Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Jonathan]

Guys, you need to accept the possibility that someone states a view because they actually agree with it, not because they have their finger in the wind and are dishonest about the view.

I haven't suggested that Comrade Sonia was dishonest about her views on the ground zero mosque. I think she indeed does believe what she said. The point is not that she says things that she disagrees with, but that when she's kissing the ass of someone from whom she feels she can gain, she avoids controversy and confrontation with them. If she's on record as having a strong opinion on a certain subject, and then the person whose ass she's kissing disagrees, she politely states that she's reconsidering her previous views and giving much thought to the deeply complex and intelligent arguments that her esteemed mentor has made. That she's no longer doing so in regard to Peikoff is interesting.

J

[Philip Coates]

> If she's on record as having a strong opinion on a certain subject, and then the person whose ass she's kissing disagrees, she politely states that she's reconsidering her previous views and giving much thought to the deeply complex and intelligent arguments that her esteemed mentor has made

Do you have some exact quotes and/or links to show that there is a pattern of this? Or are you just slinging mud?

I'm certainly willing to believe it if it's more than a vague allegation, as I'm a strong opponent of many of Diana's views. But I detest injustice.

[Dragonfly]

Another possibility is that she was caught with her pants down this time. After emphatically agreeing with Peikoff's fatwa of a few years ago (vote Democrat, otherwise you don't understand Objectivism!), she was remarkably silent when Peikoff recently made a turnaround on his previous statement. Openly agreeing again with Peikoff would be a bit too obvious, and disagreeing openly was not a good tactic for her career. But in this last case she had just published a very outspoken defense of the priority of property rights (dogmatic and therefore safe, she would have thought) and now Peikoff a few days later turns out to be much more pragmatic (apart from his emotional appeal to bomb the mosque out of existence), and even uses the same argument from intimidation - if you don't agree, you don't understand Objectivism. Now keeping silent would also have been too obvious, so she was forced to disagree (but of course very respectfully) openly now.

[9thdoctor]

Guys, you need to accept the possibility that someone states a view because they actually agree with it, not because they have their finger in the wind and are dishonest about the view.

Not just “someone”. A specific individual with a long history many of us, especially you, have witnessed. Pattern recognition is a basic human ability, people here are utilizing it. FWIW I don’t claim to know her motivation, I only linked to her discussion because it demonstrates that Peikoff is getting virtually no support. However, she’s now shut down the conversation on her site. Remember that her tiff with Betsy Speicher was over the fact Betsy allowed harsh criticism of Peikoff to take place in 2006. Who knows where it’s going (like I really care about Hsieh qua Hsieh), but I think Peikoff’s gone so far off the rails it’s impossible for anyone to support his position on this. Well, that is unless you’re Lindsay Perigo.

Perhaps we can start a new thread "The Kremlin ARI Watchers".

There’s already a site by that name, don’t tell me you haven’t heard of it until now! Here’s a couple particularly good articles from there: http://ariwatch.com/PresidentialElections-2.htm

http://ariwatch.com/PresidentialElections-3.htm

I don’t think the site has been updated in a long time.

[Dragonfly]

> If she's on record as having a strong opinion on a certain subject, and then the person whose ass she's kissing disagrees, she politely states that she's reconsidering her previous views and giving much thought to the deeply complex and intelligent arguments that her esteemed mentor has made

Do you have some exact quotes and/or links to show that there is a pattern of this? Or are you just slinging mud?

In an earlier post I'd reproduced some of Hsieh's statements from some time ago. You'll see that she then was quite outspoken in her criticisms of his ideas. When I compare that with her fawning admiration of Peikoff after her reform, when she only writes about him in superlatives without any criticism, I perceive a horrible stench.

[Jonathan]

Do you have some exact quotes and/or links to show that there is a pattern of this? Or are you just slinging mud?

Egghead schoolmarm troll ignored.

J

[Dennis Hardin]

Let’s take a closer look at the earth-shaking magnitude of the Comrade Sonia v Self-Annointed Heir dispute:

Comrade Sonia: “Private property must be respected, even when we find the views and actions of its owners odious, provided that they're not acting to violate rights. Totalitarian Islam is a major threat, but that threat needs to be fought by the military -- by destroying the states that sponsor terrorism -- not by violating private property rights in order to prevent a mosque from being built.”

Peikoff: [at roughly the 10 minute mark, speaking about an analogous situation in which the Japanese are given a parcel of land in Pearl Harbor] “…Now, if you can even conceive of that as justified because of ‘property rights,’ then I say you haven’t a clue [about] what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying…”

Take that, Comrade Sonia! Peikoff says you don’t have a clue about what objectivism is saying!

Following Peikoff’s statement, Comrade Sonia says she disagrees with him “for all the reasons outlined in my original post…”

In other words, she and Peikoff have a fundamental disagreement about what Objectivism is saying, which is exactly what Peikoff said about Kelley. If that’s not enough cannon fodder for immediate excommunication, I don’t know what would be.

And Comrade Sonia will have another name to add to her infamous list of the "false friends of Objectivism."

[9thdoctor]

Do people actually listen to this Peikoff?

He seems quite insane..

I listen to his podcast every Monday, and occasionally report on his more objectionable/stupid statements here. Good ones to, a couple times. He’s one of the best known people in Objectivism, but as you can see, this site is home to his harshest critics. If all you’ve heard from him is the O’Reilly video and the podcast we’re discussing here, then I’m going to have to assume that when you write “quite insane”, that translates to BATSHIT CRAZY!!! in my parlance.

Time for a song:

> If she's on record as having a strong opinion on a certain subject, and then the person whose ass she's kissing disagrees, she politely states that she's reconsidering her previous views and giving much thought to the deeply complex and intelligent arguments that her esteemed mentor has made

Do you have some exact quotes and/or links to show that there is a pattern of this? Or are you just slinging mud?

Egghead schoolmarm troll ignored.

If you’re not ready to show the research to back up your claims, to Phil’s specifications, you shouldn’t be making any assertions. Rereading years of posts and selecting the gotcha moments, often from threads Phil participated in, c’mon, you’ve got hours and hours of free time, right?

Oh fiddlesticks, don't tell me she's going to prove Jonathan right already! And here we were having a "teachable moment". Dammit!

Edited July 1, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Greybird]

[...] Totalitarian Islam is a major threat, but that threat needs to be fought by the military — by destroying the states that sponsor terrorism — not by violating private property rights in order to prevent a mosque from being built.

And, naturally, "destroying states" doesn't ever, ever violate private property rights, right, Mrs. Hsieh? Because nobody in those states has any private property. They're all guilty. They all deserve to die. Destroying such governments is a necessity, and property or persons who are uninvolved are obviously a null set. {/sarcasm}

I rarely say this about anyone, but Diana Hsieh is stringing herself up by her contradictions. That is the leading characteristic of a clueless fuckwit.

[George H. Smith]

Let’s take a closer look at the earth-shaking magnitude of the Comrade Sonia v Self-Annointed Heir dispute:

Comrade Sonia: “Private property must be respected, even when we find the views and actions of its owners odious, provided that they're not acting to violate rights. Totalitarian Islam is a major threat, but that threat needs to be fought by the military -- by destroying the states that sponsor terrorism -- not by violating private property rights in order to prevent a mosque from being built.”

It pains me to say this, but that is an excellent piece by Diana Hsieh.

Btw, what is the reference to "Comrade Sonia?"

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> If she's on record as having a strong opinion on a certain subject, and then the person whose ass she's kissing disagrees, she politely states that she's reconsidering her previous views and giving much thought to the deeply complex and intelligent arguments that her esteemed mentor has made

Do you have some exact quotes and/or links to show that there is a pattern of this? Or are you just slinging mud?

In an earlier post I'd reproduced some of Hsieh's statements from some time ago. You'll see that she then was quite outspoken in her criticisms of his ideas. When I compare that with her fawning admiration of Peikoff after her reform, when she only writes about him in superlatives without any criticism, I perceive a horrible stench.

Perhaps Hsieh should adopt this as her theme song. The singer and pianist is the incomparable Blossom Dearie.

Ghs

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Libertarian Muslim]

Let’s take a closer look at the earth-shaking magnitude of the Comrade Sonia v Self-Annointed Heir dispute:

Comrade Sonia: “Private property must be respected, even when we find the views and actions of its owners odious, provided that they're not acting to violate rights. Totalitarian Islam is a major threat, but that threat needs to be fought by the military -- by destroying the states that sponsor terrorism -- not by violating private property rights in order to prevent a mosque from being built.”

It pains me to say this, but that is an excellent piece by Diana Hsieh.

Btw, what is the reference to "Comrade Sonia?"

Ghs

I also enjoyed it, I think she's quite an excellent writer..

However, I don't believe that the war can be won through bombing and military actions..

[9thdoctor]

Btw, what is the reference to "Comrade Sonia?"

Comrade Sonia is a character in We the Living. She’s in the party, promotes ideological purity and will inform on people to further her own career. Comrade Sonia, that is, the fictional character, in the book. I believe it was Sciabarra who first applied the moniker to Mrs. H, it’s been around for years.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I also enjoyed it, I think she's quite an excellent writer..

Adonis,

I would say sweet poison, but there's not even any poison. It's more like chocolate covered ants.

Yes, Hsieh has talent as a non-fiction writer. You would think her flurry of sudden attention to the mosque issue would be because she cares deeply about property rights.

I doubt it, though. The following is my opinion, but it is not just based on thin air. I believe Hsieh was in preaching-to-the-lesser-ones mode in her original analysis, having had, as she did, the blessing of Peikoff. She is trying to groom herself as an Objectivist guru using him as a model (her podcasts are even modeled on what he does.) But when Peikoff blasted those who disagree with him as not understanding property rights, that shook her world upside-down.

Now Peikoff's ex-wife has made a defense of his arguments and Hsieh is rethinking her views, with profuse gratitude to the ex that she expressed several times (twice in her comments to the article alone). It's a crap shoot whether she will capitulate, but my money is on the "she will" option.

In other words, her talent is not being used to further her understanding of property rights, nor spread the message about the underlying principles. It is being used to ape an Objectivist guru (Peikoff), then to try to get back in with him after being blasted. She also uses her talent constantly to blast the critics of the guru she apes--to the extent that she has betrayed--in an ugly manner--practically all of the previous friendships she had from the time when she was one of the guru's critics.

I think Hsieh should stop that crap, that she has the potential to be far better than that, but she is the one who chooses her values as is her right. So I, personally, don't take what she writes too seriously. I am more interested in those who are engaged with the issues without flip-flopping for personal gain--even if the gain is only perceived value and not real value.

I imagine there are many parallels in the Muslim world, where a talented writer uses his talent to imitate an Imam, and fawn over the Imam, rather than promote his heart-felt views on Islam. Thus the fundamental standard is his standing with the Imam, not Islam, although Islam is a strong secondary standard.

This is how I understand Hsieh.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Now Peikoff's ex-wife has made a defense of his arguments and Hsieh is rethinking her views, with profuse gratitude to the ex that she expressed several times (twice in her comments to the article alone). It's a crap shoot whether she will capitulate, but my money is on the "she will" option.

Amy Peikoff's article has the illogic that I have come to expect from the ARI crowd, but it is also extraordinarily creepy. She makes it clear that she is talking about all mosques in the United States, not merely the Ground Zero mosque: "First, I think that one’s understanding of the nature of Islam will affect whether one believes that building a Mosque in the United States is an exercise of property rights....[E]ven if you agree that in reality, there is no property right to build a Mosque in the U.S., much less near Ground Zero, you might still think that you want the government to follow proper procedures...." (My italics.)

I assume that Amy Peikoff also wants to deny other civil rights to American Muslims, though she doesn't specify the details; this conclusion certainly follows from her premises.

This insanity reminds me a great deal of arguments that were used in England during the 17th and 18th centuries to deny civil liberties to Catholics. It was argued (including by John Locke, of all people) that Catholics owe allegiance to a foreign prince, the Pope, and so cannot be good English subjects. This position was given some credibility by the fact that Catholics (especially Jesuits) had plotted against the English government, taking the position that heretical princes had no right to rule.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If you don't want the mosque built there are under-the-radar, private and other quiet ways to do that. In the meantime so many get to demonstrate various incompetencies and levels of servility. Leonard Peikoff and his bullying "you don't understand Objectivism" leitmotif is the intellectual equivalent of Bozo the Clown running around with an air horn. Is anybody addressing the fact that his business is ex-communication trying to be the last-man standing?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Amy Peikoff presents a way of thinking that, I hold, leads to bigotry. Leonard Peikoff does this kind of stuff, too. (From the same link as above):

... if the choice is secular statism vs. Sharia law, I will pick the former.

It so happens that this is not the choice. Yet it is presented as if it were, or at least so plausible that considering it is reasonable.

It isn't.

We live in a far more mixed world than that.

But let's take her at her word for a moment and look at her false dichotomy as if it were a true one.

From a secular individual rights stance (which is the Objectivist stance), a choice like the one she presented is still a choice between bad and bad.

In other words, there is no good choice. In comparative terms, there is only a bad choice and a worse one. And frankly, deciding which is worse will depend on your own personal context, not on any principle I can detect. For instance, if you are a Muslim, secular statism is worse. If you are a Neocon, Sharia law is worse.

As to Objectivism? Hell, I say there is no morality at all involved beyond rejecting both. And, anyway, I don't care if that is Objectivism or not. That's the way I see it. Bondage is bondage, irrespective of who does the bonding. The person who is hogtied is hogtied all the same.

Freedom is the only permanent standard (i.e. the principle), not which form of tyranny is better or worse. A proper choice in choosing the lesser of two evils is to choose which one, at the time, is more consistent with your permanent standard, not which form you reject that you suddenly want to call a permanent standard.

If both secular statists and Muslims have anything in common, it is inconsistency in their governing policies. So claiming that one is superior to the other-across-the-board is inaccurate. In terms of freedom, sometimes one is worse, sometimes the other is. This is obvious and anyone can see it. All they have to do is look.

Now to the bigotry part. Ms. Peikoff continues:

The goal of Islam's consistent practitioners is the same as that of the secular statists: totalitarianism. The difference is that the Jihadists work to achieve this both via immediate violence, and via cultural infiltration/persuasion. The secular statists aren't yet going the open immediate violence route.

In other words, Muslims who are not involved with "immediate violence" are not "consistent practitioners" of Islam. Hmmmm... Why does this sound like a Southern bigot saying, "Some of my best friends are niggers" to me?

Could it also be because Ms. Peikoff interprets the "silence" of Muslims as "refusing to denounce" the violence practiced by fanatical Islamists? Here is what she wrote:

... it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers.

"It seems" indeed. How does she know that they are silent? Does she go to the mosques where I have been told such denunciation occurs regularly? No, I haven't gone to mosques either. But at least I have tried to inform myself through sources other than "Jihad Watch."

Oh... she means silence outside the Muslim community.

Let me ask a question that has needed asking for a long time.

What Muslims--among the moderate ones--express anything in public outside of the Muslim community? They don't. They stay within their community. Plain and simple. So why, all of a sudden, are they judged as co-conspirators of madmen by their silence outside of their community when they do not even inhabit the public world outside their community?

Do I hear silence in answer to my question?

Notice that there is no distinction between "consistent practitioners" of secular statism and inconsistent ones in Ms. Peikoff's argument. So, does she think that the silence of most Americans with respect to secular statism constitutes their "refusing to denounce" it?

Of course not. Ms. Peikoff even goes further. She claims that secular statists are not yet going the "open immediate violence route." I can only look at a pronouncement like that and blink in wonder. Maybe she should look at the news once in a while.

In addition to the constant violent protests and vandalism we all see by secular statists everyday, let her tangle with real "secular statists" in the USA government--ones with armed enforcement agencies to back them up. Let her openly disobey them when they give her a direct order--one that violates her individual rights--and see if there is no "open immediate violence route" on her own hide. Or would her "silence," should she choose to avoid such a pointless confrontation, constitute her "refusing to denounce" their abuses?

Choosing that form of violence over Sharia across-the-board--without context--is not a matter of principle. At least not any principle dealing with individual rights I can discern. I'll let the reader decide for himself/herself if this is bigotry or not.

But if it is not, what is it?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Everybody's trying to get back behind Leonard Peikoff as much as possible without looking completely foolish. What none of them can admit was he went off the tracks in 1968 and decided to stay off in 1986 when he had a clear opportunity to get back on albeit by sacrificing his Objectivist papacy. Now he's all irrevocably tangled up in public irrationalities.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

Here’s a point out of left field. Peikoff has claimed (per DIM) that we face an imminent Christian theocratic takeover. This is a more dangerous threat than secular tyranny (read Obama qua socialist). Doesn’t a thriving Islamic presence in the US serve as a counterweight to that greater threat?

I wonder how many converts to lunacy will result from his new DIM course. It starts Saturday, stay tuned.

[Neil Parille]

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

[Philip Coates]

> Hsieh is rethinking her views,

Michael, she didn't say that in her comments in Amy P's blog...she said thanks for the well-expressed views even though we may still disagree. Where did you see her say what you said?

George, you're right about how creepy Amy P's views are, in the sense of ominous, setting a horrible precedent, etc....and how they would extend to denial of other rights. And it's always good to bring in a historical parallel.

There are some rationalistic mistakes in AP's post as well...I'll try to post on those later.

[Dennis Hardin]

Everybody's trying to get back behind Leonard Peikoff as much as possible without looking completely foolish. What none of them can admit was he went off the tracks in 1968 and decided to stay off in 1986 when he had a clear opportunity to get back on albeit by sacrificing his Objectivist papacy. Now he's all irrevocably tangled up in public irrationalities.

--Brant

The inanity of Peikoff’s remarks can be assessed purely from a tactical standpoint, quite apart from any debate about the applicability of property rights. According to Daniel Pipes, “Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture.” But how can any rational person justify using aerial bombing to destroy a building in one of our own cities?

The whole purpose of a bombing raid is to target enemy territory, where, based on the right of self-defense, we are less concerned about killing innocents via collateral damage. What possible sense could it make for our defense department to allow the mosque to be built in the first place and then bomb it only after construction is finished? If and when we find such a particular mosque to be an Islamist institution, it would be comparable to a ‘sleeper cell’ of terrorist conspirators, and our military should intervene and with complete legitimacy. The headquarters should be safely destroyed and the people behind it arrested and/or killed (if necessary), but no one in their right mind would suggest using an aerial bombing raid for that purpose. If the building were located in Iran, maybe, but not here. Here, unnecessary collateral damage constitutes violating the rights of totally innocent American citizens, which, the last time I checked, it is our government’s duty to protect.

It is a sickening spectacle to see Comrade Sonia and all the other little lambs kissing up to Dr. Strangelove. Every day he is at the helm, Objectivism looks more and more like a lunatic fringe.

[9thdoctor]

Hsieh is rethinking her views, with profuse gratitude to the ex that she expressed several times (twice in her comments to the article alone). It's a crap shoot whether she will capitulate, but my money is on the "she will" option.

> Hsieh is rethinking her views,

Michael, she didn't say that in her comments in Amy P's blog...she said thanks for the well-expressed views even though we may still disagree. Where did you see her say what you said?

While I think Jonathan’s characterization is the right one, MSK’s is not unfair speculation. What is unfair is to quote only the beginning of what he wrote, cutting out and ignoring the “crapshoot” part. I’d say that “I still lean” and “I don’t think the two sides of this debate will be as far apart as they seemed initially” are the still ambiguous signs that a shift is on the way. Time will tell, don't forget she's about to sit through a week of fresh DIM.

But how can any rational person justify using aerial bombing to destroy a building in one of our own cities?

I hate to nitpick, but no one said anything about aerial bombing. He invoked the example of Howard Roark, so he’s talking controlled demolition. He's not that ins...oh never mind.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Dennis Hardin]

But how can any rational person justify using aerial bombing to destroy a building in one of our own cities?

I hate to nitpick, but no one said anything about aerial bombing. He invoked the example of Howard Roark, so he’s talking controlled demolition. He's not that ins...oh never mind.

Peikoff said the government should "bomb it out of existence, evacuating it first," then mentioned Howard Roark as an afterthought. I think the implication was clear.

Obviously, you love to nitpick.

[Rich Engle]

The more you hang around it, the more it looks like business as usual. It's not even good enough to be called monkey business. It's so fucked up, and the inefficacy, the non-meaningfulness of it all-- it is a giant city made of these little inwardly-pointed self-shrines. People that haven't even figured out the reverence built into the fact that they are made out of burned-up stardust ash.

I know it is bad when I find myself not even wanting to lampoon. I know it is bad when I don't even find myself wanting to bother with expletives. It is that bad when I don't even feel like calling Diana Hsieh a cunt, because I don't think she has enough in her to even warrant that, being that she lies beneath that kind of energy.

Social metaphysics, ant colonies. In-fighting over nothing. Non-effectiveness, non difference-making. No compassion anywhere. Tolerance is reduced to evil, and Game is not played even as well as two crackheads might in Central Park, ripping out some speed chess.

I know it is bad when I would rather figure out how to work on transplanting flowers my hippy friend down the street gave me into shady areas of my yard: at least I have a halfway decent hope of seeing some nice blooms.

Peikoff elevating the unfortunate nature of civilian casualties to moral imperative. He can't even manage true Cult of Personality staus--even THAT.

They are, fortunately, fucked-up enough that they can do pretty much whatever they want, and it will not mark the human condition one way or another, worth a shit.

And that, above all, is where I find solace--they will make no real mark. I don't even think they will be able to embarrass Rand's work. I've seen better knitting clubs.

rde

Edited July 2, 2010 by Rich Engle