Viewport width =
October 15, 2007 | by  | in Opinion |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

The “Best” and Worst of Perigo as determined by the RESPONDINATOR

Many have asked “Why is Perigo writing for Salient…?”

From the perspective of Salient itself, we know that the Editor was trying to create debate, in enrolling a writer whose views were “out there, all alone, on Pluto”, and that he, in fact, over-succeeded.

But what were Perigo’s own motivations for writing for a publication that caters to “skanky student scumbuckets”?

By stirring up such a lather, is he perhaps trying to further a self-fulfilling prophecy of himself as martyr for the Objectivist cause, surrounded by irrational infidels?

Ironically, most of his writing seems to have veered away from such high rational ideals into goading his opponents with rhetoric and emotionally loaded language.

Maybe he is trying to emulate the style of his heroine, Ayn Rand, who preached the virtues of man as a rational animal, while virtually foaming at the mouth?

Maybe his aim in stooping, as an intelligent man, to merely baiting people with poorly written tirades, was to prove to himself that he is a pillar of truth surrounded by unthinking swine?

The reality is that this frequently adopted approach makes his column appear to thinking people as unreasonable, at times unreadable, and certainly not worth replying to.

But of course, we are ignoring the entertainment value and the sheer poetry of this man’s words. Let us take a tour now through the highlights of his appearances on these pages, and maybe we can learn to appreciate his own very special brand of genius.

1. Description of Nanny State

“… this hybrid of gargoyle and dominatrix …her child-molesters-of-the- mind run our education system on her behalf and deliberately dumb down our youngsters so they’ll vote for her when they come of age (hence the illiterate zombies emerging from her universities); she pays the unproductive with the money of the productive to be reproductive and breed even more voters for her…”

– Here he has produced a brilliant work of fiction that mixes paranoid conspiracy theory and schoolboy fantasy to rival such classic tracts as “the Illuminatus Trilogy” and Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall’ video.

2. Death to Islamofascists!

“…Now we are told these squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesqueries, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists, are not to be called Muslims because other Muslims—who remain mute while deeds of unspeakable foulness are perpetrated in their name—might get offended! Well, tough turds. As Salman Rushdie has observed, freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to offend.”

This is so poetic it makes me want to cry.

Perigo, I love you! Please now join with me in a chorus of ‘Peace Train’ by Cat Stevens (the well known singer/songwriter/islamofascist).

3. On ‘The Age of the Airhead’

“…Democracy is dictatorship by numbers. Democracy should never be confused, as it always is, with freedom. Democracy counts heads, even heads with nothing in them, and imposes the resulting abominations on all of us. Democracy is dictatorship by politicians in thrall to majorities or pluralities—and when those majorities or pluralities are stupid, you have the tyranny of stupidity. Ours is such a time.”

This is a wonderful description of our modern quandary. I suggest expanding on these ideas by reading ‘Manufacturing Consent’ by Noam Chomsky. There we discover how the role of government gets subverted in protecting us (the masses, regardless of intelligence) from concentrations of power, usually corporate power. As Mussolini once said, “Fascism should more correctly be called Corporatism.”

4. On ‘The Global Warming Conspiracy’

“…The inconvenient truth for the caterwaulers and their guru, Al Gore, is that the earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time, peskily independent of human beings. And it is these cyclical temperature changes, as indicated by real science uncorrupted by United Nations agendas, that influence CO2 levels, not the other way round. The temperature changes in turn are determined by solar activity.”

– Certainty is hard to find in this world, least of all in the field of scientific inquiry, but thankfully we have Perigo and his ilk to brush aside the need for detailed study. Like Inspector Clouseau he has led us straight to the culprit – a big surprise here – it is the Sun. Go about your business now, keep consuming. The mindless corporations are protecting your interests – believe it – only lefty politicians subvert real science. Rest assured, greed is a good thing.

5. On Personal Attacks

“What a feeding frenzy the smelly Saddamites have had with my “Death to Islamo-Fascism!” articles! How characteristic, their clamour for censorship! How intellectually and morally bankrupt, their attacks on my sexuality, weight, hair loss, etc.—anything but the argument!”

Anything but the argument? Hmmm… now that seems familiar from somewhere…

6. On Educational Standards /’Good Writing’

“…Bludge-scum doesn’t really want taxpayer-funded children, since they interfere with his taxpayer-funded drinking, and kills them. Nazi-scum says it’s the fault of taxpayers who smack. Nazi-scum bans smacking. Bludge-scum keeps killing kids anyway. Nazi-scum, via Comrade Kiro, proposes to send its Gestapo into every home with kids.”

– This quote is naturally in an article on declining educational standards, presumably by way of illustrating the extremely poor journalism that comes with such a decline… Can you sense the flecks of spittle around Perigo’s mouth as he rants here? Later in the same piece he quotes another writer at length; suddenly the article becomes coherent.

7. On Religious Illusions

“’We love the truth, but we love our fantasies even more,’ might well be man’s epitaph. His stubborn refusal to put aside childish beliefs will probably be the death of him. Ours is the Age of anti-Reason, whose logical endpoint, barring a second renaissance, is destruction.”

– He is, of course, referring to the spiritual traditions here, but ironically he could just as easily be referring to beliefs such as consumerism and in the ‘free market’…which reminds me of a quote from John Ralston Saul:- “The free market may be a good, bad or insufficient idea, but, in any case, it is just a crude commercial code. Now it is regularly equated with, or given credit for, or even precedence over, the freedom of man. But the freedom of man is a moral statement on the human condition, both in the practical and in the humanist sense. To equate it with a school of business is to betray a certain confusion. An unconscious unease.”

8. On Ayn Rand

“On October 10, 1957, Atlas Shrugged was published by Random House. Thirteen years in the writing, including two years on the novel’s key philosophical exposition, Galt’s Speech, Atlas instantly alienated all elements of the establishment. It still does. Yet according to an oft-quoted 1994 US Library of Congress poll, more respondents were influenced by it than by any other book apart from the Bible.”

The reference to the bible here is indicative…As one of the cult followers of Ayn Rand, (referred to as Randroids, for their ideological interpretation of every issue) he exhibits many traits in common with her – including lack of awareness of his own emotional filter on reality.

Freud lists ‘projection’ as one of the most common forms of psychic defence mechanisms. When one repeatedly accuses others of certain behaviours, often with little or no evidence, it is likely to be a projection of uncomfortable truths from within one’s own psyche.

For an illustration of the undercurrents to Randian philosophy, the BBC documentary The Century of the Self is recommended.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments (150)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. You quote Perigo:
    “…according to an oft-quoted 1994 US Library of Congress poll, more respondents were influenced by it than by any other book apart from the Bible.”

    Here Mr Perigo does not appear to realise he is recycling a now well-debunked urban myth. The actual story of this alleged “poll” (he has also erred as to the date; it is from 1991) we highlight here:

    http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/atlas-debunked.html

    Despite being obviously bogus, this factoid is still recited regularly in official Objectivist PR:

    http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/

  2. Paul van Dinther says:

    Dear Respondinator,

    Is that really your name? or are you making your sad statements while remaining anonymous?

    It sounds like Perigo offended you and your belief system and this sad excuse for an article is an attempt to discredit Perigo.

