Encore!

Far be it from us to beat a dead horse, but we could not resist a few more quotes from the redoubtable Bob Kolker, previously profiled here and awarded the considerable honor of induction into the Randzapper Hall of Fame.

It now has come to our attention that Kolker the Joker was banned from the Web site TalkOrigins. The moderator explains that Kolker was banned "for posting stuff like this." He then links to two vintage Kolkerian diatribes, one of which appeared on TalkOrigins (a site normally concerned with controversies about evolution).

In the first rant, Kolker observes,

The threat of atomic holocaust has a remarkable effect on the clarity of thought. The idea is to make it plain to the world : do it our way or we will kill you.

Asked how his brand of slaughter differs from that of the Muslim extremists he condemns, Kolker replies,

It is good-guy bloodthirsty vs. bad guy bloodthirsty. These goat fuckers started with us and we will finish ... If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off and shit down his neck. Whatsoever any do unto you, do unto him likewise tenfold. We have got to end this turn-the-other cheek and forgive thine enemy crap. Here is the right way to live. Help and cherish your friends, destroy your enemies and be polite to the neutrals. Christial [sic] morality is absurd and just plain dangerous. If we practice it, we will die.

Since this is not an Objectivist Web site, there are sensible people on it. One of them responds to Bob the Butcher:

If it comes to pass that your way of thinking prevails, I will be joining those who will destroy you and the "America" you represent. I'll rather enjoy shitting down your neck.

This comeback has the remarkably salutary effect of largely shutting up the Bobster for the rest of the discussion.

Then there's rant number two:

Time to nuke the Muslims abroad. The principle is very simple. You cherish and protect your friends. You destroy your enemies and be polite to the neutrals. We will have to be more subtle in North America but at least we will have to round the Muslims up and deport them to a killing zone. Then kill them. I imagine that some infants could be saved. Prior to being infused with the Jihad/Martyrdom meme Muslim youngsters are no different from any others.

This rant is found in an Objectivist discussion group, so the quality of repartee is accordingly much lower. Kolker has the opportunity to spurt more venom:

I want the Muslisms [sic] in this country to be afraid. Very afraid. Its [sic] their turn to be on the Death Lists.

Niiiiice.

You can see why this guy is Hall of Fame material!

The Witchfinder General

Today's adventure takes us through a very long thread, one that spans five pages. To keep our discussion within managable limits, we must cherrypick only the very bestest comments.

The thread in question, "Poll: Did Rand Make Any Mistakes?", certainly sounds promising. But what really makes it interesting is not the tedious debate about whether or not Rand was right in saying that the game of chess does not require conceptual thinking (!), or the even more tedious debate about whether or not Rand was right in regarding Charlie's Angels as a great TV show (!!), but the dustup between the Randian diehards and a dissenting voice of (dare we say it?) reason.

The dissenter makes his presence known with this statement:

I used to be an Objectivist, but time - and other Objectivists - cured that.

His name is Jay Andrew Allen, and he identifies himself as "Writer. Father. Witch."

Witch?

Oh, you just know the Randinistas ain't gonna stand for that. It doesn't take long before one of them, a certain JD, enters the arena to do battle with the apostate.

This commentator illustrates the very worst characteristics of some people found on the fringes of Objectivism. A close reading of these comments can help to spot them early in their antilife cycle. They are originally attracted as outcasts and then later condemn the philosophy out of their irrational vindictiveness at being rejected again. They are like a previous cigarette smoker that crusades against smoking pleasures or a communist like [Whittaker] Chambers who is hired to attack socialism as an intimate insider. Obviously their inherent character defects make any comments they make so much garbage but it's still important to see them.

Wow. "Inherent character defects ... irrational vindictiveness ... antilife ... outcasts ... garbage." Tell us what you really think, JD!

Jay Andrew Allen, hereafter Jay, responds with remarkable poise.

Look, I had no dishonest intentions. At the time, Objectivism was appealing. I wanted to swallow it all. Really, I did. My thought just took too divergent a path.Objectivism is a powerful draw for an alienated, unconfident teenager lost in a world where few people are willing to take a stand on anything. Then again, so is Socialism.... Both movements have a great many similarities in the tenor of their world views and the behavior of their adherents. I've been eavesdropping on the WSM discussion list for a few weeks now, and sometimes it's like deja vu all over again.

No one's to blame for what I was and did, and nothing and no one could have changed it; it had to run its course. All I'll say on that score is that, or years, I was surrounded by people who bragged about how rational, productive, dynamic and *happy* they were. Over time, however, everybody's deeply-troubled selves (including mine) eventually bubbled up to the fore, and I learned what Shakespeare meant by a tale full of Sound and fury.Most Objectivists I knew were more like Richard Cory than Howard Roark.

Who, one might ask, is Richard Cory? He is the subject of a poem of the same name by Edwin Arlington Robinson:

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
“Good-morning,” and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich,—yes, richer than a king,—
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

Yep. Sounds like a Randist, all right. Except for the part about being rich, successful, graceful, admired, and a gentleman.

Jay goes on to say:

A closed system, like dogmatic Objectivism, has an even richer aura (a deep-blue aura - like an angel, or a bug zapper), combining as it does a "complete" set of ideas for living one's life with the veneration of a Christ-like figure whose every moral transgression is whitewashed or ignored. Dogmatic Objectivism is religion for the religiously disillusioned.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. If there's one thing Randolators cannot abide, it's being called religious disciples.

Here we pause for a somewhat irrelevant comment by one Tupac Chopra, who expresses the deep love of humanity for which Ayndroids everywhere are known:

The Enlightenment idea that we are all "creatures of God" and possess the same capacity for rational thought is a joke. The hordes of men who have gone, are going, and will continue to go to their graves having lived as nothing more than herd animals attests to this fact.IT'S NOT GETTING BETTER FOLKS.

Herd animals, all of us - except the Randibrillators.

Dave O'Hearn agrees:

I'm pretty much consigned to that. Talking to people on the Internet, I almost forget that there are so many damned people in the real world that believe in God, not to mention their ridiculous positions in other areas. I rarely attempt a good discussion with anyone in real life, as they probably aren't as smart or interesting as people here, but when I do, I am very disappointed.

You can bet they're disappointed in you, too, Danny boy. With very good reason. Not that you care what all those "damned people in the real world" think, since they "aren't as smart or interesting" as the dateless losers on Usenet.

Now back to Jay the witch and his enemies, who are clearly eager to burn him at the stake.

Regarding Jay's comments on why Objectivism lost its appeal for him, someone named Dean writes,

This is all as pathetic a "psychological confession" as we could hope to (not) ever see on h.p.o.When someone like him shows up on your doorstep whining for acceptance as he does, you don't make excuses and you don't tolerate his appearance there. As with a bum showing up to whine for money, while implying his contempt for your virtues that gained you your wealth, you don't necessarily even tell him what you think of him. You _do_ quickly shut the door.

Well, now we know how Randists treat all those "bums" who go around "whining for money" and "implying their contempt for your virtues." Who says the milk of human kindness doesn't flow through Randian veins?

Jay is asked to provide evidence that Objectivists have a malevolent outlook on life. Instead of simply quoting the above passages, he writes,

What evidence is there for my statement? There's Rand herself, who's obviously stuffed full of hate. Objectivists continue to ignore the mountain of evidence that's accumulated about how bitter and lonely she was, dismissing her detractors as having an axe to grind. (Never mind that the people who were close to her, such as Peikoff, have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of her rationality. That never enters an Objectivist's mind, for some reason.) Aside from personal anecdotes, however, you can see it in her published writings and speeches. Outside a select circle, she hated the world.And then, of course, there's Peikoff and his cohorts, who all behave like children. Their behavior is fully documented - you just refuse to recognize it.... No one can seriously dispute this, of course. Rand's hatred of most of humanity is apparent in all of her work, notably Atlas Shrugged, which ends with the death of most of the American populace (all those damned people who believe in God). It's a happy ending, triumphant even, because the heroes have won.

In response to another silly tirade, Jay says sensibly:

I'm sorry, Tym, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the philosophical discourse of 2500 years suddenly stops because a chain-smoking Russian with a nasty attitude spilled some ink.

The antagonistic tone of the witchfinders is so obvious that Ken Gardner is moved to point it out:

Many Objectivists have never learned how to disagree in a rational and civil manner, much less accept the fact that in Real Life, disagreement on philosophical issues is inevitable. They often react to the fact of disagreement with anger, hostility, and a zeal to condemn. They take for granted many philosophical premises that are either unknown or disputed by the vast majority of people. They often engage in a practice that even Ayn Rand condemned, although she herself often practiced it herself: psychologizing. Many of them, including here on HPO, are not immune from making illogical arguments and committing common logical fallacies. They are more concerned with being consistent with something Rand or Peikoff wrote than with being consistent with the facts of reality. They are quick to pass judgment -- almost always moral condemnation -- without taking the time or trouble to understand correctly what their opponent is actually saying. They often condemn without first attempting to explain rationally why they disagree and without first giving the other guy a chance to respond and/or correct any mistake. And their tone is almost universally bitter, hostile, and angry. The result of all this is that it takes a very special type of person even to endure these people for more than a few days or weeks -- which is not exactly the way to promote Objectivism in our culture.

All of which - every word - is indubitably true. Another sensible person, Jim Klein, seconds the emotion:

How come every single other rational being on the planet can see these things, but you guys--supposedly the most "reality-focused" - somehow never come to see them? Has it even occurred to you that maybe you have ERRED?? That maybe you've been FOOLED by something?? That perhaps you've fallen into the same faith-trap that you accuse everyone else of?

