Nevertheless, Hollywood was far more patriotic back in those days - especially in time of war - and so were their audiences, none of whom would've been seen dead in a flick that downed America the way Moore does. Think of all the gutsy war films with real heroes like The Longest Day and Sergeant York, and even the more romantic ones like Casablanca and African Queen.

We need more movies like this goddammit...!!

"Unfortunately, the "moral guidance" offered back then (and now) was of the conservative Christian type, which was part of the reason Rand found HUAC a disaster."

Whose hands do you put this into?

If the organisation in question is not criminal, just ideological, how does the HUAC amount to 'naming and shaming' criminals and their organisations?

If it is criminal, 'naming and shaming' are counter-productive until after they are caught by the authorities.

Of course if 'naming and shaming' publicly can bring criminals to book then of course it should be used.

That would be why Ayn Rand in your quotes is constantly mixing her definition of 'criminal' and 'political' in order to defend herself.

(Btw, Linz, internet research shows that the communist party is/was NOT illegal: "Membership in the Communist party dropped to about 10,000 by 1957, even though it was never illegal to be a member," according to the Free Online Law Dictionary...this might be what you are thinking of: the Smith Act, which made it illegal to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing the government, in 1940?)

Thanks for that. I just seem to remember that USCP members were tried for sedition under something passed in the 50s, but must be the Smith Act you mention.

Here in NZ my grandfather, leader of the NZCP for a time in the 30s, was jailed twice under our sedition laws. If he could see me now.

Jameson:

"America had a pretty good handle on what was anti-American, executing traitors like the Rosenbergs without a second thought."

and 

"American audiences simply wouldn't have had an appetite for his tripe. That his films are today among the highest grossing documentaries of all time illustrates how badly America needs some moral guidance, for the sake of their self-preservation."

 Did America REALLY have a handle on what was "un-American?" Unfortunately, the "moral guidance" offered back then (and now) was of the conservative Christian type, which was part of the reason Rand found HUAC a disaster. And that brings us to a point I wanted to bring up: Some critics are saying that ATLAS and Rand herself would have to be brought up on charges of "treason" and subversion. It's bullshit, of course, to hear this as a argument against HUAC from "Objectivists," but I'm glad it's come up, if only to illustrate that something like HUAC in the wrong hands WOULD be a disaster (as Rand found out, just like she was against McCarthyism, but not for the same reasons as most of his enemies.) And it's a good reminder that Conservatives are NOT our friends in principle; Objectivism IS subversive to THEIR view of America. 

Some people say that Rand is a hypocrite for participating in HUAC, since her characters in ATLAS act against the government.

(Btw, Linz, internet research shows that the communist party is/was NOT illegal: "Membership in the Communist party dropped to about 10,000 by 1957, even though it was never illegal to be a member," according to the Free Online Law Dictionary...this might be what you are thinking of: the Smith Act, which made it illegal to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing the government, in 1940?)

Anyway, Rand is accused of "treason"...but that would be dropping context; the "America" of ATLAS was NOT the America she was defending. Actually, Rand and Objectivism are making the accusation the OTHER way, that it's conservatives who are guilty of treason. It's might seem ironic to read of Objectivists criticising Libertarians/Anarchists for wanting to eliminate the state while advocating the fall of the government in ATLAS, but only if it's forgotten that America "ain't what she used to be" (if she ever was....). But anyway, the point: we have to be careful in aligning ourselves with Conservative methods, if we are not to be lumped in with the morality of the other enemy...

..A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...

America had a pretty good handle on what was anti-American, executing traitors like the Rosenbergs without a second thought. Since HUAC was shut down the liberals have turned McCarthyism into a catch-cry for anti-free speech, and the rise of PCism has jellied their backbones. Scum like John Walker Lindh and Robert Hanssen, and the whole wretched Walker family spy ring should've been sent to the chair, but times have changed.

Were he producing his Sicko productions back in the 50s, Michael Moore would've slipped into a pair of stovepipe jeans without a struggle; American audiences simply wouldn't have had an appetite for his tripe. That his films are today among the highest grossing documentaries of all time illustrates how badly America needs some moral guidance, for the sake of their self-preservation.

Someone needs to start holding these pricks over the flame of Liberty's torch and question them on their activities.

So kind of ironic to see people worried about the "infringement" of free speech of "Communists" or "Islamicists" and upset when the government investigates people who are ADVOCATING theft and coercion...

Indeed. This is what I'd like Duncan to address.

And yes, Glenn, investigate AND expose!

and EXPOSE a legal organisation committed to the destruction of freedom. That's what HUAC did, and left free enterprise to choose not to hire those involved in un-American activities.

As for Michael Moore, he's a body of morbidly obese proportions committed to the destruction of freedom.

