Are we talking alcohol here or something else... >:)

Ohh! I'm going to objectivist Hell for that one...

What a delight to see you back, you mad mystic! (There I go, name-calling again!)

Don't you love it - last time you were here it was Randroids burning me at the stake for my uncivil response to the fatwa. Now it's the Brandroids, those exemplars of openness and tolerance, for ... accepting an invitation to speak. I note the latter are painting SOLO as some sort of sub-set of the orthodoxy. They must have missed the Hsiekovian interlude.

I quite like the notion of being exorcised by one of Big Ben's Boys. I'm certain it won't work, but it sure as the hell I'm bound for will be fun.

And yes, as I breakfasted on gin, I raised one to Babs, who herself, I venture to suspect, could use a good stiff one.

Linz

You got it, Bill. Character assassination dressed up as reasonable sounding objections. Which is exactly what Nathaniel and Barbara did to Rand in their books.

Jim

Hey, Linz.

I've just caught up with this matter.

First of all, congratulations on your speaking engagement at TAS's summer conference. If what I've seen of Objectivist conferences on CSPAN is any indication, TAS is well-served to have a speaker who'll rally the troops rather than put them to sleep.

Second, as far as I can tell the big gripe against you is that a fair number of Objectivists put so much weight in every word you utter that they actually are deeply wounded when you call them names. How odd that these Objectivists would second-hand from you the opinion they hold of themselves! Of course, they might just give a little thought to not caring what you say about them, or at least stop spouting the idiot ideas that prompted the name-calling in the first place.

Third, of all the indictments against Linz Perigo, notably absent is a single charge that you don't honor the bargains you strike for your professional engagements. It is in this regard I think Hudgins's article execrable. Your deal with TAS doesn't involve how you run your forum, so either Hudgins is claiming without basis that your statements at SOLOPassion show your intent to break your commitments to TAS about the tone and content of your presentations this summer or he is attempting to unilaterally impose new terms to an agreement that has been finalized. Either way it stinks.

Fifth, I read Ms. Branden's dyspeptic rant about you. If you care to be merciful, Linz, and desire to put her at ease about those demons that are devouring your soul, I could if you like rustle up one of those exorcists Pope Benedict just put out in the field to purge you of your tormentors. Of course, that will only work if you truly repent of your wicked ways, you hell-bound heathen. But what fun would that be? So, perhaps the best way to respond to Ms. Branden is to give her a hearty toast with a stiff drink that you promise will be merely the first of very many for the evening.

Finally, as you do the good work of opening doors that have been long shut, I advise you to heed the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify."

Regards, Bill

Nick: Brilliant.

(At this point, I would recommend my own book, The Pasision of Ayn Rand's Critics, available thru Amazon and Barnes & Noble, if i weren't so modest, of course.)

If I weren't so modest I'd point out that one can order PARC through the SOLO Store.

If the Brandens are our only source for something of that nature, I would advise caution before accepting it -- even if Mr. Branden richly deserved such a slapping. (At this point, I would recommend my own book, The Pasision of Ayn Rand's Critics, available thru Amazon and Barnes & Noble, if i weren't so modest, of course.) To show that Rand was a "Branden-basher" herself, one only needs the public record -- her article, "To Whom It May Concern" (1868). And THAT would most certainly have never been allowed at OL.

Of course, Rand praised Aristotle to the sky, forgiving his errors, and praised Aquinas, and even Locke, with appropriate and important qualifications. She admitted her youthful attraction to Nietzsche, even though she became a harsh critic in later years -- as was also appropriate.

Her take on Existentialism may not have been "civil" -- but it was spot on.

As to whether she would meet TAS's standards of decorum... I guess the jury is still out.

Ayn Rand, herself, slapped Nathaniel around as he sat in a chair in her livingroom. This is according to both Brandens. Gee! I guess Ayn Rand would not be allowed on the OL.

Ayn Rand also insulted and dismissed every philosopher other than herself and Peikoff. She said Existentialism belonged with Buddhism and philosophies designed for barefoot savages. Was that civil? Would she meet TAS's civility standards for speaking at the SS?

bis bald,

Nick

James V,

You hit the nail on the head. It's amazing that you can go to a site with "Objectivist" in the title and be called a "liar" by the site owner for defending Ayn Rand.

Jim

Mr. Bidinotto graciously concedes incivility himself and suggests to the folks at OL that they, too, have been less than civil on occasion.

MSK's reaction? "Day-am straight, Mr. B.!"

He reminds us that OL's "rules" overtly build in incivility -- and "close" the discussion -- as a matter of policy:

"No Branden-bashing.
"No promoting Branden-bashers.
"(And yes, it is OK to bash Branden-bashers. )"

Incivility is our middle name, Mr. Bidinotto! Take THAT!

Then, Campbell shares his belief that PARC is the source of the whole problem:

"[Rancor within TAS] has been going on for two and a half years, since the middle of 2005.
"And Mr. Valliant, seeking to restore a 39-year-old schism to full divisiveness, published his book three years ago."

Of course, long before PARC, TAS had already lost the Blumenthals, original members of Rand's "Collective," due to TAS's association with Branden.

And, Ms. B.'s bio in the 80s, and Mr. B.'s memoirs, the revised edition of which was released in 1999, were so conciliatory and forgiving, after all... and the interviews... and the movie -- all clearly designed to put that old controversy to bed.

Right.

And, sure, TAS can bleed a director, Mr. Perry, and TAS can bleed lecturers like Cohen and Perigo -- and TAS can have one of its most level-headed members, Jim Heaps-Nelson, since he is critical of PAR, personally attacked by the traditional friends of TAS. Bear in mind that all of these had originally chosen TAS over ARI for its "openness" -- you know, hard core "cultists," all of 'em. Just a bunch of "Branden Bashers."

