Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Xray]

This is off the subject of this thread. I watched the video of Dr. Peikoff and I have a few quick questions based on my observations of him. For one, he looks like he's in pain, either medically or just emotional pain and being in that state. Does anyone here know if he has Parkinson's Disease? I noticed a few characteristics of possible tell tell signs of it. I haven't listened to what he actually said in that interview. I actually hit the mute button and just wanted to observe him without hearing him. Although I am not familiar with his speech patterns over the years; such as, if his speech has changed over the years, become more rapid, monotone, and other issues related to speech that are associated with Parkinsons. Dementia is also a common characteristic in later stages but he doesn't seem to be in later stages, unless heavily medicated which is also a possibility for some of these symptoms and watching him; ie, eye movements, blinking, a few facial ticks, etc. It's a debilitating disease but given some here are saying in essence "He's not quite all there," I'm just a bit curious if anyone knows of any potential medical problems he may be having.

Angie

Angie,

I'm as well interested in your opinion about what Peikoff actually said. So if you could watch the video a second time without the mute button turned on, TIA.

Since B. Branden replied to Ghs' question that LP has always been "this nuts", imo it is reasonable to conclude that his arguments are not due to any physical illness resulting in 'brain fog'.

George asked: "Has Peikoff always been this nuts, or has he gotten worse with age? "

Yes, George, he has always been this nuts, but there used to be people around him who would throw fits at some of his atrocities, and who had the clout to stop him from uttering them publicly. (He once came roaring into my apartment in New York, after having witnessed demonstrators protesting the Vietnam war, to announce that it would be morally proper to machine gun them all. )

Barbara

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.

What an epistemological train wreck that podcast is.

The main reason why it had to end in an epistemological trainwreck is that Peikoff started the train off on the wrong track, presenting an "ought" as an "is" by claiming: "Life is the standard of rights". He got that from the Objectivist doctrine 'life as the ultimate value', i. e. he prestents a value judgement as if it were an irrefutable fact.

One could call this the double fallacy leading "from is to ought to ought as is".

In step 1, an "ought" is derived from an "is": 'Life is, therefore it ought to be held as the ultimate value'.

In step 2, the "ought" is dropped altogether and what originally was an ought is now presented as an "is" 'Life is the ultimate value'.

The desert island example is also interesting:

LP starts off with "life is the standard of rights" and then concludes that on a desert island inhabited by a single person X who has a fence around it, in case a shipwrecked person Y gets stranded on this island, X can't deny access by claiming property rights since "rights are out" and it becomes a "dog eat dog" situation.

Peikoff makes a real good case here for the position that innate rights don't exist.

He is also correct in stating that property rights are limited, and he could just have left it at that.

DF sums it up well:

I agree with Peikoff that the US government should just refuse permission to build that mosque, there is no need to be officially at war to do that. But then he goes over the top by claiming that the government should bomb the mosque out of existence when they should nevertheless go ahead with building it. That is cheap rhetoric based on primitive emotions (like nuking unthreatening countries out of existence). There isn't any need to "bomb" that building, if you deny permission to build it, there isn't much violence needed to enforce that prohibition if necessary. But Peikoff is probably dreaming of a Fountainhead bombing made real.

I wouldn't put it past him. He even tells his listeners "Don't let my [calm] manner deceive you."

Peikoff throws in a kitchen sink of "arguments" and never connects anything.

LP speaks of "metaphysical survival" being at stake. What the difference between "metaphysical survival" and physical survival? Or the difference between being "metaphyscially helpless" and physically helpless?

Amy Peikoff wrote:

"As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — Islam — that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of Islam’s adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing thousands of Americans. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers."

I decided, just for the fun of it, to rewrite this passage, from the perspective of a hypothetical Muslim living in the Middle East.

"As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — American exceptionalism — that declares war on us (the Muslim believers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of the American adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, through their brutal wars of aggression and through their imposition of crippling sanctions. The Americans have sent huge armies to occupy our lands, and they fly unmanned drones over our lands to terrorize and kill us. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of America’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers."

Of course, it would never occur to Peikoff or Hsieh that Muslims living in Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan could possibly feel this way. And if they did, it would just be a sign that they are a bunch of crazy savages. One thing that Peikoff, Hsieh, and their followers almost totally lack is any kind of empathy, any ability to see the world through the eyes of other people not of their tribe.