Since you mention Riggenbach, I have to mention that I was rereading "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty," which mentions IN PRAISE OF DECADENCE and Walter Block's DEFENDING THE UNDEFENDABLE, and, of course, Rothbard. 

 I never paid much attention to this article during my association with Chris Sciabarra...so now I find it ironic to be reading in this essay this quote from "Libertarian Vangaurd":

 "If we must temporarily join forces with Marxist-Leninists to fight the junta and its U.S. supporters, then so be it...A victory for the revolution in El Salvador would be a major defeat for U.S. Imperialism-the main danger to peace and liberty-right in Washington's own back yard."

 So kind of ironic to see people worried about the "infringement" of free speech of "Communists" or "Islamicists" and upset when the government investigates people who are ADVOCATING theft and coercion...(not to mention people who are quick to call this a "witchhunt" of artistic matters...as much as I disagree with Linz about his views of purely musical matters, I agree with in regards to the "cultural" aspects of genres; if you rap about gangbanging and celebrate killing in your lyrics and sing about destruction, don't fucking cry when you come under investigation when you're front page news for a club shooting or killing your girlfriend after promoting that lifestyle to your fans.)

..A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...

Linz: "But I think government has the right—nay, duty— to investigate a legal organisation committed to the destruction of freedom."
Well, I'm glad you said this, because that's our REAL issue here, is it not? Anarchism versus minarchism. THIS is the reason for the mixed views here on this thread...

Absolutely! But I'm with you, and against Duncan, Aaron, Riggenbach and others here who want to disarm government. They whom I call "anarcho-Saddamites." They'll say they're not, but: "Do not bother to examine a folly. Ask yourself what it accomplishes." What is accomplished by implementing their foolish strictures?

 No, it's not easy to draw the line...until said parties actually act on their intent, of course...I don't think anyone would call the "Mafia" party a legitimate party...

 Of course, the "Communist Party" has escaped the stigma of criminality by claiming a moral superiority that too many accept...in their case, it SHOULD be an easy matter to draw the line, except for that...

 Linz: "But I think government has the right—nay, duty— to investigate a legal organisation committed to the destruction of freedom."

 Well, I'm glad you said this, because that's our REAL issue here, is it not? Anarchism versus minarchism. THIS is the reason for the mixed views here on this thread... 

....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile.....

The CP may have been made illegal in the fifties, if I recall aright. From my communist childhood I remember the names of some of its leaders: Earl Browder, William Z. Foster, Gus Hall ... They were above board and contested elections and all for much of their history, though.

It's not easy to draw the line. Personally, in terms of an organisation's legality, I'm more liberal than Duncan. I believe any voluntary organisation based on ideas, no matter how evil the ideas, should be legally permitted. But I think government has the right—nay, duty— to investigate and keep tabs on a legal organisation committed to the destruction of freedom.

This is one point I'm stuck on myself...Is Rand claiming, as Linz said, that it wasn't illegal to belong to the Communist Party? She does write that "membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological."

 She does go on to say that "under the American law, there is no such thing as a political crime; a man's ideas do not constitute a crime, no matter what they are." 

 But she then compares the party, again, to a criminal organization...but with the added complication of the motivation of the members: "...it is totally irrelevant to Congress whether a man enters a criminal conspiracy for criminal reasons or for reasons he considers political or ideological." This is precisely where his ideas do not concern Congress at all and do not enter the question. When Congress investigates the Communist Party, it is investigating a factual matter, a criminal conspiracy, and not a matter of ideas."

I'm don't know much about HUAC, but I do find this similar to what we were discussing a while ago: at what point does a free country draw the line?

But anyway, back to Linz's summarization (and question of criteria on what constitutes a criminal party): if the Communist Party IS a criminal organization, wouldn't it be illegal to belong to it? As far as I'm concerned, it IS a criminal party...but I don't know that it's "officially" so.

But I think a good comparison here involves the communist party to the Mafia. For example, if they created/funded movies promoting crime, ("a don Corlione production") I'd cry no tears for them if they claimed their "rights" were violated if they should, as a result of their "art," come under investigation. But of course, there is no "mafia...". Same with "Communists." They want the right to advertise their ideas, but deny the existence of their allegiance. Or, they claim that the party is the equivalent to the Republican or Democratic party. But as Rand points out, that is a false analogy, as the latter two don't require initiations, card-carrying, etc., only a declaration: "Membership in the Republican or Democratic Party is an open, public matter...It commits him to nothing but an expression of his ideas at the  ballot box, and his is free to change his mind even about that. Thus, it is truly a matter of a citizen's personal ideas and convictions, nothing more." (We could argue that the Republicans AND Democrats are NOW criminal organizations, but that's for another time...) 