Still, it's all that damn Valliant's fault!

To paraphrase:

"No, Mr. Bidinotto, we at OL demand that our brand of incivility be accepted -- we demand that any 'debate' which is 'tolerated' by TAS be the sound of our one hand clapping (for the Brandens), whatever David Kelley himself called for in the wake of Ms. B.'s book -- and we demand that TAS cater exclusively to the interests of the Brandens."

Ms. Branden herself has publicly shared her demand that Ed recognize the evil of that drunk "Perigo's invective" along with "ARI bloodthirstiness" -- yes, "bloodthirstiness." (And one suspects that she means something more than someone's approach to Iran.)

So, it is THEY who refuse to make peace with the "savages," after all.

And, here, all this time, I thought that schismism was all the savages' fault.

they could be looking at it as being the thin end of the wedge... First Linz, then... then Peikoff! {gasp}

They have the same initial you know. It's a a conspiracy I tell you!!!

Honestly. This is silly. Ed needs to make an executive decision and stick with it come hell or high dudgeon. If he keeps on trying to appear impartial he'll catch flak from every direction.

He's in charge of a privately funded organization and the boosters pissed! Whatever Ed's vision is for TAS, it has to be tempered by the fact that the folks that fund TAS (as exemplified by OL & RoR members) hate Perigo's guts. It doesn't matter whether their suspicions are delusional - they hold the purse strings.

So Ed's decision shouldn't be that difficult after all, unless he's contemplating offering his resignation to the lynch Linz mob.

...are examples of Michael Stuart Kelly's civility. He hates Perigo and SOLO. He characterizes us all as Branden bashers, and he is denouncing anyone who even tolerates Perigo, including Hudgins and everyone at TAS.

I'm happy he kicked me off his board. He is not a tolerant man. Kat is not a tolerant woman. I'm not really an Objectivist, but I don't think these people are good for Objectivism or the goals of TAS.

bis bald,

Nick

Mr. B's a good guy. Things will work out. I do agree that I don't envy Ed Hudgins' position. I still don't get what the big deal is about having Linz speak. It's not like they're conducting the first test at the Trinity site...

Jim

Here's the link to Bidinotto's post at OL.

That followed Robert Bidinotto's post about Linz's invitation -- dear oh dear oh dear.

As Ayn Rand learned the hard way, it's important to be scrupulous about who you make your bed with. Afterwards, you have to lie in it.

The new books, like "the old paperbacks," of Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal still have Branden's essays in them. If they had wanted to "airbrush"...

And Smith is hardly crediting Peikoff with Branden's work, as Ms. B. implies.

But this is off-topic.

I'm not surprised this has happened at all and agree with Branden that it is a bad look for ARI.

BB: "Do you know about the ARI “air-brushing” of Nathaniel’s work? Do you know that in some of her published writings, Ayn Rand’s credit to Nathaniel for one or another concept has been removed? Do you know that Tara Smith, an ARI writer, in a chapter on Rand’s concept of self-esteem, gives credit to Leonard Peikoff for developing the concept, and that Nathaniel’s name is not so much as mentioned? – despite the fact that Rand had said that his work on self-esteem, as published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, consisted of his own identifications and was an integral part of Objectivism? I think you can imagine the disgust all of this – and I’m only scratching the surface -- would cause among scholars and writers were it to become known."

Still have the old paperbacks to prove it.

"Guess the ball's now in your court, Ed."

Always was. But he seems to be someone who likes to change the balls once the game has started, while pretending he's above the fray.

Frankly, I can't see why Lindsay would want to talk to a gathering presided over by such a man. Quite apart from his disgraceful denial of the virtue of exercising appropriate moral judgements, he also seems to be one whose invitations once offered are quite casually, quite public and quite "civilly" withdrawn -- if, that is, "civility" means putting the knife in your back while smiling to your face.

Yes, she's a good fiction writer, though. She makes what we know to be utterly false sound good and seem plausible. She made ax-grinding seem like a valentine in PAR. That's why it took a brilliant attorney like James to cut through the artifice and set the record straight.

Sure,

TAS's invite list can be criticized, but the coordinated attempt to silence a speaker who has already been invited bothers me. The first question I have when people do that is: what is it they don't want me and others to hear?

Jim

... would you want her to be YOUR biographer?

At least she's said this stuff while I'm alive!

It's the complete making up of stuff that boggles me. Libelous stuff. And the nerve of then professing to be a champion of civility!

With PAR at least the hatchet job was subtle, enveloped in a veneer of love and compassion, blah, blah. It was a "stiletto job" of the kind she praised Sciabarra for with respect to PARC. Here the veneer has been removed, so desperate is she to prevent my going to TAS. And I'm glad. The naked viciousness displayed in this latest attempt at character assassination must surely be one of the last, if not THE last, nail in the coffin of her credibility as a biographer of anyone.

WSS,

I abhor group influence tactics. I didn't like them in orthodox Objectivism. I don't like it from the Brandens. When I have a problem with something, I simply say I can't in good conscience attend X or do Y for the following reasons. It doesn't follow that others should follow my lead or put the same priority on my objections that I do. That's up to them and their own cognitive process.

In fact, I try very hard not to lobby against people. I can put forth a reasoned case and people can either take it or leave it. I value independence enough not to worry if they leave it. If I were a speaker at a function, I wouldn't care if they invited my sworn enemy the next year. I would depend on the rationality of the audience and figure that if someone decided against me, it was their loss.

This is not about the the merits of the case for Lindsay to speak. This is about standing, reputation and self-image. I came into an IOS organization in 1994 for whom those things were secondary to philosophical investigation. I don't care about all of that beyond how they can be used to bolster objectivity, further knowledge or help me be productive.

I understand that Ellen has made some points about objections to the topics being presented. Those kinds of arguments sway me much more than arguments against the speaker. However, this time I think Lindsay has something worthwhile to say. Let's hear it and get on with life.

Jim

And ask yourself -- would you want her to be YOUR biographer?

I have to side with Mr. Scherk here, Jim, insofar as I believe that TAS's invite list is fair game for public criticism -- on any discussion board.

Yet, contrary to Mr. Scherk's implications, had Dr. Hudgins wished this to be a matter of private discussion only, it seems odd that he would post this at SOLO.

In any event, the sincerity of Hudgins' call for "civility" can be objectively tested by his willingness (or unwillingness) to address the very same issue closer to home, as well.

JHN writes, "What I don't get is the busybody concern with who's invited."

Are you sure about this? The concern with the invitation comes from named people who have laid out their concerns -- some of these are members and supporters of TAS. One such person is Ellen Stuttle.

Do you not understand her concerns? Is she only a busybody?

(This word 'busybody' implies someone who is sticking her nose into someone else's business. Why isn't it Ellen Stuttle's business, or Roger Bissel's, or Robert Campbell's? Why should they not attempt to influence or have rescinded an invitation that they consider mistaken?)

The way I see things is that this is up to Lindsay and Ed. I would hope they do more than write past each other to a public audience; I hope they are exchanging emails and considering each other's positions.

As it stands, Lindsay put his conditions on his appearance, and noted what he will not do: name names of his erstwhile enemies; use invective against identifiable TAS members or presenters; use the presentation to settle scores with 'enemies'; single out anyone but himself as 'own worst enemy.'

Now Ed has given Lindsay a challenge. How Lindsay chooses to respond to Ed's challenge is up in the air:

Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.”

How will Lindsay respond over the next while?

This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event.

Lindsay has let us know his intentions on this count: he will be civil ("my talk will not be me unloading on people I dislike").

Still, Ed's challenge:

[ . . . ] I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with SOLO-Passion, the forum for so much ill-will. I want to hear some proposals.

Now, Lindsay gave the first part of an answer:

"Well, that’s too bad, Ed, because I’m not going to make any. For one thing, it’s my forum; for another, it’s already the most “open” forum there is within Objectivism, by a country mile."

Now, I don't know if this means exactly what it says: Lindsay will not make proposals in response to Ed's challenge.

I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes.

It seems to me that Lindsay has plenty of time to work on Ed and Will and the TAS folk who make decisions. It seems his invitation is pending, further discussions mandated.

WSS

I do not make a lot of money as a substitute teacher and could not afford, last year, to attend the Summer Conference on the other side of the country. However, this year, it will be held at Portland, Oregon, which is not far away from Spokane Valley, Washington, where I live. I may attend. It could be fun. If I do, I do hope that TAS will not rescind the invitation for Lindsey Perigo to speak at the Summer Conference for 2008, and I hope he will not withdraw himself in disgust because of all the controversy this invitation is causing on discussion boards.

Ed Hudgins makes the point that TAS is concerned about civility in discussion and debate, something which doesn’t often occur on discussion boards, and something for which Lindsey Perigo and others are not necessarily famous. After all, he doesn’t want to see this Summer Conference fall apart into riots among the factions in this open form of Objectivism. That wouldn’t seem healthy for the movement.

Civility, however, can be just as effective a weapon against rationality as incivility. It is often used by holier-than-thou people who look down upon those with whom they disagree. When they can’t think of rational arguments to use against opponents, they just accuse those opponents of being impolite and evade them in the name of civility. I think this has been done to me by religious people and even some of those Objectivists Barbara Branden says are slow to judge, people like Michael Stuart Kelly.

Lindsey Perigo is not a model of civility. He has not always been civil to me. He generally blows me off with an unsupported accusation as he points out my misspelled words and such. He recommends that people ignore me, as he does. Then, he goes off somewhere else and ignores me. However, he has allowed me to continue posting here, unlike Michael Stuart Kelly who banned me from his board.

What is “civility,” anyhow? If I call someone a coward but explain why I made the accusation and give examples of that person’s cowardice, rationally proving my case, is that still incivility? Is it equal to hiding behind insults and unsupported accusations when I can’t think of reasons and evidence to support my accusations?

I agree with Barbara Branden about Biddle’s call for bombing crowded mosques in Iran. I’ve condemned that on this board and received a lot of crap for doing so. I also take a lot of abuse for criticizing Objectivism on fine points of epistemology and metaphysics. Many people here are avoiding my Alice series, rather than dealing with it in open debate with reason and evidence, but I am no delicate flower. I guess I can take it and move on. Can Objectivism take me? Is shunning and banning and evading the best way to deal with people who rock the boat, who don’t agree entirely with Ed Hudgins or Barbara Branden?

I really disagree with Kevin Owens, the Scientologist, but I debated with him civilly and left it to the audience to decide which one of us won. I think such open debates should be possible and can be good for Objectivism.

Bis bald,
Nick

When you first put this up last night I wondered how you would, or could, respond. If me, then it would have been via spewing a seething rage all over the monitor, which would only have served to prove her point. Your restraint is remarkable.

And not wanting to make light of a wretched situation, but doing so anyway, I'm giving away my Shakespeare library: who needs him when I have threads like this

What I don't get is the busybody concern with who's invited.