Martin

Excellent methodological 'mirroring' approach to tackle the issue, Martin. The lack of empathy you pointed out can be observed in virtually all ideologists.

Question to all: can you think of anything in the Amy Peikoff quote with which Ayn Rand would have disagreed?

Non-Peikovians are of the opinion that Rand chose the wrong heir in Peikoff.

But how are we to know that Rand would not applaud Peikoff for being the staunch defender of the orthodox doctrine? Wasn't it precisely that orthodoxy which Rand wanted to have preserved?

Edited July 4, 2010 by Xray

[Jonathan]

Question to all: can you think of anything in the Amy Peikoff quote with which Ayn Rand would have disagreed?

I think Rand would have disagreed with the Peikoffs' desire to initiate force against others by violating their property rights because they have similar religious beliefs to individuals who committed acts of violence.

In fact, I think we should put some magnets and stators on what's left of Rand's corpse and harness the power from her spinning in her grave. It would be a real-life Galt-like generator, only instead of being powered by static electricity, it would be powered by her heirs' bat shit insanity (the more lunacy they spout in the name of Objectivism, the faster she spins).

J

[Robert Campbell]

Ed Cline has weighed in.

Cline sure has. And he's with Pope Leonard the First and Only.

Once again, that's

http://ruleofreason....ero-mosque.html

Here are two paragraphs that will give you the idea:

Many believe that opposing the Ground Zero mosque would be a violation of property rights. But where do property rights enter the picture? They do not, as least as far as mosque-building Muslims are concerned. Mosques are centers of indoctrination and propaganda, and of exhortations to wage war against the infidel -- us. Mosques are venues for spreading and entrenching Islam. They are field headquarters of conquest, and they have sprung up all over the country. The piety and good citizenship standing of the flocks of rank-and-file Muslims are irrelevant. They subscribe to the ideology, do not question it, and remain silent when their brethren blow up things and kill people. Their creed commands the silence, but it is still a matter of choice, of volition, and Muslims as a rule choose to remain silent. No man of reason should sympathize with them.

Some have cited the 14th Amendment as an intrinsic good to be brought to the defense of the builders of the Ground Zero mosque, forgetting that, first, that Amendment has been violated countless ways by our own government, and second, that we are indeed at war with Islam and its advocates. To iterate: Just as we were at war with Nazism, another body of inimical ideas (Hitler was its Mohammed, and he sought the help of Muslims to exterminate Jews in Palestine), we are at war with Islam. Islam respects neither individual rights, nor property rights, nor capitalism. It is a holistic vehicle for conquest and subjugation of all who do not subscribe to it. Period.

Not only must this particular mosque-building project be shut down immediately, and no other new mosques built, but all existing mosques in the US of A must be shut down immediately.

That's worse than reverse dhimmi status for Muslims.

Robert Campbell

[CNA]

X ray,

There are threads on this site that I choose not to participate in for various reasons, although have my opinions and views; there are also some higher ups in O'ism that encompasses the entirety of O'ism from ARI and elsewhere wherein I dismiss their views entirely for various reasons. I won't go into these reasons with most with the exception of a select few and behind the scenes. I'll be limiting my views and stating them here on OL for various reasons as well. I understand where Piekoff comes from and the health issues and his limiting his own participation in it as well. I unfortunately can relate to this as I have my own health issues as some on here know and heated debates and getting panties all tied up in a wad can be detrimental and takes time to recover unfortunately. Long story with this latter one and what happened.

I've listened to Peikoff's podcast. As of right now and in this context, I do agree to a great extent with where he is coming from in that it is a straight out bitch slap in our face to allow such an atrocity to happen and the building of this mosque near Ground Zero. The Pearl Harbor analogy was a good one and reinforced the same bitch slap if allowed and I also agree with the desert island analogy. This latter one, there is much more to it and whether or not one chooses to allow the individual onto his property. Isolation and being alone or to allow for a bit of companionship but this is also dependent on who this other person is. But anyway, I have of course other opinions and views to expand on as to why I agree with Piekoff in this context but probably won't go into them here. There are aspects of his reasoning that I am having some problems with and that is the bombing of the mosque but damn, again, serious bitch slap if allowed to be built. Our government may not do this BUT I can almost gaurantee you that this mosque if allowed to be built is setting themselves up for very serious issues and probably would not be in existence for long because there are people out there that will take such an act of allowing it to be built as a serious insult. An insult that Piekoff holds and I do as well.