...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...

What then should be the criteria by which an organisation should be declared illegal?

Understand, Duncan, why I find your ostensible hard line half the time here puzzling. You have argued against private telcoms helping government eavesdrop on terrorists (called them "disgusting" in fact); you have argued in favour of a pre-announced timetable of withdrawal from Iraq (nothing like letting al Qaeda know when you're going to absent yourself); you have displayed a consistent reluctance to grant the government the right to use retaliatory force pre-emptively and indeed, clearly don't want the government proactively to acquire the information that would enable it to do so. You seem to be in Rockwellian fantasy-land.

Read Joe's quotes from Rand on the Communist Party. Wasn't illegal to belong to it, but the government had every right to know who did and what they were up to. Those were people seeking to impose a dictatorship on Americans.

You're right - I still need to put my thoughts on (virtual) paper re. the (misnamed) War on Terror. I'll get onto that.

But as far as drawing a veil of silence ... I think you mistake me. I'm not saying that should happen at all - I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the more people investigate and publicise such matters the better.

I just don't think it's the role of Government, unless a crime is being committed. When a crime is being committed, such as in this case - then it should be dealt with in a court of law.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Define excuse?

If you mean, do I think he should be prosecuted for it, then no I do not think he should - unless his movie was an explicit call for and promotion of violent Jihad, which (having never seen it) I don't think it was.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Do you mean the government should not be involved in movie-making

No, I meant it shouldn't be involved in the investigation of movie-making, except where the making of a movie constitutes a crime in and of itself.

or that it should not be involved in informing itself and its citizens about the producer's al Qaeda affiliations? (Assume for the sake of the argument that it's not a criminal offence to belong to al Qaeda.)

It should not.

If it's not a criminal offense (or an act of war) for an individual to belong to an organisation, then the Government has absolutely zero business exposing anyone's membership in it. It's none of the Government's business.

Do not mistake this as a defense of Islamism (or similar ideologies of violence and war); I have argued in another thread that it is the business of Government to identify criminal / wartime-enemy organisations and prosecute their members; I mentioned Wahabbi Islam in that thread but other groups, including Al Qaeda, would qualify.

But the Government has no business running a committee to expose law-abiding members of legal organizations.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

If Fat Bastard's anti-American film, which he happily let his Hezbollah pals distribute, recruited even one Jihadi who killed one of our guys in Iraq, would you simply excuse it as his right to free speech?

You're conflating two issues - membership in Al Qaeda (a criminal organisation) and making movies. The producer should be in jail for the former, but the latter is not a criminal act and is therefore not a matter in which the Government may properly involve itself.

Do you mean the government should not be involved in movie-making, or that it should not be involved in informing itself and its citizens about the producer's al Qaeda affiliations? (Assume for the sake of the argument that it's not a criminal offence to belong to al Qaeda.)

So you think that what we need is a Government committee to bring to the public's attention instances where Hollywood is misleading the public on key issues?

Even if it were a legitimate role of Government (which it is not) what makes you think that such a committee would have any success, given that the majority of the population believes the same lies that Hollywood is spinning? The reason for movies full of lies - whitewashing Che Guevara, promoting socialism, obfuscating Jihad - are successful is because people pay to watch them, and enjoy them.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

You're conflating two issues - membership in Al Qaeda (a criminal organisation) and making movies. The producer should be in jail for the former, but the latter is not a criminal act and is therefore not a matter in which the Government may properly involve itself.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Well, what about books then?

In the days of HUAC, movies were a major form of communication as there was no TV and no internet.

In these days of the world-wide web, feeling the need to protect the public from anti-US propaganda in 'movies' all seems quite quaint and old-fashioned.

The internet is how Obama won the US election and how Al-Qaeda broadcasts its propaganda. Wake up people!!! It's the 21st century now!!!

Hollowood did shoot itself in the wallet with every one one of the films mentioned. It appears the free market is doing its job and that the people are voting against anti-Americanism by denying their bums on the industry's seats.

Or are they?

Michael Moore personally made $21 million dollars on Fahrenheit 9/11, which grossed more than $230 million - arguably the most anti-American American-made film ever. This is a film that Hezbollah kindly offered to help distribute in the Middle East - with no objection from Moore's distributer or Moore himself. The film has been used as a recruitment tool for terrorists and has gone a long way to undermine international support for the war against the Islamofascists. If ever there was a case for sedition, then this man's actions surely fit the bill.

I think one could make a case for Moore's treason.

Not to be taken literally doesn't mean not to be taken seriously. I don't think re-instituting HUAC is practical under the present administration. Nevertheless, I do believe in this time of war America needs a Senator or two with enough balls to call these turkeys on their anti-American activities ~ with enough bellow to start the blackball rolling. It might also have the added effect of curbing the disgusting Hollywood bail out.

