Memo to Dr. Peikoff: What Is the Status of the Fatwa? [Or: Dr. Peikoff, Tear Down this Fatwa!]

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2008-06-04 03:04

So that unutterable piece of treasonous excrement Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination. As I type he is ejaculating his ghastly rhetoric on TV: "America, this is our moment," "this will be the moment our great nation came together to heal our wounds for the sake of our grandchildren," and other such nauseating, empty, facile bromides.

I have a question for Leonard Peikoff: Does the injunction to Objectivists to vote Democrat across the board still stand? It was a frightful enough travesty when Hillary Clinton looked likely to be the nominee; now it is unspeakable.

I have a question for Hsiekovians: is it your intention to vote for Barack Obama, and to claim that you are thereby striking a blow against an imminent Christian theocracy and for the Objectivist view of history?

Aside from his stated policy of sitting down unconditionally with his fellow-scum like Ahmadinejad internationally, and of turning America's creeping socialism into galloping socialism domestically, this shallow, lying anti-American demagogue still proposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq just as victory is being consolidated and the anti-American media are actually reporting it.

To vote for this creature would be beyond disgusting. To advocate doing so in the name of Objectivism is unimaginable.

( categories: )

How else will we win?

HWH's picture

As an observer I think this Fatwa stinks, and taints the entire foundation of Objectivism.

To propose that morally we should vote for the Dems rather than the Republicans is IMHO akin to a crackpot claiming an ability for determining the outcome of a game of Russian Roulette.

To think that a relatively minuscule group of O'ists have the power to influence the outcome of the political landscape in the US or elsewhere by selectively placing outside bets on a sorry bunch of spineless pragmatists is beyond ridiculous, and for this gameplan to have been proposed by the heir elect of O'ism is an insult to Ayn Rands legacy, however naive and well intentioned the notion may have been.

For any political action towards the preservation of individual freedom to inexorably succeed, it needs to work from an uncompromising and unrelenting moral philosophical foundation, and the only set of ideas ever to provide this is Objectivism.

Thats why IMO the Libertarian political movement is floundering, even though steeped in and largely fueled by Ayn Rands ideas.

The Achilles Heel of Libertarianism has allways been the tainted public perception created by the call for Anarchism by Rothbard and others in the founding stages of this movement.

Unfortunately this has done more for the enemies of freedom than would have been politically achieved without them.

Thats why I view the only feasible solution for a successful battle against the onslaught of political irrationality to ultimately manifest itself in the form of a purist Objectivist political movement, no matter how immature we think it may be.

If not, then when exactly will the world ever be ready for Objectivism.

Even though I am occasionally heartened by news of new converts or events and news that I interpret as a positive sign of the idealogical revolution that Ayn Rand and other freethinkers started, we are lightyears away from having exposed these ideas effectively and on a scale wide enough to reverse the suicidal cultural and political trends we inherited, and which are prevailing.

The shortest distance from A to B is a straight line and that's why I intend starting an O'ist poltical party in Australia with that intent, but there's no way I can do it without having first created a business that can take care of mine and my families financial needs it will be another 2 years or even less if I can help it.

I dont know how far I'll get, and judging from my dismal record at the subtle art of endearment I'm probably going to need some serious help...but what the heck...only time will tell.


I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

LCD Home Projector 

For What It's Worth, Linz...

James S. Valliant's picture

I cannot vote for either Obama or McCain.

Just can't.


Chris Cathcart's picture

Because I'm asking for simple means-end, cause-effect advice on what I can do personally to get my preferred candidate elected (assuming I have a candidate worth preferring on the whole over the other, assuming any candidate really worthy of preference would get more than 2% of the vote)?

Linz, you don't want Obama elected. Okay, tell me what I need to do to prevent that. That's all I'm asking. Simple means-end: (1) Desired outcome: Obama not elected; (2) Means: Action I need to take to achieve (1) = ?

Hmm...Linz, as you might

Jmaurone's picture

Hmm...Linz, as you might recall, THAT part of Peikoff's statement I simply don't accept. But since he's not come to take back my copy of Atlas, I'm not worried about it. But yes, it was a too much for him to say that.

 As for the pragmatism part, what I mean is WHY does Peikoff think it will have the effect he expects? It's not, for me, about pragmatism as much as trying to understand WHY he thinks that way in the first place.

As for what Rand would vote for...we'll I could imagine her abstaining, but that's moot, since we'll never know...we have to figure this one out for ourselves.... 

 (I should have added, for clarity, that what I meant about the "real question" is limited to the "Objectivist" issue...wHY Peikoff is giving this advice in the first place, not about how one should or should not vote, if at all. This is based on Peikoff's own comments about web forums, being wary of so-called "experts," etc. In this case, I personally am with Peikoff when it comes to calling out Republicans on the religious aspects, but strategy-wise, I think  it's fair to ask him what makes him qualified to offer STRATEGIC tactics in his absolute manner, and what makes him willing to give this "fatwa" when, on his own podcast, he refuses to answer questions of a specific nature, such as how to vote, etc.). 


Tsk, tsk!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Such pragmatism from Messrs. Maurone and Cathcart: in effect—"it doesn't matter how screwed up the fatwa is since it will have no effect anyway." Naughty, naughty!

Remember, it had the force of ex cathedra: in effect—"if you disobey, you don't understand Objectivism."

Chris, if your question is directed at me, I don't know why it is, since I'm rooting for McCain.

And I can't seriously imagine the Ayn Rand who voted for Nixon over McGovern not voting for McCain over Obama. I can't see her abstaining, and I can't see her voting Obama as the fatwa would require. Which is why, when Obama cleared the bar, I asked about the fatwa's current status.

The REAL question

Jmaurone's picture

 ...if I may be so bold to call it that...but whether Peikoff is right or wrong, isn't the real question what effect will OBJECTIVISTS voting Democrat have on the overall scheme of things? Are there really enough to do what he hopes will be the outcome (to punish Republicans in order to get them to drop the religion)? 

  At any rate, I'm with Rand, re her comment in her last Ford Hall forum Q&A, that "There is a limit to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils." ("The Age of Mediocrity)

No advice?

Chris Cathcart's picture


How could this so-called "fatwa" be such a big deal, then?


Lindsay Perigo's picture

But will Hsiekovians have the integrity to do the same?


Still waiting for that advice

Chris Cathcart's picture

on what I can do to keep one or the other of these candidates from being elected.

Star Wars on Trial

Jmaurone's picture

 There's a new book called STAR WARS ON TRIAL that takes a courtroom trial setting to the themes of Lucas's work, including the "benevolent dictator" quote. "Prosecutor" David Brin really gives it to him, and Yoda, the "vile green hand puppet." 

Linz - you impart reason

Sandi's picture

I have a question for Hsiekovians: is it your intention to vote for Barack Obama, and to claim that you are thereby striking a blow against an imminent Christian theocracy and for the Objectivist view of history?

But will Hsiekovians have the integrity to do the same?

Wow, Lucas is even worse

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Wow, Lucas is even worse than I thought, and it explains even more his attraction to Obama, whose boot he'd apparently like to be under.

(non) Sense

Jmaurone's picture

Bosch, it makes even more (non)sense when you take into consideration Lucas's thoughts on "benevolent dictatorship":

 Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, “That’s sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it’s a big human who can get past that.” 

and: “...there's a reason why kings built large palaces, sat on thrones and wore rubies all over. There's a whole social need for that, not to oppress the masses, but to impress the masses and make them proud and allow them to feel good about their culture, their government and their ruler so that they are left feeling that a ruler has the right to rule over them, so that they feel good rather than disgusted about being ruled.” 

And now this...."We have a

Bosch Fawstin's picture

And now this....

"We have a hero in the making back in the United States today because we have a new candidate for president of the United States, Barack Obama," [Geroge] Lucas said when asked who his childhood heroes were.

Obama, "for all of us that have dreams and hope, is a hero," Lucas said.

I think of Jar Jar and this makes sense.

'....Secretary of State

Bosch Fawstin's picture

'....Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Obama's nomination an "extraordinary" development for the United States.'

I take it she means that a black man being nominated as the Democratic candidate for president is 'extraordinary' for America, that this man's skin color is incredibly significant. Fact is, among the two choices, libs felt that voting for a black man over a woman would get them more lib cred. Yes, he's the first Halfrican American* to seriously have a chance at the US presidency, but he's red through and through, which is more significant. The man's half black, but has chosen to use that half for all it's worth, and it's gotten him this far, and no further, no matter what some believe.

*kudos to a cousin of mine for 'Halfrican American'

Don't blame you-

gregster's picture

He's Osama's man Chris!


Chris Cathcart's picture

Laughing out loud I meant to type "Obama." I really did. Can the guy win an election with that name?

I'd be astonished ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... if Oregon's electoral votes went anywhere else, remembering what a dismal PC leftie swamp Portland was. I just don't like seeing Objectivism implicated!

Well, since OR's electoral votes are going to Osama . . .

Chris Cathcart's picture

what do you propose I do to stop this from happening?

Our enemies are rooting for

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Ditto, our enemies are rooting for this anti-American to become president, need we know more?

Comment viewing options

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