We Are Charlie Hebdo, a special edition of Don’t Let It Go Unheard, tonight at 8 p.m. PT (11 p.m. ET)

Tonight we’re doing a special edition of Don’t Let It Go Unheard focusing on today’s terrorist attack on the offices of French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.

Join in live, either by phone or in the chatroom.

The show can be accessed here.

To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.

To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.

Finally, if you would like to support the podcast financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.


Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

22 responses to “We Are Charlie Hebdo, a special edition of Don’t Let It Go Unheard, tonight at 8 p.m. PT (11 p.m. ET)

  1. mark martinson

    According to most open immigration Objectivists the solution to islamic terrorism is to attack Iran and Saudi Arabia. How would that have prevented this attack or the Boston Bombing?

    Islamic immigration into the west should be ended and all Moslems should be deported.

    O bjectivists and libertarians don’t want to confront the fact that civilization can’t support if you import millions of low IQ people from non-western lands. The black intimacy in the US and Islamic terrorism are two sides of the same coin.

    • mark martinson

      Oops that should be survive and black Intifada.

    • I am an outspoken critic of Islam, but not all self-described Muslims pose a threat to me. So I oppose categorical rules like those you describe. I am all in favor of extra scrutiny, however, and I support the freedom of association as an absolute. In a proper society, those should be enough.

      • mark martinson

        How would that have prevented the attack? They were born in France. Major Hassan was born in the US.

        And how does importing millions of people from anti Western countries help create a “proper society”? Do they magically become better when they cross the border? Do we give them copies of Human Action and Atlas Shrugged?

        How do we screen people anyways?

        What happens when under open immigration France becomes majority Moslem and most of the screeners, prosecutors and police are Moslems?

      • mark martinson

        That most moslens may be peaceful is besides the point. Most blacks are law abiding. Would you move to Detroit or Ferguson Missouri?

        Its a question of percentages.

        A proper society adopts an immigration policy that results in maintaining its freedom.


        • mark martinson


          As a final point if you were Jewish and lived in France would you vote for open immigration knowing that once France become majority islamic you would have to flee?

          This example indicates to me that open immigration is based on altruism not rational selfishness.


      • 10x10

        “I am all in favor of extra scrutiny, however, and I support the freedom of association as an absolute. In a proper society, those should be enough.”

        No it isn’t and you’re suicidal. I love Rand and think that her philosophy is an attempt to make Right Liberalism a non-self-liquidating political phenomenon. But when I read Randians make this argument that Muslims can live amongst us and that individual Muslims must be judged individually it occurs to me that Objectivism is a suicide pact and not a tenable political philosophy.

        But I actually think that a sustainable argument can be made on RAND’S grounds that Islam should be banned and Muslims out-migrated and eventually prohibited. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre according to Rand’s theory of Rights correct? You can’t solicit to commit violence, right? Well Islam is the perpetual never ending call to war against non-Muslims. It represents an eternal threat of destruction to non-Muslim humanity. Further, Islam is itself a nation; ie the “Ummah”. To view this war as a war against nation states as Yaron Brook does is folly. It is war against a religion and thus against a HUGE block of humanity. “Freedom of Association”?. NO. You have no such freedom. Your “freedom” is an objective threat to ME and the totality of Western Civilization.

        There is no way to isolate violent Muslims from “good” Muslims. ANY Muslim presence in a Western nation is a danger and a threat to the fabric of that society. The solution to this war is not in the battlefield. The solution is in immigration and demographics. Muslims should be BANNED. They by the very fact that they identify as Muslims are members of an enemy army whose goal is conquest and subjugation. It does not matter if you have a nice Muslim friend in accounting that you want to “associate” with. He is a citizen of an enemy NATION. A nation that has declared war on you.

        Amy, you are a rationalist on this as is the ENTIRE Objectivist movement. Rand WOULD SPIT at your argument and the movement that bears her name. My god, I’m embarrassed just reading O’ist commentary on this. Its almost as bad as Libertarian commentary which is almost as bad as Leftist commentary WHICH IS ON THE SIDE OF ISLAM.

        Right now the only people that make any sense on this issue are PaleoCons and Ethno Nationalists. You my dear Amy are on the side of the Left; ie Sauron ie evil. You should be ashamed.

        • mark martinson

          Amy. The moslemsb that you and Bosch said last night weren’t Moslems call themselves Moslems. They generally are silent about consistent Islam and its violence.

          And they have more children than the natives and raise them as Moslems. Many of the jihadists were born in europe.children of the live and let live moslems you think aren’t a threat.

          There are only three or four million moslems in the usa in a country of over three hundred million. Yet they are sufficient to make every cnn reporter refer to “the prophet Muhammad” or “god is great” rather than “Allah is great.” Of course cnn is afraid to show the cartoons.

          The idea that if we had a good government and a good press we could have unlimited Islamic immigration and that moslems would give up their religion (which you said last night) is pure rationalism.

        • Debbie

          10X10, I can assure you that Amy is *not* on the side of the left or of evil on this issue. You owe Amy an apology for your hostile, baseless and insulting comments. So, you’re angry with Muslims. So am I! But Amy is certainly not defending them or Islam, as you must know if you listened to this podcast. What is it that you hope to accomplish by insulting her in the manner that you did? If you think that on this issue she is erroneous, why not just respectfully make your case?

          What Amy said was that a better society and culture, as she described in the podcast, would create an environment where Muslims were ashamed of their religion, or enticed to pursue happiness in the secular society and leave Islam behind. Those who were violent or militant would be dealt with appropriately, but the point is that these would not be a major, systematic problem in a rational, proper society. Even if you think that is incorrect, it is certainly not a pro-Islamic or leftist position. There are subtle points here, and if you want to understand the issues better, and decide whether it makes sense to you, I recommend this lecture, which touches on some of the same ideas: https://estore.aynrand.org/p/70/the-role-of-philosophy-and-psychology-in-history-mp3-download

          Incidentally, I disagree most emphatically with your claim that Islam should be “banned”, if what you mean by that is that the government should forcibly ban a set of ideas. Islam should be shunned, rejected and ridiculed by the citizens, but government is an instrument of force, and for a government to systematically initiate force against its citizens *in the realm of ideas* (even terrible ones) would be tyranny of the lowest order. That is certainly not consistent with the objective of a free, rational society. It is its antithesis.

          • 10x10

            “If you think that on this issue she is erroneous, why not just respectfully make your case?”

            Spare me your cowardly pathetic thin skinned sentiments. My god, is Objectivism a movement of wimps? Rand whatever her flaws belched fire. You? Mealy mouthed umbrage taker. Good luck “capturing the culture” with that approach.

            “What Amy said was that a better society and culture, as she described in the podcast, would create an environment where Muslims were ashamed of their religion, or enticed to pursue happiness in the secular society and leave Islam behind. ”

            This is the same attitude the Left takes and its wrong. This view that if you just subject Muslims to a more rational liberty oriented secular culture then they will turn away from Islam is so naive as to be cringe worthy. Its the view that the Left takes with everything. They believe if you give Muslims a Left-liberal cultural full of “equality” and cheap sex they will magically abandon their religion and become good little liberals. You believe if you give Muslims “individualism” and “liberty” they will become good little individualists. This is NOT born out by reality. In reality, Muslims bring their culture with them wherever they go and when they do become pious and immerse themselves in the atmospherics of Islam, what do they find? They find that Islam is WAR. Your view is the legacy of Classical Liberalism’s view that all you need to change society is peaceful debate and dialog and education. This view is garbage and ahistorical. Rand continued this view with her “in a free marketplace of ideas the best ideas will win.” The weight of history is against this. But your real doozy is this:

            “Islam should be shunned, rejected and ridiculed by the citizens, but government is an instrument of force, and for a government to systematically initiate force against its citizens *in the realm of ideas* (even terrible ones) would be tyranny of the lowest order. ”

            God no. This is why Objectivism is and has been IMPOTENT to change diddly in this culture. Islam is NOT just a set of ideas that anyone can adhere to based on their volitional choice; their freedom of “self-determination”. Islam is military movement aimed at the conquest and subjugation of the entire WORLD. Any ideological/political movement that would allow Islam to exist within its borders and would allow Muslims, ie a 5th column, to aggregate is SUICIDAL. The great question is whether Classical Liberalism and all of its derivatives, ie libertarianism, Objectivism, etc, are a sustainable foundation for a political order. From what we’ve seen so far its not unreasonable to say that it isn’t. If your advocates are so suicidal as to believe that Muslims can be allowed in your nation knowing full well what they believe in and what the literalists will do then this is pure suicide.

            You people and your “freedom of association” have ALL Westerners living in a state of fear that they are not at the next Ground Zero. All because you can’t say that Islam is evil and that it should be banned. As I have said, IMO I think you can ban the religion on Rand’s ideological grounds. Islam is the perpetual solicitation to commit violence. It is a DECLARATION OF WAR; permanently. “Freedom of religion” can not and should not include Islam.

            As for Peikoff’s view on how history is moved by philosophy, its way too simple and ignores far too many factors such as race and biology, mating patterns, r vs k selection strategies, out vs in group dynamics, etc. Yes, philosophy plays a role and ideas matter but they themselves don’t exist in a vacuum. But even there, even on Peikoff’s view, if you put Islam in a Leftist culture (which ours is) what do you think you will get? Islam plus multi-culturalism = death for European civilization. And I didn’t even get into birth rates, feminism and demographic projections.

            Amy covered nothing of true relevance to the Islam issue in their podcast. As I said, you get more real-talk from PaleoCons and ethno-nationalists on this issue. Whatever your view of their positive philosophy, they at least understand that the evil of Islam is only part of the problem. The main problem is the evil of the Left and the flaws within Right/Classical Liberalism (of which O’ism is a derivative). They also understand that if the Right Liberals (ie Amy and Oist gang) won’t defend Euro-white civilization, then the hard-Right will. I’m intrigued by the “France for the French” movement and hope it continues to grow. Far better than “freedom of association” insanity.

            I respect and admire Rand. She had balls and whatever her flaws she was a fighter but I must confess when I listen to Amy’s little mousy voice try to take on huge matters like the evil of Islam, its hard for me to take her seriously. And Objectivism in general is mousy and weak. The only exceptions I see are Ed Cline and Lindsay Perigo, but they’re outcasts. No wonder, they don’t seem mousy and recognize that Islam can’t co-exist with Western / Euro civilization. My god, its been at war with it for 14 centuries. Jesus.

          • Debbie is my friend. You are a rude jerk who spews venom under a pseudonym.

            Move along.

          • mark martinson

            Debbie. Amy said that with the right kind of culture a society could have unlimited Islamic immigration and we need not fear apparently what moslems are doing in much smaller numbers now.

            This is like Trotsky saying that under communism tge average person will rise to the level of a Goethe.

            Its a view of human nature and culture unmorred by the last 1400 years of Islamic history not to mention recent years in genetics and psychology.

            Next she will be telling us that race is a social construct.


          • I’ve never advocated “unlimited” immigration of any kind, and I’ve said Muslims (and those from Muslim countries) should be subject to additional scrutiny.

            As Bosch might say, you are starting to bore me. Move along.

        • 10X10. You are supporting political action against individuals for their espoused ideas. It is not government’s job to police ideas.
          The left has indicated an inclination to police ideas, as is discussed by Amy and Bosch in this podcast. Amy and Bosch are here discussing the importance of protecting the right to freedom of thought.
          It is very important to consider the full context here, not only of the discussion in this podcast, but also the nature of a political system.
          The principle of individual rights is the only basis for a rational position on this issue. The principle of individual rights, applied in politics, provides us the freedom to live in safety from those who would harm us. And it also *necessitates the right to freedom of thought*–freedom to believe and say whatever one chooses.
          Regarding Ayn Rand’s position, heres a quote that took me about 15 seconds to find in Dr. Binswanger’s lexicon: “When you loose the distinction between action and speech, you loose, eventually, the freedom of both.”
          You claim to be an Objectivist, and therefore, presumably, would support a political system that protects individual rights. Yet here you are calling for peaceful law abiding individuals be “banned” merely for the ideas they hold.
          You, 10X10, by rejecting political protection of freedom of thought, are the one, perhaps unknowingly, siding with the left. You, 10X10, seem to think that you can have your cake and eat it too.

          • Donald Richardson


            10X10 can speak for himself, but I assume his argument is something like this:

            1. The state may forbid freedom of speech when the nation is at war.

            2. For example, since the US banned the US Nazi Party (if there was one) in WW2 and also restricted Americans from supporting Nazism. It didn’t matter how peaceful these people were.

            3. The US is at war with Islam (the Umma) and based on the nature of Islam it will always be at war.

            4. The US should ban Islam and the advocacy of Islam.

            I would not consider people who, if they became a majority will democratically vote in Sharia, peaceful.

            While I wouldn’t support deporting Moslems or Communists or Nazis who are legally here, I would have an absolute ban on new Islamic immigration (or communist or nazi).

            As the situation in Euorope indicates (such as the Rotherham rapes) a moderately sized Islamic populaton is dangerous.

  2. mark martinson

    Amy. I’d recommend the YouTube channel of libertarian realist.

    He has a good take on “ayn rand and racism.”


  3. mark martinson


    Ironic that this happened in paris.

    Lebanon was called the “Paris of the Middle East.” Then the moslems became the majority.

    Detroit was called “the Paris of the west.” Then it became 93 percent African.

    Race is real. Religion is real. Civilization hangs by a thread.

  4. Love Your comments regarding reading the Qur’an, regarding the response of the French to this horrible act, and especially regarding the surprisingly good character revealed in French culture by recent acts of feminists and businessmen!
    In spite of the terrible facts and issues at hand, you have managed to crack me up and lighten my mood 😀

    • Thanks, “FeltyNoggin” 🙂

      The French are far from perfect—they don’t have our First Amendment, for starters—but some of the recent developments in the culture are heartening. I hope it’s not to late.

      • Donald Richardson

        I’d like to praise the French, but.

        1. The French have hate speech law.

        2. Charlie Hebdo itself called for the National Front political party to be banned.

        3. The French have been on the forefront of every nutty philosophical movement (existentialism, deconstructionism, etc.).

        4. The French have brought this situation on themselves by a suicidal immigration policy.

        Consider 4 in detail. France is becoming unlivable for Jews. They are fleeing to Israel. Yes Israel is safer for Jews than France. In other words, its more important for the French to have a multicultural 5th column of Moslems than protect the lives of its Jewish citizens.

  5. Amy, you have much more patience than do I. It strikes me as funny when people write reams and reams spouting there professed knowledge of Objectivism and then claim it is derivative of a political ideology. I’m unaware of any political movement which begins with axioms of existence.

    In any event, several months ago I put forth the notion of Oxygen Credits for trading health care benefits in the coming debacle of a scheme. I assumed that it was clear I was being tongue-in-cheek, thinking that comparing them to the idiocy of Carbon Credits would, among other notions, have made that point. In the future, I hope to be more active here, and to be less cryptic about what I think is humor. Keep up the good work. Every voice for reason keeps humanity alive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.