At the very least, Moore's lies deserve congressional attention: just as Ayn Rand railed against the lies told in the pro-Soviet anti-American films during the height of HUAC.

Thanks for those quotes, Joe.

In case Rand's words below are mistaken for some "fascist" intent on her part, here's a further explanation from the Chapter on HUAC in JOURNALS OF AYN RAND:

 "It is not the duty of Congress to inquire into anyone's ideas-but neither is it the duty of Congress to protect deceit by withholding from the public any information which may involve someone's ideas. If, in the course of an inquiry into criminal and treasonable activities, Congress reveals the nature of the political beliefs of certain men-their freedom of speech or belief has not been infringed in any manner. If, as a consequence, their employers...now decide to fire these men, that is the employer's inalienable right."

and

"Under the American system, a man has the right to hold any ideas he wishes, without suffering any government restraint for it, without the danger of physical violence, bodily injury, or police seizure. That is all. Should he have to suffer some form of private penalty for his ideas from private citizens who do not agree with him? He most certainly should. THat is the only form of protection the rest of the citizens have against him and against the spread of ideas with which they do not agree." 

....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

Then why bother mentioning HUAC at all?

The thing isn't even relevant to what you are driving at: That these morons are supporting those who hate them because they were born in America.

You accuse me of tilting at your HUAC windmill. No, I was at pains to point out that the problem isn't Hollywood. It is Washington and the Universities. I was at pains to point out that your mentioning HUAC wasn't just idiotic (if you did mean for it to be taken literally) but it was also a red herring.

And I was also at pains to point out that these movies were failures. They cost the studios a colossal amount of money. The justice you seek is coming down the turnpike in the form of a pink-slip...

It is for these omissions that I labeled your rant, a rant.

And mate - the producers, actors and directors are pretty open as to whether they're left wing or right wing; then again, if you're using a form of entertainment to shape your perception of the world - you have greater things you should be worrying about (like acquiring a bullshit detector or at least treat a movie as entertainment - and nothing more).

I think you've been reading too much Chompsky and watching too many Michael Moore movies.

So what rights will be violated exactly, assuming the surveillance has pinged them for some anti-American activity that demands their arrest?

I can see the (hypothetical) progression going something like this:

1.  A committee is formed and places writers and producers on a publicised "anti-american attitudes" list

2. Committee writes to potential publishers to inform them that people within their employ are on The List

3.  Committee issues 'voluntary requests' to publishers to be sent advance copies of future work by Identified Persons

4.  Committee lobbies for, and gets, laws requiring compulsory advance copies of future works by persons on The List

5.  Committee lobbies for, and gets, laws requiring Committee 'review' before work by Identified Persons can be published

6.  Committee decides that some of the persons on The List present a potential "clear and present danger" and places them under surveillance using terrorism laws

7.  Committee begins to request warrants to search homes of non-identified persons to help with the initial investigation of whether or not to place them on The List

8.  Committee begins to issue orders to place certain high-priority Identified Persons in custody ...

of what rights - specifically...?

Well Glenn, the hypothetical violation of our rights by a hypothetical Objectivist government's hypothetical HUAC committee.

I thought that was obvious. 

of what right, Luke?

those who want to overthrow it and subjugate me

That's a far cry from making anti-war movies.

The point I don't think you've considered is that we can't expect any government to stay within bounds such as " investigating and exposing, not banning".

If there is one thing we can count on any government to do - including a hypothetical Libz or Objectivist government - it is expand the scope and power of any ministry or committee and start violating our rights.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, etc, etc.

The Washington Times reports that actor Jon Voight is to play George Washington in an assault on anti-Americanism:

"An American Carol," a frantic satire that takes on filmmaker Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell and a host of liberals, opens Oct. 3. And Mr. Voight, indeed, plays the first president of the United States in white wig and sleek Colonial uniform, taking the Moore-inspired character to task for his lack of patriotism, his paucity of Yankee vim. It is a very Scrooge-ian exchange.

"I'm very angry about our community, about anti-American films... we should have a dialogue, especially before you take a slap at America," Mr. Voight said recently.

"We're a force for good in the world... Whenever there's a problem, who do people come to? They come to America. And does America respond? Every time," he continued. "So stop slapping America and start understanding we have to be strong and united to be safe and sane."

"What would happen if America won a great war and no one reported it? That's what's happening right now," he told a group of reporters at the convention.

"What's going on here?" Mr. Voight demanded, his eyes traveling from face to face. "Let's get our priorities straight."

