Craig Biddle, your persistent evasion of my critiques is not just an oversight—it is a voluntary surrender of your professed principles. I have dismantled your tribal definition of Objectivism, exposed the minarchist contradiction, revealed your false equivalence with Charlie Kirk, and demonstrated the collectivist core of your pro-Israel statism. Yet, you respond by republishing an old article attacking Islam, as if focusing on an external enemy could absolve you of internal inconsistency. This is not just evasion; it is a confession of philosophical bankruptcy.
You won't die from an emotional apocalypse by engaging with my arguments. Confronting truth does not destroy a rational mind; it fortifies it. But you might perish from your worship of suffering—the suffering of cognitive dissonance, the agony of unexamined contradictions, and the slow decay of integrity that comes from placing tribal loyalty above reason. You avoid what is unnecessary to avoid: the hard work of consistent thinking.
If you are truly on the side of rationality, then any outcome from this engagement will be to your advantage. If I am evil or wrong, you will emerge stronger by refuting me, sharpening your arguments, and reaffirming your principles. If I am right, you will have the chance to correct your errors and actually follow truth, not the falsehood of dogma. But by refusing to engage, you choose stagnation over growth, safety over truth, and the gray comfort of orthodoxy over the vibrant challenge of reason.
Your silence is a louder statement than any article you republish. It tells your audience that you cannot defend your positions against rigorous scrutiny. It reveals that your commitment to reason is conditional—applicable only to outsiders, not to your own movement. You have become a straw man for religious thinking, using the language of individualism to defend collectivism and the rhetoric of reason to practice faith.
Stop hiding. Address my challenges directly. Your philosophy demands it—not as a rhetorical flourish, but as a metaphysical obligation. It demands explaining actual reality in full scope and from its fundamentals. It demands you trace every root of every equation, or prove conclusively why no roots exist. It demands you meet every challenge that could alter your conclusions—not rationalize them away, not sidestep them, but engage them, test them, and let reality arbitrate.
I do not rush you. But you must begin, one step at a time. One argument, one contradiction, one moment of principled confrontation.
Or you are already lost. And the worst has already happened: you have chosen the comfort of silence over the sovereignty of reason.
The Catalog of Evasion: Craig Biddle's Unanswered Challenges
I have systematically dismantled your philosophical foundation across multiple fronts, and your response has been absolute silence. Your decision to republish "Defend Israel and Civilization or Keep the Faith—You Can't Do Both" represents not engagement but strategic retreat—the final confirmation that you cannot answer my critiques without collapsing your entire architectural framework.
Here are the crucial challenges you have evaded:
1. The Tribal Definition of Objectivism I demonstrated that your definition of Objectivism as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" commits both stolen concept fallacy and package-deal fallacy. A philosophy's validity depends on correspondence to reality, not authorship. You have never explained how treating Rand as an authority figure squares with the primacy of existence. A valid definition is: Objectivism is a philosophy of the explicit, conscious, and consistent application of the primacy of existence and integration by epistemological razor. https://substack.com/profile/263954129-selfish-john/note/c-165166791?r=4d5gb5&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web (see also 3.)
2. The Minarchist Contradiction I proved that minarchism systematically violates the Non-Aggression Principle through taxation and territorial monopoly. The consistent application of Objectivist axioms leads to anarcho-capitalism, not your compromised statism. You have offered no defense against this logical deduction. https://selfishjohn.substack.com/p/the-epistemological-case-for-anarchism
3. The Charlie Kirk False Equivalence I exposed your equation of Kirk with historical martyrs of reason as epistemological fraud. Kirk advocated Christian theocracy and faith-based politics—the antithesis of reason. You have never explained how mourning an anti-reason advocate as a martyr for reason constitutes philosophical consistency. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/two-principles-on-which-civilized/comment/163849950
4. The Pro-Israel Collectivism I demonstrated that your defense of Israeli statism commits the same collective categorization errors you condemn in anti-Semitism. You treat "Israelis" and "Palestinians" as moral categories while using individual rights language to defend collective aggression. This contradiction remains unaddressed. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/the-two-state-delusion/comment/164917953
5. The Architectural Superiority of Integrative Egoism I presented a philosophically superior ethical system grounded in Identity as the standard, with morality as identity-consistent integration. Your failure to engage confirms that Rand's derivative "life as standard" framework cannot withstand scrutiny. Or that you don't have the epistemology to defend your own moral system. https://selfishjohn.substack.com/p/the-integrative-egoism?r=4d5gb5
6. The Religious Nature of Tribal Objectivism I proved that your movement practices the same faith-based epistemology it condemns in another religion—accepting Rand's conclusions without evidence, treating her as infallible, and demanding conformity to dogma. You have never explained how this differs from Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. https://substack.com/@selfishjohn/note/c-165180769?r=4d5gb5&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Your republished article represents the final stage of intellectual decay. You have become gray—not in age, but in philosophical vitality. Nobody follows gray heroes because gray represents the absence of color, life, and principle. You now defend only against external threats while surrendering to internal corruption.