Well, no...that hasn't occurred to you, has it? That's because you _have_ been caught in precisely that trap. When things don't occur to you, when there are things that others see and you don't, when you find yourself incessantly rationalizing and evading...that's when you may _know_ that you've fallen into such a trap. But that only matters if you _want_ to know stuff, and the simple fact is that you - and the rest of the Brotherhood - don't. You want to _believe_; you want to _defend_; you want to be loyal....

Don't you know that we all likely got good grades in school, that we all test out as extremely bright, that we're each and every one seeking the truth? Do you really think you're of a different class--more "reality focused"--because of a bunch of BOOKS that you read? Get real ...

You guys _say_ that man is the rational animal but when the rational animal points out how full of shit you are, suddenly he's not rational any more. You guys take hypocrisy to levels never seen before on Earth. ...

You need to deal with the _fact_ that no matter how much you like Betsy or Tym orDean, they spew nothing but complete imbecility. They are the Masters of Assertion, so completely blind to the facts--about nearly everything--that there's nothing left for them to do but DECLARE rationality, objectivity and happiness....

Stop being an adherent and be a _thinker_. And don't even consider coming back at me like you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. _Everyone_ knows what the hell I'm talking about and nearly everyone--except your starry-eyed comrades--knows that I'm right.

The ubiquitous Betsy Speicher, who crops up on a variety of Rand-related boards in order to genuflect before the Goddess of Reason, tells Jay that he's wrong about Objectivism attracting unhappy people. She's very happy, she says, and always has been. Very happy. Very, very happy. Very, very, very happy. Not that she protests too much or anything.

Jay politely replies,

Betsy, I'm not one to judge how happy you are. I have seen and heard of many Objectivists - including Rand herself - who claimed to be happy, but who are obviously miserable. Kudos if you're not one of them.

From everything I've seen, all that Objectivism does for an alienated, isolated and troubled teen is to make her MORE alienated, isolated and troubled. Dogmatic Objectivist's swiftness to moral condemnation does not create an environment in which a budding adult can work out developmental issues from childhood - just the opposite, it encourages their *repression*.

You do not give your run-of-the-mill teen an ideology which cuts them off intellectually from their culture, and demands that they make moral judgment in great haste and in absence of all the facts (as was done during both the Kelley and the Reisman/Packer splits) - and expect that good things will happen.

Pretty darn civil for a witch. He casts no spells, inveighs no curses. We hear nary a bubble from his cauldron. But Jay's preternatural politeness becomes frayed as the attacks continue.

Okay, I'm sick and tired of this.The tacit assumption in this entire thread is: Of COURSE Jay didn't APPLY Objectivism. He just "latched onto" it, like a leech or a suckling infant. If he had APPLIED it, nothing but good things would have resulted - he'd be a Prince Among Men by now, a Man for All Seasons, instead of the "irrational" schlep he is now. It's insulting, it's condescending bordering on religiously fanatic, and it's plain FALSE. And I'm amazed it's being put forward by people who KNEW me, and SAW how hard I struggled to integrate these principles into my life....I met several good, decent people in the Objectivist movement. Unfortunately, they don't run the show - the alienated, unconfident, hateful, vitriolic people do....Good Goddess. Quit acting like "philosophy" == "the philosophy of Ayn Rand". There are more stars in Heaven and Earth, Horatio. You are an intellectual MINORITY - why don't you recognize that and act accordingly? Many rational people's philosophies are quite unlike yours. This does not *a priori* make every non-Objectivist interested in philosophy an intellectual compatriot of Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot....

Once again, you treat Objectivism like religion, and claim that anyone who's "seen the light" can't POSSIBLY disagree with Ayn Rand. This is why the rest of the rational world finds you so pitiable.

Pressed to explain what he could possibly disagree with in Rand's faultless vision, Jay gives a long, almost comprehensive answer. It's too long to quote in full, but here are excerpts:

I don't think Objectivism is the be-all and end-all of philosophical discourse. I don't think Plato, Hume, Kant et. al. were evil whim-worshipers whose philosophies brought us the Nazi party and the Khmer Rouge - they were honest intellectuals who took their observations about reality and drew reasonable conclusions from them. I'm a fan of Hegelian-style dialectic: I believe Hume's intense skepticism has a rational purpose, even if you don't hide under your blanket shivering in fear because you think the sun might not rise.

Epistemologically, I disagree that ratiocination is the only valid mental activity for man. As Buddhists and Hindus have known for centuries, there's often great value in telling your mind to shut the hell up. Try meditating....

I agree that man is a rational, volitional animal, but I can't buy that he is ONLY a rational animal; there is something transcendent in his nature.

There is much more, but the point is that he gives his critics exactly what they have asked for - a clear, precise, detailed critique of Randist orthodoxy. Do any of his adversaries return the favor by engaging him in a serious way? Nope.

But we do get this smug love note from JD to Betsy:

Congratulations on your tolerant approach to this commentator [i.e., Jay]. You obviously know him better than the rest of us and find some possibility of good character traits in his future if he is given time to grow up. It appears that from your knowledge you think that he may overcome the new age mystical/magical witch socialism he babbles on about in this thread. I would guess that you are probably too love of life optimistic as was Ayn Rand in some of her close relations but congratulations on the tolerant attempt anyway.

Yeah, it's awful tolerant of the enlightened elite to "find some possibility of good character traits" in someone who disagrees with 'em. Just give the poor bastard "time to grow up" - never mind that Jay has already said he is a husband and father with a prosperous business. Not to mention, a witch.

Actually, come to think of it, this grudging attempt at tolerance is a step forward. Had JD, Tupac, and Dave been in charge of the proceedings at Salem, poor Jay would be the guest of honor at the town barbecue.

And somewhere in the woods, in a gingerbread house, a wicked humpbacked crone named Ayn Rand would be cackling malignantly over a hot stove.

Atlas Blogged

Before we begin today's rant, we wish to address the burning controversy over RandZapper's policy of allowing no comments and providing no contact info. The rationale behind our policy is simple. We do not choose to invite a barrage of email stinkbombs and righteously enraged comment posts into our life, for the same reason that we would not choose to invite a colony of crack-addled dung beetles to take up residence in our bunghole. Rand's insane clown posse of Galt-humping fanboys will simply have to vent their hyperactive spleens elsewhere. Their spittle is liberally distributed throughout the Internet, and surely our one little corner of the Web can be off-limits to their noxious sound and fury.

With this nonissue disposed of, we turn our attention to a newsgroup thread from 2004, entitled "Novels That Not Have Been Filmed." This newsgroup is unusual among those we have visited, in that it is not a domain of Objectivists. This of course elevates the discourse considerably, as most of the contributors have actually read books other than Ayn Rand's works.

When someone mentions The Fountainhead as a novel that should have eschewed its Hollywood incarnation, another poster comments,

I don't know. This might fall into the so godawful that it becomes bizarrely funny. Like a trainwreck

To which a certain Tony, having no idea of the can of worms (or perhaps the nest of dung beetle crackheads) he is about to open, replies,

It did [become bizarrely funny] -- but then again so did the novel. Atlas Shrugged on the other hand was so awful it was just plain terrible.

Enter Calvin Rice, with this combative riposte:

[The Fountainhead] was a great book, and seeing a bad movie made from it might turn some people away from the book, which is a shame. (I know, I know, nothing with Ayn Rand's name on it can possibly be any good, as you have been so effectively taught to say, with an uninformed but still withering sneer.)

Unwilling to leave it at that, Calvin immediately posts a follow-up:

[Atlas] is bad only to those who have been taught to trash it without reading it, and to those who can't appreciate a book on its own terms, but have to, for example, compare it to what a 'novel' is supposed to be, and to those who have to agree with a book's philosophy before they can look at it merits open-mindedly. Atlas Shrugged isn't meant to be a 'novel' or any other particular predetermined type of book.

Atlas isn't meant to be a novel? This would have come as news to Ayn Rand, who certainly saw herself as a novelist, as well to the chorus of mewling sycophants who ritually repeat the mantra that AS is the greatest novel ever written.

It is what it is, a great mystery story,

And a mystery story isn't a novel? How can AS be a mystery anyway, when any half-intelligent twelve-year-old can figure out the Big Surprise Plot Twist after the first fifty pages, even though the novel's heroes (geniuses all) cannot see it coming until it slams them in the head like Maxwell's silver hammer? As a mystery, Atlas manages to defy all known laws of fluid dynamics: it simultaneously sucks and blows.

a great rant about individualism as opposed to collectivism, a series of stunningly constructed dramatic scenes with deliberately larger than life characters, who many people have found to be inspirational....

I'm aware of the predominant political make-up of this newsgroup, so don't imagine that you will be surprising me by demonizing me along with the book for having the effrontery to try to defend it.

Yes, he's just another poor little Randian belittled and besieged by the ugly mob. Another poster calls him on his preemptive strike:

Dude, get off your cross--you are a little too eager to be martyred here, methinks. A LOT of people now find Rand embarrassing to some degree or the other, including many modern-day libertarians, so please--quit presuming that those who disdain your artistic choices are solely motivated by a political agenda. One Grand Inquisitor was enough.