I think someone who wants to use a forum to air controversial views, but makes a big production about others airing their controversial views wants to have it both ways. Part of the intellectual currency that is paid under the masthead of free and open inquiry is that views and people you don't like might be put forward.

Jim

I'm not sure what's more sadly revealing: her Campbell-like paranoid conspiracy theories -- the way she reprises her old Linz the Drunk defamation -- the sloppy and thoughtless way she misstates the foreign policy of some at ARI -- her defense of the "Branden legacy" -- the way she psychologizes as a fundamental basis for case, but with zilch for evidence -- or just her sheer desperation to get Linz booted.

Guess the ball's now in your court, Ed.

The nuke them 'till they glow policy championed by some ARI-faithful isn't unique. Nor is it entirely misplaced. Something drastic must be done to Iran before they obtain a nuclear weapon. So the ARI has correctly identified the target and the reason they should be targeted.

The only disagreeable thing in their thesis is the means by which they intend to deal with Iran. And it's only disagreeable given the extent of America's military abilities.

If the ARI is to be chastised about anything it should be that they haven't spent enough time in the military section of the library before deciding to make such a declaration.

It's interesting to me that she doesn't qualify her statement thus. She certainly has the intelligence to realize the point and several people have made this exact point near her presence if not within it.

For instance: I stole the library quip from Joe Rowlands, over at RoR, when he made this point recently (and more eloquently than I could ever do). I myself railed against this method of attack, when ARI-types championed it, last year. My words were even picked up on by MSK -- which prompted some good-natured heckling from Linz -- and quoted over at OL, her choice of discussion board.

She mentions the targeting of Mosques. Now, I don't think that is useful either: Why alienate the entire population when there is good evidence that most Iranians aren't happy with their government and are thoughtfully disposed towards the USA?

But I find it interesting that the ARI are the ones compared with Hitler, considering that Iran has pledged, more than once, to exterminate all Israelis because they are Jews. Reciprocity may not be attractive, but what it lacks in morality it makes up for in symmetry. The ruling Mullahs having declared their intention to exterminate our Allies simply because they are both Jewish and our allied to the 'Great Satan.'

Which is to say that one can argue that nuking Iran is advocating needless slaughter. However, were Iran a peaceful nation, the ARI would have nothing to say. Hitler, by comparison, toasted hawks and doves with equal aplomb. Hitler was a racist, anti-semitic, sociopathic murdering bastard. The ARI is not any of these things. And neither has it ever sort the sort of power that Hitler acquired. Something that Barbara has more than enough brains to see, so why is she blind to it here? Her simile is wildly inaccurate.

Barbara is not taking prisoners. The ~entire~ ARI must be spurned root and branch for some relatively trivial lapses in scholarship and logic.

Likewise, Perigo's ~entire~ career subsequent to 'Drooling Beast' is to be spurned root and branch because drink has rotted his brain -- the only rational explanation (according to her) for his suddenly saying nasty things about her.

I won't dwell on the fact that the 'close' observations that form bedrock of her hypothesis have been made over the intervening Pacific Ocean.

Is this is an example of the civility you wish Linz to foster on SOLO Ed? Comparing ARI to Hitler and suggesting that Linz is the Mohammed Atta of
Objectivism?

Hell, if Barbara and OL get this shirty after Linz is invited, imagine what she'd say if you'd invited Yaron Brook or Peikoff to speak. I hope you have a bullet-proof vest Ed. If your peace-talks succeed and you invite the ARI to your talk, you may need it.

... was her tacit support for Campbell's grand conspiracy hypothesis.

"No, I'm not crazy, it's true!" "If Linz speaks he'll hypnotize the entire audience!" "They'll be helplessly under his power and he'll do unspeakable things to them!" "Listening to Mario, drinking wine, smoking... SWEEEAAARRRINGGG aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!"

First, Linz is the metaphorical suicide bomber. A born martyr seeking his 72 Rugby Players in heaven over the invective strewn bodies of his TAS enemies...
Then, 100 words or so later he's a Machiavellian mastermind seeking to subvert the Western World, starting with TAS!

Well which is it woman?

Is he the crazed loon about to blow TAS to smithereens or he is he planning to overthrow Hudgins and make everybody at TAS his bitch? Because it would be bloody pointless to do the latter if he suceeds at the former.

I think Linz takes a wise approach by essentially ignoring these attacks leaving it to others to make their own judgements.

Of all the errors in Ms Branden's missive I find the comments about the alleged second-handedness of his motives to be the most disagreeable...

"...because it will establish his superiority to the rest of us"

"...since that disastrous speech that almost no one attended — and that constituted a humiliation for him for which he never will forgive TAS or me"

I know Linz well and I know this is quite simply wrong.

Linz can run circles around these figureheads as a lecturer. So what's with all the hand-wringing?

That's why the hand-wringing.

When you've seen me inebriated, you've been more so. So "sharp as a razor" might be relative. Of course, we were both actually poster-persons for Gillette.

Funny thing is, I've never "excused" any of my "tantrums" by saying I had had too much to drink, as far as I recall—though, of course, my brain is rotted by alcohol, so I could be wrong. My "tantrums" have been rages against unprincipled witches like Babs, which required no excuse—so there's a certain "well she would say that, wouldn't she?" quality to her protestations.

Exhibit A.

And I see a man often befuddled by alcohol, which serves to make him still more grandiose and still more irrational. As you may know, he has very often in the past excused one or another of his forum tantrums by saying he had had too much to drink; apparently he hasn’t done that lately, because even his cronies were not taking it seriously any longer.

The alcohol accusations are just a passe drone now.... if this is the best that Barbara can dredge up, the pathos is all in her own court.

