The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Max Eichelberger]

No one would confuse me with an Objectivist, so on matters of 'purity,' I'm not a good consult. However, as a random Joe off the street; I like this site more than that other, silly, one.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Lindsay Perigo is extremely unlikely to act on any of his calls to "take out" Barack Obama, et al.

So I would agree that, based on his public utterances, he should not be barred from entering the United States.

Robert,

I agree with you in practical terms. Perigo and nada are just about the same in influence over here. (Except maybe some fruitcake or other getting inspiration from him.)

In legal terms, I have to check the statutes. I believe it is illegal for someone within the borders of the United States to publicly incite others to murder the President. And those who do this outside the country are denied entrance.

If that is the law, I, personally, have no problem with Perigo not being allowed into the USA anymore. He knows exactly what he is doing and he is making his choices.

Besides, I intensely dislike bigoted hate mongers. The USA has enough as it is. We don't need another.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is what I came up with on a simple Google search. The Cornell University Law School's edition is the simplest for now, but there are many others:

US CODE

TITLE 18

PART I

CHAPTER 41

§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms "President-elect" and "Vice President-elect" as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase "other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President" as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

I don't know about USA visa laws for foreigners who do this on the Internet. I also don't know if Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's utterances constitute a full threat against the President in the understanding of USA authorities. My guess is that they do since it is evident from Perigo's writings that he would be proud if someone were influenced by his incitement to murder President Obama.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Well, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if his name shows up on blacklist sometime.

[Alfonso Jones]

Well, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if his name shows up on blacklist sometime.

Or if he gets "randomly selected" for the extra-special search they do in the private room.

Bill P

[Selene]

Well, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if his name shows up on blacklist sometime.

Or if he gets "randomly selected" for the extra-special search they do in the private room.

Bill P

I don't know, he might get some erotic selfish pleasure from a full cavity search!

[tjohnson]

don't know, he might get some erotic selfish pleasure from a full cavity search!

As Seinfeld would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that".

[9thdoctor]

I don't know, he might get some erotic selfish pleasure from a full cavity search!

I fear Adam hasn’t read enough Jabba. The Hutt’s strictly a “top”, and likes to seduce straight men to “chew his pillow” or some such expression of his. In case imagination fails:

[Selene]

I don't know, he might get some erotic selfish pleasure from a full cavity search!

I fear Adam hasn't read enough Jabba. The Hutt's strictly a "top", and likes to seduce straight men to "chew his pillow" or some such expression of his. In case imagination fails:

Read no Jabba other than one or two paragraphs. However, it was worth it to get that icon lol.

By the way, it just came over the radio that a woman was arrested in Hawaii for making a phone threat against the First Lady.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Selene

[Robert Campbell]

Besides, I intensely dislike bigoted hate mongers. The USA has enough as it is. We don't need another.

I suspect that Lindsay Perigo's incitements fall into somewhat of a grey area under current law.

But we surely don't need to import any more nasty bigots into the United States.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the start of the back-pedal from Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo:

I note that sundry sanctimones are disputing my view that one has the right to take out despots.

The rest of that post is a disgusting attempt to dress it up to insinuate that he didn't say what he said.

Let's say it clearly since he will not. Perigo did not recant his former post calling for the murder of President Obama. Thus it is reasonable to say that he is judging President Obama to be a despot. And he is claiming that his judgement gives him a "right" to murder, or preach the murder of, Obama.

I claim he has no such right.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

No, of course Lindsay Perigo isn't retracting his call for someone to "take out" Barack Obama.

He has frequently called Barack Obama "Obamalini" (Benito Mussolini ruled as a dictator) and "Obamadinejad" (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called out the goons to suppress protests after a blatantly rigged election).

He is now claiming that votes of a majority against Democrats in Congress, or against Obama when he runs for reelection, are no more likely to take effect than the votes of a majority against Hugo Chávez or Robert Mugabe.

I.e., Obama is a despot and Perigo wants him taken out.

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

Here is the start of the back-pedal from Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo:

I note that sundry sanctimones are disputing my view that one has the right to take out despots.

The rest of that post is a disgusting attempt to dress it up to insinuate that he didn't say what he said.

