I don't believe Rand would agree with Peikoff's attitude. He speaks as though a war has already begun. If Iran actually attacked my view would be different.
@outsidemendham I agree. But something has changed in this man's attitude from a lecture he gave a number of years ago. He would not have supported the use of force back then as he clearly stated. I'd have to try and dig out the lecture but I am right on that point and that point alone...it just seems to me as points go..it's a biggy.
Piekoff drops context: Choosing the type of ammunition is not comparable to deciding for or against the use nuclear weapons. If you simply tell the military to use whatever means necessary for a decisive victory with the least possible U.S. casualties, a nuke is always the answer.
Compared to Peikoff, O'Reilly seems almost reasonable. I'm a libertarian and I've never trusted the Objectivists. When you see what Peikoff and Yaron Brook advocate it's clear that the Ayn Rand Institute is nothing more than a mouthpeice for wacko, radical Zionism. If Peikoff wants to attack Iran let him lead the charge. It would never happen because, like all neo-cons he's a gutless cowardly chicken hawk.
well, o'reilly did engage in ad hominem--dr. strangelove, he compared him to. sign of weakness. problem is, there's no time to really sit and talk it out on such a show. scary world before this and after this, i say.
Oh wow.. I was looking for lectures on objectivism because I taught it would be a raitonal way of thinking... If the best follower of Ayn rand is this guy then objectivism can suck my dick.. you hear you old dead bat...ayn ... u can suck my dick...but i wont let you cause you were always way to ugly all your life ya fucking cunt..
@timemastro It is, but you should not go to Peikoff on issues like this. David Kelly is a much better exponent of Rand's philosophy, as are the likes of Tibor Machan, George Reisman, Larry Sechrest, Douglas den Uyl, Douglas Rasmussen and Roderick Long. Not all of them remain Objectivists but they provide a rational analysis of her philosophy and in some cases agree on many points with her.
I truly hope people can realize the the actual principles of Objectivism are not the same as those spouted by Peikoff, ARI and somethings mentioned by Rand herself.
@SP64 I thought he was crazy when I first heard this interview, but reviewing it now it makes sense :/. Seems to make more sense the MORE I studied Objectivism (wouldn't call it a serious study).
Maybe you are just trying to soften the propaganda blow --- that invariably the left would use against us --- by pretending that this isn't an example of Objectivism.
But anyhow, that's why Yaron Brook take's care of the interviews and media activism now. I say it's the same message, just better put.
@GeminiK I just thought Objectivism was a philosophy that didn't promote total war. Perhaps it is understandable to defend ourselves from defeat we can utilize whatever weaponry possible. I may be wrong. I do need to do more research on the topic.
@SP64 It doesn't. Modern "objectivists" have turned Rand's philosophy into a cult. She had many, many good points and I do not recall her ever advocating total wars. She wasn't a warhawk, and believed American corporate interests dealing in lawless countries dug their own graves.
@Moragauth That was my original thinking. I would like to find more people who advocate Rand's works but I'm distrustful of ARI (and the Atlas Society too). From my basic understanding of Rand, they seem to contradict her at times. I do hope I can find other people or organizations that can help further my understanding of Objectivism.
@natritious1 Iran is responsible for sponsoring and arranging numerous terror attacks against America throughout the decades, including supporting terrorist organizations like the Hezbollah that held US citizens hostages. You need to study some history.
"What if you're wrong"? - "What if 2 + 2 isn't 4?" lol x 1000. Honestly, Peikoff is wrong. O'Reily is wrong and there isn't enough space here to explain why. But gotta love that Peikoff's connects his political opinions to the basics of mathematics haha!
Leonard Peikoff doesnt understand that fear´of death does not affect religious fundamentalists, they think they will come to paradise if they die, they will start a jihad and they will dare no matter how intimidated they are by the US. They just need an excuse for it...
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
Dr. Peikoff has a long history of advocating an emotional strategy in regards to these sorts of military measures. Cleary (and shockingly lol), O'Reilly is on the right track although partially, and for the wrong reasons. These countries need to explode from the inside out with new IDEAS. You can't blow them up, in the hopes of making them peaceful towards us. Another strategy is needed. I just wish he and others could leave Rand's name out of their opinions. Stand on your own feet!
@john42t I like it as well, but when he's wrong, he usually backs it up by saying - "if you don't agree, you're not an Objectivist". In truth, it's ideas that bring down governments, not bombs. No one likes a dictatorship. There are different types of force in this world. But the most subversive and effective would be to drop -- literally -- ideas on people's heads. Like arabic versions of The Fountainhead, 1984, Brave New World, Baywatch, Dallas, James Bond, etc.
@shonstar "if you don't agree, you're not an Objectivist" is something I often want to through into peoples faces, even though I usually know better and ironically never called myself an Objectivist in the first place. I fully agree on ideas being the everything and force only a means for defence.
I'm a Libertarian who has never agreed much with O'Reilly on just about anything. I'm even a fan of Ayn Rand, but Peikoff makes O'Reilly look like the epitome of sanity in this video. He's even more war-crazed than the neocons.
And I wouldnt trust George Bush with a slingshot, let alone with full scale military strategy. True, the government supplies the military with its objectives, however, the strategy for achieving those objectives is primarily the domain of the military. Another priceless example of O'Reilly ignorance...
I understand that he sounds extreme but think about it rationally. You cannot carry out a goalless or "friendly" war. if you try and achieve either of things you wind up with the preposterous stalemate that has lasted for years in Iraq draining money and lives from both countries to no real avail. He is not advocating violence for the sake of violence, he is saying that that if one is attacked, you have the moral right to retaliate and if you do, you must do it fully and where it is effective.
@WillScrillz First of all Will, lets gets straight what Peikoff is proposing. He is proposing pre-emptive nuclear strike killing tens of millions of innocent people in Iran. The vast majority of whom were born in the last 25 years, have never lifted a finger against the United States, and who love and yearn for freedom, American culture and American values. Once against you objectivists mistake your own perverted and sadistic whims for rational thought, you are moral idiots of the highest order.
@WillScrillz I think people are forgetting that human beings are involved. Where there is a choice, concern for human life should always be the imperative. The US and any other country involved has a choice, therefore any other available means should be favored first and foremost.
@WillScrillz Except innocents had no part in their government initiating war against other countries. Peikoff is partially correct in my opinion that aggressor governments bear partial if not all culpability for innocents' deaths, but the US provokes and initiates conflicts itself. It often even arms its "enemies" and supports dictators. So I agree with him on some principles but the US is far from innocent itself, and like Rand suggested, those who support war alone should fund it.
@Moragauth I say this because if a terrorist uses a baby, say, as a meatshield I'd say they bore culpability if you had to shoot it to kill them in defending yourself. I think you can extrapolate from this to aggressor governments bearing the same kind of blame, but it really is context-dependent. If you go out of your way to kill innocents you become the aggressor. It helps not to think in aggregates.
O'Reilly sounds reasonable compared to Peikoff. You start with Rand herself and guys like Nathaniel Branden, and you end with this turd Peikoff. It seems like most objectivists would have splintered off like Roderick Long or Stefan Molyneux.
"What difference does it make if the Taliban is overthrown when the force of the whole movement is in Iran." Wow, this guy is a disgrace to us Leonards.
I LOVE OBJECTIVISM, but Iran has nothing to do with what he said. In fact, Iran and Irak haven't attacked USA, and objectivism is only for self-defense. This guy seems an extremist.
