Neil Parille

And some people have the audacity to say Objectivism is a cult!

ND, I think you are opposing things in a way that the NT doesn't. Paul says in Galatians 1:17-19 that he met with James & Peter. This was probably in 35-36, close to Jesus' death, not "years later."

Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought (with Gregory Salmieri) is listed in the CV as coming out in 2013. The book isn't mentioned at all on Amazon or the publisher's website, last I checked. I wonder why the book has been delayed. As Rand becomes better know, I imagine publishers will expect a little more balance on a book like Rand. Maybe that happened here. -Neil

I believe Peikoff ganged up on Gotthelf with David Harriman, not Harry Binswanger.

ND, Do you consider Greece and Israel racist for adopting immigration policies that prevent them from becoming Islamic? -Neil Parille

Another book worth reading is The Historical Jesus: Five Views. It contains an essay by myther Robert Prices and responses. Jimmy Dunn's response is the best debunking of anything I've read.* -Neil Parille *Next to The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, of course.

Call me an intrinsicist if you want, but I think there would be something sad about Greece coming to an end after the borders are open and Moslems overwhelm it "one person at a time." (I'm not sure that you accept Open Immigration, but the Objectivists who do are quite clear that they accept this as a consequence.) -Neil Parille

I'm not sure if Gotthelf was part of Rand's "inner circle." Of the philosophers who were associated with Rand, such as Peikoff and Binswanger, he had the most successful academic career. He had an impressive list of publications. For some reason, he published relatively little on Rand and Objectivism. -Neil Parille

How do groups vote? What's the effect of allowing certain groups of people into a country? I don't think the term "collectivism" is particularly useful here.

Was 'no Irish need apply' collectivist, in your view? It's my understanding that there were few, if any, "Irish need not apply" ads or signs. In any event, making a decision about some people based on the entire group is "collectivist." But if the issue is whether or not Hispanics, based on their voting pattern and socio-economic status, are likely to vote a certain way, then I see nothing collectivist about it.

Well, atheists tend to mary atheists (or at least secular people) and have atheistic (or secular) children. There is nothing "collectivist" about this. How about this: "if Obama were able to run again in 2016, he would win the black vote in a landslide." Is that collectivist?

I don't see the collectivist principle in Peikoff's thinking. Hispanics are left of center, they have higher rates of illigetimacy and welfare dependency, etc. They will almost certainly vote Democratic for as long as the eye can see. I still don't see what the Jews have to do with it. For example, I don't believe that Israel should expel its Moslem population, but there is no doubt that if Israel became a majority Islamic country (as open immigration Objectivists seem willing to accept) it would be bad for the Jews. Is that collectivist? -Neil Parille

ND, But the issue isn't the Hispanics who are here legally. It is those who will be legalized and vote reliably Democratic. Thanks to immigration, California is a one party state with the Democrats having super majorities in both houses. If the US embraced "open immigration" the entire South West would turn Democratic in a generation. And Hispanics don't vote Democratic because they are afraid of Republicans on immigration. They vote Democratic because their views, particularly on economics, are left of center. When Reagan signed an amnesty in the 80s, the Republicans did worse among Hispanics the next election cycle. Last year a referrendum to raise the sales tax and the income tax on the rich won in California because of overhwelming Hispanic support. Bringing the Jews and the Nazis into the issue is ridiculous. -Neil Parille

On Jesus Interrupted, Ben Witherington did a good critique: http://www.apologetics315.com/2009/04/critique-of-bart-ehrmans-jesus.html

I've never found the idea that Jesus didn't exist very plausible, or even worthy of much thought. They mythers have a big presence on the internet, but no place else. Considering the brief span of Jesus' ministry and that it occurred in a relatively obscure part of the Roman Empire, the amount of evidence about his life is significant. And it comes from Christian, Jewish and Roman sources. I'd recommend: 1. Van Voorst: Jesus outside the New Testament; 2. Evans: Fabricating Jesus; 3. Bock: THe Missing Gospels 4. Kostenberger: The Heresy of Orthodoxy; and 5.Brown: New Testament Christology for moderate to conservative approaches on the life of Jesus and his connection to later church doctrine.

Doug has interesting views on intelligence. I wonder why Objectivists don't discuss intelligence, IQ tests and heritability. What little I've seen makes me think Objectivists agree with left wingers like Gould.

I assumed his real name was "Doug Bandler," but I don't see anything wrong about using a different name and not letting other people in on it. -Neil Parille

Doug said this in 2010 about me (I was critiquing a review of PARC by one Roderick Fitts in the Objective Standard). Parille If it were me, I would ban your ass and let you run your own blog like CONTRA or RANDTERMINATOR or some such other idiocy. For some reason, Lindsay tolerates your ass. Fitts is a bright guy. I would love to see you make your complaints to him. He has an excellent psycho-epistemology unlike you. Debate him and see how far you get. But know this you little worm, Rand's philosophy will live long after you are a rotting piece of filth in your unmarked grave. Whatever additions or modifications are made, will be made by those that love life and worship man unlike you who are an apologist for the Christian goblin and Conservatism. Neil, you must be such a sorry sack of shit that you have no life outside the internet. No person of healthy self-esteem does this kind of crap. Have you had sex in the last decade? I'm willing to bet yours is a life of involuntary celibacy and your only "joy" is attacking Rand and Objectivism. Lastly, from your picture, you look like a sorry specimen of humanity; like an aging 90 pound weakling. You've got Beta written all over you. For Rosie and any who sympathize with Neil, I know I am being abusive and I know that is not intellectual argumentation. I don't care. This sorry piece of shit doesn't deserve any intellectual respect. There are some people on this earth that are such scum the only thing they deserve is abuse and contempt. That includes the piece of feces known as Neil Parille.

I had some email exchanges with Doug Bandler and he seems like a bright guy. He's certainly better read than most Objectivists. I can't blame him for not wanting to post under his real name. This is PC America where you can get into trouble for being a "racial realist" or "islamphobic."

I've been following this case closely and the media has been flat out lying. Anyone can listen to the non emergency call by Zimmerman to the Sanford police: Dispatch: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatch: Ok, we don't need you to do that Zimmerman: Ok. And If you listen to the tape it also sounds like Zimmerman stopped running. The dispatcher testified that his impression was that Martin had left the scene. Yet the media persists in saying that Zimmerman was told not follow him and did so anyway. George Zimmerman has been ValliantQuoated. -Neil Parille

There are Catholics I know who claim that Hispanics are particularly pious, contrary to all the evidence. When I pointed out to one the high rate of Hispanic illegitimacy, he responded that this is proof of what good catholics they are - they don't believe in birth control! Why are people so eager to project their own values on immigrants? -NP

Ed: Bush didn't get 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Richard Lowry of National Review gives some good reasons why Republicans will not do well with Hispanics (and its not because of immigration): http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333525/amnesty-fantasy-rich-lowry Here's a good post by Heather MacDonald: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350561/natural-republicans-again-heather-mac-donald -Neil Parille

Ed - It is perfectly reasonable to ask why evolution doesn't seem to be occuring. When I was in school I was taught the now discredited examples of the moths switching colors in Englad as a result of factories. But even that didn't concern an actual change. Is it also wrong to ask how consciousness can evolve? Even a secularist like Nagel has a problem with that, see his recent book Mind and Cosmos. I don't have any firm views on evolution, but I think some good questions have been raised about it. -NP

Actually, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable question. -Neil Parille

Jerry, Objectivists are lousy when it comes to intellectual history. -Neil Parille