Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Time for SOLO to change its name



Why have I posted so many recent posts opposing or explaining the odious Alt-Right movement? Because too many people I know and once valued have become infected by its virus, and intellectual hygiene demands that be acknowledged and rebutted (or an attempt at least made).

One local place that’s become a carrier for the virus is a site that’s still confusingly labelled “Objectivist,” although it’s now clearly anything but.  It should be abundantly evident now to any visitor of Lindsay Perigo’s site “for Sense-of-Life Objectivists” that it promotes neither sense-of-life nor Objectivism -- and should not be confused by anyone for an example of either. Nor of libertarianism.

I  say all this because Lindsay and I have shared stages together, and been long-term collaborators on any number of projects over many years, and any reasonable person may assume I share all his views. I don’t. And very definitely not the views he apparently harbours today.

Mr Perigo’s admirable obsession with opposing Islamist’s thuggery has now sadly morphed, as it has become more single-minded, from being just anti-Muslim to being odiously anti-human. And repellent. After not having been there for some time, here are some examples that sprang out without even needing to dig too deep:

_Quote_Idiot“We need to recognise that most existing ‘humans’ are just that: humans in inverted commas—anti- and sub-human, but existing in human form.”

_Quote_Idiot"Yes, people are, by and large, scum. That much has become irresistibly apparent to me..."

_Quote_Idiot"Humanity as a whole (my God, how OrthOists will hate that expression) is still *sub*-human. "Sub" must be circumvented and superseded  ... I cannot imagine it will come about without an intervening cataclysm wherein all sub-humans are Karmally wiped out by the effects of their own mindlessness, and we can start over.

Humanity “as a whole” is “sub-human,” he says routinely. This from a man who once excoriated what he then called “humanity diminishers.”

“Yes, people are, by and large, scum,” he says without irony on a site that calls itself “Sense-of-Life.” (Can you see that sentiment fitting anywhere within the parameters of that pic above?)

And who you might wonder are all these “sub-humans” for whose end he so fervently hopes? Anyone who disagrees with him, it seems. Including me, who had the temerity to suggest earlier this year that he had chosen an introductory selection of classical music not from the more dramatic moments of romantic music but from the more “tepid” end of the spectrum – I received my indirect response to my riposte that very week; “my answer,” said Perigo, “to the pig-ignorant mewlings of the sub-humans who say Romantic-era music is ‘tepid’." Which was me, except it wasn’t – accuracy too [such as this partial and highly-flawed account of a recent and rare public outing] being another casualty these days of Mr Perigo’s increasingly inward focus.

And how about those he labels “OrthOists,” you ask, of whom he’s often so critical? It’s hard to know since neologising at the expense of clarity is an unfortunate Perigo fetish, but I think (this week at least) it must mean anyone who subscribes to the views espoused by Ayn Rand instead of those emanating from the fever dreams of the conspiracy theorists and worse with whom he now converses daily in his comments section of his site, where most of his site’s work is done.

So vast amounts of weirdness and worse, and not just from his regular commenters and bloggers, many of whom are expicitly white nationalists under whose influence, it appears, Mr Perigo is now…

…leaning explicitly towards eugenics…

_Quote_Idiot"There is no such thing as a right to breed.  Breeding is an imposition upon the bred without the consent of the bred. It's a form of initiating force. Then, Objectimorons will tell the involuntarily bred they have a duty to stay alive simply because they've been bred. This is rational??!! Benevolent??!! In this shitty world of Peter Keatings??!! ... The most important thing as far as the survival of Western Civilisation is concerned, aside from stopping Islamofilth immigration, is stopping The Filth from proliferating. In most cases, it's the only thing The Filth knows how to do. The Filth must be thwarted."

_Quote_Idiot"Anyway, there should be a new party proposing licenses to breed and to vote, wresting education from the child-molesters, along with my Not One Muslim immigration policy. I'd like to call it something provocative like the Western Civilisation Party."

…denying universal rights …

_Quote_Idiot"We don't have a right to life just because we're alive and have a human body, though that's what the OrthOist position amounts to..."

…expressing unrestrained support for the likes of Pauline Hanson …

_Quote_Idiot"Move Over Brexit! Yoooooooge Setback for Filth in Australia!: Move over Brexit! Pauline Hanson, reviled by Filth, has just won a seat in the Australian Senate, and will possibly pick up two more once this weekend's election results become more clear... I personally delight in contemplating how horrified Obleftivists across the ditch in New Zealand will be at this advance for civilised values and human freedom.”

…and political assassination.

_Quote_Idiot“If ever Obama were to be targeted by an Omar Mateen [i.e., the mass-murderer], that would be poetic justice. I have no hesitation in saying that Obama is one ‘faggot’ whose martyrdom at the hands of the murderous bigots he has enabled would constitute Karmic justice ….”

Lest you think any of this is intended as humour, it isn’t.

As for reason, in his view it is apparently now an impotent force in the world with none of the power the “Filth” has to move it. So reason is impotent, and evil a force in the world – and a single obsession has become a near universal reason- and humanity-diminishment.

And yet in all his years of opposing and writing about Islamic thuggery, his decade-long singular obsession, his thinking has never matured beyond “Death to Islam.” No solutions at all, zero, beyond “not one Muslim,” a policy enthusiastically embraced at the fever swamp. As if it were possible to simply ban or bar or wipe out 1.5 billion people from existence.

And a man who once cheered Ronald Reagan demanding a Soviet Premier “tear down this wall” can now be found seriously insisting that America must “build a wall” itself, and not just along its Mexican border but along its Canadian border as well !

True story.

Furthermore, Mr Perigo has explicitly repudiated Objectivism, which he now calls "Obleftivism" (whatever that means). Instead, while repudiating the philosophy that the very masthead of his site trumpets and by which he attracts unaware readers, he is now promoting something he calls "Authenticism" -- which in all the years he’s been talking about it has never bothered to fully define apart from arm-waving about most humans not possessing rights (which humans? "Filth?" sub-humans? people with whom he’s had a disagreement?) and putting humans' animal side before their human. And his own personal cultural and highly unphilosophical heroes now hail from the explicit alt-right, including internet bores Stefan Molyneux (a white nationalist known to SOLO’s visitors as “Molly”), Paul Joseph Watson (who helps runs conspiracy sites like “InfoBores” and “Pathetic Planet”) whom Perigo calls “my new hero,” and Milo Yiannopoulos etc., [Milo for President! enthuses Perigo] as too do those with whom he now converses on his website -- which wears the banner of an Objectivist site while repudiating the philosophy.

So as sense-of-life goes, yet alone commitment to reason and just basic intellectual hygiene, there’s every reason to shun the site and demand he change the name, if not yet his direction.

Because, you know, Mr Perigo is free to adopt whatever repellent views and associates he chooses. But just basic intellectual honesty demands he not label those views and the site they frequent as something they are not.

Time to change the name and just go full retard. (Or, if it’s not too late, to reconsider.)

But since, like the pic at the top of the page, this one at the bottom also represents almost everything to which the site formally known as SOLO now stands opposed (including the grin), I thought I’d finish with this:


.[Pics by ObjectivismForIntellectuals and PlanningForLiberty]



  1. WOW. Ideological causality is an absolute bear.

    Perigo appears to be retracing all the same steps as John "Madmax" Kim, all the way down to stepping back into the trap of the Ackbar Spectrum in calling Objectivists "Left". It's like two computers independently executing the same program, all the way down to the end results.

    As of now, there isn't a single anti-Objectivist revolt that has not eventually degraded like this. Like a cancer cell that degrades with every division for lack of DNA repair mechanisms, they have accumulated error after error until what's left is a mass of barely differentiated cells with almost no resemblance to the original healthy cells.

    Leonard Peikoff in 1989 asked thusly: "please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone." It took them 27 years, but they finally did it.

    1. Heavy dude. So you mean we alt right Conservatives are on the right track. That what you mean isn't it. Onlya few skin heads and anti semites in, but not too bad. More worldly and real than purity as you say.

  2. Well said, and much needed. I followed some of the links you provided (having not been near SOLO in close to a year)and, frankly, words fail me.

    Frankie Lee

  3. They say as we age we become 'more' of what we always were, if that makes sense. I think Mr Perigo is an example of that.

    I am no expert in Objectivism, but I am reasonably well read on the topic; and commend you for remaining true to the ideas and still being so passionate about it after all these years Peter.

  4. I was at that event and I can tell you Lindsay recorded it accurately. Anyone who says otherwise is shitting you. You were not there.

    I can't believe you would do such a hatchet job on him Pete - and behind his back too. I can only think that you've been offended personally by his criticisms of your taste in music. Not very big of you... and for the record Wagner is crap and Brahms is a god.

    The breeding stuff with "cages and spoons" has always been in humour and largely an angry/frustrated response to the fact that Welfare in this country results in people murdering their own offspring, who would've been better off if they had not been born.
    Subhuman behaviour does in fact exist, outside of ISIS.

    As for the Muslim stuff, you're an ignorant prick if you cannot see how that has become the greatest threat to civilization as we know it. Truly ignorant - or stupidly clinging to blind optimism. The fact that Lindsay takes that head on and is prepared to physically go and debate it, knowing how murderous these people can be, should be applauded, not igonored - I'd sure as hell think twice.

    You know he won't even read this btw... he never goes to other blogs, so I can't understand why you didn't have the balls to put this up on SOLO considering the whole thing is about him and he inspired you to write in the first place. Hard to find manly traits in men these days.

    1. Here here Olivia well said. Even though I have been stung by Perigos criticism recently, I wholeheartedly support his views on Islam, and as a woman I am so pleased that he speaks out against the abuse of human rights inherent in that ideology.

    2. Olivia

      The truth is always the whole truth, not a partial truth. Context is important. The whole truth is that Mr Perigo was not the main event, whatever he claims, but was invited to give 7 minutes of closing comments to the students' debate while judges mark the debate. The students were the main event, the ones he calls moronnials (or whatever this week's neologism is), not him. It's my guess that making himsself the main event by going nearly three times over time while calling these intelligent young students morons was probably a calculated way to *be* shut down, and then to proclaim his martyrdom. Because that's become a pattern, hasn't it.

      Infamy, infamy, he cries, everyone's got it in for me!

      So ihis is not an accurate account because it's not anywhere near the whole truth. But it is of a piece with his rank conspiracy theories about ARI shills, boycotts and backstabbing. (It's a pretty strange sort of boycott I supposedly rany by promoting the event to the audience at the two talks I gave that week, isn't it. Let alone the other nonsense forms of projection.)

      And the whole truth you're ignoring, or at least not addressing, is that the post on which you're commenting here is not even primarily about one evening, as you well know, but about the state of SOLO and its ringmaster. Which you must know is no longer either 'sense-of-life' or Objectivist.

      If you do want to support him, you'd do better to help him either repair that or rename it.

    3. PS: How can it possibly be 'behind someone's back' to write publicly? And if as you say he "never goes to other blogs" then maybe that's a big part of his problem: if the places from which he gets his news and views on the state of the world are simply cable TV and SOLO then perhaps it's no wonder he is where he is.

    4. Here is what Lindsay wrote on Solo:

      'This is the speech I delivered almost in its entirety in my capacity as special commentator, along with Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, at Monday night's semi-final in the intra-university Next Generation Debates series at Auckland University. '

      Where is his 'main event' claim you speak of?


    5. If “he never goes to other blogs”, I suspect that is a big part of the problem.

      To maintain psychological health and contact with reality, it’s crucial to expose yourself to other viewpoints and perspectives – even views that appal you. The extent to which you engage with them is a personal choice, but you can’t retreat from the world as it is. I haven’t been on SOLO for years now, but based on where I saw it was headed, and the quotes above; I suspect Lindsay has now retreated to an insular world surrounded only by those who agree with him (or purport to agree with him) on almost everything – fixated on the issue he considers most important.

      I first met Lindsay 18 years ago and had (and still have) the utmost respect for him in making libertarian political ideals and Ayn Rand’s philosophy known in New Zealand. In terms of healthily engagement with the public he went further than I ever could, hosting The Politically Incorrect Show on Radio Live for many years. Whatever our differences now, that’s something I will always admire him for. But with increasing age he seems to have lost perspective, loudly rejecting, and being disgusted by anyone that doesn’t share his particular taste or perspective on the issue of the moment.

      In all years I’ve known Lindsay I’ve seen a pattern emerge. In his quest for ‘authenticism’ he rejects many people who are authentic but express it in different ways (eg: different music tastes). Simultaneously he grants a free pass to those who appear to agree with him 100% on the issue of the moment, but in reality are often pretenders (or at least easily led). Inevitably though he dismisses them too, and the people he once used to praise to the sky are either condemned or no longer mentioned again. I’ve seen this pattern repeat itself countless times over the years I’ve known him, and it’s sad to see this now resulting in falling out with Peter.

      The issue he’s fixated on at the time becomes the deal-breaker or whether you're regarded as an ally or not. When I first met him he was focused on political activism in NZ and being anti-ARI, and if you didn’t join in with his particularly style of activism or call the ARI names, you were dismissed – but if you did, your flaws and other warning signs about character were ignored. Then he focussed on aesthetics – and if he didn’t like the same music, you were also dismissed. Now it seems he’s fixated on the Islamic threat and the supposed solution of the alt-right. When you consider it in that context it’s no surprise he now condemns good people like Peter Cresswell and Yaron Brook, but supports idiots like Donald Trump

  5. [such as this partial and highly-flawed account of a recent and rare public outing]

    Like you, I wasn't there. So, flawed how? Spit it out Peter- that, rather than the snide drive-by offered above, would be the decent thing to do.

    Philip Duck

  6. Perigo appears to be retracing all the same steps as John "Madmax" Kim, all the way down to stepping back into the trap of the Ackbar Spectrum in calling Objectivists "Left". It's like two computers independently executing the same program, all the way down to the end results.

    It depends what your definition of Left is. Mr. May has a view of the political spectrum that is based on a blank-slate view of human nature. His "Akbar Spectrum" (a Star War reference, really?) fails to understand that right vs left can be based on views of human nature and a biological foundation; that philosophy and politics must answer to biology and not the other way around. Perigo has quite rightly seen that the blank slate view of human nature is one of Objectivism' great flaws, and he wants to see it corrected. It is that failure to understand that animality in the "rational animal" that is the reason that both the Objectivist and libertarian movements have leaned further and further left over the decades, and why they have been so ineffectual against the egalitarians of the Left.

    The alt-right are economic nationalists and anti-Enlightenment reactionaries and a host of other positions that I think are wrong. But... They get human nature to an extent that no Objectivist or libertarian does. They understand that humans are not distinct from the animal kingdom; ie they get socio-biology. Something Mr. May is completely clueless of and pig headedly defiant of (as if that is something to be proud of). And the anti-Objectivist sentiments that Mr. May mentions (that to him all share the same "bad DNA") are in large part due to this failure of Objectivism; Ie Rand's use of the blank slate view of human nature as a central part of her philosophy. Objectivism's lack of grounding in biology has lead to its lack of awareness of human psychology which has led to the movement being dominated by anti-social misfits, of which Mr. May is a prime example.

    Lindsay is on the right path. I think his Authenticism will be a positive because as it stands Objectivism is NOT going to "capture the culture". If anything, nationalism is on the rise and the more that whites become minorities in formerly white nations, the more that ethno-nationalism and white identity worldviews will grow; if for no other reason than for self-preservation. I wonder what Mr. May thinks will happen when whites are a minority in America and the Left controls the Presidency, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court? Does he not see the potential danger to whites in that climate? Does he not see the potential for North America becoming one big South Africa? Does he not see that white people may not have the luxury of fighting for "liberty" but will instead, by necessity, be forced to fight for racial survival? Of course Mr. May doesn't care about these things. He doesn't have children. He was too busy being "rationally selfish" to actually reproduce because that would have been an impediment to his self expression. Well, let Mr. May look up the demographic projections for the African continent; not a bunch of freedom lovers there...

    Or is all this to "deterministic" or "collectivistic" or "intrinsic" for Mr. May? Outside his Randroid filters which set the parameters for his limited vision? I have to say, I always thought Peter Creswell was one of the better libertarian/Objectivists, but this type of hysteria places him in the same category as Jeffrey Tucker, Will Wilkinson and Matt Zwolinski. Not good company.

    1. I'll make one more observation in response to your comments. I suspect the assumption you're making that Objectivism is incompatible with biological factors (what you call "acknowledging our animality") is a case of projection. In reality there is no conflict, but because you have had trouble integrating the two - you project that problem onto everyone else, and arrogantly assume it's a "failing of Objectivism".

      It's a similar mentality to what you often see with ex-alcoholics or ex-smokers. They've had a problem controlling themselves, so they project that weakness onto everyone else and call for the product to be banned.

      To me at least, acknowledging the role our genes play is just common sense, and hardly anything profound or damaging to Objectivism. I'll acknowledge it's something I wasn't as aware of when I was younger, and becomes clearer as you get older - when for instance you see behaviour patterns repeat themselves across generations in your family. But at no stage did it occur to me this might be contrary to Objectivism, nor have any political implications.

      Rand may not have focused on that area, but why should she? She was a philosopher concerned with fundamentals, not a biologist. She had no more reason to focus on biology than she did to describe the heroes going about their morning ablutions in Atlas Shrugged. Both are secondary to the primary story that needed to be told.

  7. One can acknowledge biological influences on our behaviour without contradicting Objectivism, and without resorting to racism. It all comes down to what you regard as primary for man the "rational animal". Is our free will and capacity for rational thought primary in determining who we are, and distinguishing us from all other animals ? If your answer to that is yes then race is irrelevant to philosophy and poltics, whatever influence or limitations biology puts on us.

    Even *if* one could show a correlation between race and likelihood of supporting freedom (and distinguish race from culture), and that's a massive "if", it still would have no philosophical or political implications that I can see. No more than observing the high proportion of blacks in professional athletics or basketball has any implications for how those sports should be played.

    And further - the fact you can't respond to Jim May's argument without making claims he's a social misfit, and also refer to "racial survival" (why not just "survivial"?) illustrates exactly what Peter is talking about - i.e. a unappealing nastiness and horrible sense of life.

    1. Well said. That's exactly my view. IQ differences - assuming they exist between races, and that's still quite a stretch - have no philosophical implications. The fundamental point about human nature is that people of all races seem to show capacity to reason, to make long-term plans, and to show that thought requires conscious effort. From this universal fact of Man having a volitional consciousness comes the rest. What the "alt-right" or race "realists" are trying to do is suggest that this point is incorrect, that people of some racial groups are not fully human, that they are unfit for liberty, and hence those who allegedly are so fit should be entitled to use coercive force, if needed, to deal with that.

      People who hold such views are not Objectivists, of either the capital O or lower-case o variety, and Peter C. has done a service in calling out a website for having taken this turn.

  8. Olivia Pierson1 Sept 2016, 17:16:00


    PC says: "The students were the main event, the ones he calls moronnials (or whatever this week's neologism is), not him. It's my guess that making himsself the main event by going nearly three times over time while calling these intelligent young students morons was probably a calculated way to *be* shut down, and then to proclaim his martyrdom. Because that's become a pattern, hasn't it."

    He was not shut down because he went overtime, that was the excuse given by the people who shut him down. They shut him down because a group of Muslims sitting behind me started calling out over him – how do I know they were Muslims? They said so and said they were insulted.

    The whole truth and context of that debate was that these "intelligent" students were terrible debaters. They gabbled, one idea and thought garrulously running into another without pause or respect for delivery, let alone attention to oratory. Given how accessible high quality debates by the very best in the world are on Youtube I honestly expected a much higher level of speaking and rhetoric than what they delivered. I remember better quality debates from my years in high school than what went down here (I could only put it down to Gramscification). Lindsay, as a panellist speaker, brought a very high level of professionalism to that evening - including humour, wit and forceful rhetoric - frankly they were lucky to have him there as an example, despite the fact that he upstaged them all. That's Linz for you. Every student who spoke took great pains to not go anywhere near any problems with Islam (universities aren’t allowed to do that anymore you know), even though the only reason the moot was even relevant was because the burka and burkini etc were being discussed heavily in Europe during that month. It was the elephant in the room which Linz addressed. It was very salient, believe me... but I guess not if you're in denial about world events.

    PC says: "But it is of a piece with his rank conspiracy theories about ARI shills, boycotts and backstabbing."

    Conspiracy theories huh? You just absolutely proved his point about backstabbing - obviously someone just backstabbed him to you, hence your "highly flawed" remark about his account of that evening. And you do promote the ARI party line on everything, from open immigration to denial about the Islamic menace to the West. You've also backstabbed him by posting this piece *about* SOLO "and its ringmaster" NOT on SOLO, the very place where we all first got to know each other and where you have been a member for over a decade. That's very remiss of you, and if you really gave a shit about the state of SOLO, you wouldn't be that remiss.

    PC says:"And the whole truth you're ignoring, or at least not addressing, is that the post on which you're commenting here is not even primarily about one evening, as you well know, but about the state of SOLO and its ringmaster. Which you must know is no longer either 'sense-of-life' or Objectivist."

    You brought that one up Pete by throwing it in as part of your hatchet job, so take it. I have never valued the cult side of Objectivism in any organised form - Rand is immensely valuable as an independent thinker and writer of great insight and influence, but as for institutions and dogmas dedicated to her, I have no affinity for them and never will. On that basis, I don't care what Lindsay calls his website, but I do know that his original inspiration came from Rand and Objectivism. You're talking like a cultist. Having been raised in one, I can spot that language a mile away, and organised Objectivism is full of it. It has always made me uncomfortable.

    On the basis of intellectual hygiene, or whatever, calling for SOLO to change its name because it's not Objectivist enough for your liking smacks of a cult like mentality, which is almost funny. Judean People's Front? Faaaark off! I'm the People's Front of Judea!

    1. I read most of what Peter writes on this blog, and I've never ever seen him in "denial about the Islamic menace to the West".

      Nor have I ever seen him behave like a "cultist". As I've commented to someone else above, I suspect that projection lies behind that accusation more than anything else.

      I can also tell you that Peter and Lindsay knew each other well before SOLO was a website. As for why he didn't post this on SOLO, you're assuming he main motivation was to get a response from Lindsay, and perhaps engage in an interminable debate. I can't speak for Pete, but a more likely motivation would is to (a) Get your own thoughts clear on why you have fallen out with someone and (b) distinguish your beliefs from somneone you previously had a great deal in common with. If that is the case then posting on your own blog is the most appropriate place for that, and only if you're prone to histrionics would you post it on SOLO.

    2. "I read most of what Peter writes on this blog, and I've never ever seen him in "denial about the Islamic menace to the West"."

      Then you obviously haven't read it properly, MarkT.

    3. Richard - you need to learn that just because someone doesn't accept your proposed solution to a problem, doesn't constitute a denial the problem exists. Just as rejecting limits on fossil fuel consumption does not make one a "climate change denier", rejecting your rabid solution to the Islamic threat does not constitute denial the threat exists.

    4. "Rabid" is hardly an objective way of putting it. I don't have a solution, because it's up to the Islamic world to reform itself, which isn't something I can do. One of my responses to the war is to suspend Islamic immigration. That isn't rabid, but cool, calculated, and rational. And you are wrong to say that Peter doesn't deny the problem. He is consistent in his stance that there is no problem with Islamic immigration and that borders should be open. No matter that there are such things as running battles going on in Calais between Muslim migrants and police, there simply is simply no problem with migrants. The consistent message I get is that, to say otherwise is xenophobic right-wing bigotry.

  9. Even *if* one could show a correlation between race and likelihood of supporting freedom (and distinguish race from culture), and that's a massive "if", it still would have no philosophical or political implications that I can see. No more than observing the high proportion of blacks in professional athletics or basketball has any implications for how those sports should be played.

    Not "if". That blacks and Meso-Americans (and others) don't support freedom is empirical. There is so much data showing that black Africa societies are everywhere catagorized by 1) religion 2) sexual conservatism and 3) a lack of property rights. And these are the people you want to import into your country, especially in the current Leftist dominated environment. lol

    The question you should ask is whether a multi-racial society with blacks and browns (and Muslims too no less) could ever be created that is liberty oriented and whether that society would be sustainable. That question is NOT as obviously simple as you assume. As to race not having philosophic implications, Objectivists mouth this like a mantra. I've been hearing it for years. But nowhere do I see that as near proven. If there are biological differences at the population level, then those are facts of reality. They establish parameters for outcomes for the various racial groupings. Do you really think that Haiti with its average IQ of 70 will ever develop the free society of your dreams? If race sets the parameters for civilizational accomplishment than it DOES have philosophical implications.

    Now does that automatically invalidate multi-racial societies? No. But it does place added complications to them. And any SANE person who wants to live in a free society, let alone some radically free libertarian version, will have no choice but to consider race. Again, answer what I said above to Mr. May, what becomes of America when whites are a minority and the left dominates everything? Do you honestly think race will have no significance then? Do you want to live in South Africa? That's a very serious question you should ask yourself. And understand this, if you have children, which I bet you don't, then imagine them living in a continent wide South Africa where white people are hated and the subject of racial attack. How about that version of 'Atlas Shrugged' that Rand didn't give you because she came to early to see its possibility.

    And further - the fact you can't respond to Jim May's argument without making claims he's a social misfit, and also refer to "racial survival" (why not just "survivial"?) illustrates exactly what Peter is talking about - i.e. a unappealing nastiness and horrible sense of life.

    Oh, go fly a kite with this crap. What are you? Some delicate snowflake? Jesus. I have a history with Mr. May. We hate each other. He thinks I'm scum and he knows the level of contempt I hold for him. Objectivists really are becoming "Obleftivists", with the psychologies to match.

    1. Oh, wow--I thought such open racism was a thing of the past!

      "That blacks and Meso-Americans (and others) don't support freedom is empirical."

      Flat-out false. The fact that many societies in Africa and the Americas don't and didn't support freedom doesn't support your point; most SOCIETIES don't support freedom, and none did until the 17/1800s. There's also the fact that the US Constitution drew heavily from Native American societies the colonists came into contact with; the Iroquois Nation was far more free than the Colonial civilization, which is why so many colonists fled there. Then there's Oklahoma, which started as a society of former slaves and which enjoyed a society golden age because they were free by default (being away from US laws).

      It's simply not true that race equates to love or capacity for liberty. That Europeans advanced the concept of liberty is a matter of contingency, NOT race.

      If you want to prove that biology dictates philosophy, YOU prove it. There is precisely ZERO evidence for such a concept in anatomy or physiology ("Archaeology of Human Remains" and "Measure of a Man" demonstrate this, from various angles). As Mark T pointes out, humans arose in Africa, meaning we're all African if you go back far enough--you've yet to prove that the differences in physiology constitute evidence for differing philosophy. The fact that you don't realize we've met the burden of proof is merely evidence of your ignorance of the state of scientific knowledge regarding race. While there are physiological differences (VERY subtle ones only useful to anthropologists, who's concept of race is VASTLY different from the one you're using), there is no moral or intellectual difference tied to race.

      Culture is different, obviously, but it's critical to disentangle the two concepts.

  10. You're equally as bad, and perhaps even worse than the left in not making the distinction between race and culture. You're making the claim that there is a link between race and intelligence. Where's your evidence, removing the influence of culture from the equation?

    And if one could show such a link, explain to me coherently why is has a political implication? Do you think it's only smart people that will prosper under freedom? Or do you think it's only smart people entitled to freedom, and the rest should be treated as animals?

    And how do you reconcile your views on the superiority of the white race (and inferiority of Africans) with these historical & scientific facts:

    1. DNA science now shows we all evolved from a single African woman born 65,000 years ago?

    2. Europe has only had the more advanced culture relatively recently in history.

    For most of human history from 65,000 years ago till now, Europe was a cultural backwater and other civilisations were more advanced. Why do you think there are such larger populations in China/India/the Middle East? It's because until very recently in history large populations were only possible with successful food production, and those regions led the world in that up until recently.

    And why do you assume I don't have children? Not that it's any of your business, but I do; and the extent to which people like you are common makes me more fearful for their future - because it indicates a possible return to horrors of Nazi Germany and the false European alternatives of fascism V's communism. To the extent your ideas are ever treated seriously, you are equally a threat to their future as the left.

  11. I have come to the conclusion that while SOLO has been at times a useful forum to discuss ideas in and around Objectivism, it has become today indistinguishable from the Alt-Right on issues such as race, and this issue seems to be sucking a lot of the oxygen out of the air at that place. Also, LP seems to have a lot of articles from people who just want to stamp their feet in rage about Muslims, put Obama and HClinton in jail, and so on, but apart from anything else, their proposals are either mad, or authortarian rubbish at odds with what Rand stood for (she was, after all, an immigrant who did not have all the right paperwork).

    Objectivism is and should be a rich basis for a variety of insights into business, art, culture, science, and the like, but apart from Lindsay's delight in opera (who could argue against that?) a lot of his material is erratic and angry-old-man raging at a world. (Ironically, people have said the same thing about Rand in her later years, except that she was far, far better in most respects than this.)

    Another point: while Lindsay may want to claim he doesn't censor contributors' views, it does say a lot that he is indulgent towards several who are blatant racists, and therefore at odds with Objectivism. One, by the name (real?) Doug Bandler, is a biological determinist (which is blatantly at odds with Objectivism), and an anti-semite and passionately anti-Israel (in fairness to Lindsay, he said this was absurd). Bandler writes and comments regularly, and is actually one of the mainstays of the website these days. It is like going to a party and being buttonholed by a drunken bore determined to tell you his theories about the world.

    I is all very sad.

  12. Hi Peter. You don't know me but when I was 16 I wrote a piece for the Free Radical. I was just at the beginning of an intellectual journey into libertarianism. I admired Lindsay Perigo then. I've since moved on intellectually (I consider myself a classical liberal but what I mean is that my interests are much more wide ranging than just Ayn Rand or objectivist authors). Anyway it deeply saddens me how SOLO has turned out. That an intelligent man who passionately loved the writings of Ayn Rand like I do, can engage in such hateful rhetoric is so disappointing. I never liked Objectivist cliques. People always seemed so intolerant of others opinions and so quick to accuse each other of bad motives. Life is short and I don't want to spend it being part of their squabbles. But I can still learn from modern day exponents of Ayn Rand and im thankful you haven't succumbed to the angry, hateful attitudes expressed by Lindsay. The world needs thoughtful perspectives in defence of liberty so thank you.

    1. Hi James, I really appreciate your comment. It's encouraging that intelligent folk can see through what's happened to SOLO, and why.

  13. I just realised that I never publicly responded to this thread. My apologies for the necroing, but I recently went through and deleted all of my old blog posts from SOLO.

    I am proud to be associated with what it was, and to have had a hand in setting it up.

    I am embarrassed to be associated with what it has since become.


We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
Thanks to a few abusers however, we (ir)regularly moderate comments.
We *will* delete comments with insulting or abusive language, unless they're entertaining. We will also delete totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. We are much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.