@Grazpop - He didn't say that "taking care not to murder civilians" threatens us. You ridicule & mis-state that which you don't understand. That's called a knee-jerk reaction.
It seems that the more that I look into objectivism the more I become disillusioned with it. I respect Ayn Rand and some of her ideas, but objectivism appears flawed in some aspects.
Peikoff is very seriously unbalanced. Deranged, actually. He believes that taking care not to murder civilians somehow threatens us. When Bill O'Reilly is a voice of relative moderation on US defense, you know you're on the lunatic fringe. And THIS is what Ayn Rand saw as her intellectual heir, this paper tiger?
Peikoff is by definition always right. Peikoff is No. 2 when it comes to reasonableness and rationality in the world. You shut your mouth, young man. Peikoff is 35,098 times the man you are.
the interesting thing is that the terrorists are fulfilling Peikoff's philosophy. indiscriminantly attacking their aggressors. 9/11 was a revenge attack. make like ron paul and look at the history of the US/ western world's involvement in the middle east. it wouldn't shock me if this guy was a zionist.
We're all human at the core. Don't you realize that this is what Objectivism is all about? How can you logically have war, hate, and malice when you can logically deduce problems down to a set of core values that cannot be twisted, turned, and used against the people?
I love people. I'm really a hippie at heart. Think about Woodstock for a second. A bunch of drugged out hippies they were, but they were all thinking on the same plane. The only difference between Peikoff and hippies is that
@cbk41 There is a limited supply of Marijauna, acoustic guitars, and Phish cds. Common, objective, and experimentally based knowledge and logic are the roots of Objectivism. How can you disagree with Isaac Newton? Somehow disprove gravity? Well, you'd either have to be in a sweatshop lab doing experiments all day to no avail, or you could just say "I 'think' you're wrong". If you were asked to logically point out why you believe so, you couldn't. Religion provides a basis for disproving logic
Peikoff basically makes no distinction between the enemy and civilians using a self-defense argument. By his logic, if someone is attacked in public and pulls out a gun to defend himself, its okay to spray all the bystanders along with his attacker, because he's defending himself. He also contradicts individual rights clearly.
@john42t to be an anarchist you have to assume government and industry are the same, which leads to many problems. The idea of competing gov't doesnt work. In a democracy there is mob rule, which I don't agree with, therefore you need a set if objective laws, like a constitution.
I'm an Objectivist and I really dislike Leonard Peikoff. Seriously, there is a lot of stuff Ayn Rand and other Objectivists say that really pisses me off because it isn't Objectivist.
@SP64 How could Ayn Rand say something that wasn't Objectivist? You mean like she said things that weren't consistent with principles of Objectivism that she had previously established?
See Objectivism always seemed to me to be a philosophy of peace. Only attack, when we are attacked. ARI and Ayn Rand have advocated defending other nations and the use of nuclear weapons at the expense of civilians of the bombed countries. That doesn't seem right according to Objectivism. War in general, as well.
This is the dumbest, most insensitive crap I've seen on O'Reilly to date. But I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you have the chief dogmatist of Randroids in Peikoff and an ignorant talking (dick)head of Fox News in O'Reilly on the same screen. The two bastards should go fuck each other.
Leonard Peikoff advocates THE most evil foreign policy in American politics. He believes that we should invade Iran and all other oil producing countries, using nuclear force if necessary, simply because their oil rightfully belongs to American oil companies. If people with Ayn Rands mindset get into power it may well mean the end of our species.
I used to be a follower of objectivism. And it's astonishing to see how un-philosophical this "philosophical" movement actually is. How does our moral right to self defense include the moral right to radiate the neighbors of our target with nuclear weaponry? Does my right to defend myself inside a shopping mall include my right to burn the mall down? It would be pretty "decisive," you know...
@john42t Objectivism isn't a movement. Ayn Rand was an objectivist, but did not 'preach' for any mass movement. To be Objectivist is to be what is uniquely human. We have the capacity to think for ourselves, make logical theories, and use every little piece of knowledge we acquire over the years to make better informed decisions everyday. To be Objectivist is to merely think. If everyone were to think for themselves, we would all come to VERY similar conclusions. 2+2=4, 2-2=0. Start from there.
@Ayla8711 I understand that you're concerned about the death of innocents. We must understand WHO is putting these innocents at risk- those who want to bring us down. Using care to reduce the deaths of innocents is prudent but NOT to the jeopardy of the mission. Remember that the enemy is using innocents only because they seek to shame us and garner public opinion to slow us down in our duty to protect ourselves. Morally, we have the right to defend ourselves.
Peikoff must live in a cave. To think that victims of Calvin Gibbs, Jeremy Morlock, David Bram, Kris Sprague; various sheepherders and peasants killed; or victims at Abu Graib, was somehow the responsibility of whatever government there was existing in Afghanistan or Iraq is just insane. Many of these people had little or no interaction with their government officials, and little understanding why the US military had attacked their country. They were just trying to live their lives.
Do I have the moral right to murder Leonard Peikoff? I see him and his sick world view as a serious threat to the survival of not only myself but to humanity. Iran is not a threat to the U.S., the U.S. is a threat to Iran.
@vincentrand100 - Dr. Peikoff is always right? LOL. Ayn Rand sure didn't think so. I am a big fan of Rand's, but I think she made a mistake in appointing someone who is clearly autistic as her "intellectual heir." I know she had a falling out with Branden, but there must have been someone better to appoint (if, indeed, an intellectual heir needed appointing at all!).
@mkadams99 This quote shows why the world is spiraling out of control; you obviously know nothing of objectivism. Peikoff is simply saying that we should have the moral integrity to stand up for ourself- not worry about what other people are going to say about our decision.
The man is right. Iran is the main cause and the main root of all the evils in the world. You have to stop being a paper tiger and confront Iran before it is too late.
If they grab you first they are going to fuck your white ass so hard that your eyes pop out
@BaDumTiiiiish Yes good point, we need to think of our own self preservation first. But this arguement essentially tells us to be passive unless we have a consensus in the world to go in to invade-totally anti-objective. I don't think Piekoff is a madman by any degree. Yea I agree very much how extreme Peikoff sounds. If things went as Piekoff saw them, I would hope nations would take sides and the rational ones should side with USA, the ones who where trying to defend themselves.
@vtchaz - Germany and japan have not sought revenge on us because of the way we treated them after the war. Have you forgotten that WWII was started in part because of the crappy treatment Germany recieved after WWI? Do you really think Hitler would've risen to power if the people weren't so disenfranchised? Open up a history book dude.
@BaDumTiiiiish I do to the extent that wars need to be all in or none at all. vietnam is good example of how we only had one foot in the door, and it showed. His point is this-war is war and if we don't want to shoot up all of afghanistan we should not have gone in the first place. All or Nothing
1o years later, and look at that "Dr. Crazy" was RIGHT. Turns out Iran is the biggest threat today. Mr. O'Reilly and all who supported the war in Iraq was WRONG and it's going to cost many more innocent American lives, not to mention the countless others innocent lives all throughout the Mideast. Don't underestimate Dr. Peikoff's intelligence.
1o years later, and look at that "Dr. Crazy" was RIGHT. Turns out Iran is the biggest threat today. Mr. O'Reilly and all who supported the war in Iraq was WRONG and it's going to cost many more innocent American lives, not to mention the countless others innocent lives all throughout the Mideast. Don't underestimate Dr. Peikoff's intelligence
1o years later, and look at that "Dr. Crazy" was RIGHT. Turns out Iran is the biggest threat today. Mr. O'Reilly and all who supported the war in Iraq was WRONG and it's going to cost many more innocent American lives, not to mention the countless others innocent lives all throughout the Mideast. Don't underestimate Dr. Peikoff's intelligence
O'Reilly hasn't the faintest idea of what the issue involves because he has nearly no idea of how to think properly. To put it mildly and succinctl Dr. Peikoff is dealing with foreign policy in full context and by thinking in essentials. O'Reilly's argument is wholesale anti-American Modernist dreck .
Dr. Peikoff is simply identifying the root cause of Islamic terrorism as well as indicating what actually is the only real solution. O'Reilly's policy would simply buy time for the Islamicists.
@0getdown One of my theories is that Saudi-Arabian welfare is one of the causes, but Peikoff doesn't mention Saudi-Arabia. I'm sure Iran is pretty bad, but what makes you so sure that he really has analyzed the pieces properly? Why would nuking Iran solve the problem?
Good god I never thought I'd live to see the day when I agreed with Bill O'Reilly. Leonard is making himself look more stupid than Glenn Beck in this one. I find it funny that an Objectivist is so rediculously collectivist in his rethoric towards the middle east and his own country. All this inspite of his raving "every man for himself" bullshit.
He is totally right. Its war. Fight to win, or you have no business going to war. That attitude will save more lives than any other strategy. Warriors should run wars, not politicians. O'Reilly is a joke. Peikoff was exactly right. Military men must pick the weapons and win the wars. If you dont fight to win, you put your own citizens at risk. It is the job of the aggressor country to protect its citizens. It will make people think twice before attacking. You dont hear Japan bitching
Peikoff talks about fighting the enemy and with no concern whatsoever about the innocents. It's interesting how the biggest pussies in the world talk about killing and mayhem like tough guys when in reality these guys usually opt out of any draft, run away from any war and piss their pants when confronted. They are only tough when they can send YOUNG MEN TO FIGHT THEIR BATTLES.
........
mR. Peikoff, you are a pussy and I would love to have the opportunity to kick you sissy ass you moron!
@jrgenkratz THANK YOU! I do like some of what Ayn Rand had to say, but CHRIST this guy is a supremacist wad. You should hear him talk about "Arabs." He addresses the Middle East conflict as a being between a moral beacon (yeah right) and Arab savages, not two dogmatic states.
I mean, just because someone HAPPENS to be born in Iran because his or her state leader does something means that you can kill that individual. What if that's the next Galt? Wait, he/she's not "Amurican," so who cares.
@jwhat01 I know perfectly well where he is coming from. I have read my share of Rand and I appreciate it a lot. However, when it comes to the courts, the police, and most of all, the military, objectivists often turn ridiculously statist and collectivist in their rhetoric. It is not uncommon to hear ridiculous things such as "the self interest of the nation". Only an anarchist can follow the moral philosophy of Rand completely. Minarchist objectivists will always resort to self-contradictions.
@jrgenkratz I kind of agree with your argument, although I still am a minarchist. I know that the state steals to fund the courts and defence, but I'd rather it steals to that end than having the mob rule. I'm conceding that at some point society might be rational enough for an anarchy in the sense that courts and defence is paid voluntarily, but until then? When there's irrational mob occupying an official building or company premise, someone needs to deal with them in a language they speak.
In Germany, we bombed Dresden into the stone age. In Japan, we dropped nukes on them until they gave up. Then there's Vietnam, with the ridiculous rules of engagement (created by politicians,not Generals). We put their civilian's lives ahead of our own troop's lives, and it cost us big time. If a foreign nation puts civilians in danger by creating a threatening environment towards the US, then it is not our fault when they are killed because they forced us to defend ourselves. It is that simple.
@deserteagle02356 Well, if your government/military hadn't lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Americans wouldn't have gone into Vietnam in the first place. Oh wait, they were already there as "advisors." How convenient there were thousands of troops already there when the "incident" happened.
Yeah.. I'm sure villagers with pitch forks were a HUGE threat to the US.
I think the big flaw in Peikoff's case is that dropping nukes has POLITICAL ramifications, and thus, civilian politicians should be involved in the decision. Achieving the most efficient military victory is not the only consideration when it comes to war. His argument is grossly oversimplified, unless I'm missing something.
@jwhat01 "..consequences of spreading radiation have to be considered."
When I say political consequences, I'm talking more about setting precedents, causing new conflicts, etc. My point is that he's only addressing the most surface-level pragmatic issues of waging war. If the US invaded Canada tomorrow, it would have consequences beyond those of the physical war itself. Politicians should make the policy, and then let the military handle the details of carrying it out within set perimeters.
Holy crap how fcukin' stupid is it possible to get before O'Reilly's body tries to get rid of his head as a useless limb!!!
He is actually aggressively pretending that there is a priciple difference between him and Mr Peikoff, but what does he wrap it up with!? A statement that clearly show that the only difference is that he would wait a bit longer before sending the nukes.
O'Relly, shut tha fcuk up. You're too dumb to be entitled to an opinion!
@sybo59 When it speards STD's like wildfire across the world it can be pretty damn scary. A full 1 in 4 American women have STDs by the time they reach 19. The percentages of adult American females with STDs are through the roof. American women are pretty vile.
@Gregamania69 Women are typically more easily infected by STDs. Most of the time, it's just with HPV. And why are you blaming it all on women? It takes two to tango.
On top of that, a disproportionate number of STD cases are attributed to black people. By your logic, black people must be pretty "vile."
@AshillaBeige I didn't say all women, just American ones. Most women throughout the world have a sense of decency and modesty. Most American women will spread their legs for a cheese burger. White woimen are the sluttiest ones. I see them with blacks all the time. No other group of women fuck black guys as often as white women do. They are just plain nasty.
To clarify, O'Reilly was the one who brought up bombing an entire country. Peikoff is saying we should destroy the enemy as fast as possible, but it is for the military to decide which method would be best.
@UnrecycleRubdish Actually it was Peikoff who first said that in war, everyone in a country must be considered an enemy, regardless of military or civilian. That is fairly bizarre, but not really, by Ayn Rand standards.
@frellthat Have you studied history? Are you aware of how wars have been fought all throughout human history? The modern concept of the "kind and gentle war" has only existed since the 1980's and is extremely bizarre by historical standards. Think about it; as long as a human is wearing a certain uniform, it;s ok to murder her. But if she is not wearing that uniform, it is immoral to murder her. That makes no sense, considering most soldiers become soldiers through a draft, not as volunteers.
What Peikoff doesn't understand is that protecting the innocent abroad is essential to any war effort. Only half of war is fought on the battlefield. The other half is fought within the hearts and minds of the people, on both sides of the conflict.
If they start getting belligerent after we leave, we can just go in again. The change is up to them, it's something they need to initiate, we only need defend ourselves. Of course, in these two meat grinders there's no possibility of that. The West should never have been in either of those places.
ah yes. I believe you're referring to WWII? Oh wait, we won that war by killing almost anything that walked or crawled if it happened to be in the 'wrong' place. Sorry... perhaps you had another war in mind.
@vtchaz What the fuck are you talking about? I wasn't referring to any specific war, I was just speaking in general. Pull your head out of your ass and read the comments before you go rambling on about shit you don't understand.
@Ayla8711 my my my, a bit touchy aren't we? And I did read the comments.. the first time. You are correct, you weren't referring to ANY war, which was my point; you were putting forth the warm and fuzzy theory that war should be fought in essentially to protect the innocent. That's insane. Sure, when you're not at war against an entire nation, minimizing civilian casualties should be part of the overall plan, but it shouldn't be an overriding element. So pull your head outta your own ass.
@vtchaz How does throwing a random war in my face prove your point? And since when is protecting civilian populations a 'warm and fuzzy theorey'? Protecting the innocent should never be the main reason to go to war but if you are going to fight it best be a priority. Otherwise they're likely to replace those killed on the battlefield or cause conflict in the future.
Now with that said go crawl back in your hole and jack off to Atlas Shrugged you troll.
@Ayla8711 There was nothing random about it... it was the last one we actually won. If we had tried to protect the civilian populations in WWII, we still be fighting it (or we would've lost). Using your 'conflict in the future' logic, I suppose we should still be waiting on Germany and/or Japan to 'seek revenge'?
As far as crawling back in my hole and jacking off to Atlas Shrugged, you have a such a wonderful command of the language... too bad it's devoid of any reason.
Bill O'Reilly using his own words is a "pinhead"
gocrusaderz 2 days ago
I don't believe Rand would agree with Peikoff's attitude. He speaks as though a war has already begun. If Iran actually attacked my view would be different.
Avidcomp 6 days ago
@Avidcomp
Believe me, Miss Rand choose her heir very carefully. Peikoff gives here quasi-verbatim Ayn Rand's view of military conflict.
outsidemendham 12 hours ago
@outsidemendham I agree. But something has changed in this man's attitude from a lecture he gave a number of years ago. He would not have supported the use of force back then as he clearly stated. I'd have to try and dig out the lecture but I am right on that point and that point alone...it just seems to me as points go..it's a biggy.
Avidcomp 11 hours ago
It's like watching a space-alien on Mescaline.
dft309 3 weeks ago
Piekoff drops context: Choosing the type of ammunition is not comparable to deciding for or against the use nuclear weapons. If you simply tell the military to use whatever means necessary for a decisive victory with the least possible U.S. casualties, a nuke is always the answer.
sybo59 3 weeks ago
O'reilly should listen to this and then listen to his own interviews, and realise how ridiculous he himself sounds.
Moragauth 3 weeks ago
Compared to Peikoff, O'Reilly seems almost reasonable. I'm a libertarian and I've never trusted the Objectivists. When you see what Peikoff and Yaron Brook advocate it's clear that the Ayn Rand Institute is nothing more than a mouthpeice for wacko, radical Zionism. If Peikoff wants to attack Iran let him lead the charge. It would never happen because, like all neo-cons he's a gutless cowardly chicken hawk.
jburtonca 4 weeks ago
@jburtonca When I look at the libertarian movement, I become extremely proud of how libertarians despise me and the philosophy for which I stand.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 weeks ago
well, o'reilly did engage in ad hominem--dr. strangelove, he compared him to. sign of weakness. problem is, there's no time to really sit and talk it out on such a show. scary world before this and after this, i say.
vinnynumbnuts 1 month ago
Oh wow.. I was looking for lectures on objectivism because I taught it would be a raitonal way of thinking... If the best follower of Ayn rand is this guy then objectivism can suck my dick.. you hear you old dead bat...ayn ... u can suck my dick...but i wont let you cause you were always way to ugly all your life ya fucking cunt..
timemastro 1 month ago
@timemastro Who told you that objectivism and rationality are your thing? Very bad advice... ;)
scepticsteve 3 weeks ago
@timemastro It is, but you should not go to Peikoff on issues like this. David Kelly is a much better exponent of Rand's philosophy, as are the likes of Tibor Machan, George Reisman, Larry Sechrest, Douglas den Uyl, Douglas Rasmussen and Roderick Long. Not all of them remain Objectivists but they provide a rational analysis of her philosophy and in some cases agree on many points with her.
Moragauth 3 weeks ago
My God! This guy saw the problem 30 years before!
AndresHerutJaim 1 month ago
Gosh, Bill O'Reilly seemed like the good guy in this video. Never thought it was possible.
brianmo180 2 months ago
this idiot sees it fit to kill off innocent people..what a heartless weirdo..
cocamoca 2 months ago
I truly hope people can realize the the actual principles of Objectivism are not the same as those spouted by Peikoff, ARI and somethings mentioned by Rand herself.
SP64 2 months ago
@SP64 I thought he was crazy when I first heard this interview, but reviewing it now it makes sense :/. Seems to make more sense the MORE I studied Objectivism (wouldn't call it a serious study).
Maybe you are just trying to soften the propaganda blow --- that invariably the left would use against us --- by pretending that this isn't an example of Objectivism.
But anyhow, that's why Yaron Brook take's care of the interviews and media activism now. I say it's the same message, just better put.
GeminiK 1 month ago
@GeminiK I just thought Objectivism was a philosophy that didn't promote total war. Perhaps it is understandable to defend ourselves from defeat we can utilize whatever weaponry possible. I may be wrong. I do need to do more research on the topic.
I do appreciate the civil reply.
SP64 1 month ago
@SP64 It doesn't. Modern "objectivists" have turned Rand's philosophy into a cult. She had many, many good points and I do not recall her ever advocating total wars. She wasn't a warhawk, and believed American corporate interests dealing in lawless countries dug their own graves.
Moragauth 3 weeks ago
Well said. I think she's rolling over in her grave. Come on... Bill O'Reilly finds him too fanatical!
MrRob1967 2 weeks ago
@Moragauth That was my original thinking. I would like to find more people who advocate Rand's works but I'm distrustful of ARI (and the Atlas Society too). From my basic understanding of Rand, they seem to contradict her at times. I do hope I can find other people or organizations that can help further my understanding of Objectivism.
Thank you for the civil reply.
SP64 1 week ago
When on Earth has Iran Initiated force against the US? what is peikoff smoking?
natritious1 2 months ago
@natritious1 Iran is responsible for sponsoring and arranging numerous terror attacks against America throughout the decades, including supporting terrorist organizations like the Hezbollah that held US citizens hostages. You need to study some history.
orendo 2 months ago
"What if you're wrong"? - "What if 2 + 2 isn't 4?" lol x 1000. Honestly, Peikoff is wrong. O'Reily is wrong and there isn't enough space here to explain why. But gotta love that Peikoff's connects his political opinions to the basics of mathematics haha!
shonstar 2 months ago
1:04 -- slippery slope + misleading vividness
4:27 -- strawman
5:15 -- ad hominem + appeal to laughter
5:30 -- strawman
5:58 -- strawman
7453R 2 months ago
Keep talking Peikoff. The more you talk the more people realize your a fraud.
perdondaris 3 months ago
Dr Peikoff has shown to be 100% right.
O'Reilly is a sophist and intellectually empty: his condescending demeanor is a subsitute for his lack of an intellectual argument.
theow232541 3 months ago in playlist my playlist
O'Reilly is incredibly rude and incredibly stupid in this clip. Dr Peikoff is 100% right.
grobanista 3 months ago
Comment removed
grobanista 3 months ago
Leonard Peikoff doesnt understand that fear´of death does not affect religious fundamentalists, they think they will come to paradise if they die, they will start a jihad and they will dare no matter how intimidated they are by the US. They just need an excuse for it...
unfad1ng 3 months ago
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
redshark618 4 months ago
I wonder how badly "that other way" have to fail before O'Reilly decides to go Peikoff's way.
Maybe after a nuke goes off in an American city?
MartinPerssonDotName 4 months ago 2
Dr. Peikoff has a long history of advocating an emotional strategy in regards to these sorts of military measures. Cleary (and shockingly lol), O'Reilly is on the right track although partially, and for the wrong reasons. These countries need to explode from the inside out with new IDEAS. You can't blow them up, in the hopes of making them peaceful towards us. Another strategy is needed. I just wish he and others could leave Rand's name out of their opinions. Stand on your own feet!
shonstar 4 months ago
@shonstar I agree, but I like his absolutism. :-)
john42t 2 months ago
@john42t I like it as well, but when he's wrong, he usually backs it up by saying - "if you don't agree, you're not an Objectivist". In truth, it's ideas that bring down governments, not bombs. No one likes a dictatorship. There are different types of force in this world. But the most subversive and effective would be to drop -- literally -- ideas on people's heads. Like arabic versions of The Fountainhead, 1984, Brave New World, Baywatch, Dallas, James Bond, etc.
shonstar 2 months ago
@shonstar "if you don't agree, you're not an Objectivist" is something I often want to through into peoples faces, even though I usually know better and ironically never called myself an Objectivist in the first place. I fully agree on ideas being the everything and force only a means for defence.
john42t 2 months ago
people like these need to be imprisoned
teshanovic1 5 months ago
I love Rand, except her foreign policy. But this is horrible!
derekaiton 5 months ago
two insane, sick fucks...
i would bet they both eat human flesh, ritualistically...
hummingbirdhoneybear 5 months ago
I'm a Libertarian who has never agreed much with O'Reilly on just about anything. I'm even a fan of Ayn Rand, but Peikoff makes O'Reilly look like the epitome of sanity in this video. He's even more war-crazed than the neocons.
VaudevilleVillain 5 months ago
I suppose this guy doesn't see how he is the terrorist - he is the savage he see's in others - the man is totally insane
Judy101101 5 months ago
And I wouldnt trust George Bush with a slingshot, let alone with full scale military strategy. True, the government supplies the military with its objectives, however, the strategy for achieving those objectives is primarily the domain of the military. Another priceless example of O'Reilly ignorance...
WillScrillz 5 months ago 13
I understand that he sounds extreme but think about it rationally. You cannot carry out a goalless or "friendly" war. if you try and achieve either of things you wind up with the preposterous stalemate that has lasted for years in Iraq draining money and lives from both countries to no real avail. He is not advocating violence for the sake of violence, he is saying that that if one is attacked, you have the moral right to retaliate and if you do, you must do it fully and where it is effective.
WillScrillz 5 months ago 24
@WillScrillz You have to win hearts and minds. It goes back to marginal state vs. ideological state.
Decentralism 4 months ago
@WillScrillz First of all Will, lets gets straight what Peikoff is proposing. He is proposing pre-emptive nuclear strike killing tens of millions of innocent people in Iran. The vast majority of whom were born in the last 25 years, have never lifted a finger against the United States, and who love and yearn for freedom, American culture and American values. Once against you objectivists mistake your own perverted and sadistic whims for rational thought, you are moral idiots of the highest order.
Fray2221 3 months ago in playlist Randian Philosophy & Rational Thinkers
@WillScrillz I think people are forgetting that human beings are involved. Where there is a choice, concern for human life should always be the imperative. The US and any other country involved has a choice, therefore any other available means should be favored first and foremost.
likeprestige 2 months ago
@WillScrillz Except innocents had no part in their government initiating war against other countries. Peikoff is partially correct in my opinion that aggressor governments bear partial if not all culpability for innocents' deaths, but the US provokes and initiates conflicts itself. It often even arms its "enemies" and supports dictators. So I agree with him on some principles but the US is far from innocent itself, and like Rand suggested, those who support war alone should fund it.
Moragauth 3 weeks ago
@Moragauth I say this because if a terrorist uses a baby, say, as a meatshield I'd say they bore culpability if you had to shoot it to kill them in defending yourself. I think you can extrapolate from this to aggressor governments bearing the same kind of blame, but it really is context-dependent. If you go out of your way to kill innocents you become the aggressor. It helps not to think in aggregates.
Moragauth 3 weeks ago
Um... that is the first time i (somewhat) agree with O'Reilly. In this video, he doesn't get across as a complete douche. *tips my hat*
obstgarten04 5 months ago
O'Reilly sounds reasonable compared to Peikoff. You start with Rand herself and guys like Nathaniel Branden, and you end with this turd Peikoff. It seems like most objectivists would have splintered off like Roderick Long or Stefan Molyneux.
MaxStirner4Lyfe 5 months ago
"What difference does it make if the Taliban is overthrown when the force of the whole movement is in Iran." Wow, this guy is a disgrace to us Leonards.
LeonardVod 5 months ago
LOL Hitchens says the same thing. Thought it was funny.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
genius logic there, Peikoff. ha
ljeezy2454 5 months ago
Is this guy a true objectivist? He doesn't feel like one to me, but I don't know anything about him.
BagofHay 5 months ago
O'Reilly is a joke ... see youtube video of O'Reilly and Ron Paul, O'Reilly now takes Peikoff's position as his own ... basically
DesertDood 5 months ago
I LOVE OBJECTIVISM, but Iran has nothing to do with what he said. In fact, Iran and Irak haven't attacked USA, and objectivism is only for self-defense. This guy seems an extremist.
notengonickcojones 5 months ago
@Grazpop - He didn't say that "taking care not to murder civilians" threatens us. You ridicule & mis-state that which you don't understand. That's called a knee-jerk reaction.
horseofcoursetack 5 months ago
@MF3FisGoodforYou - regulate & kill? I see. Well, who can argue with THAT reasoned approach. LOL.
horseofcoursetack 5 months ago
@MozillaThaKillah - so, which ideas do you reject? Individual rights? Reason?
horseofcoursetack 5 months ago
@GlorifiedTruth - so, what are your issues with what Leonard had to say in that interview?
horseofcoursetack 5 months ago
@GlorifiedTruth - so, what are your issues with what Leonard had to say in that interview?
horseofcoursetack 5 months ago
It seems that the more that I look into objectivism the more I become disillusioned with it. I respect Ayn Rand and some of her ideas, but objectivism appears flawed in some aspects.
MozillaThaKillah 6 months ago
Peikoff is very seriously unbalanced. Deranged, actually. He believes that taking care not to murder civilians somehow threatens us. When Bill O'Reilly is a voice of relative moderation on US defense, you know you're on the lunatic fringe. And THIS is what Ayn Rand saw as her intellectual heir, this paper tiger?
Grazpop 6 months ago
As crazy as Ayn Rand, those people are simply autistic crazy people. I seriously think we should regulate and kill them.
F3FisGoodforYou 6 months ago
you might not like the sound of it -- but Peikoff is right on.
othereric 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@othereric ... pathetic piece of shit... you have an IQ lower than your anal temperature.
F3FisGoodforYou 6 months ago
@F3FisGoodforYou Yea, and your reply is the zenith of wisdom and rationality... :-\
Hawk999 6 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Peikoff is by definition always right. Peikoff is No. 2 when it comes to reasonableness and rationality in the world. You shut your mouth, young man. Peikoff is 35,098 times the man you are.
outsidemendham 6 months ago
@outsidemendham LOL. Yes, Number Two by definition, after the Great Ayn. His argument DO resemble Number Two across the board.
