Paul's Here

Dr. Peikoff's prediction

67 posts in this topic

In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look at Europe, we see the most absurd capitulation to Islamic fundamentalists going on there. Geert Wilders, a member of Parliament in the Netherlands, produced a film, "Fitna", boldly revealing the nature of Islam and what its intentions are. He is facing prosecution in his own country for this. Mr. Wilders was banned from entering the UK as well, for this film's ideas. This just illustrates the extent to which Europe is reliving the era of Chamberlain's appeasement of the enemy. Europe may be a harbinger of what will be coming to the US.

If Barack Obama turns out to be the last elected president of the US, it may mean that he has ushered us into the final stage of dictatorship, ready to hand over the reigns of power to his Islamic friends.

I'm going to have to listen to those podcasts again. I started two years ago. But this is sounding more interesting. He released about twenty podcasts on the DIM Hypothesis and I saved them on my hard drive for later listening.

The only hope is that when civilization is on the precipice of destruction, only then may it change its thinking. Or in this case, start to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Brook, on the other hand, has predicted that America will embrace Objectivism in 50 years' time.

I think both are a distinct possibility. Which of them happens is, to no insignificant extent, up to us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

That removes his prediction from likely empirical testing. Fifty years from now, most of us here will be dead and gone.

First let us see if his book comes out in 2010.

I tend to doubt his prediction. Why? Because there is no one church big enough and strong enough to become an effective Magisterium. Religious allegiances will be fractional and divided so no one theistic group will be powerful enough to rule. As long as rule and power remain divided we will not have a dictatorship. That does not mean that our nation will be rationally governed (unfortunately). I suspect that in fifty years over one third of the adult population will still believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that angels inhabit the heavens.

If this country does fall under some kind of religious domination, I sincerely hope for the sake of my (yet unborn) great grandchildren that it is not dominated by Islam. Christianity is bad enough, but Islam is purely intolerable.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to doubt his prediction. Why? Because there is no one church big enough and strong enough to become an effective Magisterium.

How about the Church of Evironmentalism? Since it is totally unrestrained by the First Amendment, its doctrines have been forced on everyone -- including unbelievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to doubt his prediction. Why? Because there is no one church big enough and strong enough to become an effective Magisterium.

How about the Church of Evironmentalism? Since it is totally unrestrained by the First Amendment, its doctrines have been forced on everyone -- including unbelievers.

That is not a church. it may be a political movement, but it is not a church. And it is not theological in the sense that L.P. meant in his dire prediction. And its adherents are in the vast minority. The majority of Americans will not take an Oath of Poverty for the trees or the furry creatures.

The great danger from the eco-phreaks is that they provide a rhetorical platform on which government types can stand and justify their interference with the minute aspects of our lives. In any case, the ecological lobby does not count as a church or a religious movement. Neither to the animal liberation types such as PETA. The eco-phrends of the Earth and the PETA crazies are obnoxious pests but they are not the greatest danger to our prosperity and liberty. The lefty redistributers are the ones who will hurt us the most. They will do their damage in the name of the Children. Americans are very soft touches when it comes to children.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to doubt his prediction. Why? Because there is no one church big enough and strong enough to become an effective Magisterium.

How about the Church of Evironmentalism? Since it is totally unrestrained by the First Amendment, its doctrines have been forced on everyone -- including unbelievers.

That is not a church. it may be a political movement, but it is not a church.

Perhaps not literally, but as I wrote on HBL:

Religion, as Ayn Rand observed, is a primitive form of philosophy and Environmentalism is one of the most primitive religions, sharing many fundamental tenets with stone age, mystical, nature-worship. Despite claims to be "scientific," its fundamental assumptions have been proven, time after time, to be false and those who accept them do so on faith.

Environmentalism has its gods (nature, the planet, the ecosystem), and its devils (industrialism, technology, and capitalism). It has its concept of the holy (green, eco-friendly). It has its sinners (those with a large "carbon footprint") who can buy salvation by purchasing indulgences (carbon credits). It has its rituals (conservation, recycling) and its holidays (Earth Day). It has its prophets (Al Gore, Rachel Carson) and its heretics and blasphemers ("climate change deniers"). It has its Eden myth (the earth before man) and its Doomsday prophecies (overpopulation, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear winter, global warming).

