz for it, but that'd be like condemning a mountain for being a mountain or a hole in the ground for being a hole in the ground. Joe Rowlands did this sort of thing less crudely on the old SOLO HQ through generous use and implicit threat of moderation. Linz was too big for him to deal with save by closing down SOLO HQ and starting a "new" site. These things are just a reflection of the essential nature of power and its use in human relationships from the micro through the macro. Ayn Rand' stricture on not being one of the poor is merely another way of saying don't be without power and seek power (through wealth). Power over others means they don't have power over you. When it involves the initiation of physical force, that's a different ball game morally speaking, but it's nice to have a gun in the house.

--Brant

Deleted

I will not even respond to an insult such as that.

I have no respect for those who use the language of the gutter.

They're right—you, one of Saddam's cock-suckers, are wrong. What's the issue here?

Tom Sowell and Walter Williams are hawks too.

Welcome aboard. If by "hawks" you mean non-anarcho-Saddamites, then most NZ Libz are hawks. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of their enemies" when those enemies have vowed to destroy you and are acting accordingly. I can't speak for others, but my personal experience is that US libs think that because America is not a perfect libertarian society it should roll over when the freedoms we still enjoy thanks to America's dominance are under threat. Sorry to disappoint you.

Linz

Oh, and they never shave or bathe, and always drool. What's with that?!

Accusing Lindsay Perigo as being far right is ridiculous. As a yank though, I'm curious, what do NZ Libertarianz think about U.S. Libertarians. Other than John Hospers, so few of us libertarian Yanks are hawks.

He linked Libertarianz and Lindsay to the Oklahoma bomber a few years ago, it does simply prove the point that it "does get in". The measure of success cannot simply be votes at the ballot box, which are in many ways a sideshow.

"This catch-all expression for every social policy with which the Right disagrees can be traced back to the antics of Lindsay Perigo, editor of The Free Radical and founder of the far-Right Libertarianz Party."

Music to my ears.

To me Trotter's a very smart and formidable guy and he's right about this. It's just that while I approve and am thankful for those that came before he has the opposite judgement.

This catch-all expression for every social
policy with which the Right disagrees can be traced back...

Heard that before.
Lefties actually identify with PC and have literally say of themselves that they are proudly politically correct. Very bad strategy on their part, uncovering the rock that is their hiding place like that. Quite surprising actually.

I've sent the following letter to the editor of the DomPost:

Dear Sir

Chris Trotter writes (By the Left, July 21):

Younger New Zealanders should consider the origins of the current obsession
with political correctness. This catch-all expression for every social
policy with which the Right disagrees can be traced back to the antics of
Lindsay Perigo, editor of The Free Radical and founder of the far-Right
Libertarianz Party. His columns prefigured the emergence of the National
Party's PC Eradicator Wayne Mapp. What began with Mr Perigo's cocky
self-identification as the Right's 'politically incorrect' champion against
the 'sheeple' and their nanny state has morphed into mainstream rightwing
thinking ...

I hope that's true, and that I'm formally charged accordingly. I would plead
guilty, proudly. PC is a pitiful but unfortunately potent enemy of freedom
of thought, speech and association. It's the contemporary recourse of
Comrade Chris and his fellow-Marxist totalitarians because they have so
resoundingly lost the economic debate.

Comrade Chris should educate himself about one thing, though -
libertarianism is not "far-Right." It's not even right-wing, any more than
it is left-wing. Hitler was "far-Right." He preached the subordination of
the individual to the collective, Big Government and coercive welfarism. He
had far more in common with Comrade Trotter than with libertarians, with
whom he had nothing in common at all. Libertarians preach the right of every
individual to live his life as he sees fit, constrained only by his
recognising everyone else's right to do the same. To Right and Left
(including Comrade Trotter) alike, this proposition is anathema.

Lindsay Perigo

Wellington

"YOUNGER New Zealanders should consider the origins of the current obsession with political correctness. "

Ah, yes, the standard lefty appeal to youth.

Fact is, Trotter and his ilk are starting to feel some disquiet in their creaky socialist bones. They can't quite identify it and, oh, so cruelly, it keeps them up at night.

Wanna know what it is?

It's the realisation by many young people—the future of any revolutionary force; you know, get 'em young, train 'em right—that the once oh-so-sexy, on-campus, hammer & sickle t-shirted, Das Kapital bangers are *now* the very incarnation of the conservatism and status quo they once railed against. Hell, the simps are even wearing bespoke suits and flying first-class. Che must be spinning in his grave!

The revolution is nearing full circle and the kids are *not* alright. In fact, they've met the new boss and discovered he's the same as the old boss.¹

Trotter, the smarmy, aging hippie and now, sweating *reactionary*, knows the chickens are coming home to roost. Cluck-fucking-cluck.

¹Yes, that paragraph was shameless but The Who knew a thing or two

I sent this in reply to the Stuff editors:

In describing the Libertarianz as a right wing party Chris Trotter is either lying, or has never actually bothered to speak with a Libertarianz representative about their policies.

Libertarians are neither right or left wing; rather, we are anti-authoritarian & pro-liberty: we support the maximum degree of personal freedom possible within the constraint that one may not violate the rights of another while exercising that freedom.

Both the political left and right are authoritarian - they want you to conform to their ideals, or else.

It's no surprise, then, that the right denounce the Libertarianz as being "liberal", and the left denounce us as being "far right". Both recognise that Libertarianism represents a threat to their authoritarian goals.

Well it is good to know that you've stirred up that much negativity against bullshit policies in NZ. We could use similar "antics" here in America.

- Jason