If a noted movie producer is churning out the kind of anti-American crap Glenn has cited, and he's a member of al Qaeda, I'd expect, in the current context, my government to know and disclose that.

I knew you were on the home brew! Nothing to do with movies I don't like. I just expect my government in a free society to be abreast of those who want to overthrow it and subjugate me. I repeat what I said to Duncan earlier:

but it [the government] has no legitimate cause to investigate the exercise of free expression (say, in the production of movies).
Yes it does, if the point of those movies is to overthrow the government of a free society and replace it with dictatorship. Again your moral equivalence slip is showing. Remember, we're talking investigating and exposing, not banning. NOT BANNING!! Got it??!! How is this inconsistent with the proper function of government, except in your Saddamite universe?

One from a couple years back:

“Valley of the Wolves: Iraq” starring Billy Zane and Gary Busey.

“American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother. They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv.”

 Perigo wants to set up committees to 'expose' movies that he doesn't like.

SOLO has officially jumped the shark.

I've just come across a far more considered article than my own, by Govindini Murty who's made a list of anti-war films hurting America that I'll add to the one I've started. He begins his piece with a line I wish I'd written:

"If Tokyo Rose were alive today, she wouldn't get jail time - she'd get a three-picture deal."

He continues:

"Hollywood's enforced ideological conformity is obvious: "In the Valley of Elah," the Tommy Lee Jones vehicle now in theaters, and "Redacted," directed by Brian DePalma and set for release later this month, both depict American troops in Iraq as murderers and psychopaths... "Lions for Lambs," featuring Robert Redford and Tom Cruise, depicts a venal Republican senator risking the lives of American troops in order to advance his political career. "Stop Loss," starring Ryan Phillippe, posits that the only noble American soldier is the one who refuses to serve."

Disturbingly, he also notes worthy movie projects that have failed to get off the ground:

"Talented filmmakers like Cyrus Nowrasteh (ABC's "The Path to 9/11"), Emmy Award-winning screenwriter Robert Avrech ("Body Double"), novelist and screenwriter Andrew Klavan (Clint Eastwood's "True Crime") and actor Robert Davi ("Profiler") have all tried to get pro-war projects made these past three years, and have all been turned down by the Hollywood system.

Even superstar Bruce Willis has tried to get a film made about the famed "Deuce Four" battalion serving in Iraq - but has gotten nowhere with the studios."

And concludes:

"The resulting ideological conformity is a disaster both for America and for the art form of film. Art must serve truth if it is to be compelling. When Hollywood systematically muddies distinctions between freedom-loving Americans and terrorists, it's no wonder the resulting films resemble the tedious "Rendition" - instead of enthralling classics like "Casablanca."

It's hard to tell good stories when you equivocate about tyranny - and even harder to get the public to go along with it."

As Marcus was able to deduce, Robert, this was not meant to be taken literally. The last line of the Op-Ed should have been your clue. Indeed a Pelosi-led HUAC would be a total nightmare, which is why my piece concludes anachronistically.

However, since this is a fantasy let's elect the ideal HUAC II and open it up to members of Hollywood, starting with Rudy Guiliani, Ron Paul, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Jon Voight, and Arnold...

First accused: Michael Moore.

Consider Rand's take on HUAC:

"What they were demanding was the right to lie [the Communists]. People didn't want to deal with underground communists. THey weren't so openly, and they resented the fact that the government demanded they state under oath whether they were members of the Communist Party or not. That is not interfering with their freedom. There is no freedom to deceive people. If you are being punished by the government for being communist, that's different. But if private employers don't want to employ communists-if they, properly, consider them enemies of this country...the employee has no right to lie about it."

 .....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile......

Ugly press release. Utter crap dressed up as KASS.

Why?

According to Jameson, these celluloid flops are anti-American propaganda. He claims that their creation is, in essence, seditious.

They are indubitably anti the Global War on Terror. That this makes them seditious is an intellectual jump that is not only beyond the ability, but probably beyond the conscious desire, of the film's makers. Glenn would need more evidence than is presented here to prove that these films were a premeditated attempt to secure the destruction of America (as opposed to the destruction of George Bush and the Republican party).

If the accused had the wit, they could defend themselves by showcasing the apparent futility of the Iraq war. They could plausibly point to the fact that the war in Iraq has opened the door to the formation of an Islamic Republic of the type that would be as despotic and dangerous as Saddam ever was. They could also plausibly point to Henry Paulson and ask why he is not in the dock beside them. His actions have done more verifiable harm to America than their a half dozen hours of awful cinema. As Revolutionary war veterans would testify (if they could), it is difficult to fight a war without the money to buy bullets and cannon balls -- let alone the authority to use them as required (The White House, not Hollywood set the Rules of Engagement that the US military labor under).

Which is another way of saying that I'd like to see bigger fish fry (at my expense) before I'd voluntarily authorize a tax-payer funded circle jerk called the HUAC.

Linz and Glenn will no doubt point out that the enemy is Islamic in nature and these movies exonerate it. Well properly identifying the enemy is a leap that neither US government nor the US professional intellectual community has made. It would be hypocritical then, to persecute Hollywood Bimbettes for a similar intellectual obfuscation.

Rand correctly observed that the real culprits here are the professional intellectuals. Hollywood actors are professional clowns in a celluloid circus. Prosecuting them is like amputating your running nose in order to treat your cold. Let us concern ourselves with the real enemy!

Besides, the idiots who make this trash are succeeding in bringing their own industry to its financial knees. Americans are not watching this crud. And in the end the invisible hand will deliver judgment far more justly and swiftly than any government would.

On to the nature of sedition. What exactly is it? It is (in essence) any action that undertakes the overthrow of the government. The Founding fathers were seditious, and many of those who signed the declaration of Independence paid a price for their sedition.

Think on that.

Then show me one US government official, or even a minority of US citizens who could tell the difference between good sedition (e.g. the Declaration of Independence) and bad sedition (e.g. the Communist Manifesto). Such is the nature of Air-head America.

Sedition too is a nefarious concept. At issue is whether the 'seditious' ideal is pro or anti-freedom is it not? There again we hit an impasse. The enemy here has yet to be correctly identified by either the American people or the government. Why is this? Because neither party is capable (if the current Bailapalooza is anything to go by) of recognizing the difference between pro- and anti-freedom actions, despite the fact they have a step by step, plain English guide provided for them 230-odd years ago.

And it is into such hands that Glenn (in all seriousness it seems) wants to place a scale with which to judge free speech and a sword with which to punish that part of free speech with which he disagrees. Why? Because some piss poor, boring, badly written piece of celluloid propaganda was made, at a colossal loss, by some lefties in the Hollywood establishment.

Now given that the US government can't properly see the enemy that is confronting us, how can any commentary on the nature this war be declared seditious?

Now suppose that everything I have said above is wrong. Show me one instance where a club or a jail has ever successfully suppressed an idea. And a club is the nature of HUAC after all. You wish to borrow the government's club and use it on these people with whom you disagree, No? I would argue that government suppression of an idea only strengthens it, legitimizing it. So I should ask you Glenn: is this your goal?

This is an emergency situation you say!

Its not me that you need to convince of that. You need to convince the people who voted for the current state of affairs.

Voters who elected the politicians into whose hands you are about to place the HUAC club. The same politicians who think that you can reason with Mullahs. Politicians who think that you can print your way out of a recession. Politicians who think that positive rights should be written into the Constitution of the USA.

Glenn and Linz, if your goal was the immediate destruction of the USA, I could not think of anything more effective than letting any administration -- but this administration in particular (think Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank!) -- the ability to regulate freedom of speech. (And need I point out the irony of the situation given the justification Glenn gave for supporting National in the last NZ election?)

I wouldn't trust these bastards with my lunch money, let alone my right to free speech. They have no understanding of either and no inkling of the need to.

The faster this ill-thought out and immature rant is consigned to the dust bin, the better.

...I would not trust Government or Parliament to set up a HUAC. Imagine the Democrats get their claws sunk into that one and use it to promote their own ends?

Anyway, I did not take Glenn literally.

'The Day After Tomorrow' is years old. I have never seen it, but from what I have read, it did not convince anyone that the planet is in danger. In fact, it had the opposite effect because it was so unbelievable.

At the moment, the current series of spooks is excellent.

Last week, the episode was about a major UK bank going bankrupt and consequently threatening to cause economic disaster. However, the heroine 'spook' of the story discovers just in time that the chairman of the bank is secretly a 'communist' who is orchestrating this on purpose to discredit 'capitalism'. She cleverly thwarts his plans even though he tries to convince her to join him.

This weeks episode was about a secret nuclear program that Russia is trying to get information about in order to embarrass the UK government. It turns out that Russia has a 'moll' inside the MI-5 agency for the last 30 years. The double-agent cleverly manipulates the Government into thinking that the head of the MI-5 department is the one working for Russia and he is consequently subjected to torture to reveal the info that the Russians want in the first place...I wont give away the ending.

But I still think that having the Government investigating and exposing bad ideas is in itself a bad idea,

That's because you make excuses for bad ideas, such as Islamofascism. [Edited to add: if this is unjust, you've yet to explain why, after promising to do so months ago!]

Government's role is to protect individual rights. That means exposing those who intend to violate individual rights. You'd rather a veil of silence be drawn over such filth while it pursues its agenda with impunity. Fine. Live with it. Die by it.

