Fair enough, Leonid. Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way, but now that you put it like that, it's no different from Rand's advice that one should only joing "ad hoc committes," as opposed to joining the "wrong ideological groups or movements in order to do something." Food for thought, thanks.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid

Actually the term "Objectivist party" is contradiction in terms. "Party" means division,fraction. Objectivism is philosophy which is comprehensive view on existence. People are not 100% objectivists, neither 100% statists. Most of them are pragmatists because pragmatism is today's dominant cultural and political trend.That means people don't think in principles,accept contradictions and act by try and error.That what Objectivism supposes to change. When it'll happened it will be no need for objectivist party.

That's not the point, Leo. The point is that information travels much faster these days...but to adress your point, which is totally different, no Leo, the internet cannot make people think. It can change minds. Only the person can change their own mind. And no matter how many people agree with Objectivism, it's never going to be 100%. The point is not to have a mass conversion, the point is to get the RIGHT people.

Anyways, it's pointless to try to convert everyone. The real goal should be a government of limited means. You don't have to convert the Christians and Muslisms and Liberals oh my! To Objectivism. You need only to preven them from having the means to force their views on the rest of the country. So in that sense, yes, you're right, it's too soon for an Objectivist party. It will never be the right time. The only party we need, however, is a government limited to it's rightful purpose. And it's never too soon for a party of that nature. Objectivism is simply the the philosophy that provides the moral and intellectual justification.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid

Can internet make people think?

Didn't have the internet.

Seriously, maybe what's needed is to stop thinking with methods from the industrial revolution and start looking at the advantages we have today. In the information age, things move and happen much faster, and not everything has to be done in a linear fashion. Think quantum!

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Leonid

Unfortunately it does.And in this particular case it's taking more than 50 years. Aristotle was wondering why people don't do what is rational and good for them? The answer is: people can use their mind only volitionaly and that requires certain effort,focus.Objectivism has to overcome 2000 years of indoctrination, to teach right epistemology and ethics and most importantly to teach how to use the mind. That cannot be done even during "long" electoral process.If Objectivist political party will ever take the office it wouldn't be like, say ,democrats take office from republicans.It will mean revolution,that is-creating altogether new social order. And for that you need support of the majority.

The Foster-Miller TALON™ robot!!! Father's Day is coming soon - I'll drop a hint...

Nice one, Suma!

PS They should deploy these in Congress...!!

The Persian rug is a nice touch.

But teaching ideas begins by waking people up to the need for better ideas, no? And then pointing them to where those better ideas my be found, no?

That doesn't take long.

And in any case, I doubt that the presidential candidates of either mainstream party would characterise the electoral process as a "short one."

First Armed Robots on Patrol in Iraq!
We need a tsunami of SWORDS!

Leonid
Because teaching ideas is long run project, may take generation or two;electoral process by its very nature is short one.

Aaron… sorry for the belated response to your post regarding “The War on Terror” – or more accurately, “The War on Islamofascism.”

Here’s what I’d do if I were President:

Funding the war: As I understand it, it’s entirely constitutional to appropriate the funds necessary to fight a war. And we are at war. I reject Ron Paul’s assertion that we’re dealing with “a small, nearly invisible enemy”… this is plainly absurd in Iraq where the Allies are sending scores of Jihadists to paradise every day. Muslim ‘sleepers’ are a whole different story, an enemy that can’t be fought with troops, which brings us to…

Homeland security: Just like in every other war throughout history I’d prevent entry to any potential enemy. I would ban all Muslims who cannot prove themselves - beyond reasonable doubt - to be friendly to America. I couldn’t think of a better, louder message to send the world that we are facing a specifically Muslim enemy. Adherents to an ideology that is spawning the greatest threat the West has ever faced should not be allowed to have their freedom and eat it too.

Black ops: I wholeheartedly support your call to “… fund and encourage US forces with specialized purposes of infiltration, assassination and destabilization of governments…” namely Iran. But as I said, this sort of operation is not mutually exclusive to strategic warfare.

Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda: Yes, keep on with the hunting, bounties, renditions, Gitmo etc, etc... no argument there.

Iraq/Iran/Syria: I totally disagree with you here; Iraq was the ideal territory for invasion, a simple strategy that divided the enemy in two, making it difficult for Iran to cooperate effectively with his allies on the western side of the Middle Eastern bloc.

The surge is working, the Jihadists are withering in Baghdad – keep it going. If I were in charge I’d send more troops – a lot more. I don’t want a surge – I want a fucking tsunami!! Iraq can be won, just as Viet Nam could have been won.

We could end this Jihad right here, right now. The Islamic renaissance has been allowed to flourish because we’ve gone soft on them. They’re laughing at the West – they think we’ve gone soft! The two things that make Islam’s heart beat are Power and Pride, something they lost when the West became almighty. Crush them again, now, and it could be centuries before they ever recover. Hand them victory and it’ll pump their barbarous muscle for generations to come.

Surrender is not an option.

"One doesn't teach ideas during electoral process."

Why on earth not?

Leonid

What should be purpose of objectivist party taking part in electoral process? After all the goal of such a process is to win the election and to form government. Now to be government is to have legatimation on using of physical force.
What objectivist politicians will do with this power?
Can we order people to be free and to use their minds on the point of gun? Should we enforce to study "Atlas shrugged" in every school?
We can speak to 400 million Americans, but how many will listen? One doesn't teach ideas during electoral process.That why the battle of ideas should precede political battle

you're setting the bar extremely high for no good reason.

There are various ways I could go about this, but I'll try this question:

"Why do you think that taking part in the electoral process will hamper getting the majority of the population to become Obectivists?"

Leonid

"Thanks for at least replying to Robert's question but I still can't understand why you Americans are so timid? How will you know when the numbers of "educated" reach critical mass? "

When Objectivism becomes dominant political philosophy.And I don't mean that all voters will get Ph.D in philosophy and complete postgraduate studies with ARI. What I mean that people will realize that they have unalienable rights and will be able to understand and pronounce the Galt's Oath

A:It certainly not.

It certainly is!

To whom would he speak?

About 400 million Americans.

One cannot run an educational campaign and a political compaign simultaneously...

True, so you have different people doing different things, some educate people all the time and others do the electioneering in the couple of months before an election.

therefore Objectivists should go to the classroom,and correct the situation there.(Ayn Rand answers 2005)
We need time to educate the generation of new intellectuals who'd reject the current ideological trend represented by dems and reps.

Thanks for at least replying to Robert's question but I still can't understand why you Americans are so timid? How will you know when the numbers of "educated" reach critical mass?

And in the meantime while that mass is being built up how are American Objectivists supposed to vent themselves during an election? At the moment you all seem to be arguing about which socialists are the best.

Just how hard is it to form a political party over there? Here in N.Z. we just need 500 people and a form to the Electoral Office. Surely you folks would have enough people over there to register, the bar can't be *that* high.

Leonid
Q:Is it now time for an Objectivist politician?
A:It certainly not. To whom would he speak?One cannot run an educational campaign and a political compaign simultaneously...
therefore Objectivists should go to the classroom,and correct the situation there.(Ayn Rand answers 2005)
We need time to educate the generation of new intellectuals who'd reject the current ideological trend represented by dems and reps.Strictly speaking dems don't have any ideas. Universal health plan is not philosophy,it is election bribe for the morons.Reps from other hand have very powerfull and attractive philosophy of traditional society based on fundamental religion and family values If they will establish such a society,turning all the country to the Bible belt then it will be no room and no time for anything else. By voting for reps you may think that you'll have secular Giuliany as a president for 4 years but then you'll get Nehemia Scudder(see Heinlein the Past Through Tomorrow)and then you'll have no elections at all.Let dems to go ahead with their infantile plans ,let American people see how they collapse like a cardhouse, then we can take over and start from the scratch,that is from constitutonal convention.

Then you haven't read back far enough have you.

It isn't defensive, it's irritation. The quote you use is clearly sarcastic, especially in the light that I suggested (earlier in the thread) that US Objectivists get off their arses and start their own political party. One founded in and expousing objectivist ideals and policies.

Leonid
Robert
First I'm not here to be analised and you aren't my therapist
Second I did read your earlier post and that what you've said:"But according to your logic the only way to replace a 'bad' Democrat is with another Democrat, because all the Republicans are out for theocracy and according to the ARI all Libertarians are pond-scum."
That clearly indicates that you don't have any alternative to democrats and republicans. For you if it's not dems then it has to be reps and for me both belong to the dustbin of history.
Third where I ever attacked you or anybody else on this blog?
Do you sincerely believe that to express opinion means to attack or to issue "fatwa"? Really you don't have to be so defensive.

Leonid,

My thoughts on political alternatives to the Dems are clearly spelled out in my earlier posts on this very thread. You need niether to project nor extrapolate nor rationalise. This is a good thing because you clearly suck at these activities. Try reading my earlier posts - I assume you are capable of that - and you might do a better job of attacking me rather than some strawman.

Leonid
So,Robert, you think that your only alternative in the future is democrats or republicans? If it's so then I don't understand why to bother at all. Does it really matter if you die from cancer or from Aids?. Accidently I think that the term "fatwa" is inapproprite and insulting in this context and you can tell me what you think of my last post. I'm not easily intimidated.

So any big government reforms that Hillary brings in can be instantly repealed when we elect someone else... Remind me, how many elections did it take before someone repealed the big government schemes implemented FDR or Nixon (for example)? Doesn't that mean that we should be free of Hillary's legacy right about the time pigs evolve and gain wings?

But according to your logic the only way to replace a 'bad' Democrat is with another Democrat, because all the Republicans are out for theocracy and according to the ARI all Libertarians are pond-scum.

P.S. If you think the fatwa is insulting, you'd better not ask me about what I think of your last post.

Leonid
In the heat of argument you guys are forgeting that elections are happening every 4 years and no matter how democrats are bad you can replace them. However if theocracy prevail we'll have no elections at all( and no health service,socialist or other).If you don't like Peikoff then read prophetic Robert A. Heinlein novel "If this Goes On"( The past through tomorrow) to learn how easy traditional society may create Great Incarnate Prophet.

P.S I still strongly object to using the term "fatwa" for reasons I brought before. I think it is unfair and insulting

The Left and the Right are both hopelessly broken in the U.S.. They care for one thing and one thing only: power. There are no satisfying alternatives either.

The Democrats don't care to end the war so fast, they enjoy seeing it bleed the Republicans' popularity. They don't recognize the consequences of their actions, and as I said, are merely concerned with power.

The Republicans are a mess of contradictions and foolishness. They and their party leader, Bush, are guilty of taking an important situation and fucking it up so royaly they should be beaten with a stick. The handling of the war has been abysmal despite forwarnings of the troubles they were going to face. The arrogance and underhandedness of this administration on so many issues aside from the war has been disgusting.