    How about YOU come up with the goods? Your writing fails to come up with even a single argument on the contrary. Just saying “Perigo is wrong” just doesn’t cut it here and your personal statements towards Perigo make you look childish and pathetic.

    mmm, I suppose he’s right then. You just confirmed it with this writing.

  3. Joey says:

    The only problem with Perigo is that he’s confused “satire” with “invective”, and “argument” with “ranting”.

    Otherwise he’s ok for a giggle, though I find myself laughing at him rather than with him.

    Shame that his supporters seem to have no sense of humour whatsoever.

  4. ron "fleet-footed" paul says:

    i don’t need to come up with better ideas than perigo’s any more than i need to be a master cook to know a shit sandwich is not appetising

  5. Mark Thiele says:

    Seems Pergo has hit some raw nerves. I think you confuse ranting with passion. Perigo adheres to, and sticks to, certain principles and philosophies, and then doesn’t hold back when he identifies what he sees as anti-freedom fighters (such as yourself).

    Oh and on top of that I suspect he writes for Ssalient for amusement. Probably more amusement than anything else I suspect. Haven’t seen any half reasonable challenge to his philosophy yet.

    You should be able to do better.

  6. Mark Hubbard says:

    Mark, these guys/girls don’t have an integrated philosophy of life, this is evident in their complete lack of principle. They only know how destroy and hate: the pity is that the country is being run my similar, unprincipled life haters.

  7. Elijah Lineberry says:

    I have rather enjoyed reading Lindsay’s articles on Salient over the last few months.
    He makes a number of very good points, especially about welfare and Mu-slime lunatics, and I cannot wait for 2008 and his next article.

  8. mike says:

    You sad git Elijah… you will be waiting for a long time.. that was perigo’s last article in Salient… See you later libz.. Bye bye

  9. Murray N Rothbard says:

    ‘Mu-slime’ oh my sides! That’s a knee slapper!
    I think once again we are confusing having an ‘integrated philosophy of life’ with ‘having your socially maladjusted head rammed firmly up your own ass’. It seems it’s OK for Perigo to ridicule, but not OK for folks to ‘ridicule back’ because of course that makes them ‘skanky sadamite islamo-fascism loving freedom hating communist scum’ (or some other combination of Perigo clichés, make up your own! A fun game for the whole family).

  10. dr. president ron "worth my weight in toothbrushes QWAK" paul says:

    You left out the actual best of Perigo: the part where he threw a tantrum because someone called suggested he’s a paedophile as a joke. Personal attacks are only funny when they’re directed at Muslims, women and students, apparently.

  11. Murray N Rothbard says:

    …and don’t forget ‘Mordi’, this is their new completely fucking hilarious catch phrase for ‘Maori’.

  12. Evee says:

    ‘Mu-slime lunatics’

    racist racist racist

  13. Elijah Lineberry says:

    Oh please…gosh…what is racist about asking people to stop flying planes into buildings and setting off car bombs?!?!

  14. Michael Oliver says:

    If you’re walking along the beach on a calm summer’s evening, you’ll find that if you lend your ear out to the ocean you’ll hear it whisper back “Perigo…Perigo…”

  15. Evee says:

    ^^^

    hopefully because he’s drowning and crying his own name.

  16. Adamm says:

    Hey Evee, any chance you’d reveal your true identity? I’ve quite enjoyed your posts over the last few months.

  17. Evee says:

    my name is Evee and I post on the salient forums

  18. Mark Hubbard wrote:
    >… these guys/girls don’t have an integrated philosophy of life…

    Unfortunately, Rand’s philosophy is not “integrated” either. In fact large parts of it – particularly her epistemological theories – far from being intellectually deep, are merely word-games dressed up in obscure jargon.

    The libertarian writer David Ramsay Steele describes making this discovery himself:
    ” …I was also inspired by its hints of a fully-worked out theoretical system, a metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical structure which somehow supported the author’s political conclusion. It was a great disappointment to find later that this system did not exist…”

    As a result, he summarised Rand’s doctrines as essentially “bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics.” There is rather less to it than meets the eye.

  19. mike gardner says:

    That may or may not be Daniel, but at least Rand was not a racist. Kudos to Perigo and another gentleman for calling Lineberry on his overt racism on the SOLO blog.

    I intend to do more reading on Objectivism, but it won’t be on a site where lowlife like Lineberry are sanctioned and welcomed.

  20. Mike G:
    >That may or may not be Daniel, but at least Rand was not a racist. Kudos to Perigo and another gentleman for calling Lineberry on his overt racism on the SOLO blog.

    Sorry, Mike, I’m not familiar with that particular stoush.

  21. Michael Oliver says:

    Oh and on top of that I suspect he writes for Ssalient for amusement. Probably more amusement than anything else I suspect

    Oh, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that some sort of perverted self-amusement was his sole motive for putting pen to paper, but as I’ve mentioned before, he more or less gave Salient the courtesy of a reach-around by giving the magazine the kind of attention it was craving. He was like a donkey dragging a gypsy fair from town to town. That is all.

    The reason nobody addressed Perigo’s arguments, quite simply, is because there were none. What were dollied up as reasoned, objective criticisms were really nothing more than the twisted rantings of a guy who was asked to shit-stir on behalf of a student magazine pining for attention from a radically indifferent student body. Fuck me blind, it worked.

    And Elijah, while it’s sad to think that someone was SO PISSED OFF with you, they had to fake-post some paedophilc nonsense on your behalf, you are by anybody’s standards incredibly fucking creepy, delusional, and terrible on virtually every level. I, for one, will be glad to see the back of you. Never darken this humble piece of online real estate with your presence ever again. :-)

  22. Michael Oliver says:

    Oh, and I thought Salient had slapped a picture of Mark Lundy right in the middle of the second page of this. Whoops.

    Yeah, yeah, you look like Mark Lundy without your beard. C’mon, sue me, Perigo. Earn your first dollar in seven years.

    *Stone Cold Steve Austin middle finger*

  23. Elijah Lineberry says:

    Be careful what you wish for, Michael :P

    I am sure if you want to be cross examined in open court, on a variety of different matters you thought no one knew about (but they all will 24 hours later, and will follow you around for the rest of your life)…AND to spend the next seven years paying off damages, I am sure Lindsay will oblige.

  24. Steve Nicoll says:

    Due to complaints recieved over untrue assertions concerning Perigo two blog comments have been removed. Salient does not encourage untrue statements about the character of individuals and wishes to apologise to Perigo that these comments were not removed earlier.

  25. Evee says:

    clown post

  26. Sasquatch says:

    Oh god this is increasingly starting to sound like Rae Robinson’s rants, thank god she’s not writing book reviews anymore…

  27. dr. president ron "worth my weight in toothbrushes QWAK" paul says:

    at last rand was not a racist:

    hmm, what’s this? rand’s commentary on the rights of native americans?

    “They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.”

    admittedly, she’s not saying that native americans weren’t entitled to their land because of their race – it’s because of their culture (although I find it odd that she singles out “white people” as being entitled to take over the continent as opposed to any civilising people).

  28. Michael Oliver says:

    Oh laugh my fucking ass off, like what, Elijah? Is your crack team of legal scholars going to trawl through two years worth of sport columns looking for something to nail me with?

