Robert Jones

By all means, I'll run out an get some right now! After all, it's of crucial importance not to trust God. God forbid!

So, now I suppose Al Gore is a Nobel Savage.

Robert,

I am not taking you to task for being a Catholic. I am merely pointing to a standard.

I look at history and realize one thing: Islam needs a reformation. Since it won't happen from within, it must be imposed on them from without.

We fully agree on the need for reforming Islam, but on the part about it not happening from within, I suggest you look again (if you are interested). Not only is it happening all over the place, there is no such thing as a homogeneous Islam. I highly suggest the following:

Building Moderate Muslim Networks

This is a free PDF monograph you can obtain simply by clicking on the link above. You can read it online, download it to your hard drive and print it out (217 pages). It was sponsored by the Rand Corporation. (No relation to our beloved. )

Daniel Pipes even recommends this document and this is precisely the approach I have been arguing for. See his latest article for New York Sun:

Bolstering Moderate Muslims

April 17, 2007

Daniel Pipes recommended this document sitting beside Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan on a public discussion panel.

Here is my strategy, and you may agree or not as suits your temperament. I think the military needs to be left alone to do the ass-kicking retaliation and freedom-loving intellectuals need to engage Muslims to fight the intellectual battles.

That is what I am doing and intend to keep doing. I do not see your kind of rhetoric convincing many minds on the Muslim side.

Incidentally, I agree with your rhetoric when certain strains of Islam like Wahhabism (or followers of Qutb, etc.) are involved. Bernard Lewis calls Wahhabism to Islam what the KKK was to Christianity, except it has vast funds from Saudi Arabia.

Michael

But my my rhetoric is not addressed to Moslems. It is addressed at the frustration of the sunshine patriots of the West who've gone wobbly.

Yes, there are some very reasonable Moslems, and they ought to be supported. BUT, left to their own devices, nothing will change. Not one scintilla.

However, they will succeed if the West greases the skids by, say, blasting the hell out of Iran's nuke facilities and staging a coup to topple Ahmadinejad from power. I think Iran will benefit much more from a power vacuum than Iraq did. Yes, agreed that Iran has quite a student movement, whereas nothing of the sort exited under Sadam Hussein.

That said, without some ass-kicking, I don't see it happening. There is an acceptance of fate in Islam that is simply frightening. A direct result from a religion called "Submission." We've got to make them fear Uncle Sam more than they fear Allah.

Brant,

Here is a hand full of links from the eye of the storm (the Israel/Palestine mess). Not every one will specifically agree with fundamental freedom values, but most should. Also there are Jewish and Palestinian organizations listed. In the rest of the world the situation is even better and growing.

Here is an article from 3 days ago about where we will probably invade next: Iranian President Faces Continued Criticism Following Rare Student Protest.

There is lots of hatred out there but there are even more good people. All we have to do is provide correct information and most will follow reason (for the most part) when they can.

Michael

Most will not follow reason. Maybe Jews, Christians and secularists, yes.

I am not counting on Moslems to come to reason.

They must be brought to reason, by kicking their asses and humiliating them so painfully they shy away from the excesses of their evil religion.

Robert,

If that is your standard for overall hatred of a religion, shouldn't Catholicism have been abolished with the Spanish Inquisition?

Do you hate all of Islam or just the faction that lead to the barbarity (basically Islam + Nazism)? (See the discussion of Bernard Lewis, here for instance, to clarify this thought.)

Michael

While the Spanish Inquisition had huge amounts of excess, I really don't think I need to be brought to task for my church's slaughter of CENTURIES ago. We're talking here and now. Again, with the cop-outs! Some little event happened along the way since called "The Reformation." You might've heard of it somewhere.

But, your statement Mike infers that I want to *abolish* a religion, just because I find it cruel and barbaric. This is the go-to reaction for those erstwhile rational people of atheistical cant, who wish that they had a magic wand to make religion disappear. Hitchens is one (despite my huge high regard for him on most other subjects) and losers like Sam Harris are among the others.

I look at history and realize one thing: Islam needs a reformation. Since it won't happen from within, it must be imposed on them from without. Secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists are, by-and-large, too much filled with pussies in their legions' ranks (present company excepted, I hope), so it will be (again) left to Christianity to smite these filthy scum.

I am proud to be among them, the Crusaders, and I don't hide from that. I wear my crucifix, my St. Francis Xavier medal, and St. Christopher to ward me against hijackers when travelling on airplanes, on my rosary.

There's another religion that will have this dirtiest of dirty work, and that is the Jews in Israel: They are the most alone of all nations, but when push comes to shove, DON'T MESS WITH THE JEWS.

If there is a hell, I hope the Jews are in charge, so that when Jimmy Carter passes on, his pathetic anti-Semite soul will burn to a cinder. What's left of it, anyhow.

No, I don't want to eradicate the Moslems. I am a student of history, and short of armageddon (which I DON'T want to see happen, unlike many of the "Left Behind" evangelical crowd) Islam ain't going away.

I want to beat them back, humiliate them, and pacify them so they think twice about getting out of line.

Then, they will be behaving like modern-day Catholics and Jews. That's all I ask for.

P.S.: I'm with Bob 100% on his post.

Pope Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth, but to my knowlege membership in the HY was forced rather than voluntary. Certainly I don't think there is significant proof that Ratzinger is or was actually a Nazi, although given many of the stances he has expressed, I would (and I think most Objectivists would) allege he is philosophically pretty close to the statist-collectivist philosophies as a whole. Certainly his political stances arent pro-enlightenment (nor is his epistemological or ethical stance).

I certainly agree with Baal that the Catholic's former stance regarding all Jews as collectively responsible for killing Christ is utterly abominable. I hate that idea for the same reason I hate Original Sin: both are forms of collective guilt. Strangely, an observation: racism against one race within humanity (like Jews-as-Christ-killers-ism) is seen as evil, racism against the whole human race (Original Sin) is seen as a morality of mercy and love.

And Robert, you may be a Catholic but by your own admission you aren't exactly the embodiment of Catholic values. You are a Deist, Thomist, and you openly admit your preference for Catholicism is mostly because you believe that any God must have 'good taste.' Personally I would classify you as a Deist with a fondness for pomp and circumstance, so when I attack Catholicism (which I do quite often, but trust me I hate all religions equally), I do not include you in the 'target zone,' so please dont get offended.

No, please by all means include me in the target zone: I am a Catholic, and am quite willing to take the flak alongside my faithful brethren, who are better Catholics than I.

I don't hate all religions equally -- that's a cop-out. I hate, above all others, the religion that ran two jumbo jets into the World Trade Center towers and another into the Pentagon. Most others, I find mildly annoying.

John; Wasn't Leonard Peikoff born in 1935? I thought 331/3 records came after World War 2.

33-1/3 records were invented for use, I believe, in the 1930s. They were not available for public consumption until 1949, when Columnia Records introduced the 12" LP.

However, their use was widespread for Armed Forces Radio during WW2, as it was a much more compacted form of music storage than 78 rpm records. In fact, the AFR records were 15" on diameter, and most people would have difficulty playing them on a turntable manufactured with 12" as the outer diameter limit.

Adam Selene,

Let me extend a very warm welcome to OL. I don't know who you are, unless Athena-like you sprang forth fully formed from the head of Heinlein, but I like what I have been reading.

I hope you enjoy it here.

Michael

TANSTAAFL!!! HA HA! Welcome, Selene!

"Say No to War, Amnesty, and Taxes

Say Yes to Limited Government, Secure Borders, and Liberty"

Do this by voting for the candidate, who, in a debate two days ago, said that the 9/11 attacks were only by 19 thugs. No nations whatever were involved!

Right: And three button men went to assassinate Don Corleone. They just did it all on their own, because it was a slow business day. No capo like Don Barzini had anything to do with it.