I do plan on listening to his podcast a number of times more and may very well transcribe it as there are a few areas I had a hard time making out because of his speech. I have not read this entire thread and others' view nor have I read views on this from others in O'ism. I have only listened to this Podcast of Peikoff's. I will more than likely be thinking more about this today and after listening to the podcast a few more times as to what he said and may post or may not post if there are any changes in my view. But as of right now and in this context, I do agree to a large extent with what he said.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Misquote..

Edited July 5, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[9thdoctor]

There’s a special twitter feed for the current Vegas conference. It’s mostly ephemera (I had a nice burger), but page down a ways, and there’s someone sharing the latest wisdom:

Peikoff: "I have to say emphatically and without any trace of hyperbole: Christianity *invented* Totalitarianism."

Sparta? The Rome of Tiberius, Caligula or Nero? That’s just keeping it contemporary and around the Mediterranean.

Here’s the Mosque conversation on Betsy’s site. There’s some disagreement, but generally not. I really thought that the overwhelming majority of fundies would never buy in.

I have an idea for a montage video, like Bill Sherk did for

. This one would use Peikoff’s rant over the auto-da-fé scene from the opening of Elisabeth, break for the line about Jews in Ireland from Ulysses (it’s in either movie version), maybe mix in some Japanese internment, I’m not sure what else yet. The idea is to show religious persecution across the centuries, so hopefully these people will come to an appreciation of the 1st amendment. Though at this rate, I doubt it. It’s contextual, y’know.

EDIT: Twitter link not working, try again: http://twitter.com/search?q=%23OCON

Edited July 5, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Libertarian Muslim]

X ray,

There are threads on this site that I choose not to participate in for various reasons, although have my opinions and views; there are also some higher ups in O'ism that encompasses the entirety of O'ism from ARI and elsewhere wherein I dismiss their views entirely for various reasons. I won't go into these reasons with most with the exception of a select few and behind the scenes. I'll be limiting my views and stating them here on OL for various reasons as well. I understand where Piekoff comes from and the health issues and his limiting his own participation in it as well. I unfortunately can relate to this as I have my own health issues as some on here know and heated debates and getting panties all tied up in a wad can be detrimental and takes time to recover unfortunately. Long story with this latter one and what happened.

I've listened to Peikoff's podcast. As of right now and in this context, I do agree to a great extent with where he is coming from in that it is a straight out bitch slap in our face to allow such an atrocity to happen and the building of this mosque near Ground Zero. The Pearl Harbor analogy was a good one and reinforced the same bitch slap if allowed and I also agree with the desert island analogy. This latter one, there is much more to it and whether or not one chooses to allow the individual onto his property. Isolation and being alone or to allow for a bit of companionship but this is also dependent on who this other person is. But anyway, I have of course other opinions and views to expand on as to why I agree with Piekoff in this context but probably won't go into them here. There are aspects of his reasoning that I am having some problems with and that is the bombing of the mosque but damn, again, serious bitch slap if allowed to be built. Our government may not do this BUT I can almost gaurantee you that this mosque if allowed to be built is setting themselves up for very serious issues and probably would not be in existence for long because there are people out there that will take such an act of allowing it to be built as a serious insult. An insult that Piekoff holds and I do as well.

I do plan on listening to his podcast a number of times more and may very well transcribe it as there are a few areas I had a hard time making out because of his speech. I have not read this entire thread and others' view nor have I read views on this from others in O'ism. I have only listened to this Podcast of Peikoff's. I will more than likely be thinking more about this today and after listening to the podcast a few more times as to what he said and may post or may not post if there are any changes in my view. But as of right now and in this context, I do agree to a large extent with what he said.

Do you think that Islam allows for attacks like that of 9/11 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars have condemned the attacks and given Fatwas with evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah that forbid such actions? If you do believe such a thing, then what more proof do you need that Islam forbids such things or is it something that can never be proven to you?

If you do not believe that Islam condones such attacks, then what do you have against these particular Muslims who want to build this mosque?

[Rich Engle]

Here's one for you, Adonis, I thought you would appreciate her. I mean, normally, stoning-to-death would happen, but she is quite the author. I just did a service with her:

Afsaneh Noori

Speaker, Author, Teacher

www.ChangeThrivers.com

She did a wonderful talk about how all their families made them marry in both faiths. Now, she has another partner. I believe her book is published on Scheherazade Publishing .

It was an interesting guest-speaker sermon (our minister is on travel). She talked about how she had to be married in the Moslem tradition, then, to be baptized with white robes in the Christian faith. She said (mild paraphrase) "eventually we got married in all the churches that our parents would want." Something like that.

Further, she spoke about the Abraham/Hicks work.

We played music around her.

I think that the integration work is worthy of talk. Meaning, the marriage of science, and spirituality. Ken W. has done a great deal in this area, for instance. In any event, finding peace in this area is, I believe, essential to understanding, and further, if Objectivists of all colors want to do something significant.

See, I work it every day. I play for free, we pull texts (like Emerson, all kinds of people) so I am definitely tired of hearing about talk rather than doing. Action is important.

I was very happy today; I got off playing and went to our hall for refreshment/meeting. Found the BIG copy of Atlas Shrugged. Cost=1.00

So no, I don't do the hawk thing.

Has Peikoff ever seen brutality? That is a good question. I do not believe so--I believe he lives inside his head. I wonder what would happen if he saw the raw face of brutality. Would that change him?

rde

Pro From Dover

[anthony]

It's occurred to me at times that there is a dangerous time and place when patriotism (more like jingoism, really) consumes one's individualism - and common sense. Like now.

These people are American Citizens, who also happen to be Muslim. To lump them together with a gang, who are part of sub-sect, which is part of a sub-cult, within Islam, is un-American, and I'm certain, un-Objectivist.

The connection is tenuous and rationalistic, and the principle is collectivist.

Unless or until, there's evidence to the contrary, they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and be allowed their automatic individual liberty, imo. Also, I believe any other way, by intimidation or force, grants a moral victory to the perpetrators of 9/11.

(This is not to say that the choice of location of the mosque is not irrational, unethical, and extremely insensitive. However, there are peaceful, respectful, methods of persuasion that might yet win them over.)

Tony

[Rich Engle]

For what it is worth, take a look at this--it is a lecture that was delivered by Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of Parliament. I don't recall if this ever got posted on OL. I notice that he starts out by quoting Rand.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wilders.asp

[Neil Parille]

Mussolini was once asked by Moslems from Ethiopia or Libya if they could build a mosque in Rome. He said they would be allowed when Christians could build a church in Mecca. I kind of like that answer.

Cline says that mosques are centers of indoctrination where people are taught to wage war against reason, individualism and capitalism. But according to Objectivism, virtually all non-Objectivist movements teach their followers the same thing. Why not shut down all colleges and universities?

I think it's unfortunate that (from what I can tell) the most "moderate" Moslems in the US will say about things like 9/11 is "we opppose all terrorism." However, I don't see that as sufficient to conclude that such people are complicit in some general "war" on us.

I do know from questions I asked Cline on his blog that he thinks Moslems immigration to the US should be restricted, unlike many orthos.

Somewhat off topic, but Ed Cline has written a review of Anne Heller's bio, but says it will not be published.

-Neil Parille

Edited July 5, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Cline says that mosques are centers of indoctrination where people are taught to wage war against reason, individualism and capitalism. But according to Objectivism, virtually all non-Objectivist movements teach their followers the same thing. Why not shut down all colleges and universities?

Neil,

He said, in fact:

Yes, we are at war with Islam. Just as we have been at war with Kant and his philosophical successors, and with John Dewey, and Marxism -- in short, with every anti-individual, anti-life, anti-rights, anti-mind philosophy. it is a war of ideas. "War" is not strictly a metaphor for the conflict that is raging right now under our noses. Islam is a body of ideas totalitarian in nature, designed to wipe out the individual and inculcate mindless obedience to irrational and arbitrary dictats spoken by an angel to a barbarian prophet. From a ghost. The "war" is a battle for men's minds.

Reason seeks to enable men's minds. Islam seeks to cripple them. it is as simple as that.

Which implies the moral necessity of shutting down colleges and universities—if not every operation, then at a minimum the Poli Sci and Soc and Philosophy departments, and the Ed Schools.

Whether he thinks they ought to be bombed, I'll leave to Mr. Cline to elucidate.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Is there are thread for new Objectivist literature?

I wanted to mention that David Harriman's new book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics will be published tomorrow according to Amazon.

-Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

Just shut down Clemson. The rest of the dominoes will then fall. (We could also bomb it.)

--Brant

war-monger

[Robert Campbell]

Is there are thread for new Objectivist literature?

I wanted to mention that David Harriman's new book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics will be published tomorrow according to Amazon.

-Neil Parille

Neil,

The Epistemology topic would be a good place to start a thread on Harriman.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

I pretty much agree, not in each detail, but with parts of MSK's post #98, especially:

Building a mosque at that place at this point in time is something that can be properly barred--by those in the city, especially Manhattan. They are the ones with the recent memories and traumas and they have every right to give themselves time to heal.

After any act of war, you do not enshrine--at a place of massacre--symbols the enemy used, even if those symbols are not used in the same manner as the ones who want to enshrine them.

[...] if this goes forth as planned, it will result in some really bad violence.

Similarly with Dragonfly's post #17:

[...] the US government [substitute the NYC government] should just refuse permission to build that mosque, there is no need to be officially at war to do that. [....] There isn't any need to "bomb" that building, if you deny permission to build it, there isn't much violence needed to enforce that prohibition if necessary.

And with Angie's (as well as MSK's) prognostication -- post #104:

[...] I can almost gaurantee you that this mosque if allowed to be built is setting themselves up for very serious issues and probably would not be in existence for long because there are people out there that will take such an act of allowing it to be built as a serious insult.

I expect that there will be interfering violence if construction proceeds -- not from Objectivists thinking of Howard Roark, but from the general run of New Yorkers thinking of their dead -- and of the symbolic effect of "dancing on the grave."

Along with ND, I doubt that Leonard Peikoff meant aerial bombing. I haven't listened to the podcast, and probably won't listen to it, his voice on tape being a nerve-grating experience to which I only subject myself on occasion (such as listening to part of the tapes from his "Induction in Physics and Philosophy").

How very unfortunate an issue to arise (from the standpoint of the O'ist world) at this time!!! Just what wasn't needed -- something else to be on intense opposing sides about.

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

How very unfortunate an issue to arise (from the standpoint of the O'ist world) at this time!!! Just what wasn't needed -- something else to be on intense opposing sides about.

Not if you agree that Peikoff is an atrophied limb that has clearly become gangrenous. It's amputation time, chop chop!

[Xray]

I pretty much agree, not in each detail, but with parts of MSK's post #98, especially:

Building a mosque at that place at this point in time is something that can be properly barred--by those in the city, especially Manhattan. They are the ones with the recent memories and traumas and they have every right to give themselves time to heal.

After any act of war, you do not enshrine--at a place of massacre--symbols the enemy used, even if those symbols are not used in the same manner as the ones who want to enshrine them.

[...] if this goes forth as planned, it will result in some really bad violence.

Similarly with Dragonfly's post #17:

[...] the US government [substitute the NYC government] should just refuse permission to build that mosque, there is no need to be officially at war to do that. [....] There isn't any need to "bomb" that building, if you deny permission to build it, there isn't much violence needed to enforce that prohibition if necessary.

And with Angie's (as well as MSK's) prognostication -- post #104:

[...] I can almost gaurantee you that this mosque if allowed to be built is setting themselves up for very serious issues and probably would not be in existence for long because there are people out there that will take such an act of allowing it to be built as a serious insult.

I expect that there will be interfering violence if construction proceeds -- not from Objectivists thinking of Howard Roark, but from the general run of New Yorkers thinking of their dead -- and of the symbolic effect of "dancing on the grave."

Along with ND, I doubt that Leonard Peikoff meant aerial bombing. I haven't listened to the podcast, and probably won't listen to it, his voice on tape being a nerve-grating experience to which I only subject myself on occasion (such as listening to part of the tapes from his "Induction in Physics and Philosophy").

How very unfortunate an issue to arise (from the standpoint of the O'ist world) at this time!!! Just what wasn't needed -- something else to be on intense opposing sides about.

Ellen

Ellen,

What is your opinion on Ed Cline's article? http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2010/07/insidious-ground-zero-mosque.html

As for the Peikoff podcast, although what he says about the "bombing out of exstence" is just plain crazy, he does make a good point in stating that property rights are contextual; I believe Rand would have agreed.

About Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf who wants the mosque built:

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

Edited July 6, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

Here’s a real beauty, a poll about the Mosque controversy at Capitalism Magazine.

Is the building of a Mosque protected by property rights?