By focusing exclusively on Islam's epistemological failures, you create a strategic diversion from your own. This is the oldest trick in the religious playbook: identify an external evil to avoid confronting internal contradictions. You have become what you claim to fight—a practitioner of faith, just with different scriptures.
Your article about Islam inadvertently condemns you:
You attack faith while practicing faith in Rand's authority
You condemn determinism while treating Palestinians as "pre-programmed"
You critique collective thinking while defending Israeli collective rights
You demand evidence from Muslims while evading evidence against your own positions
You have become another straw man for religious victory. The pattern is unmistakable:
The Circular Reasoning: "Objectivism is true because Rand said it" mirrors "The Koran is true because Allah revealed it."
The Willful Blindness: Ignoring contradictions in minarchism mirrors ignoring contradictions in religious texts.
The Group Thinking: Tribal loyalty overriding philosophical consistency mirrors religious conformity overriding individual judgment.
The Sacrifice: Surrendering intellectual independence to movement orthodoxy mirrors religious self-abnegation.
I agree that Islam is evil, but any religion is evil—including your tribal Objectivism. Any form of denial of logic, evidence, and independence is fundamentally evil. Any form of passivity and conformity of one's will to others is metaphysical treason.
Your evasion stems from the same psychological corruption I identified: the calculation that maintaining tribal status is more valuable than philosophical consistency. You have chosen to be a respected heretic-hunter rather than a consistent advocate of reason.
But evil can only win when the hero wants to escape from it so badly that escape becomes his new dogma. You have made evasion your imperative, overriding any value, sense, or choice that actually exists in reality.
Your readers sense this graying. They feel the architectural instability. They see the selective application of principles. They recognize the pattern of attacking external enemies while ignoring internal decay. This is why your movement stagnates while independent thought advances.
You stand at a crossroads:
Continue as a gray defender of religious thinking in Objectivist clothing
Or embrace the consistent individualism that flows from your own professed axioms
Your republished article is a confession of philosophical bankruptcy. It demonstrates that you cannot defend your positions against rigorous scrutiny, so you retreat to safe territory where you can still pose as a defender of reason.
But the mask has slipped. You have become what you fought—another religious thinker using reason as a weapon against outsiders while practicing faith within your tribe. The tragedy is complete: in defending reason against Islam, you have betrayed reason to Objectivist orthodoxy.
The path to redemption remains open, but it requires the courage you have thus far lacked: to confront your evasions, acknowledge your architectural flaws, and embrace the consistent individualism that actually follows from Ayn Rand's axioms. Until then, you remain a gray hero in a dying movement, defending religion while claiming to champion reason.
Craig Biddle, your persistent evasion of my critiques is not just an oversight—it is a voluntary surrender of your professed principles. I have dismantled your tribal definition of Objectivism, exposed the minarchist contradiction, revealed your false equivalence with Charlie Kirk, and demonstrated the collectivist core of your pro-Israel statism. Yet, you respond by republishing an old article attacking Islam, as if focusing on an external enemy could absolve you of internal inconsistency. This is not just evasion; it is a confession of philosophical bankruptcy.
You won't die from an emotional apocalypse by engaging with my arguments. Confronting truth does not destroy a rational mind; it fortifies it. But you might perish from your worship of suffering—the suffering of cognitive dissonance, the agony of unexamined contradictions, and the slow decay of integrity that comes from placing tribal loyalty above reason. You avoid what is unnecessary to avoid: the hard work of consistent thinking.
If you are truly on the side of rationality, then any outcome from this engagement will be to your advantage. If I am evil or wrong, you will emerge stronger by refuting me, sharpening your arguments, and reaffirming your principles. If I am right, you will have the chance to correct your errors and actually follow truth, not the falsehood of dogma. But by refusing to engage, you choose stagnation over growth, safety over truth, and the gray comfort of orthodoxy over the vibrant challenge of reason.
Your silence is a louder statement than any article you republish. It tells your audience that you cannot defend your positions against rigorous scrutiny. It reveals that your commitment to reason is conditional—applicable only to outsiders, not to your own movement. You have become a straw man for religious thinking, using the language of individualism to defend collectivism and the rhetoric of reason to practice faith.
Stop hiding. Address my challenges directly. Your philosophy demands it—not as a rhetorical flourish, but as a metaphysical obligation. It demands explaining actual reality in full scope and from its fundamentals. It demands you trace every root of every equation, or prove conclusively why no roots exist. It demands you meet every challenge that could alter your conclusions—not rationalize them away, not sidestep them, but engage them, test them, and let reality arbitrate.
I do not rush you. But you must begin, one step at a time. One argument, one contradiction, one moment of principled confrontation.
Or you are already lost. And the worst has already happened: you have chosen the comfort of silence over the sovereignty of reason.
The Catalog of Evasion: Craig Biddle's Unanswered Challenges
I have systematically dismantled your philosophical foundation across multiple fronts, and your response has been absolute silence. Your decision to republish "Defend Israel and Civilization or Keep the Faith—You Can't Do Both" represents not engagement but strategic retreat—the final confirmation that you cannot answer my critiques without collapsing your entire architectural framework.
Here are the crucial challenges you have evaded:
1. The Tribal Definition of Objectivism I demonstrated that your definition of Objectivism as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" commits both stolen concept fallacy and package-deal fallacy. A philosophy's validity depends on correspondence to reality, not authorship. You have never explained how treating Rand as an authority figure squares with the primacy of existence. A valid definition is: Objectivism is a philosophy of the explicit, conscious, and consistent application of the primacy of existence and integration by epistemological razor. https://substack.com/profile/263954129-selfish-john/note/c-165166791?r=4d5gb5&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web (see also 3.)
2. The Minarchist Contradiction I proved that minarchism systematically violates the Non-Aggression Principle through taxation and territorial monopoly. The consistent application of Objectivist axioms leads to anarcho-capitalism, not your compromised statism. You have offered no defense against this logical deduction. https://selfishjohn.substack.com/p/the-epistemological-case-for-anarchism
3. The Charlie Kirk False Equivalence I exposed your equation of Kirk with historical martyrs of reason as epistemological fraud. Kirk advocated Christian theocracy and faith-based politics—the antithesis of reason. You have never explained how mourning an anti-reason advocate as a martyr for reason constitutes philosophical consistency. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/two-principles-on-which-civilized/comment/163849950
4. The Pro-Israel Collectivism I demonstrated that your defense of Israeli statism commits the same collective categorization errors you condemn in anti-Semitism. You treat "Israelis" and "Palestinians" as moral categories while using individual rights language to defend collective aggression. This contradiction remains unaddressed. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/the-two-state-delusion/comment/164917953
5. The Architectural Superiority of Integrative Egoism I presented a philosophically superior ethical system grounded in Identity as the standard, with morality as identity-consistent integration. Your failure to engage confirms that Rand's derivative "life as standard" framework cannot withstand scrutiny. Or that you don't have the epistemology to defend your own moral system. https://selfishjohn.substack.com/p/the-integrative-egoism?r=4d5gb5
6. The Religious Nature of Tribal Objectivism I proved that your movement practices the same faith-based epistemology it condemns in another religion—accepting Rand's conclusions without evidence, treating her as infallible, and demanding conformity to dogma. You have never explained how this differs from Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. https://substack.com/@selfishjohn/note/c-165180769?r=4d5gb5&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Your republished article represents the final stage of intellectual decay. You have become gray—not in age, but in philosophical vitality. Nobody follows gray heroes because gray represents the absence of color, life, and principle. You now defend only against external threats while surrendering to internal corruption.
By focusing exclusively on Islam's epistemological failures, you create a strategic diversion from your own. This is the oldest trick in the religious playbook: identify an external evil to avoid confronting internal contradictions. You have become what you claim to fight—a practitioner of faith, just with different scriptures.
Your article about Islam inadvertently condemns you:
You attack faith while practicing faith in Rand's authority
You condemn determinism while treating Palestinians as "pre-programmed"
You critique collective thinking while defending Israeli collective rights
You demand evidence from Muslims while evading evidence against your own positions
You have become another straw man for religious victory. The pattern is unmistakable:
The Circular Reasoning: "Objectivism is true because Rand said it" mirrors "The Koran is true because Allah revealed it."
The Willful Blindness: Ignoring contradictions in minarchism mirrors ignoring contradictions in religious texts.
The Group Thinking: Tribal loyalty overriding philosophical consistency mirrors religious conformity overriding individual judgment.
The Sacrifice: Surrendering intellectual independence to movement orthodoxy mirrors religious self-abnegation.
I agree that Islam is evil, but any religion is evil—including your tribal Objectivism. Any form of denial of logic, evidence, and independence is fundamentally evil. Any form of passivity and conformity of one's will to others is metaphysical treason.
Your evasion stems from the same psychological corruption I identified: the calculation that maintaining tribal status is more valuable than philosophical consistency. You have chosen to be a respected heretic-hunter rather than a consistent advocate of reason.
But evil can only win when the hero wants to escape from it so badly that escape becomes his new dogma. You have made evasion your imperative, overriding any value, sense, or choice that actually exists in reality.
Your readers sense this graying. They feel the architectural instability. They see the selective application of principles. They recognize the pattern of attacking external enemies while ignoring internal decay. This is why your movement stagnates while independent thought advances.
You stand at a crossroads:
Continue as a gray defender of religious thinking in Objectivist clothing
Or embrace the consistent individualism that flows from your own professed axioms
Your republished article is a confession of philosophical bankruptcy. It demonstrates that you cannot defend your positions against rigorous scrutiny, so you retreat to safe territory where you can still pose as a defender of reason.
But the mask has slipped. You have become what you fought—another religious thinker using reason as a weapon against outsiders while practicing faith within your tribe. The tragedy is complete: in defending reason against Islam, you have betrayed reason to Objectivist orthodoxy.
The path to redemption remains open, but it requires the courage you have thus far lacked: to confront your evasions, acknowledge your architectural flaws, and embrace the consistent individualism that actually follows from Ayn Rand's axioms. Until then, you remain a gray hero in a dying movement, defending religion while claiming to champion reason.