The End

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2012-10-23 02:49

Debate Four: Romney was trying to be presidential; instead he was pathetic, failing to indict The Filth for its socialism, its appeasement, and its Libya cover-up, and engaging instead in the most cringe-making, stuttering me-too-ing. A disgusting spectacle. No doubt this was the approach urged upon him by oleaginous advisers whose sole concern is not to have their candidate say anything controversial. Ooops. Now Chris Wallace has revealed it was all Romney's idea. Well, shame on him. He embarrassed himself and handed the election to The Filth, via the airheads. RIP America.


Marcus

Doug Bandler's picture

Yes, blacks have threatened to riot should Ozero lose. Once again we see how the Left is radicalizing the black underclass (with their help of course). This is something no Objectivist even comments on. That makes me angry. I give you credit for acknowledging it. Kudos to you. Its funny, Brits, Australians and Kiwis seem to be more savvy and worldly than Americans, Objectivists included.

America, land of generation airhead. America, a nation full of guileless airheads. There are exceptions of course, but not as many as in other Anglo countries. Again, why that is fascinates me.

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

It's akin to knocking someone when they're 50 because they used to hit other kids over the the head with their spade in the sandpit when they were 4.

I agree to a point. I think Christianity was never an innocent 4 year old. But I still see Christianity as a flawed system of philosophy. It became that anyway. But Islam never even reached that point. Islam is a system of war and conquest. Yes its a religion. The Conservatives are wrong to argue that it isn't. But it is a more atavistic, warlike religion. Christianity is far more sophisticated.

I'm not saying Christianity is right. It is Goblian nonsense at root. But it does have a full system of thought and a worldview including a view of the sublime. Hell, excepting Objectivism, NO secular system of thought has that. The older I get the more forgiving of Christianity I become. That will only reach a point. But Islam and modern liberalism are far greater evils than Christianity. At least to me anyway.

Terry Goodkind

Doug Bandler's picture

Jules,

I never read that series (its huge) but I have read alot of O'ist commentary on it. Apparently Goodkind became an O'ist half way in so there are some inconsistencies. But its cool that there actually exists an Objectivist J.R.R. Tolkein. And "The Imperial Army" does sound Islam-ish. I wonder if Goodkind knew enough to do that on purpose?

I like the sound of that Jules

gregster's picture

I remember the felon getting the vote too. Good stuff. Here's hoping for change.

This is interesting!

Jules Troy's picture

Well, that seems reasonable

Marcus's picture

Well, that seems reasonable

"This column has already reported on how many black Twitter users have threatened to assassinate Romney if he wins.

No, the racial fault lines in the States have become a sadly undeniable elephant in the corner of the room and I know some Americans who are genuinely worried that this will be the most divisive US election in living memory.

But while it appears that it's okay for blacks to talk about 'killing whitey' and, in another tweet 'shooting all honkies if Romney wins' the shoe most certainly does not fit on the other foot.

No, any criticism of Obama is now seen as some sort of admission that you're in the KKK.

Just ask Chicago shop owner Sam Wolfson.

Now we all know that Chicago is Obama's home turf, so it takes someone with cojones to criticise the man, but that's exactly what Wolfson has done with some anti-Obama signs in his shop.

And his reward?

Well, he has been branded a racist by some local politicians and there are now calls for him to be boycotted, as well as some more serious threats on anti-social media.

Now, is it just me, or have the rules been changed to say that anyone who finds fault with Obama is a nasty bigot while anyone who threatens to kill Mitt Romney is merely a minority expressing their own opinion?"

Business Owner Sam Wolfson's Anti-Obama Sign Called "Racist"

"The 75 year old wrote: “Romney, if you want to be president, you have to say this: ‘If I’m elected, I will not bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia.' Obama, I built this business working 7 days a week, you didn’t.”

Wolfson told WBBM Newsradio: "I’m not a racist. My wife is Spanish. Come on.”

Wolfson has since cleaned up the graffiti, but left his sign up attacking the president, who has never claimed to have built Wolfson's business or anyone else's."