Let's say it clearly since he will not. Perigo did not recant his former post calling for the murder of President Obama. Thus it is reasonable to say that he is judging President Obama to be a despot. And he is claiming that his judgement gives him a "right" to murder, or preach the murder of, Obama.

I claim he has no such right.

Michael

I think that Perigo is so used to posting outrageous outraged posts that he long ago forgot that people might take him seriously: first and foremost he is a buffoon who has forgotten that sometimes it is necessary to be something other than a buffoon.

But New Zealand is at least (in terms of liberty) as bad off as the United States. If he really believes that events have reached the point where revolution is necessary, why isn't he fomenting one among the Kiwis?

Mankind has been suffering evil and not righting itself for far too long: way beyond the point that "prudence" would require, way beyond the point that produced the above document. The American government is at war with its people. The people have the right to throw it off, as they did back then. The fact that they won't, does not stop me stating my view that they should (which is my view, not any kind of SOLO party line, let alone any Objectivist party line). Yes, they still have recourse to the ballot box, as do the citizens of Zimbabwe and Venezuela, but the vote is now an instrument of the despotism. I hope against hope that the ballot box will suffice, but when numbers are able to validate the violation of rights then the vote is part of the problem.

BTW, Robert, I think he doesn't mean there that Obama and the Democrats would rig elections in the style of Chavez; I think he is referring to the "tyranny of the majority", where even a free and fair election will not result in regaining liberty because the majority is voting against liberty.

Side note to Michael: I would suggest not using terms like "Objectivist Liar and Hater"; they are, to put it simply, sheer Perigoisms.

Jeffrey S.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey S,

Lindsay Perigo has, at times, either called for a revolution in New Zealand, or berated those around him for not starting one.

Robert C

[9thdoctor]

The rest of that post is a disgusting attempt to dress it up to insinuate that he didn't say what he said.

He’s now trying to equate “taken out” with the phrase “throw off such Government” from the Declaration of Independence. If there was any ambiguity in his original line “taken out, as Hitler should have been”, he doesn’t make an explicit objection to it being interpreted as incitement for assassination. Very weasely. He’s stuck though, if he retracts, there goes his KASS, but he can’t stand his ground, so the best he can do is wriggle. He now adds “site-closers” to “book burners” and “speaker banners” as his charges against his critics. What facts give rise to these epithets? Rhetorical question, let’s not belabour the obvious.

If an Islamic cleric wrote what Jabba did, and he was then denied entry to the US, would anyone find it objectionable? Is it the function of whichever government body that investigates threats (CIA, FBI) to decide that since he’s a Rand-fan, he doesn’t mean what he writes? Let’s see, Rand = libertarian, Oklahoma bomber = libertarian, and what’s with this Ragnar character anyway? Or do we follow Greybird, who seems to think the government shouldn’t proactively investigate threats on free speech grounds.

Jabba’s droolings could get us all tarred, like Peikoff’s Dr. Strangelove impression on O’Reilly did. In this context I’d say it’s a good thing O’ists have a reputation for schisms.

I would suggest not using terms like "Objectivist Liar and Hater"; they are, to put it simply, sheer Perigoisms.

Liar and Hater are very plain and unambiguous adjectives, Perigoisms are more like Michael Sewer Smelly, Nambpla-Campla and Sister Jeffrina, the difference is obvious to me. The degree of childishness is probably the biggest differentiating factor. Now why MSK puts Objectivist into the mix, he'll have to say.

[Greybird]

I'm getting tired (from years of either lurking or posting) of the constant petty, vicious sniping going in both directions.

Well, that's simple. Don't read. Don't post. Start your own site if you want to. I'm not going to change. Nobody's forcing you to hang around.

Responding to these, in order: I find a great deal of good reading here (and over there), despite the mutual sniping. I'd rather be able to respond to some of it (registering both here and, more recently, over there). I wouldn't relish the aggravation, and do appreciate your being willing to take on the time, effort, and expense (as I do with Perigo). I don't expect you to change, yet I don't have to like or agree with what you may say, either (or Perigo).

And I didn't want any silence on my part leaving others to make unwarranted inferences as to my "hanging around." My posting over there doesn't make me any sort of participant in "hate," as you've unfairly characterized that site. My posting over here doesn't make me one of the "Brandroids," as Perigo has unfairly tagged this one. I'm my own variegated person, and so is Perigo, and so are you.