Tony, who got the ball rolling, weighs in, responding to Calvin:

I've only read half of Atlas Shrugged. After the absolute asininity of The Fountainhead I could sorta tell after a while that things weren't going to get better. A non writer is a non writer. I also was a full fledged Eng Lit major (at one time) so I'm not basing my opinion on complete lack of knowledge here. I've read a lot, and turned in a lot of papers. You, on the other hand, with no knowledge of me, have determined in your own head that I didn't read your precious illiterate's POS and therefore you have given yourself a "authority" position. Sorry, Ace - but Shite is Shite - even if it is anti-commie.

Calvin fires back:

If you will check my post again you will see that I didn't assume you hadn't read the book. That was one of three or more possibilities I listed.... What I hate is sneering snobbery, putting down something without even bothering to give a reason, because you're secure in this company, knowing that 90 percent or more of the people here will just nod in agreement, because of one of the possibilities that I listed.

RandZapper hates sneering snobbery also (except for our own sneering snobbery, naturalment). But it seems to us that it was Calvin himself who engaged in some snobbish sneers, when he assumed that anyone who dislikes AS either a) hasn't really read it, b) doesn't understand it, or c) is too closed-minded to give it a fair chance.

How about the possibility that some readers simply aren't impressed with Rand's cardboard (oops - larger than life) caricatures (oops - characters), her polemical and didactic writing style, her repetitious plot, her disturbing sadomasochism, and her far-fetched dramatic situations?

Moreover, Calvin went to some pains to say that those who dislike Atlas have been "taught" to feel that way (i.e., they have no minds of their own) and that their opinions are "uninformed." Snobbish sneering indeed! Poor Calvin - you are predestined to make a fool of yourself on this thread.

After some back-and-forth on other, more interesting topics, Calvin levels his big guns on Tony:

You're lying. Neither have you read half of Atlas Shrugged, nor do you understand why you condemn it. You're parroting others who have convinced you that you shouldn't like it. You may have read some of it, but it's doubtful that you read even the first chapter with an open mind, or else you would know that Ayn Rand could write. Not like Joyce, or Tolstoy, or Fitzgerald, because it was not in her interest to write the way they wrote. As a reader, it's not your job to accept or reject a writer because she is or isn't like other writers. It's your job to open your mind and take in what is written, or leave it alone. It's certainly not your job to write baseless condemnations because the writer uses a style of romantic surrealism, and tries to promote individualism. If you hate individualism, you should have the decency to admit it, but not vindictively try to trash a writer because of it. If you hate the use of larger than life heroes and villains, you should just say so, but not try to denigrate a writer and her readers, because you object to a writer's politics, or attitude, or style. If Ayn Rand was a poor writer in the ways that you imply, her books would not have been revered by so many, and reviled by so many. The woman was a lightning rod, but not 'less than a hack'.

If you read half of Atlas Shrugged, prove it. Or show that you have any grasp of what was put forth in the first part of the book, even the first tenth of it.

This is sadly typical stuff for Randinistas - even though Calvin says he is not an Objectivist. Well, maybe not, but he has the patter down pat. "You're lying! And if you're not, prove it!" And of course, "You're parroting what others have taught you!" Only Randroids can think for themselves; everyone else is a second-hander. And finally the most cherished chestnut of all: "If Rand weren't so great, she wouldn't be so popular!" Nothing second-handed about that. Tony responds indirectly:

I find Rand an overbaked bore as a storyteller... So much of the plot tends to swing on illogical events or people withholding information for no good reason etc, that I cannot get into them. I read all of Fountainhead and determined that the Architect was insane - he takes a job on commission knowing they are going to do their level best to change it, then goes postal when they do.... His relationship with the woman was more than a bit sick - from my point of view, I've never been into S&M and think rape is about power and control - not sex. I can't even remember Atlas but I only got a couple hundred pages into that giant turkey. There was an earlier book that I read too - title, plot and everything else forgotten. I've always seen Rand as someone who obviously did not spend a happy childhood and devised herself a world view to take revenge on those who made her unhappy, then had the audacity to call it a "philosophy".

Someone else comments:

For what it's worth, I slogged through the entirety of Atlas Shrugged *twice* a number of years ago, and while it's a crackerjack piece of storytelling (that was always Rand's literary gift, her ability to tell a story; something she learned at the feet of a master, Cecil B. DeMille), the philosophy that informs the novel is strictly for adolescents (and those who think like them). Believe me, I was under the sway of Objectivism for about a half-hour and even I eventually figured out that what made sense on the page (or did it?) doesn't translate smoothly into real life. She was extremely good at constructing and writing stories (a not-inconsiderable achievement by any standard), but she was no kinda prophetess.

Now here's the real shocker. To this post Calvin responds:

I agree with most of what you said. [Emphasis added by a gape-jawed RandZapper.] Every time I mention Rand books in these NGs, I always point out that I'm no Objectivist, and don't aspire to be, but I always say that the books, Atlas Shrugged in particular, are great story-telling. That's all I would like to see others admit.... Atlas Shrugged is a marvel of plot construction.

Whoa. With friends like Calvin, Rand doesn't need enemies. After his earlier tirades worthy of the sainted John Galt himself, Calvin has now done a triple reverse and abandoned Rand in nearly all respects. Gone are his paeans to Rand's heroic individualism, inspirational characters, etc. Instead we're left with "plot construction" as the sole standout feature of Atlas Shrugged.

At this point Chris Cathcart, who participates in many Objectivist newsgroups, chimes in:

I've basically read no fiction over the past 10 years, with the exception of Rand's novels, so my frame of reference about her quality as storyteller may be non-existent.

He has read no fiction except Rand's for the last decade? Now there's an Objectivist!

What are we to make of all this? There are only two people in the newsgroup who defend Atlas Shrugged as literature. One of them has not read any other fiction in at least ten years. The other one ends up practically admitting that he thinks Rand was batshit crazy and wrong about everything she believed, but she spun a good yarn.

This is how we make progress, people - one nutjob at a time.

Gordged on Hatred

Some Randians at least try to pose coherent arguments. Then there are others who prefer to spew expletive-laden abuse.

Michael Gordge, come on down!

The estimable Mr. Gordge, an excitable New Zealander, enjoys spicing up message boards with his unique brand of ad hominem abuse. We're not even going to try to extract any substance from his ravings, because what makes them so darn special is not the usual Randroidian nitwittery, but the elaborate scatological packaging.

Here's Gordge gorging himself on libertarian red meat:

Some fucking stupid, fucking leftist envy ridden anti-human cowardly, retarded commie cunt wrote: "The libertarian believes that the government is evil."Here is the truth:The libertarian believes, that the only moral function of any government is to act as the shield and not as the fucking sword of the society it governs.The libertarian believes, unlike any and ALL of the leftist / rightest / conservatist parasitical sadistical masochistical wanking fuckwitted khunts, that YOU and YOU alone own YOUR life, and that YOU and YOU alone ought be the SOLE benefactor and the SOLE decider of the results of the products of YOUR energy ...

... blah blah, Randian-libertarian boilerplate mercifully snipped.

The libertarian believes that the ONLY reason why the anti-human creeps, e.g. the leftist cunts who lambast libertarian principles, is because that they do NOT want to be held responsible for THEIR OWN fucking lives and THEIR own fucking failures, sooooo shame on the parasitical leftist scourges of the human race.

Hear that, all you anti-human creeps?

Pressed to defend his views, our Gordge rises to the task:

You stupid fascist inspired dumb commie cunts just dont get it do ewes? ...Wake the fuck up dopey, this is YOUR life, why the fuck dont YOU want to take responsibility for it?

Shortly afterward, Gordge relents a little, in unpunctuated fashion:

I will calm down the alcohol has warn off, I didn't like the tone of the fuckwit's question either, but hey I'm over it already.

But if the liquor's lost its kick, what explains this new rant?

I really hate leftist commie and fascist cunts eh? there is NO fundamental difference between ANY of them, they ALL demand human sacrifice as a means to their bogus invented glorious ends. disgusting fucking creeps.

Not them as human beings, but rather their ideas, they are evil ideas and MUST be hated by the objective rational reason based mind.

The "objective rational reason based mind" as embodied by the Gordgeous One, no doubt!Gordge then channels Emily Post:

Nobody owes the virtue of niceness to a blatant leftist envy ridden liar.

Someone else, who knows Gordgeous George from past encounters, joins the discussion and paints a pretty clear picture:

Mikey complaining about a "personal attack"!!!!!!!!!! The phrase "height of hypocrisy" comes to mind. I think people who give him credit (should there be any), have not read enough samplings of his "work" to detect the repetition of the "same" accidental coherence mixed with the overwhelming abundance of expletives, pejoratives, invectives, slurs, slander, and general-all-around misanthropic tenor of his delusional rants.

Luckily, Gordge has an eloquent and telling riposte:

Yes, you fucking useless as all fuck knuckledragging commie cockheaded khunt....Look you dopey confused cunt, the subject is libertarian politics and the desperate lies of that lunatic fucking anti-human left-tit knuckle-dragging Randaphobic retard who hasn't a fucking clue about anything, the subject is NOT about ME, you fucking egghead, as much as you useless cunts would like to try and make it, it aint, now grow up moron.

Asked by the same commenter (apparently Gordge's long-time nemesis, i.e., the Anti-Gordge), "Do they have IQ tests in New Zealand?," the estimable Gordge fires back:

What the fuck are ewe on about now you stupid commie cunt? Stick to the subject you stupid stupid stupid moronic goon.The subject is not about me, you dumb arse, its about your Randaphobic retarded left-tic ilk's lies, about libertarian concepts and your cowardly refusal to face up to your own life and your own responsibilities....

Insults are self-inflicted you stupid commie cunt, sooo go ahead make my day.

That's telling him! When someone else chooses to enter the rarefied arena of this debate, he gets this response:

Go fuck yourself you commie cunt.

Gordge is nothing if not consistent.

To show that the above exchange is not an alcohol-induced aberration, here's another thread. It's about the movie Thank You For Smoking, a satire on the tobacco industry. One poster says, "actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing."

To which the inimitable Gordge replies:

Fucking scummy Randaphobic fascist fucking liar....

Its not surprising how desperate these wanking fascist fuckwitted Randaphobic sirbloboshit idiots have to get and lie about what it means to live in liberty,especially given the threat that individual freedom therefore individual responsibility is to their evil fucked up parasitcal philosophy.

"Sirblobloshit"?

Gesundheit.

Gordge then proudly proclaims his devotion to "a government of freedom,"

one that would enshrine into law YOUR right to live YOUR life accordng to YOURvalues, albethey as a silly, fucked in the head, dopey, masochistical and sadistical robotic indoctrinated member of the flock of moronic sad and desperate Kantian sheeple, suffering the horrible affliction and scourge of Randaphobia?AND guess what dopey? Welllllll, the really really good news is dopey, ewe dozey moronic commie cunt, the ONLY condition IS, that ewes dopey whukwits (*wh* is said F) find other equallly as fucked in the head moronic sadistical masochistical hosts to be the parasites of, now sirbloboshit, was that the best ewe've got?

Sirbloboshit again! Give that man a handkerchief!

Someone astutely comments,

Hmm . . . fascinating! Common vulgarity, lack of the basic understanding of language, poor speller, hyper-sensitive, super defensive,angry, and simple-minded.

Hardly the right tools for one desiring to partake in philosophical repartee ....

Gordge, uncowed, launches this blistering salvo:

Oh looook its a new hag on the block, go fuck yourself you useless commie cuntess, ewe're obviously very good at it. How fucking dare ewe come on here and tell me how to go about my fucking business, you useless fucking bitch, fuck off, dont read me, I dont give a fuck you stupid ignorant arrogant slut, no one gives a fuck what you say about me, ask chaz and kev. Goodgod

Still contending against the same detractor, Gordgezilla breathes more radioactive fire:

Phillis go fuck yourself, you gutless useless PC control freak little fascist / commie cunt.I will debate and I have debated philosophy and politics with anyone, I have debated philosophy and politics with people who consider themselves far more important in the world of philosophy and politics than you could ever dream you are or wanna be.

Yes, we've seen how well he debates philosophy, haven't we? It reminds us of that celebrated passage in which Bertrand Russell gently takes William James to task for a subtle epistemological misconception:

James, you limp-dick hairy-ass dumbshit peckerwood motherscratcher, you don't know shit about epistemology and you never will, you worthless piece of syphilis-infected scum-sucking pus! Why don't you pull your head out of Chuck Peirce's ass and use your frackin' brain, you numbnuts throwback retard? (The Problems of Philosophy, p. 622)

But enough of this high-falutin' philosophy. Back to Gordge:

I will and I do stick to the subject being debated and I will NEVER back down.

I however will NOT tolerate it when ewes useless, gutless, evil and anti-human PC commie cunts try to turn the debate around or who leave the subject completely and try and make the subject about me Michael Gordge and the methods I have chosen to use to get my points of philosophy and politics across.

NOTE, ewes is the word I have coined for dumb arsed unthinking moronic socialist follow the leader sheeple.

He even mints his own words! Apparently this is yet another of the "methods" he has "chosen to get [his] point across." The man is a veritable fountainhead, so to speak, of intellectual creativity. More Emily Post:

I'm not here to be nice to scum ...

Wasn't that the motto of Galt's Gulch?

The PC commie morally corrupt cunt who started this thread is a piece of leftist scum, if you think being nice to these filthy rotten anti-human shitheads is going to change anything about them, then go ahead I dont give a fuck...

.... you dumb arsed mystical moron ...

... you stupid cunt ...

... arrogant git ...

... you delinquent queer commie khunt ...

And so on, throughout the 9,210 posts (and counting) authored by the bottomless Gordge. Feel free to browse them in search of wit, urbanity, and the boundless generosity of spirit that distinguishes Randidiots everywhere.

No, to be fair, even by Randidiotarian standards, Gordge is a standout. He inhabits a private universe of his own demented construction, in which his is the sole voice of reason, while all around him, gibbering in the outer darkness, are terrifying legions of fuckwits, sheeple, knuckle-draggers, parasites, fascists, commies, socialists, wankers, liars, morons, cunts, cockheads, shitheads, queers, hags, goons, gits, dopes, dumb arses, useless bitches, and scum.

As for us, having gorged ourselves on Gordge, we feel the need for some fresh air - and possibly an antacid tablet or two. There's only so much of this rationality and high-toned intellectualism we can take!

Ring of Fire

First, RandZapper apologizes for the long delay since our last post. But as we warned you early on, posts on this blog will be irregular and probably infrequent.

Now, in the spirit of this joyous holiday season, we take a break from spotlighting the craziness of Randkissing morons in order to celebrate a plainspoken Rand critic, who contributed some trenchant comments to the notorious alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup back in 1999. His name is Mark Thibodeau, a.k.a. "tak" and "tib," and he takes no prisoners.

But there's no need to summarize his views. Thibodeau is more than capable of speaking for himself. So, all together now, let's party like it's 1999 ...

What is it that I find so annoying about Rand, her fictions, her philosophy, and the cult she has generated?

First things first...Rand herself - (and this is only my opinion, from reading her writing and seeing her on the Donahue show) I find her to be an incredibly damaged creature, an ugly toad of a woman who wished she were better looking, stronger, smarter, a better writer, whatever. She developed obvious personality disorders, including delusions of grandeur and overcompensation. Her fantasies were so important to her that she developed an entire 'philosophy' around them, and thought everyone would think them brilliant. When they didn't, she developed delusions of persecution.

As a writer - she sucked. Case closed.

As a philosopher - she wasn't. Case closed.

And her cult - the real reason I spend any time debunking Rand (check out my website and the links, I'm not going to repeat tens of thousands of words in this ng) is because of her cult. I can't stand it when I see people who don't know what they're talking about claiming so-and-so is the best whatsis. It's as if someone were to say The Monkees were the best Rock and Roll band of all time. When you encounter someone who believes such foolishness, you can react in one of two ways... you can say "Whatever, moron." and walk away (which is what most people do when they encounter Randroids), or you can try to show them where they err. That is what I have attempted to do with my website. If I can show you the error of your ways, great! If not, well, so be it. Continue believing that Rand was a great philosopher, and that she was a great novelist. Hopefully, one day, someone more skilled at deprogramming cult-members will reach you and pull you from this hideous siren'sspell...

Ouch. Tell us how you really feel, Mark!

Accused of unfairly castigating Rand's less than Cover Girl looks, Thibodeau fires back.

I NEVER said ugliness precludes one from being a great philosopher (as a matter of fact, that sounds like something Rand would have thought up!). Rather, I said that I believe it was POSSIBLE that Rand allowed her deep-seated neurotic self-loathing to infect her world-view. Over-compensation, projection, all that jazz. When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. Rand turned the lemon of her ugliness into sarin nerve gas....

There is a big difference between "having a philosophy of life" (which applies to Rand) and "practicing philosophy." As far as practicing philosophy, Rand was strictly pro-am, if that. A rank amateur with, as I have stated, delusions of grandeur and persecution....

Would it help if I clarified and told you that by 'cult' I don't necessarily mean 'sect'? A Randroid is like a Trekkie, not a Scientologist. You don't pay a tithing, per se, but your lives revolve around her writings and most of you believe her shit didn't stink.

On another thread, Thibodeau hammers at the inconsistencies of Randians who insist on private ownership of every damn thing in the universe.

Did you go to an evil, altruist, collectivist school, Flashman, or are you self-educated (which wouldn't surprise me, actually)? Did you ever borrow an Ayn Rand book from an evil, altruist, collectivist library, Flashman, or do you only read books you've personally purchased? Do you drive on evil, altruist, collectivist roads, Flashman, or do you hover about from destination to destination in a beatified state of Objectivist grace? Are you mad at our evil, altruist, collectivist armies for defeating Hitler in WWII, Flashman? Do you ever use evil, altruist, collectivist water, Flashman, or do you bathe in a tub full of Evian? Do you ever flush the stinky contents of your toilet into the evil, altruist, collectivist sewer system, Flashman, or do you store your feces in mason jars for future disposal at some unspecified later date? Do you wish there were no air-traffic controllers, Flashman? Do you wish there were no health inspectors, Flashman? Do you wish there were no limits on the amount of rat droppings allowed in hot-dogs, Flashman? Does it irk you that pharmaceutical companies can't rush products to merchants' shelves before extensive testing, Flashman? Do you think state-operated policing and prison systems should be done away with in favour of private ones, and if so, who would lend assistance to those unable to afford such a luxury? I could go on for another page or so, Flashman, but I have a feeling it probably wouldn't help you to come to grips with the ridiculousness of Rand's ideas. Only time will heal that wound. ...

I just visited your home-page. You go to a STATE university??? tsk-tsk, you inconsistent little Hemorandrhoid you!

Again, RandZapper says, "Ouch." Not since we were sacrificed on the altar of Queztlcoatl have we felt such pain. (RandZapper is a revivified Aztec mummy, you know.)