Obama calls Romney a 'bullshitter'

Marcus's picture

Just wait a moment...

Marcus's picture

...Christians send out missionaries, don't they?

Muslims after invading Jerulsalem practice their own religion. Can you believe it though? The Jews were thankful to their Muslim liberators for having forced out the Roman Christians. The Christians had used their holiest site as a rubbish dump and had officially prohibited Jewish worship there.

The Muslim invaders didn't do this. They even allowed the Roman Christians to keep on praying at their holy sites.

Anyway it does seem to me that Chrisianity has two strengths from the beginning no other religion did. It was open to everyone as long as you believed in Jesus. In other words it didn't require a huge sacrifice to believe. It didn't matter what nationality or social status you had.

Secondly, probably because of the last vestiges of Roman scholarly thought was still around it was open to debate. Of course after the Church decided on a line you had to adopt it or be called a heretic and put to death. However as you know people always found more areas to question. And even within Christian dogma the Church were always allowed to argue for it by stating the arguments against it.

That arrangement probably helped to forge the notions of democracy and freedom of speech in the west.

It's akin to knocking someone

Richard Wiig's picture

It's akin to knocking someone when they're 50 because they used to hit other kids over the the head with their spade in the sandpit when they were 4.

Yes, but there is a difference in degree. Islam waged 14 CENTURIES of non-stop war. Christianity did not do that. I do think that needs to be acknowledged.

Doug

Jules Troy's picture

That is an excellent analogy "Islam is the borg"

If anyone has ever read "The Sword of Truth" novels you can also see a correlation of Islam to "The Imperial Army" absorbing and destroying every nation in it's path. 

That series was the most Objectivism ethics/morality turned into a fantasy setting I have ever come across!(yes it had magic and some flaws but for a fantasy series the message was clearly extolling the virtues of individual achievement and living for ones self as the highest of ideals.)

He very explicitly paints a grim picture how altruism is barbaric and those following that creed worship death and the nullification of the rational mind.

Marcus - true but...

Doug Bandler's picture

all religions promoted empire building by the Sword in them days

Yes, but there is a difference in degree. Islam waged 14 CENTURIES of non-stop war. Christianity did not do that. I do think that needs to be acknowledged. Plus Christianity commissioned art and music and architecture and DID produce things of beauty. Islam NEVER did that. It plundered and pilfered and destroyed. Islam is the Borg. Christianity is a flawed system of religious philosophy.

Not just Islam at war...

Marcus's picture

...all religions promoted empire building by the Sword in them days.

Religion is usually just the excuse though.

All good points

Doug Bandler's picture

Surprisingly it took the Barbarians in the west to keep the remnants of Roman civilisation going, albeit in a "dark age" form.

Yes. Thank goodness for the Germans. Its important to recognize this because there are three disparate but important elements to Western Civ:

1) the Grecko-Roman legacy

2) the Judeo-Christian legacy

3) the Germanic people and their legacy (think of what we always say about Germany - "the land of poets and philosophers")

Charles Martel - a German. Yeah, we owe those dudes alot.

Unfortunately the rot known as Christian dogma had rotted Roman civilisation to weakness, superstition and corruption.

Yeah, Christianity has its "hippy" component and it has its better side. We can also say the Christianity gave us Chauser and Aquinas and the Irish monks who preserved the knowledge of antiquity and much else. I'm mixed on Christianity. I think I'll break it down this way. There is Christian mythology which is nonsense (although entertaining) but there is the Christian philosophical and intellectual legacy. That I don't think we can dismiss so readily. I think Christianity deserves credit for that. After all without all those dead European Christian male intellectuals where would we be now? That's an important question to ask. Too many Objectivists ignore that. I don't think that's right.

That was when the Arabs were not yet really indoctrinated by a strict religion, but were still quite loose in their understanding of what Islsm was.

But the one thing they did know was that the conquest and subjugation of infidels was righteous. I mean fuck, what were ARABS doing in France, in Spain, in North Africa, on the Levantine Coast, etc, etc. Remember after one full century after Mo's death, the Arabs considered the Mediteranian to be an "Arab lake".