Grazpop 6 months ago
the interesting thing is that the terrorists are fulfilling Peikoff's philosophy. indiscriminantly attacking their aggressors. 9/11 was a revenge attack. make like ron paul and look at the history of the US/ western world's involvement in the middle east. it wouldn't shock me if this guy was a zionist.
samm1809 6 months ago
We're all human at the core. Don't you realize that this is what Objectivism is all about? How can you logically have war, hate, and malice when you can logically deduce problems down to a set of core values that cannot be twisted, turned, and used against the people?
I love people. I'm really a hippie at heart. Think about Woodstock for a second. A bunch of drugged out hippies they were, but they were all thinking on the same plane. The only difference between Peikoff and hippies is that
cbk41 7 months ago
@cbk41 There is a limited supply of Marijauna, acoustic guitars, and Phish cds. Common, objective, and experimentally based knowledge and logic are the roots of Objectivism. How can you disagree with Isaac Newton? Somehow disprove gravity? Well, you'd either have to be in a sweatshop lab doing experiments all day to no avail, or you could just say "I 'think' you're wrong". If you were asked to logically point out why you believe so, you couldn't. Religion provides a basis for disproving logic
cbk41 7 months ago
Peikoff basically makes no distinction between the enemy and civilians using a self-defense argument. By his logic, if someone is attacked in public and pulls out a gun to defend himself, its okay to spray all the bystanders along with his attacker, because he's defending himself. He also contradicts individual rights clearly.
redcommander27 7 months ago
Comment removed
renzoyllanes2 7 months ago
Comment removed
renzoyllanes2 7 months ago
@john42t to be an anarchist you have to assume government and industry are the same, which leads to many problems. The idea of competing gov't doesnt work. In a democracy there is mob rule, which I don't agree with, therefore you need a set if objective laws, like a constitution.
friedoctorock 7 months ago
Comment removed
asasolsh1 7 months ago
I see some didn't learn from the last World War. At this rate, we won't see the 22nd Century.
Brandmon 8 months ago
I'm an Objectivist and I really dislike Leonard Peikoff. Seriously, there is a lot of stuff Ayn Rand and other Objectivists say that really pisses me off because it isn't Objectivist.
SP64 8 months ago
@SP64 How could Ayn Rand say something that wasn't Objectivist? You mean like she said things that weren't consistent with principles of Objectivism that she had previously established?
AlexanderLee1 3 months ago
@AlexanderLee1
Yea exactly, I should have made it more obvious.
See Objectivism always seemed to me to be a philosophy of peace. Only attack, when we are attacked. ARI and Ayn Rand have advocated defending other nations and the use of nuclear weapons at the expense of civilians of the bombed countries. That doesn't seem right according to Objectivism. War in general, as well.
SP64 2 months ago
This is the dumbest, most insensitive crap I've seen on O'Reilly to date. But I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you have the chief dogmatist of Randroids in Peikoff and an ignorant talking (dick)head of Fox News in O'Reilly on the same screen. The two bastards should go fuck each other.
truevoice08 8 months ago
Justin Raimando and Leonard Peikoff want to fuck each other.
amartin7889 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leonard Peikoff advocates THE most evil foreign policy in American politics. He believes that we should invade Iran and all other oil producing countries, using nuclear force if necessary, simply because their oil rightfully belongs to American oil companies. If people with Ayn Rands mindset get into power it may well mean the end of our species.
urdisturbing 8 months ago
I used to be a follower of objectivism. And it's astonishing to see how un-philosophical this "philosophical" movement actually is. How does our moral right to self defense include the moral right to radiate the neighbors of our target with nuclear weaponry? Does my right to defend myself inside a shopping mall include my right to burn the mall down? It would be pretty "decisive," you know...
BobTheBuilder378 8 months ago
@BobTheBuilder378 You really shouldn't "follow" any movement, especially not Objectivism. If Objectivism was to teach you one thing, then that.
john42t 7 months ago
@john42t Objectivism isn't a movement. Ayn Rand was an objectivist, but did not 'preach' for any mass movement. To be Objectivist is to be what is uniquely human. We have the capacity to think for ourselves, make logical theories, and use every little piece of knowledge we acquire over the years to make better informed decisions everyday. To be Objectivist is to merely think. If everyone were to think for themselves, we would all come to VERY similar conclusions. 2+2=4, 2-2=0. Start from there.
cbk41 7 months ago 2
@cbk41 Indeed.
john42t 7 months ago
@Ayla8711 I understand that you're concerned about the death of innocents. We must understand WHO is putting these innocents at risk- those who want to bring us down. Using care to reduce the deaths of innocents is prudent but NOT to the jeopardy of the mission. Remember that the enemy is using innocents only because they seek to shame us and garner public opinion to slow us down in our duty to protect ourselves. Morally, we have the right to defend ourselves.
lmaoroflcopterpilot 8 months ago
Peikoff must live in a cave. To think that victims of Calvin Gibbs, Jeremy Morlock, David Bram, Kris Sprague; various sheepherders and peasants killed; or victims at Abu Graib, was somehow the responsibility of whatever government there was existing in Afghanistan or Iraq is just insane. Many of these people had little or no interaction with their government officials, and little understanding why the US military had attacked their country. They were just trying to live their lives.
zenmachinefilms 8 months ago
Do I have the moral right to murder Leonard Peikoff? I see him and his sick world view as a serious threat to the survival of not only myself but to humanity. Iran is not a threat to the U.S., the U.S. is a threat to Iran.
Paddis92 9 months ago
@Paddis92 sounds like a fuckin neo-con!
reg12269 6 months ago
Dr. Peikoff is always right and with what's going on in the Middle East right now, I say that he's now VINDICATED.
vincentrand100 9 months ago
@vincentrand100
Idiot.
amartin7889 8 months ago
@vincentrand100 - Dr. Peikoff is always right? LOL. Ayn Rand sure didn't think so. I am a big fan of Rand's, but I think she made a mistake in appointing someone who is clearly autistic as her "intellectual heir." I know she had a falling out with Branden, but there must have been someone better to appoint (if, indeed, an intellectual heir needed appointing at all!).
GlorifiedTruth 6 months ago
Objectivism is a murderous cult.
mkadams99 9 months ago
@mkadams99 This quote shows why the world is spiraling out of control; you obviously know nothing of objectivism. Peikoff is simply saying that we should have the moral integrity to stand up for ourself- not worry about what other people are going to say about our decision.
objectivreality 9 months ago
@mkadams99 Your a liberal idiot!
MrDouglasdrew1 9 months ago
@MrDouglasdrew1
Being a social liberal, fiscal moderate is the best type of political persuasion.
No fascist, murderous, Jewish cult for me (Objectivism).
mkadams99 9 months ago
The man is right. Iran is the main cause and the main root of all the evils in the world. You have to stop being a paper tiger and confront Iran before it is too late.
If they grab you first they are going to fuck your white ass so hard that your eyes pop out
albundy0007 9 months ago
Peikoff is arguing more on principal, rather than the exact strategy. I must certainly agree that Iran is the true enemy in this conflict.
Slurrps 10 months ago
Comment removed
Slurrps 10 months ago
Comment removed
Slurrps 10 months ago
@BaDumTiiiiish Yes good point, we need to think of our own self preservation first. But this arguement essentially tells us to be passive unless we have a consensus in the world to go in to invade-totally anti-objective. I don't think Piekoff is a madman by any degree. Yea I agree very much how extreme Peikoff sounds. If things went as Piekoff saw them, I would hope nations would take sides and the rational ones should side with USA, the ones who where trying to defend themselves.
zieben64 10 months ago
@vtchaz - Germany and japan have not sought revenge on us because of the way we treated them after the war. Have you forgotten that WWII was started in part because of the crappy treatment Germany recieved after WWI? Do you really think Hitler would've risen to power if the people weren't so disenfranchised? Open up a history book dude.
