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:
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.