Islam is Islam is Islam is Islam is war. That must never be forgotten.

Well the Romans were toppled...

Marcus's picture

...by the Arabs.

That was when the Arabs were not yet really indoctrinated by a strict religion, but were still quite loose in their understanding of what Islsm was.

Unfortunately the rot known as Christian dogma had rotted Roman civilisation to weakness, superstition and corruption.

Surprisingly it took the Barbarians in the west to keep the remnants of Roman civilisation going, albeit in a "dark age" form.

Rome and the Jews

Doug Bandler's picture

The word Zealot comes from a group of Jews in occupied Palestine (as the Romans called it) who were so enraged that a statue of the Ceaser was put in their temple and made to worship it that through a bloody revolt kicked the Romans out.

The Mosaic Jews were the Muslims of their day. The Romans dealt with them through war, and by destroying their Holy city and their Holy temple. Gee, what would the Romans do with Islam and with Saudi Arabia? Operation Iraqi Freedom? I seriously doubt that.

Bernstein

Doug Bandler's picture

I like Andrew. He is very good on many issues. He too understands the Left. He once called them "psychotic" meaning that they are completely detached from reality. And he gets the epistemology of religion; ie all of its flaws. But I consider Andrew Bernstein a "generalist". He doesn't focus on specifics as in "what should be immigration policy for Muslims" or "what should American foreign policy be with regards to the Muslim world". Elan Journo does that and his stuff is basically worthless.

Jesus would have voted Democrat.

Marcus's picture

Can you believe this turned up in my inbox as a topic of discussion a couple of weeks ago?

Jesus would have voted Democrat

"October 29th, Chelsea Old Town Hall, 6:45pm How would Jesus have voted? As President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney get ready for the second presidential debate tonight, millions of undecided American voters may be asking themselves that question."

Speakers
Jesus would have voted Democrat
CONOR GEARTY
Professor of human rights law at LSE and legal correspondent for The Tablet

Jesus would have voted Republican
JAMES BOYS
US Political Expert, Kings College London & Richmond University, London

Jesus would have been a swing voter
SIR CHRISTOPHER MEYER
Former British Ambassador in Washington and author of DC Confidential

Jesus would have voted for pro-life Democrats and pro-poor Republicans
TIM MONTGOMERIE
Editor of the ConservativeHome website and Conservative activist

Jesus wouldn’t have voted for either main party
GILES FRASER
Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, and Guardian columnist.

An interesting aside...

Marcus's picture

The word Zealot comes from a group of Jews in occupied Palestine (as the Romans called it) who were so enraged that a statue of the Ceaser was put in their temple and made to worship it that through a bloody revolt kicked the Romans out.

Nevertheless the Romans returned about 2 years later and completely destroyed the Zealots. At least no other group used that name again.

However from then on the Romans refrained from forcing the Jews to pray for any other Gods other than their own.

You see? History is written by the victors.

Meanwhile, at the Objective Standard

gregster's picture

As if in response to Doug's criticisms of objectivists.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Mohammed Atta and his minions flew stolen planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, destroying the former and murdering thousands of innocent civilians. What motivated this atrocity? What filled the murderers with such all-consuming hatred that they were willing to surrender their own lives in order to kill thousands of innocent human beings? The clear answer is that these were religious zealots engaged in holy war with their primordial enemy—the embodiment of the modern secular West: the United States of America.

In their evil way, the Islamists provide mankind with some clarity. They remind us of what real religion is and looks like—not the Christianity or Judaism of the modern West, watered down and diluted by the secular principles of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment; but real faith-based, reason-rejecting, sin-bashing, kill-the-infidels religion. The atrocities of 9/11 and other similar terrorist acts by Islamists do not clash with their creed. On the contrary, they are consistent with the essence of religion—not merely of Islam—but religion more broadly, religion as such.

Andrew Bernstein

Leftist Relativism

Doug Bandler's picture

to realise that the following descriptions of the crime, uttered in Canada, would be deemed "offensive" and "culturally insensitive" in America

Which leads me to believe that it is not the egalitarianism that is the Left's worst feature but their relativism* (which is really the practical application of PoMo skepticism). Somehow I get the sense that this is all part of Kant's legacy.