Environmentalism is now the dominant religion in America having co-opted both traditional religion and socialism. As John Kay writing in the Financial Times observed (link),

Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of religion and of socialism.

Environmentalism permeates ALL of American culture. As HBLer and film critic Scott Holleran observed in the SF Chronicle (link),

fundamentalist environmentalism is the religion of Hollywood and modern movies are full of eco-propaganda. This includes the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," as well religious epics like "The Day After Tomorrow," Leonardo DiCaprio's "The 11th Hour," and even cartoons targeting children like "Wall-E."

The worst part is that Environmentalism has become the state-sponsored, GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED religion. Children are indoctrinated in public schools which they are forced to attend. The federal and state bureaucracies who regulate, restrict, and bankrupt energy producers and automobile manufacturers -- and persecute innocents like HBLer Sharlee McNamee for having a picnic table on her own property -- are empowered by law and funded by taxpayers.

As Environmentalists gather more totalitarian powers and even seek to make free speech ("climate change denial") a crime, we ought to be very concerned. Theocracy will not happen in less than fifty years or even in the next four years. It is already here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

Why? What's his argument to support that conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

Why? What's his argument to support that conclusion?

He didn't offer one. He said that that is one of the conclusions he talks about in his book. We'll have to wait for the book to come out to find out his reasoning. He has previously stated in other places that religion is becoming the only dominant ideology, and the left has no ideology and is intellectually adrift looking for an ideology. The combination of the left with environmentalism (essentially a religion as Betsy has indicted) is an indication that this is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Environmentalism has its gods (nature, the planet, the ecosystem), and its devils (industrialism, technology, and capitalism). It has its concept of the holy (green, eco-friendly). It has its sinners (those with a large "carbon footprint") who can buy salvation by purchasing indulgences (carbon credits). It has its rituals (conservation, recycling) and its holidays (Earth Day). It has its prophets (Al Gore, Rachel Carson) and its heretics and blasphemers ("climate change deniers"). It has its Eden myth (the earth before man) and its Doomsday prophecies (overpopulation, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear winter, global warming).

Thanks for that. I cut and pasted it with attribution, put it in Word, and printed it out for my own files. Nicely, said.

Religion as a model for ideology was suggested by many perhaps, but I am most familiar with Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. It could be applied to Objectivism, certainly as practiced by some. Have you ever been to a political convention? Have you ever been to an Avon, Amway, or MaryKay meeting? Perhaps the religion model has an inherent problem: if it can be applied to almost anything, is it valid?

Is the problem not that these institutions or organizations act as religions but that needing religion, individuals draw religiousity from those entities?

I perceive a distinction between organizations that purposely mimic religion -- the Communist Party; the Free and Accepted Masons -- and those that become religions for some people, again the green movement, or, for that matter, major league sports.

It would be easy to view Dr. Peikoff's prediction as a millennarian revelation based on eschatology, an echo of the Ahura-Mazda cult of Good versus Evil as Light versus Dark. To do so, however, might be to miss the essence of the statement. To me, the key concept is "dictatorship." We have had -- and do have -- secular state-approved "religion" in America according the model above. I remember a news story I saw on TV many years ago, when Walter Reuther passed away. They showed old union guys singing "Joe Hill."

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,

Alive as you and me...

[etc.]

... I never died, said he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to doubt his prediction. Why? Because there is no one church big enough and strong enough to become an effective Magisterium.

How about the Church of Evironmentalism? Since it is totally unrestrained by the First Amendment, its doctrines have been forced on everyone -- including unbelievers.

...They will do their damage in the name of the Children. Americans are very soft touches when it comes to children.