[Greybird]

There's some silly stuff posted on OL — granted. But have you seen the owner of this site post statements that the President of the USA should be killed? What's the most outrageous or borderline criminal thing you have seen by the owner?

MSK has done none of this, from what I've seen. I'm not equating him with Perigo. I don't want anyone to draw such an inference. They're individuals. I don't know enough to try to make long-distance, inevitably faulty, moral judgments — I'm not a Leonard Peikoff. I do know that MSK responds far more reasonably in public.

I can't say that this site and SOLO Passion are really commensurable, except in the genus of "Objectivist-oriented Websites," where OL is far superior in content and discussion climate. (My posting hundreds of times here, and a handful there, ought to be an indicator of how I see that.)

[...] Can you provide the examples which you view as comparable, if you view there as having been comparable instances at OL to the one Michael has just quoted?

I don't hold such a view. OL has, generally, been far more civil, but I don't read all of either site.

I only spoke, two pages back, of two things: I don't agree with MSK that Perigo is running a "hate site." And Perigo's comments should not be actionable under law, in any society that is even tenuously libertarian.

... I'm going to have to mention one element, though, that arose on the previous page, after the posts to which I responded above. Some are choosing to make speculations and connections between elements of Perigo's sexuality — or what they believe it to be — and statements in this snipe-fest.

That is entirely improper, and it doesn't belong in a rational discussion. (Outside of Perigo's doctor's or analyst's office.) Even rants should be rational, despite their higher emotional quotient.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't expect you to change, yet I don't have to like or agree with what you may say, either...

. . .

My posting over there doesn't make me any sort of participant in "hate," as you've unfairly characterized that site...

Steve,

We are in total agreement here. And in terms of not liking what I say, you are entirely correct to express yourself (as am I).

Apropos, I still characterize Solo Passion as a hate site. All too often murder (both individual and mass), bigotry, etc., are preached there as being from an Objectivist orientation. (And as is typical with this brand of bullying, the "Objectivist" part is denied once things get too hot for comfort. Then the murder, bigotry, etc., parts are put through doublespeak.)

Like all hate sites, there are parts that are not devoted to hatred. But that means nothing to my appraisal of Solo Passion as a hate site. Even Hitler liked great music. The hatred and evil that are openly and often preached over there are the essential components that characterize my evaluation.

Just because you, Steve, post on a hate site, I, personally, do not conclude that you share in the Solo Passion brand of bigotry and hatred. I cannot say others think as I do since this is a public hate site and anyone can read it at any time. It's simply a matter of fact that people too often jump to conclusions, whether they are correct or not, and whether anyone likes it or not. If guilt by association exists as a rhetorical device for smearing others, that is because it works, especially in a world where there is a glut of information and people habitually skim.

I may not like that fact, but I would be foolish to ignore it just because I don't think it is the best manner of evaluating someone. In the public arena, if I hang out with haters, some (or many) people are going to judge me as one of them.

I am not suggesting that you (or anyone) refrain from posting there. I am suggesting that you (and others) be aware of a bigger picture. But looking at that consideration is entirely up to you.

I, myself, used to post on Solo Passion. I am fully aware that, as an easily identifiable fact, I used to post on a hate site. I often objected to the hatred, but I still posted on a hate site.

Since I did that, I find it useful (through my branding efforts) to make sure people understand that I do not agree with the bigotry, hatred and murder openly and often preached on Solo Passion.

I run a site identified with the word "Objectivist" in the title. So my efforts at distancing myself from that crap have to be greater than if I were simply a poster.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is an excellent undeniable example of what I am talking about:

William Scherk posted the following on Thu, 2009-12-24 09:04:

Here is Lindsay with an earlier mistimed and misfired outburst: "I devoutly hope Obama is shot and hung upside down by liberty-lovers (as opposed to communists) before he gets the chance to win office." And here is Lindsay backing away from that devout hope:

I retract and repudiate my statement that he deserves the fate of Mussolini even before he's been elected.

Good sense then. Good sense now?

Here is Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's almost immediate response on on Thu, 2009-12-24 09:10 (just look at the time stamp):

I retract and repudiate my statement that he deserves the fate of Mussolini even before he's been elected.

Good sense then. Good sense now?

Nope. He got elected.

Is there any room for doubt that Solo Passion is a hate site? That's the site owner preaching.

"Nope. He got elected."

And that's that. Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo believes that if a person is elected to the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America and disagrees with him (Perigo), that is reason enough to preach the murder of such President.

That is thinking for loons, not Objectivists.

Incidentally, people who use the bigot's epistemology (like Perigo) loathe the system of checks and balances and mostly try to pretend that it does not exist. The system of checks and balances disrupts their Chicken Little "Gloom and Doom" squawking by making the system extremely hard to change by any one person, thus making the system work within a margin of flexibility and balance.

I will give the Chicken Little bigots one point. It is a lot easier to murder a human being than to work within that system. In that system you have to convince many people who share power, not just one person. And convince them by persuasion and reasoned arguments. Chicken Little bigots hate that. They want obedience and they want it now.

The joke's on them, though. Even if they do murder, they will never get the change that they murder (and/or preach murder) to get. The checks and balances system keeps the pendulum swinging and life goes on.

Just like it did with all our Presidential assassinations in the USA.

Shame on the haters (like Perigo) who preach murder.

Shame on them.

Michael

[Max Eichelberger]

What makes a hate site, a "hate" site?

Can you really be against one, solitary, individual and be deemed a hate site?

That said, I largely agree. Objectivism isn't here to channel the frustration of tea-party "Libertarians."

[Mikee]

Hmmm. Is it wrong to advocate the "Supertanker Solution"? That is, take all the liberal politicians, load them on a supertanker, take it out into the Pacific Ocean and sink it into the Marianas Trench.

I guess it wouldn't take a supertanker, there's only a few hundred of them. When I first came up with the idea I wanted to take all the bureaucrats and lawyers too, but I guess I've mellowed with age.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Areopagitican,

I myself happen to be a Tea Party libertarian.

The difference between Tea Party kind of thinkers and more traditional political advocates (like from Europe) is that Tea Party folks generally model themselves after our Founding Fathers. Note that after our Founding Fathers threw the bums out, they did not try to conquer England. The more traditional political advocates have "traditionally" beheaded their kings and conquered each other if a strong change was in the popular winds.

I do not consider Perigo as a Tea Party libertarian. I consider him to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. His thing is personality cult, lording over his tribe, preaching hatred and violence, and trying to damage little old ladies (literally).

His tribe believes as he does. For example, several have posted "nuke 'em all" and talk about it later kind of views regarding the killing of innocent people. There's a lot of other stuff like that over there. So yes, Solo Passion is a hate site.

Mike E,

Liberal politicians? Er... You sure know how to tempt a guy...

Michael

[Max Eichelberger]

Areopagitican,

I myself happen to be a Tea Party libertarian.

The difference between Tea Party kind of thinkers and more traditional political advocates (like from Europe) is that Tea Party folks generally model themselves after our Founding Fathers. Note that after our Founding Fathers threw the bums out, they did not try to conquer England. The more traditional political advocates have "traditionally" beheaded their kings and conquered each other if a strong change was in the popular winds.

I do not consider Perigo as a Tea Party libertarian. I consider him to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. His thing is personality cult, lording over his tribe, preaching hatred and violence, and trying to damage little old ladies (literally).

His tribe believes as he does. For example, several have posted "nuke 'em all" and talk about it later kind of views regarding the killing of innocent people. There's a lot of other stuff like that over there. So yes, Solo Passion is a hate site.

Michael

I did not mean to insult your political persuasion Michael, I just have a habit for stepping on toes. There's almost nothing I can do about such a bad habit. ;)

My personal persuasion is that Tea Party's are well meaning, but essentially incommunicado with the body politic; what I look for in a political movement. No, the qualities I look for are not 'class' or 'trendiness' or some other "Liberal" buzzword; merely, intelligence, consistency, coherence, principle. I see the divide between you and Perigo typical of the movement. Too much animosity for consistency, too much difference for coherence, he lacks intelligence and the only area where both of you agree is principle.

Actually, your the first time I heard someone specifically address calls for Obama's death as a bad thing... Through the prism of the Tea-Party movement. I have to thank you for that, it's made me rethink the Tea-Party movement.

I'm Conservative, just not populist enough; I suppose.

[Selene]

Areopagitican,

I myself happen to be a Tea Party libertarian.

The difference between Tea Party kind of thinkers and more traditional political advocates (like from Europe) is that Tea Party folks generally model themselves after our Founding Fathers. Note that after our Founding Fathers threw the bums out, they did not try to conquer England. The more traditional political advocates have "traditionally" beheaded their kings and conquered each other if a strong change was in the popular winds.

I do not consider Perigo as a Tea Party libertarian. I consider him to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. His thing is personality cult, lording over his tribe, preaching hatred and violence, and trying to damage little old ladies (literally).

His tribe believes as he does. For example, several have posted "nuke 'em all" and talk about it later kind of views regarding the killing of innocent people. There's a lot of other stuff like that over there. So yes, Solo Passion is a hate site.

Michael

Max:

You employ the word/concept conservative to describe your position.

If you mean the concept the way Mark Levin means it, then I am truly concerned about your understanding of the Tea Party movement. Many Republicans are in it. Many conservative democrats are in it. Many libertarians are in it. Many neophyte political folks are in it and they do not have any "label" for who they are, but they know they are individual citizens. They know that the understand economics. They know that they understand freedom. Ultimately, they understand that they are individual American citizens whose inalienable rights are getting fucked by centralized power.

They are focused, mad as hell and looking desperately for political solution short of revolution. You are missing an important opportunity to develop the field force that you will need to win at the ballot box.

Finally, your comment that "There's almost nothing I can do about such a bad habit. ;)" That toe thing you mentioned.

Well Bob Newhart has a solution for you:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=T1g3ENYxg9k

Adam

Edited December 25, 2009 by Selene

[Max Eichelberger]

Don't worry about me, every youngster goes through his Rousseau Romanticism. The only question is to what degree. The old bourgeoisie values, of any true value, need the test of young doubts. You can call it the Generation Gap, or anything you want. Merely know that my questioning isn't meant to criticize. It is only meant to enlighten me, it is how I digest information. I will always have more in common with Fox News than MSNBC (even if I only watch CNBC).

I am not saying the Free Market, Liberty and Individualism need to be rethought; merely, the way they are presented. America went through eight years of Bush-bashing. Then, with hardly a breath, America has started in on Obama. The consensus is broken, and we well know what happens to a House Divided. The Tea Parties are fantastic, and there is a kernel of truth in them. Yet, as Solo Passion so ardently typifies, those idealized concepts of our Founding Fathers are lost in a din of emotional vitriol. Without the proper utilization they only compound the problem.

America cannot move forward merely by having Conservative ideals winning the contest of sounds, and protests. Ideas are where the gold is too be had, and sadly, there are not too many in the effigy burning crowds aside from "Burn Washington, Kill the Bankers, Lynch Obama."

The most Conservative principle is that a revolution, no matter how peaceful, and no matter how great an evil is toppled, is ultimately corrupt. I see too many similarities between college students in Chicago (circa 1968), and thirty somethings at these rallies. Any activity that actively seeks to topple our government, even to stop a great evil, is not worth it. That riles every bone in my Social Contract body. One segment of society cannot suddenly seek its own interests, violently, without tearing the fabric as well.

I suppose most of it boils down to my inhibition to anything that smells anything like Jean-Jacques. Having a "collective of mavericks," running around the country proclaiming that their way is the "National Will," literally triggers a cacophony of alarms in my mind.

You employ the word/concept conservative to describe your position.

If you mean the concept the way Mark Levin means it, then I am truly concerned about your understanding of the Tea Party movement. Many Republicans are in it. Many conservative democrats are in it. Many libertarians are in it. Many neophyte political folks are in it and they do not have any "label" for who they are, but they know they are individual citizens. They know that the understand economics. They know that they understand freedom. Ultimately, they understand that they are individual American citizens whose inalienable rights are getting fucked by centralized power.

They are focused, mad as hell and looking desperately for political solution short of revolution. You are missing an important opportunity to develop the field force that you will need to win at the ballot box.

Finally, your comment that "There's almost nothing I can do about such a bad habit. " That toe thing you mentioned.

Well Bob Newhart has a solution for you:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=T1g3ENYxg9k

Adam

Edited December 25, 2009 by Areopagitican