I don't think what people say - or write, or act - is any of the Government's business whatsoever unless it constitutes a crime. The Government is there to protect citizens from the initiation of force & fraud, and bad ideas constitute neither (unless they are presented in such a way as to constitute incitement to violence - at which point the individuals doing so may properly be investigated).

Investigating and exposing bad ideas should be the job of journalists, authors, and Universities - not taxpayer funded committees. Hell, what you're talking about is really a Ministry of Ideas, a sort of modern-day taxpayer funded Inquisition that, instead of torturing and burning people, publicy proclaims them to be Wrong, and Very Bad People.

I realise that what Glenn is advocating is not the banning of bad ideas. But I still think that having the Government investigating and exposing bad ideas is in itself a bad idea, and in fact is an idea worthy of the very people expressing the bad ideas that you'd want the HUAC investigating.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

but it [the government] has no legitimate cause to investigate the exercise of free expression (say, in the production of movies).

Yes it does, if the point of those movies is to overthrow the government of a free society and replace it with dictatorship. Again your moral equivalence slip is showing. Remember, we're talking investigating and exposing, not banning. NOT BANNING!! Got it??!! How is this inconsistent with the proper function of government, except in your Saddamite universe? Not wanting to bully you, and timorously aware of your previous umbrage. Please, just address the question.

I say again, Duncan, we're at war. And never before has Hollywood had such a far-ranging influence on public perceptions. As far as I'm concerned there’s nothing wrong with calling them on their anti-American practice, and to influence the pro-American studios to start hiring those that can help with the war against Islamofascism and the anti-human green movement.

I agree wholeheartedly, but since when was it the job of the Government to run - and the taxpayer to pay for - such committees?
The Government may legitimately investigate membership in criminal organizations (as I have stated would be appropriate in the case of Wahhabism), and it may legitimately investigate incitement to violence or other similar crimes, but it has no legitimate cause to investigate the exercise of free expression (say, in the production of movies).

Finally, even if you don't conceed that from a principled perspective the Government shouldn't run anything like the HUAC, have you considered the pragmatic aspect - that American values today are predominantely socialist, collectivist, anti-capitalist, environmentalist and mystic?  The American people voted for Obama in full knowledge of what he is & what he represents.  What sort of un-American activities do you think a committee he & his cronies set up would investigate?  Romanticising Islamic fundamentalism?  Or speaking out against the AGW myth?  I can tell you where I'd put my money.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

... rather like South Park. Often on the money, but indiscriminately cynical. Pomowank.

As for The Day After Tomorrow I pulled out of it right at the start when the cute guy was going underwater. I could see where it was going. Turns out the cute guy was Jake Gyllenhaal. Even so, I don't regret pulling out ... in this particular context.

right up until the episode with the "Ayn Rand School for Tots".

Yes, Joe, voluntary self-policing is always better, but when you have an epidemic of stupidity sometimes you have to call for an emergency quarantine.

[EDIT: factual error in the original post - they were burning books in the New York Public Library]

 The latest episode of THE SIMPSONS, where Homer suspected Bart's new Muslim friend's family of being terrorists. The conclusion? Only stupid oafs like Homer Simpson suspect Muslims of being terrorists.

 This is why Rand supported a VOLUNTARY self-policing of anti-American ideas in Hollywood, nothing wrong with that...

....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

Ayn called HUAC "futile" and "nothing but disappointments."; she did not call it unconstitutional. She believed the committee's investigation of communist influences was an appropriate role of government, saying, "I certainly don't think it's any kind of interference with anybody's rights or freedom of speech."

By all accounts she was pleased the hearings raised the issue in a public forum and supported the right of private enterprise to limit the Red's influence in the world's most powerful medium: "The principle of free speech requires... that we do not pass laws forbidding [Communists] to speak. But the principle of free speech... does not imply that we owe them jobs and support to advocate our own destruction at our own expense."

Ayn went as far as to 'dob in' the makers of the pro-Soviet propaganda film, Song of Russia, calling the anti-American content “blasphemy.”

In the full transcript of her role at the hearing, which I’ve linked at the start, she defined Communist propaganda as “anything that sells people the idea that life in Russia is good and that people are free and happy...” The two films I’ve mentioned above are not necessarily the best examples of anti-American propaganda – they just happen to be two films I saw in one week that made my blood boil – but they certainly qualify as stepping stones to America’s self-destruction.

I say again, Duncan, we're at war. And never before has Hollywood had such a far-ranging influence on public perceptions. As far as I'm concerned there’s nothing wrong with calling them on their anti-American practice, and to influence the pro-American studios to start hiring those that can help with the war against Islamofascism and the anti-human green movement.