    “The prosecution will show that Michael Oliver once wrote an article stridently mocking the humble sport of handball. Now, your honour, the prosecution realises that jurisprudence has only come so far, but we have elicited the help of CSI Miami star David Caruso, and wish to call upon his testimony, if it may please the honourable court.”

    “Well, looks like business…. is getting busy!”

    *CSI Miami opening credits*

    Thinly-veiled threats over the internet are hilariously low, even by your generous standards. I wish Linz would reel you in, because I feel embarrassed for him having someone as unapologetically idiotic as you as a spokesperson.

  29. Michael Oliver says:

    And the “Sue me! Earn your first dollar in seven years!” was a direct quote from the popular online TV program starring Arrested Development’s Michael Cera and his buddy Clark Duke, entitled “Clark & Michael,” which can be watched here: http://www.clarkandmichael.com/

    I mean, it’s no Mapquest Shrugged, but it’s good for twelve or so minutes of entertainment.

  30. Elijah Lineberry says:

    Oh I never threaten, Michael….(I don’t need to) ;)

  31. Michael Oliver says:

    Because there’s a picture of you in the basement getting older, right?

  32. Murray N Rothbard says:

    Pergio is often fond of wheeling out “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” and then incorrectly attributing the quote to Voltaire.
    One can only assume the rest of his research is of the same high calibre.
    It’s fascinating how these grand ideals go out the window when the shoe is on the other foot.

  33. Mark Thompson says:

    >>I am sure if you want to be cross examined in open court, on a variety of different matters you thought no one knew about (but they all will 24 hours later, and will follow you around for the rest of your life)…AND to spend the next seven years paying off damages, I am sure Lindsay will oblige.

  34. Mark Thompson says:

    whoops, something went iffy with my comment above

    was gonna say that even if that wasn’t a threat it was a pretty ludicrous post. and i wouldn’t take much stock in oliver’s lundy comparison since all fat blokes look the same past 40 anyway

    ps. elijah your blog’s fuckin creepy bro

  35. mike gardner says:

    Mike G:
    >That may or may not be Daniel, but at least Rand was not a racist. Kudos to Perigo and another gentleman for calling Lineberry on his overt racism on the SOLO blog.

    Sorry, Mike, I’m not familiar with that particular stoush.

    Nor would you want to be. Anyway, Lineberry is killing the site by flooding the SOLO board with inane posts. No help needed from opponents of Rand ;-)

    Sad that Perigo can’t see it.

  36. Glenn Jameson says:

    Any of you kiddies care to challenge Mr Perigo to a stand-up debate…? Or are you going to continue taking pot shots from the shadows of your anonymity like the intellectually challenged cowards that you are?

    … smells less like teen spirit here; more like teen fear.

    Incidentally, the Voltaire quote is a well-accepted paraphrasing from his letter to le Riche: “Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

  37. Richard Donaldson says:

    Glenn Jameson weighing in with his POV at 2:13am.

  38. Murray N Rothbard says:

    Fighting the good fight at 2:13am, a revealing time stamp if there ever was one.
    Browsing over solo’s latest ‘Fuck Muslims’ thread, one quickly loses the will to argue with such a pompous hypocritical narcissistic ass, Perigo can hand it out but he can’t take it, as evidenced by his hysterical reaction to being taunted here. So Glenn, who is the ‘intellectually challenged coward’? All I see at solo are a bunch of misfits who have found the perfect vehicle to express their anger at the world under the guise of being ‘intellectual’ & ‘rational’ (which actually means regurgitating the ratings of some damaged Russian immigrant with male domination fantasies), hardly the hight of valour, is it Glenn?

  39. mike gardner says:

    Check out threads on http://nzquest.blogspot.com

    People are starting to expose these creeps, so his writing here has done some good, after all.

  40. Murray N Rothbard says:

    Their ‘all faders on max’ all or nothing approach is just as much of a caricature as the other extremists they love to lampoon, this in itself is such fantastic unintentional comedy.
    The real shame is that often they do often champion important ideas, but having it verbalized and taken to illogical extremes by that fucking fruitcake Perigo and his gang of maladjusted creeps instantly renders the message unpalatable to most.

  41. Jack Cocksman says:

    Ok, which one of you guys is ‘Jack Cocksman’? :)
    http://www.solopassion.com/node/3611

  42. Glenn Jameson says:

    So, indeed, none of you has the balls to challenge Perigo to an open debate. It’s a shame, because if you did you’d see first hand just how well he handles the asinine bullshit you dish.

    Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. It’s all you paedomorphic pussies are good for.

    Back into the shadows you cowardly custards…

  43. Paedomorphic Pussie says:

    Oh man, one Ad hominem and I was gonna blow a load. Calling people pussies on the internet eh? you are a bonafide legend Glenn!

  44. Michael Oliver says:

    Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem….

    For example:

    “It’s all you paedomorphic pussies are good for.”

    Indeed, Glenn. Indeed.

    With the university year over and interest in Salient largely directed now to what Steve did in the weekend instead of the puerile garbage infested within its pages by the guy whose morning radio slot is being taken over by Nathan from Ice TV, nobody really cares enough about anything Perigo-related to so much as raise an eyebrow when one of his cutie-pie apologists comes waddling in to give those fucking assholes over at Salient what for.

    I think most of us are busy doing more interesting things, like working at “jobs” — you know, something you apply for and… nevermind, I don’t want to ruin the surprise.

  45. Dougal says:

    “Back into the shadows you cowardly custards…”

    good one dumbledore

  46. Evee says:

    what is a paedomorhic pussie is that someone who morphs into a child ?

  47. Glenn Jameson says:

    Quick lesson… Ad hominem is to attack an opponent’s character rather than answer his argument. With the exception of a few here, none of you have made an argument for your opponent to attack. You have, however, spent an inordinate amount of time indulging in attacks on Perigo’s person rather than HIS arguments.

    I argued that none of you are brave enough to step outside the safety of your anonymity on this blog and challenge Mr Perigo in person. As it stands none of you have even bothered to intellectually engage his arguments, let alone have the balls to do it in person. By your own actions (and inaction) you have shown us that you are without intellect, courage and character.

    That is not ad hominem: that is objective fact.

  48. Evee says:

    I asked you what is a paedomorphic pussy

  49. Evee says:

    I think you have a very large biological claim to substantiate before you can say your argument is ‘objectively’ rational

  50. Dougal says:

    I was more offended by the ostentatiousness of “cowardly custards”

    and nobody fucking cares glenn fuck off

  51. Cowardly Custard says:

    how dare you take my name in vain, glenn

  52. Glenn, where you said no one has the guts to tell Perigo he sucks in person (or something, I’m too lazy to scroll) – isn’t it a little bit pathetic that he gets his friends to call up Salient and demand that contentious comments be removed from his articles on the Salient site, threatening court action?

    PS. You’re really old. Why do you even come to this website? Seriously, there’s a time and a place to get a life, and for you, it’s passed.

  53. PPS. Further to my previous comment, above you refer to commenters as ‘kiddies’. FYI those people commenting are a) the target readership of Salient magazine, b) those who fund and therefore are stakeholders in the magazine, c) are well under twice the age of most of the Salient staff and readership, unlike yourself. Kiddies: Ad hominem?

    If you have a problem, sir, I suggest you take it up with the market.