The Democrats have been all to happy to gleefully make things worse, and for that they are scum. All there cries of how much they want to fix things are lies.

Neither party has anything to offer.

Robert makes a good point. If anything socialism is rearing its ugly head more than ever. And as I have said before, Christianity is well nigh on a massive decline rather than a revival. Peikoff is guilty of intellectual and factual dishonesty by claiming that Christianity is the major threat to the USA. The evidence just doesn't way in.

Both. Both need to have a stake driven through their hearts. And I'd hardly call socialism 'very ill' when (1) One billion plus live under Socialist rule and (2) Several of those states have or are in the process of acquiring Nukes.

I can't speak for Linz, but to me traitorous has nothing to do with honest opposition to a war. Traitorous is when someone expouses 'anti-war' sentiments to gain power and once they have gained it allows that war to continue.

To me the Dems are traitors to their cause and if they are so callous as to behave this way on this subject, what makes you think they will resist any theocratic shift in America if doing so garuantees them power?

Once again: The enemy (Dems) of your enemy (Bush) is NOT your friend.

Labeling as "traitorous" someone who would vote for candidates opposed to Mr. Bush's "war" is just nuts.

Telling your enemy that you're going to surrender and when (see for instance the news quoted at the start of this thread) is beyond treasonous, as is blanketly voting for such maggotry.

And the Left is neither dead nor gravely ill, alas.

It's the fatwa that's nuts. It's so obviously nuts I scratch my head wondering what's really behind it ...

Linz

Well, at least this is a debatable point.

Labeling as "traitorous" someone who would vote for candidates opposed to Mr. Bush's "war" is just nuts.

But whether the Left is really dead, and not just very ill, is something not altogether obvious, even to me.

The question, however, is: which camp poses the greater long-term threat?

"...Peikoff et al. are underestimating Socialism. Lenin's corpse has been mouldering 83 years and still his ideals march through the Universities, parliaments, Green and anti-war movements in the West.

I see it alive and kicking in South America (see the FreeRad advert in the left hand corner of this web-page), Africa, Russia, France, Germany, New Zealand (where I lived it for 30 long years), Australia, Canada (Peikoff's home country!) Britain and most disturbingly in the very f---ing candidates that the 'fatwa' calls down support for."

You're Galt damn right! You only need to look at the effect Gore is having with his disgusting socialistic agenda to see what a threat we still face. AGW theory will be shot down, but the ideals behind it are definitely alive and well and the threat is all too real. Venezuela is your prime example.

I think it's possible that the title of this thread "Satisfied Hsiekovians?" may have been sufficient to make Diana believe that you were mentioning her directly. I say this merely to set the record straight. I share your view that her thin-skin is showing... so to speak.

I should say. This is sub-epidermal!

The fatwa IS fucking rubbish. Supporting a party who refuse to end the war by defunding it - as is their stated goal - just so they can (IMHO) use the US casualties suffered in the interim as a bat use on the Republicans -- is sick and does fit MY definition of treason. Surely any coming 'theocracy' can be defeated without resorting to throwing in with a bunch of tossers willing to sacrifice American troops (their view of this war) just to win a seat in the White House. The fatwa makes me sick to my stomach.

Yup.

Linz

At the heart of the fatwa is the assertion that socialism, an ethos whose most virulent forms have killed 100s of millions of men and enslaves more than a billion more, is mortally wounded.

Socialism is one of Objectivism's sworn enemies, as is religion. Yet the 'fatwa' advocates giving aid and comfort to that most dangerous adversary in order to fight the other. My problem isn't that I can't see the danger from a reinvigorated evangelical right-wing, its that I still see Socialism alive and kicking.

Basically, my concern is that Peikoff et al. are underestimating Socialism. Lenin's corpse has been mouldering 83 years and still his ideals march through the Universities, parliaments, Green and anti-war movements in the West.

I see it alive and kicking in South America (see the FreeRad advert in the left hand corner of this web-page), Africa, Russia, France, Germany, New Zealand (where I lived it for 30 long years), Australia, Canada (Peikoff's home country!) Britain and most disturbingly in the very f---ing candidates that the 'fatwa' calls down support for. My problem is that I've never believed in turning my back on a live enemy, no matter how extensive his injuries might be.

I see no merit in unconditionally backing one form of statism against another. That appears to undermine the entire point of objectivism.

And I fail to see why, if the time is so short that this extraordinary measure is necessary, objectivists still vacillate over injecting themselves into politics proper. I've never, ever received a satisfactory answer to that question.

Of the two choices at present I'd say it would be the Dems. Why? Because in the long run the Democrats and their ilk refused to and still refuse to nip Iran/Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan in the bud.

Bush, for all his numerous faults, did pre-emptively strike an enemy that the USA would eventually have to deal with. He hit Afghanistan and Iraq early in the piece and refused to wait for UN/Global sanction (as Kerry and the Dems wanted). Ask any soldier who'd he rather fight: A disorganised weakened enemy or one who's dug in, fully alert and ready. The answer will be the former everytime and twice on Sundays. Why, because attacking a prepared enemy is ALWAYS more costly than attacking a weakened one. And US military power is not invulnerable as the casualty rates and calls for heavier armoured vehicles prove.

Gulliani at least sounds like he means to take Bush's pre-emptive tactics on board. Can the same be said of the Dems who are strongly influenced & funded by the anti-war faction of their party?
 
The Democrats of the current era have said nothing, nothing what so ever, about what is in the pipeline after Iraq. Nothing about how they would deal with North Korea or Iran. With respect to the latter of these two members of the Axis of Evil (Bush's phrase, the Dem's won't even acknowledge the concept that these two nations are evil), it's about time to war-war rather than jaw-jaw (to reverse a Churchillian quotation).

The Democrats, Hillary especially if she takes her Husband's advice, look like they think they can bargain with Iran. And all the while Iran is purifying more Uranium with all those centrifuges they are bringing on line...

Is a nuclear Iran more or less scary than the theoretical Republican theocracy...

But let me again reiterate something: I'm in favour of changing the political goalposts altogether. A pox on both the Republican's and Democrat's houses. If you wish to bring objectivist ideals into the White House, you'll first need an Objectivist party.

And if it's gotten so bad that Objectivists have to support the Socialists against the Religious Right, then the sooner one is formed, the better!

"Surely any coming 'theocracy' can be defeated without resorting to throwing in with a bunch of tossers willing to sacrifice American troops (their view of this war) just to win a seat in the White House. The fatwa makes me sick to my stomach."

"Sick" because the Democrats are, at the end of the day, so much "worse"? Really?

Robert -- which party in power do you think will mean the death of more TROOPS? I'm not convinced that there is any difference, but, given Iraq...?

Bush isn't pursuing good values in a poor way -- he is pursuing the wrong values altogether.

The "fatwa" does not imagine that we can "reshape" the parties, Robert, it only attempts to do what it can to keep the greater danger from getting into office.

AFTER CONCEDING BUSH'S "TREASON," you write: "... But this does not excuse advocacy of surrender to the Jihadists or blanketly voting for those who propose such surrender." What the..? It sure doesn't suggest any reason TO vote for Republicans or that they are offering anything better, something more than another form of "surrender," does it?

You write: "The worst treasonists are the Dem-scum. They have handed a victory to the Jihadists that could not be won on the battlefield." Does it make any sense to become a connoisseur of treachery in this regard -- since NEITHER side is addressing the actual security interests of the West? And, so far, the Democrats have had ZERO impact on Bush's policy in Iraq. Bush is still doing the Bush Plan, only we're now on "Plan B."

If you recall, sir, what I said in Carlsbad was that my support for the Iraq war was conditioned on the hope that it would lead to dealing with Iran. The intervention from Iran that I expected came -- and was proved -- and Mr. Bush's next treachery followed.

"Lack of perspective"?

Rand was repeatedly asked why she opposed Kant more vehemently than Marx.

My answer to you about "perspective" would be much the same as hers was to that question.

There will be more terrorism, and, one can only now hope, this will generate the bipartisan response that will smash these savage gnats.

We will then be left with the only real battle for the future: the philosophical battle WITHIN Western Civilization.

No, I'm not going anywhere. As you know, my threshold for name-calling differs from Diana's, and, so far, I've been spared. But don't pretend that her response to absurd insults paints you as a victim of "Randroidism."

It's a question of perspective.

I think it's possible that the title of this thread "Satisfied Hsiekovians?" may have been sufficient to make Diana believe that you were mentioning her directly. I say this merely to set the record straight. I share your view that her thin-skin is showing... so to speak.

The fatwa IS fucking rubbish. Supporting a party who refuse to end the war by defunding it - as is their stated goal - just so they can (IMHO) use the US casualties suffered in the interim as a bat use on the Republicans -- is sick and does fit MY definition of treason.

Surely any coming 'theocracy' can be defeated without resorting to throwing in with a bunch of tossers willing to sacrifice American troops (their view of this war) just to win a seat in the White House. The fatwa makes me sick to my stomach.

"Linz, if you STOP expressing your opinions on this board, I will be offended."

Me too.

Once again I find myself in the curious position of nodding in agreement with every degoratory thing James and Casey have to say about the Dems, the conduct of this war and those Republicans who are thralls to the batty Christian evangelicals.

It's all good stuff right up until they reach the conclusion where the only way to get these monkeys off our backs is to vote for the very people Casey just buried under several hundred words of deserved derision.

When will Objectivists finally realise that the Deomcrats & Republicans can't be remade in their image? Both are too corrupt, too set in their pragmatic ways. The only thing to do is to drive a political stake through their hearts and start a new political movement a fresh.

Fuck the fatwa! It's absurd not only for the reasons Linz outlines but also because it advocates treating the enemy (the Dems) of your enemy (Republicans) as your friend. And that, in a nut-shell, is one of things that put the USA in the Middle East mire in the first place! And you pro-fatwa guys & girls bash Bush for persuing a flawed and failed strategy!

I'm gobsmacked.

Oh, come on, Erik! We've given you more context, if anything!

I find it hard to understand your consistent defence of the umbrage-taking thin-skinned. It seems fairly clear that since making her "return", Diana has been trawling the site waiting for a sufficiently strong slice of Linz-rage to justify another flounce (not that you could really call it that, given that I don't believe she has posted).

To suggest that Linz should mind his Ps and Qs in front of certain people - regardless of the madness they are advocating - reminds me of Sir Rushdie's quote: "free speech is nothing without the freedom to offend". If those who jump to offence wish to do so, it is (especially in your case) a loss for all concerned. However, that is no reason to temper the vigorous defence of one's beliefs. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Linz, if you STOP expressing your opinions on this board, I will be offended.

Linz, as you already know, that is the MAJOR stumbling block of the militants in the ARI camp; lack of context.

What greater "treason" could there be than engaging in warfare -- and not placing the supreme value on the lives of American soldiers? FORGET civilians, they should be valued higher than the Jihadists' lives, don't you think?

No question. But this does not excuse advocacy of surrender to the Jihadists or blanketly voting for those who propose such surrender. The worst treasonists are the Dem-scum. They have handed a victory to the Jihadists that could not be won on the battlefield. The fatwa advocates wholesale sanction of said scum.

You write: "The fatwa *is* a disgrace. A treasonous, despicable disgrace."

Actually, I was quoting and agreeing with Mr. Moeller. Strange how folk get their tits in a twist only when I say such things.

And, YOURS is a FAR greater "treason" in blindly supporting such policies.

Waaaa, waaaaaaaaaa, you've insulted me. Waaaaaaaaaaaa.

As to the issue—you know full well I don't "blindly support" Bush's policies, as Casey knows when he calls me Bush's cock-sucker. (Waaaaa! Waaaaaaa!!) How many posts do you have to ignore in which I say I want him to go harder in Iraq and go after Iran and Syria too? To that extent I'm in full agreement with the ARI line. How the hell that's served by relentless Bush-bashing and blanket voting for treasonous cut-and-runners is what's problematic for me. This certainly wasn't what you were advocating when I was in Carlsbad.

James, I've no problem with your having at Christianity. Go for it, I say. It's the lack of perspective that bothers me here. Again I say, you're wrestling with relative phantoms on the bed while there are guys outside getting ready to blow up the house.

Linz

What greater "treason" could there be than engaging in warfare -- and not placing the supreme value on the lives of American soldiers?

FORGET civilians, they should be valued higher than the Jihadists' lives, don't you think?

You write: "The fatwa *is* a disgrace. A treasonous, despicable disgrace."

To Boaz: "Well, you can stick your appeasement and treason where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned."

And the folks you attack feel insulted?

Go figure.

Leaving because she was in fact insulted is not in any way a reflection of some dark past of Objectivism. You'll have to explain that one. And, it is not a form of trying to "intimidate" you, either. That's REALLY daffy and paranoid. Not-so-veiled references to such a dark past in this context, in fact, are the only sort of "intimidation" factor I can detect.

She didn't even really say you were "worthless" or "insane" in the last post, did she? She did nothing akin to "writing you off as a human being," either.

She just doesn't want to hang our where her position is called treasonous.

It is hardly "treasonous" to oppose a policy or to advocate a change in policy -- even during a war.

Will it be "treasonous" when Bush leaves Iraq before his democracy is secure? I do hope you won't be crushed by the disappointment when that happens, sir. (Am I now "treasonous" in undercutting morale -- by stating the obvious?)

Bush certainly committed a FAR greater "treason," in my view, when he tied the hands of troops from the outset.

And, YOURS is a FAR greater "treason" in blindly supporting such policies.

I second that, Linz.

I don't believe I mentioned Diana, let alone insulted her. Must be a case of the cap fitting.

You guys really want me to shut up about the fatwa, on my own turf. If I consider the fatwa treasonous, and say so, then I'm immediately insulting its supporters as traitors. Doesn't follow—and I won't be intimidated that way, sorry.

And anyone who disagrees with Diana is thereby "insane" in her book, a complete write-off as a human being. Doesn't matter what you've done in your life, if you fall foul of Diana you're worthless. You guys are in denial that this type of attitude is a problem within the orthodox wing of the movement. Binswankerism rules still. Same attitudes of which the Reismans were victims.

One more time—fucking rubbish.

Linz

But, Linz, you keep talking about a "battle for civilisation" -- and THIS is the war Bush isn't fighting.

Not only have we not declared war against Jihadism, but the problem of "terrorism" has only been VERY marginally addressed. Oh, sure, we got a LOT more government, and some domestic liberties have been slightly curtailed, but we can hardly be said to be "fixing" the problem -- that is, OUR problem in the West.

And "toppling a despot" in Iraq won't even do the Iraqis any favor if the despot is soon replaced by something just as bad or worse -- and EVEN THIS requires addressing the intervention from Iran, something the Bush administration is unwilling to do.

There is no uglier, deadlier or more senseless monstrosity than a semi-war, and, even in Iraq, that's all we've been given.

Bush "cut and ran" when he wrote the rules of engagement.

P.S. What has Diana done wrong NOW?

She left when she got insulted -- again? Well, surprise, surprise. Can't say I blame her, either.

If this "kind of thing" is somehow a "problem" for the "movement" -- then it is Linz's problem, not Diana's. (What this has to do with Professor Reisman, I'm sure I'll never understand.)

I can see why Linz wants folks like Diana and Mike Mazza here -- I cannot fathom his surprise or upset when the victim of his accusations and insults departs. Perhaps such a person just doesn't want to pollute Linz's site with that "despicably treasonous" behavior anymore.

I would only suggest to Linz that he confine such language to individuals who are not a value to him at SOLO.

Linz,

Did you fail to check off one of her little boxes or step on the toes of some of her favorite people? LOL . I think she was waiting for you to do something to scratch you off her list of Officially Permitted People. Have you considered what penance might get you in her good graces again? Good grief.