HUAC was charged with investigating suspected threats of subversion or propaganda that attacked "the form of government guaranteed by our Constitution." I see nothing inconsistent with freedom in that objective. If there's a concerted effort to overthrow the institutions of freedom and replace them with dictatorship, it's absolutely fine by me for the government to be on to it and to expose it, as long as there's no attempt to ban ideas or the expression thereof. HUAC originally focussed on fascists and the KKK. Fair enough. Nowadays, however, such a committee would have to focus seriously on the American government itself, as well as Islamofascism, eco-fascism and the like.

"But the lack of a spoken solution to the problem of Islam ..."

The solution, if you care to re-read the many posts written on this blog that offer it, is for the billion or so moderate Muslims (if in fact that is the number) to start hauling their extremist brethren across the coals repeatedly and consistently enough to make it clear that they have to start taking a 21st century view of their Holy Book. Only when their respected mullahs start standing up to the Jihadi and declare their Jihad a false war, will we start to see a paradigm shift in extremism.

Until then, my friend, it's fucking war.

Please cite the paragraph, sentence or word that led you to conclude this:

"I honestly don't give a shit how you can rationalize to yourselves that hating every Muslim is alright."

Im going to correct myself and say that witch-hunt mentality isnt the right term. But the lack of a spoken solution to the problem of Islam and the growing hatred of it leaves the impression that everyone is just afraid to say "Kill em all!"

Read between the lines of any thread discussing Islam and it's not hard to see what I mean

What the fuck? I saw this article linked on NRT and assumed that I/S was willfully misrepresenting a SOLO PR as he so often willfully misrepresents Libertarianism and Objectivism in general.

But no, he's right: here is a SOLO presser arguing for the reinstatement of the House Un-American Activities Commission.

Glenn, I fear that your time working for the National Socialists has somehow damaged your previously fine judgement. Are you really claiming that what America needs is a Government committee interrogating American citizens over what they choose to say, film or write?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Before I even get bombarded with arguments against what I said: Yes, I understand the false sympathy it probably intended to create, I understand that the torturing of an innocent man probably hasn't happened, I know that they took an extreme and fictional circumstance and made it seem like it goes on now, and I really don't need to see people tell me on this post how it's pretty much inevitable for the word of the Koran to turn to violence like it does. Just don't deny that there are always exceptions, and accept that parts of this forum have gained witch-hunt mentality

"accept that parts of this forum have gained witch-hunt mentality" Give me some ammo before you get bombarded

Before I even get bombarded with arguments against what I said: Yes, I understand the false sympathy it probably intended to create, I understand that the torturing of an innocent man probably hasn't happened, I know that they took an extreme and fictional circumstance and made it seem like it goes on now, and I really don't need to see people tell me on this post how it's pretty much inevitable for the word of the Koran to turn to violence like it does. Just don't deny that there are always exceptions, and accept that parts of this forum have gained witch-hunt mentality

I understand the frustration that comes with viewing this idiocy but free speech is something I will always stand by, no matter how utterly stupid people can be. If a person watches those films and can't figure out the moral and logical errors that is their own fault. Anti-American themes or not, the action of making any movie with any theme is something VERY American in itself. That being said the lesson of the first movie sounds like something everyone here should pay the fuck attention to. Remember that blind intolerance and blind tolerance are both ignorant and dangerous. I honestly don't give a shit how you can rationalize to yourselves that hating every Muslim is alright. I've seen first hand that there are Muslims who view their religion in a way that most Christians here in the US do, an attitude that is basically, "Yeah, so what?" For everyone here on the trip that everyone Muslim is guilty by association go watch "Heavy Metal in Baghdad" if you want to see a Muslim really fucking hate the result of fundamentalist violence find the part where the bands practice space gets blown to shit. They don't give two shits about what side of the fight wants what, they just want to LIVE. Like everyone of us all they want to do is go about their lives without having to worry about getting caught in a crossfire on their way home from a job. Let alone being able to live somewhere without preconceptions of what they are

Submitted to Real Clear Politics go there now to vote for the article. Unfortunately you can't link directly to the SOLO submission, only the "reader's articles" page, so you may need to search for it.

10 votes gets the SOLO submission bumped to the front page and drives traffic back to here.

You need to register to vote, if you haven't already done so you can register here.

This is the reason why I gave up watching movies long ago; its the same crap over and over again from out of touch long winded pseudo intellectuals. The worse part is just how uncritical and consuming the public are - when was the last time you heard a viewer go, after watching a movie, state "what a load of shit"? I've never seen it happen, and given the sorry state of our education system and the intellectual bankruptcy of the politicians voted in, things aren't going to change anytime soon unfortunately.