  54. Michael Oliver says:

    I’m confused, Glenn (and chances are it won’t be the last time), since I’ve come to believe that Mr. Perigo’s tenure on Salient was in fact little more than a series of hilarious satirical jaunts and whimsical social commentary that wasn’t really supposed to be taken seriously (remember the stink kicked up about the “flogging women” thing being edited out and how that was somehow indicative of the fact that we “cowardly custards” had no appreciation for the subtle nuances of Perigo’s social satire? That we “saddamites” couldn’t, well, take a joke?)

    So, now you’re here guns blazing, accusing the three or four people who’re bored enough to check this website every day that our callous indifference to Mr. Perigo and his awkward, out of touch satire is somehow indicative of some tremendous collective personality flaw which nothing short of a personal debate with the big cheese himself will ever eradicate. Oh, I see.

    In order for Glenn Jacobs, SOLO’s apparent ambassador to Salient, to be satisfied — for his insomnia-fuelled thirst to be quenched — we paedomorphic pussys (which I believe is some kind of reference to a kiddy fiddler who can shapeshift into a tabby) have got to call up Radio Pacific, have the patience to sit on hold for ten minutes while “Des” from Nelson laments the fact he can no longer give his kids the “sour end of the jug chord now that the NANNY STATE has taken over,” wait another five minutes for race #4 from Awapuni to finish, then finally getting a whole 90 seconds to dissect Perigo’s pieces before the top of the hour news chimes in and we’re cut off.

    Or, we can continue viewing these pieces in the satirical light they were apparently written in, continue to deem them unfunny and painful to read, and dismiss you needlessly aggressive cheerleaders, pom-poms and all, as pompous, rude, sanctimonious losers who have little interest in being anything other than belligerent assholes. Maybe when Nathan from Ice TV takes over on BSport, but eh…

  55. Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening says:

    Whose woods these are I think I know.
    His house is in the village though;
    He will not see me stopping here
    To watch his woods fill up with snow.
    My little horse must think it queer
    To stop without a farmhouse near
    Between the woods and frozen lake
    The darkest evening of the year.
    He gives his harness bells a shake
    To ask if there is some mistake.
    The only other sound’s the sweep
    Of easy wind and downy flake.
    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

  56. Glenn Jameson says:

    Michael, have you heard of email? I assure you if you invited Perigo to the campus for a debate he wouldn’t fire back a pathetic retort and hide in the shadows like you guys do.

    editor@freeradical.co.nz

    But of course, I don’t expect you have the courage to accept the challenge – as I no longer expect a decent response to his posts from any of you paedomorphs (look it up).

    Laura… Kiddies: fact (with regards to your maturity – not your age).

    If this were a real debate “our” side would have all the points. By default. I hope one day you lot will feel the pride of an argument well considered, well constructed and well conveyed. Right now none of you have it in you, which is shocking given that you’re this far into your education.

  57. Well-educated… about the market?

    I’ll debate Lindsay Perigo! That’d be mean. Although I’m sure he’d turn it down as I’m a woman and of inferior intellect or some shit.

    Furthermore I think the fact that Salient’s readers/writers who are around 20 years of age are arguing their viewpoints on this site is demonstrating maturity by furthering political and ideological debate, something which ‘Mr Perigo’ himself has declined to do (sure, he’ll write an op-ed and then bitch about those who disagree, but I haven’t seen any ‘debate’ coming from him to support ‘your side’).

  58. Glenn Jameson says:

    Here’s an example of a kiwi High School kid doing something you University kiddies CAN’T do…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLY4LlBMNeA

    You should be embarrassed…

  59. Glenn Jameson says:

    EXCELLENT!!! Seriously, Laura, write to him if you’re serious about it and not just taking the piss. If you are serious I say “good on you!” and for you I will retract my cowardly custard epithet. :-)

    If you want to engage him one-on-one today, go to solopassion.com (an invitation to all those who are not afraid to enter an open forum and pit your intellect against those well-versed in most subjects).

    By the way, Perigo’s greatest hero is a woman.

  60. ron "this is what libertarians actually believe" paul says:

    Objectivism is a joke. The punchline is Lindsay Perigo.

    See, here’s the bunny, Glenn – it’s impossible to rationally debate the merits of your chosen philosophies because there’s nothing to them but smug elitism masked with ignorance.

    The policies people like Perigo espouse hark back to the nineteenth century when life was worse in every conceivable way. Ayn Rand, the very founder of the pathetic cult of Objectivism, thought that homosexuality was disgusting and immoral.

    The simple fact is that the vast majority of people everywhere have considered the views you espouse and rejected them. Funnily enough, while Objectivists et al are more than willing to disavow democracy as being somehow “unfair”, they’re never quite willing to put their money where their mouth is and move to Somalia.

    What? Somalia isn’t a true Libertopia? Yes, and the USSR wasn’t a true Communist state, but it is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS when Communism is put into practice. Likewise, the third world anarchy of Somalia is the DIRECT RESULT of the most ‘limited’ government on the planet.

    You’re a band of fringe extremists and you deserve as much “serious debate” with normal people as the crowd that posts on Indymedia.

  61. Evee says:

    psychiatry KILLS

    psych

  62. Evee says:

    who would win in a debate between an objectivist and a scientologist

  63. ron "this is what libertarians actually believe" paul says:

    whoever wins we lose

  64. mike gardner says:

    Get rid of Elijah Lineberry Jameson and I will debate on your site.

    The man is a worthless disgrace to Objectivism, and has just about killed the site anyway. What have you got to lose?

  65. dr. president ron "i'm just a guy in a shark suit" paul says:

    who would win in a debate between an objectivist and a scientologist

    Tom Cruise apparently supports Ron Paul so I don’t see why they’d argue

  66. Evee says:

    Facts:

    Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
    Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

    Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
    Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
    Ron voted against the Iraq war.
    Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
    Ron votes against the United Nations.
    Ron votes against the welfare state.
    Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

    Ron votes for conservative principles.
    Ron votes to cut government spending.
    Ron votes to lower health care costs.
    Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
    Ron votes to preserve civil liberties.
    Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
    Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions
    Ron votes to protect religious freedom.

  67. dr. president ron "dr no, i can't be bothered reading this bill" paul says:

    Ron votes to continue funding the Janjaweed with your tax dollars
    Ron doesn’t vote for anything else, ever.

  68. aspa says:

    evee, are you bored or something…

  69. Glenn Jameson says:

    Laura – Perigo’s hero is the Russian born American Philosopher Ayn Rand.

    Ron – care to put your philosophy where your mouth is and take up the challenge to an open debate? No… thought not. You know you’d fall to bits in your opening argument.

    I say name yourself or accept that you’re the pathetic coward that you are. There’s only one reason why you hide and spit: you know that what you’re saying is shit – empty rhetoric, vile slander and snide, snakebite sentiment without substantiation.

    A rational man of high self-esteem stands behind what he says. Such men are the heroes of Objectivists. I can see why you hate it so.

  70. Evee says:

    I seriously wonder why people like you don’t get with the times. The whole ‘people who use pseudonyms are cOWARDLY’ thing been done to death in many a self righteous diatribe of obnoxious wanker. NOBODY CARED. It is your personal discretion if you want to print your own name and received the double-edged publickity that go along with the children. You are a villain Glunn Jameson… A villain. Je deteste.

  71. Glenn Jameson says:

    Are you capable of stringing a logical sequence of thoughts together to make an argument, Evee?

    Proposition: A man of high self-esteem who speaks truthfully has nothing to hide, while a coward of low self-esteem who speaks falsely hides behind anonymity. Affirmative or negative? … and why?

    Taking pithy pot shots is easy. Thinking critically is hard… for the beginner.

  72. dr. president ron "VAGINA DOCTOR" paul says:

    Why would I want to give you my real name, Glenn, especially when I’m so enjoying watching you complain about not having it?

  73. dr. president ron "VAGINA DOCTOR" paul says:

    ps: if you really wanted to attack my ideas, rather than my person, surely it wouldn’t matter what name I used?

  74. The REAL Phillip says:

    god
    fuck you steve
    fuck you
    YOU not only ruined our publication, you ruined our website too
    i don’t want these little high school chums of perigo’s here
    no one does
    fuck

    and the reason no one is replying to you, guys, is because no one cares. no one has the time to waste on you. (this message took approximately 15 to 35 seconds)

  75. Glenn Jameson says:

    You’ve got IDEAS, Ron?! That’s fantastic! Let’s hear one!

    I’m almost done here, Phil (Middle initial “I” last name “Stein”?). Soon you can go back to your blithering baby talk without annoying interruptions from a man of reason.

    P.S. You enjoy being called a coward, Ron?… Your self-esteem is lower than I thought.

  76. Evee says:

    ‘Are you capable of stringing a logical sequence of thoughts together to make an argument, Evee?’

    Yes. Very capable. But what makes you think I want to engage you in your own self-serving and solipsistic logic games?

    ‘Proposition: A man of high self-esteem who speaks truthfully has nothing to hide, while a coward of low self-esteem who speaks falsely hides behind anonymity. Affirmative or negative? … and why?’

    = Sexist.

    ‘Taking pithy pot shots is easy. Thinking critically is hard… for the beginner.’

    It’s okay, take your time.

    ‘ps: if you really wanted to attack my ideas, rather than my person, surely it wouldn’t matter what name I used?’

    Touche. Glunn, you lose.

  77. mike gardner says:

    Since you haven’t replied to my post I will elaborate Jameson. I have been studying Objectivism via the Ayn Rand Institute site BTW.

    There are people genuine Ojectivists and lovers of freedom do not want to keep company with. Passing such judgement is good and proper.

    Mr Lineberry is one such person. Objectivism, as I see it, is not a receptacle for every frayed end and loose nut at the political fringes.. Among these are neo-Nazis and white nationalists, but the largest part seems to be the resurgent John Birch Society types whom Buckley ostracised when he pulled together the American Conservative movement proper. These are the people (like Lineberry)who believe in a cabal of elites to introduce a new world order — ‘eternal life’ for the few and slavery for the masses. In other words, an eugenicist holocaust.

    Lineberry like to dress this up as British Empire nostalgia, or other rubbish.

    I read somewhere here that he is a Jew. So am I, and he is an embarrassment to us, as well as to Objectivism.

    So why is he tolerated and therefore sanctioned on SOLO?

  78. Glenn Jameson says:

    Apologies, Mike, I read your post as “Get rid of Elijah Lineberry Jameson” – like you were making a hybrid out of us. When you spend time on a blog where people post in perpetual bad faith, you start to read everything like that. What a pleasant surprise to find someone here making a reasoned argument (take notes Evee).

    You make a fair point about Lineberry. Closer inspection will reveal that his antics are not being sanctioned.

    Be sure, he will not be an indictment on SOLO’s integrity.

    You couldn’t get two more diametrically opposed sites than Salient and SOLO. Here you can bitch, moan, slander and bullshit without substantiation or accountability and nobody gets banned. Act in bad faith on SOLO and you’re booted. Here you can be anonymous. SOLO requires a real name and photo. Salient bloggers hide. SOLO bloggers go face to face. Salient bloggers dribble. SOLO bloggers debate.

    Right now, Lineberry is being taken to task over his comments. If he is acting in bad faith he’ll be blocked. If he’s a racist he’ll be tarred and feathered by his peers on the site. Few people get banned on SOLO; losers usually sift off on their own when their character has been exposed and their arguments irreparably dismantled. AKA Ron Paul would be gone before breakfast – before the toast even popped.

    The beauty of SOLO is that it’s all out in the open. Everyone (including Elijah) stands behind everything they say.

    Unlike almost everyone else in the Salient amateur show, you actually have something to contribute, Mike. If you find Lineberry offensive for christsake don’t be quiet about it – prepare your argument and get on there and have YOUR say. We would welcome it.

  79. Evee says:

    different strokes for different folks

    If it’s such a bad website maybe you should go fuck off back to solo

  80. Glenn Jameson says:

    You’re far too young to be a lost cause, Evee… why don’t you visit us at SOLO and exercise your “very capable” debating skills. But first you’ll have to chisel off the layers of calcified cynicism to see this is a genuine invitation.

  81. Glenn Jameson says:

    There is one other key difference: on SOLO anyone may submit an editorial on any subject – provided you have the courage to stand behind what you say… so if you’ve got something say, we’d love to hear it. And I assure you all that your reception will be a great deal more civilised than the one you’ve given us here. :-)

  82. mike gardner says:

    Thanks for your reply Glenn. I am trying to register with SOLO but my computer keeps saying the captcha code is incorrect. I have emailed the solo webmaster about it. I hope to talk with you soon.

  83. 'But I don't think of you.' says:

    I thought solo was a hang out for sad Lonely old men. Sorry but I don’t fit into that category.

    I openly detest your argument style and your basic philosophic underpinnings.

  84. ron "infinite negro death" paul says:

    the thing you need to understand about objectivism is that it is actually RIDICULOUS

    it’s a bizarre parody of a philosophy that you actually can’t ‘engage’ with because it exists off in its own little world of made-up bullshit

    these are people who genuinely believe that atlas shrugged is a good book, for example

    so all they have, other than rambling incoherent diatribes, is a sort of mock-moral-outrage (not real moral outrage because they don’t actually believe in anything that resembles morality) and a wonderful fantasy that we’ll all come to SOLO and get banned for not toeing the party line thus demonstrating the superiority of objectivism in the marketplace of ideas

    we’ve got the chessboard out, glenn, but you’re playing whack-a-mole

  85. Glenn Jameson says:

    Yet another statement without a single proof, Ron, and you think you’re playing chess???? You’re a coward, Ron, and a really dumb one at that.

    To demonstrate what a proof is, I’ll substantiate the statement, “Ron, you have no idea what you’re talking about,” thus:

    Guidelines for SOLO Posters:

    Anyone who signs up to SOLOPassion.com is free to post here, unmoderated.

    Anyone who is gratuitously rude or abusive, will, however, be moderated in the “play pen” for children, after reasonable warning.

    When posting, remember the “Three Gs”—good faith, good will and good humour. If the second two are rendered impossible, the first is still a minimum requirement.

    As a sign of good faith, please sign on and post under your real name with photograph, which you can upload when you register an account.

    In dealing with non- or anti-Objectivists, remember the objective is to persuade rather than intimidate, bully or disgust.

    Remember you are guests in Linz’s house, enjoying his hospitality for free. Do not presume to tell him how to run this site or SOLO. If you don’t enjoy being in his house … well, there is no one forcing you to stay.

    Respect the privacy of others here—and your own.