And may we just add, we love the epithet "Hemorandrhoid." As the Man in Black might have sung,

Ayn fell into a burnin' ring of fire
She went down, down, down,
And the flames rose higher
The ring of fire
The ring of fire

I wouldn't be so intrigued by Rand's fiction and "philosophy" if it weren't for the fact that so many of you hero-worshiping toadies have completely flooded the net with pro-Rand propaganda. There is a great lack of anti-Rand material on the net, and nature abhors a vacuum, so I feel I'm just doing my part by providing some alternatives.

We heartily concur! (Or we would, if our heart hadn't been surgically removed during the aforementioned Aztec ritual.)

Sadly, Thibodeau's anti-Rand parody site has disappeared from the Net. But his fervent declaration of principles can proudly stand as the mission statement of RandZapper's own New Year's rockin' blog.

Happy Christmas to all (even Hemorandrhoids), and to all a good night!

Duke Nukem

Loyal readers may have noticed that RandZapper's typical modus operandi is to excerpt quotes from message boards frequented by Randians. Naturally this raises the question: How representative are these comments of the Randian movement as a whole? Would more serious Randists, those who don't devote all their time to posting (and posing, and posturing) on newsgroups, agree with these over-the-top pronouncements, or not?

In some cases, it appears that even "real" Randists, the ones with academic credentials, do in fact agree with these crazed comments. Case in point: an article in the latest issue of The Objective Standard, titled "No Substitute for Victory," by John Lewis.

According to the min-bio appended to the article, "John Lewis is assistant professor of history at Ashland University and contributing editor of The Objective Standard. He holds a Ph.D. in classics from the University of Cambridge as well as a fellowship from the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship. His research interests are in ancient Greek and Roman thought, military history, and their connections to the modern day."

So we are not dealing with one of intellectual lightweights normally seen in our pixelated pages. John Lewis is a card-carrying academic with a Ph.D. to his name. Even so, he seems to come down squarely on the side of the "nuke 'em" nut jobs who proliferate in Randian forums.

Oh, he's more civilized about it. He begins his essay with an extended meditation on America's war against Imperial Japan, which climaxed with mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He disapprovingly contrasts this approach to the namby-pamby half-measures taken in the War on Terror. To win against Islamist radicals, he says, we have to be as committed to total victory as the WWII generation was.

Now, it seems to us that this comparison overlooks many salient differences between the two conflicts, not least of which is that terrorism is a decentralized global phenomenon, and that while certain states do endorse terror, none of them, other than Afghanistan, is known to have sponsored al Qaeda. Japan was and is a state; al Qaeda and its allied movements are a network of clandestine terror cells. Japan was in plain sight; al Qaeda is in hiding. Victory over Japan was clearcut and easily definable; it consisted of pounding the enemy until they surrendered. Victory over Islamic terror is far more ambiguous; even if al Qaeda is subdued and defanged, other terrorist movements with similar goals and ideologies will come along to replace it. The Japanese ideology of emperor-worship was crushed once the emperor humiliated himself by surrendering; the radical Islamist creed, which is not centered on any one (living) person, is not nearly as fragile.

In other words, fighting the War on Terror as if it were WWII is a lot like those (possibly apocryphal) Polish generals who dug WWI-style trenches at the start of WWII, only to see them overrun by German tanks. Times change. Strategies must change too.

But none of this is the main issue. After his lengthy historical exegesis, what exactly does John Lewis propose that we do? Well, he tells us.

Totalitarian Islam, an ideology that merges state power with religious belief, must go.

But proponents of Islamic Totalitarianism have political power, to some extent, in dozens of nations. Should we attack them all, immediately? No. We need to aim for the political, economic, and ideological center of this movement—the core that embodies its naked essence and that fuels it worldwide ... Iran....

The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole....

[W]e must act decisively, and with all the force we deem necessary, to eliminate the Iranian regime as quickly as possible, and with the least risk to American soldiers. Only when the world sees this demonstration of American resolve will America begin to see peace and security.

Now, RandZapper doesn't know how you folks interpret this. But to us, when someone starts talking about "acting alone and with overwhelming force" to "openly, and indeed spectacularly" "destroy the Iranian Islamic State," while making comparisons with the atomic bombing of Japan that brought the war in the Pacific to a close, the inference is inescapable: Nuke 'em now.

It is true that Lewis does not quite say this. Nowhere in his article does he specifically call for bombarding Iran with nuclear missiles and bombs. But it is hard to read any other meaning into his words.

So for all those who thought the "nuke Tehran" crowd was confined to a small coterie of malcontents led by Stephen Speicher, RandZapper has news for you: This is mainstream Randism, people.

Lewis continues:

To remove this cancerous Islamic State loudly and forthrightly will have immediate benefits. We would avenge the thousands of American terror victims since the 1960s. We would reverse the pitiful image we projected when Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979, and when we fled from Mogadishu and from Lebanon—actions that the Islamic Totalitarians claimed as evidence of our weakness. We could even reverse a tremendous injustice by un-nationalizing the oil companies in Iran—stolen from their owners in 1951—and placing them back into private hands, under government protection....

Again, just as Randian posters on miscellaneous message boards call for giving the oil fields back to US industry, Lewis says the same. Annihilate Iran, confiscate their oil, and give it to Exxon-Mobil. That's not a caricature of Randian geopolitical strategy - it is their strategy.

Most importantly, by ousting the regime in Iran, we would send a clear message to the world: Political Islam is finished.... Allies we never knew existed would raise their heads with confidence and join the cause of freedom. The land of the free—rejuvenated as the home of the brave—would rejoice as the nation of the secure. We would truly be on the road to victory, freedom, and peace. By affirming the efficacy of reason and individual rights over incompetent dark-age theocracy, America could once again claim its place as a real world leader, and become a beacon for those who understand, and value, freedom.

Remember all those happy Iraqis who were going to shower us with kisses for liberating Baghdad? Now we're told that people around the world will be sending hugs our way for dropping nuclear bombs on Tehran. It's like that classic pop song from the '60s:

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to end six million lives
Like Nazi Germany ...

Sadly, a world-warrior's work is never done. Lewis tells us what must happen next:

Once this central task is complete, further intransigent policies toward Islamic Totalitarianism will be necessary.... The Muslim world must be made to understand that any government that provides economic support to jihadists will be summarily destroyed. In order for this policy to be taken seriously, we must demonstrate its truth—by destroying the Iranian regime and stating why we have done so. Only the clear threat that “you will be next” can break the entangled network of Islamic economic support for jihad that masquerades as “economic development.” ...

We're back in Travis Bickle territory now. Any country that gives us the stink-eye is gonna get whacked. "You talkin' to me?"

After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative....

Obey us, or we will nuke you into oblivion! Could the crazies on the message boards say it any better?

In the present situation, Americans must forcibly prohibit the dissemination of militaristic ideology and propaganda anywhere it rises. To make the point clear, Al-Jazeera—the fountainhead of Muslim taqiyya, or deception—must be shut down.... Every Muslim intellectual must denounce the Islamic State as an aberration and a monstrosity, as being contrary to the requirements of life on earth. Immediate, personal destruction can be the only alternative.

This actually goes somewhat beyond what we've seen in the forums. Apparently, Lewis favors killing any Muslim intellectual on the planet who does not denounce the Islamic State. Since there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam, this means that Muslim intellectuals must renounce their own religion or die.

The Democrats—the party that won World War II by dropping two atomic bombs—have an opportunity to regain a position of moral stature before the American people.

This is tolerably explicit. The Dems can regain their "moral stature" by "dropping ... atomic bombs" - or in this case, "nuclear bombs." No, he doesn't quite come out and say it. He's too chickenshit to call explicitly for nuking Tehran and other Muslim capitals. But he treads as near to the abyss as he can, and even sticks his pinkie toe over the edge.

Should [the Democrats] not do so—should they choose to retreat—then their unwillingness to value the lives of American citizens over the lives of foreign enemies will be made clear, and the Democrats will be seen as no better, no more principled, no more courageous, and no more American than the Republicans.

The Republicans aren't Americans because they won't drop Da Bomb! And neither are the Democrats, unless they can be persuaded to start nuking. A rain of radioactive fire - that's what being an American is all about. Right?

So there we have it. Mainstream, academic, credentialed Randism may couch its arguments in slightly more evasive language, may shrink from explicitly demanding the immediate nuclear incineration of the Middle East, may strive for a slightly more reasonable tone, may offer a one-sided refresher course in WWII history with plenty of scholarly citations - but at the end of the day, the policy prescription is the same:

Nuke 'em all.

At RandZapper, we have seen the Objectivist future ... and it glows.

Get a Clue

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature has given RandZapper another nice plug, prompting this infantile whine from a Randkissing commenter:

Get a life. Who dedicates their lives to misrepresenting a person's philosophy? This site is pathetic and clearly doesn't understand Objectivism.

Daniel Barnes, who runs ARCHN, has a sweet comeback, pithily responding to the rhetorical question "Who dedicates their lives ...?":

Ummm...Ayn Rand? Leonard Peikoff? They've misrepresented just about every major philosopher in history!

Good point. But we at RandZapper would also like to reply to the commenter, who posts under the revealing screen name "Anonymous." We feel we should treat Anon's criticism with all the seriousness it deserves. Thusly:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

More to the point, RandZapper does clearly understand Objectivism. But as we have said before, and will repeat for the benefit of the literacy-challenged, we are not interested in analyzing Ayn Rand's "philosophy," such as it is. Other sites do this, notably ARCHN itself. No, what the good folks at RandZapper are up to is quite different. We scour the Web looking for the dumbest, most outrageous, most bizarre, most inflammatory pronouncements made by people who have been (by their own admission) influenced by Ayn Rand, or who consider themselves (by their own admission) sympathetic to her views. We call them Randians - or Randists, AynRandians, Randkissers, Randlovers, Randworshippers, Randsuckers, Randolators, etc. We do this to distinguish them from Objectivists in the formal sense.

All quotes are documented, with active links to the source pages. No one can deny that these statements have been posted on the Web by people who at least claim to be fans or followers of the sainted Ayn.

We are not saying that these people are interpreting Objectivism in a way that Ayn Rand would approve of. In some cases they undoubtedly are (Rand had no problem with the extermination of the Amercan Indian population, for instance), and in other cases they undoubtedly are not (Rand would not have said that torturing babies and animals is okay, or that it's wrong solely because it's a "waste of time"). Endlessly parsing who is and is not a true Objectivist is a job for the deep thinkers at the Ayn Rand Institute and other cultic clearinghouses. It's not our concern. We do contend that many of these views are logical extensions of Objectivist dogma, but this does not mean that Rand herself, or her "official" acolytes, would agree.

All RandZapper is saying is: Here are the views of professed Rand fans, in their own words. And if "official" Objectivism (however this is defined) wants to disown these statements and excommunicate those who have issued them, that's fine by us. In fact, we strongly recommend this policy. People have been banished from Objectivism on far more trivial grounds than advocating genocide.

Surely Anonymous has no problem with that?

Objectivism: Torture, Murder, Holocaust

Periodically RandZapper will review what we've learned so far about Ayn Rand's followers and the "philosophy" they endorse. What have we learned in our last few posts?

Among other things, we've discovered that some Randians ...

- see no moral objection to torturing helpless animals for pleasure

- see no moral objection to torturing newborn babies for pleasure

- see no moral objection to killing day-old, week-old or (possibly) month-old babies

- think humans should be bred like livestock, with the inferior specimens weeded out

- think the annihilation of American Indians was a good thing

- advocate the nuclear annihilation of large populations of human beings today

- think the rights of a single American are worth more than the lives of all the Arab peoples of the Middle East

- think the Arab nations should be nuked, starved into submission, and then colonized

- think the Middle Eastern oil fields should be confiscated by US troops and given to US oil companies (and that any Arab nation that protests should be nuked)

- think that US government employees should be killed on principle

- think that some or all of the above positions are "rational."

RandZapper readily concedes that not all Randians hold these pernicious beliefs. In fact, a couple of these positions run directly counter to Rand's stated views. For instance, Rand did not advocate the torture of infants and animals or the murder of government employees (although Atlas Shrugged does include a throwaway line about an ancestor of Dagny Taggart who was rumored to have murdered a government official - a rumor reported with no hint of disapproval).

But this is not a blog about Ayn Rand herself. It is a blog about people who have been inspired by Rand. They may or may not call themselves Objectivists - which is why we at RandZapper refer to them as Randians - but they are interested enough in Rand's views to contribute to Objectivist discussion groups and online magazines. The fact that they are sick fucks does not mean they are aberrations. The truth is, many of Rand's most vocal and committed admirers are sick fucks - and this includes the top lieutenants, past and present, in her cultic "movement."

RandZapper will go further. Ayn Rand attracts moral degenerates who nurse genocidal fantasies precisely because her "philosophy" is geared to appeal to such people. It is a "philosophy" constructed out of rage, fear, and hate. Rand's magnum opus is a book about the end of the world - written from the point of view of the world's destroyers, who are the heroes. Randism was never about building things up, and always about tearing things down. It's not an accident that The Fountainhead ends with the deliberate destruction of a housing project, and Atlas Shrugged ends with the deliberate destruction of American society. Death and destruction have always been the twin pillars of Randism, and all her platitudinous talk about life and values and greatness was intended only to obscure this fact.

Present-day Randians are merely making explicit what was implicit in the Rand's worldview from the very start. Torture, murder, and holocaust are what Randism is all about, and what Randism, in practice, would inevitably bring about.

RandZapper thanks the clueless morons who have exposed the inherent sadism of the "philosophy" they admire. By baring their souls in plain sight, they only hasten Randism's inevitable demise.

Weiss Guy

Welcome the newest loser to win a coveted spot in RandZapper's pixelated pages. He's Fred Weiss, and he's a doozy.

With 5316 posts to his credit, and counting, Fred has not been an idle Weiss. And we must admit, he does not always come across as a Rand-intoxicated buffoon. At times he can be civil, even humorously self-deprecating - qualities all too rare in AynRandians.

But not all the time. And it's when he lets himself go that he becomes ... umm ... interesting.

First , let's check out the Weiss guy's take on that perpetual Randian obsession, "savages" - in this case, the "savages" who roamed America before the arrival of those oh-so-civilized folks who massacred 'em.

I believe the annihilation of the American Indians was fully justified, so if you want to make something of it, feel free.

We will, indeed!

[T]he Indians were Stone Age savages and ... most of them refused to assimilate into American society. That they choose not to was perhaps understandable (if not excusable - and many did successfully) but it created an untenable situation. Imagine some group, say the Italians, coming here and announcing that they would not recognize our laws and proceeded to set up their own tribal gov'ts.

Er, but doesn't this overlook the fact that the Indians were already here, and we were the new arrivals? According to Weiss's analogy, the white settlers should have assimilated to the Indians' way of life, not vice versa.

The cultural clash between stone age savages and a rapidly advancing industrial society could not in my view be overcome - at least not in that era when non-whites, even women for that matter, were regarded as inferior. We were building a nation, the Indians wanted to continue roaming vast tracts of land and hunting wild buffalo.

The nerve of them pesky redskins, wanting to continue their way of life and stand in the way of a hundred thousand McDonald's franchises.

If anything we were kind to them, giving them reservations where they could live in peace and do what they wanted, so long as they stayed the hell out of our way.

But wait. Didn't he just refer to "the annihilation of the American Indians"? And now he says we were too kind ...

Obviously we killed 'em with kindness!

Their choice was to remain a primitive savage or join a rapidly growing industrial society with numerous opportunities for education and material advancement. The rational choice should be obvious....

Yeah, who were they to want to continue their ancestral traditions when there were big-screen TVs in their future? Come on, Hiawatha, get your friggin' priorities straight!

Continuing his deep thoughts, Weiss observes:

The Indians died like flies and in huge numbers from diseases brought over by the whites and against which they had no natural immunity. It was just as well. It made the few remaining ones easier to control....

Furthermore, those Indians that have survived and chosen to prosper by taking advantage of Western culture were given an enormous gift - the opportunity to literally leap centuries of development from virtual Stone Age cultures.

We bet they were awfully grateful for that "enormous gift." After all, if someone invaded your country, killed off your friends and relatives, devastated your culture, and penned you up in a government-controlled settlement, you'd be plenty thankful ... wouldn't you?

From Weiss's fractured take on history, we now move to his twisted view of current events. Surprise, surprise - we're still fighting "savages," and "annihilation" is still the only answer. Some things never change.

The question is asked, "But what I am really curious about is how you would suggest the U.S. government crush Islamic fanaticism."

Weiss replies, "Nukes?"

He is asked, "Nuke /what/?"

He answers: "Whatever it takes. It only took 2 to get Japan to surrender and they were as fanatical and as suicidal as the Islamists."

Ah, nukes - is there anything they can't do?

Elsewhere Weiss takes a stab at what his dark mistress Ayn Rand would have thought about the war on terror:

I can't imagine her regarding the Arabs as anything but something approaching sub-humans who should be bombed back to the Stone Age if necessary and if that were required to get them to behave. That's pretty much how she viewed the American Indians and she fully supported their annihilation.

So we're back to annihilation again, kindness and the gift of progress having gone by the boards.

On another thread, Weiss elaborates on his homicidal wet dreams.

"Plan Speicher" or "Nuke Tehran" was very simply that if we believed that they were holding terrorists in their midsts, that we give them 48 hours to hand them over or we would nuke Tehran. I was for it. There were lots of weenies against it.

In Weissworld, only a "weenie" could be against mass murder. But remember, they're only "savages," so their lives don't count. They're not Randian Man ... i.e., they're not Fred Weiss. His life matters, you see. It matters a lot. Everybody else's life - eh, not so much.

Then there's Weiss on ethics. As you can imagine, the milk of human kindness does not course through his veins.

Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is not necessarily altruism. You could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust in your closet anyway. They are of little or no value to you - in fact you welcome the opportunity to get them out of your closet.

Gee, we're getting all goose-bumpy. Can't you just hear the theme song from It's a Wonderful Life?

On the other hand, giving a man the pair of shoes you just bought and which you are eager to wear merely because you think he needs them more than you do is altruism. And that is also a sacrifice, you are giving up a higher value to you - the shoes - for a lesser value to you - this man's need. A policy of giving up your values in this way is a policy of self-sacrifice. It is equivalent to giving up your life for the sake of others. In fact, you might as well just slit your wrists because you take up space on this planet which other people need more than you.

Ayn Rand is quite clear on this.

Indeed she is, which is one of countless reasons why she ended her life as a bitter, paranoid, friendless failure. Anyone who values a pair of shoes over the needs of a suffering human being is bound to end up in an emotional and psychological trainwreck.

On yet another thread, someone named Jerry Story, who apparently suffers from the degenerative nerve disease ALS, writes, "Fred Weiss will be disappointed to know that this disease is taking forever to kill me, contrary what was happening at first."

Weiss, demonstrating more of his compassion and good humor, responds:

Yes, I am. You gave us hope when you announced that you would be dead in 6 months. That was 10 years ago.

Classy. He's just as nice to another adversary:

I can't discuss that with you since it would presuppose that you grasp essentials which you have repeatedly demonstrated you are unable to do. So it would just be a waste of time.

Seeing billions of people as subhumans who need to be exterminated is Weiss's way of grasping essentials.

On the same thread, asked what the future holds for Rand's crazed cult, Weiss squints into his crystal ball:

[M]y own prediction is that Objectivism will prove to have as much, if not more, longevity as Aristotelianism, i.e. that AR discovered important truths, as did Aristotle, which will stand the test of time.

Note that he, like many Randians, refers to Ayn Rand as AR, just as Theosophists refer to Madame Blavatsky as HPB. RandZapper's crystal ball says that AR will have about as much staying power as HPB - that is, she will be a fringe figure regarded as a mere intellectual curiosity.

It's not a tough prediction to make, since (in case Fred Weiss hasn't noticed) it's already come true.

Ayn, Robot

In our latest excursion into AynRandian insanity, we will encounter thought-provoking discussions of euthanasia and infanticide, and meet up with an old friend.

Our journey begins with a thread called "Social Darwinism," in which the burning question is asked:

Do social Darwinism and Objectivism have anything in common? Would an Objectivist argue that society should and does weed out the unfit? Would an Objectivist define fitness in terms of ability to produce?

The first responses are hearteningly sensible, with the racist aspects of Social Darwinism denounced as "nonsense" and "criminally stupid."

But then the discussion begins to slide downhill, as Christopher Benson-Manica, replying to the question "Are you suggesting we slaughter retarded and sick people like Nazis?," opens the door to the fetid cellar of his innermost homicidal thoughts:

I'm not suggesting we slaughter anyone, although Lord knows I feel like doing it to certain individuals. Retarded and sick people can work or create value in other ways; your average bum can't or won't....

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone should actively do the weeding out - just that those who don't shouldn't feel too guilty about those that do...

In principle, I don't see anything terribly wrong with eugenics. We breed all sorts of animals - why not breed ourselves? I don't suppose it would happen though, because I see no reason anyone should be willing to pay for it.

So the only reason we don't breed people like animals, and slaughter the ones we don't want, is that the pricetag is a bit steep. Nice.

And now say hello to our old friend Robert J. Kolker, previously enshrined in RandZapper's Hall of Fame. The redoubtable Kolker, fielding the very same question about slaughtering "retarded and sick people," responds thusly:

How about not feeding or caring for them with tax revenue? But make the cost of euthanasia tax deductable....

Hey, at least he's trying to lower our taxes!

Next, a certain Onar drops by to challenge the claim that eugenics is "criminally stupid." Quoth Onar, in a disturbing display of mental onanism:

Why? Eugenics is a much more humane means of weeding out the poorly adapted than social darwinism.

(RandZapper suspects that if "the poorly adapted" were to be weeded out, Onar would be among the first to go. Our suspicion becomes a certainty if the socially maladapted were targeted.)

At this point Scott Stephens steps in to clarify the issue:

It depends on the method of weeding out. The best way to weed out the unproductive is to 1. stop crippling the productive by firing the "Aristocrats of Pull" and the "Mystics of Mind and Muscle"; 2. create circumstances that enable productivity; 3. Assist the unproductive to become productive; 4. Use charity to keep useless eaters alive, because occasionally something good comes out of the mess.

You gotta love the characterization of some human beings as "useless eaters." Still, charity should keep them alive. Or should it? Christopher Benson-Manica objects:

IMHO the investment in keeping the dregs of society alive isn't worth the (as a rule) extremely meager dividends.Sweet. Who needs to keep useless eaters and the dregs of society alive, anyway?

Now we skip to another thread, and from eugenics to the closely related topic of infanticide. We start with the estimable Kolker. (You just knew we would be hearing more from him, didn't you?)

The mother ought to be able toexpose [sic] or abandon a new [sic] infant prior to its acquiring sufficiet [sic] intentionality and awareness to be considered a person. I have no problem with infanticide on a day old infant or a week old infant. I get antsy around a month. This is based on experience with my own children.

This guy has children?! Are they still alive???

Kolker then explains his own psychology, which should surely be a model for us all:

I prefer facts to tender feelings. Better hard headed than soft hearted. Futhermore [sic] I reject compassion as a positive absolute value. Compassion has its uses in certain situations, but it is a danger and a snare and capable of being misused. Some of the greatest crimes have been comitted in the name of compassion....

Anything I do for another or feel for another is illuminated primarily by rational self interest. I do not value human life for its own sake, but for what it can do for me and mine. I am the center of my universe.

This is so good, we feel compelled to repeat it for emphasis:

I do not value human life for its own sake, but for what it can do for me and mine.

Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for Bob Kolker!

Someone remarks on the "obviously _wrong_ conclusion ... that one has a right to torture fetuses or animals for pleasure because they have no rights ..."

But along comes Seth David Johnson to pose this head-scratcher:

How is this obviously wrong? (The conclusion, not the acts you are describing)....

Sorry, you lost me somewhere. There is nothing wrong with the conclusion to begin with.

So torturing animals is okay? Well, no. Johnson elucidates:

It is morally wrong because it is a waste of precious time, not because animals have rights.

Torturing animals is wrong only because it's not an efficient use of one's time. Gotcha!

Fed up with the annoying Kolker, Gregory Weston (posting as Paw1015), writes,

I like you Mr. Kolker, you are the perfect parody of Objectivists, though sometimes they are so silly that they resist parody.

Only sometimes?Kolker responds:

Sorry to disappoint.I am NOT an Objectivist.

RandZapper is a tad disappointed to hear this. But he is clearly a Randlover, and that's good enough for us.

My views are my own gotten to in my own fashion. I would have gotten to where I am with or without Ayn Rand.

"Where I am" = "the psychiatric hospital in which I am presently institutionalized."

However I do sympathize with many of the political views held by Objectivists. I have differences with their metaphysics (or ontology). Particularly in the area of causality. Once cannot have free will for humans and determinate causality for the rest of the Kosmos particularly since we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the Kosmos. We are all finite state automata.

Translation: We're all robots. I guess this explains why it's hunky-dory to kill newborns. Killing a robot is no big deal.

Think we're exaggerating? Kolker again:

An awake newborn is like unto a computer with only its low level bios installed. The higher level functions have not been "loaded" (i.e. self developed or learned). In short a new-born [sic] is NOT a person , therefore does not have any natural rights anyone is bound to recognize. It is the *property* of its mother who grow [sic] it in her womb at her own expense. It is the crop (as it were) of its mother's garden. A newbron [sic] human baby has no more natural rights than a new born [sic] dog or cat or a newly hatched caterpillar.

Wow. We seem to be entering into Super Hall of Fame territory now. A newborn baby is "the property [emphasis Kolker's] of its mother who [grew] it in her womb at her own expense"? It has no more rights than "a newly hatched caterpillar"? No more rights than a dog or cat ... animals we can apparently feel free to torture, if we feel it is a good use of our time?

Oh, RandZapper (you say), now you're being unfair! Kolker wasn't the one arguing for animal torture. Not previously. But now he is. He quotes the following:

> Even if you own an animal, that does not give you the right to torture it for pleasure. And anyone has the moral right (and should have the legal right) to use force to stop you.

And responds in high dudgeon, a state of mind recognizable by his frighteningly indiscriminate use of capital letters:

Have you no respect for Property. You have violated the One, True and Eternal Principle of Justice: What is his is his and what is yours is yours. You have no right to interfere with another person's use of his own property if that use is not doing you any harm or constituting a clear and present danger to your safety. Civilization depends on making a clear distinction between your own and other people's. First you tell him how not to treat his cat, then you tell him how not to fuck. It is a virtually inevitable progression.

So ... if you tell your neighbor not to stuff a cherry bomb up his cat's coal chute, you're on a slippery slope to fascism. It's "a virtually inevitable progression."

RandZapper sees another virtually inevitable progression: The Randian philosophy of "life as the standard of value and the highest value"must inevitably devolve into the Kolkerian philosophy of "I do not value human life for its own sake, but for what it can do for me and mine." Rand's fantasy of super-rationalists free of all conflicts of interest must morph into the dog-eat-dog (and man-torture-dog) reality of eugenics, euthanasia, and Social Darwinism redux. Rand's heroic hyper-individualists can flourish only in a world from which "the weak and the botched" (quoting Rand's mentor, Nietzsche) have been expunged. Randian Man cannot share the stage with cripples and retards, and Randian Woman is too busy pursuing her "interests" to carry a baby to term. All such parasites and other "useless eaters" must be eliminated to pave the way for a brave new world of Kolkerian "finite state automata," in which tax-deductible euthanasia will further cull the robot herd.

At least now we know why Rand's cardboard characters so frequently resemble soulless automatons.

And we're starting to understand why we never see any children in her novels ...

The Killer Elite

Dedicated readers of RandZapper may have noticed a pattern in many of our posts. We have spotlighted Rand fans who thirst for the nuclear demolition of foreign countries in order to save civilization from the menace posed by "savages" who want to kill us all.

Some may wonder if RandZapper is being unfair. Heaven forfend. Fairness is RandZapper's middle name. Well, no, actually our middle name is Xaltocan, but we digress.

The comments we have discovered and publicized are not just the idiosyncratic effusions of a handful of weirdos who misunderstand Randism. They are entirely in keeping with the essence of Ayn Rand's whacked out worldview.

Rand saw the world in black-and-white terms. There are the good people, a.k.a. the rational people, a.k.a. the civilized people. Then there is everybody else. Everybody else is a looter, parasite, thug, mystic, expropriator, killer, and savage.

Life is a battle between good and evil, i.e. between the rational people and the savages. There can be no compromise in this battle. Any concession to the savages hastens the doom of rational man.

Moreover, there is no way to communicate with savages and hence no way to persuade them to change course. Savages, by their nature, cannot listen to reason. They are impervious to argument. The proof? They didn't listen to Rand; and Rand was, after all, the epitome of rational thinking and logical argumentation.

So what is rational man to do? Faced with a remorseless enemy that desires his destruction, an enemy that cannot be placated or reasoned with, rational man must do what is necessary to save himself and destroy his opponents. Anything that preserves the life of rational man is good and proper; there can be no moral compunctions about eliminating savages, who are not really entitled to be considered human in the first place.

If you think this precis of Randian philosophy is too extreme, consider Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, which dramatizes exactly this theme. The book ends triumphantly with the survival of a handful of rational men, while the masses of subhuman looters, mystics, and savages are speedily dying out in an orgy of apocalyptic violence, starvation, and pestilence. One of the book's most famous passages depicts the deaths of hundreds of railroad passengers, and the author inserts her own voice into the story to solemnly inform us that not a single one of the victims was innocent, because all of them had compromised or sabotaged their rationality in some way.

An uncompromised - or "unbreached" - rationality means, for Rand, total agreement with and commitment to her particular philosophical system. Anyone who agrees with Rand is rational, therefore good, therefore worthy of survival. Anyone who disagrees with Rand is irrational, therefore bad, therefore unworthy of survival.

When Whittaker Chambers famously remarked that from every page of Atlas he could hear a voice saying, "To a gas chamber, go!", this is probably what he was picking up on. If Rand's ideas are taken to their logical conclusion, then only Randian man is fit to survive and only Randian man merits survival. All other humans are actually subhuman, and thus are of no value or consequence whatsoever. See how any times Rand excoriated her opponents as "worthless." She was writing quite literally. She really did believe that anti-Randians are worthless and can be disposed of without regret.

If she drew back from explicitly condoning mass murder, it's only because of an inconsistency in her position. Her followers, sensing this inconsistency and rejecting it, have increasingly embraced homicidal and even genocidal policies. This is not an aberration. It is part and parcel of the worldview Rand delivered to them, which they are simply carrying to its logical end.

That's not to say that all Rand fans would go this far. Many would not. But their reluctance is not based on Randian philosophy. It's based on whatever remnants of common sense and religious ethics they have not yet surrendered to Rand's influence. In their reluctance to pull the nuclear trigger, they are simply confessing that they will not or cannot go "all the way" in their devotion to their dark mistress. Other Randians, less scrupulous and even more fatally enthralled by Rand's twisted outlook, will dismiss them as compromisers and evaders - and, from the strict Randian standpoint, they will be right.

Any worldview that divides the human race into good and bad, human and subhuman, and insists that only one side can or should survive, will eventually become the basis for millenarian ravings. That Randism has now reached this stage of degeneracy is not surprising. What's surprising is only that it took this long.

Taxi Driver

RandZapper received a nice plug from the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. A commenter on the ARCHN blog also gave us a valuable tip, setting our eager bloodhounds on the scent of one Craig Biddle. Biddle, who writes for the online Randian rag The Objective Standard, is yet another of those armchair warriors whose dream life is crowded with imagery of mushroom clouds over mosques. In fact, he devotes an entire article to the mouth-watering prospect of "Bombing Mosques and Madrassahs." He begins his essay by offering this penetrating insight:

America is not being attacked by bombs or hijacked airplanes or government buildings or military installations. We are being attacked by people ... [emphasis in original]

And all along RandZapper thought we were being attacked by legions of papier-mache puppets! Instead it's people. This changes everything.

To combat the threat posed by people, Biddle sensibly calls for killing people in the largest possible numbers. Fewer people, fewer problems. Makes sense.

"But," some will ask, "don't people have a right to take their religion seriously?" No, they do not—not if taking their religion seriously means obeying "God's" or "Allah's" orders fully....People have a right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, but they do not have the right to act on their beliefs if doing so means committing murder or violating individual rights. The individual is greater than "God" and morally must be protected from those who "just believe" otherwise.

It's heartening that Biddle grants people the right to believe nonsense, since otherwise he could scarcely defend his belief in Randism. But if the individual is greater than God, than aren't we saying the individual is God? Well, sure. That's Ayn Rand's entire worldview, in a nutshell (emphasis on nut).

In conjunction with the other elements in this 5-step plan, we should kill the Iranian preachers and teachers who chant and spout "Kill the disbelievers" and "Death to America." We should aim to kill all of them. And the best way to do this is to bomb the Iranian mosques and madrassahs when they are most likely to be occupied. Were we to do so, the practice of taking the Koran seriously and warring with America would suddenly become unattractive, and most (if not all) of the remaining Islamists in the world would quickly become mere Muslims, akin to the mere Christians next door.

To us, it seems more likely that bombing mosques and madrassahs would only further inflame the Muslim world and make it easier for terrorists to recruit new followers. Think of it this way: If someone bombed the high school your kids attend, would you a) decide that violence is wrong and adopt a philosophy of live-and-let-live, or b) call for massive reprisals against the bombers?

But let's take a closer look at Biddle's five-point plan, or as he styles it, "How to Solve America's Terrorism Problem in Five Easy Steps."

Easy Step Number One:

Stop sacrificing American soldiers to bring "freedom" to savages in Iraq. Pull our soldiers out of that hell hole, and let the savages have their civil war.

(What is it with Randists and "savages," anyway?)

Easy Step Nunber Two:

Declare war on Iran.

War, war, what is it good for?Absolutely everything!

Easy Step Number Three:

Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).... We have many big missiles, fast planes, and good bombs, and we should use these liberally while building bigger, faster, and better ones.

Faster, pussycat. Kill, kill!

Easy Step Number Four:

Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: "From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. We look forward to the time when you decide to civilize yourselves, stop taking religion seriously, renounce the initiation of physical force, recognize the principle of individual rights, establish rule of law, and join the free world. Until then, we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning."

Way to win their hearts and minds! We at RandZapper especially like the childish taunts directed at the Muslims' religion. Isn't it only two-year-olds who think of God as literally floating high in the sky and looking down on the Earth? And if God can't fathom our technology, is he really God? Oh, but we forgot - the individual is God. Not all individuals, though. Savages need not apply. They aren't God at all, they're only worthless scum who should be annihilated. So then, who is God? Why, Randians, of course!

But this means ... oh, dear ... you know it's coming ... wait for it ... Craig Biddle is God.

Cool.

Easy Step Number Five:

Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize "its" oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.

Since there is little chance Saudi Arabia will agree to these demands, it seems likely that theirs will be the next nation of savages to be wiped off the planet. RandZapper is beginning to grasp the underlying theme of this complex geopolitical strategery: Kill 'em all, and let Biddle sort 'em out!

Having laid out these five easy steps, Biddle summarizes:

[S]o long as we follow through as indicated above and immediately destroy anything that we think looks even remotely threatening, state sponsorship of terrorism against America would be over; the major threat to our lives would be gone.

That's the way to be safe and free. Just "immediately destroy anything that ... looks even remotely threatening."

- Hey, Zimbabwe. You givin' us the stinkeye, shoe-shine? Gettin' uppity with your betters? Forget who runs this plantation? Well, here's a little radioactive present for ya, tar baby. Blammo!

- What's that, Nicaragua? You got a problem with that? You got something to say, greaseball? Do ya? Huh? We didn't think so. Keep your taco-hole shut, and you might just live to see manana. If not ... Blammo!

- What's that muttering we hear? North Korea, is that you? China? Germany? France, you socialist surrender monkey? Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa? We'll take you all on. We ain't a-scared o' none o' you bums! We got a loaded ICBM silo and an itchy trigger finger. So go ahead, punks - make our day! We dare ya. We double dare ya ...

It's a plan, all right. Sure, it means an Everest-high mountain of corpses, a decimated planet, a perpetual cloud cover of radioactive fallout, and the simmering hatred and resentment of every other country on Earth ... but what do we care? We're Randian Man. We're God. We can do any damn thing we please. You got a problem with that?

Say hello to Randian America, a.k.a. Travis Bickle. And we all know how well things worked out for him.

- You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? [launches nuclear missile] Huh?

Ah, but then reality rears its ugly head. Biddle/Bickle concludes,

Of course, we will not take such measures any time soon. Altruism will not let us.

Yeah, that darn altruism. If it wasn't for Plato and Jesus and Immanuel Kant, we'd be slinging nukes at every country that looked at us cross-eyed, piling up corpses, and winning Jodie Foster's heart. But no. Altruism's got our balls in a vise. We're not moral enough to be mass murderers. We're not rational enough to commit planetary genocide.

Not yet anyway. But maybe someday, if we work very hard and assiduously spread our message and elevate enough of our fellow intellectuals to the status of ballsy Randian Gods, then maybe, just maybe we will live in a bombed-out radioactive wasteland that will stretch from the North Pole to the South - a planet-wide cemetery, where we will face no more threats, because the threat is people, and there will be no more people.

Hey, we can dream, can't we?