No, Islam advocates Sharia Law (totalitarianism) and Jihad (initiation of physical force)

Not sure

Yes, because it is Allah's will to build Mosques in (soon to be) conquered Infidel Lands

Yes, because Obama-Bush have declared Islam as a religion of peace

Yes, property rights protect Islamists right to build a temple advocating Sharia and Jihad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fszM11k-Zjk

“ believe, with the late Karl Popper, that a case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest.”

Christopher Hitchens

[Philip Coates]

I've never seen "Yes, Minister".

This clip (and some other snippets I've seen) makes me want to check it out, to see if DVD's of the series are being sold.

Why is it that the British don't seem afraid to display intellect and wit in quite a few television series across the last few decades? But American entertainment creators only seem to produce (especially recently) things aimed at a nine-year old level?

Edited July 7, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister have been available on DVD for years.

Intellect and wit aren't entirely absent from American TV series. See House. Of course, they had to import Hugh Laurie to play the misanthropic medico.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

I've never seen "Yes, Minister".

This clip (and some other snippets I've seen) makes me want to check it out, to see if DVD's of the series are being sold.

Why is it that the British don't seem afraid to display intellect and wit in quite a few television series across the last few decades? But American entertainment creators only seem to produce (especially recently) things aimed at a nine-year old level?

Netflix has them for rental. It’s pretty old, from the 1980’s. I can’t recommend it enough, it even made my top 11 list.

I'd say the dumb British TV shows don't usually make it over here.

[Robert Campbell]

As far as I can see, Leonard Peikoff is solely responsible for the bloody-minded ruckus among the Ayn Rand Institute crowd.

The proposed "Cordoba Center" near Ground Zero has been talked about for a while. Many have made clear that they really don't want a 15-story mosque sitting so close to where the Twin Towers fell. The issue was not new when Peikoff decided that the time was ripe to bloviate.

My two cents on the Cordoba Center:

(1) If they are not jihadis or Islamic triumphalists, Imam Rauf and his supporters should have had the sense not to try putting their mosque right across the street from the site of a 9/11 massacre. (If, on the other hand, they are jihadis and Islamic imperialists, they deserve to be publicly exposed as such.) And people of New York City, including the relatives of the Muslims who died in the Towers, should employ public demonstrations and boycotts against the mosque should the project go forward. It's substantially worse that the convent that the Catholic Church wanted to build at Auschwitz.

(2) Legal action against the project is appropriate only if Imam Rauf or his financial backers are working with terrorist organizations such as Hamas. I don't know whether they are. If you've got proof, bring it forward.

(3) Zoning laws, as my brother the civil engineer has been heard to say, "delay the inevitable on behalf of the connected." As a rule, libertarians favor their complete abolition. Suppressing the mosque through zoning and land use controls isn't the way to go.

(4) Leonard Peikoff's podcast is not merely a farrago of seriously bad arguments in service of a bigoted end. It is nigh-conclusive evidence that he should suspend podcasting, at least until his health improves. The guy has always had a streak of batshit craziness. It has become more pronounced since 1986. But now something that looks like incipient dementia is interfering with his ability to inhibit the craziness.

(5) The whole ARIan setup, institutionally and culturally, depends on obedience to Pope Leonard the One and Only. (Judging from his recent remarks on intellectual heirdom, it will stop with him; he is conspicuously uninterested in apostolic succession.) Hence the lemming-like behavior from Ed Cline et al. Having endorsed an alleged set of principles that would require them to commend Franklin D. Roosevelt for ordering the confinement of the Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, nay even require them to commence the aerial bombardment of universities across the land, they have forfeited their claim to be defenders of individual rights.

(6) It must be dawning on some of the ARIans that, when Peikoff passes from the scene, the Estate of Ayn Rand will no longer be under of the control of an "intellectual heir," or even of a person who cares to anoint or sponsor any such heir. Yet gaining or keeping their places in the Estate/ARI universe has always depended on currying Peikovian favor and steering clear of Peikovian displeasure. When he is gone, will they be rewarded for serving him? Will there be anyone to whom they can transfer their servility, and from whom they will receive credit for their years of faithful compliance?

(7) Diana Hsieh is looking a couple of moves ahead, but only a couple. Her objective seems to be to install herself as a mini-Peikoff, issuing mini-fataawa to the faithful until she spots the opening for elevation into the major leagues. But what will be her institutional base, unless Peikoff is planning to confer Ayn Rand's unexpired copyrights on her? Why will anyone defer to her once Leonard Peikoff has departed? Will her carefully guided subservience to him bring her respect in the post-Peikovian era? Or will she widely loathed by her one-time colleagues?

(8) In his unended quest to prove his undiminished authority, Peikoff whipped up this conflict. Dependence on his personal authority has been an essential feature of the Ayn Rand Institute from its inception. It is a terrible flaw in their organizational culture, and the ARIans deserve to experience every unpleasant consequence of it.

(9) The internecine unpleasantness is distracting ARIans from such "worthy" projects as chortling over the wished-for demise of The Atlas Society. La Hsieh was running down the TAS website not so long ago. TAS has now inaugurated the new site—with not a word of comment from her. I expect she's been too busy dodging incoming from Amy Peikoff to notice what TAS is doing, or even to wonder for exactly how many more years Amy Peikoff's opinion will carry weight in Rand-land.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> I'd say the dumb British TV shows don't usually make it over here. [ND]

Makes sense, because the only place you see them is on PBS which is perhaps the only channel on television which aims at a higher grade level.

(However, I now live in Florida, where PBS is dumbed down a bit from Northern California. They don't think the redneck hillbillies with massive dental problems and a truck up on blocks in their front yard would appreciate middle to high brow British stuff, so they show a lot less of it.)

Edited July 8, 2010 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

The proposed "Cordoba Center" near Ground Zero has been talked about for a while. Many have made clear that they really don't want a 15-story mosque sitting so close to where the Twin Towers fell. The issue was not new when Peikoff decided that the time was ripe to bloviate.

One big correction: it’s not going to be a Mosque, but a community center. Does Peikoff get anything right? http://www.cordobainitiative.org/

(1) If they are not jihadis or Islamic triumphalists, Imam Rauf and his supporters should have had the sense not to try putting their mosque right across the street from the site of a 9/11 massacre. (If, on the other hand, they are jihadis and Islamic imperialists, they deserve to be publicly exposed as such.) And people of New York City, including the relatives of the Muslims who died in the Towers, should employ public demonstrations and boycotts against the mosque should the project go forward. It's substantially worse that the convent that the Catholic Church wanted to build at Auschwitz.

I disagree with you here. I don’t accept the premise that this is in bad taste, rather I think it represents defiance of the view that Islam was “responsible” for 9/11. I’ve come to like the idea. I’m not familiar with the Auschwitz example, but assuming the idea was to turn the actual camp into a convent, knowing that this place would long be a destination for Jewish pilgrimage, I see major differences.

(2) Legal action against the project is appropriate only if Imam Rauf or his financial backers are working with terrorist organizations such as Hamas. I don't know whether they are. If you've got proof, bring it forward.

I agree. And I bet they’re squeaky clean.

(4) Leonard Peikoff's podcast is not merely a farrago of seriously bad arguments in service of a bigoted end. It is nigh-conclusive evidence that he should suspend podcasting, at least until his health improves. The guy has always had a streak of batshit craziness. It has become more pronounced since 1986. But now something that looks like incipient dementia is interfering with his ability to inhibit the craziness.

But you’re just about the last person he’s going to take advice from, in fact, he would go on just to spite you. I can’t remember if you’re “inherently dishonest” or “odious”. I think MSK is usually “odious”, so you must be the other one. Anyway, just look at the positive feedback he’s getting. It’s mind boggling.

(8) In his unended quest to prove his undiminished authority, Peikoff whipped up this conflict. Dependence on his personal authority has been an essential feature of the Ayn Rand Institute from its inception. It is a terrible flaw in their organizational culture, and the ARIans deserve to experience every unpleasant consequence of it.

I can’t help wondering if he planned this ahead, in that he knew he had a position that would upset the brethren, so he let it out right before the conference knowing that he’d be building up to defending it in his new course. His version of shock and awe. Before someone points it out, yes I recognize that this violates Hanlon's Razor.

One more point. Peikoff reportedly said of George Walsh that on religious history he was “omniscient”, too bad he’s not still around to really put LP in his place. I think the fundies have a view of Islam that’s equivalent to the following author’s view of Objectivism:

Ayn Rand is the guru, and they are the “Rand Family” followers carrying out her vision. The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere.

Mark Ames

And now they want to give the government what powers exactly?