*But notice, most Conservatives do not challenge this relativism. They accept it but want to tone it down. As I keep saying the only thought systems out there that challenge relativism in the West are Objectivism and a true version of OT Christian Conservatism. That's it.

Sobering ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to realise that the following descriptions of the crime, uttered in Canada, would be deemed "offensive" and "culturally insensitive" in America:

The Ontario superior court judge Robert Maranger said the evidence clearly supported the conviction.

"It is difficult to conceive of a more heinous, more despicable, more honourless crime," Maranger said. "The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honour ... that has absolutely no place in any civilised society."

In a statement following the verdict, the Canadian justice minister, Rob Nicholson, called honour killing "barbaric and unacceptable in Canada".

Doug

Jules Troy's picture

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/...

Islam a religion of peace they say..unfortunately Canada does not have the death penalty..

Yes, but...

Doug Bandler's picture

"Then he pivoted to the Nov. 6 referendum and said: 'If we don’t vote against it we are approving of these things that are worthy of death.'"

Yes there are still Christians like these. But looked at over historical time, to me it seems like Christianity is dying. Its lost its force and its power. I don't ever see it getting it back. Islam is on the rise and has potency. Christianity is on its death bed. Most of today's Christians are liberal Christians; ie Christian egalitarians. They are not kill-the-gays types.

I haven't read Peikoff's Dim yet but the American Christian dictatorship theory seems to me to be way wrong.

Never let your guard down...

Jmaurone's picture

"Yes, you're right. And as a homosexual you have a damn good reason to be fearful of all Goblianism especially Christianity. A renewed and reinvigorated OT Christianity complete with the persecution of gays *may* be a possibility. But I don't see it as the most probable scenario. Its certainly nothing that should be feared NOW."

Never let your guard down...

"Md. pastor has harsh words for gays, their supporters"

"A Randallstown pastor had harsh words for gays and supporters of same-sex marriage at a recent town hall meeting, saying those who vote yes on Question 6 are approving 'things that are worthy of death.'"

"Then he pivoted to the Nov. 6 referendum and said: 'If we don’t vote against it we are approving of these things that are worthy of death.'"

More proof

Doug Bandler's picture

Here is what the mayor of Rotterdam who is a practising Muslim had to say. Bouchra Ismaili, wrote the following in a newspaper:

"Listen up, crazy freaks, we’re here to stay. You’re the foreigners here, with Allah on my side I’m not afraid of anything. Take my advice: convert to Islam, and you will find peace."

http://heedingthetimes.net/art...

More proof of the dangers of Islamic immigration.

The Problem Of Aggregates

Doug Bandler's picture

It isnt racism it isnt hate mongering it is just stats.

This is what as known as the Problem of Aggregates. It doesn't matter that your best friend who is a peaceful, likeable Muslim who would drive 2 hours in the middle of the night to pick up your wife and son when she is stranded at a train station on a snowy night after your car broke down is moderate and would never support Jihad. When you bring them into your country in bulk they form enclaves and pressure groups and they BRING THEIR CULTURE WITH THEM. Which means THEY BRING ISLAM.

Jules stats are crucially important in understanding the danger of Islamic immigration. The only Objectivist to even acknowledge them is Ed Cline. No other mainstream O'ist has ever done so. What would Yaron Brook say about those stats? I guarantee you he would poo poo them because he is an open immigrationist. That is the weak point in the Objectivist politics.

I don't have a solution for the immigration question. But I do think that the government MUST assess the culture that any immigrant comes from and make a determination if that culture is dangerous. If it is, then NO immigrants from that part of the world are allowed. I don't think that is collectivism but the protection of individual rights. But this gets into epistemology and I admit I am not a master at the O'ist epistemology. That shit is hard.

But Jules statistical breakdown shows why NO Muslims should be allowed in Western nations. Harsh but necessary. Islam must be shamed.

Goblianity is still a danger - I agree

Doug Bandler's picture

The hellfire, gay-stoning (etc.) version of Goblianity could, however, leer up again, especially when the full disaster of Obafilth's policies comes to pass—and even if it doesn't, one should always be wary of nonsense, and not give it a free pass just because it's not currently as menacing as other nonsense.

Yes, you're right. And as a homosexual you have a damn good reason to be fearful of all Goblianism especially Christianity. A renewed and reinvigorated OT Christianity complete with the persecution of gays *may* be a possibility. But I don't see it as the most probable scenario. Its certainly nothing that should be feared NOW. Fuck, today if you're not a fan of Glee, you are considered a knuckle dragging, gay hating, white supremacist, evil, extreme right-wing-extremist, etc, etc, etc...

Your Auster reminds me of Robert Kocher, a conservative Christian who has posted here. Devastatingly accurate critiques of some aspects of our pomo-culture, but the wrong solution entirely.

Yes, even better than Kocher though. His solutions are repellent but he understands the Left and Islam better than anyone I have read. He's a Platonist to be sure but he understands the evil intentions of modern liberalism. Which leads me to:

I just can't get my head around the palpable lack of urgency Objectivists bring to their project.

I can't understand this either. Its as if Objectivists think they have centuries of a relatively peaceful stable America with which to slowly win over the culture. They don't have anywhere near that time.

"He embarrassed himself .. RIP America"

gregster's picture

A tactical decision by Romney Linz, and as women have the vote then he can't put them off. Krauthammer says Reagan did similar in 1980 and that it will beat President B.O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

As I Predicted...

Michael Moeller's picture

Once Biden blamed Intelligence for providing him with false assessments after the Benghazi incident, it would not be long before something like this leaked.

Michael

The Filth up to its old dirty tricks?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This just in, from Tea Party Nation:

Here comes the October surprise. Gloria Allred is going to Boston today to try and get a deposition involving Mitt Romney unsealed. Getting court records unsealed is an old Obama trick. Remember the first opponent Obama had when he ran for the U.S. Senate? Jack Ryan was the GOP nominee who would have destroyed Obama, except that he had a nasty divorce from Star Trek actress Jeri Ryan.

Oh, Lindsay...

Ross Elliot's picture

"I couldn't help yearning today for Newt's thunderous wrath and certitude."

...you want shot of Obama?

So do I. More than anything.

But Gingrich would have handed the election to Obama by a landslide.

Is Romney the saviour? No way. He'll simply forestall the decline, at best. You know it, and I know it. He's John Key. Management.

Incidentally

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's now obvious that Obafilth knew from the get-go the Libyan thing was perpetrated and premeditated by an off-shoot of Al Qaeda. He knew about it "in real time," to quote the latest inane buzz-term being touted repeatedly by idiots. In turn, it's now obvious the extent to which America has lost its moral compass, that his challenger won't raise the matter for fear of being thought too aggressive. Imagine, had Watergate blown up a year earlier, McGovern not challenging Nixon about it because to do so might frighten women. Now Obafilth covers up something far worse, that resulted in the deaths of Americans, and it's deemed imprudent for Romney to raise it—by Romney himself. Beyond sick.

Marcus

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rand essay: still percolating! Eye

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It sounds crazy to me too. But does he predict an explicitly Christian dictatorship or an "M2" dictatorship? M2 in his view includes Marxism.

He's talking about a Goblian dictatorship whose harbingers are "New American Christians."

This is funny, Doug. Time was when you, by your own admission, agreed with him. You and I would have disagreed vehemently, though I don't recall any participation by you in the fatwa debate. Now, I'd say you've swung too far the other way. Goblianity is not benign, and we must be eternally vigilant against the kind of theocratic-Goblian resurgence that Peikoff thinks is about to happen. No doctrine as manifestly stupid and monstrous as Goblianity can be benign. But thanks to human beings' capacity to compartmentalise (another thing Rand didn't take into account, or actively pooh-poohed, and Peikoff has overlooked in his thesis), there can be periods when vicious doctrines are relatively harmless, since their adherents don't take them seriously, and decency and reason have had a civilising influence on them in any event. The hellfire, gay-stoning (etc.) version of Goblianity could, however, leer up again, especially when the full disaster of Obafilth's policies comes to pass—and even if it doesn't, one should always be wary of nonsense, and not give it a free pass just because it's not currently as menacing as other nonsense. Your Auster reminds me of Robert Kocher, a conservative Christian who has posted here. Devastatingly accurate critiques of some aspects of our pomo-culture, but the wrong solution entirely.