Even when I have seen Linz inebriated, he's still as sharp as a razor... not the befuddled, grandiose, irrational, drooling beast Barbara would paint him as. She wishes!

I thought I'd throw this out and step on what further toes I may. I was over at OL and just caught this thread.

Obviously TAS is getting hit from various corners about its direction, going back for some time. I attacked TAS right here just below for a decided lack of commitment to KASS at least on the part of its figurehead Executive Director. If TAS wants a reputation for KASS, it needs for its ED to get KASS or get a different director. From things I've seen, Robert Bidinotto often comes across as alright -- his dismissal of PARC to the effect of, "I won't spend my time reading and discussing garbage," not so much so. But if you want someone who does more of a KASS job at things, he looks like a good candidate. I'd like to see him give a lecture some time and get a picture of how he comes across.

This leads me to my observations about the "Atlas 50" gathering (I guess it was) that got televised on C-SPAN around Christmas. If I recall correctly, there were 4 speakers televised: Tibor Machan, Douglas Rasmussen, Will Thomas, David Mayer. I really only paid attention to the first three and lost interest in the subject being presented by the 4th. 3 of these presenters are professors and have experience making presentations in an engaging, professorly way. An excellent presenter and intellect all-around, someone like whom the culture of Rand studies needs a lot more of, is Douglas Rasmussen. But one lecture stood out to be as KASSless to an extreme, and that was Will Thomas's. Got insomnia issues? Just listen to lectures by David Kelley and William Thomas. If Objectivist organizations want to get the message out in lecture form, it simply needs better speakers than this. Maybe the chronic excuse-makers might come up with some story about scheduling constraints or C-SPAN editing decisions to leave in his KASSless lecture, but that's not a very good excuse. You got an opportunity to present to a national TV audience, you don't take these kinds of chances to begin with.

I'm not saying I'd be qualified to give a better lecture myself; I'd probably be a pretty shitty lecturer for all I know. What I am saying is that TAS has decisions to make about these things and it doesn't seem to be doing a good job at it. Two KASSless lecturers and one KASSless writer as arguably its top 3 figureheads there. Hey, guys, you want to spread Objectivism, you better be ready for these kinds of reamings and butt-kickings and do something about it. You can get Bidinotto to (apparently effectively) play up your successes all you want, but in something so important as spreading Objectivism, I don't see what room there is for putting up with needless mistakes in addition, and mistakes we can ill-afford at this juncture.

Linz can run circles around these figureheads as a lecturer. So what's with all the hand-wringing?

I have done so not because of his continuing attacks on me, but because I’ve been fascinated by the psychological phenomenon that is Lindsay Perigo.

In light of Parille et al's use of Alan Greenspan's so called endorsement of PAR - notice how Barbara uses the word "fascinated" here??

Proof that it is not necessarily a compliment!

It's clear the Brandroids are now pulling out all the stops in their campaign to get me disinvited from TAS' Summer Seminar. I expect BB is the star turn, the trump card, unless there's a Special Guest Appearance by Nathaniel planned as well.

It's also clear from Barbara's own words that a lot has been going on behind the scenes already. She's good at that. An "operator," as Nathaniel said, she certainly is.

I'm flattered that she's so desperate to prevent my appearance at TAS. It shows that this is indeed a defining moment for TAS, and this ultimate Rand-diminisher obviously realises it—whether to ossify in the sewer of Brandroidism or step forth into the sunlight and become the open, benevolent Objectivist community David Kelley said it would be.

I'm not going to go through Smearer-in-Chief's attempted assassination of me point by point. The outlandish "psychologising" won't be lost on any literate Objectivist, or any decent human being. Nor the hilarious, Campbell-like fantasies about what "deviousness" I'd get up to at the SS. Deviousness is the Brandens' specialty, not mine. I'd resent spending the time on such filth, though I'll answer any point arising from it that anyone cares to ask me about should he/she be concerned there might be some truth in it.

What I'm going to do is adopt the Night of January 16 approach, with you, dear readers, as the jury. I've resurrected and re-stickied relevant bits of evidence, such as my Borders speech, and my most recent TV appearance, in tribute to Pavarotti the day he died (this, in connection with Babs' smear that I've become a hopelessly alcoholic wreck—the filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch).

Whether you know me in person or simply via SOLO, the evidence is there. It's over to you to decide, on a sense-of-life basis, whether I'm guilty or innocent as charged. That includes you, Ed Hudgins.

Linz

I've just been given a heads-up as to the following on O-Lying, by Barbara Branden. I'm going to post it, then go back to watching an enthralling docu-drama on the Moors Murders, after which I shall respond to this utterly evil wretch (Barbara, not Myra Hindley).

Linz

________________________________________________________

Ed, I have read your statement, “The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar,” very carefully and thoughtfully. I want to say that I very much admire your good will and benevolence, as I have admired them during our conversations and through observing you over the past couple of years – that I am in full agreement with you that the goals of The Atlas Society are reasonable and appropriate -- and also that I think I understand you in the matter of the invitation to Perigo as I did not until now.

I believe I have grasped the difference between us in this matter, which was bewildering to me before. I think it is not the case that we have a similar estimate of the man, but that we differ on whether TAS should extend an olive branch to him and can reasonably expect that he will change his behavior. I have followed Perigo to some degree for the last few years, as you have not and had no reason to do; I have done so not because of his continuing attacks on me, but because I’ve been fascinated by the psychological phenomenon that is Lindsay Perigo. You apparently see a man who might be open to reason if he is brought to grasp that his irrationality is self-defeating; I see a man driven by demons, by malice and by hatreds that make him Impervious to reason when his self-image is at stake. And that self-image is, above all, of Perigo the Beleaguered Rebel – the rebel against everything conventional (whether a particular convention is good or bad), whose life is dedicated to a battle with the “Kassless” Babbitts of the world and who is prepared to go down to lonely defeat if he must. In a word, he believes he is doomed to martyrdom, and in some real sense relishes that fate and is determined to bring it about because it will establish his superiority to the rest of us and his dedication to his principles.