    If you’re a self-important grandstander, poseur, attention-seeker or blowhard monologuer who knows it all, contemplate the possibility that this might not be the place for you.

    If you’re a rationally passionate romantic, seeking the stars and looking for other pilgrims in your quest, contemplate the certainty that this is definitely the place for you!

    > The invitation to flex your debating skills remains open – to those courageous enough to attach their names to their opinions. Like Mike Gardner. Welcome aboard, Mike… proof that SOLO is NOT a place for “sad lonely old men,” but rather rational men (and women, Evee) with a passion for reason.

  86. Michael Oliver says:

    If you think Salient’s bad, get a load of Trademe’s Opinions forum.

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Threads.aspx?topic=7

    I think SOLO would have a field day with this.

  87. ron "unlimited cycle of death" paul says:

    “If you’re a self-important grandstander, poseur, attention-seeker or blowhard monologuer who knows it all, contemplate the possibility that this might not be the place for you.”

    and yet it’s full of objectivists

    hmmm

  88. Glenn Jameson says:

    Proving my point with every post, Ron. Can you even spell p.r.o.o.f.?

  89. Glenn Jameson says:

    > “I openly detest your argument style and your basic philosophic underpinnings.”

    a) there is NOTHING ‘open’ about this statement: you are in hiding.
    b) WHY do you detest our argument style and basic philosophic underpinnings?

    Haven’t you people been taught how to support an argument? Your essays must be deathly boring… “I think x is y because… well, just because.”

  90. ron "goldfinger" paul says:

    you can claim you’re an argument wizard all you like glenn

    but here is the key flaw with any claim you make to be able to sustain a rational argument

    YOU OPENLY ADMIT TO BEING AN OBJECTIVIST

  91. Glenn Jameson says:

    Compared to you, Ron “I couldn’t prove my own existence” Paul, I’m an argument genius.

  92. Evee says:

    lol an argument genius

  93. dr. president ron "this post paid for in liberty dollars" paul says:

    Like I said before, Glenn, if you really wanted to attack whatever ideas I (and the other Ron[s] – yes, there is more than one person using this name) have presented, you wouldn’t need us to use our real names. You only want those so you can mount some kind of half-arsed ad hominem against us, which wouldn’t work, because nothing any of us has ever done is as shameful as being an objectivist.

  94. Michael Oliver says:

    Should’ve called yourself the argument king rather than an argument genius, Glenn, then you couldl’ve proclaimed “I am king, make way for the king.”

    king glenn of solo on a mission of peace to the people’s republic of salient, meeting all sorts of characters along his way…

  95. Now now Michael, can objectivism and imagination ever truly be friends?

  96. Michael Oliver says:

    They will never be friends, only awkward bedfellows.

  97. Glenn Jameson says:

    Ron, you have yet to put up a single substantiated idea for discussion. Your continued anonymity is a testament to your cowardice. Your lack of ideas is an indictment on your intelligence.

    Evee, Michael and Laura: why are you so afraid to enter a mature debate? I’ve come here in good faith, challenging to you to deliver something more than snide, unsubstantiated ad hominem, and all you do is behave like babies.

    At least I’ve found one among you with courage and maturity… http://www.solopassion.com/node/3724 … so my time here has not been in vain.

  98. Michael Oliver says:

    Salient is as much about “mature debate” as pro wrestling is about athletic achievement, Glenn. That, and I just don’t feel compelled to put any effort into debating Glenn Jameson, some guy from some website. I’d be bored senseless, and my own personal amusement is of the utmost importance here.

    But feel free to keep taking your internetting seriously, I guess.

  99. Yeah, same here. I’m just taking the piss. I’m really too busy to be debating objectivists.

  100. ron "and you will know USA by the trail of dead" paul says:

    somalia is the inevitable result of objectivist ideals put into practice

    objectivism is the brainchild of a bigoted old witch who hated the gays and the native americans and the ethnics

    you haven’t dealt with either of those points which is because you are an objectivist and are therefore objectively brain-damaged

    instead you have nothing but whining complaints about how we’re not taking you seriously and we should come play in the playpen with you

    too bad, argument wizard, i have a little thing called dignity

  101. Glenn Jameson says:

    Well… Michael and Laura, at least you’re honest enough to admit your intention on Salient is to go no deeper than ridiculing participants. When you kids are finally bored with “taking the piss” and want an honest, intelligent and open debate on ANY subject, I further extend the welcome to SOLO. Until then, piss away…

    Ron, Ron, Ron… (or should I say Run, Run, Run…?). Once again, I ask for PROOF of your statements. Making a statement without PROOF is empty, meaningless hypothesis – it’s like fighting a fart with a sword. I haven’t dealt with either of your points because you’ve been too dumb or too lazy to support them with substantiated facts. Until you provide some substance to your points you have not made an argument, and my answer is the equally useless, 1) “No it isn’t,” and 2) “No she didn’t.”

    I don’t doubt you have a “little thing,” AKA Ron, but “dignity”?! You clearly don’t know the meaning of the word: 1. Bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation. 2. Nobility or elevation of character.

    How much character and self-respect can you possibly have when you’re not prepared to step out of the shadows and face your opponent like a man? Dignity…? You are its living antonym!

  102. Evee says:

    If it’s such a bad website maybe you should go fuck off back to solo

    agree or disagree, and why

  103. Glenn, you keep telling us to visit SOLO to debate with you and your mates. How come Lindsay can’t a) respond to his article himself, or b) come on here and invite Salient readers to debate him, instead of your repetitive whinging about Ron “Oh my gosh it’s a nom de plume” Paul?

  104. ron "trolling objectivists is like shooting fish in a really retarded barrel" paul says:

    ayn rand hates native americans:

    “They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.”

    ayn rand hates drug users:

    “Drug addiction is the attempt to obliterate one’s consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obscene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity.”

    oh glenn

    you really are a comical card

    ayn rand hates gays:

    “…because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral…morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.”

    what a charming woman

    but let’s have some more hysterical ad homs, argument wizard

  105. Evee says:

    this is so addictive its like playing pinball

  106. perry perigo says:

    lindsay perigo is my dad

  107. Elijah Lineberry says:

    *Eats Popcorn Whilst Watching The Hilarious Entertainment*

  108. Glenn Jameson says:

    Holy shit, Ron, you’ve made an actual argument!!!

    Yes, Ayn Rand did think drug addiction was “obscene,” that homosexuality was “disgusting” and that Native Americans were “primitive.”

    However, she did not hate Native Americans – in fact she abhorred racism: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

    On the subject of homosexuality, modern Objectivists concede that Ayn got it wrong: http://solohq.solopassion.com/Forum/ObjectivismQ&A/0016.shtml.

    However, she did support gay rights:

    “All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free.”

    Her comments on drugs were restricted to ADDICTION and not recreational use of narcotics. While she hated drug addicts because of their desire to perpetually escape reality, she defended their right to take them:

    “The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others… It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.”

    Finally, we’re having a debate! Thank you AKA Ron for proving Michael Oliver wrong. I look forward to your support for this: “Somalia is the inevitable result of objectivist ideals put into practice.”

    Evee, I never said Salient was a bad website – in fact I think it has enormous potential. I believe it’s you who’s letting it down.

    Laura, ask Lindsay yourself… editor@freeradical.co.nz … Contrary to popular belief, I’m not his mouth piece; I’m an independent individual here on my own mission.

  109. datsun 180B says:

    yeah, but how good was she at guitar hero 2

  110. ron "purestrain gold" paul says:

    pardon me for not getting my integrated philosophy of life or whatever from a homophobic bigot

    and you’re right somalia is a wonderful land where the people are free of government oppression to work to glorify their spirits or whatever and to not be enslaved to their fellow man and so on and people are so good and generous that the poor are well taken care of

  111. Glenn Jameson says:

    Hang on… is this same AKA Ron from the debating post… or another one?

  112. Brendan says:

    Glenn: “And I assure you all that your reception will be a great deal more civilised than the one you’ve given us here…”

    You mean this type of reception, Glenn?

    “xxxx xxxx, you disgust me. And unlike your fellow KASSless Society ass-licker xxxx, who said that once, I mean it. You disgust me. As does he. Because you *are* disgusting. All of you. xxxx, xxxx, the xxxx, the lot of you. This is war – a war to save Objectivism from politically correct, New Age, appeasing filth – & you are the enemy. You *are* the filth. If I have a problem with the ARI these days, it’s that they’re too soft on your lily-livered, treacherous ilk.”

    And:

    “… you microscopic, pomo-wanking louse: your arbitrary rationalistic strictures as to what constitutes good writing are bullshit. You wouldn’t know good writing if it bit you on your sorry, snotty, snide, supercilious postmodern ass. If you had a soul, I would commend to your attention the Rearden/Wet Nurse scene, that you might be touched. But you don’t, so I won’t. Wank on, Lois. And when you’ve written an epoch-changing best-seller, let us know.”

    Is this the sort of civilised reception you are promising, Glenn? Or do you have something else in mind?

  113. Oooo burn. Better head to the burns unit.

  114. Evee says:

    the serious burns unit

  115. Michael Oliver says:

    Dunked in a volcano burned

  116. Evee says:

    burned in fiery hell all objectivism

    burning

  117. Glenn Jameson says:

    The first quote was made to Phil Coates who’d been bitching, moaning and generally raining on everyone’s parade for over a year before he received that bollocking. He lasted another year before he was finally booted off the site for perpetually breaking the ‘no posting in bad faith’ rule.

    The second quote was made to Brendan Hutching, another pain in the arse, who’d been on the site for 7 months. He’s still with us.

    Given the timing of these comments they could hardly constitute a “reception.”

    I assure you, EVERY new arrival has been welcomed to SOLO. From then on they are on their own, free to show us what kind of character they have – or don’t have.

    Context dropping is really lame, Brendan…

    “Whenever you tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid …
    A context-dropper forgets or evades any wider context. He stares at only one element, and he thinks, “I can change just this one point, and everything else will remain the same.” In fact, everything is interconnected. That one element involves a whole context, and to assess a change in one element, you must see what it means in the whole context.”

    Leonard Peikoff http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP24M

  118. ron "madness? THIS IS OBJECTIVISM" paul says:

    SALIENT: repercussions of evil

    Glenn Jameson waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were paedomorph socialists on the internet. He didn’t see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Lindsay Perigo were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.
    Glenn was a objectivist for fourteen years. When he was young he read the Ayn Rand and he said to dad “I want to be like Ayn Rand daddy.”
    Dad said “No! You will BE MOCK BY EVERYBODY”
    There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in the internet site of Salient he knew there were paedomorph socialists.
    “This is Lindsay” the radio crackered. “You must fight the paedomorph socialists!”
    So Glenn gotted his terrible argument and posted on the internet.
    “HE GOING TO BURN US” said the paedomorph socialists
    “I will shoot at him” said the cyberpaedomorph socialist and he fired the somalia analogy. Glenn terribly argued at him and tried to shut him up. But then the ceiling fell and they were trapped and not able to argue.
    “No! I must debate the paedomorph socialists” he shouted
    The radio said “No, Glenn. You are the paedomorph socialists”
    And then John was a democrat

  119. Michael Oliver says:

    Ron Paul, what’s the first thing you’re going to do once the SomethingAwful Goons elect you President?

    YOU BETTER LEGALISE EVERYTHING WITHIN THE FIRST MONTH LIKE YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO!!!

  120. Glenn Jameson says:

    “…repercussions of evil…” “…not listenend to…” “…a objectivist…” “…he got oldered…” “… the radio crackered…” “…Glenn gotted…”

    Don’t stop, please don’t stop… too funny! Lemme guess: you’re majoring in English Lit.?

    AKA Ron – the one who was rising out of the primordial ooze – where are you?

  121. He may be suffering serious burns, but Glenn is committed to commenting on the Salient website from his hospital bed.

  122. Brendan says:

    Glenn: “…who’d been on the site for 7 months.”

    Closer to seven years all up now, but who’s counting? So you’re fine with the quotes? No problem with Perigo calling his fellow Objectivists “ass[sic]-lickers” and “filth”. This is standard banter among Objectivists?

    No minor reservations about slippage regarding “intellectual engagement”, “logical sequence[s] of thoughts”, or even the requirement to “persuade rather than intimidate, bully or disgust”? Just so people know what they’re letting themselves in for.

    Speaking of context, you’ve failed to mention the context of the second quote. You will remember that I had the audacity to offer a critique of Ayn Rand’s writing ability, complete with evidence and reasons. Apparently, such criticism is blasphemy on SOLO.

    Perhaps you should also make your readers aware of that proviso. And while you’re about it, warn them to walk softly around Iraq, American elections, music, other Objectivists, libertarians, NZ politicians. No doubt you can add to the list. Wouldn’t want them blotting their civil welcome.

  123. Michael Oliver says:

    Brendan with another nasty slam right up in Glenn’s grill.

  124. ron "ooze is an invention of the socialist media" paul says:

    my name is glenn jameson and i don’t know anything about this internet the kids are using these days

    heh i’ll point out all the spelling mistakes in an adapted version of internet meme “doom: repercussions of evil”

    this will surely render me the most superior objectivist in the paddling pool

  125. Glenn Jameson says:

    Brendan, I was referring to http://www.solopassion.com where your profile reads: “Brendan Hutching – Member for 1 year 43 weeks”

    I have no problem with the quotes – you and Coates deserved worse. And for the massive, context-dropping misrepresentation of SOLO in this cheap little interruption of yours you deserve a swift kick in the nuts. You have myopically selected from the tiny percentage of quotes made in the heat of debate to feed your anti-Perigo agenda. You are not an Objectivist, Brendan, you’re a grumpy old shit-stirrer who’s been hurt by some bad words and can’t get over it.

    You speak of committing blasphemy and yet you haven’t been excommunicated. Perhaps you exaggerate the inquisition you’ve experienced on SOLO. Clearly it’s not that bad or surely you would’ve given up on us sometime in the last 7 years.

    A cursory glance at the site’s threads will prove just how respectful its participants really are, where EVERYONE receives a kind welcome and warm reception. Unlike Salient bloggers, SOLOists make the assumption every new arrival has come in good faith, and treat them with respect until they deserve otherwise. As you well know, Brendan.

    Jumping in here you’ve completely missed the current thrust of the discussion, regarding anonymity and debate. Salient members will see you’ve put your name to your post. How do you regard the anonymous cowards here that don’t? You’ve made an argument with a substantiation. How do you rate the quality of responses made by those you’ve come here to support?

    Or have you only dropped in to try and drag SOLO’s reputation for rational debate into this gutter of the unthinking and unreasonable?

  126. Michael Oliver says:

    Great debate you guys have got going on here. Really interesting and intense content. Good reads all round.

  127. Glenn Jameson says:

    Ron… so you’re not going to back up your Somalia claim then?

  128. dr. president ron "i've delivered over 4000 babies, of course i understand the constitution" paul says:

    face it Glenn, you’ve been perigowned

  129. Michael Oliver says:

    Salient must make 44-year-old Glenn Jameson so angry.

  130. Michael Oliver says:

    so who’s everyone’s fave Beatle? I like George best.

  131. Brendan says:

    Glenn: “I have no problem with the quotes – you and Coates deserved worse.”

    As I remember, Coates was the somewhat rotund chap with a penchant for pontificating. He was christened with a girly name by the funmeister himself. How the rafters rang with rational and joyous laughter: fat, nerdy boy with the girly name!

    Glenn: “Or have you only dropped in to try and drag SOLO’s reputation for rational debate into this gutter of the unthinking and unreasonable?”

    Doesn’t need my help. SOLO and the Salient op-eds achieve that all on their own. Witness an early Salient opinion column: “Chamberlain, dear reader, for the benefit of the legion of state-worshipping, state-lobotomised airheads among you…”

    Perigo’s Salient modus operandi has been fairly basic:

    Perigo [shits on audience]: Eat that, skanky student Islamo-fucking filth! [exits extreme far right]

    Salient audience: Pheeew! [throws shit back]

    Jameson [rushes on, wringing hands]: Stop! Stop! Mr Perigo expresses beautiful and noble thoughts about Islamo-fascist filth, and you treat his offerings like shit. How dare you! Scum…cowards…ratbag students…tax is murder…grrr [storms off, kicks cat].

  132. Glenn Jameson says:

    Completely evaded the questions, Brendan: what is your position on Salient anonymity and the quality of Salient debate?

    As for the rest of you: *yawn*

  133. Michael Oliver says:

    Although a strong case could be made for Paul and John, obviously, but Ringo? I think John Lennon was once quoted as saying Ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles.

  134. Brendan says:

    Glenn: “Completely evaded the questions, Brendan: what is your position on Salient anonymity and the quality of Salient debate?”

    I don’t have a major problem with anonymity. It’s now become an established part of web etiquette. More to the point, you get a better handle on a person by what they say rather than what they’re called.

    As for Salient debate, it’s a mixed bag, as anywhere on the web, including SOLO. But I couldn’t do better than quote the author of the article above: “Ironically, most of his writing seems to have veered away from such high rational ideals into goading his opponents with rhetoric and emotionally loaded language.”

    I don’t believe Perigo had any intention of sparking a “debate”. His primary aim was to attract like-minded people. Let’s take another look at a typical passage:

    “… this hybrid of gargoyle and dominatrix …her child-molesters-of-the- mind run our education system on her behalf and deliberately dumb down our youngsters so they’ll vote for her when they come of age (hence the illiterate zombies emerging from her universities); she pays the unproductive with the money of the productive to be reproductive and breed even more voters for her…”

    Glenn, you may believe that this passage represents an ‘argument’, and I guess there is one buried somewhere beneath the invective. But to borrow a Randism, what person of self-esteem would want to debate a proposition that forces them to implicitly accept that they are illiterate zombies or worse?

    Technically, the technique is a logical fallacy called Complex Question (‘have you stopped beating your wife’) as I am no doubt you are aware. Perigo picked up this dirty little trick from the Rand song book.

    You make great play of your desire for rational debate, and I applaud that, but Objectivism has a long way to go to clean up its own act in this respect, and unfortunately the contamination comes from the top.

    You could start small, for example, by investigating the alleged US Library of Congress “poll”, which supposedly established Atlas Shrugged as second only to the Bible in its influence on readers’ lives. So there’s a test of your commitment to reality.

  135. Glenn Jameson says:

    Brendan: “I don’t have a major problem with anonymity. It’s now become an established part of web etiquette. More to the point, you get a better handle on a person by what they say rather than what they’re called.”

    What person? Who? There is no tangible entity called anonymous, Brendan. The fact you think the empty hyperbole spewed out by the anons here has anything to do with etiquette is a joke. Though I’m not surprised someone of your character has contrived a way to justify it.

    Brendan: “As for Salient debate, it’s a mixed bag, as anywhere on the web, including SOLO.”

    And *pop* goes your argument, Brendan; that you think the quality of “debate” here even comes close to the very worst argument posted on SOLO exposes you for the truculent and untruthful troll you really are.

    I really can’t stomach anymore of this. You’ll fit right in here, Hutching…

  136. Glenn Jameson says:

    Ayn Rand can have the last word (I won’t be back to check)…

    “At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did, as follows:

    1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
    2. Epistemology: Reason
    3. Ethics: Self-interest
    4. Politics: Capitalism

    If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:

    1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
    2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
    3. “Man is an end in himself.”
    4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

    In the space of a column, I can give only the briefest summary of my position, as a frame-of-reference for all my future columns. My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

    1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
    2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
    3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
    4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”

    “Introducing Objectivism,” Ayn Rand

    http://dictionary.reference.com/
    http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/basic.php
    http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/rholton/write/writehome.html
    http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?

  137. I like Paul the best. He’s sort of cute for an old man. And John. But they’re really the most public two. I’ll say Paul, he’s still alive.

  138. Michael Oliver says:

    Yeah, I felt sorry for Paul when Heather Mills took him to the cleaners. Look where that kinky amputee sex got him.

  139. Michael Oliver says:

    Brendan’s unceremonious dunking of 44-year-old Glenn Jameson is possibly one of the most satisfyingly awesome things I’ve read online in very long time.

  140. maggie says:

    A vote for Ringo! He’s always so happy.

    Glenn is sooo still reading this. Hi Glenn – you are 2 years younger than my dad! Fun!

  141. Evee says:

    heh anal rand

  142. Michael Oliver says:

    I kinda hope the next stirrer has something more to offer than “cowardly custards”. That shit was embarrassing, man.

  143. Cog says:

    Glenn just ran away because he was afraid of losing :) he probably thought he had the upper hand, considering he was attempting to debate with people half his age… what a pity a grown man cannot handle being stood up to :)

  144. That custardly coward.

  145. Michael Oliver says:

    We should compile a list of SOLO insults and see how well they stack up in real life.

    Say, the next time someone knocks into me on the street without apologising, I’ll whip out “cowardly custard” and see how fucking burned that person feels afterwards.

    Rude checkout girl at New World Metro? Call her a sleazy saddamite.

    Uppity Mormon knocking on your door and disturbing your mid-afternoon nap? Paedomorphic pussy.

    Just… fucking… gah…

    … I can’t even imagine being able to breathe after being dealt a dunk like one of those.

  146. Murray N Rothbard says:

    You could try “anarcho-Saddamite”, apparently big linz is going to start slapping these guys, so watch out! Next time some muthfucka cuts you off in traffic, just scream ‘fucking anarcho-Saddamite” out ya window, no doubt they will soon be heading for the weeds.

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport
1

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge