Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[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

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...s-and-the/print

Neoconservatism is largely a Jewish phenomenon.

I'm talking about Wheeler's ToThePoint.

--Brant

[Peregrine777]

Mike, an argument can be made that an *inherent* feature of "human population dynamics" is that those who possess the greatest entrepreneurial/rentier power INEVITABALY grow tendrils which reach deep into the governing class.

It's a simple matter of "like attracts like"

Those with power wish to consolidate with those who will help to aggregate more power.

Think Oligarchy. Which is basically the history of the world.

Hey, I'm not one to argue with superiority or progress -- unless I'm one of those being trampled underfoot in the process.

Ya know, individualism and all that.

The Oist/Libertard worship of businessmen basically serves to entrench this intractable historical relationship.

In other words, most Oists/Libertarians are Useful Idiots -- pawns -- for the elites.

Most of us will never be captains of state or CEO's. But we like to dream we will.

Does it bother you that the elites who encourage mass immigration to garner more Democratic votes, or cheap nanny and lawn service, are safely ensconced in their gated communities far from the social pathology of their policies? You know they send THEIR kids to private schools.

Me? I'm a blue collar worker who is hit hard by such open border policies.

The real question comes down to where you are on the spectrum. I suppose if I was an old money blueblood in New England my POV would be rather different.

Regardless, the population replacement policies of the elites is changing the character of this country, and many of us in the middle are feeling the pinch. Oh, hey, eager immigrants mean cheaper labor -- FOR THE BUSINESSMEN. Nevermind that my wages drop, my standard of living drops, and I am overrun by those with rather more different sensibilities concerning social and interpersonal conduct. We have a greater GDP! YAY LIBERTARIANISM!

So yeah, if all that matters to you is MAKING THAT GREEN, then by all means, sell your country out. But if you have any inkling of an AESTHETIC sense for a social and communitarian way of life that once made this country great, then you will think twice.

[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...s-and-the/print

Neoconservatism is largely a Jewish phenomenon.

I'm talking about Wheeler's ToThePoint.

--Brant

Looks good. I just may bounce over there.

[9thdoctor]

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

Try investing in 12 packs.

Those with power wish to consolidate with those who will help to aggregate more power.

Think Oligarchy. Which is basically the history of the world.

Hey, I'm not one to argue with superiority or progress -- unless I'm one of those being trampled underfoot in the process.

Ya know, individualism and all that.

The Oist/Libertard worship of businessmen basically serves to entrench this intractable historical relationship.

In other words, most Oists/Libertarians are Useful Idiots -- pawns -- for the elites.

Do you believe this was true of Jefferson, Washington etc? Granted there are historians (Gore Vidal and ilk) that make that claim, while John Ridpath and others paint a picture of an epoch making exception to the rule you’ve set out.

Most of us will never be captains of state or CEO's. But we like to dream we will.

Most indeed, that’s true of any group. Given the natural competitive disadvantage a libertarian has in Government (no favors to bestow, while opposing the favors others are relying on to butter their bread), it’s no wonder that electoral success has been elusive. As to CEO’s, there are plenty, but dreaming didn't make it so.

I think this discussion ought to be split off, it’s drifted too far from the Peikoff Mosque lunacy.

[Peregrine777]

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

Try investing in 12 packs.

Indeed. I have it on good authority that if I order in bulk, I get free shipping. ;)

[Mike Renzulli]

I may have been critical of Leonard Peikoff in the past but on this point I have to agree. The fact is that the U.S. government is at war with radical Islam and not the religion itself. By Imam Rauf (who is heading up the project) sidestepping a question posed to him about Hamas is certainly telling of where his loyalties lie.

For example, back in May David Horowitz pinned down a UCSD student (who happened to be Muslim) with this point during a Q&A session he gave at a YAF conference held on campus.

The student in question tried to dodge answering Horowitz's question on whether or not she condemned Hamas. It wasn't until Horowitz quoted a statement from a Hamas commander that he hoped Israel would still remain in existence since it would make his job of killing the Jews easier (essentially pinning the student down from another angle) if she favored or opposed the Hamas commander's statement that the student finally admitted she was for it which means she supports Hamas and its goal of exterminating the Jews.

Edward Cline brought up a good point in an essay he posted about this subject a short time ago. He points out that the City of New York approved the sale of the New Yorker Hotel to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's religion in 1994.

The hotel now exists as somewhat of a revenue stream for the Unification Church.

The City of New York is going to help enable radical Islam just like it helped enable Moon's cult in 1994 which (as many of you may know) is known to subject its members to brain washing and seperating people from their families.

I would not want this center near my property anymore than I would want a center for Scientology or Moon's religion close by either.

In the case of the Mosque it will be used as an outlet to spread the ideas of radical Islam which, in turn, will contribute to inspiring more Muslims to become terrorists.

The fact is that the U.S. and its allies are at war with the radical strains of Islam which includes the Imams and members of the religion who subscribe to it and the countries and groups who support this theology and terrorist activities. Since that is the case it is proper for government to prevent the sale of a structure and even seize properties or assets of groups or individuals that assist in the spread of this vile, evil ideology.

I believe the city of New York acquired the building in question via condemnation that, in turn, makes it the landlord. If the suit against this property sale is successful then you can thank New York City and Mayor Bloomberg for helping to allow the placement of an enemy army literally in our our front yards.

To further expand on this point I would also dare to argue that since government is created to protect individual rights it has the right to prevent groups (such as cults) that indulge in involuntary mind control, indoctrination and other activities that involve involuntarily seperating people from their loved ones and friends from being able to create or erect structures or acquire assets so that they can perpetrate their activities and spread their ideas.

Time to dust off the lepers thread, Peikoff’s podcast released today is exclusively a discussion of the “ground zero mosque”, and it defies quick summarization.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Brant Gaede]

Before a country can act insanely--assuming the act isn't just stupidity--it must be run by ignorant and insane people. Waging a war against a monotheistic religion of 1.5 billion people is ignorant, stupid and insane. Waging a war against state-sponsored terrorism is another matter entirely. The first thing to do is stop letting your own country be an overt sponsor of terrorism both foreign and domestic. That takes time. It won't happen soon. It probably won't happen at all (in our lifetimes). In the meantime the United States manufactures terrorists in Iraq and especially now in Afghanistan and Pakistan which is where they're getting their training. If your trained terrorist is, say, 25 years old, he might enjoy up to a 30-40 years' terrorism career including training the next generation. What else is he going to do? I myself am a trained killer. At the age of 66 I haven't lost much skill for that. There are millions of Americans who are just that too. I haven't spent the last 43 years killing anybody living in an economy and culture that provides other outlets for endeavor. Go watch the movie High Noon. It's just an allegory. Civil War veterans hiding in a church while three men with revolvers terrorize and loot only to be stopped by the Marshall, also with a revolver!? One man with a repeating rifle would take down all three. In real life the James gang gets shot to pieces by the residents of Northfield, Minnesota. (Watch High Noon for The Fountainhead influences. Gary Cooper as Roark and Lloyd Bridges as Keating. And in the end Cooper shrugs, too, and Atlas is not yet published.)

--Brant

like I said: insane

Edited August 10, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a real problem when you grant an enormous amount of power to the government, no matter how just or protective that power may seem at the time.

It's called the leader who comes afterward.

Does anyone really think the Patriot Act in the hands of President Obama is a good idea? People should take a look at what he is doing with all that power. His record is far worse than Bush's.

Now there's a clamor to the government to demonize an entire class of people. "You can take some of our freedoms, just make us safe. And, please, take all of their freedoms (if Americans)." That is the subtext I keep seeing over and over. Even Peikoff is clamoring like that.

Does anyone really think it's a good idea for the government to do this?

I don't.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> It's called the leader who comes afterward.

That's it exactly. That point - and that such power can be used to shut the mouths of the opponents of big government like, you know, us - was also made by Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Ari Armstrong and other of Peikoff's opponents within the ARI camp.

[9thdoctor]

I would not want this center near my property anymore than I would want a center for Scientology or Moon's religion close by either.

You waited well over a month to chime in, and I’m rather bored with the topic now. You liken Islam to Scientology and the Rev Moon, but don’t say if you believe they should be outlawed (you invoke NIMBY, but that applies to any church, I feel the same way), neverminding that the comparison fails for reason of sheer headcount. You don’t make fresh arguments or answer objections already presented, so I don’t have much to say, I’m replying since you quoted from (replied to) my first post.

Here’s a couple good new articles on the subject, from Reason Mag and Christopher Hitchens.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/09/the-mosque-controversy-and-rel

http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/

[blackhorse]

Ed Cline nails it again.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/islamic-jihad/6057-The-NYC-911-Mosque-Victory-for-Islamic-Jihad.html

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe this thread should be entitled, Give War A Chance!?

--Brant

Edited August 10, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed Cline nails it again.

blackhorse,

Do you mean with this?:

I've just been informed privately that Ed Cline has called Diana Hsieh a "sharia supporter" for opposing the blocking of the mosque.

Is that the part he nailed?

Does anyone know what barfbone is talking about and where this happened?

(leaning forward like an old woman and cupping right ear forward to hear better)

(cackling) After all, confession is good for the soul...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: More Lunacy from Ed Cline

Mr. Cline like many Objectivists is not good on making distinctions of degree.

> "[He] has called Diana Hsieh a "sharia supporter" for opposing the blocking of the mosque."

I wouldn't take posted gossip on SoloP for granted, but along the same lines, Mr. Cline certainly thinks he can deduce what all muslims must think from the most extreme passages in their scriptures. That's like deducing what all Christians think from the most extreme passages in the Bible.

Calling someone a sharia supporter for opposing the blocking of the mosque (with government force) is -exactly- the same as calling all muslims, all branches and movements within a billion strong religion, sharia supporters.

Its the same logic. The same dropping of distinctions. The same rationalistic attitude toward judgement, the same disgusting, irresponsible 'smearing' which we've seen over the years among Oists.

For a bunch of individualists, you would think they would 'get' the idea that you must *judge people individually by what they actually advocate and their actual statements*, not what you think some long-dead authority they respect tells them they should advocate.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Rich Engle]

Well-put, Phil, and I agree with you completely.

As to the issue itself--common sense alone is telling me that building it there is just a bad idea, on a number of reasons. Whatever the nature of the place, it would look to many, many people like rubbing salt in a very big wound--it is, simply-put, inappropriate. And even if it was opened up as some kind of Islamic information center, run by non-radicals who are equally outraged over Islamic terrorists, non-radicals with an essentially Humanist mission statement involving showing the many important distinctions, etc. Ground Zero is basically considered Holy Ground by many--and I don't mean that in the traditional sense. It is sadly sacred on one level or another. I am sure, even, that there are many in the Islamic faith tradition(s) who consider it so. But it would be very, very difficult to get that message through. Inappropriate location, period. And, you know, even if they went at it that way, they'd be opening themselves to potential danger from the terrorists. It would be a dangerous place--I could see that place being burned down or bombed or shot full of holes, and that could be done by extremists on both sides, or even someone who has gone over the edge because of a lost love one.

Just the mention of doing it started a shit-storm, and I haven't seen any sign of this displaying healing powers.

Bad idea.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Alfonso Jones]

For a bunch of individualists, you would think they would 'get' the idea that you must *judge people individually by what they actually advocate and their actual statements*, not what you think some long-dead authority they respect tells them they should advocate.

In somebody's words, "check your premises."

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You've got to stop that.

I find myself agreeing with you here and that falls outside of my comfort zone.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I'm sorry, Michael. I apologize. I'll try only to post things you strongly disagree with from now on.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Mike Renzulli]

I tend to agree with this statement, understand and respect where you are coming from. Nth I also thank you for posting the columns.

Yet in terms of the overall debate on this subject, what the Imam who is speaking for and leading this effort has not only said but will not do in terms of condemning actual terrorist groups (like Hamas) for their activities I think suspicion and opposition to this is warranted.

If an enemy is involved in a deception there are ways to find out either by observing what they do and also what they say.

In the case of the Cordoba Project the fact that, according to an op-ed in Forbes mag, Imam Rauf is now traveling throughout middle eastern countries on the State Department dime on a multicultural-oriented trip could mean that he will simultaneously try to convince monarchs of Muslim countries to help pay for it.

One of the places Rauf is visiting is Saudi Arabia. As many of you may know, the country outlaws facilities and maybe even the existence of religions other than Islam and is known to help pay for the construction of mosques worldwide.

To the best of my knowledge, the Saudis have not done very much to halt the spread of the Wahabbist <sp> theology that was taught in Saudi schools (madrassas) until the U.S. complained about it back when Bush was President and terrorism was at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy.

I understand the most Muslims may not want to or will not do what they are told or are advocated by their spiritual leaders. The ones who don't participate in violence and truly want to live in peace should be praised, supported as well as allowed to associate in manners of their choosing.

However, Muslims who advocate or participate in activities that promote terrorism or participate in such causes are another matter and should be dealt with harshly.

Not far from where I live an Islamic center is going up where the imam the center just hired was one of the 6 flying imams. The group were removed from a USAirways flight in 2006 because the flight staff concluded they acted suspiciously. The imams then later sued with the help of CAIR's legal arm and were given settlement money last year.

Some of the imams involved in the incident have been linked to Islamic extremist groups.

In fairness I have not seen any evidence that the imam in charge of the Phoenix center is associated with any extremist groups and a review of the Islamic center's website indicates the group that meets there is friendly to outsiders.

This tells me that the Islamic center here is probably void of any influences of the radical jihadists and I feel comfortable that it will not be a magnet or harbor for radical Islam.

With the radicalization of Faisal Shazad I am very concerned about efforts like Cordoba as well as the potential for radical Islam to come about moreso in this country. Especially since the seeds of it growing much more than it has in the U.S. are there.

Unless Cordoba is stopped it would mean a victory for Islamic Jihadists.

For a bunch of individualists, you would think they would 'get' the idea that you must *judge people individually by what they actually advocate and their actual statements*, not what you think some long-dead authority they respect tells them they should advocate.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Robert Campbell]

blackhorse,

You really think that Ed Cline has nailed it, when he says things like this?

I detest Islam because it is one of the most degrading, anti-mind, anti-individual, collectivist creeds in existence. I detest it for all the crimes it has committed throughout history, perhaps more than I do the crimes committed by the Catholic Church in its heyday, perhaps more than the atrocities committed by any religious creed. I understand the sensitivities and emotions of all their victims. So, if that is bigotry, I will make the most of it. For Islam is distinct from all other creeds for the reason that it is, from top to bottom, virulently anti-life.

So Islam—every variety, over nearly 1400 years—is more thoroughly anti-life than thuggee, or the state religion of the Aztecs?

Has he nailed it any more firmly when he says this?

But, what is a "practicing Muslim"? A practicing Muslim, one who applies the core teachings of his creed, is a terrorist. All other Muslims are passive, sham Muslims, much like most of their to-be-conquered, or to-be-enslaved, or to-be-slain Christian opposites of all sects, the "go to church on Sunday" believers. Sham Muslims are the silent dross who do not, or dare not, question the core tenets of Islam that motivate their more "activist" or consistent brethren. Sham Muslims exist merely to spur the population intifada in Western countries, to vote "Muslim" if political candidates demonstrate a sympathy for their alleged oppression, and to donate money to Islamic "charities," which are basically fund-raising venues for terrorists.

After reading his screed, i would have to be disappointed in Ed Cline if he didn't call Diana Hsieh a "shari'a supporter."

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So, if that is bigotry, I will make the most of it.

Robert,

That sounds like a self-confessed bigot to me.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So long as we are on the subject of Objectivist bigots, get a load of this:

*I* hate *all* Muslims, on principle, for the wanton savage stupidity of their beliefs. There's not one I like. Got it? So I'm an Islamophobe? Proudly!

That's the hate part.

To be fair, there was a continuation of that paragraph. Here it is:

But guess what. Unlike them, I won't force my views on anyone. Not on them, not on anyone.

That's the lie part.

Here is just one example. This man has called for President Obama to be hung before he took office. Perigo later recanted, then even later said his first view (hanging Obama like Mussolini) made better sense. See this thread for documentation of the flip-flops: I want this on record.

That does not sound like a person who "won't force my views on anyone."

This man does a hell of a lot more preaching precisely about how to force his views on others, but I have to stop. My stomach is turning.

There is not too much I loathe in life, but I can't stand bigots.

I put a continent between my entire family and me for over 30 years over this. There were other reasons, but bigotry was one of the main ones..

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> *I* hate *all* Muslims, on principle, for the wanton savage stupidity of their beliefs. There's not one I like.

Of all the incredibly dumb, irrational, over the top statements Perigo has made over the years, that has to be in the top ten.

It's tough to say though, since there have been a lot.

Where to begin: i) he assumes they all have the same beliefs, ii) he only considers 'beliefs' rather than actions or personal character, iii) he talks about a huge spectrum of a -billion- of people. Not all of whom he has met.

Also: He doesn't distinguish between good and bad beliefs in books of scripture of any religion. Like be honest, be productive, don't sleep with your neighbor's wife...

Also: What about the savage stupidity of many biblical beliefs? Does that mean since God drowned the whole human race and the founding fathers and many great men in history were Christians that he "hates" Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and all of the heroes of our history?

,,,,,,,

I wish this clown would just get away from Objectivism.

Or at least "zip it" when he has been drinking.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Since Mussolini was shot to death first, then his body was hung upside down in a public place, it's not death by hanging that Lindsay Perigo wants for Barack Obama.

Perigo's self-destruction continues.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

The thing that really saddens me--and galls me--is that later on down the line here in O-Land, people will simply pretend this stuff did not happen and that people like Cline and Perigo do not really mean it--that they were temporarily over the top or something like that.

But they do mean it. They repeat it. And if asked, they will even get snarky about it.

They proudly proclaim they are bigots and revel in it with a chip on their shoulder. Yet there are those who still will not believe it.

The truth--based on their acts and on their words--is:

They are bigots.

They are bigots.

They are bigots.

The worst of the worst collectivist thinkers on earth.

Bigots using Ayn Rand and Objectivism to justify their bigotry.

Worse than not believing it, there are even other Objectivists who think that is just fine.

Well I don't.

It's not fine.

It's evil.

Hell, even the left knew when it was time to cut loose a bigot like Helen Thomas, irrespective of her years and honors. And they are collectivists!

(Not that I would want to compare Cline or Perigo to Helen Thomas. Neither of the two will ever come close to her professional stature.)

Michael