Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Robert Campbell]

Freedom of religion is one thing, but allowing a religion that would submit rule of law and liberty to the teachings of the Koran is quite another.

blackhorse,

If the teachings of the Qur'an are, as you wish to maintain, all so vile and dangerous as to justify banning Islam, surely you can quote some of them in support of your position.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

John Locke vs the Catholic church (or reason vs. mysticism) IS a good parallel.

In my zeal to use the word “refudiate” in a manner worthy of its creator, I didn’t make my point clear. Locke was in favour of religious toleration, but not for Catholics. Locke was writing in the time when the succession of Stuart Kings landed a Catholic on the throne of England, it’s a complicated history I’m not going to go into. The US has welcomed Catholics, and they haven’t brought down the country, or even really caused problems (one bad president notwithstanding). If Locke’s view had won the day, I wouldn’t be here, so if you’re inclined to agree with him, tread lightly, otherwise

[Mike11]

Tried to reply to BH, realized I couldn't.

9Th, using Rowan Atkinson was a nice touch.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[9thdoctor]

Yuck. I don’t like Justin Raimondo, I can’t remember exactly what he wrote or when but he permanently turned me off at some point. Nevertheless, he’s just weighed in on Peikoff’s Mosque lunacy, and it’s a great piece. He descends to phrases like “That skinny little guy with the comically high voice, and the pencil thin neck, is a potential mass murderer” and arguably puts words in Peikoff’s mouth in a couple places, but in total it’s a devastating attack. A lot of the podcast is transcribed in his article, and it’s just as nutty typed as heard.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/22/haters-go-after-the-ground-zero-mosque/

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

I'm not a regular reader of Raimondo's site, because in a little while he always drives me nuts with his rhetorical excesses (a minor example, in the current post, is his insinuation that anyone who questions the foreign policy of the present Turkish government is obeying a "neocon memo").

But he's got Leonard Peikoff's number here.

He even refers to Peikoff as "senile." Which is not the present-day clinician's word... but some of the recent podcasts do suggest incipient dementia.

Robert Campbell

PS. Raimondo also deserves kudos for presenting accurate transcriptions from Peikoff's ranting ramble.

[Brant Gaede]

Thx for the link, Doc. I couldn't listen to very much of LPs podcast but JR obviously did gracing his article with lotsa quotations.

--Brant

let's bomb the Ayn Rand Institute!--their lives are contextual!

[9thdoctor]

Here’s a fresh brickbat tossed in Peikoff’s direction. It’s not as focused on his folly as the Raimondo piece, but certainly worth a read.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/29/forced-to-be-free

Also there are two new articles up on ARI Watch, neither are directly about the Mosque issue, but they're the first new pieces there in a long while.

http://www.ariwatch.com/

Edited July 29, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Thanks for the link to the interesting piece by Jesse Walker about illiberal reform movements and their latter-day descendants.

He worked in a pretty good slam at Peikoff:

I disagree strongly with Hirsi Ali's idea [to forbid Muslin schools in the US], but at least she speaks with direct experience of the ugly side of Islam. You can't say that about Leonard Peikoff, the officially designated "intellectual heir" of the novelist Ayn Rand. (I think that means Peikoff inherited Rand's intellect after it died.)

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

ARI Watch is a mixed bag for me. Mark has posted here on OL before, but we clashed a bit.

The problem is that I support the state of Israel, but I do not support promoting that support with misleading propaganda. Nor do I support fighting misleading propaganda with more misleading propaganda. That has caused me lots of grief, but I am convinced that my way is not only the most rational way, it is the most effective long-term.

As Mark is vehement in his hatred of Israel, my support of it is a sore point between us. But I fully agree with him that certain policies make The Ayn Rand Institute look like it has turned into The Ayn Rand for Israel Institute with Muslim-bashing as a choice activity. And they do this in a manner that misrepresents Ayn Rand's ideas. They turn the philosophy of individualism into jingoism for Israel, jingoism for preemptive wars against Israel's enemies, and even jingoism against Islam as an oversimplified whole.

Whether these issues should or should not be promoted and discussed is one thing. (I believe they need serious attention if Israel is to survive without major bloodshed.) Turning Ayn Rand's philosophy into a mouthpiece where those issues are projected as the cornerstone of her philosophy is quite another.

Part of the problem I have encountered in holding a principled stance on non-bigotry is that any time you criticize one side, the people on that side assume you are in bed with the enemy and the other side automatically assumes you are now seeing the light. It does not sink into that kind of mind that I do not see the essence of the world as they do, as Jew against Muslim, with one side being the good guys and the other side the bad guys.

Sites like ARI Watch are useful because they drag up facts that you might otherwise not encounter. But just like with other sites where hatred of something or someone is one of their main drivers, anything you read on it needs to be checked. I certainly do not guide my own thinking by the ideas found there and people like Mark never speak for me.

It is true that I have my own hatreds and I express them. That's natural and a part of being human. But my hatreds are few, not many, and even with respect to those few, I automatically assume people will check my facts. I want them to. I want to emphasize that. I want people to check my facts. Hating something means you want to destroy it, and that is a heavy responsibility for any person of character. Destroying is easy. Building is hard. So if people check my facts, they help me make sure I am not committing injustice in my views.

I have another difference of approach with lopsided sites that focus on scapegoating. I do not employ the majority of my efforts on hateful issues. They usually do. (And many of them preach killing with a murderous hatred and/or indifference to suffering that I find nauseating.)

Back to ARI Watch. If I had my druthers, Mark would hate the injustice of ARI misrepresenting Rand to promote a pro-Israel political agenda in a manner that is far removed from Objectivism--in a manner that overshadows Rand's ideas--but he would not hate Israel, especially not to the extent his writings show. Unfortunately, that is not what I have seen so far.

So I take ARI Watch with a large grain of salt.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

As Mark is vehement in his hatred of Israel, my support of it is a sore point between us.

I haven’t read everything there, but I haven’t seen anything that rises to that level. So it’s just one guy? He’s clearly put a lot of work in, the articles are always well sourced. The new one’s are worth a read, but they don’t deal with the Peikoff Mosque issue. I think that has added a new dimension, being a domestic policy issue.

[Brant Gaede]

As Mark is vehement in his hatred of Israel, my support of it is a sore point between us.

I haven't read everything there, but I haven't seen anything that rises to that level. So it's just one guy? He's clearly put a lot of work in, the articles are always well sourced. The new one's are worth a read, but they don't deal with the Peikoff Mosque issue. I think that has added a new dimension, being a domestic policy issue.

It's not practical any longer on OL to research this as you can't obtain the member list any longer and the past number of posts available are limited by quantity and time regardless.

--Brant

[Mike11]

I gotta say the tone on this site is better than the Other Oist boards.

Over at Speicher's place its open exterminationist antisemitism.

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=12028&view=findpost&p=106598

Over at OO.net its less overt but definitely rings of the same $%^$.

As many of you know I am no fan Rand but while she had some sociopathic tendencies I can't see this coming from her. She did assault the entire Arab race as savages but cries for mass extermination I can't see.

[Brant Gaede]

I gotta say the tone on this site is better than the Other Oist boards.

Over at Speicher's place its open exterminationist antisemitism.

http://forums.4aynra...ndpost&p=106598

Over at OO.net its less overt but definitely rings of the same $%^$.

As many of you know I am no fan Rand but while she had some sociopathic tendencies I can't see this coming from her. She did assault the entire Arab race as savages but cries for mass extermination I can't see.

I read the last two pages of that thread and the first. Nobody really takes on Peikoff's reasoning as such. I got bored. I don't read the site much less post so my sample is too small to say it's an anti-intellectual place.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I gotta say the tone on this site is better than the Other Oist boards.

Over at Speicher's place its open exterminationist antisemitism.

http://forums.4aynra...ndpost&p=106598

Over at OO.net its less overt but definitely rings of the same $%^$.

Antisemitism? Do you man vile anti-Jewish sentiment?

Are you aware that the word "antisemitism" was coined by the German writer Wilhelm Marr to denote hatred of Jews and Judaism for political and cultural reasons? It has nothing to do with the notion of "semite" in the general sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Over at Speicher's place its open exterminationist antisemitism.

http://forums.4aynra...ndpost&p=106598

Could you give a more specific reference? I’m sure I’ve read everything on that thread, but don’t want to reread it all now. Antisemitism, where? Page number, post number, something.

I usually like Betsy's writing, though on Branden's, Kelley's, and such we part company.

[Brant Gaede]

I gotta say the tone on this site is better than the Other Oist boards.

Over at Speicher's place its open exterminationist antisemitism.

http://forums.4aynra...ndpost&p=106598

Over at OO.net its less overt but definitely rings of the same $%^$.

Antisemitism? Do you man vile anti-Jewish sentiment?

Are you aware that the word "antisemitism" was coined by the German writer Wilhelm Marr to denote hatred of Jews and Judaism for political and cultural reasons? It has nothing to do with the notion of "semite" in the general sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Anti-Semitism then is only anti-Jews, not all semites--their Arab neighbors in the Middle East who can therefore be anti-Semitic themselves but not anti-semitic?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Anti-Semitism then is only anti-Jews, not all semites--their Arab neighbors in the Middle East who can therefore be anti-Semitic themselves but not anti-semitic?

--Brant

Correct. The term Antisemitism is a euphemism for Jew hatred. That is how it was originally coined by Marr and that is how it has been generally used. Being anti Arab or anti Islamic is NOT antisemitism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peregrine777]

One thing I find interesting is that most Objectivists still embrace open borders (or "open immigration" as they call it) when it comes to Moslems and others.

Instead of bombing Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia and violating the property rights of Moslems in the US, a much better way to reduce the treat of terrorism would be to ban Moslems from entering and remaining in the country.

-Neil Parille

Ah, finally, a Voice of Reason in this thread.

To my mind, the immigration issue is THE nexus point which will determine whether Oist/Libertarian thought ever gains traction. Regrettably, current trends seem to indicate it will instead be doomed to irrelevancy and the dustbin of history as the Other (with their rather more "collectivist" notions of racial/ethnic identity and shared history) overwhelm and swamp the jewel of the West with their superior <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate">TFRs.</a>

While we can pick nits over the excesses of Judeo-Christian history, the fact remains that the cultural high-water mark of, say, 1950s or 1960s America is a pastiche of many different but *related* streams of thought unique to white, European, Christian (broadly defined) culture. Quite distinct from the immigrants du jour and their shibboleths. Our "irrational" Christian heritage is inextricably bound up with many of our notions of what consitutes the Good, insofar as it relates to the social fabric, community, and interpersonal behavior. Even GHS of of ATCOG fame recognizes the contribution Xianity made with its emphasis on the sanctity of the Individual Soul. Like it or not -- the comfortable middle to upper-middle class lifestyle many on this board enjoy is a result of an amalgam of White/Christian/Eurocentric history. Much like the fish who "knows not of the water in which it swims", it is a common Oist/Libertarian conceit to flip the bird to Tradition and Religion never realizing such things enabled their very existence. Let's give credit where credit is due, K? K.

Although I suppose if a small minority of intellectuals are vocal enough, and wave their copies of Atlas Shrugged hard enough, we can give birth to a New Renaissance of individualism which gloriously transcends all the backwards, tribal, irrational habits of other cultures and thereby welcome them in to our world with open arms. Nevermind that such habits constitute the very CORE of the Others' identities, and served them well in overcoming the hardships endemic to their own life cirumstances. We will all bow in paean to Reason & Rationality. Eventually. Somehow.

I never thought I'd see the day when Objectivists became indistinguishable from One World, One Government progressives.

Let me ask you folks a question. Would you not feel a sense of defiance if some warring country attempted to ethnically cleanse the U.S.? Surely, their Initiation of Force in a gambit to replace the population with their own would be met with fierce resistance. Then why do you mighty warriors collapse into cowardly appeasement when the same ethnic cleansing happens through sheer numerical displacement? Even that wouldn't be so bad if it was merely a matter of different-looking people ASSIMILATING into the American Melting Pot. But no, what often happens is that when an encroaching population reaches a critical mass, they merely continue the habits and postures they are most familar with and feel comfortable with. I am an unfortunate denizen of South Florida where mass immigration has turned my city into what Tom Tancredo righteously referred to as a Third World country. A typical free-marketer argument is that no one can gain a competitive advantage by discriminating. The idea is that the discriminator would be undercut by those who open their wares to any and all comers. But that's not how it works in practice! Here in Miami, if you don't speak Spanish, you cannot ask for directions, you can't ask a salesperson questions about their products, and you are SHUT OUT. How can this be? Surely Anglos would gain a competitive advantage by employing bilingual employees. But I'll tell you -- I am half-Hispanic and I have been able to worm into the belly of the beast, and the prevailing attitude is "Why should we accomodate the Anglos? We have enough of Our Gang here to make them accomodate US." If that doesn't make your blood boil then you are truly one of those self-hating, self-immolating whites the Right denigrates. Don't even get me started on the politics here. It's a Banana Republic where backroom deals, nepotism and favoritism reign supreme. The whole notion of disinterested fidelity to abstract principles like the rule of law is a joke when you come from a country where corruption is considered the norm for those who are "connected." But hey, let 'em all in, since we are believers in the American Way.

The American Melting Pot has become and will become just another Balkanization.

NB: none of this even touches on the topic of Islamofascism. That's another ball of wax.

Well, my six-pack has been killed so I shall stop here.

P.S. To any Dawkins fans out there: http://vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm

Breathe deep, the gathering gloom.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Peregrine777

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, why don't you move to Georgia?

--Brant

[Peregrine777]

Gee, why don't you move to Georgia?

--Brant

Relocation is always on my mind, but I can't escape the larger issue that if other people followed my lead, we would simply be cowards hiding away in smaller and smaller enclaves while the America we once knew turned into Brazil where a cadre of elites live high on the hog, the middle class is dispossesed in a hellmatrix of irrelevancy, and social pathology continues unabated among the vast, churning underclass.

If you had any sense of loyalty to the American Dream, you would agree with me.

Sadly however, it appears most Objectivists would rather retreat into solipsistic idealism on internet boards while the social fabric is torn asunder.

"Fine philosophies reflect more the need to feel good than how anyone has lived their lives." -- Christopher S. Hyatt

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, why don't you move to Georgia?

--Brant

Relocation is always on my mind, but I can't escape the larger issue that if other people followed my lead, we would simply be cowards hiding away in smaller and smaller enclaves while the America we once knew turned into Brazil where a cadre of elites live high on the hog, the middle class is dispossesed in a hellmatrix of irrelevancy, and social pathology continues unabated among the vast, churning underclass.

If you had any sense of loyalty to the American Dream, you would agree with me.

Sadly however, it appears most Objectivists would rather retreat into solipsistic idealism on internet boards while the social fabric is torn asunder.

"Fine philosophies reflect more the need to feel good than how anyone has lived their lives." -- Christopher S. Hyatt

Well, this is conservatism. You'll find this well served on Jack Wheeler's ToThePoint. Go buy yourself a month's subscription. I'd say it was a mix of 1/4 Objectivism and 3/4 William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagen.

--Brant

[Peregrine777]

More accurately, it is paleoconservatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

Although some of the lurkers might be more amenable to Paleolibertarianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism

Edited August 1, 2010 by Peregrine777

[Brant Gaede]

More accurately, it is paleoconservatism.

http://en.wikipedia....leoconservatism

I'd call it a mixture of paleo and neo. It is NOT Pat Buchanan.

--Brant

[Peregrine777]

More accurately, it is paleoconservatism.

http://en.wikipedia....leoconservatism

I'd call it a mixture of paleo and neo. It is NOT Pat Buchanan.

--Brant

Where do you get this? To my mind, the distinction between paleo and neo is in the fidelity (or lack thereof) to a distinct American sociocultural tradition. We may split hairs over what that tradition constitutes exactly, but the neoconservative strain seems to me to be yet another attempt by another Elite to draw America in a particular direction which benefits them to the detriment of the vast Country Class:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Neoconservatism is largely a Jewish phenomenon.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I only worry about elites when corporations get in bed with government.

It's true that I otherwise don't like snobs. But I don't worry about them.

Michael