"OUTLAW","JIHAD" SITE

Now, your first question probably is "What do you mean by an 'outlaw', 'jihad' site"?

By "outlaw" site, I mean I have no connection with "institutional" Objectivism". it should be the case that all Randites spak for themselves. what makes me a Randite is that, as you will see in a later article, I support the basic principles that I have come to understand to be the content and method of Randism. I have explained elsewhere why "Objectivism" is a misnomer for what is the only proper philosophical system

By "jihad", I mean that there is what the old-time preachers used to call "declension" or "decline" in the integrity of the system that was left to them (whether this is normal wear and tear I don't know). For example:

  • Dr. Ellen Kenner has, while affiliating herself with the Philophy of Ayn Rand, openly endorsed homosexuality. What I heard from Miss Rand on that lifestyle was horror.
  • The Intellectual Activist has endorsed the War in Iraq which I have proven in IRAQ: NO PHOBIA was founded on violations of logic, therefore, reason therefore is inimical to Randism at the basic and identifying level; epistemology. I am here to reclaim the integrity of this philosphical system. That is in essence a holy war. Let me quote Miss Rand; "a political war is a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosphical battle is a nuclear War". This phrase applies to ordinary philosophical scraps, We do it up right: with anti-matter bombs, disintegrator rays, and it looks like a battle in an E.E."Doc" Smith Skylark novel: It lights up a galaxy and what is left of the loser's credibility is some ion traces of where a mighty battleship once cruised psycho-space. It makes a full-tilt phaer/photon torpedo shootout look like a friendly exchange of fireworks displays.
  • The way I was treated at objectivist_dialog1, by Kirez Kirgan at wetheliving/boston and Harris Kenner (of whom I had thought mouch better), just in terms of logic and reason, can only be described as appalling. On the other hand, the staff at the old Ergo newsletter can only be described as wonderful. To seee what I mean. the only thing that I ever got from Kirgan was that I'd violoated one of the rules pertaining to the email address he pit in his homepage (and therefore I took to be a "front door" and for which I apologized and asked how to avoid such in the future and got for an answer, zippo.). As to Kenner; Dr. Kenner said something on one of her shows with which I thoroughly agreed and when I emailed them about it Harris blew me off with some yak that it was unimportant and in essence, a waste of time since it was a "short" comment, which I found passing strange since she brought it up and spent about 8-10 minutes on the matter. Now, I met Harris and Dr Kenner in mid '83 and they were perfectly fine persons and I like them at that level but she is undermining the philosophy
  • The Web groups: at objectivist_dialog1 I made a controversial statement to the effect that Tim McVey committed no crime, since the bombing of the Muro building was in retaliation for the destrcution of the Branch Davidian installation and therefore the Federal Governemt, specifically, the BATF was the cause, the agressor and therefore responsible for all the carnage. Instead of an argument, I was told by a member to "...crawl back under the rock from which you came..." So I responded in kind and in spades. The moderator got bent out of shape about me "demeaning" another member to which I responded that I did not start the namecalling, but I will finish it by raking this guy over the coals. I was not thw one who "substituted a snarl for a syllogism" and that if I was wrong all the person had to do was ask "why" and I would dry up and blow away. Well thigns went downhill and I was "invited" to leave, to which I responed gladly but I would be taking two-thirds of the group's intellectual power with me. In tow other groups, atlantis_II and Rand_Reader I actuall saw persons trying to defend Determinism to the extent that they advocated dishonest behavior: treating persons as if they were responsible for their actions while knowing they could not be, and the like. The final straw came in starship_forum where the group owner actually supported Rosie O'Donnell in her claim that the Government was the perpetrator of 911. Later he gave support to a website claiming that the Government used a small H-Bomb on the World Trade Center. It appears that, at least on the Internet, Objectivism is riddled with loons and malcontents. Needless to say, I am no longer within 24,4693 lightyears of these groups. If Monart Pons wnats to be a headcase, he could at least support Alex Jones' Info Wars/Prison Planet instead of the left-wing loon that is Rosie O'Donell. At least Jones is on the Right and more compatible with starship_forum although they were strangely silent when I exposed Star Trek for the crackpot leftist propaganda mill that it is. I've been thinking about starting a real "Objectivist" group but I am deathly scared of what I will unearth. If I could limit it to Steve Wright and Kerry O'Quinn, I might give it a go. The Arabs and Muslims are not the only groups in jihad. the Christians are having a real dogfight, The Rupublicans are in a battle for the "soul of the party" and if Jack Kennedy or Harry Truman saw what has become of the Democrats. they'd have a fit. I think it's the nature of the times. A lot of internal contradictions and conflicting views are coming home to roost and the supporters of the conflicting views are drawing lines in the sand. In that sense, relative to Randism, I am a conservative: That is, I support the original positions of the philosophical system.

    In the same sense, I am far from an outlaw. Miss Rand said that she stood for "epistemological law and order". Well, I'm the new sheriff. With 40 years of experience, my draw is the fastest and my aim is the truest and I still love a good fight. So C'mon boys; let's saddle up and ride!

    Mostly, However, you will get my take on Rand's philosopy but you should be aware that I am privateering. I have no compunction about sending you to the "official" websites so that you can make up your own mind. I'll even provide a link to the websites that are opposed to the philosphy, which, given what I have seen over the years, is one of the best ways I have to support it.