We need Objectivists with his passion, to be sure. I just can't get my head around the palpable lack of urgency Objectivists bring to their project. It's why I started SOLO.

Doug

Jules Troy's picture

I agree.

O snap hide me from Ross for agreeing with Doug lol!

I also agree with stemming immigration from countries were "death to america" is chanted daily...

One only has to look at the facts

0-1% muslim population they are peaceful

1-3% they start protests(often over some perceived insult to islam)

3-10% they lobby for halaal foods to be offered at popular food spots (kfc for example)

10-20% increased violence

Anddd when a country approaches 50% it ALWAYS results in a bloodbath..

It isnt racism it isnt hate mongering it is just stats.

Goblianity of any kind sucks, Islam just happens to suck the most and the left is too blind to see it in the name of being PC..they may live to regret it when it is their own head being unserimoniously sawed off for being an apostate and or infidel..

For being the imasculated dickless wimps that they are I vote the liberal left assholes of the decade.

DIM-witted indeed

Doug Bandler's picture

I just received The Dim Hypothesis. I went straight to the last chapter and saw that Leonard is still predicting a Goblian dictatorship in America within 40 to 50 years.

It sounds crazy to me too. But does he predict an explicitly Christian dictatorship or an "M2" dictatorship? M2 in his view includes Marxism. So if he is predicting some type of reinvigorated Marxist dictatorship I might believe that, but a Christian dictatorship? No. I just don't see it. Today's Christianity is what I call New Testament Mushy Christianity. It is essentially a religious version of today's Left-Liberalism. Now if Peikoff thinks that there is some Old Testament Christian movement that is going to dominate the West, he would have to present some serious evidence. The only religion in the West that is confident and strong is Islam. Does he see an Islamic dictatorship in America?

I suspect that explains mainstream Objectivism's strange hierarchy of enemies.

Excellent way to put it. Objectivism's hierarchy of enemies *is* strange. I just can't read most Objectivist political/social commentary anymore. The Democratic party has become a criminal organization. Its beyond just philosophical corruption. The Left is openly defending Islam against the West. This is beyond "failed foreign policy". There are only a small handful of Objectivist bloggers that I have encountered that get this. Most O'ists are still debating this as if the Left were of an equal threat to the Conservatives and Obama is just a bad President. ObaFilth is treacherous and seditious, and very very dangerous. His evil is etched on his face and it is becoming more so with age.

What happened to your essay...

Marcus's picture

...on what Rand got wrong?

There are two aspects of Rand's thought that lead to DIM:

1) Her opposition to any war America was involved in during her lifetime and

2) Her opposition to Reagan simply because he was pro-life.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

But no one, not even mainstream Objectivists, explicitly challenges the Left as the Left. I've yet to see anyone from the ARI publicly state that the Left or Islam is evil. It blows my mind given Ayn Rand's books.

I just received The Dim Hypothesis. I went straight to the last chapter and saw that Leonard is still predicting a Goblian dictatorship in America within 40 to 50 years. (This was the basis for the 2006 fatwa, which Peikoff seems to have abandoned.) I suspect that explains mainstream Objectivism's strange hierarchy of enemies.

Damn Women

Doug Bandler's picture

... that Romney decided to be a limp-dick in order to appeal to women, who prefer kumbaya to confrontation. Just another reason to disenfranchise the silly creatures.

Be careful here. Ross might get angry at you. But yeah, women in general and single white women in particular hate Conservatives. But why is the Romney team trying to win over single women? Its as pointless as trying to win over blacks. Just not going to happen. He should have been bold and tried to nail down as much of the white male vote as possible. Once again the Republicans have this Peter Keating element to them. Actually, they have a Jesus Christ element to them. They keep sacrificing to those who hate them.

That's what I mean by New Testament Christian Conservatives. Basically the entire GOP are weak New Testament Christians. These types just can not fight the Left. A guy like Auster could, but he's an OT Christian. He would not be fighting for what we are fighting for. But such is my hatred of the Left, I would actually prefer a Conservative like Auster to weaklings like Bush(es), McCain, Romney, etc. Basically I just want to see someone actually fight the Left. But no one, not even mainstream Objectivists, explicitly challenges the Left as the Left. I've yet to see anyone from the ARI publicly state that the Left or Islam is evil. It blows my mind given Ayn Rand's books.

The boffins are now saying ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that Romney decided to be a limp-dick in order to appeal to women, who prefer kumbaya to confrontation. Just another reason to disenfranchise the silly creatures.

Another Great Auster Observation

Doug Bandler's picture

And note the resemblance to the Bushes, elder and younger. As I’ve often observed, both of them would only show strength and aggressiveness when their back was to the wall. As soon as the emergency was passed, they reverted to impotent arm-waving (the elder) or back-rubbing their liberal enemies (the younger). Prior to the first debate on October 3, Romney’s campaign was in the doldrums, Obama was ahead, and Republicans were deeply discouraged. Romney knew he had to do something different. So in the first debate he adopted a strong and aggressive manner completely unlike his usual self. It worked. His aggressive performance transformed the campaign and even put him slightly in the lead. But now, as a result of his very success, he has reverted to his (and most Republicans’) default mode: complacency, unaliveness, and non-aggressive niceness toward the liberal Democratic foe.

Man, this is just good shit. Auster does have a really good eye.

Moral Conviction is a liability in Airhead America

Doug Bandler's picture

Where do you suppose the polls would be if Gingrich were the nominee? I couldn't help yearning today for Newt's thunderous wrath and certitude. But I doubt Airhead America could cope. Back in 1980, with Reagan, it was different.

This is a hell of a pickle we are in as a society. Strength and conviction are liabilities. That is because the Pomo-Left has done its job of selling people on the idea that no absolutes are possible and that anyone who holds them is insane. I guess this is American Pragmatism come home to roost. What a fucked philosophy that is.

In one sense I can't fault Romney for succumbing to it. Where would a person get the moral and philosophic tools to combat it? Only two places: Old Testament Christianity or Objectivism; and they would each result in different challenges to the Left. Romney is neither an Old Testament Christian or an Objectivist. He is a modern Christian (Mormon version). They are basically "turn-the-other-cheek" wimps. They do not fight the Left with righteousness and RAGE. And thus the Left walks all over them. I'm not a Conservative but it does pain me to see the Left make fools of them.

Don't worry Linz...

Marcus's picture

...as Obsma pointed out, Romney has surrounded himself with former advisors to George W Bush. So don't expect him to behave like Obama in office.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And that highlights what has always been Romney's weakness as a candidate, political calculation takes precedence over conviction, including changing his positions if the calculation is just right. In any event, this probably did little to change the polls.

Where do you suppose the polls would be if Gingrich were the nominee? I couldn't help yearning today for Newt's thunderous wrath and certitude. But I doubt Airhead America could cope. Back in 1980, with Reagan, it was different.

I'm surprised by the BBC...

Marcus's picture

...they are sticking to their guns that this was a draw and that Romney did a clever thing by moving to the centre ground.

The BBC is usually extremely biased towards Obama.

Does this mean Romney is now more media friendly to the liberals?

Romney...

Michael Moeller's picture

Was bad, but I bet this barely moved the dial for Obama, if at all. The priority of voters will be the economy, which is why Romney got a huge swing from the first debate, and carried momentum after the second debate. If people see Obama as stronger on foreign policy, and Romney on the economy -- which is quite clear from the focus groups -- who are they going to vote for on issue priority? Romney.

He backed down on the fight over Benghazi. I would wager because he was not confident he could make the case in short debate answers. I think this was a bad choice, if not a fatal choice, that cost him the debate. True, the Obama administration has disseminated a mass of false information, and he would lie in the debate, for sure. Romney still should have made the case and let people go figure it out on the facts. He also let Obama get away with lies about his treatment of Israel. Most importantly, he did not make the case that Obama's "lead from behind" has emboldened our enemies, and has resulted in America's enemies leading from the front.

The Romney camp obviously made a tactical choice "not to lose", so he lost. Romney has better views on foreign policy, as evidenced by his Israel/Palestinian comments in the 47% video. And that highlights what has always been Romney's weakness as a candidate, political calculation takes precedence over conviction, including changing his positions if the calculation is just right.

In any event, this probably did little to change the polls.

Michael

That ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... was not only Romney's best moment, it was almost his only good one.

From the Guardian...

Marcus's picture

"Romney managed to get in some hits on Obama too, accusing him of having conducted "an apology tour" of the Middle East at the start of his presidency and this was perceived by America's enemies as a sign of weakness. "Mr President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators," he said.
The idea that Obama is an apologist for American values resonates strongly among conservatives."

Evidently ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... in these politically correct times, one is supposed to debate without scoring points. Scoring points is "disrespectful." Some folk are saying Romney won precisely because he was such a wimp; Obama lost because he was "mean." As a debater, Obama was exemplary. Unfortunately. He scored point after point after point. All the points were wrong, but Romney wasn't going to point that out.

Not even to take the case re Libya to The Filth was despicable. To fail to make the broader case that Libya illustrates was criminal.

Romney was trying not to sound like a nuke-happy lunatic. Obamarx was trying not to sound like The Anti-American President, as someone has called him. In other words, in this debate they were each trying to sound like the other. So much for Romney's claim to be offering a clear choice.

Confusion...

Marcus's picture

The Guardian called it a win for Obama.

The BBC called it a draw.

CNN had an instant poll which showed a thumping win for Obama.

Talk about confused.

However you must remember that the liberal media were saying that foreign policy was Romney's big weakness prior to the debate.

I do love ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... Mr Auster's fearless, KASS approach to Islamofilth. It's what I wanted to hear from Romney. Well, one tenth of it would have been good. Instead, a flood of weasel words. I can't stand it when he says "unfortunate" instead of "disgraceful," "tragedy" instead of "atrocity," etc. This sort of slime-instead-of-steel is what the Brandroids have contaminated Objectivism with.

Doug, I'd be interested in your response to the Elan Journo essay linked to here.

Too true

Doug Bandler's picture

The man just doesn't have it in him. He's the product of modern Christianity; meek and mild. But once again Larry Auster understands WHY Romney can't be strong:

How can Romney do any better in tonight’s expected big discussion of Benghazi than he did in his lame and pathetic treatment of the same subject in the last debate—unless he changes his entire position on Islam and Muslim democracy and the Arab Spring?

Here’s his problem. The administration lied about the nature of the Benghazi attack because Obama approves of Islam, sees himself as the defender of Islam, and cannot admit that Muslim democracy equals Muslim jihad. But Romney also does not admit that Muslim democracy equals Muslim jihad. He separates Islam from jihad. He has shockingly said that jihad is “an entirely different entity” from Islam. So he is hamstrung in pointing out the meaning of the Benghazi event and its cover-up by the administration. Yes, he is capable of pointing out that Obama said untrue things, but he is incapable of explaining why this matters and why Obama did it, and thus he is incapable of nailing Obama to the wall on the issue, because (along with most mainstream conservatives, neoconservatives, and Republicans) he shares Obama’s non-critical view of Islam.

Auster said this before the debate and he was right.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

Romney and the Republicans just will not challenge altruism or egalitarianism and both of those things MAKE YOU WEAK.

This is just so disgusting to watch. The Left is a self-righteous, emboldened evil and the Conservatives are a self-loathing, cringing specimen of weakness. Wasn't that the essence of the 'Dark Night' movies? Those movies really were pro-modern Conservatism.

Gawd

Jules Troy's picture

Here I thought he might actually have balls!

 

Comment viewing options

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