Ayla8711 10 months ago
@BaDumTiiiiish I do to the extent that wars need to be all in or none at all. vietnam is good example of how we only had one foot in the door, and it showed. His point is this-war is war and if we don't want to shoot up all of afghanistan we should not have gone in the first place. All or Nothing
zieben64 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1o years later, and look at that "Dr. Crazy" was RIGHT. Turns out Iran is the biggest threat today. Mr. O'Reilly and all who supported the war in Iraq was WRONG and it's going to cost many more innocent American lives, not to mention the countless others innocent lives all throughout the Mideast. Don't underestimate Dr. Peikoff's intelligence.
Evaloveable 10 months ago
1o years later, and look at that "Dr. Crazy" was RIGHT. Turns out Iran is the biggest threat today. Mr. O'Reilly and all who supported the war in Iraq was WRONG and it's going to cost many more innocent American lives, not to mention the countless others innocent lives all throughout the Mideast. Don't underestimate Dr. Peikoff's intelligence
Evaloveable 10 months ago
@Evaloveable What's with the 10 years? What did Peikoff say 10 years ago?
john42t 7 months ago
1o years later, and look at that "Dr. Crazy" was RIGHT. Turns out Iran is the biggest threat today. Mr. O'Reilly and all who supported the war in Iraq was WRONG and it's going to cost many more innocent American lives, not to mention the countless others innocent lives all throughout the Mideast. Don't underestimate Dr. Peikoff's intelligence
Evaloveable 10 months ago 2
he has crazy eyes.
TMigra 10 months ago
Wow Peikoff is such a kook.
RightLibertarian 10 months ago
Actually the main source of fundamentalist Islam is Saudi Arabia but Mr Peikoff doesn't mention this. I wonder why...
mattvansickle 11 months ago
O'Reilly hasn't the faintest idea of what the issue involves because he has nearly no idea of how to think properly. To put it mildly and succinctl Dr. Peikoff is dealing with foreign policy in full context and by thinking in essentials. O'Reilly's argument is wholesale anti-American Modernist dreck .
Dr. Peikoff is simply identifying the root cause of Islamic terrorism as well as indicating what actually is the only real solution. O'Reilly's policy would simply buy time for the Islamicists.
0getdown 11 months ago
@0getdown One of my theories is that Saudi-Arabian welfare is one of the causes, but Peikoff doesn't mention Saudi-Arabia. I'm sure Iran is pretty bad, but what makes you so sure that he really has analyzed the pieces properly? Why would nuking Iran solve the problem?
john42t 7 months ago
Good god I never thought I'd live to see the day when I agreed with Bill O'Reilly. Leonard is making himself look more stupid than Glenn Beck in this one. I find it funny that an Objectivist is so rediculously collectivist in his rethoric towards the middle east and his own country. All this inspite of his raving "every man for himself" bullshit.
Midgert89 11 months ago
ITT Randite claims moral high ground. lawl
AsanineAssassin 11 months ago
This guy is a Libertarian?
SydBaron 11 months ago
Peikoff is best known as Ayn Rand's intellectual heir. When did he turn into Patton?
bailinnumberguy 11 months ago
He is totally right. Its war. Fight to win, or you have no business going to war. That attitude will save more lives than any other strategy. Warriors should run wars, not politicians. O'Reilly is a joke. Peikoff was exactly right. Military men must pick the weapons and win the wars. If you dont fight to win, you put your own citizens at risk. It is the job of the aggressor country to protect its citizens. It will make people think twice before attacking. You dont hear Japan bitching
jwhat01 1 year ago
Peikoff the dumbest sociopath alive.
MACKATTACK1970 1 year ago
Peikoff talks about fighting the enemy and with no concern whatsoever about the innocents. It's interesting how the biggest pussies in the world talk about killing and mayhem like tough guys when in reality these guys usually opt out of any draft, run away from any war and piss their pants when confronted. They are only tough when they can send YOUNG MEN TO FIGHT THEIR BATTLES.
........
mR. Peikoff, you are a pussy and I would love to have the opportunity to kick you sissy ass you moron!
MACKATTACK1970 1 year ago
Peikoff is one of the stupidest men alive...
I just lost a lot of respect for Ayn Rand
schmoops3000 1 year ago
Leonard Peikoff ruined objectivism for me.
diaverde09 1 year ago
o'reilly is not 4real enough
Radeo 1 year ago
where is his reason?
TheHerbsNSpices 1 year ago
Wauw...
Nazi's reproduced.
I present to you, the canadian Himmler ! aka Leonard Peikoff
shadowdestroy 1 year ago
@shadowdestroy
thanks, you just wrote what I was about to say, he's more Eichmann material.
mehdigoudarzi 1 year ago
Wow. Just, wow.
I'm halfway through Atlas Shrugged and I'm a staunch individualist, but seriously, fuck this crap. It's ok to kill innocents for personal gain?
Ayn Rand was a genius, but also a complete fucking Sociopath.
This complete nobody is following in her footsteps.
Jpkingu2 1 year ago
@Jpkingu2
You need to read it again....but this time with comprehension
jwhat01 1 year ago
Peikoff doesn't realize that nukes have strategic consequences.
sirlancelot88 1 year ago
This nutter actually almost makes Bill O'Reilly look sane.
TheConsumption 1 year ago
Peikoff is such a statist collectivist.
jrgenkratz 1 year ago
@jrgenkratz THANK YOU! I do like some of what Ayn Rand had to say, but CHRIST this guy is a supremacist wad. You should hear him talk about "Arabs." He addresses the Middle East conflict as a being between a moral beacon (yeah right) and Arab savages, not two dogmatic states.
I mean, just because someone HAPPENS to be born in Iran because his or her state leader does something means that you can kill that individual. What if that's the next Galt? Wait, he/she's not "Amurican," so who cares.
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@jrgenkratz
What an idiotic comment. You misunderstand everything the man stands for.
jwhat01 1 year ago
@jwhat01 I know perfectly well where he is coming from. I have read my share of Rand and I appreciate it a lot. However, when it comes to the courts, the police, and most of all, the military, objectivists often turn ridiculously statist and collectivist in their rhetoric. It is not uncommon to hear ridiculous things such as "the self interest of the nation". Only an anarchist can follow the moral philosophy of Rand completely. Minarchist objectivists will always resort to self-contradictions.
jrgenkratz 1 year ago
@jrgenkratz
Proper anarchists are socialists.
Primitivists, anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-nationalists are just a bunch of assholes.
WhimsicalQuandary 11 months ago
@jrgenkratz I kind of agree with your argument, although I still am a minarchist. I know that the state steals to fund the courts and defence, but I'd rather it steals to that end than having the mob rule. I'm conceding that at some point society might be rational enough for an anarchy in the sense that courts and defence is paid voluntarily, but until then? When there's irrational mob occupying an official building or company premise, someone needs to deal with them in a language they speak.
john42t 7 months ago
Sociopaths
trexdegenerate 1 year ago
In Germany, we bombed Dresden into the stone age. In Japan, we dropped nukes on them until they gave up. Then there's Vietnam, with the ridiculous rules of engagement (created by politicians,not Generals). We put their civilian's lives ahead of our own troop's lives, and it cost us big time. If a foreign nation puts civilians in danger by creating a threatening environment towards the US, then it is not our fault when they are killed because they forced us to defend ourselves. It is that simple.
deserteagle02356 1 year ago 3
@deserteagle02356 Well, if your government/military hadn't lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Americans wouldn't have gone into Vietnam in the first place. Oh wait, they were already there as "advisors." How convenient there were thousands of troops already there when the "incident" happened.
Yeah.. I'm sure villagers with pitch forks were a HUGE threat to the US.
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@deserteagle02356 Well articulated, thanks.
AlexanderLee1 3 months ago
I think the big flaw in Peikoff's case is that dropping nukes has POLITICAL ramifications, and thus, civilian politicians should be involved in the decision. Achieving the most efficient military victory is not the only consideration when it comes to war. His argument is grossly oversimplified, unless I'm missing something.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59
You did miss him say that the consequences of spreading radiation have to be considered.
Ask Japan. Never heard another violent peep out of them, yet they became an economic superpower.
They learned the lesson Peikoff is teaching.
jwhat01 1 year ago
@jwhat01 "..consequences of spreading radiation have to be considered."
When I say political consequences, I'm talking more about setting precedents, causing new conflicts, etc. My point is that he's only addressing the most surface-level pragmatic issues of waging war. If the US invaded Canada tomorrow, it would have consequences beyond those of the physical war itself. Politicians should make the policy, and then let the military handle the details of carrying it out within set perimeters.
sybo59 1 year ago
Holy crap how fcukin' stupid is it possible to get before O'Reilly's body tries to get rid of his head as a useless limb!!!
He is actually aggressively pretending that there is a priciple difference between him and Mr Peikoff, but what does he wrap it up with!? A statement that clearly show that the only difference is that he would wait a bit longer before sending the nukes.
O'Relly, shut tha fcuk up. You're too dumb to be entitled to an opinion!
Vocalallusive 1 year ago
Peikoff actually knew Rand--I wonder if he knew her in the biblical sense. The woman got around, after all.
TheJcanno8 1 year ago
@TheJcanno8 Sex is an evil scaaaary thing! How dare a woman ENJOY sex! The nerve!
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 When it speards STD's like wildfire across the world it can be pretty damn scary. A full 1 in 4 American women have STDs by the time they reach 19. The percentages of adult American females with STDs are through the roof. American women are pretty vile.
Gregamania69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gregamania69 "Peikoff actually knew Rand--I wonder if he knew her in the biblical sense. The woman got around, after all."
This is what I was responding to. In context, your statement is a non sequitur (unless Rand herself was "sharing" VD); but thanks for the info.
sybo59 1 year ago
@Gregamania69 Women are typically more easily infected by STDs. Most of the time, it's just with HPV. And why are you blaming it all on women? It takes two to tango.
On top of that, a disproportionate number of STD cases are attributed to black people. By your logic, black people must be pretty "vile."
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@AshillaBeige I didn't say all women, just American ones. Most women throughout the world have a sense of decency and modesty. Most American women will spread their legs for a cheese burger. White woimen are the sluttiest ones. I see them with blacks all the time. No other group of women fuck black guys as often as white women do. They are just plain nasty.
Robohump 1 year ago
@Robohump I'm not going to argue with you anymore since you're clearly an uncivilized, uneducated nut.
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
Im with peikoff on this one.
chaserehn 1 year ago
"What if you're wrong?" "Then you kill all the other bastards too!"
ick9192 1 year ago
To clarify, O'Reilly was the one who brought up bombing an entire country. Peikoff is saying we should destroy the enemy as fast as possible, but it is for the military to decide which method would be best.
UnrecycleRubdish 1 year ago
@UnrecycleRubdish Actually it was Peikoff who first said that in war, everyone in a country must be considered an enemy, regardless of military or civilian. That is fairly bizarre, but not really, by Ayn Rand standards.
frellthat 1 year ago
@frellthat Have you studied history? Are you aware of how wars have been fought all throughout human history? The modern concept of the "kind and gentle war" has only existed since the 1980's and is extremely bizarre by historical standards. Think about it; as long as a human is wearing a certain uniform, it;s ok to murder her. But if she is not wearing that uniform, it is immoral to murder her. That makes no sense, considering most soldiers become soldiers through a draft, not as volunteers.
Gregamania69 1 year ago
What Peikoff doesn't understand is that protecting the innocent abroad is essential to any war effort. Only half of war is fought on the battlefield. The other half is fought within the hearts and minds of the people, on both sides of the conflict.
Ayla8711 1 year ago 2
@Ayla8711
If they start getting belligerent after we leave, we can just go in again. The change is up to them, it's something they need to initiate, we only need defend ourselves. Of course, in these two meat grinders there's no possibility of that. The West should never have been in either of those places.
Radeo 1 year ago
@Ayla8711 Sad thing, that politics are made by feelings not by facts
Wolky702 11 months ago
@Ayla8711
Here's a comprehensive list of what Peikoff does understand:
BagOfGlass 11 months ago
@Ayla8711
ah yes. I believe you're referring to WWII? Oh wait, we won that war by killing almost anything that walked or crawled if it happened to be in the 'wrong' place. Sorry... perhaps you had another war in mind.
vtchaz 10 months ago
@vtchaz What the fuck are you talking about? I wasn't referring to any specific war, I was just speaking in general. Pull your head out of your ass and read the comments before you go rambling on about shit you don't understand.
Ayla8711 10 months ago
@Ayla8711 my my my, a bit touchy aren't we? And I did read the comments.. the first time. You are correct, you weren't referring to ANY war, which was my point; you were putting forth the warm and fuzzy theory that war should be fought in essentially to protect the innocent. That's insane. Sure, when you're not at war against an entire nation, minimizing civilian casualties should be part of the overall plan, but it shouldn't be an overriding element. So pull your head outta your own ass.
vtchaz 10 months ago
@vtchaz How does throwing a random war in my face prove your point? And since when is protecting civilian populations a 'warm and fuzzy theorey'? Protecting the innocent should never be the main reason to go to war but if you are going to fight it best be a priority. Otherwise they're likely to replace those killed on the battlefield or cause conflict in the future.
Now with that said go crawl back in your hole and jack off to Atlas Shrugged you troll.
Ayla8711 10 months ago
@Ayla8711 There was nothing random about it... it was the last one we actually won. If we had tried to protect the civilian populations in WWII, we still be fighting it (or we would've lost). Using your 'conflict in the future' logic, I suppose we should still be waiting on Germany and/or Japan to 'seek revenge'?
As far as crawling back in my hole and jacking off to Atlas Shrugged, you have a such a wonderful command of the language... too bad it's devoid of any reason.
vtchaz 10 months ago
Comment removed
civonamzuk 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading this great piece of comedy! Who needs Tim Allen or Gary Shandling when we have the Ayn Rand Institute.lmao.
psychofred2 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY It's still accurate. "Moslem" is a much more antiquated term for Muslims.
keymaker2112 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was a genius, She understood that reality was not altered by feelings.
This Guy is just an idiot who shouldn't be talking about Objectivism.
Edwardbrooklyn 1 year ago
@Edwardbrooklyn This Guy is the man Ayn Rand entrusted her estate to. He is the foremost expert on Rand's teachings today.
UnrecycleRubdish 1 year ago
Rand is okay, Peikoff is fucking nuts.
DoctorYumYums 1 year ago 7