And I see a man often befuddled by alcohol, which serves to make him still more grandiose and still more irrational. As you may know, he has very often in the past excused one or another of his forum tantrums by saying he had had too much to drink; apparently he hasn’t done that lately, because even his cronies were not taking it seriously any longer. Now, he defends his invective-filled tantrums as “rational passion.”

Nor do I think you realize the extent of his deterioration since he last spoke at TAS. I agree with you that he once was a very good speaker, who could attract a large audience. But did you hear the talk he gave (the one that was supposed to be a refutation of my “Objectivism and Rage” talk -- which I had not yet given)? I suggest you listen to it; you will see what has been happening to him. His deterioration has vastly accelerated since that disastrous speech that almost no one attended — and that constituted a humiliation for him for which he never will forgive TAS or me.

This is a man who is out of control, and If he agrees to your terms you will have on your hands a pathetic, (yes, even I can see the pathos of his deterioration) severely emotionally disturbed man who can be set off into total irrationality by any perceived slight – and who perceives slights in the least disagreement with his positions on any and all subjects.

You have stated the terms you demand if he is to appear at the Summer Seminar. I see two possibilities: 1) He will feel that he would be “Kassless” if he acceded to you terms, and he will back out in a fury of invective; 2) He’ll say he agrees to your terms, intending to do his work through conversations with Seminar attendees and through planting questions in the question periods following his talks that will clearly “require” him to discuss the evil of TAS and “the Brandens.” I believe you underestimate Perigo’s deviousness, and the amount of backstage plotting he and his cohorts do. As one example, in advance of anything said publicly, he carefully orchestrated the scurrilous attack on Chris Sciabarra, which came from Perigo, Diana Hseih, and one or two others. One could tell it by the similarity in wording of many of their posts, a similarity too great to have been accidental. You can be sure that if Perigo goes to the Seminar, he will do everything possible to arrange methods for the achievement of his purposes.

I realize that to anyone who is not familiar with Perigo’s excesses, this may seem an exaggerated, even hysterical, attack on a flawed man who is nevertheless dedicated to the principles of Objectivism. But to those who have followed his activities and his writings, it is if anything rather mild. Ask Robert Campbell or Robert Bissell or Michael Kelley – or Robert Bidinotto – or several dozen others who characteristically tend to be slow to condemn anyone.

Here are just a few quotes from his posts to his forum that will give you the flavor of Perigo’s communications:

1. Discussing the Objectivist Center’s change of name to The Atlas Society:

“…that motley collection of cowardly weasel-worders, those evasive sponsors of smearers and Rand-diminishers, they who are embarrassed by and are an embarrassment to the word ‘Objectivist,’ will no longer be using it [the name ‘Objectivist’]… What a relief! Even more edifying is the probability that this is the last nail in their lice-ridden coffin. Mealy=mouthed appeasement doesn’t rule. How could it – except at TOC, its natural home?”

2. Perigo on Nathaniel and Barbara Branden:

“The Brandens’ place in history is secure… as lying, conniving, gold-digging, parasitical manipulators of an innocent and epochal genius.”

And:

“Those two wrote the manual on insincerity, informed by Iago-like malice and cunning.”

And about me:

”The lying, smearing, low-life bitch!”

Ed, Perigo’s vendettas have nothing to do with ideas, everything to do with his hatred of whoever crosses him. As an example, here is what he wrote about me before he decided that I had crossed him:

“Barbara Branden. One of the world’s great exemplars of the art of writing. Peerless in her elegance and eloquence, invariably leaves her readers, crusty Founder included, moist-eyed and wistful for more. Will go down in history as Rand’s definitive biographer. Told the truth, lovingly, fearlessly. Kept her head while all about her were losing theirs. Honoured by Founder as ‘Majesty.’”

I echo Michael Kelly’s question to you, here on Objectivist Living, about Perigo:

“What I don't get—and this is not offered in a sense of hostility, I am genuinely perplexed—what I don't get is what makes you think that this time will be any different?

“As a child I learned that you judge a person by what he says and what he does. And if he keeps doing wrong, but saying each time, "This time I learned my lesson and I will be good," you soon stop believing him. How many times does it take and why does Perigo get a free pass, anyway? He's an adult, not a child....”

Because of his embrace of martyrdom, because he has never learned the difference between rational egoism and vanity, Lindsay Perigo is the suicide bomber of Objectivism. I do not want to see him take The Atlas Society with him.

I want to comment briefly on your attempt at a rapprochement with ARI through Yaron Brook. Whatever the accomplishments of ARI, and I do not deny that there have been notable accomplishments, there are at least two particular issues that I see as being so beyond the pale, so appalling that they should make any rapprochement unthinkable. (These criticisms are not directed at the members and students pf ARI, many of whom. when they make public statements, are merely echoing the words of their teachers, and many of whom are unsympathetic to the policies I’ll name; they are directed at those who are the setters of policy and the voices of that policy.)

The first is the ARI position on foreign affairs. Are you aware that their writers have said, again and again, that we ought – today – to level Teheran and to kill its many millions of inhabitants with nuclear weapons? Do you know that they have said that those atomic weapons should be aimed not only at Teheran’s government buildings and military establishments, but also at mosques and schools? – a horror even Hitler did not contemplate. This attitude has caused ARI to be widely seen as a organization of vicious cranks and cultists; and has caused me to conclude that any association of TAS with such ideas could only greatly – and legitimately -- damage the fine reputation TAS has earned.

Secondly, do you know that the Ayn Rand archives held by ARI are open only to those who are proven devotees of ARI and that legitimate non-ARI scholars are refused entrance? Do you know about the ARI “air-brushing” of Nathaniel’s work? Do you know that in some of her published writings, Ayn Rand’s credit to Nathaniel for one or another concept has been removed? Do you know that Tara Smith, an ARI writer, in a chapter on Rand’s concept of self-esteem, gives credit to Leonard Peikoff for developing the concept, and that Nathaniel’s name is not so much as mentioned? – despite the fact that Rand had said that his work on self-esteem, as published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, consisted of his own identifications and was an integral part of Objectivism? I think you can imagine the disgust all of this – and I’m only scratching the surface -- would cause among scholars and writers were it to become known. And that it, too, would greatly damage TAS’s reputation should TAS be associated with ARI. And surely it is only a matter of time until this will be known publicly.

You wrote that the open approach of TAS “assumes a community of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals.” Do you think that Perigo’s vendettas and ARI’s appalling lack of humanity and of the rudiments of scholarship are the hallmarks of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals? Surely you and the other TAS principals have worked too hard and too long to establish TAS’s reputation as an organization of civilized, reasonable people to allow yourself to be associated in the public mind with the likes of Perigo and ARI.

You wrote that: “We want to build a benevolent community of Objectivists and a benevolent culture and society based on reason and rational, responsible self-interest.” Ed, you will not accomplish this by allying yourself with Perigo or ARI.

About both Perigo’s invective and ARI’s bloodthirstiness and lack of integrity, I would say -- to quote your words:

“The widespread perception that Objectivists are fanatical ideologues who speak of reason but do not practice it, and who are instead irrational, screaming loonies, continues to be fueled by such public statements and actions, which do incredible harm to the spread of the philosophy.”

With all good wishes,

Barbara

I'm not sure that I would describe Diana as either "fearsome" or "doctrinaire" but I certainly agree that there is value to getting a variety of opinions. (She was once a TAS/Branden person, you know.)

As to "lecturing" Ed Hudgins, who ends:

"To those ends, I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes."

I kinda figured he wanted comment from that.

The questions I asked are perfectly sincere.

I have been about as ecumenical a guy as you'll on forumland. At one time, I was posting to all of the post-SOLOHQ forums plus Noodlefood. I've taken just about anything, but being called a liar repeatedly. Well, Objectivist Living will probably be a more peaceful place without my pesky presence.

I read as wide a swath of opinion as I can. I've read just about all of Nathaniel Branden's books. I don't have a no-read list. I never collectively damn a forum.

As for Ed Hudgins not reading the replies, well, he did put that bright, wonderfully colored pinata of an article right up there to swing at. We might as well give it out best shot .

Jim

JHN writes: If people want a more sedate forum they can go to ROR. If they want a Branden-friendly forum, they can go to Objectivist Living.

This sounds as if there is a hierarchy of repugnance. The abnormally fastidious go to Betsey's forum and Objectivism Online. The fearsomely doctrinaire go to Noodlefood.

Of course no one actually 'goes' anywhere. Like me, many folk read a variety of opinions from many places, make a variety of judgements, and utter a variety of commentary.

I don't understand those who artificially bar themselves from reading what 'the other guy' is on about, nor do I understand the utility of collectively damning a list.

There seems a ludic abandon in lecturing Hudgin's here, when it seems obvious he doesn't spend time reading any of the lists! He ain't gonna get it. Why not just email him your declarations?

As for JHN's "and how are the TAS lists, hmmmm? Popular? Hmmmm?" tag line, that isn't nice. The last post there was from Nick Otani.

WSS

In light of Chris' post, Ed, is it the official policy of TAS to avoid strong moral judgment -- except in the case of strong moral judgments?

As Rand herself reminds us, moral judgment is inescapable.

So, is there no moral dimension to the existence of TAS? Sure, its existence presupposes intellectual or methodological, i.e., substantive, differences with ARI -- obviously, if you were happy enough with ARI, there would be no TAS.

But this substantive difference amounts to what evaluatively? Anything? Does it come down to "the other guys are just wrong a lot and to the detriment of our cause, but it has no moral implications"? Is there nothing to it in moral terms at all? As Kelley reminds us, such a difference might be due to considerations of personal context. Can we really condemn here?

On the other hand, from your perspective, aren't some of these guys "religious zealots" subject to moral condemnation on psycho-epistemological grounds? If so, this isn't mere "name-calling" on your part -- it's substantive criticism.

And, on the other hand, if Peikoff is right, and TAS teaches not Objectivism, but a watered down mish-mash, then TAS's evasive failure to morally judge is itself something worthy of ethical condemnation, i.e., i.d.'d as being "slimy," or "slime." If so, then, just as calling Peikoff a "Pope" or the like wasn't, this isn't mere name-calling at all -- but the essence of the moral judgment involved.

Yet, if civility is such a high priority, then when exactly do we invoke our moral judgment, if ever? Where exactly does civility rank on the TAS hierarchy of values?

In other words, if you take personal offense at Peikoff calling TAS "slime," what is your position on the calling of him names -- a recreational activity in some circles -- indeed, among some TAS lecturers?

Is the position of TAS: "But those moral evaluations are the right ones, and, so, permissible, but Peikoff is just being 'uncivil'"?

Or, are the folks who engage in anti-ARI or anti-Peikoff abuse equally guilty along with Peikoff of violating the spirit of Kelley's call for "openness" and your call for "civility"?

Or, is such abuse of Peikoff (or PARC, not that these are identical issues) simply the appropriate occasion for making strong moral judgments according to TAS? (As Casey reminds us below, Mr. Bidinotto was morally condemning PARC even before he could have read it...)

Or, does TAS police only one side of this "civility" street -- as your statement implies?

I repeat: is this a serious proposal to deal with the incivility of TAS lecturers -- or, just a unique case being made of Linz for special reasons?

Brilliant, Cathcart. Wow. Enables one to merely point as an answer, and I thank you for that.

If there's one thing that describes my reactions to a presentation about Objectivism from TAS's CEO, it's: boredom. What the hell is supposed to draw interest, when it's all made so bland and inoffensive? What would TAS have titled a collection of essays on the Objectivist Ethics if they were to make the decision, and why would it 100% surely not be something so off-putting and mean-sounding as The Virtue of Selfishness? Why, if given the choice for the future course of the direction of Objectivism, would TAS drain all of the passion and excitement that Objectivism's founder brought to the general reader?

Never in a million years would Ed Hudgins pen an essay like Rand did with "On Living Death" due to concern about alienating a lot of people. You can read between the lines of that essay and know that Rand thought the Pope to be a nasty son of a bitch. It is the way she wrote, after all; you could tell these things. TAS, rather than taking the example provided by Objectivism's founder -- a proven recipe for success -- instead attribute to that example all kinds of ills related to Objectivism's alleged inability to connect with the general public. The problem is, in the very process of getting rid of all the rancor that such an example is so naturally likely to generate, everyone loses interest. In the very process of attempting to make your message appeal to everyone, people just stop paying attention. What does Objectivism have to say to people that's new and interesting and exciting that they haven't already heard from the Cato Institute and like organizations?

I submit that Ed Hudgins & Crew are the ones in thorough need of some self-examination and house-cleaning. They may well try and make the focus of their present criticism regarding "incivility" one particular firebrand of a concrete who's known for pissing people off and getting pissed off -- and who, in the process, generates interest and attention -- but I think their criticism is really of a more general nature and more broad in scope: they have issues with how firebrands as such do things. They say some pretty outrageous-sounding things. Their contempt for the Pope drips off their passionately-worded essays. They title their books The Virtue of Selfishness as a high hard "Fuck You!" to the raving altruists who took over the culture by slimy default.

You ever think to say "Fuck you!" to those who eminently deserve it, Dr. Hudgins? It would be such a blessed relief to see those words come off your keyboard just once in a blue moon. We'd actually be able to tell that you really cared for once. Do I piss you off with this very pointed criticism? Out with it, then! Call me an asshole if you have to! I want you to. Just give us something, for crying out loud.

If you and the others at TAS still possess any remnants of an ability to ever get it, then do your requisite house-cleaning and start getting it and showing it. Coming here with your mealy-keyboarded equivalencing (glossed over by the boring presentation), given the kind of stuff that occurs on rival forums and knowing damn well that you're going to get the same damn Lindsay Perigo that you got at past conferences, only goes to show just how much Linz's very calm-headed response goes beyond the call of duty. Really you should have already gotten it long ago and either become a CEO worthy of an Objectivist organization, or go on back to Cato.

(I have to thank James Heaps-Nelson for his spot-on observation that RoR is a sedate forum; that comment right there is what spurred me into action to write this oh-so-deliciously "abusive" and "divisive" posting. )

Euan,

I understand your comment and Dr. Hudgins is an exemplar of civility, but everyone in Objectivism has their friends and opponents. If he were an equal opportunity civility advocate, he would acknowledge that the Brandens were not civil to Rand, Nathaniel Branden was not civil to Allan Blumenthal and many others.

I suppose the best thing in Objectivism would be for everyone to decide the few people they really can't get along with in the movement and be civil with everyone else. Barbara Branden had a good idea in her speech about a worthy opponent. That is a good concept, but you first you have to acknowledge that you are an opponent and you have to be worthy.

Jim

Having spent the last couple of years reading up on Marxism and its various schisms, I find it ironic that I embrace Objectivism and find a level of vitriol almost befitting the Left.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather deal with Linz's cantankerous nature than deal with the hypocrisy of Michael Stuart Kelly. Kelly, is an exemplifier of the principle of civility? Please. Michael S Kelly called me a bigot for things I said about Muslims and Islam. This is after I made a clear distinction between the many Muslims who don't take their religion to seriously, and the Jihadis that do. Kelly ended up banning me without explanation. My last post was an indirect defense of Valliant's book and a criticism of the Brandens.

Leonid

Objectivist movement has been torn apart by its not very clever leadership. What a waste of the great legacy! Ayn Rand, no matter how brilliant she was, left to us only foundation and blueprints of the glamorous building which we suppose to create. Instead we are fighting each other and, in most of cases, for no reason whatsoever. It is high time to stop petty ego (subjective) battles and start to do real job. As Ayn Rand once observed “the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

Ed,

I hope you do invite Chris Sciabarra to a TAS Summer Seminar. That would be an appropriate response to being outraged by Diana's article here. You would put actions behind your disappointment and mitigate a wrong you felt was done. Do that and your words about incivility will sound less empty and more heartfelt.

In any case, Linz's invitation was given with the knowledge of what went on prior. It prompted a wholesale censorship campaign on Objectivist Living.

Jim

I'm looking forward to your talks more and more. Are we really going to ge