Bob Kolker

I don't think this is the case. Americans actually don't value children very much. Well, maybe I'm just confusing Americans' lack of reasoning ability. Based on our actions, we value the environment, animals, and celebrity more than we value children. Of course, this is just my opnion. I think the combination of celebrity and the environment is a powerhouse that can't be beat short of complete economic collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

This will not occur, given that men of rational and intelligent mind are willing to speak and to create work (whether articles, or books, or audio recordings, or movies, or whatever else is deemed to be of value) that can be available on a mass scale, due to the internet, and that will dissolve the fog of the irrational in the light of reason.

Rational men have an ally bigger than God on their side. They are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

The methodology of Dr. Peikoff in presentation and argumentation of his theory of the "imminent American Christian theocracy" has basically become indistinguishable from that used by global warming scaremongers: continual ever-escalating claims of imminent disaster (Theocracy/Global Warming is going to destroy us), based on the application of an abstract and non-intuitive theory (DIM Hypothesis/Computer Climate Models), accompanied by a continual ever-increasing complete lack of coherence between theory and observation (there is a complete lack of evidence for theocracy/warming). Those that disagree with his claims are simply swept aside (they aren't real Objectivist/Scientists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

The methodology of Dr. Peikoff in presentation and argumentation of his theory of the "imminent American Christian theocracy" has basically become indistinguishable from that used by global warming scaremongers: continual ever-escalating claims of imminent disaster (Theocracy/Global Warming is going to destroy us), based on the application of an abstract and non-intuitive theory (DIM Hypothesis/Computer Climate Models), accompanied by a continual ever-increasing complete lack of coherence between theory and observation (there is a complete lack of evidence for theocracy/warming). Those that disagree with his claims are simply swept aside (they aren't real Objectivist/Scientists).

You just highlighted the issue of orthodoxy...

...to which all organizations fall prey to some degree. If doctrinal disputes reach a unsustainable critical point, the organization fractures along the line of disagreement between the "believers" and the "heretics". Then each new organization forms its own orthodoxy which again decrees who conforms as a "true believer" and who is "heretical".

This is just the human nature of group dynamics... and is perfectly normal.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

The methodology of Dr. Peikoff in presentation and argumentation of his theory of the "imminent American Christian theocracy" has basically become indistinguishable from that used by global warming scaremongers: continual ever-escalating claims of imminent disaster (Theocracy/Global Warming is going to destroy us), based on the application of an abstract and non-intuitive theory (DIM Hypothesis/Computer Climate Models), accompanied by a continual ever-increasing complete lack of coherence between theory and observation (there is a complete lack of evidence for theocracy/warming). Those that disagree with his claims are simply swept aside (they aren't real Objectivist/Scientists).

You just highlighted the issue of orthodoxy...

...to which all organizations fall prey to some degree. If doctrinal disputes reach a unsustainable critical point, the organization fractures along the line of disagreement between the "believers" and the "heretics". Then each new organization forms its own orthodoxy which again decrees who conforms as a "true believer" and who is "heretical".

This is just the human nature of group dynamics... and is perfectly normal.

Greg

If it is perfectly normal then why are you criticizing it in other threads? And can you list what the fundamentals of Objectivism are that you keep claiming Objectivist are disputing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

Why? What's his argument to support that conclusion?

Actually, I think he'll answer completely in his forthcoming book. However, he does give a brief overview of his argument in podcast 57.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

The methodology of Dr. Peikoff in presentation and argumentation of his theory of the "imminent American Christian theocracy" has basically become indistinguishable from that used by global warming scaremongers: continual ever-escalating claims of imminent disaster (Theocracy/Global Warming is going to destroy us), based on the application of an abstract and non-intuitive theory (DIM Hypothesis/Computer Climate Models), accompanied by a continual ever-increasing complete lack of coherence between theory and observation (there is a complete lack of evidence for theocracy/warming). Those that disagree with his claims are simply swept aside (they aren't real Objectivist/Scientists).

You just highlighted the issue of orthodoxy...

...to which all organizations fall prey to some degree. If doctrinal disputes reach a unsustainable critical point, the organization fractures along the line of disagreement between the "believers" and the "heretics". Then each new organization forms its own orthodoxy which again decrees who conforms as a "true believer" and who is "heretical".

This is just the human nature of group dynamics... and is perfectly normal.

Greg

What organization are you talking about, Greggo? Carlos' post does not refer to one, and I don't see one mentioned in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The methodology of Dr. Peikoff in presentation and argumentation of his theory of the "imminent American Christian theocracy" has basically become indistinguishable from that used by global warming scaremongers: continual ever-escalating claims of imminent disaster (Theocracy/Global Warming is going to destroy us), based on the application of an abstract and non-intuitive theory (DIM Hypothesis/Computer Climate Models)
Those are non-essential attributes. The merit of a theory is not determined by whether it makes optimistic or pessimistic predictions, nor its level of abstraction, nor by how intuitive it is.
accompanied by a continual ever-increasing complete lack of coherence between theory and observation (there is a complete lack of evidence for theocracy/warming).
I am pretty puzzled myself as to why Dr. Peikoff thinks any Christian group is anywhere near seizing power, but I still don't think it's fair to compare him to the likes of Al Gore.
Those that disagree with his claims are simply swept aside (they aren't real Objectivist/Scientists).
Can you give some examples of that? As far as I know, the status of the theory is still just "hypothesis," and it is not claimed to be a part of philosophy, let alone of Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The methodology of Dr. Peikoff in presentation and argumentation of his theory of the "imminent American Christian theocracy" has basically become indistinguishable from that used by global warming scaremongers: continual ever-escalating claims of imminent disaster (Theocracy/Global Warming is going to destroy us), based on the application of an abstract and non-intuitive theory (DIM Hypothesis/Computer Climate Models)
Those are non-essential attributes. The merit of a theory is not determined by whether it makes optimistic or pessimistic predictions, nor its level of abstraction, nor by how intuitive it is.
The point was that he shared all the essential attributes of the global warming scaremongers' methodology, which is continually escalating predictions of disaster that are based almost purely from the application of a very abstract theory that has zero coherence or grounding in reality.

To put it another way, catastrophic global warming exists only in computer projections, but cannot be found in any serious measurements of the physical climate itself.

Likewise, "imminent christian theocracy" exists only as an application of the DIM Hypothesis, but cannot be found in any observations of America.

In both cases a certain prediction is being made that has no value because--either through apathy, negligence, or plain incompetence--there is a complete lack of coherence between the prediction and reality, and the simplest of observations show that the prediction fatally contradicts reality. None of this deters the individual proposing the prediction though, and they continue to aggressively promote it based on the application of their abstract theory while continuing to neglect the fact that none of their reasoning has any grounding in reality. This is non-objectivity in practice.

accompanied by a continual ever-increasing complete lack of coherence between theory and observation (there is a complete lack of evidence for theocracy/warming).
I am pretty puzzled myself as to why Dr. Peikoff thinks any Christian group is anywhere near seizing power, but I still don't think it's fair to compare him to the likes of Al Gore.
It is very fair in this sense: both are pushing a dire prediction based on a theory while displaying a complete abandonment of objectivity. The "world's foremost authority on Objectivism" is demonstrating a complete failure in objectivity with this issue, and it's a very, very sad thing.
Those that disagree with his claims are simply swept aside (they aren't real Objectivist/Scientists).
Can you give some examples of that? As far as I know, the status of the theory is still just "hypothesis," and it is not claimed to be a part of philosophy, let alone of Objectivism.

He literally said that anyone who disagrees with him and votes for a Republican does not properly understand Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

Why? What's his argument to support that conclusion?

Actually, I think he'll answer completely in his forthcoming book. However, he does give a brief overview of his argument in podcast 57.