Wow! Bush at least went after a nation -- Iraq. The wrong nation for sure (though Iraq had it coming, it is quite common knowledge that Saudi Arabia pulls on the strings on most of this Jihadist garbage). But, even dullest-knife-in-the-drawer Bush has more foreign policy acumen than Paul, who thinks the war will disappear, because we voted it away.

Listen: I know you all want a Libertarian or libertarian in office real bad. But, 1). Ain't never going to happen, and, 2). If it did, we'd look so week militarily, it would really embolden the Islamists. It'd be a ticket to armageddon.

Me, I'm voting for Rudy Giuliani, despite all his flaws. I want a leader in office with actual administrative experience, not a has-been congressman who runs a podunk district (yes, Victoria, Texas, and environs is a podunk district; why not vote for the representative from Sandusky, O?).

That's my two cents on Ron Paul. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan each were ten times more relevant than he is to the presidential race.

Rudy Giuliani is taking flak from both irrelevant sides: The libertarians and the evangelicals. Never have I seen a candidate have his words so twisted and mangled (even on these boards). I'm voting for him because I live in the real world, and here in the real world, it would also be a very bad idea to have Hillary Clinton running things.

I am -- to say the least -- not at all found of ARI.

But, fair is fair.

But, Roger, et al., let us not be led down the garden path: The anti-Semitic bile spewed forth on this website, its anonymous nature, and its shrill cant render it beneath debate.

While we oughn't ignore it, I think debating it, or even analysing it seriously (even if to point out its myriad flaws and inconsistencies), is a serious mistake.

As long as it is anonymous in nature, we ought to simply ridicule it for what it is: A child's whining harangue and a fruitcake's political hallucinations.

I have voiced elsewhere that it looks like the work of some CAIR-wannabe. I think the wisest course is for some computer nerd among us to find out who owns the url. There are records of that somewhere on the web. ARI has long been making statements in the War on Radical Islam for years, and this thing simply smells like CAIRs smear tactics. I see this as a set-up -- to establish some kind of atmosphere on the web that ARI is a bigoted, anti-Arab/anti-Moslem hate group -- and then bring in the REAL CAIR to finish off the job (i.e., lawsuit by CAIR and the ACLU). This is a hunch on my part, but I've seen it happen for real before.

What I'm getting at is this: It really had ought to be looked into.

Robert,

Here is some information (especially in the thread):

The Effect by Mark ___(?), on ariwatch.com

I don't like this kind of thing. It is trying to cure one poison with another (cure hemlock poisoning by drinking battery acid). On top of that, ARI has done some very good things and has some products I buy and use.

Michael

Oh, I agree with you Mike. I just think most of them are (to be charitable) lacking in personal character. But, my point was I'm not for throwing out the baby with the bathwater and accusing them of Zionist conpiracies and whatnot. Personal loyalty is my number one personal value and many there are willing to chuck loyalty to real, living, people in the name of loyalty to abstract notions. Or, in the name of loyalty to someone who's long since passed on. It's not healthy.

One such case is their recent rant against "theocracy" (i.e., any Republican who has even a smattering of religious motivation for their political beliefs). So, now -- despite their extremely hawkish foreign policy -- they are virtually endorsing Hillary Clinton (who, herself is oddly getting a free ride for her Methodist makeover) while bizarrely pooh-poohing the idea of a Giuliani presidency. I do not grok this. Somehow Giuliani, whom the evangelicals are attacking for his pro-choice politics and threatening to form a breakaway party under the aegis of Dr. James Dobson, is part and parcel of the theocracy? The pretzel logic of it all makes the mind reel.

I logged onto the site, and read a whole lotta hooey. This site is ONLY about ARI's positions vis-a-vis the War On Islam.

Even though I think the people at ARI are kind of like Michael Savage in foreign policy experience, I do believe their hearts are in the right place.

Any computer nerds here know how to find out who owns this site? It's completely anonymous.

The site owners have accomplished something I had not thought possible, though:

They actually make me LIKE the Ayn Rand Institute and want to defend them.

Because: If all you know how to do in foreign policy is bash Israel, then, yes, you ARE an anti-Semite!

Betcha dollars-to-doughnuts it's owned by some CAIR offshoot.

Here's one appropos for the upcoming election:

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."

I loved Snyder's talk radio program, late night, before the UFO conspiracists took over the airwaves "Coast to Coast."

Snyder brought such a gemuetlich sense of civility to his show, so even if you disagreed with him, you understood it was not personal. He had *conversations,* not gotcha sessions, as Medved and Hannity have.

He was like Larry King, but without the non-sequiturs.

Dennis Prager reminds me a lot of him, in tenor and tone.

When they announced Habemus Pappam with Benny 16, I responded with Seig Heil! I guess the fact that Benny 16 was a Hitler Youth sticks in my craw. I am not generally anti-Catholic even though I had the shit beaten out of me by Catholic bullies (when I was a kid). You see, I personally killed Christ, or so they said. Even so, I should not keep holding a grudge.

Ratzinger was in Hitler Youth, but as I understand it, he was sort of drafted and wasn't an enthusiastic participant. I've posted elsewhere about him; he seems to be a pretty good guy.

I was raised RC and was never taught any anti-Semitic Christ-killer stuff. In fact, my mother used to tell me I should marry a nice Jewish boy because "They treat their women like queens!"

Judith

You are post Vatican-II perhaps. Or you were educated after Pope John 23 of blessed memory (I mean that sincerely) did away with the Baltimore Catechism, the one that excoriated the perfidious Jews for killing the Savior. In my own experience I have noticed that Catholics brought up after 1965 seem to be untainted by anti-semitism. My own experience was was in the 1940's and 1950's where I was, on more than one occasion, beaten up for personally driving the nails into the Flesh of the Savior. But this was very much before John 23 let some fresh air into the Catholic Church.

Pope John 23 was what we call a -mensch- in Yiddish. An upright, decent and righteous man. While he was Bishop Rancolli, he was busy trying to undo the damage that his boss, Pope Pius 12 was doing to the Jews. Bishop Rancolli at great peril to his life was forging documents which enabled Jews to escape the clutches of their Nazi persecutors. If there is a heaven and a world to come (I doubt it) I am sure Bishop Rancolli is receiving just and due praise for his righteousness.

It is interesting what you said about your mom. One of my daughters in law was brought up Catholic. Her sister (a lovely young woman) also married a Jewish man. When my son asked me if it were o.k. to marry, Sue, then my perspective d.i.l, I replied get her while you can. She is a Gift from heaven. What a great young lady she is. My in laws in that family are the salt of the earth and there is no taint anywhere in their clan. Miracles still happen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You should read about what David Mamet says about Gentiles marrying Jews: Often it is the Goy who brings the lapsed Jew back to his/her faith. In his case, lovely shiksa wife Rebecca Pigeon.

I became a Catholic after being an atheist. My wife converted me. She began life a Buddhist, but after move from Korea to USA, became a believer in the one, true faith: America.

Bob; Do you have any evidence for that charge?

No. It was a cheap shot. Mea Culpa! Sometimes I just cannot help myself. When they announced Habemus Pappam with Benny 16, I responded with Seig Heil! I guess the fact that Benny 16 was a Hitler Youth sticks in my craw. I am not generally anti-Catholic even though I had the shit beaten out of me by Catholic bullies (when I was a kid). You see, I personally killed Christ, or so they said. Even so, I should not keep holding a grudge.

Shame on me double. I should have more self control.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree with Chris, esp. as a Catholic.

However, you are tops at busting chops, and Gawd how people take themselves SOOOOO seriously on blogs.

I mean, they're just BLOGS! You can dish it out, but you can take it as well.

From this Catholic to you, Maazel Tov!

You make it interesting

"You can act like a man! What's the matter with you. Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood finocchio that cries like a woman?!? 'Godfather, what can I do? What can I do?'"

-- Don Vito Corleone

No winking smileys, just buck up and act like a fucking man over here, all right?

Robert; The ten million Cambodians was POL Pot.

That's why they got the winking smileys!

I heard Schwartz speak at New York University in February of 2006. He claimed slander and defamation of character were real crimes -- and thus it's okay to trash freedom of speech here. He also said Dark Ages Spain was rather nice under the Caliphate. Islamic expert Andrew Bostom immediately and harshly dressed him down, explaining that Spain was a hellhole jihadi theocracy during that period. It was great fun to watch! Afterwards Schwartz was very sheepish and brazenly claimed that the differences between himself and Bostom were "very minor."

(I think it's interesting that this ARI panel discussion on the Danish cartoon controversy has evidently not been made available on streaming video -- unlike all other similar events since 2006.)

Does that qualify Schwartz for "Self-Hating Jew" status?

Neil,

Alan Gotthelf's claim of distance from the Ayn Rand Institute is largely hypocritical.

He does seem to view the purges and the ritual denunciation of heretics with distaste, but maintains his public ideological conformity.

Remember, this is a guy who obviously reads TAS pubications and will pass some of them to non-Randian scholars--under the table.

Robert Campbell

PS. I shouldn't have implied that Schwartz had been expelled from ARI, merely that he has been markedly losing status and clout there.

Well, then, that's *good* hypocrisy, no?

I watched this and thought that he was pretty good.

But, I'm still pissed off at Paul Potts for killing a million Cambodians.

;)

I am with Michael on this one.

I was quite flabbergasted many months ago when I heard Lions Gate would be doing this as a one-parter, 2-hour movie. That is because -- at the time -- I thought this was a production decision, one that had basically been thrust onto Randall Wallace.

Michael's arguments are spot-on for what makes a great movie. He understands both the construction and sense of tension-and-release needed for the cinematic art form.

I particularly liked Randall Wallace's explanation of turning the philosphy into action. That's good, and a much better understanding of screenwriting than I think Rand had.

Now, I am in the minority on "The Fountainhead." I think it is a superb movie, visually. Storywise, it's 3 stars; but that's because Rand thought much as most Objectivists think, and that is how to squeeze in the speeches. That is precisely what stopped the action in "Fountainhead," so that we could listen to a "greatest hits" countdown of philosophical jargon.

But what are the things I most remember from the movie?

* Smoke billowing away from Ellsworth Toohey's mouth and cigarette holder

* Gail Wynand picking the soggy front page of the Banner off the pavement in the rain

* Roark walking past construction sites with other architects' names on the placards

* Dominique whipping Roark's face with the riding crop

* Roark helping Henry Cameron into his office at the end of a long corridor under an arc lamp

* "Mrs. Roark" rising up the e;evator outside the construction site to meet Howard

* Pudgy Pasquale Orsini showing up instead of Roark in Dominique's boudoir

* Roark looking at Dominique lustily as he is about to take her

These are all purely VISUAL elements, and these are the things that drive a screenplay.

Because Wallace isn't as wedded to the dialogue from the book, I have a feeling that "Atlas Shrugged" will be given the room to breathe that wasn't afforded to "The Fountainhead."

Now, I am dead set again Angelina Jolie playing Dagny. She's a lightweight, and every role I've seen her in confirms this for me. I think Julianne Moore or Catherine Zeta-Jones would be far better.

On the other hand, I found "JOB: A Comedy of Errors," one of Heinlein's last books, quite charming.

I'm still waiting for the duel between Zell Miller and Chris Matthews.

Oh my God! How sad. When I was a teenager, growing up in West Virginia, we would travel to Washington every month to see Rostropovich conduct the National Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center. My favorite memory was of a concert he conducted with Isaac Stern as violinist, the Tchaikovsky Concerto. In 2004, my wife and I were visiting Chicago, and as it turned out Rostropovich was guest conducting a Tchaikovsky concert. It was utterly profound and beautiful. Tchaikovsky was in his blood, as it is in the marrow of anyone who is truly Russian.