Jim

In this post of Diana's one can see one of the reasons Objectivism is having such a hard time making it in the marketplace—where it brushes up against decent, commonsensical folk— notwithstanding that it's right. It's the old Binswangerian culture of the orthodoxy writ large. You're either one of the good guys in their book or you're a total write-off as a human being. Like the Reismans. This was my one point of departure with Diana in her Sciabarra denunciation. It's my point of departure with Randroids in general. It's called moral hysteria.

Again I say—fucking rubbish.

Linz—total write-off as a human being, proudly!

He did. It's called the War on Terror. In its name two despotic regimes have been toppled. Because he didn't call it the War on Islam you advocate voting treasonous Dem-scum across the board? I still don't get it, really.

Linz

There is a war on and Bush has yet to declare it.

Should I call that "treason"?

To suggest that the fate of Western Civilization hinges on the minor differences between the two sides in this regard really is daffy.

The difference between "stay the course" and "cut and run" is not minor. The latter is surrender. If America surrenders one more time, that's it, I should think.

Your opponents here are as hawkish as you -- even more so -- and to call them "traitors" over a failure of support for Mr. Bush's efforts is just nuts.

I use the term "treasonous" of the fatwa and support for it rather than "traitor" of Peikoff and his supporters. I'm sure you're all fine patriots in your intent. But what you're supporting here—blanket voting for outright traitors—is treasonous in the context of war. And there is a war on.

Linz

Today's conservatives don't want freedom or capitalism -- they want a "traditional" society.

I agree with you largely with that point. A perfect example is the freedom and liberty destroying waste of money known as the 'war on drugs' which is being perpetuated by moralizing conservatives

To date, NEITHER party has even SUGGESTED adequate measures in the fight against the Jihadists.

To suggest that the fate of Western Civilization hinges on the minor differences between the two sides in this regard really is daffy.

Your opponents here are as hawkish as you -- even more so -- and to call them "traitors" over a failure of support for Mr. Bush's efforts is just nuts.

Yes, for a long time religion was on the run in America. An unpretentious common sense, individualism, and belief in progress were ascendant in this country until recent decades.

But this is no longer the case.

The important thing is not where we are, but where we are headed -- and a disturbing turn of direction can be observed.

Today's conservatives don't want freedom or capitalism -- they want a "traditional" society. This concern has completely replaced the anti-communism and anti-welfare state talk of yore. In power, the Republicans demonstrated their values quite clearly in this regard.

Your response to me was QUESTION-BEGGING invective garnished with ad hominem and argument by intimidation. You left little to respond to.

Cripes! I managed all that in a coupla paras? I'm impressed with me. Let's take another look:

_______________________

Inasmuch as there's any official doctrine or common mindset, it comes down to this: religion is the gravest threat to our civilization, near and long term, and disarming one is an indispensable part of destroying the other.

I'm afraid, Boaz, that if we wait till we've disarmed Christianity before destroying Islam, then Islam will prevail. And, contrary to Hsiekovian paranoia, there's no urgent need to disarm Christianity. Christian nutters are marginalised within Christianity. Islamofascist nutters, by contrast, are running the Islamic agenda, which is moving relentlessly forward with the active support of Dem-scum who have the active support of Hsiekovians.

Who cares how horrible the democrats are? We know they're horrible.

No you don't know, Boaz. Your pope votes for them all across the board and enjoins all Objectivists to do so. Nor is it true that you don't care about Dem-scum. With all your pomo-smart-ass "ya think?" stuff you are actually advocating cut-and-run from Iraq just as they are, succouring them and rendering your "blow 'em all up in their mosques" hypocritical and meaningless. Well, you can stick your appeasement and treason where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

___________________________________

Well, I counted five points and a charming invitation. The points remain unanswered and I reckon you secretly loved the invitation.

So, the words "appeasement and treason" caused offence? Tough turds. I'm offended by the reality of appeasement and treason. That's what wrestling Christian phantoms under, in and on the bed while real Islamofascists are outside the house readying to blow it up amounts to. I don't question the wrestlers' good faith, but I certainly question their perspective and deplore its consequences.

Bush is not fighting Islamofascists with "quack medicine." He's not administering medicine that's strong enough, to be sure, but that doesn't make it quack. He's lately strengthened the dose in the teeth of opposition from your Dem-scum pin-ups (and you can't insist they're "horrible" while advocating a blanket vote for them), who want treatment stopped altogether. Now, wanting Bush to KASS up is one thing; aiding and abetting the cut-and-runners is quite another. And just how, I wonder, does it stand us in better stead to ward off this imminent Christian theocracy?

Apparently my saying this is tantamount to my sucking Bush's dick at every turn, according to one of your fellow-Hsiekovians on another thread. Gotta love that Hsiekovian sense of humour. Dubya's just not my type, I'm afraid. Neither is Hillary.

If I haven't hurt your feelings, I apologise. I'll try harder next time.

Linz-scum

a) The latent influence of Christianity is partly responsible for our inability to combat Islamic totalitarianism.

I made it clear that I still opposed the fatwa and why. Guess the bottom line is, that just ain't allowed in the airtight world of orthodoxy.

Right, I remember. So it's we who've called you a traitorous appeaser for backing policies that strengthen the Islamist cause and deplete our resources and morale in the meantime. (Did you miss the part where Diana and I called you immoral for disagreeing with Peikoff? Or were you too busy retooling your own insult kit to notice?)

Maybe someone could address the actual points I made to Boaz. Or is flouncing the order of the day again?

Your response to me was QUESTION-BEGGING invective garnished with ad hominem and argument by intimidation. You left little to respond to.

With this exception: I'm afraid, Boaz, that if we wait till we've disarmed Christianity before destroying Islam, then Islam will prevail...there's no urgent need to disarm Christianity. Christian nutters are marginalised within Christianity.

Which has almost nothing to do with what I was saying re fighting christianity. I'll restate: (a) The latent influence of Christianity (not "christian nutters") is partly responsible for our inability to combat Islamic totalitarianism. (b) ultimate victory over the latter will not happen until philosophy changes radically (which of necessity means fighting christianity). That doesn't mean I believe we should lay down our arms until we're done refuting Tertullian and James Dobson.

Look, if you get cancer and your oncologist decides to treat you with green tea and essence of olive oil, calling him a quack doesn't make me an appeaser of cancer. It means I think his diagnosis and prescription are warped. Well, "the war" you support is bad treatment for the wrong disease, at least by my lights. Where's the logic in your position, Lindsay? What do you think is necessary to win this war -- who are our enemies and how do we combat them? And how does the current battle do any of this?

I haven't flounced. It's you who've "flounced" from this argument with me twice. The first time was on the "Re: James Valliant" thread, where I also indicated tentative support for Giuliani.

p.s.

The trichotomous troll asked me to check reality. I've checked it. It tells me that religions and religious people can change over time. Amazing! For example, you can't determine the political impulses of 20th century hassidic jews in Jerusalem (theocratic welfare-statist) by looking at what German Jews in the 19th century believed about secularization and reform.

p.p.s

Linz, I like you. A lot. So stop hurting my feelings, you traitorous scum.

Islamic ideas are no threat to America. Christian ones are.

Islamic bombs are a threat to America. Christian ones, apart from abortion clinic bombers, are not.

It's a question of what you think is more dangerous to America -- bombs that can destroy infrastructure and kill people vs. ideas that can end the ideas that make America "America." Unless you think the cities and the buildings are what make America "America," and not the ideas.

I can understand being greatly concerned about both. But the more lasting damage, the damage that destroys what America really is (its ideas) comes from Christianity, not Islam. And it the corruption of America's ideas that will render it defenseless against Islam.

(And many honorable Muslims cherish American liberty and what America stands for for the same reasons that many honorable Christians do.) They are not the majority of either religion, however, and there are far more Christians than Muslims in America.

Linz, the "fatwa" looks to the long-run. Those who think it mad can see no further than the crisis of the present. I could use this observation to name-call and insult, but I won't... you myopic, mystic-loving traitor to reason and the very future of Western Civilization.

You needed that.

Except ...

Damned if the fatwa doesn't look to the now. Vote Dem-scum across the board now, lest there be a Christian theocracy frighteningly soon. The only part of now being overlooked is this pesky Islam thing.

Maybe someone could address the actual points I made to Boaz. Or is flouncing the order of the day again?

If Christianity is an obstacle -- that we face within ourselves -- in our fight against the Jihadists, then the first is obviously a far greater threat than the latter. The savages of the region will be easily vanquished once the West stands up. And the philosophical battle within Western Civilization will remain once this too has passed away.

Personally though, I am a lot more worried right now about Islamic mutants blowing our cities to bits with a nuke than I am of the Christian morality trying to seize and destroy the USA. Sure, both religious ideologies are a threat to liberty and freedom, but the fact is is that the clear and present danger is Islam. Christianity is rather innocuous regarding it's intentions to destroy liberty. Many Christians and Christian organizations are actually lovers of the US Constitution and the protection that she offers. Islam is carte blanch hostile to liberty PERIOD. There is a massive over-exaggeration in the ARI camp on the veracity of the christian movement to destroy our freedoms. It simply doesn't exist. In fact I would submit to you that the USA has become FAR LESS Christian since her founding. As anyone can observe christianity is a religion that is far more compatible with freedom and change than Islam, just look at the two's evolution side by side. I can't buy into the argument that Christianity at large is the greatest evil and threat.

The apology was for accusing the Hsiekovians of secondhandedness in their thinking. "Lemmings," "Peikoff's poodles" and the like. Nothing else. I made it clear that I still opposed the fatwa and why. Guess the bottom line is, that just ain't allowed in the airtight world of orthodoxy.

I note Diana's conscientious arguments re the Dem-scum behaviour that inspired this thread. I note that my characteristic state is insanity. I note the painstaking substantiation of "wild fantasy." I thank Diana for her shining example of how to win in the contest of ideas and how to treat honest dissent.

Linz

BINGO!

"If Christianity is an obstacle -- that we face within ourselves -- in our fight against the Jihadists, then the first is obviously a far greater threat than the latter."

James, that is a perfect summation. It invokes the message of Rand perfectly, as well. Toohey wasn't the prime enemy, Taggart wasn't the enemy...it was Dominque, it was Dagny, it was Reardon, as long as they allowed the Tooheys and Taggarts to dicate the terms of the fight.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

If Christianity is an obstacle -- that we face within ourselves -- in our fight against the Jihadists, then the first is obviously a far greater threat than the latter. The savages of the region will be easily vanquished once the West stands up. And the philosophical battle within Western Civilization will remain once this too has passed away.

Christianity, Phil, has been in slow retreat since the Renaissance. Its compromises with Greek rationality almost led to its total unravelling in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

The real question: why hasn't Christianity disappeared completely by now? What explains its tenacious hold? What explains the contemporary indications of its increasing trend toward fundamentalism?

Linz, the "fatwa" looks to the long-run. Those who think it mad can see no further than the crisis of the present.

I could use this observation to name-call and insult, but I won't... you myopic, mystic-loving traitor to reason and the very future of Western Civilization.

H-SIEH!!! ... ahhhhhh...*wipes his nose*... that's better!

Diana, I for one can care less wether you come or leave here at SOLO. From what I can gather, all Linz is doing is calling a spade a spade.

When Linz offered his apology for his unjust moral accusations a while back, I mentioned that I hoped his return to sanity would be only temporary. I was right: the nasty moral charges have returned, with just as much wild fantasy behind them as last time. I'm not surprised.

So adios, folks. I won't be back again.

****************************
Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahieh.com
NoodleFood

> I agree, however, that down the line we'll be facing a similar threat in christo-fascism to the one we now face from the mullahs. [Boaz]

Then why hasn't that happened already?

Why haven't the one billion Christians turned massively totalitarian since the end of the wars of religion, in all those centuries?

Inasmuch as there's any official doctrine or common mindset, it comes down to this: religion is the gravest threat to our civilization, near and long term, and disarming one is an indispensable part of destroying the other.

I'm afraid, Boaz, that if we wait till we've disarmed Christianity before destroying Islam, then Islam will prevail. And, contrary to Hsiekovian paranoia, there's no urgent need to disarm Christianity. Christian nutters are marginalised within Christianity. Islamofascist nutters, by contrast, are running the Islamic agenda, which is moving relentlessly forward with the active support of Dem-scum who have the active support of Hsiekovians.

Who cares how horrible the democrats are? We know they're horrible.

No you don't know, Boaz. Your pope votes for them all across the board and enjoins all Objectivists to do so. Nor is it true that you don't care about Dem-scum. With all your pomo-smart-ass "ya think?" stuff you are actually advocating cut-and-run from Iraq just as they are, succouring them and rendering your "blow 'em all up in their mosques" hypocritical and meaningless. Well, you can stick your appeasement and treason where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

Linz

Linz, on the "God who isn't" thread:

But voting for a cut-and-runner? Over Giulianai, let's say, who's making great noises about Pakistan and Iran? That's the evil of the fatwa. I understand it better now, since James came right out and said Christianity is a way bigger threat than Islamofascism.

Christianity isn't a bigger threat than Islamofascism. Christianity (as fundamental implicit philosophy) is a big part of the reason we aren't defeating it. I agree, however, that down the line we'll be facing a similar threat in christo-fascism to the one we now face from the mullahs. And "fascism" is a very precise designation in this context.

The correct view is that Islamofascism won't be defeated until important people in our civilization change how they think.

This mindset [christianity a bigger threat than Islamofascism] has been official doctrine for some time, I now realise, and no "conscientious adherer to reality" has the guts to break rank and pronounce it obsolete, not to mention nuts, in the contemporary context.

???

Inasmuch as there's any official doctrine or common mindset, it comes down to this: religion is the gravest threat to our civilization, near and long term, and disarming one is an indispensable part of destroying the other.

Our worst enemies are the institutions of jihad. The bottom line is we have to be able to declare war on the people who aren't necessarily doing the physical fighting. We won't move forward in this war until we're willing to kill imams in madrassas. (No, not all of them.) Period. We haven't done that and we won't do it, not without radical philosophic change. Call me what you will, but frankly if you're reading this discussion board and you think I'm some kind of sadistic genocidal maniac, then we have nothing to talk about.

None of you has indicated how what we're supposed to be achieving in Iraq has anything to do with defeating Islamo-fascism. You do understand that the crucial disagreement isn't about whether Bush has been or could ever be successful in doing X, but whether X is a desirable goal in the first place, right?

Who cares how horrible the democrats are? We know they're horrible. They could all die tomorrow and I'd throw a parade. I'd roast them on a spit and invite Linz to give the eulogy. Why are they even part of this discussion? The dems are slightly less willing at this moment in time to fight the wrong wars. Like the republicans, they're entirely unwilling to fight the right wars. They're less helpful to christian government, and they won't help further discredit capitalist reforms. Unfortunately, too many republicans offer the worst of all these worlds. (No, that doesn't mean I'm for democrats dominating all three branches of govt.)

So what's left for us to do? We can die a little less slowly, and fight for something better down the line. Meanwhile, if there's actually a politician out there who wants to kill more jihadists and won't run to mommy or the UN or whatever when the dems don't support him, that's great. Such a person has yet to emerge, however.

Oh, and kiss my arse [sic] in advance. I've asserted the opposing point of view without demonstrating it -- in the (probably vain) hope that you'll actually realize what the other "side" actually is. Or, alternatively, you could continue to tell us what we think and then explain what it is that you really think. I have no idea what you think. Gee, a pro-American secular regime in Iraq is in our self-interest. ya think? That's what you want, is it? How's that supposed to happen, gentlemen? I mean, WTF are you smoking? (You may be confusing Iraq with Iran. Iran's on the right. If any country can become a pro-american secular haven in the next twenty years, it's that one. (The one on the right.)) In any case, wouldn't that happen only after -- long after -- we killed most of the bad guys?

> Peikoff's fatwa is sheer insanity.

Leonard Peikoff is a brilliant man. I've learned more from him than perhaps any other individual.

But for all his huge insights, he also makes huge mistakes.