Has anybody listened to the podcast I linked to yet? I have to say, I listened to it and now I'm convinced that we're in the thick of the end game so-to-speak. Like others, I thought to myself, "A Christian theocracy!? Yeah, right! Has he even been on a university campus in the past decade?" But then I realized as Betsy points out above that Green is the new religion, and Dr. Peikoff (as far as I know) never claimed that it had to be a Christian regime. On top of that, Christianity is still heavily ingrained in the U.S. Even if people don't go to church anymore, they still give it lip service. While I was at the Tea Party in Raleigh, a backlash against current government policies, they still opened and closed with a prayer. This shows that people who even disagree with massive spending/bailouts still agree with Christianity/altruism! This is why I think the new regime will be a mix of Eco-Christianity. Actually, I heard a commercial on the radio just the other day in which a church was trying to win converts through "green community service." Now, we can all be servants to God not only at soup kitchens, but also through community gardens and Bog Turtle festivals! Add to this the fact that the Obama administration is taking over industry piecemeal with little to no meaningful resistance or public outcry, and Obama is biding his time in implementing sever Environmental controls and seeing if Congress will do it first. Personally, I can't see how anybody could not see how we're already in the beginning stages of an Eco-Christian Totalitarian regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likewise, "imminent christian theocracy" exists only as an application of the DIM Hypothesis, but cannot be found in any observations of America.

In both cases a certain prediction is being made that has no value because--either through apathy, negligence, or plain incompetence--there is a complete lack of coherence between the prediction and reality, and the simplest of observations show that the prediction fatally contradicts reality. None of this deters the individual proposing the prediction though, and they continue to aggressively promote it based on the application of their abstract theory while continuing to neglect the fact that none of their reasoning has any grounding in reality. This is non-objectivity in practice.

In other words, rationalism. We will see when the book comes out if there is more substance to the prediction than revealed so far, but there is no way to undo the contradictions with observation while ignoring other serious threats already in existence, which are the context of the arguments over his assessments of political reality over about the last decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his Podcast #63, Dr. Peikoff said he states in his upcoming book, due out by the end of 2010, that he predicts that the US will become a theocratic dictatorship in 50 years.

Why? What's his argument to support that conclusion?

Actually, I think he'll answer completely in his forthcoming book. However, he does give a brief overview of his argument in podcast 57.

Has anybody listened to the podcast I linked to yet? I have to say, I listened to it and now I'm convinced that we're in the thick of the end game so-to-speak. Like others, I thought to myself, "A Christian theocracy!? Yeah, right! Has he even been on a university campus in the past decade?" But then I realized as Betsy points out above that Green is the new religion, and Dr. Peikoff (as far as I know) never claimed that it had to be a Christian regime. On top of that, Christianity is still heavily ingrained in the U.S. Even if people don't go to church anymore, they still give it lip service. While I was at the Tea Party in Raleigh, a backlash against current government policies, they still opened and closed with a prayer. This shows that people who even disagree with massive spending/bailouts still agree with Christianity/altruism! This is why I think the new regime will be a mix of Eco-Christianity. Actually, I heard a commercial on the radio just the other day in which a church was trying to win converts through "green community service." Now, we can all be servants to God not only at soup kitchens, but also through community gardens and Bog Turtle festivals! Add to this the fact that the Obama administration is taking over industry piecemeal with little to no meaningful resistance or public outcry, and Obama is biding his time in implementing sever Environmental controls and seeing if Congress will do it first. Personally, I can't see how anybody could not see how we're already in the beginning stages of an Eco-Christian Totalitarian regime.

Nicolaus, thanks for your post, and thanks for emphasizing that Dr. Peikoff said he forsees in 50 years the greatest likelihood being a "religious dictatorship" -- not a slam-dunk given and not necessarily a Christian one. And I think you're exactly right about an enviro-Christian merger. If I consider the possibility of a Christian theocracy in America, I can't imagine the current Christian institutions pulling it off in 50 years. They are too fractious, too compromising to their enemies, and the left -- and even center -- of this country wouldn't allow it to happen. But when you throw environmentalism into the mix, I think that is possible. Altruism is the philosophical force driving the country, but environmentalism (and the one-worldness of multiculturalism), not Christianity, is the most potent current manifestation of altruism. I think one could reasonably see environmentalism reaching nationwide, dogmatic status, pulling Christians and other Westernized religions into the fold, shedding their elitist convictions to form an amorphous glob of earth-worshippers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In both cases a certain prediction is being made that has no value because--either through apathy, negligence, or plain incompetence--there is a complete lack of coherence between the prediction and reality, and the simplest of observations show that the prediction fatally contradicts reality.
I admit that I can't claim familiarity with all predictions Dr. Peikoff has made, but looking at the specific prediction that forms the subject of this thread, I would say that we have to wait around 50 years to be able to tell whether it meshes with reality. I certainly don't think it's the likeliest outcome myself (definitely not if we're talking about a Christian theocracy) and there are certainly no signs we are going in that direction right now, but considering how much can happen in 50 years, I wouldn't discount it as a possibility.

While 50 years are nothing in terms of major climate trends, they can be a very long time in terms of human history. Just think of how much German culture and government changed in the first half of the 20th century. If anyone had said in 1900 that Germany would become a pacifist social democracy by 1950, people would have considered it at least as far-fetched as America becoming a theocracy by 2060 is considered now. While I don't profess to know how it will end, I think the next half century will be at least as turbulent for America as those fifty years were for Germany.

He literally said that anyone who disagrees with him and votes for a Republican does not properly understand Objectivism.
Have you got a source for that? I have heard that attributed to him before, but I would like to see it in full context.

And more generally, I think you'd need to provide more actual quotes from Dr. Peikoff as evidence for your accusations. If you were simply saying that he made some incorrect judgments about current politics, I'd have no problem agreeing with you. But to say that he has completely abandoned objectivity, on a level comparable to the disdain for truth shown by environmentalists, is a very, very strong statement and it would take lots of quotes of him being outrageously un-objective to convince me of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He literally said that anyone who disagrees with him and votes for a Republican does not properly understand Objectivism.
Have you got a source for that? I have heard that attributed to him before, but I would like to see it in full context.

That was part of his answer to a question and you can find it on his website (link) at the bottom of the page:

(October 19, 2006) Peikoff on the coming election

Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall.

A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

The above statement may be reproduced or disseminated at will, without any requirement to consult or inform Dr. Peikoff.

In the light of subsequent events, the most interesting statements seem to be:

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast [...] is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

[...]

What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the [Republican] Party which is its home and sponsor.

[...]

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In both cases a certain prediction is being made that has no value because--either through apathy, negligence, or plain incompetence--there is a complete lack of coherence between the prediction and reality, and the simplest of observations show that the prediction fatally contradicts reality.
I admit that I can't claim familiarity with all predictions Dr. Peikoff has made, but looking at the specific prediction that forms the subject of this thread, I would say that we have to wait around 50 years to be able to tell whether it meshes with reality. I certainly don't think it's the likeliest outcome myself (definitely not if we're talking about a Christian theocracy) and there are certainly no signs we are going in that direction right now, but considering how much can happen in 50 years, I wouldn't discount it as a possibility.

While 50 years are nothing in terms of major climate trends, they can be a very long time in terms of human history. Just think of how much German culture and government changed in the first half of the 20th century. If anyone had said in 1900 that Germany would become a pacifist social democracy by 1950, people would have considered it at least as far-fetched as America becoming a theocracy by 2060 is considered now. While I don't profess to know how it will end, I think the next half century will be at least as turbulent for America as those fifty years were for Germany.

He literally said that anyone who disagrees with him and votes for a Republican does not properly understand Objectivism.
Have you got a source for that? I have heard that attributed to him before, but I would like to see it in full context.

And more generally, I think you'd need to provide more actual quotes from Dr. Peikoff as evidence for your accusations. If you were simply saying that he made some incorrect judgments about current politics, I'd have no problem agreeing with you. But to say that he has completely abandoned objectivity, on a level comparable to the disdain for truth shown by environmentalists, is a very, very strong statement and it would take lots of quotes of him being outrageously un-objective to convince me of it.

You really don't need much; this single excerpt of his longer quote shows that he has no basic understanding of what is actually going on in politics in America.

In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites