"Victor, I specifically distinguished anti-Semitism from racism."

Why? Anti-semitism is merely a more specific form of *racism*. I don't understand your reasoning here--if you, indeed, indicate them as two different things.

After the Yom Kippur War, Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum in the Q & A stated that she supported Israel and was going to send money to Israel--even though she had never done that before.

--Brant

"And please, I've heard enough holocaust talk from my own family to last me a thousand lifetimes, so no preaching."

Preaching?? Now why would I think it needed to preach about the holocaust to an Objectivist...I merely cited it!

Victor, I specifically distinguished anti-Semitism from racism. They're both bad, and they can be combined. Luther was a rabid anti-Semite, but not a racist. Similarly, the way spanish conquistadores treated indians wasn't racist - the difference is that they believed non-Christians not to be human in the same respect as Europeans. The Christian missionaries decided this was a bad idea -- because the indians could become christian, in time.

And please, I've heard enough holocaust talk from my own family to last me a thousand lifetimes, so no preaching.

You wrote: We have to take account of the history, here. Racism is in many respects a recent phenomenon, a version of biological and collectivistic determinism. Anti-Semitism both precedes it and is bolstered by it."

Racism is a recent phenomenon? The mind-reeling attempt at genocide in Nazi Germany could never have taken place had it not been for centuries of Anti-semitism fostered by Christian absolutist claims. One has only to read some of Martin Luther's TABLE TALK to see how this "spritual giant" could be tainted by relgious intolerance.

In AGAINST THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES--he dragged up all the *old junk* "They poison wells, steal Christian children, whom they torture to obtain their blood..." Blah, blah, blah.

However, I'm not saying Nazi Germany all rested on Luther.

***

We have to take account of the history, here. Racism is in many respects a recent phenomenon, a version of biological and collectivistic determinism. Anti-Semitism both precedes it and is bolstered by it.

The Jews once believed they were superior because God had chosen them. Then came the Christians, who believed that God had abandoned the Jews (and that they had renounced him) and chosen them instead. None of that is racist, as such.

Anytime someone elevates race (or the equivalent) as a virtue, it will imply negative judgments of other races - they lack the requisite virtue. So German racists thought all but aryans (and semi/semi-demi Aryans like the Baltics etc.) were inferior, because they were superior. Likewise, you'll find Jews who implicitly adhere to race theory of that kind, the sort that became common only in the 19th century.

More importantly, however, is that "racism" does not necessarily mean what it is taken to mean, or how it's used. A general distaste or dislike for a race, hypothetically, might not be racist - the question is the reason for the dislike. I would probably dislike every Jew in a 17th century Polish village, not because I'm a racist or anti-Semite. I have an aversion to Orthodox Jews, and it's justified by my assessment of their beliefs, lifestyle, etc.

Does not racism also consist of attributing positive traits to one’s race—or even that of another? Does racist only consist of degrading and hate? What if you swell up with pride if you are of Greek descent…as was that great Aristotle fellow? As in "I'm a Greek dude...I come from a race of brilliant thinkers. I feel so proud!"

Is this not RACISM? Pure and simple?

Anti-semitism would be like racism as Boaz describes, but the "anti-" means just that. That it's linked to some kind of aversion, dislike, etc. of Jews.

Racism might not be accompanied by hatred, though it's hard to envision how it would not be accompanied by some negative assessment of a person based on their membership in a race -- even if it's just the view that someone must be inferior in some regard because of their race. Racism as Boaz describes it looks like something other (or a broader category) than racism, however similar -- race theory, maybe. "Racism" usually connotes negative assessments or ascriptions of inferiority.

I have spoken with one Jew who, in context of a discussion of the marked success of Jewish people, said flat-out, "Because we're the superior race." I guess that's racism, inasmuch as it implies that everyone else by race is inferior.

Racism is the tendency to explain a person's attributes and actions by reference to his race, not just liking or disliking the race. Anti-Semitism is a more complex form, and not just restricted to Jew-hatred.

Anyway, saying that X believes in something because he comes from somewhere, vs. why he actually believes it - his arguments and philosophical context and so forth (when they are on record) -- especially when the rest of his colleagues believe the same thing but don't originate from that place, is akin to racism. It's the same logical error, and not just an error. If a German *objectivist* argued for torture in wartime, would it be appropriate to suggest that his position was influenced by being from Germany (during the 30's)? Is that even worthy of rebuttal? Unless one had specific evidence that his position was a result of studying, reading, being around something in his origin. The rush to explain things by reference to race or origin, vs. examining the merits of the position (which have no specific basis in his origin), shows a great deal.

I once met a Lebanese student who was an anti-Semite. He didn't agree with me that he was an anti-Semite; after all, he liked lots of things about Jews, e.g., that they're educated and make good bankers.

I'm Israeli, by the way. Now let's see what people can derive about me from that, aside from the fact that I probably like hummous and speak Hebrew.

"There is plenty strength in not stonewalling and simply coming right out and saying that you are not an anti-semite. Or perhaps your getting your kicks out of your persecution complex, baiting your ARI-ist enemies, playing the proof-game with them, etc."

Bingo. Can you see that slimy to tongue planted firmly in his cheek—and the smirk on his face as if it were frozen there. Wait for more sardonic and pithy remarks to follow.

Mark wrote:

Fact is, the charge “anti-semite” can never be denied. Sure, it’s supposed to mean “murderous hatred of all Jews,” but look how it’s used in practice. Look what Mr. Weiss tries to do with it.

I don't think it's supposed to mean murderous, perhaps not even hatred. It means something like: having some negative assessment of Jews based not on their person, but on the fact of their being Jewish. It's basically just like racism, though it's aimed at an ethnic group rather than a race.

It might well be that the evidence alleging that you are an anti-semite (in addition to being a well-established whining asshole) is not conclusive. I haven't sorted through the claims in much detail, but what I've seen doesn't seem at all conclusive. So you could continue down the ARI-baiting road playing up the supposed inconclusiveness. That's one tactic. Another is coming out and saying that you're not anti-semitic. That would in fact be an act that you claim above can't be done, but it plainly can be. It's then up to an assessment of the available evidence by reasonable people whether the charges add up to being conclusive.

I'm supposing here that a denial qualifies as some kind of evidence, prima facie perhaps. Or testimony taken into consideration, the credibility of which is determined by reference to the other evidence. At the least, I think it counts for something more than the stonewalling response. Usually, a person needn't issue any denial if a charge is just leveled arbitrarily out of thin air. One wouldn't even dignify it with a response or denial. Then, there are charges based on some degree of evidence.

[snip rest of Mark's ARI-baiting]

Quoting Mark:

Mr. Weiss wrote:

Mark

I don't think I've yet to see you actually say that you are not an anti-semite. Perhaps to many here, if you did, that would be akin to Pres. Nixon saying that he is not a crook. You wouldn't care about such people anyway, though there are others who may be willing to accept such at face-value until they see something that would strongly suggest otherwise. So far, what we have is, "if [some innocuous-sounding position] makes me an anti-semite, then I'm an anti-semite." The game you're playing now is a "catch me if you can, you can't prove it, nee-ner nee-ner neeee-ner!"

There is plenty strength in not stonewalling and simply coming right out and saying that you are not an anti-semite. Or perhaps your getting your kicks out of your persecution complex, baiting your ARI-ist enemies, playing the proof-game with them, etc.

You called yourself an anti-Semite. I know you were being sarcastic, but why do such a thing on the Internet where people are now free to quote you out of context? To revel in such an appellation makes one wonder. The "argument" you claim I was trying to make is weak and circular, but I wasn't trying to do that. I was trying to throw a little light on your hysteria, obviously not to your benefit.

--Brant

Mr. Gaede joins The Wolfpack:

      “Fred hasn’t called me one even though we don’t much like each other. So why you?”

A fine argument!  Mr. Weiss calls you an anti-semite. He doesn’t do that to Mr. Gaede, even though they dislike each other. Therefore ...  “Anti-semite!”  “Anti-semite!”

      Mr. X, your wife is a whore.

      Go ahead, deny it. We know she’s a whore.
      Come on, Mr. X, is your wife a whore?
      Is she?  Is she?

This mocks the hectoring of The Wolfpack, except that “whore” isn’t a package deal like “anti-semite.”

Fact is, the charge “anti-semite” can never be denied. Sure, it’s supposed to mean “murderous hatred of all Jews,” but look how it’s used in practice. Look what Mr. Weiss tries to do with it.

He uses “anti-semitism” not to define or distinguish things, but to package them indiscriminately, for example to equate any criticism of Israel with murderous hatred of Jews. (See my “Loose ends” post about 36 posts back.) Judging from the torrent of vituperation Mr. Weiss brought down on yours truly the method is amazingly effective.

Except that people are catching on.

Mark
ARI Watch

BSimovici writes:

      “... trying to tie Yaron Brook’s ideological motives with his origins in Israel does at least border on racism ...”

That’s like  “border on being pregnant” – it’s a weasel-worded accusation. Here’s what BSimovici is really saying:

We must not address possible Israeli cultural influences on Yaron Brook’s thinking because that would be racist.

Now where does race enter here? Israel of course: Israeli culture and government give special privileges to Jews. If that’s racist it’s not my doing.

BSimovici pretends that he treated my link the same as Ms. Hsieh’s, he continues his sarcasm (“I salute you ...” etc.), and utters inarticulate epithets:  “lunacy”,  “slimebucket”  and so forth, without addressing any idea whatever besides a conjecture about Yaron Brook.

Mark
ARI Watch

BSimovici continues his sarcasm:

BSimovici gropes to find fault. Does he object to Ms. Hsieh putting Noodlefood after her every signature? Nope, she’s on the right side.

Now really, that's not fair at all. I think it's good that you link to your website, so much so that I added my own plug for it. That's practically the only thing I dont' fault you for. Unlike Fred, you see, I can't possibly accuse you of anti-Semitism when there's enough information out there to convict you of lunacy. Whether or not you're an anti-Semite is a rather trivial matter at that point.

Then again, trying to tie Yaron Brook's ideological motives with his origins in Israel does at least border on racism, even if it's hard to take seriously. Again, Mark, I salute you for wearing you true colors as openly as you do on this forum. Unfortunately, however, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take my own advice and begin pretending that you don't exist. I'll go further: anyone who continues to speak to this slimebucket after considering the relevant evidence is welcome to his company and conversation, but not mine.

Dear Soloists: I value Solo very much, and all the original posts that I have submitted have been in order to ignite a discussion.—posts such as “The hatred of Objectivism is the hatred of Objectivity” and “Lenny Bruce: free speech crusader” and So forth. But there has been a post that I have submitted here, during the heated debates on this thread between Phil, that I must apologize for: Phil was charged for purposely failing to “integrate” all the evidence pertinent to his claims, and so in a heated rush of righteous expediency I cut and pasted a “lesson” on just what integration is all about—but did not attribute what source I snatched it from. The post is "Class is in Phil" and the snip was from IOP. This was a mistake on my part, which I am apologizing for. This action came in the following context: it was in regards to Phil’s lack of integration, as charged by Penelope, and so in a sarcastic following up, as I said, I took it on myself to “educate” Phil as to what this consists of—and of course, everybody knows that “intellectual integration” is Rand’s achievement. In a manner of expedite measures, I cut and paste the essence of everybody knows to be Ayn Rand’s intellectual achievement. I don’t have anything NEW to say on integration; I do not even pretend to offer anything new on this subject; I merely wanted to re-assert that which is well established. I did so. And this was not in a manner of taking authorship of it—but rather, it was in the heat of a “Hey Phil, get a load of what you are failing to do” type of thing. I’m not computer savvy enough to give a direct link to something—or else I surely would have, but I have no trouble communicating what I want to say. In regards to being computer illiterate, I had Julian upload my ugly mug. Speaking on intellectual matters, however, I have too much to say! This is just an unfortunate mistake, and it was a heated moment--as I'm a heated artist type. But now I know better.

You aren't the first who can't take SOLOP heat. If you are going to use "fascism" and "Wolfpack" what are you complaining about? In the "Posting Guidelines" Linz says it's his house so that's the bottom line. If you aren't an anti-Semite say so. Fred hasn't called me one even though we don't much like each other. So why you?

--Brant

BSimovici wrote:
      “Anyone interested in the morbid entrails of insanity is welcome to peruse the contents of this charming discussant's website ...”

It’s hard for me to appreciate pompous and sophomoric prose when it’s my ox that’s being gored.

BSimovici continues his sarcasm:
      “... which he has generously linked to in most of his comments.”

BSimovici gropes to find fault. Does he object to Ms. Hsieh putting Noodlefood after her every signature? Nope, she’s on the right side.

BSimovici mixes truth with misrepresentation while describing ARI Watch:
      “... Yaron Brook has been advancing the cause of fascism, which naturally he has brought with him from Israel.”

I do argue that ARI advances the cause of fascism. Whether Brook’s having been born and raised in Israel has anything to do with it is another question. Clearly he loves Israel. Perhaps the fact that Israel finds torture a de facto method of inquiry has influenced his views on it. And perhaps the fact that Israel has no Bill of Rights helps deaden any concern he might have for their violation in America. This is conjectural and might be worth mentioning briefly in a future article on the website.

BSimovici ends his micro-description of ARI Watch with “... the US was unjustified in attacking Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.” – which he got right.

Apparently Jason Quintana has succumbed to peer pressure and now has one foot in The Wolfpack, damning yours truly with faint calumny (“hey maybe Mark’s an expletive deleted, I don’t know”). It will be no surprise should he start squealing “Anti-semite!” “Anti-semite!” along with the noisiest of the pack.

I’d written that Mr. Weiss is not a “new intellectual” (in Ayn Rand’s sense) but “the sort of intellectual ARI attracts.” This was hyperbole. People are attracted to ARI for various reasons. Some get innocently taken in, at first, by ARI’s claim to represent Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Others, like Binswanger, though as rotten as they come, would never stoop to the techniques of Mr. Weiss in public. And then there are many like Mr. Weiss and the rest of the Wolfpack.

Though we shouldn’t judge something by its alleged admirers, when ARI has so many sincere admirers like The Wolfpack it makes ARI itself suspect. BSimovici, however, misrepresents ARI Watch when he insinuates that that argument is made there. It’s not, and is unnecessary.

Linz, top honcho at SOLO, wrote:
      “... we don’t ban posters just because other posters demand it.”

Nope, I didn’t demand anything, I was reminding him of his own rules. I thought it was obvious that Mr. Weiss’s behavior, were Linz aware of it, would end his posting career per the SOLO posting guidelines. But it turns out that Linz was aware of it and evidently doesn’t give a damn. I suspect that he more or less agrees with The Wolfpack and that blinds him to their juvenile taunts and bullying. In fact he seemed to join in after writing the above.

So to any lurkers: If you ever decide to post on these forums, know what to expect. You’ll get no help from Lindsay when The Wolfpack comes after you.

Mark
ARI Watch

Read and answered.

I have sent you a private SOLOmail message. You can access this via your inbox on the upper right panel.

- Jason

Time will tell. If interested, jason can pursue the topic, ask questions, think, ask more questions---and come to a conclusion...IF, like I said, interested. If not a racist, Mark is not coming from an "intellectually honest" stand point--that much I can smell. And I am interested to know more of this "ARI Watch" business.

I've read Jason and Victor's posts on this thread and I see no evidence of Jason straddling the fence (Great Wall?) on the charge of Mark being a racist. He hasn't seen enough evidence, that's all.

And I can certainly understand Jason's irritation at Mark for telling him and Lindsay Perigo how to run this site.

As for the slime, slither, rock and the Nazis, Mr. Weiss can go to hell. Where is Lindsay Perigo on this? What is this lout doing on SOLO?

Why Mark, how very ... er ... *ARIan* of you!

As Jase has said, we don't ban posters just because other posters demand it.

ARI is helping to bring fascism – a lot more fascism – to America.

Well thanks for that. I'll bear it in mind.

Linz

A'ight. It looked like you were responding directly to his last post, since I had no way of knowing about your conversation.

I'm not calling for the banning of anybody! Not even Mark [you heard me--not even Mark.]

I have had other conversations with Jason, and not just responding to his most recent post.

Victor, that's not fair. People need time and evidence to make judgments, according to their knowledge. That's not necessarily being in the middle of the road. And there are policies he has to follow as a host here, which don't include banning someone at your (or my) suggestion.

It seems to me that Jason considers being in the "middle of the road" on this--makes him "balanced" and "fair". Of course, we know what usually happens to people when they stand in the middle of the road when the on-coming traffic of opposing principles zooms by.

A negative assessment does not necessarily mean being irrational, anymore than it means being rational.

Are you happy, Lindsay, to give Mr. Weiss a forum for spraying such venom? Is this the new intellectual?

Actually, it’s the sort of intellectual ARI attracts.

So this is what it all comes down to, doesn't it. ARI this, ARI that, ARI the other thing.

Anyone interested in the morbid entrails of insanity is welcome to peruse the contents of this charming discussant's website, which he has generously linked to in most of his comments. There they will learn that Yaron Brook has been advancing the cause of fascism, which naturally he has brought with him from Israel. (They will also be interested to learn that the US was unjustified in attacking Iraq in the persian gulf war.)

They will then of course conclude two things: (A) anyone who defends ARI speaks for ARI, so that one can judge ARI by various people's comments on this forum. (B) ARI is fascist, therefore it's defenders must be fascist. These reciprocal deductions will no doubt help them understand human behavior in the future.

Jason, I think Mark should be kicked off of SOLO (damn it, I broke the rules!)

Mark,

"Where is Lindsay Perigo on this? What is this lout doing on SOLO?"

Mr. Weiss hasn't done anything that would cause us to kick him off of SOLO. I am not convinced that you are a racist, but at the same time I am not convinced that Fred is making that claim (or any other claim) in a dishonest manner. You guys haven't been around SOLO long enough for us to draw conclusions about these things.

One thing we don't appreciate here is suggestions about who should be kicked off of SOLO. So please refrain from doing that in the future.

- Jason

Not much ability is needed to see through you "Mark". But apparently it does get a rise out of you.

As for asking Lindsay to repudiate me, I'm so glad that you grasp the principle. That is precisely what I am asking Phil and Gang to do with you. Tell you what, I'll make you deal. You draw what conclusions you wish from Lindsay not repudiating me and I'll draw my conclusions from Phil and Gang not repudiating you. Fair enough?

Mr. Weiss wrote:

      “... pig-sticking you, ‘Mark’ ”

Evidently Mr. Weiss has risen to his abilities. Again, where is Lindsay Perigo on this? Are you happy, Lindsay, to give Mr. Weiss a forum for spraying such venom? Is this the new intellectual?

Actually, it’s the sort of intellectual ARI attracts.

Mark
ARI Watch

"ARI is helping to bring fascism – a lot more fascism – to America. If Mr. Weiss wants to go Nazi-hunting, read ARI’s op-eds."

You mean the same kind of fascism they have in Israel, "Mark"?

You think maybe that explains ARI's "obsession" with Israel?

"What is this lout doing on SOLO?"

Why, pig-sticking you, "Mark" - and watching you squeal in protest.

Did I give you and Campbell some good ideas for articles you could submit to JARS? Do you have any other suggestions? Don't hold back, "Mark", Campbell's standards aren't very high.

Mr. Weiss claims that I assist the same group in which he puts Phil.

In fact I do not support the Brandens or all critics of Bernstein, and have said so in this thread. Furthermore, the main point of my last post was that, at least in this thread, Phil doesn’t either. That Mr. Weiss has to drag these people in and lump them with Phil in order to defend Ms. Hsieh shows how weak his defense of Ms. Hsieh really is.

As for the slime, slither, rock and the Nazis, Mr. Weiss can go to hell. Where is Lindsay Perigo on this? What is this lout doing on SOLO?

ARI is helping to bring fascism – a lot more fascism – to America. If Mr. Weiss wants to go Nazi-hunting, read ARI’s op-eds.

Mark
ARI Watch

Well, Joe, those three in particular have been demonstrably intellectually bankrupt for a long time.

P.S.: Oh, and I've just been reminded by his having slithered out from under his rock this morning, the other sign is their failure to repudiate "Mark" The Anti-Semite. Rooting around for the kinds of decaying matter which attracts him, he senses that they will welcome his brand of slimey assistance - the same way that the worst elements of German society were drawn like a magnet to the Nazi Party. It would be at least a little more seemingly if they felt a need to hold their noses. But apparently they don't. Their intellectual decline and desperation has gotten that severe.

On the other hand, who knows, maybe with "Mark" goose-stepping beside him, Campbell will regain his courage and start posting here again. Campbell, of course, would have no problem with "Mark". "Mark" merely represents yet another view of Ayn Rand and he may yet get an offer to write articles for JARS. "Mark's" first article: "Why Ayn Rand Would Oppose Israel if She Were Alive Today." Or how about, "Which ARIians Flaunt Their Jewishness and Which Don't?".

Mr. Weiss insinuates that Phil supports the Brandens and the worst of Bernstein’s critics, that Phil is part of this group. I’m not familiar with all of Phil’s writing but he said nothing about the Brandens or Bernstein in the article with which he started this thread, and he has neither supported the Brandens nor criticized Bernstein in what followed.

As usual with Mr. Weiss he put a lot of epithets in his post, including:
      ... anti-ARI zealots ...
      ... the far-fetched and absurd excuses Phil and others dream up ...
      ... they have to manufacture excuses for Sciabarra ...
      ... unmoored from reality and embracing subjectivism ...
      ... smears of [i.e. against] Diana ...
      ... intellectual bankruptcy on a massive scale.

Mr. Weiss has not shown any of this regarding Phil, even if one were to grant that his first point – of a dozen – is not as strong as he thought.

Regarding “anti-ARI zealots”: There are critics of ARI who can be characterized as “zealots” – which of course is a pejorative word. But if Mr. Weiss thinks nothing from ARI deserves criticism or that all its critics are “fanatical, excessive” – as one dictionary has it under “zealot” – then it is Mr. Weiss who acts like a zealot.

If you criticize ARI for endorsing torture (see ARI Watch for details), pro-ARI zealots mock that as:  ARI is The Great Satan.

I quoted Bernstein’s statement because I saw Mr. Weiss misquoting it. I don’t think Bernstein’s statement shows that he wants to write for CMS's journal but doesn’t out of fear of ARI. His statement has a different problem though. He was sincere when he admitted to a mistake but insincere about his excuse – at least it looks that way. He claims the mistake was due to an error of knowledge when it’s hard to see how he could have been so ignorant. His ignorance claim is what may have been motivated by fear of the judgement of fellow ARI-objectivists. This is not ARI’s problem. Anyway, boring as this subject is at least get the quote right.

Mark
ARI Watch

"and now, as if anyone needed further evidence of it, we have the interest some of them are announcing in Jung."

Fred, to be fair, Ellen, Bissell, and (I believe) Campbell have all mentioned an interest publicly in Jung in the past, something they've never tried to deny or hide.

Thanks Fred. The only reason I got involved with this issue is to correct the misrepresentation of Bernstein's statement as an "article" or "contribution." The issue is consistently brought up by the anti-ARI zealots to mislead the uninformed. Well, let them say he contributed an entire encyclopedia to JARS, I won't bother with them any more.

Don't hold your breath, Michelle. However, whether Dr. Bernstein did or didn't write the abstract and bio is irrelevant. What is relevant is the chronic distortion of this incident exemplified by a comment by Campbell a few posts down from the one you cite in which he asserts, "The Andy Bernstein incident of 2002 constitutes such an exposure for the Ayn Rand Institute that the zealots just can't stop bringing it up. On some level, they have to realize how bad it makes ARI culture look.."

First of all, we're not the ones who "just can't stop bringing it up".
We're not the ones who think it's of any importance or that it signifies anything. It's brought up by those, such as Campbell and others, who want to foist the smear that Dr. Bernstein's retraction must have been motivated by fear of ARI retribution.

In contrast, notice the far-fetched and absurd excuses Phil and others dream up to explain away Sciabarra's outrageous statements. But when it comes to Dr. Bernstein his retraction must have been induced by a fear of retribution from ARI. Just as they have no evidence in support of the far-fetched and absurd excuses for Sciabarra, they have none for this accusation against Dr. Bernstein.

Just as they have to manufacture excuses for Sciabarra, they have to concoct insidious motives to explain Dr. Bernstein's retraction. It is not possible for them to accept at face value that he regretted having allowed himself to be published in JARS. That of course would not provide sufficient grist for the mill of the anti-ARI zealots. So they have to concoct deep and dark conspiracy theories which is more in accord with their over-wrought view of ARI as equivalent to The Great Satan.

It is just such a view of ARI which allows them to give credence to Sciabarra's *unsubstantiated* and patently absurd claim that there are ARI scholars eager to write for JARS but who are afraid to do so. But they don't need substantiation - either for Sciabarra's smear or for their smear of Dr. Bernstein. Or now, for their smears of Diana.

Such is the result of becoming unmoored from reality and embracing subjectivism, whether it is the TOC version, or Sciabarra's "dialectics", or N. Branden's mysticism, or libertarianism, or the JARS free-for-all - and now, as if anyone needed further evidence of it, we have the interest some of them are announcing in Jung.

It all amounts to the same thing: intellectual bankruptcy on a massive scale.

I would like to state my position in the context of Prof. Campbell and OL.
Six weeks ago, I received a personal message from Prof. Campbell regarding my post on the Dialectical Dishonesty thread. In his message, Prof. Campbell directed me to his post on Objectivist Living. I replied personally to Prof. Campbell and asked him to provide copies of the correspondence between JARS and Dr. Bernstein, in which Bernstein submitted the abstract and biography for the publication of his statement in JARS. It has been six weeks, and I have not heard from Prof. Campbell. I realize that Campbell intended to entice me into responding to him publicly on OL, but since I don’t read the OL forum, I have no obligation to respond to whatever anybody there may say, nor do I care whatever insults are hurled at me over there.

What the hell is this ARI WATCH about anyway? Pardon me for being a dumb Canuck from Toronto...and being out of the loop on this. But what is this ARI watch's objective? What concerns them so?

Thanks in advance.

Victor: Objectivist--writer--artist.

Diana,

Nor do I demand that he answer questions from me: I'm perfectly happy not to interact with him in the slightest.

This is the virtuous policy.

Fair enough for me.

L W

LW asked: "why not address them here?"

Because I'm busy with more important matters at the moment, like getting my Ph.D in philosophy. I will write about the homosexuality issue at some point in the next few months, but likely not until after OCON. I've got way too much to do before then. And when I do write up those comments, I will post them to SoloPassion, of course.

As for RC's demands that I answer his questions, the simple fact is that he used to post on SoloPassion -- and would be welcome to do so again. That's not true of me with respect to Objectivist Living. Nor do I demand that he answer questions from me: I'm perfectly happy not to interact with him in the slightest. So his demanding that I answer his questions posted to OL is bad enough, but to draw inferences from the fact that I don't answer them is absurd.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

I was not aware of hostilites you encountered here when you first starting posting and I have no reason to doubt you. I was judging by what appears to be a very favorable group in general at the present.

If you are not aware, Robert C quit posting on SOLO several weeks ago and made his announcement public, so what is left is more of an impasse since you will not post over there and he does not post over here. Stating that he stands acroos the street and shouts insults holds no more water than if he were to do the same with you after you have made it clear that you will not participate on OL.

After reading his posts, which I believe is obvious from the links you provided that you have read them, and keeping in mind that you do not have to answer anything you do not choose to, I ask: why not address them here?

L W

LW asked: "What stops you from answering him on that forum? Are you concerned with venturing out of friendly confines?"

LW: Oh, please. When I started posting on SoloPassion, it was damned unfriendly. However, I thought I could get a fair hearing -- and I have. (That's one reason why it's more friendly now.) A fair hearing is not possible on Objectivist Living, not when the owner is the thoroughly dishonest MSK. And sheesh, I'd have to break the rules of the forum just to speak my mind.

In short: I'm willing to wrestle in mud, but not in shit.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Diana,

What stops you from answering him on that forum? Are you concerned with venturing out of friendly confines?

L W

As I think I've mentioned before in arguing with Robert Campbell, I had no idea that the article of Joe's that I criticized those ages ago was in any way connected to JARS. I didn't even know the name of the author, in fact. (I mention that only because RC has once again noted that Chris apparently took my criticisms of that non-JARS article as an attack upon him. So obviously CMS didn't regard the two articles as terribly distinct.)

While I'm on the subject of RC, I cannot help but mention that demanding that someone debating on SoloPassion is obliged to answer questions posted only on Objectivist Living, such that you can draw inferences about her lack of any possible answers if she fails to do so, is beyond silly. (See here and here.) If RC wants answers out of me, he'll have to do better than shout insults from across the street.

Of course, if anyone else wants me to answer questions on those topics, just ask nicely on SoloPassion.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

So it was.  It’s hard telling one wolf from another in the pack.

Sorry, I don't get it. When you admit yourself as anti-semite, I don't know how you could ever be negatively quoted out of context by 'ARI Objectivists.'

In any case, you quote Adam Reed here:

"Adam Reed claims that the early Zionists “punctiliously respected the individual rights of all inhabitants of the land” – until self-defense forced the Zionists to reluctantly drive them out or kill them. Adam’s account is a fairytale, the same fairytale told by ARI."

Here is another Zionism "fairytale" that has nothing to do with Mr.Reed or ARI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Finally, you attribute this quote to Fred: “... the mere existence of a Zionist ideology (irrational or not) would add fire to the hatred of a racist – not because it is collectivist ... – but because of it being an ORGANIZATION of Jews who are acting towards an objective ... .”

Um...that was me.

-Victor

After that summing up I hope you’ll excuse me for replying to two off-topic subjects brought up by defenders of Ms. Hsieh. The first will be very brief, amounting to an ‘I disagree’ with no elaboration.

Adam Reed claims that the early Zionists “punctiliously respected the individual rights of all inhabitants of the land” – until self-defense forced the Zionists to reluctantly drive them out or kill them. Adam’s account is a fairytale, the same fairytale told by ARI.

Fred Weiss wrote, as part of his amazing smear campaign against yours truly:

    “... the mere existence of a Zionist ideology (irrational or not) would add fire to the hatred of a racist – not because it is collectivist ... – but because of it being an ORGANIZATION of Jews who are acting towards an objective ... .”

Considering the use to which Mr. Weiss puts this banal observation, what he’s really saying is:  If you criticize any Jewish organization it shows that you’re anti-semitic.

Mr. Weiss wrote:

    “As for ‘Mark’, he’s an anti-semite.”

I am critical of a number of things about Israel. If this be anti-semitism, make the most of it.

I am critical of people who try to make Ayn Rand a poster-girl for Jewish-supremacists when in fact she never wrote a word about being Jewish. If this be anti-semitism, make the most of it.

I like Norman Finkelstein as a man and I support his work against Alan Dershowitz. If Prof. Finkelstein is an anti-semite, then so am I. Make the most of that as well.

There is no defense possible against Mr. Weiss’s charge of “anti-semitism.” No matter what you say he’ll be squealing  “Anti-semite!”  “Anti-semite!”  until he drops dead from exhaustion.

Evidently Mr. Weiss is a student of Lewis Carroll’s  Humpty-Dumpty,  who claimed that a word meant what he wanted it to mean. An anti-semite is:  a critic of Israel.  Or, a critic of Jewish racism.  Or, a critic Finkelstein.  In short, an anti-semite is someone Mr. Weiss doesn’t like.

Yes:  I am an anti-semite.

Now I don’t want any ARI-Objectivists here – and they seem to be the most frequent posters – to miss an opportunity of quoting me out of context. So, all together now:  MARK ADMITS HE’S AN ANTI-SEMITE !

Mark

Coates made 12 more or less independent points – numbered (i) through (vi) and 1 through 6 in his summary of 2006 June 11. Most of the points were ignored by DH’s defenders, and of the few which DH’s defenders argued against all but possibly one, the first, held up well.

That first point concerned DH’s removal of a name from a list of three. The effect of the deletion may not be as bad for CMS as Coates originally claimed. I don’t think it much affects either her point or Coates’s other objections to it.

(By the way, Mr. Weiss, in objecting to Phil’s point, claimed that Phil didn’t know LeMont was Peikoff’s secretary, when that’s stated right in his article.)

Even if one point leaks a bit that leaves 11 others. I think Coates has made his overall case. CMS can be justly criticized for a number things, but DH’s reasons for calling CMS a dishonest scholar – not merely irrelevant or confused – and a back-stabbing friend don’t hold up under scrutiny.

Mark

Boaz, really: panegyrics are too much work? Make somebody else do it!

Get a grip, man.

I've read that three times, now. Not quite sure what to make of it. Where is that peroration? IS it? Is IT??

Phil will now accuse me of fallacy of accent.

Plus, I meant "peroration" as a recap of all the arguments that you've already made before you give a conlusion. No need for panegyrics, here. Plus, the whole wide world of online Objectivism is watching and keeping score, so we need to keep it simple (and keep score, because it's important that as many people agree with me as possible). Panegyrics are too much work.

But Boaz, there is that peroration...

Coulda been a panegyric, and it wasn't. But come on...

[Insert pointless condemning of others' unreasonable/absurd arguments/pseudo-arguments here]

[.......]

[.....N+1...]

[.........D/x....]

[Insert inferences from said unreasonable/absurd arguments/pseudo-arguments here]

Having fun?

[Read fan letters here]

[Thank my patently delusional supporter here.]

[Insert Peroration]

[Insert Summation]

[Goes jogging, comes back home, checks for more replies, takes shower.]

P.S.

The above is not an argument.

Phil, this item here (and how you present it) that earns you the title of a "slippery fucker." This is not integration in action as was presented. You know better.

4. Misuse of Objectivist Buzzwords - Integration: "Well, even if it could be a misunderstanding or misremembering in this case and if Chris was venting or insulting in another case and even if someone really did tell him they were being pressured in a third case, Objectivism believes integration of many separate instances is a virtue. If you add up misremembering + venting + insulting maybe three times in four years that adds up to a massive pattern of systematic, vicious dishonesty." [Penelope, Victor]

I remember reading a book called “Nonsense” and in a chapter called ‘Propaganda’ and a few of the sections in dubious arguments covers:

(1) Repetition: The propagandist says something over and over again. He may use different words each time, but it’s the same point. The theory is that you say something often enough, people will eventually believe you. [Phil].

There also other parts called "snob appeal".

(2) Confidence: The propagandist also speaks confidently. He gives the impression of knowing what he is talking about. His presentation is strong. The theory is this: If the person is so confident about an issue—that is tenuous even---he must be right. People prefer to support a winner—and especially underdog. His confident manner makes the person look like a winner. [Phil].

(3) Stereotyping: In addition to name calling and over-simplification—the propagandist takes ONE CHARTERISTIC of a person, [emphasis mine] exaggerates it, and then regards it as the only characteristic. [Phil.]

As promised, a list of fallacies/thinking mistakes committed by Diana's defenders in recent days...

Here's an example which concretizes some of these mistakes ( and illustrates my point that people simply chose not to answer crucial evidentiary issues). I hammered home in multiple posts this point: a discrepancy between Leonard Peikoff's recollection on a single matter and Chris's does not constitute proof that either of them lied. I went -further- and made several posts in which I detailed ways such a discrepancy could quite easily and logically occur. [I left out my own personal experience with Peikoff forgetting, but this would have been overkill.]

Responses I got (to this single issue and the whole debate):

1. Appeal to Authority: "I don't have to know the evidence is conclusive. It comes from people I trust and who could not possibly be wrong (Leonard Peikoff, John Ridpath, Diana Hsieh). And Diana offers evidence from people she and I trust who could not possibly be wrong (ARI students, intellectuals, and conference attendees)." [Fred Weiss and others]
2. Reasoning in a Circle / Begging the Question: "But Chris -deliberately- misrepresented. He lied for several reasons which would make sense of why he would lie. Therefore I don't have to listen to your case. Since I already know he lied, I know that any argument that the evidence he lied is doesn't really prove that can't possibly be true." [Diana leading several others]
3. Changing the Subject: "This is all about Ayn Rand. You are allying yourself with a side which does bad things. That tells us about your character." [Penelope and others]
4. Misuse of Objectivist Buzzwords - Integration: "Well, even if it could be a misunderstanding or misremembering in this case and if Chris was venting or insulting in another case and even if someone really did tell him they were being pressured in a third case, Objectivism believes integration of many separate instances is a virtue. If you add up misremembering + venting + insulting maybe three times in four years that adds up to a massive pattern of systematic, vicious dishonesty." [Penelope, Victor]
5. Misuse of Objectivist Buzzwords - Arbitrary Speculation: "One shouldn't arbitrarily assert something could be possible with zero basis. It's not speculation on Diana's part to claim dishonesty is certain. But it is is arbitrary to claim its possible to misstate or get things wrong or refuse to offer correspondence in their defense." [half a dozen people for several weeks - this piece of sophistry was initiated by Diana, a grad student in philosophy]
6. Loaded Words or Images / Exaggeration by Emotionally "Overloading" the Language: "Chris claims that they're just fearfully goosestepping to the beat of the ARI drum" [Diana's slanted Nazi metaphor, used by someone who finds Comrade Sonia to be dishonest as a slanted characterization]

.....

The underlying mistake that unifies and explains bizarre mistakes 1-6 by intelligent people is EMOTIONALISM. (I don't think it's dishonesty or evasion.)

*deleted*

"I went to the trouble to point out not one, not two but *twelve major errors*"

After several of us went to the trouble of identifying how incompetently you handled the first three, no one saw any point in torturing ourselves by going through the rest. As for any of them being "major", I assume if you thought we overlooked one we would have heard about it by now.

Is one of the *twelve major errors* the "The Infamous Diane LeMont Ellipsis"?

"Example: The idea that Diana's talking to a few people (ARI scholars) constitutes PROOF that none of them made certain comments to Chris."

And what would constitute PROOF? Talking to all of them, getting notarized statements from each of them, using a lie detector? What you still don't get is the logical inconsistency of Sciabarra's claim. Furthermore, it is not Diana who has to do any proving here. It is Sciabarra. In the meantime, his claim is prima facie absurd.

But, yes, Phil anything is possible, even the far-fetched and the absurd. That is your ultimate premise in all of this.

(snip poor Phil complaining about being called names, blah, blah, blah)

Is that it, Phil? Please tell me there is more. I really would not like to believe that your brain has turned into oatmeal.

"Thanks to Ellen Stuttle, L.W., Peri Sword, Mark and others who have made posts on SoloP supporting my points. And to all the people on RoR and OL who have posted or argued in support of my points...

I also want to thank the Members of the Academy for..."

Fred Weiss: 'Obviously I don't have a high opionion of Delusional Phil. But that he would accept support from a creature like that lowers him in my estimation even further - and is a symptom of both his desperation and his utter intellectual bankruptcy (and all of those who support him).'

Thanks to Ellen Stuttle, L.W., Peri Sword, Mark and others who have made posts on SoloP supporting my points. And to all the people on RoR and OL who have posted or argued in support of my points.

(And to all the Oists and non-Oists who have emailed me regarding this matter.)

And particularly to the impressive Chris Cathcart, not for agreeing with me -- he has sometimes argued for my points and sometimes against them, but for being the one person in the heat of the debate from start to finish who has pretty consistently conducted himself like an Objectivist: showing how one discusses volatile, heated (and complex) issues of this nature in a calm, thoughtful, intellectually scrupulous and deliberative manner.

---

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs....
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,...

...If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"

Of course, it takes a fantastically “self-centered” person to summarize the whole debate (calling for a new argument) whereby everybody else got it all wrong—one fell swoop brush stroke—and only you come out intellectually superior and righteous.

Re:

"Fred W and Victor P tended more toward the name-calling. Boaz and Penelope (when she set aside the insults) and Adam tended more toward using Objectivist jargon to support logical fallacies or toward missstating my points."

Fred W did not merely "tend toward name-calling" and Victor P asked you a few pointed questions that went ignored.[James V's question also went unanswered]. A truthful answer to those questions would have revealed a lot.

ps

The term used was slippery fucker--not 'slipper fucker.'

In my summary remarks, I'm not addressing any longer Diana and her surrogates, but others open to reason following this debate. As everyone has noticed by now, I'm wrapping up my refutation of Diana's incredibly stupid arguments against Chris. But I will make a few summary points.

I am truly stunned by the massively incompetent, lazy, hostile, and emotionalist response of her and her defenders:

1. I went to the trouble to point out not one, not two but *twelve major errors* in her attack. NOT A SINGLE PERSON ENGAGED MY FULL ANALYSIS. Even though the validity of any of my points shows that shes not objective re Chris and damages her credibility and the reliability of her testimony whenever she asserts as fact something second-hand ("He lied to me or to Peikoff or with regard to things I've talked to ARI people about.")

I explained why you can't simply take her conclusions as your own, whether it be through deliberate overstatement or inadvertent mistake (or emotionalism).

2. Diana and her defenders (DHD) kept repeating things I had rebutted without seriously engaging the rebuttals. (Example: The idea that Diana's talking to a few people (ARI scholars) constitutes PROOF that none of them made certain comments to Chris.)

3. Many of DHD who engaged in trying to refute me said they had made up their minds already and would not read my analysis and/or did not intend to do so.

4. Most telling of all, the DHD responses, where they did engage -some- of my points (or those of Ellen or Mark or anyone else who supported me), consisted of:

a) insults and schoolyard name calling (slipper fucker, evader, anti-semite) directed at me or others instead of fully addressing the arguments,
b) misstatements of my points,
c) logical fallacies or thinking errors.

{ To concretize: Fred W and Victor P tended more toward the name-calling and smearing and trying to bait their opponents into descending to that level. Boaz and Penelope (when she set aside the insults) and Adam tended a bit more toward operating on an intellectual level, but nonetheless tended toward missstating my points & using Objectivist jargon inaccurately to support logical fallacies. }

---

(I've discussed many of the fallacies and thinking mistakes under my posts about "WOLFPACKISMS" - that term refers to people acting and thinking like non-objectivists: i) acting in unison like a mindless herd or collective, rather than thinking things through for themselves & presenting a united front by not being willing to disagree when one of them posts a poor argument, ii) constantly and mindlessly attacking the 'enemy' instead of stopping to fairly assess if the enemy has made a reasonable point.

But I'll post a couple more fallacies/thinking mistakes which occurred in recent days....)

Ellen, thank you. I apologize for the error.

What's in the past is past, you weren't obligated to respond or offer anything on the topic, though I did appreciate the brief exchanges we did have on the subject. And though I'd disagree with you with my understanding of Jung's position on Kant, I think we can both agree that Jung is very difficult to pin down, due to the nature of his ideas. (Tricksters are rather ambivalent, after all...). However, in the Hero Cycle piece, I address the nature of Jung's ideas of the collective unconscious and archetypes and compared them to the ideas arguments against by Objectivism and Nathaniel Branden to show how they were at odds, precisely because of the ambivalence of Jung's ideas; I wanted to be upfront with Objectivists who read the piece that they were being confronted with ideas that run contrary to Objectivist philosophy, including a varient of mysticism. I am well aware of what Jung claimed in regards to his theories being based on empiracle evidence, but I am skeptical of his claims versus his true meaning. He did insist to Freud that what they were doing was religion.

I have lost the motive to study Jung further, but I share your assessment of the Trickster article as having value in the comparison of Rand's characters to the Trickster archetype, which are justifiable since Rand, regardless of any platonic archetypes, was aware of the archetype through her reading of Greek mythology. I now disown the argument that Rand was dogmatic and fascist, as you know, so we'll have to part ways there.

The only other thing I've seen on the subject was a piece on Joseph Campbell's HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES, which I believe appeared on TOC's website (it's been a while, I don't exactly remember if it was there). Karen Michalson has written about Rand and has an strong mythological influence in her work. ( I may have quoted her essay in FEMINIST INTERPRETATONS.) Beyond that, I think the divide between the methods of Jung and Rand provide a grand canyon that will be difficult for much exploration of the matter.

I'm going to start a new thread on this (conspiracy theories) cause we're bordering on a hijack.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes