Art Crimes

[Jonathan]

The SOLOP Objectivist Art Police now want to use government to "investigate and expose" art whose "point" is to "overthrow the government of a free society and replace it with dictatorship."

If Pigero's and Jameson's dreams were to come true, and HUAC were to be reinstated, I'd hope to see them and other frenzied Objectivist zealots appointed as Grand Inquisitors. With the loopy, Objectivism-distorted interpretations of art that I've seen such Objectivists come up with in the past -- including art that they've condemned after seeing or hearing mere fractions of it -- it could be very entertaining watching them use government to "expose" art that they've decided is evil.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

Whenever someone wants to use a gun on another to shut that person up, you can be sure he wants to have his own finger on the trigger.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; He also doesn't think it will ever be used against him.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Whenever someone wants to use a gun on another to shut that person up, you can be sure he wants to have his own finger on the trigger.

Michael

Michael; He also doesn't think it will ever be used against him.

It appears that Pigero and Jameson aren't alone in wanting their fingers on the trigger, but that Rand wanted hers on it as well.

On the SOLOP thread, Joe Maurone has posted Rand's views on HUAC:

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

So, not being open about one's views is unacceptable in Rand's ideal America, and the government has the right to compel its citizens to appear before congressional committees and demand that they reveal noncriminal things about themselves -- their private beliefs, relationships, associations, affiliations, etc. -- under oath, for the purpose of publicly exposing them so that private employers may then shun them.

With Chris Grieb's thoughts in mind -- that the person with his finger on the trigger doesn't think the gun will ever be used against him -- which lies and deceptions was Rand not free to commit?

How about publicly maintaining the illusion of having a monogamous marriage while secretly having an affair with a married man? There are a lot of people who would not want to deal with such an "underground" destroyer of the meaning and value of marriage, so maybe the government should investigate and expose those who aren't open and honest about their sexual relationships, since there is "no freedom to deceive people." I mean, if someone was punished by the government for being slutty, that would be different, but private citizens should have the right to know, via public government investigations, when marriage, an institution that they value highly, is being consciously defiled by pretenders, no?

If art-policing is something that Objectivists favor, shouldn't their ideal government also investigate and publicly expose Rand as an "enemy of this country" because she promoted fraud and terrorism by writing The Fountainhead, a novel in which the "hero" conspires to secretly work on a government project which he later dynamites while using the irrational excuse that those who were in charge of the project violated a contract that they didn't have with him? And Rand's fans, who publicly and privately promote the novel, should also be investigated by government and exposed for supporting art which advocates such fraud and terrorism as heroic?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

Whenever someone wants to use a gun on another to shut that person up, you can be sure he wants to have his own finger on the trigger.

Michael

Michael; He also doesn't think it will ever be used against him.

It appears that Pigero and Jameson aren't alone in wanting their fingers on the trigger, but that Rand wanted hers on it as well.

On the SOLOP thread, Joe Maurone has posted Rand's views on HUAC:

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

So, not being open about one's views is unacceptable in Rand's ideal America, and the government has the right to compel its citizens to appear before congressional committees and demand that they reveal noncriminal things about themselves -- their private beliefs, relationships, associations, affiliations, etc. -- under oath, for the purpose of publicly exposing them so that private employers may then shun them.

With Chris Grieb's thoughts in mind -- that the person with his finger on the trigger doesn't think the gun will ever be used against him -- which lies and deceptions was Rand not free to commit?

How about publicly maintaining the illusion of having a monogamous marriage while secretly having an affair with a married man? There are a lot of people who would not want to deal with such an "underground" destroyer of the meaning and value of marriage, so maybe the government should investigate and expose those who aren't open and honest about their sexual relationships, since there is "no freedom to deceive people." I mean, if someone was punished by the government for being slutty, that would be different, but private citizens should have the right to know, via public government investigations, when marriage, an institution that they value highly, is being consciously defiled by pretenders, no?

If art-policing is something that Objectivists favor, shouldn't their ideal government also investigate and publicly expose Rand as an "enemy of this country" because she promoted fraud and terrorism by writing The Fountainhead, a novel in which the "hero" conspires to secretly work on a government project which he later dynamites while using the irrational excuse that those who were in charge of the project violated a contract that they didn't have with him? And Rand's fans, who publicly and privately promote the novel, should also be investigated by government and exposed for supporting art which advocates such fraud and terrorism as heroic?

J

Well, it was deceptive of Roark to try to get his design built that way anyway. The only rational rationalization is that the government had no right to be in that business, but since it was he had the right to do what he did because otherwise he was shut out of that market monopolized by the government. There is a vague relationship here with what Ragnar the pirate did in AS.

The real justification for Roark is it made a great story in a great novel. One way or another, Cortlandt was toast. Of course he should have blown the damn thing up! Of course Ragnar should have been a pirate even though in real life he would have killed and maimed a lot of people and nobody would have built a factory to manufacture Rearden Metal on a seacoast so he could blow it up! How many factories producing anything are on seacoasts? How many train disasters only kill guilty people? BTW, were there any children on that passenger train? In car 3, room 3b, little Sue, who delighted in bullying her younger playmates ... I admit, if I had written that disaster I'd have included some virtuous folks which would have been much more effectively damaging. Maybe that was the point in what happened to Eddie Willers, abandoned by -- look at how worthless this all is. There really isn't any point in complaining about AR's two great novels. They provide so much information about so much. Great reads. Great art. Great collectivist ass-kicking.

--Brant

Edited December 3, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

Well, it was deceptive of Roark to try to get his design built that way anyway. The only rational rationalization is that the government had no right to be in that business, but since it was he had the right to do what he did because otherwise he was shut out of that market monopolized by the government.

Roark complained that no committee, public or private, would hire him, so it wasn't an issue of being shut out of a market monopolized by government. Apparently he felt that committees didn't have the right to not hire him.

There is a vague relationship here with what Ragnar the pirate did in AS.

Not really. Roark was upset for purely aesthetic reasons. The project wasn't built as he wanted it built so he destroyed it. Basically, he expected to be able to play with taxpayers' property to satisfy his creative itch. In order for Ragnar's behavior to be similar, his reason for sinking the aid ships would have had to have been that government officials didn't precisely follow the logistics of the collectivist distribution plan that Ragnar had carefully worked out for them.

The real justification for Roark is it made a great story in a great novel. One way or another, Cortlandt was toast. Of course he should have blown the damn thing up! Of course Ragnar should have been a pirate even though in real life he would have killed and maimed a lot of people and nobody would have built a factory to manufacture Rearden Metal on a seacoast so he could blow it up! How many factories producing anything are on seacoasts? How many train disasters only kill guilty people? BTW, were there any children on that passenger train? In car 3, room 3b, little Sue, who delighted in bullying her younger playmates ... I admit, if I had written that disaster I'd have included some virtuous folks which would have been much more effectively damaging. Maybe that was the point in what happened to Eddie Willers, abandoned by -- look at how worthless this all is. There really isn't any point in complaining about AR's two great novels. They provide so much information about so much. Great reads. Great art. Great collectivist ass-kicking.

All of that sounds fine to me as a carefree civilian, but I think that Patriotic HUAC Art Police would have to seriously investigate and publicly expose the very real threat that The Fountainhead poses to Americans' rights. Using art, as Rand did, to encourage fraud and the destruction of buildings because of purely aesthetic reasons is viciously un-American, and should not be taken lightly by Art Cops.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Well, there doesn't have to be a committee in the private sector.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't know where to put this, so here is as good as any place since the thread already deals with that weird personality cult decked out as a forum. I wrote in July:

Is that dude Lineberry bankrolling Siberia Passion?

. . .

Now I see a racist dude on board at Siberia defended tooth and nail by Perigo, and I see him make comments like "My own view is to have solopassion.com in the top 500 of NZ websites and we are well on the way to that important objective."

Hmmmmmm...

I smell money.

I remember there being some mockery about my suspicion at the time.

Well lo and behold, this racist person was not bankrolling SLOP, he was promising to do so. He also got involved in NZ libertarian party by promising to bankroll them.

Not even a million dollars, either.

And everybody, with a few appalled exceptions, has been calling Lineberry's racism a "quirk" and "idiosyncratic view" and so forth, claiming he really doesn't mean it. Now that the money ain't happening, Perigo is suddenly conflicted with Libz and Cresswell and Free Radical (and playing the melodramatic martyr once again), Lineberry is suddenly a racist according to everybody and the comedy rolls on.

People talk about principles, but they sure as hell sell out for cheap. You don't even need real money if you know how to make it sound good.

It's mostly laid out on this thread if anyone is interested in fringe NZ politics.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Linz implosion continues. Adults who behave like children are perceived as neither. The best poster on SOLOP is that 15-yo Callum kid. He was pretty good as a 14-yo too. It's a shame what someone like that is being exposed to there.

--Brant

Edited December 7, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

It looks like I ruffled some feathers over there.

When the only thing you read is denial screamed in a loud voice and a barrage of vulgarity and cussing, you know you hit the mark.

It must be embarrassing to realize one sold out to a racist for nothing but a false insinuation of money. On top of the moral issue of selling out in the first place, it makes you look like a fool.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Linz has now banned Joe Maurone. You can tell because you can't access his info page and track his three years of posting any longer. Joe wasn't fair to Linz about Linz being influenced by money from the racist in that the evidence is non-existent or weak. I don't think you are either, Michael, except Linz long ago stopped deserving "fair." Joe got it right about the bullying even if it took him years. If you read Linz's latest on that thread he is actually calling himself a Randian hero and his pile of trash an Objectivist site.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The money is not a stand-alone issue. It has to be used as an acknowledgment of Perigo's greatness, wisdom, talent, charm and rational fiery passion while saving humanity. Then the money is a HUGE issue and he will prostitute himself to the person giving it, just like he did to Joe Rowlands and to that racist.

Perigo is never about big money, though. He's chump change dude. But he's as grubby as all get-out on that level.

He's not above money. Don't think for a moment he is. (What a weird thought anyway. A Randian hero wannabe above money?)

Just think proper scale and proper mix and you will see it in all its grubbiness.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I think you're right here about LP but I don't know it. The whole LP thing is being reduced to its honest size as he floats away to invisibility with his balloons popping. What I do know is he's a crude, pretentious bully. In recognition of this the bullied leave SOLOP. There are, of course, more subtle forms of bullying than name calling and bad manners on other sites. Even then people come to recognize it if only implicitly and they tend to leave too for that and other reasons. Life goes on.

--Brant

[Matus1976]

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

So, not being open about one's views is unacceptable in Rand's ideal America, and the government has the right to compel its citizens to appear before congressional committees and demand that they reveal noncriminal things about themselves -- their private beliefs, relationships, associations, affiliations, etc. -- under oath, for the purpose of publicly exposing them so that private employers may then shun them.

Jonathan loves putting words in Rand's mouth.

What she said, from that quote was exactly this "If you are being punished by the government for being communist, that's different. But if private employers don't want to employ communists-if they, properly, consider them enemies of this country...the employee has no right to lie about it"

If I am an employer, I should have every right to choose NOT to hire you for whatever reason I please, whether it is because you are a communist, an atheist, a kantianist, a born again christian, or a gay jewish black guy. You have no 'right' to be hired. If I ask you your affiliations and beliefs, and you refuse to answer, then I can refuse to hire you.

Furthermore, you have no 'right' to be secretive about trying to over throw your government when you are planning to replace it with something much worse. The Venova cables revealed that virtually everyone questioned by the HUAC did in fact turn out to be a communist spy with direct ties to the Soviet Embassy. You seem to adopt the modern liberal post cold war mentality that the 'Red Scare' was just something a few silly people freaked out about for no reason, oblivious to the fact that soviet communism killed some 70 million people this century, communist spies stole the plans for the nuclear bomb and provided them to the soviet union, a communist assassinated a US president, and the Soviet Union had the official goal of turning every nation on the planet communist. A gay person has every right to be secretive with regard to his government, a wannabe murderous communist tyrant fomenting a revolution does not.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Matus1976

[Ruth]

I think you are being unfair to Perigo here, Michael. I like to think I am a pretty good judge of character, and I would say Perigo is one of the least materialistic people in NZ.

It may be tempting to use the Lineberry issue to get at him, but he was not the only one who hitched his chariot to Lineberry's winged ego. Characters like Lineberry are very charismatic -- they have to be to keep fooling others.

Now that he can no longer spin, I expect Lineberry will disappear as he arrived -- in an explosion of horsefeathers ;)

Sadly the slurs on Perigo's integrity re financials show just how damaging the lowlife has been. Hopefully a few others have taken notice.

[Brant Gaede]

I think you are being unfair to Perigo here, Michael. I like to think I am a pretty good judge of character, and I would say Perigo is one of the least materialistic people in NZ.

It may be tempting to use the Lineberry issue to get at him, but he was not the only one who hitched his chariot to Lineberry's winged ego. Characters like Lineberry are very charismatic -- they have to be to keep fooling others.

Now that he can no longer spin, I expect Lineberry will disappear as he arrived -- in an explosion of horsefeathers ;)

Sadly the slurs on Perigo's integrity re financials show just how damaging the lowlife has been. Hopefully a few others have taken notice.

Nothing wrong with materialism per se. Your character is neither good nor bad because of it.

Michael lacked hard information, but the inference was deserved.

If Lineberry has no money he will; if he has a fair amount he won't. His investment advice about covered calls was amateurist.

If Linz "hitched his chariot to Lineberry's winged ego" you aren't defending him. That's not a Randian hero, which he somehow imagines he is. I'm not either, but my perspective is different--that is, the Randian hero is not particularly heroic. When the true heroes of Atlas, Hank and Dagny became Randian heroes they gave up their real heroism. In the outside world--our world--heroes aren't poseurs--not to say that the Randian hero in her novels was either.

--Brant

[arkon]

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

So, not being open about one's views is unacceptable in Rand's ideal America, and the government has the right to compel its citizens to appear before congressional committees and demand that they reveal noncriminal things about themselves -- their private beliefs, relationships, associations, affiliations, etc. -- under oath, for the purpose of publicly exposing them so that private employers may then shun them.

Jonathan loves putting words in Rand's mouth.

What she said, from that quote was exactly this "If you are being punished by the government for being communist, that's different. But if private employers don't want to employ communists-if they, properly, consider them enemies of this country...the employee has no right to lie about it"

If I am an employer, I should have every right to choose NOT to hire you for whatever reason I please, whether it is because you are a communist, an atheist, a kantianist, a born again christian, or a gay jewish black guy. You have no 'right' to be hired. If I ask you your affiliations and beliefs, and you refuse to answer, then I can refuse to hire you.

Furthermore, you have no 'right' to be secretive about trying to over throw your government when you are planning to replace it with something much worse. The Venova cables revealed that virtually everyone questioned by the HUAC did in fact turn out to be a communist spy with direct ties to the Soviet Embassy. You seem to adopt the modern liberal post cold war mentality that the 'Red Scare' was just something a few silly people freaked out about for no reason, oblivious to the fact that soviet communism killed some 70 million people this century, communist spies stole the plans for the nuclear bomb and provided them to the soviet union, a communist assassinated a US president, and the Soviet Union had the official goal of turning every nation on the planet communist. A gay person has every right to be secretive with regard to his government, a wannabe murderous communist tyrant fomenting a revolution does not.

Really??!! Really!!??!! ooohhhh man... hey if I want to divest you of your company and give it to my idiot brother because you are something I don't like, that's my right! Because I run the government and I make the rules! Or I own the bank and I'm going to call in your loan! It's all the same idea! Just because Rand might have been so blindly anti-communist(I'm assuming these quotes are accurate) as to throw rational self-interest out the window in that pursuit, doesn't mean we have to be!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think you are being unfair to Perigo here, Michael. I like to think I am a pretty good judge of character, and I would say Perigo is one of the least materialistic people in NZ.

It may be tempting to use the Lineberry issue to get at him, but he was not the only one who hitched his chariot to Lineberry's winged ego. Characters like Lineberry are very charismatic -- they have to be to keep fooling others.

Now that he can no longer spin, I expect Lineberry will disappear as he arrived -- in an explosion of horsefeathers ;)

Sadly the slurs on Perigo's integrity re financials show just how damaging the lowlife has been. Hopefully a few others have taken notice.

Ruth,

There is some truth in what you say and I do see why people think this way, but I am a bit jaded from watching events unfold in many different kinds of contexts.

Money is a funny kind of motivation. In the sense you mention, "materialistic," it implies an all-or-nothing approach. This is true with a certain kind of con man or politician (or producer on the good side), but I have found that real monkeyshines occur when money is mixed, say, with vanity. There are other mixes, but I will stay with vanity right now because it is so rampant in our neck of the woods and Perigo is a perfect example of a vain petty little man.

When you mix vanity and money, it becomes an irrational mess. However, the input of money in the vain person's motivations is still just as important as it is in the all-or-nothing people. It is merely not the only primary value, and it often conflicts with the other primary values. This can get colorful and dramatic, and it is what allows vain people working in an environment where money is present to claim that money is not their motive.

From what I have observed up close and in looking at history, vain people are tribal by nature. They seek causes to save the world (in their image, of course) and choose targets for demonizing, etc. That is why they gravitate to areas where money is a primary factor. During the time they are organizing, their attitude toward money is to be "above it all" or non-materialistic, or worse, "idealistic." (Robert Ringer humorously called these people "Absolute Moralists" in one of he earlier works, although he concentrated on the controlling others aspect and not the money part.)

Now observe what happens if they organize and get strong enough to install their agenda on others. Plunder and fleecing of the vanquished, or at best, eating a banquet in front of the starved and prohibiting them access. That's the result.

This is a pattern I see over and over. This goes for countries, for political organizations, for corporate infighting, for academic backstage intrigues over funding and grants, for just about any enterprise where money is present and "idealistic" people are fighting over it while claiming that they are not interested in the money.

One day it might be a good exercise to analyze some events through this filter.

(In the case of the racist, he was promising to bankroll the crusade. The problem is that he is a racist and that is not good for any crusade, but that didn't stop people from selling out just a little for a while.)

Whenever I see vain people on a crusade hollering to the four winds that they are really not in it for the money, I get real wary. They are almost always in it for their vanity--and for the money. Especially yours if you are an opponent.

Give me a good old fashion con man any day. He is more honest and less malicious.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To expand on my last post, a word about what money means is in order.

Most people think you mean something like the following when you say someone is selling out for money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFl7VwWsQEo

Although this indicates a certain level of vanity, this is the dream of the con man. These values are not shared by a vain person on a crusade who makes a publicity issue out of not being interested in money. For such a vain crusader person, the first order of the day is to fund the crusade.

When the vanity is great, it also means being careless about selling out in relation to the party line being preached in order to get the money. But there are limits. When a self-professed group preaches a philosophy of individualism on the surface, but promotes a racist individual and gives a blind eye to his racism (in the hopes of obtaining funding from the racist), this is too much of a contradiction to sustain for too long.

When vain people on a crusade get in power, for as much as they preach they are not interested in money, the following always seems to happen:

Interestingly enough, this is the racist's dream. But that is merely a coincidence for my point. As an aside, one of the great benefits of a free market is that it keeps the vain from doing this and keeping it imposed by law. Anyone can get to the good side by honest work sold freely and this is the vain person's worst nightmare.

If the vain person gets in power, he will set himself nicely up money-wise and try to block your money if you oppose him or belong to the unwashed masses (with a few sporadic exceptions for show). He will take your dreams, your hard work and produced works of value, the years of your life spent learning, and everything else a free person of integrity pursues and tell you that you cannot have it anymore or to take it elsewhere. (The really vicious destroy it outright.) If it depends on money, he will tell you that the money you used to get is now for a greater good.

But underneath, what he wants to fund is something really ugly. The only depiction I have found that represents what I mean well is a painting by Dali. Where you might want money to build skyscrapers, the vain person wants to take it from you to build the following:

The Metamorphosis of Narcissus by Salvador Dali, 1937

Don't be fooled, either. He will sell his soul to be able to fund that (as the racist episode shows on a small scale). But the dirty truth is that he will keep you from proving a different view of life by gumming up all opportunities if he can get away with it. History shows this time and time again, and scale does not seem to matter. The behavior is identical, or better said, it is different only to the extent that money allows. For instance, instead of a malicious mediocre academic smiling sweetly and telling a brilliant person his work means nothing any longer to that institution, you can have a secret police doing some serious physical damage to opponents.

Thank God for the Internet! This thing is capitalism at its finest. I read recently that the Internet is one of the greatest modern enemies of genocide. I believe it. Nasty people can no longer keep their nastiness hidden for too long. That also applies to vain people who sell out while trying to build their personality cults.

Notice that successful people who admire Objectivism are never bothered when someone accuses them of selling out for money. The Brandens, Greenspan, Aglioloro, Silver, Ditko, Goodkind, etc., even Rand herself. Look how they react. They laugh it off because they know better and, anyway, they use money for something grand.

It's only the vain preacher-types who use money for the Dali vision above who get duel-crazy offended. They have to hide that truth from everyone, especially from themselves, to pull off their agenda. This is what puts the chip on their shoulder when exposed and makes them so spiteful.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Darn! And I thought I'd done it right!

--Brant

Lambo for sale. (Comes with a well used but well maintained bimbo.)

[Matus1976]

Really??!! Really!!??!! ooohhhh man... hey if I want to divest you of your company and give it to my idiot brother because you are something I don't like, that's my right!

No, that's not your right. Whose posts are you reading?

Because I run the government and I make the rules! Or I own the bank and I'm going to call in your loan! It's all the same idea!

No, its not the same idea. One is an assault, the other is you choosing to no longer provide a service to someone. If you own a bank and 'call in a loan' because you don't like someone you have every right to do so, but you must suffer the consequences of your violation of contract.

Just because Rand might have been so blindly anti-communist(I'm assuming these quotes are accurate) as to throw rational self-interest out the window in that pursuit, doesn't mean we have to be!

There is no such thing as 'rational self interest' in communism, it makes it illegal and punishable by death. Please familiarize yourself with communist nations.

[anonrobt]

It is almost funny how such sterling qualities come forth from those with the initials L P...

[Jonathan]

If I am an employer, I should have every right to choose NOT to hire you for whatever reason I please, whether it is because you are a communist, an atheist, a kantianist, a born again christian, or a gay jewish black guy. You have no 'right' to be hired. If I ask you your affiliations and beliefs, and you refuse to answer, then I can refuse to hire you.

I agree. You have the right to not hire anyone for any reason. You don't, however, have the right to use government to publicly grill your employees, potential employees, competitors, neighbors, political enemies, or anyone else about their non-criminal beliefs, associations and activities. You don't have the right to use government to force people to appear in public and answer questions under oath for the purpose of revealing their beliefs so that they may be shunned.

Furthermore, you have no 'right' to be secretive about trying to over throw your government when you are planning to replace it with something much worse. The Venova cables revealed that virtually everyone questioned by the HUAC did in fact turn out to be a communist spy with direct ties to the Soviet Embassy. You seem to adopt the modern liberal post cold war mentality that the 'Red Scare' was just something a few silly people freaked out about for no reason, oblivious to the fact that soviet communism killed some 70 million people this century, communist spies stole the plans for the nuclear bomb and provided them to the soviet union, a communist assassinated a US president, and the Soviet Union had the official goal of turning every nation on the planet communist.

If there's evidence that a person has committed a crime, or intends to, then he should be tried and convicted in a court of law. But that's not what Rand was talking about, and it's not what the SOLOPers are talking about. It's not an issue of their wanting justice to be served against criminals, but of their wanting to use government to help them publicly humiliate or ostracize people who have not been found guilty of anything. They want to use government to help them punish people for their beliefs and artistic creations, and worse, they want their Objecti-fever interpretations of artistic creations to be the basis of their witch hunts.

A gay person has every right to be secretive with regard to his government, a wannabe murderous communist tyrant fomenting a revolution does not.

What if there are gays who I think might possibly have AIDS, and I'm terrified that they might be the type of "fomenting" and "murderous" gays who are trying to spread the disease on purpose? Shouldn't they be dragged before congressional committees, outed, and required to swear under oath that they're not trying to impose their deadly way of life on good, healthy, clean citizens? After all, we wouldn't be putting them in prison or anything. If they aren't trying to spread the disease, then they should have nothing to hide, and they shouldn't object to being forced to take oaths and answer detailed questions about their private beliefs and behavior, no?

And, as I asked in my last post, what about promiscuous married women who lie to the public by trying to maintain the public illusion of monogamous marriage while having secret affairs with married men? Such dirty sluts who publicly vowed or swore to be monogamous don't have the right to deceive the public when they want to alter their relationships. They don't have the right to continue receiving the social benefits and status of marriage. There are many people who value and respect the institution of marriage, and they should have they right to not associate with filthy, lying hussies. So, those suspected of having affairs should be required to appear before government committees and confess or deny their affairs under oath, no?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some of the SLOPPERS terms of endearment for me from the thread where Perigo's sell-out to the racist is discussed.

This is Rational Passion at its finest. Pure KASS...

MSK can fuck off and die too.

His Royal Roachness and Liar in Chief

... fucking creep. Your addict's nature is showing.

And MSK is an absolute scrotum, in fact that would be to insult the word scrotum. Let's just say that he obviously doesn't possess a pair.

... compulsive liar and obsessive creep

... piece of filth like MSK

... fucking obsessive, lying, creep

... moron

Gosh!

I have a list of similar high literary contributions from several places on the Web that started when OL was founded, but most came from Siberia Passion. I will add these to that post later, as is my habit.

Rest assured. If you are a newcomer and study Objectivism hard, you can rise to these heights, too! After all, these people are self-proclaimed spokespeople for Ayn Rand's philosophy with an implicit sanction from ARI. They are saving the world from an orgy of something-or-the-other. Role models of Randian heroes, they are. Regular John Galts each one...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Here's Pigero's latest:

It's why I call that place O-Lying. Lies and smears, Rand-diminution...

Wow, Pigero calls Rand an "ignoramus" and a "moron" because of her belief that there are no objective criteria for judging music (while being too big of an ignoramus and moron to come up with any intelligent arguments to refute her position), and he has the gall to whine that OLers are guilty of Rand-diminution!

Anyway, I agree with those who say that MSK hasn't presented any evidence to support his opinion that the reason Pigero bent over backward for nitwit racist Lineberry was because Pigero had hoped to get money from him. But who really gives a shit? I mean, with all of the unsupported smears that Pigero makes about others on an almost daily basis, can anyone really get worked up about someone flinging a comparatively small dose of the same right back at him?

J