Hail, "Heartless" Justice!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2013-07-14 05:20

I expected the Zimmerman verdict to go the other way. I expect the worst in all things in this abominably inverted pomo-world where Pamela Geller is barred from Britain while Islamofilth is allowed to run amok, self-defence is murder, murder is self-defence, perpetrators are victims, victims are perpetrators, justice is about "heart" rather than facts—and "heart" decrees that the white guy is always in the wrong and always a racist. Even after the verdict, Juan Williams was dribbling on that it was based on pesky "technicalities" (such as that the prosecution was light years away from "beyond reasonable doubt"?) rather than "heart." "Heart" presumably would have dictated a guilty verdict just for the hell of enabling the baying lynch-mob of Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons and their babble of Black Supremacist savages to feel "heartened"—regardless of what the evidence showed and the law required. Well, let us thank Gobby for heartless justice, and rejoice that it has prevailed in this instance.

Charges should never have been laid to begin with. Had George Zimmerman been black and Trayvon Martin white, they would not have been. That they were is testament to the corruption of America's justice system by Politically Correct subjectivism, less than subtly fuelled by Obamarx himself when he averred: "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."

Let us hope this rare outbreak of sanity in the Zimmerman case signals the beginning of the end of the nightmarish pomo-madness that has overtaken all western countries, and that justice will repair routinely again to resolute blindness—including colour-blindness.


Sam

gregster's picture

I must say too that I'm heartened by each of your posts. I look forward to many more. Don't be at all discouraged by the slow engagement here. There are more lurkers than contributors, and your bright literacy will be being appreciated. I wish I was so up to speed as yourself at your age.

Greetings Sam

tvr's picture

Welcome to SOLO and thank you for your constructive, informative and well written post.

You are the future, and just knowing that you exist inspires me.

Terry

Sam

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Since this is my first post and in essence my introduction to the people of this forum, I want to conclude by thanking Lindsay Perigo for providing and maintaining this site (of course he did it for himself - which is the only way I would want it to be) and by thanking all of those whose positive intellectual contributions give me reason to hope that the future will be better than the present.

Sam—you're very welcome. It's a pleasure as rare as it is unadulterated to see someone so young write so literately. Bravo! I hope we see many more posts from you.

Some of us have been celebrating Peikoff's remarks already, on Greg's Bernstein thread. I guess there'll be others here who find them unduly apocalyptic. Eye

For my 1st post - maybe organized Objectivism isn't 100% weak

Sam W.'s picture

Hi, I just registered here today, but I've been reading this forum for several months. This is the first time I really thought that I had something new and relevant to add which is why I did not decide to join until today.

I know from my time reading this forum that most of you are disappointed in organized Objectivism. I sometimes am too, though perhaps not to the extent to which some of you seem to be. I do find that some of their more pointless-seeming editorials have some value: Some of the main questions that seem to be posed to Objectivists and other advocates of limited government are in the vein of "what about the environment?" and "what about roads?" These may seem banal to those of us who take ideas seriously and understand the moral reason for an objectively limited government, but often the people asking these questions have been taught by modern culture to value something like "the environment" very highly, and they will usually reject out-of-hand any political philosophy that does not also hold the environment sacred. This means that if Objectivists are to defeat them in intellectual battle, we need to be appropriately armed to deal with these questions, no matter how unimportant they objectively are in the context of all of political philosophy. To answer environmentalist concerns, for example, we need to be able to, in the course of a debate, dispose of the AGW myth and explain how things like forests can continue to exist in a free society because of private property. The virtue of an article like the one someone mentioned from ARI about overfishing is that it teaches an inexperienced Objectivist advocate how to deal with a question like "if the government doesn't regulate fishing, won't overfishing be a problem?"

However, I do agree that they should be doing less articles like this and more of a hard-hitting and wide-reaching variety. I was reading "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World" today, and I was thinking about how it would be if Ayn Rand was still alive today. She would definitely not spend a lot of time talking about airline mergers and fishing. Instead she probably would do what she did when she was alive: give speeches and write op-eds on major philosophical issues of the time in an attempt to convince people to read, adopt and advocate Objectivism.

Anyway, the main impetus for me finally deciding to sign up for SOLO was to inform you of a recent development that shows that organized Objectivism is not all the way gone. I know that for many of you Leonard Peikoff is not your favorite person. And I agree that he's said some questionable things before.

But how about this. In his most recent podcast, Dr. Peikoff conducted an interview with Amy Peikoff about the NSA programs. The interview is somewhat interesting; Amy Peikoff provided some legal insight into the doctrines that make the NSA programs apparently legal in the US and both took a strong moral stance against the NSA program (and Leonard Pekoff emphatically praised Edward Snowden as a hero for his actions, regardless of any motives that may be currently unknown).

What was particularly interesting, though, was what he said to close the podcast. In this conclusion Leonard Peikoff commented on the Zimmerman trial and on the current immigration reform plan in Congress. I think you will be encouraged by what he said, particularly since he is the main voice in organized Objectivism and made an extraordinarily strong statement that would not have been out of place on this website. I transcribed the relevant section below.

-------------------------------------

Leonard Peikoff: "Okay, well, I want to thank you, and I want to know before you go if you wouldn't mind listening to 2, 3 sentences of mine. There are two issues that are major, and I want to utter one sentence on each. Only one sentence because I don't want to deal with them, but I have to say something because I think they're an outrage.

"One on the Zimmerman case. I want to merely say how horrifying it is that from the President on down, there's this assault on the white guy who was found innocent, because he's white and the other guy is black, even though a jury verdict has come in. Now, on the-- counter to that - this is my other sentence, I guess - how about this recent case where a 13-year-old boy - white - was assaulted by two black 15-year-old boys, and hit - it's a video on the computer - hit with the full fists, smashed, disfigured, his face will never be the-- he's wrecked. Did you ever hear one word from any media, from the President, from the Justice Department? Are they looking into the possibility of a hate crime? I mean, it just goes to show the corruption, the lying, the… the… it's… it's beyond discussion, how rotten our media and government is is beyond discussion."

Amy Peikoff: "I agree."

Leonard Peikoff: "And now the other thing I wanted to say that I know is going to come as a bombshell to Objectivists, and that's too bad, you can stop listening as far as I'm concerned. I am against the immigration bill - 100%! Not just one clause or another. For a very simple reason: It happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of a dictatorship. It happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power, we will be over that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democratic. So if you are talking about a bill - I don't care whether it's fair, unfair in any other respect - you are talking about a bill which will infuse into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters, and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country - that is what immigration means today. And there's no use asking me 'in theory' what do I think? - There is no theory now! We're on the end! So it's a question of buying time. That's it."

Here's the link to the podcast:
Link. The quoted section begins at 20:44 and continues until the end.

-------------------------------------

Since this is my first post and in essence my introduction to the people of this forum, I want to conclude by thanking Lindsay Perigo for providing and maintaining this site (of course he did it for himself - which is the only way I would want it to be) and by thanking all of those whose positive intellectual contributions give me reason to hope that the future will be better than the present.

Where's Doug when we need him?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

From Tea Party Nation. Black Supremacy, courtesy the taxpayer.

Capitalism and white supremacy both played roles in the killing of Trayvon Martin, a public university professor said last Thursday.

Dr. Erica R. Meiners, a professor in the Gender and Women’s Studies Department at Northeastern Illinois University, made the remarks while speaking on a panel of self-described “queer feminist scholars.”

Martin was killed, in part, by colonialism, alleged Meiners.

“[T]he web of interconnected histories and contexts that made it possible for George Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon Martin and walk away cannot be separated from white supremacy, colonialism, heteromasculinity, and capitalism,” said Meiners.

“These killing threads shape the world we inhabit,” she added.

An article published in the Windy City Times, titled “Event looks at Trayvon Martin case through queer, feminist eyes,” pointed out that all of the panelists were “queer and feminist scholars.”

But event organizer and founding director of Project NIA, Mariame Kaba , told Campus Reform on Wednesday that the fact that all the panelists were queer feminist scholars was a coincidence.

The panel titled “Transformative Justice and The Trayvon Martin Case: A Consideration," was held at Jane Adams Hull-House in Chicago and was intended to discuss “whether the criminal legal system is the ‘best’ way to seek accountability for harm has been ongoing for several years,” according to an event invitation published on ChicagoPride.com

The other panelists were Traci Schlesinger, associate professor of sociology at DePaul University, and Beth Richie, a professor of criminal justice and gender and women's studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Why any institution would hire professors like these three is simply incomprehensible. Two of these three are state supported schools. How do the people of Illinois feel about their tax dollars going to support these “scholars.”

This is the problem in higher education right now. It is being used as a gravy train to keep useless leftists employed. The end result is massive costs to Universities, which are of course immediately passed along to the students and to the taxpayers.

Taxpayers should demand that all of these departments be defunded and done away with. The purpose of college is to educate people so they can earn a living, not to be the home for freakish liberals who cannot otherwise get a job.

Wait! We take it all back!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The luminaries of Orgoism are on to it after all! They do realise that privatising the oceans and colonising Mars are not the most pressing issues of our time. Behold, I give you the latest media release from ARI:

Dear Subscriber:

FoxNews.com has published an op-ed by ARI’s Thomas A. Bowden: “Justice Department Should Let US Airways and American Airlines Merger Proceed”

This past Valentine’s Day, American Airlines and US Airways announced their intention to merge—but now, six months later, the federal government wants to cancel the wedding.

You can read the op-ed at FoxNews.com.

—ARI Media

Shocking UPS...

Marcus's picture

I refuse these days to even fly "transit" through the US.

What with their stupid regulations forcing you to go through customs, get fingerprinted and now a security visa you have to pay for.

Not to mention the stupid body scanners.

Actually I just discovered through personal experience that Australia is vying for first place with the US for most authoritarian border control in the western world. I'm going to avoid that country like the plague from now on as well.

Anyway. Once you're pass the border control you probably think you are now in the land of the free, protected by the famous constitution.

Well, think again...

Your Majesty, I know this

RationalMan's picture

Your Majesty, I know this will upset you but I had a tremendous crush on Babs when I was at NBI. I thought she had a smoldering sexuality hidden under her repressive emotionality. My fantasy's were brutal, and Roark-like. For that time, she was ahead of her time.

I see that Deborah Coddington wrote your biography and I would love to read it. I was on your website last night and listened to you talking about Objectivism. What a great speaking voice you have. Your accent floors me as it would probably floor most Americans who think everything that comes out of the mouth of the upperclass British is golden.

Congradulations for getting the book out. My guess is that a prime mover like you came out early and didn't hide you homosexuality? However, the world is not made up of prime movers. The fact that there were almost no gay people on record in the book was sad. Obviously, Sciabarra didn't know a lot of people because I knew more than a few gay people who would have went on the record for his book, if he did just a minor search. There was a great story to be told about Objectivist moralism both in regard to hetero and homo, but Sciabarra didn't do the job.

I thought his agenda was to smear Ayn Rand and from what I see today, he accomplished his task.

Adenoidal indeed

Doug Bandler's picture

Nowadays the closest thing to Sharon Stone are those naked bimbos who perch precariously on stools and present "Fox and Friends." Utter airheads. Adenoidal to boot.

Hysterical. And I agree totally. Larry Auster used to rant against the Fox bimbos and female news anchors in general. His argument was that when you allow women into traditionally male environments they, by their very nature, feminize the field. He also argued that their natural narcissism makes the news no longer about an objective presentation of the facts but about the sexuality of the female media personality. Megan Kelley comes to mind. Now we can disagree with the Conservative philosophy underlying Auster's views but there is alot of truth to what he says. "Utter airheads" indeed. But I'm moving into misogynist territory again I'm sure.

Perfect fodder for Doug.

As adenoidal as they are, some of the Fox chicks are hot. (I've been digging Andrea Tantaros lately.) I've never encountered a newscaster though. I don't go to the right parties.

Stalinist revision of OrgOist history

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I would love to see Doug snuggling up to Dominique, if Dominique was Sharon Stone back in the days when she was a maneater.

Nowadays the closest thing to Sharon Stone are those naked bimbos who perch precariously on stools and present "Fox and Friends." Utter airheads. Adenoidal to boot. Perfect fodder for Doug. Surely their awfulness will awaken him to *my* appeal?

Binswanger's Sex Manual came from a goof I saw many years ago, The Irish Sex Manual that was bounded with blank, white pages.

The world's slimmest volumes: The Biafran Cook-Book. The Scottish Book of Humor. The Italian Book of War Heroes. The Irish Book of Wisdom. The Objectivist Guide to Happiness. Etc., etc.

I read Sciabarra's book in a different lifetime. What I remember, and what I found so amusing, is the book arrived in the mail covered in a brown paper wrapper inside the package. I thought I would recognize a lot of people revealing themselves in the book. Very disappointing all the anonymous quotes. I know Sciabarra revealed nothng of himself. But why nothing from Your Majesty? Barbara, of course, was at the top of her game, with her opinions. I know for that time she had seen a few pipis but where was her expertise?

Babs is a fag-hag. Chris is a fag who hagged her. Why he didn't come out I don't know. Nothing from me because I assumed Chris and Babs and Nathan would do the job. Majesty was very humble. Just wanted to facilitate. The homonograph I still regard as SOLO's finest hour. Around that time Peikoff was still saying homo was "abnormal but not immoral" (I really want to go to town on her for the hypocrisy of that some time) and his faithful whore Princess Di was still saying homo was "unfortunate and sub-optimal." Within Objectivism only SOLO stood up against this garbage. Where were all the rest of you?! It's all very well to be out in the open now ... what about then?! And when will OrgOism acknowledge and repudiate its homophobic past? It's like the Catholic Church and pedophilia: in denial.

Authenticism will damn such cowardice and hypocrisy to hell. I'm on a mission now. Just have to get a couple of other projects out of the way first.

Your Majesty

RationalMan's picture

Lindsay

I'm glad you liked them. They just jumped out and I thought they were pretty funny myself. I would love to see Doug snuggling up to Dominique, if Dominique was Sharon Stone back in the days when she was a maneater.

Binswanger's Sex Manual came from a goof I saw many years ago, The Irish Sex Manual that was bounded with blank, white pages.

I read Sciabarra's book in a different lifetime. What I remember, and what I found so amusing, is the book arrived in the mail covered in a brown paper wrapper inside the package. I thought I would recognize a lot of people revealing themselves in the book. Very disappointing all the anonymous quotes. I know Sciabarra revealed nothng of himself. But why nothing from Your Majesty? Barbara, of course, was at the top of her game, with her opinions. I know for that time she had seen a few pipis but where was her expertise?

Too Funny

Doug Bandler's picture

“Gaming Dominique Francon” by Doug Bandler....what a great read!.

LMFAO!! You've got a great sense of humor Brian. Your posts have been illuminating.

Killer Brian

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've had to call the ambulance. If I die it'll be your doing, Brian Wright. Death by Laughing One's Ass Off. Would make a great Agatha Christie title. I thought I would survive the paroxysms till I got to "I'm Not Angry by Craig Ceely." Impossible to snatch any breath after that. Mind you, the Sciabarra title almost did me in, too, not to mention the blank pages in Harry's sex manual.

Seems you have a copy of a real Sciabarra, the homonograph. Scarce as hens' teeth. Even *I* don't have a copy, and I conceived the bloody project and wrote the Foreword. Douse it in preservative!

Oh, and if you're addressing me directly, it's Your Majesty, not His Majesty. You colonists never did get the hang of it.

His Majesty, I´m shocked by

RationalMan's picture

His Majesty, I´m shocked by your response. The Romantic Love Question and Answer Book is a classic for the ages. After I read it I was welcomed in all the best brothels of Rio, and I gamed all the gals into accepting my money.

Yes, I read Valliant’s book and found it both illuminating and overly prejudicial in too many cases. He prosecuted Branden and convicted him of murder instead of trying to understand a great event in history, the birth and death of NBI, and the interplay of giant personalities crashing to the ground leaving us all out in the cold. (Can you imagine what the humble Objectivist peons were feeling when NBI closed?)

No doubt much of what Valliant said about the exploitation of Rand was true, and that she was deceived by the Brandens, and in the end, felt a tremendous betrayal. But the portrait of the Brandens as devious, evil twins conspiring in the shadows to steal the show just wasn’t true, and Branden as a rapist had no validity, a cheap smear that worked against Valliant’s credibility.

In the end, Valliant had a chance to portray the greatness of Ayn Rand and fumbled the ball by making the Brandens totally evil. I thought the book was badly written, and the fact that Valliant was in love with Peikoff, didn’t help his credibility.

You know I’ve been recovering from an illness lately and have had a lot of time to read the past few months. Another great book that I read was, “Objectivism and Homosexuality” by Chris Sciabarra with a foreword by Lindsay Perigo. In this book, Barbara Branden imparts her knowledge of male homosexuality and I learned so much from her.

Other great books I have recently read are:

“History Will Absolve Me” by Fidel Peikoff, or how the great man sees his role in history.

“The Objectivist Sex Manual” by Harry Binswanger with all blank pages.

“The Gay Hegelian Dialectic and Romantic Love” by Chris Sciabarra, or how to be gay and not gay at the same time while experiencing romantic love.

“Objectivist Altruism” by Ed Hudgins with a foreword by his loving Muslim nanny.

“Empowering Limp Dick Objectivism” by Lindsay Perigo or how the master will put KASS into their loins.

“Gaming Dominique Francon” by Doug Bandler....what a great read!

“I’m Not Angry” by Craig Ceely...it's not true!

“Rescuing My Objectivist Penis from Obscurity” by Brian Wright...long before Doug Bandler there was B. Wright struggling to save his Objectivist penis.

And last but certainly not least.

“Crazy for Objectivism” by Princess Diana Hsieh

I met him once

Doug Bandler's picture

Branden that is. Back in the mid 90s when I was a wide eyed Randroid drone. I sat through one of his self-esteem lectures. It was in California when I lived there and it was full of his sentence stems. He seemed likeable as a person and he was open to questions about Rand and O'ism even though it wasn't an O'ism related seminar. I asked him about Rand and he told me that Ayn Rand had rejected altruism and collectivism at the age of 12. Branden said that this implied that there is something "other than philosophy".

Now that I think about it, I agree with him. Meaning that I now know that there is biology and a host of innate predispositions that are not open to choice. Although they can be identified and changed (with major effort) over time. If I hadn't read PAR later on, I would never have suspected him of being such a bullshit artist and a psychopath (and I do agree with Lindsay on that). He was a fast talking seminar speaker, but there is nothing wrong with that. This was in '94 (the same year I saw a young Amy Peikoff at a seminar but I didn't know "Game" (learned charisma) at that time so I was terrified to talk to her. But damn she was hot. And she had a tattoo on her ankle. Tramp Stamp Alert!), some 25 years after the NBI years, but he didn't seem like a bad man in his public persona. I wonder if he was the same in his disposition when he was younger. (I doubt it, who is?)

Emotional repression is almost a universal amongst young Objectivists, and can be see in many oldtimers.

It hit me too, along with know-it-all arrogance. In retrospect, I now realize that I just didn't know enough. I think there is a time for having rational rage and a time for having rational humility (or temperance in the lingo of the ancients). I'm enjoying this thread greatly.

Brian

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Loved your last post, as I love 'em all. Not quite sure of the significance of "King Lindsay," but you may address me simply as "Majesty" if you wish. Eye

Para by para:

Your opinion of good old Nathaniel is quite harsh but not uncommon. If you believe him to be that bad, what can I say? If you hardly knew him and feel that way about him, I hate to hear your evaluation if you really knew him. Anyway, a prime mover like you does his own thing and one either accepts it or walks away.

"Harsh" is one of those PC buzzwords that I translate as "brutal in its accuracy and therefore impermissible." I didn't feel this way about him prior to reading PARC. You didn't answer me as to whether you read that. That's where I formed my view that Nathan is a psychopath. Valliant said "the soul of a rapist"; I'd simply say, no soul at all. Utterly without scruple or remorse, brilliant in his cunning plausibility. Anyone who'd treat anyone else the way he treated Ayn has to be a psycho, in my view. His then-wife is not far behind.

My evaluation from knowing him much better would be much the same, I suspect. I heard him going off at Devers one night after a meal (which he paid for, giving the devil his due) in a way that was downright scary and completely uncalled for. He behaved exactly like the emotional tyrant he accuses Ayn of being.

Psychologically, I find it interesting that so many people have such a negative opinion of Branden way beyond the normal hostility people show for each other. There was always something about Nathaniel that brought out the beast in others. It could be an interesting topic for another time and place especially since Nathaniel had such a crucial role in early Objectivism.

I don't believe the negative opinion I have of him is beyond normal, or that it constitutes beastliness. He is beastly. What's beyond normal is the umbrage his defenders take when he's justly criticised. We had a poster here, Brant Gaede, whom I assume you know, Brian, who flounced over precisely such criticism. I'm sure that deep down he knows better, and your posts seem almost to emanate from the insightful part of him, but Branden seems to have a Rasputin-like hold over his ex-patients. And they call Ayn a cultist!

But the thing is, there is Branden the man, and Branden the brilliant psychologist who offered up the first in-depth critique of Objectivism, and some of the psychological problems people were experiencing as they tried to integrate the philosophy into their lives. His analysis of Objectivism is either true or not, and has nothing to do with what people think about him as a human being. (Yes, he helped me as a psychologist and I thought he was brilliant when I worked with him.)

I understand ad hominem, don't worry. And as I already said, if he helped you, knock yourself out. I don't doubt that every charlatan has his success stories.

If you like some of Peikoff’s work but not the man, why is it any different for Branden? Have you read his works, especially his critiques of Objectivism? Many people I have met who express extremely hostile opinions of Branden, also have the same opinion of psychology, which they see as the enemy of philosophy.

I have read his works—he personally handed me some after I interviewed him at his home. Some of it I just can't take seriously. The Romantic Love Question and Answer Book or some such, for instance, where you were supposed to complete half-finished sentences. I can't stand that sort of shit, and regard it as psychobabsle, a term I coined in "honour" of his ex-wife who also excretes it. Californian crap on stilts and steroids—and if that's what it takes to make Americans psychologically healthy then they deserve to go under. Pathetic, infantile rubbish. Yes, colour me in as having the same opinion of psychology as I do him. Not inherently, qua psychology; just what it has been turned into by bullshit-babblers like him.

As for his critiques of Objectivism, it seems to me he was cashing in on precisely the kinds of problems he caused, with his arrogant, snotty, aggressive up-himselfness.

Anyway, I see Objectivism as a flatulent duck, passing gas as it falls to the ground unable to fly. Never in my wildest dreams at NBI would I or any of the others dreamed of it being so ineffective in countering the jihad. So before I die I would like to see an improvement and I think many of the criticisms of Branden are right on the money.

Amen to all of that! What we here have come to call OrgOism is useless. As Doug Bandler points out, while the world burns Yaron is trying to privatise the oceans and Ed wants to colonise Mars. It beggars belief. We cannot be "harsh" enough on these milksops.

Craig Ceely said this about

RationalMan's picture

Craig Ceely said this about N. Branden: "his efforts amount largely to blaming Ayn Rand for encouraging emotional repression, rigidity, cultism, and the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

I loved her a great deal but I think she did and said things for which she could never forsee the consequences, and many of the things she said and did contributed to emotional repression, rigidity and cultism. Emotional repression is almost a universal amongst young Objectivists, and can be see in many oldtimers.

King Lindsay

RationalMan's picture

Lindsay

Your opinion of good old Nathaniel is quite harsh but not uncommon. If you believe him to be that bad, what can I say? If you hardly knew him and feel that way about him, I hate to hear your evaluation if you really knew him. Anyway, a prime mover like you does his own thing and one either accepts it or walks away.

Psychologically, I find it interesting that so many people have such a negative opinion of Branden way beyond the normal hostility people show for each other. There was always something about Nathaniel that brought out the beast in others. It could be an interesting topic for another time and place especially since Nathaniel had such a crucial role in early Objectivism.

But the thing is, there is Branden the man, and Branden the brilliant psychologist who offered up the first in-depth critique of Objectivism, and some of the psychological problems people were experiencing as they tried to integrate the philosophy into their lives. His analysis of Objectivism is either true or not, and has nothing to do with what people think about him as a human being. (Yes, he helped me as a psychologist and I thought he was brilliant when I worked with him.)

If you like some of Peikoff’s work but not the man, why is it any different for Branden? Have you read his works, especially his critiques of Objectivism? Many people I have met who express extremely hostile opinions of Branden, also have the same opinion of psychology, which they see as the enemy of philosophy.

Anyway, I see Objectivism as a flatulent duck, passing gas as it falls to the ground unable to fly. Never in my wildest dreams at NBI would I or any of the others dreamed of it being so ineffective in countering the jihad. So before I die I would like to see an improvement and I think many of the criticisms of Branden are right on the money.

I call "Bullshit!" again

Craig Ceely's picture

"You, rightly, see the Unholy Trinity as afflicted with it; Craig is in denial about that."

I am? Of course, you don't even mention what you're talking about.

See, I have this little tic, and we could put it this way: "Back it up, or back off." It's s shame that I have to force such an issue, but there it is. Might be a good opportunity, actually, to begin striking blows for, or at least getting within striking distance of, anything "authentic."

Otherwise, just another drive-by insult.

Brian

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You write of Branden on Bullshit:

It is like he was lobotomized, stiff, rigid, almost a robot.

For once, I'm with Craig: what's new? Branden is all of those things on his original taped courses. Nothing to do with Alzheimer's. Another word for it is "soporific"—sends one to sleep. And it's so studied: someone playing a role. He's great at it, but it's an awful role. So utterly inauthentic.

Since we're trading rumours, what I've heard is that Nathaniel has his faculties entirely intact still, which I think we can see from his appearance in the video. It's just that when he's not the focus of attention he tunes out and appears vacant. As soon as the cameras are on him he's as sharp as a tack again. I don't think you can exempt Nathan from the Narcissism package-deal with such impunity. And the rampaging Narcissism has done enormous damage to Orgoism. You, rightly, see the Unholy Trinity as afflicted with it; Craig is in denial about that. But it can as easily be laid at the door of Brandroids as Randroids. It reflects the failure to distinguish gratuitous vanity from true, earned self-esteem. Rand called the former the ultimate in second-handedness; Randroids and Brandroids alike treat is as a high-level virtue, giving themselves license to pose and strut and be obnoxious.

I do look forward to striking blows for authenticism by way of contrast with all this.

I infer from what you write that Branden treated you at some point, and you felt the treatment was efficacious. Fair enough. You have direct experience of him; I don't, other than having interviewed him. But just so there's no misunderstanding between us—I hold him in utter contempt. Have you read Valliant's book?

Not a chance: no fraud, no crime

Craig Ceely's picture

Brian, I've no idea of the state of Branden's health, but there have always been times when he sounded "lobotimized, stiff, rigid, almost a robot," to use your words. I have his Basic Principles of Objectivism and it's there for all to hear. My version is on cassette tapes, so it goes back more than a few years. His "Basic Relaxation and Ego-Strengthening Program" dates from 1973, and the same applies. Whatever the state of his health and mind may be today, he has exhibited those negative characteristics you described for a long, long time now. Was he losing his faculties in 1973?

The "amends" he tried to make for his actions include The Disowned Self and, perhaps, Breaking Free, both of which go back to the early 1970s, but after that his efforts amount largely to blaming Ayn Rand for encouraging emotional repression, rigidity, cultism, and the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. If you've seen a better side of him -- and I have, too -- then good, I'm glad. It was there. But if he was the fathter of the self-esteem movement, where did he get that? Did he come up with all that on his own, or does the sun, indeed, rise in the East and set in the West?

There was no fraud here, and no crime. Penn & Teller nailed a side of him which has also been on display for a long, long time.

Fraudulent Video

RationalMan's picture

The video is a fraud and a crime. I like to grab hold of that big donkey's ponytail and bounce him off the wall.

I have heard reports that Branden’s health is bad and that he has trouble recognizing acquaintances. Watching that video was shocking. It is like he was lobotomized, stiff, rigid, almost a robot. It was really sad and cruel. They seem to be exploiting an almost defenseless man, a brilliant psychologist in his day, who seems to be losing his faculties.

Like all of us, he had some big defects as a man but professionally, Branden was the best I experienced, and I experienced quite a few in my life. He was the father of the self-esteem movement, and I saw it come to life with my own eyes. That video includes him with people not in his class, people he would have nothing in common with. He never said self-esteem was “feeling good about yourself,” or was he an advocate of reciting pie-in-the-sky affirmations.

Unlike Peikoff and Binswanger and the others, he tried to make omens for some of his actions, and his criticisms of Objectivism were right on the money: emotional repression is almost universal amongst young Objectivists, and their frozen body structures gives lie to the expressions of freedom that they usually talk about. In simple language they come off as simulated Randroids and nobody is buying what they are selling.

Ruined

Craig Ceely's picture

Brian, you wrote:

"I always saw N. Branden as a prima donna, who thought he was better than everyone else and wanted to escape the everyday people he had to deal with. I think when he met Patricia (a beautiful, dream of a gal) he lost his head and he started to become a human being. Edith Efron said that Ayn Rand spoiled and ruined him, and possibly the fame went to his head. Rand expected the world from him and I think the pressure must have been enormous."

Ain't like me to stir shit up, but the world's two most famous Objectivists deliver a pretty decent smack to Nathaniel Branden here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Lindsay

RationalMan's picture

I spent my early years in South Boston which was filled with psychopaths, who would pull robberies, beat and intimidate people, lie through their teeth and then go home to eat dinner with the family. I always saw N. Branden as a prima donna, who thought he was better than everyone else and wanted to escape the everyday people he had to deal with. I think when he met Patricia (a beautiful, dream of a gal) he lost his head and he started to become a human being. Edith Efron said that Ayn Rand spoiled and ruined him, and possibly the fame went to his head. Rand expected the world from him and I think the pressure must have been enormous.

But yes, he was brilliant and clearly the driving force at NBI, and probably responsible for the concept of the “selfish prick” as the essence of Objectivist egoism. In contract, Barbara never had his brilliance but she had a greater feel for people, and went to bat for some people who were being “irrational.” She seemed to have a heart, a commodity that was in short supply at NBI. At that time, she probably needed to be down in the Village discovering and freeing herself rather than giving a course on efficient thinking, which if you knew her life, was an enormous joke.

I read about her calling you an alcoholic and if there is a consolation to that you are together with Frank O’Connor, one of the great stories of the whole Objectivist novel. Some days I just drift off and think of what could have been. Looking back I have to say the whole foundation was set on shaky grounds: these heroic gods who never made mistakes and never suffered from sexual frustration. When you look at it both Rand and Branden crashed over sexual needs and so did many others. More than that Objectivism was always a living contradiction, talking about these great individualists while fostering a suffocating sense of conformity that left many people running in circles.

If I could take my visions of Peikoff as Son of Rand, this nerdish and goofy looking professor of confusion and transfer it to the world, I think it would be easy to see why Objectivism is where it is today, irrelevant and talking to itself. Look at his website where he always fields questions about morality, “Am I moral if my girlfriend has no brains but I love her anyway.” What “big person” who is interested in living, wonders about their status in regards to morality? Did Rand ever have Roark or Dagny, wondering if they were moral?

Yet with these questions Peikoff gets to play the big man, controlling others with his fatwas about what is right and wrong. This is what he loves and what Binswanger and Warts were good at: kissing his ring and making him feel like the Pope. “Do you know who I am?” he says to the world and I wonder what comes back.

Crying shame.

Robert's picture

Watch this video by Tommy Sotomayor. It's 30 min, starting with a 5 min video of a reputedly typical altercation. Mr Sotomayor dissects for his audience.

Set aside the philosophical problems (strains of black nationalism/tribalism in blaming the "white man" when what he means is the statists in government) with some of his argument. I haven't watched all of his stuff. I'm not quite sure what his politics or even has an integrated set of political views.

Focus on the fact that he consistently decries the state of African-American society and does so forcefully with palpable passion and genuineness, he has a compelling and a unique (to my ears) take on an issue he knows. It is the comparison with TAS and ARI that I want to highlight.

Is his analysis accurate? Is it balanced? Don't ask me, I'm still trying to get my head around the black-on-black murder statistics in my town (Kansas City) and the fact that in New York State alone, 60% of black pregnancies are aborted. My question is why? And I'm looking for answers from people who haven't drawn their conclusions from a statistics table or a textbook.

Yes, yes, generational welfarism, statism, government education etc. etc. etc. I've read the essays, examined the accompanying footnotes and seen all of the chin-stroking academics throw in on round table discussions in well-lit television studios. And I still cannot fully comprehend it. The whole thing is too god-damned monstrous for my naive soul. I need to see an effect matched up with a cause. And I'd like to see it without risking my life by frequenting the urban core of KCMO after dark.

Here is my point. You wouldn't go to the ARI or TAS to untangle this Gordian knot (an accurate, no-holds-barred assessment of the root causes for the obvious dysfunction within the black community); certainly I am not seeking such wisdom there; thus we have the reason that I'm watching Tommy Sotomayor.

This is because even if they were in a position to correct or comment on his errors, they wouldn't articulate them as forceful or compelling as Mr Sotomayor. (Oh and he isn't the only one with this opinion of Black women: Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy etc. have made fortunes from comedy routines saying essentially what Sotomayor says). That's assuming that they had the courage to weigh in on the issue at all -- and I don't believe that they do.

And that's the problem isn't it.

The internet allows anyone with a loud voice and a camera to hold forth on any topic they choose. Some are transparently idiotic about it (Alex Jones for instance). Others, especially those with knowledge and experience that the listener doesn't have (as is the case with myself and Mr Sotomayor), are less easily dismissed.

Certain things Mr Sotomayor says sound alarm bells. And yet, if you cut through his imprecise generalizations (that he refines in other videos), there is a kernel of truth there. Trouble for me is that the biggest and best lies in the world all contain a kernel of truth. The education system of yesteryear left its charges in better position to parse such arguments. Wherefore today's youth?

Back-filling that knowledge gap, finding the whole truth in an issue as large and as pressing as this is what the ARI/TAS are supposed to be there for. The ARI/TAS are supposed to be professional philosophical activists; in my estimation they are living up to only two-thirds of that title.

But unless they live up to all of it, they are of bugger all use - not in a nation that also has CATO or the von Mises Institute or Heritage Foundation etc. staffed by just as many be-suited academic lecturers and essayists.

In the meantime the field is left open to the foul-mouthed passionate street-fighter with an attention-grabbing argument and the experience (and videos apparently) to underscore it. Is his analysis flawed? "Find out by reading the 3-part 400,000 word essay by Dr. Boring from the X-Y-Z institute for Philosophical meanderings. "

ARI/TAS should be doing these types of videos on pertinent topics. They should be in Detroit documenting the destruction in living color. They should be on the Mexican border underlining whatever position they have with documentary style film footage. And if they can't do that, then they should be giving color commentary on the shows that do: PJTV, BlazeTV, Fox News or Project Veritas. They should be every-BLOODY-where. It isn't as if the situation isn't dire enough to warrant a little attention-whoring.

If some random guy from Atlanta GA, with a checkered past, a PC, a microphone and a tiny budget can do a better job then they can in getting a message across (whether it is a worthy message is irrelevant), then what the hell are they being paid for?

As I say: A crying shame when the boldest philosopher in recent memory is represented by pups. I believe it was Hudgins who once remarked that Objectivism was the philosophy that would save the world.

Not like this it won't.

Brian

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Loving your reminiscences. Please keep 'em coming. I had laid blame for Roidification of Orgoism at the feet of Branden himself (in the NBI days) and then Binswanger and Schwartz. Binswanker and Warts as I used to call them when especially angry at their turning of Orgoism into an arena of anal-retention and cultism. You seem to think Leonard bears the biggest share of the blame (actually, of course, the lion's share belongs to those who allowed themselves to be culted and roided). You were there before I, so I take what you say seriously. One thing I most emphatically agree with you on: Babs's shameless treatment of Frank. The lies she told about him have been debunked, chapter and verse, right here. I had skin in that race, since she libeled me with similar dishonesty and shamelessness. I believe her erstwhile husband to be a psychopath, brilliant, but without scruple or remorse, the most dangerous kind of brilliant (especially brilliant as an actor). Babs herself is not far removed from that status; only "brilliant" is missing.

Gregster

RationalMan's picture

In talking about Peikoff, I am responding to Lindsay’s and Doug’s description of Objectivism as weak and irrelevant. My contention has been that it stems from Peikoff’s leadership and the fact that he himself is weak, mediocre and jealous of talent and ability. You have a philosophy that enshrines heroic characters and an organized Objectivism that enshrines mediocrities who are scared to death of Peikoff's wrath if they step over the party line.

When I mentioned the name Leonard Jerkoff it was to illustrate how many others thought of him. He was held in little regard and wasn’t respected. On the other hand, Frank O’Connor was held in high esteem by everyone. He had that Gary Cooper type of American individualism: quiet and reserved but with a strong opinion.

I could write a book about this subject but I have no desire to argue the point with one of these long, stretched out back-and-forth debates that go nowhere. If you want to believe that Ayn Rand was always loving and patient with him, as he says, be my guest. In the end, he f-d the duck and we are left with a weak and irrelevant Objectivism in the face of the Left and Islam.

Brian

gregster's picture

When I was at NBI, I saw Rand unload on Peikoff on various occasions mostly because he was a constant irritation to her, someone who just couldn’t grasp what she was trying to do.

Leonard Peikoff, self-admitted non-genius says he oftentimes could not grasp the ideas that Rand took to naturally. But he describes her as having the patience of Job in re-explaining the ideas he persistently could not apply: listen here at Peikoff.com.

Many people referred to him as Leonard Jerkoff, especially men. And still do. But so what? Many people think the same of Rand. I think you should put the old Leonard's lack of diplomacy behind you, bygones.

Seeing how Objectivism was advancing in the Sixties, and what it has become now, I see him as the number one culprit, a Peter Keating who resents anyone of great talent and ability. The psychological and social carnage of those who loved Objectivism and were repulsed by it is enormous. I believe you've explained one of my unanswered questions of the grotesqueries over at OL, but blaming Leonard for one's own lack of self, as they do, is a bit much.

Lindsay on Peikoff

RationalMan's picture

Lindsay

In your book, you talk about your fear of being the object of Rand’s anger. My opinion was that you would have had nothing to worry about because she loved “big personalities.” Leonard Peikoff was just the opposite. When I was at NBI, I saw Rand unload on Peikoff on various occasions mostly because he was a constant irritation to her, someone who just couldn’t grasp what she was trying to do. He just didn’t have the qualities she wanted so much to see in a man. Frank O’Connor had these qualities. You could see the heroic in him. (Barbara Branden’s treatment of him, supposedly her friend, was a crime.)

I took several philosophy courses from Peikoo. Perhaps the word robotic would not describe him today but it would describe him at NBI. He was like a ragdoll being shaped and formed by Ayn Rand, someone without a personality. Many people referred to him as Leonard Jerkoff, especially men.

I, too, liked “Ominous Parallels” and think it is a very important book about how ideas shape history. Peikoff can do intelligent work but he also can be small, trivial and mediocre going back to NBI. Seeing how Objectivism was advancing in the Sixties, and what it has become now, I see him as the number one culprit, a Peter Keating who resents anyone of great talent and ability. The psychological and social carnage of those who loved Objectivism and were repulsed by it is enormous.

If you are referring to Binswanger’s article about having a Randsday, I would say I was defending his idea more than Binswanger himself. I thought it was a good idea, and I wanted to defend it against a guy who I thought was being disrespectful. But I would also say that Binswanger, at times, can do good work, although this was always offset by his cultish and dogmatic attitude, and his attempt to make Ayn Rand a perfect human being. He knows the mechanics of the philosophy but in my opinion, as soon as he enters the real world, he is lost.

There is an Oscar Wilde, or creative and interesting personality, in every robotic Objectivist I have known but their defence system keeps them locked up and suffocated in dogma. This is the great tragedy. I’m not a big fan of N.Branden as a man but I thought he got it right about the hazards of Objectivism.

Brian

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Peikoff is a robotic, mediocre personality who has spawned these same qualities in those around him. Nothing will change at ARI while Peikoff rules because Peikoff surrounds himself with Peter Keating types and gets rid of anything that smacks of Roark. In essence, organized Objectivism is a living contradiction of Ayn Rand’s writings and especially her love of the talented and heroic character.

I certainly think "robotic" applies to Binswanger and Schwartz and Bernstein et al, but Peikoff? Have you met him? My impression is that there is an Oscar Wilde within him struggling to get out and occasionally succeeding. (A Rand with the wit of an Oscar would be beyond formidable.) Others have said he was extremely engaging and witty till he gave up smoking. Whatever, the current Orgoist leadership, which does not include Leonard, is terminally dull. And they are all Obleftivists.

I should reiterate here that I loved Ominous Parallels and The Dim Hypothesis (apart from its non-sequitur of a conclusion). The robots have certainly produced nothing comparable.

Brian—I'm curious to see that a few months ago you were defending Binswanger on some other site that came up on Google. What happened in so short a time to cause you to have such a more sensible view?

Robert on Beck and PJTV

RationalMan's picture

You make some interesting points, Robert. I had similar thoughts to yours about Binswanger and Brook on the Glenn Beck Show. They demonstrated little in the way of personality or flair for attracting an audience, nor did they, in the short time allowed, drive home a message of Ayn Rand’s passion. In the sixties, Rand was in demand in the media because she was so controversial and dynamic. More than ideology, many in the media crave controversial figures that will attract an audience and ratings. If you can draw an audience, there are many in the media who will invite you, not for reasons of ideology, but because it is good for their ratings.

However, the ARI leaders are mediocre in their presentation to the public and have a sort of robotic approach to delivering a message. They lack passion and if you study them, Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz and Bernstein, they are not especially interesting people who one would want to know more of.

At this time, ARI hostility to Christian conservatives, as you say, serves no great purpose in fighting the Left. I had the sense that Beck went to the Religious Right because of the relentless attacks he was experiencing from the Left. He desperately needed some allies and the Religious Right offered protection.

Historically, the Right was the main enemy of Objectivism in its formative years, manifesting in William F. Buckley and his magazine, National Review. This was a running battle for many years and Buckley conservatives were the staunchest enemies of Objectivism. At that time, the Left paid little attention to Rand. The fact that present-day Objectivism under Peikoff still sees Christian "theocracy" as the greatest enemy is a sign of the stagnated and dogmatic approach of ARI.

But then again, as I have said before, Peikoff is a robotic, mediocre personality who has spawned these same qualities in those around him. Nothing will change at ARI while Peikoff rules because Peikoff surrounds himself with Peter Keating types and gets rid of anything that smacks of Roark. In essence, organized Objectivism is a living contradiction of Ayn Rand’s writings and especially her love of the talented and heroic character.

I like the expression..

Marcus's picture

"Individualism."

It is derived from when Elsworth Toohey dismisses Howard Roark in the court room in the Fountainhead film by spitting out the word "Individualist".

"A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already ? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically."

(Ellsworth Toohey, speaking to Peter Keating in "The Fountainhead")

"Has PJTV gone more...

Robert's picture

Depends on your perspective. PJTV still exists as a brand with "Next Generation TV" under its umbrella (or vice versa - I'm not familiar with the corporate organisation).

Next Gen TV is aimed at proselytizing to the youth. Overall the politics is colored by West's brand of Conservatism. But West is confident and intelligent enough to not brow beat his guests into his way of thinking. There are more interviews with Conservative politicians and opinion pieces by LA-radio personalities like Tami Bruce and John Phillips.

The content is improving as each finds their stride. Trifecta is still there. Scott Ott's satirical newscasts (which were brilliant) have gone, but he's won another term in local politics so he's actually fighting the good fight in Pennsylvania.

Klavan appears in a regular slot with Bill Whittle. When they touch on philosophy his christian beliefs and antipathy to Rand shows through. But the quality of the conversation makes up for it in my opinion. I don't care if they don't agree with my world view. At the very least they have an intelligent, honest and genuine conversation about things.

More importantly, they don't talk over one another. That in and of itself is worth the subscription.

What dissappoints me is that Alan Barton's segment (regularly featuring Terry Jones from Investors Business Daily and an ARI person -- often Yaron Brooke himself) has gone.

And I wonder why. From my point of view they should be paying to get camera time. Why do they exist if they don't? ARI should be putting forth people on every media platform that will give them a fair shake.

But I suspect that this disappearance from PJTV is another missed opportunity. The first example being Brooke vanishing from what could have been a regular slot on Glenn Beck's former 5PM Fox show.

My ~uninformed impression~ is that Beck dropped them when they were critical of Christianity - probably in a tit-for-tat exchange when Beck criticized Rand. I don't know for certain, but I do know Objectivists by their reputation and I'm willing to bet that someone - probably the guy who didn't own the microphone that ARI needs - went nuclear and that's all she wrote. And I wonder if this happened at PJTV.

I get the feeling that Objectivists in general and the ARI in particular have no qualms about fighting ALL comers when it comes to those on the Right. Not so the left.

The rump of the Right would accept Rand's defense of capitalism and natural rights. Feed them that and fight the metaphysical & epistemological battle once Holder has been removed, the debt bomb is defused and the unemployed Black youth have jobs sufficient to enable them to buy Rand's books again...

It might mean being diplomatic when it comes to a host's christian beliefs. But FFS if a militantly foul-mouth atheist like Penn Gillette can manage to show his atheist colors and STILL get invited back, what the hell is wrong with the ARI people?

But I could be wrong. Perhaps the ARI etc. are too damned boring for TV & radio. Penn Gillette strikes me as the kind of raconteur that could transfix you so effectively that you'd let your beer go flat least you missed a single syllable. With most of the ARI folks I've seen, if they speak for more than 5 minutes, I'd have to drink myself sober again just to relieve the boredom.

Stealing Thunder

Doug Bandler's picture

I say jealous because they are harshest to those who might steal their thunder by challenging their monopolist position as the defenders of capitalism/American liberty.

Great insight. My guess is that OrgOists would say that they are the only ones to fully understand American liberty and thus defend it, which is dubious.

They ignore the fundamentalists within one party (the Progressives & Marxists) whilst painting every conservative as a fundamentalist Christian and racist -- a tactic they borrow from Alinsky.

My sentiments exactly.

The arrival of Alan West at PJTV has led to a shakeup in the programming.

I didn't know this as I haven't watched PJTV lately. Has PJTV gone more Conservative and less "libertarian"? I'm disappointed to hear that but at the same time not surprised.

I often think about "tactics", about how a Rand influenced cultural movement could best influence a culture. I don't have any hard answers yet but OrgOism's approach has not worked in any significant way. People are not ready to accept a libertarian (for lack of a better word) movement, and I mean good people. They question then becomes why? Is it purely because the ethics is against us? Or is it because we haven't presented it in a way that moves the soul; i.e. like the way that the Left is able to move Leftists?

I don't know what the full answer is but I do strongly suspect that actually attacking the Left directly and labeling it as evil might help. You need emotional fuel to fight a war. This is why war time propaganda is so important, even for the moral side. Good Americans don't even really know that there is a cold war going on right now. (Read my post on the Tutsis and the Hutus.) If they felt that OrgOism was a warrior for justice against the evil Tutsis, they might start to accept them more even if there were disagreements; i.e. atheism, laissez faire, etc..

But this is a WAR against the Left/Tutsis. And it is the failure to recognize that which IMO is OrgOism's greatest failure.

It occurred to me today...

Robert's picture

that the root of the problem with OrgOism is they seem to think that they cannot loose. They tell themselves that their arguments are unassailable, that the evidence is voluminous and plainly visible. All they need to do is wait and -- eventually -- the mountain will come to Rand.

Not only can we loose, but we ARE loosing. Why? Visible evidence is invisible to those who shut their eyes. Steely logic is malleable in the hands of those who care nothing for logic.

You can conceal a towering inferno behind a dazzling light and sound display. And in one sentence I have summed up the Obama administration.

And the reason that they are getting away with has nothing to do with the brilliance of Obama. It is simply that the opposition (including the GOP and OrgOism) is both inept and jealous. I say jealous because they are harshest to those who might steal their thunder by challenging their monopolist position as the defenders of capitalism/American liberty.

Thus the left is "mistaken" while conservatives are evil incarnate. They ignore the fundamentalists within one party (the Progressives & Marxists) whilst painting every conservative as a fundamentalist Christian and racist -- a tactic they borrow from Alinsky.

They ought to be figuring out how to get people to open their eyes and ears. But that requires getting your hands dirty and risking your public reputation as one of the 'level-headed,' 'soft-spoken,' and 'thoughtful' people.

Which leads me to a question: The arrival of Alan West at PJTV has led to a shakeup in the programming. There are no longer any PJTV shows featuring ARI spokespeople. And I wonder why that is. If it is a question of philosophic conflict, my question is why can't animosity be set aside in the face of a rampant and rapacious socialist enemy?

I suspect that I've already answered my own question.

I suspect that

Shane's picture

I suspect that the ARI intends it's activities not to dissuade the political classes.

Doug

Neil Parille's picture

One of the problems is that Objectivists are generally very poorly read.

For example, Andrew Bernstein (who has a PhD. in philosophy) repeated the Hypatia myth. Onkhar Ghate repeated the myth about people pro-Columbus believing the earth was flat. And Leonard Peikoff, who takes about 20 years to write a book, can't get right the date when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Someone like Binswanger will never immerse himself on the literature about race, IQ and crime because he knows that nothing could be contrary to his official dogma, rationalistically conceived.

The real is the rational and the rational is the real.

Here's what we should see ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... from OrgOism. An indication that they mean what they are say and have at least a modicum of passion about it. O'Reilly is right on the money with most of this, including his attack on aestheto-filth and trash-speak (when I attack these things here I get called a fascist by their devotees, who flounce) even as he acknowledges you can't legislate for responsible entertainment and a civilised demeanour. This is KASS:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/256...

Generalists vs Specialists

Doug Bandler's picture

I watched Yaron's YT video and found it excruciatingly lame.

Brook is a generalist not a specialist on Riparian rights. But this is the problem that Michael described in another post; namely Objectivists being armchair specialists on everything. This is a pretty big problem because it pertains to credibility. As dumb as Leftists are in many ways they are usually sticklers for detail. Leftists are often very good at accumulating facts. They are terrible at analyzing them since they have no understanding of philosophic integration and are basically empiricists. But when an Objectivist opines on a detail rich subject like national security or legal rights, etc and then gets thing wrong, well it just looks bad. Which is why I say Bill Whittle is so good. He gets the details right. As do Conservatives like Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Andrew MacCarthy, etc.. Objectivists are so often sloppy.

I think what Alex Epstein is doing is both intelligent and admirable. He's become a specialist on the oil industry and can thus tailor his pro-capitalist advocacy based on the industry knowledge that he has. Plus he's interviewed both scientists and industry analysts so he's got the actual facts to back him up.

WTF indeed!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I watched Yaron's YT video and found it excruciatingly lame. Not only is the subject matter numbingly unimportant in the current context, Yaron didn't have the answer anyway. How do we define properrty rights with respect to fish, and the ocean? "I don't know, because I'm not a legal expert, but there's a bunch of articles been written ..." Didn't even name one.

More disgraceful dereliction by OrgOism in its headlong plunge into crushing irrelevancy. Is George Soros pulling its strings?

Oh, and it's "fewer fish," not "less fish." Shudder.

The main thing is to put a

Doug Bandler's picture

The main thing is to put a fire under OrgOism's sorry, sagging ass and some testosterone into its limp dick!

I think Bill Whittle's video is an example of the type of fire that we should be seeing from Oists. Do you agree with that Lindsay? Whittle handled pretty much all the elements of this case including the treachery of the Left and the reality of black crime. ARI can and should be able to do that. Whittle has a host of videos where he tackles issues directly and he lays out the Left's destructive involvement. His videos are clear, concise, well articulated and visually nice looking. ARI should be at that level by now.

Evasion I think

Doug Bandler's picture

Do you attribute it to innocence, or to evasion?

I think it has to be due to evasion. How can they not know of the significance of the Trayvon Martin affair. But there could also be a policy in play that discourages commentary on anything too controversial. That would include race and Muslim issues. ARI, TOS, TOC are on cruise control. There just is not very much creative thinking going on. Could it be none of them want to lose their smug jobs?

ARI WTF

Grant Jones's picture

Could it be that ARI wants to be irrelevant? Below is Yaron Brook's latest contribution to the fight for liberty. It's like his ambition is to be a parody of CATO or Reason. Why is the ARI board and its big donors going along with this? I don't get it.

"How would a free market stop overfishing? Property rights! Yaron Brook elaborates in a new Yaron Answers."

Whew, I'm glad that pressing issue has been cleared up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Maybe I did waffle again. See Lindsay, I told you I was a flake. Can you imagine the women that have to deal with being in a relationship with me? Goblian help them.

You definitely waffled! I thought you'd substituted your awesome flaming sword for a marshmallow puff sent to you by ARI or TAS or both. Does this happen every fourth Sunday? Could I trouble you to send a "hormone alert" out in advance? Eye

Terminology: "Goblian" is both a noun and adjective Linzism for "Christian." The non-entity Goblians worship is "Gobby," so it's "Gobby help them [the women in relationships with you]." The rescue that is my marriage proposal to you still stands, btw, since Moeller will marry me only if the government defines the term. I still adore you enough to put up with your monthly lapses. Eye

I note too that, even though "Orgoism" is one of mine, those using it are calling it "OrgOism," as did I when I first started with it. I'll go with the flow on that, though it should be noted that compound words as a rule don't use a cap for the second word.

The main thing is to put a fire under OrgOism's sorry, sagging ass and some testosterone into its limp dick! Frighten the horses indeed. Carry on SOLOists!!

The Randian Randless

Michael Moeller's picture

When I read Objectivist commentary on whether firefighters are rationally selfish or colonizing Mars or why normal children should play happily with retarded children or somesuch, I reminded of The Horsey Horseless:
horsey horseless

Yes, as the automobile was beginning to take hold, some inventor came up with this monstrosity to (literally) not frighten the horses.

Rand provided a bold and innovative new philosophy, yet many in OrgOism are trying to adapt it to the relics of the past. What about using Rand's radical paradigm to create the sleek and the new, the visionary and the sublime?

Heaven forbid one frightens the horses!

Doug's Battle

RationalMan's picture

Doug said: "RationalMan has raised the issue that taking on the Left on certain issues could result in your total destruction."

I never said that. I said being a "real" Objectivist in the mode of Ayn Rand puts you in a position of fighting the whole culture, and it can be a bloody and dirty battle. Many so-called Objectivists have no stomach for this, and thus the lack of the fighting spirit a la Lindsay Perigo in the Objectivist world.

I don't see the Left as the formidable giant that you do. Their weaknesses are great and their leaders are feeble in comparison to the past. They have lost their intellectual edge. Their main weapons are race and social justice causes such as poverty. Their alliance with Islam makes them vulnerable in all the areas they champion: women, gays, blacks and sexual and social freedom. Yes, they control the media and the colleges but with the Internet, their control is being challenged.

Any well-trained Objectivist intellectual--following in Rand's footsteps--could destroy any of their intellectuals in any intellectual forum.

Doug's Battle

RationalMan's picture

Doug said: "RationalMan has raised the issue that taking on the Left on certain issues could result in your total destruction."

I never said that. I said being a "real" Objectivist in the mode of Ayn Rand puts you in a position of fighting the whole culture, and it can be a bloody and dirty battle. Many so-called Objectivists have no stomach for this, and thus the lack of the fighting spirit a la Lindsay Perigo in the Objectivist world.

I don't see the Left as the formidable giant that you do. Their weaknesses are great and their leaders are feeble in comparison to the past. They have lost their intellectual edge. Their main weapons are race and social justice causes such as poverty. Their alliance with Islam makes them vulnerable in all the areas they champion: women, gays, blacks and sexual and social freedom. Yes, they control the media and the colleges but with the Internet, their control is being challenged.

Any well-trained Objectivist intellectual--following in Rand's footsteps--could destroy any of their intellectuals in any intellectual forum.

Doug

Richard Wiig's picture

Why is OrgOism not saying it? Do you attribute it to innocence, or to evasion?

What ARI should have said

Doug Bandler's picture

Here is an example of what is possible. I think Whittle pushes the envelope of what non-Leftists can say. This is what OrgOism should be saying on this subject. And they shouldn't even discuss the subject unless they can say what Whittle says below.* BTW, Whittle produces far superior commentary on the issues of the Left, Islam, Cultural Marxism, and even the economy than does ARI. He still can't say what I would say. But his analysis is better than what I see from 99% of Oists.

RationalMan has raised the issue that taking on the Left on certain issues could result in your total destruction. He is right in a way. But Whittle's video reminds me that its still possible to attack the Left with far greater gusto (KASSness) than we have seen from OrgOism. I may be wrong about OrgOism only dealing with Cookie Cutter stuff. If they had balls and better perspective maybe they could do even better than Whittle.

Maybe I did waffle again. See Lindsay, I told you I was a flake. Can you imagine the women that have to deal with being in a relationship with me? Goblian help them.

---------------------

*I do disagree Whittle on one thing. Whittle speaks positively about Martin Luther King. I wouldn't. King was a Leftist white hater. Too many Conservatives succumb to the cult of King worship that the Left has created. Whittle, who is usually very well researched, should know better about King. I'm sure if he actually read about King and King's own words, he would change his view. But except for that his video is excellent.

deleted

Doug Bandler's picture

deleted

The Bottom Line

Richard Wiig's picture

If you want things to change, you have to do it yourself,

That's the one criticism I have of your post, Doug. Why would you expect OrgOism to change? It won't. That's why it's called OrgOism.

Doug??!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm puzzled by the post to which I'm replying. Seems like one of your periodic (as in woman's period?) lapses. You spend so much energy rightly excoriating Orgoism's failure to confront current issues like immigration, yet here you are saying Orgoism *shouldn't* address such issues!! Then you say:

all the good sense of life stuff is a waste of time

Do you mean *this* kind of "stuff"?

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

If so, I couldn't disagree more. Part of Orgoism's failure lies in its being comprised of aesthetic airheads, philistines and barbarians, who have no clue about The Romantic Manifesto and no desire to find out. This work, after Rome has fallen, will be of far greater importance than Atlas Shrugged. Authenticism will make that clear in a way Orgoism resolutely refuses to.

sad but true

Doug Bandler's picture

The fight is a bloody one and it demands giving up a normal life if one really wants to fight totally for Ayn Rand's ideas. Knowing this, how many people will want to fight? The reality is that what faces you is a bloody, full-blown war that you may not survive.

Very true. Basically what you are saying is that to challenge the Left would require a war effort that no one today can realistically fight. Conservatives are trying to fight the Left but within the confines set by modern liberalism itself. This is why they can not win. This is a point made by the late Larry Auster (although from his traditionalist perspective), namely that modern liberalism is so strong that it can not be directly challenged. It has to burn itself out, whatever civilizational catastrophe that entails.

My wish though would be that the Objectivist movement would at least acknowledge the realities of the Cultural Marxist Left even if they can't directly oppose them. But very few Objectivists get the true nature of the Left especially its cultural dynamics. And sadly, as has been shown, many O'ists are sympathetic with cultural Leftism (feminism is one example that enrages me).

Which comes back to the fact that we are spectators, watching as Rome falls all over again.

What I think is going on with Objectivists of different types

Tom Burroughes's picture

In fairness, Doug, D. Hsieh has done broadcasts about the importance of self defence and gun rights, including issues like concealed carry. But she hasn't done so in the context of the Zimmerman case, at least not yet.

A lot of libertarians I know are appalled at the antics of the left on the Zimmerman case. Jacob Sullum has a good item up today at Reason about Florida's Stand Your Ground law. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07...

I think some objectivists don't want to play the culture war or don't think of it as a war between two broad sides; it is, in their view, more complex than that. That may be where some of the reluctance comes from.

I also think there is a reluctance to wade too deep into stuff about race to avoid the slightest charge of racism. I have been involved in the libertarian/objectivist movement long enough to know that some on the left are dying to pin the label racist on it, and that's why some are very cautious in the issues they want to get into.

Perhaps it is the "tone" as much as anything. Some people want lots of passion and anger, and others, think the coolly rational, chatty, conversational way of pitching the argument is better in getting converts and spreading ideas. Maybe we should stop getting oxidised and just do what suits and works best. It is not as if anyone is keeping score.

Doug's Analysis of Objectivism

RationalMan's picture

Your post is an excellent analysis of Objectivism today and could be a clarion call for a new perspective about Objectivism, but on the other hand, who is listening to criticism about the dire state of Objectivism?

ARI is the only source worth mentioning, and nothing will change there until the demise of Leonard. He has the purse strings and the whole crowd there is too dependent on him to take an independent stand. Besides, many have cozy positions so why risk getting beaten and bloody? Along with this, Leonard is envious, jealous and hostile toward those of talent and ability who have accomplished things in the real world, and wants everything to go his way. So your sharp analysis of the problems of Objectivism will go unheeded at ARI.

If you want things to change, you have to do it yourself, but are you ready to go against the whole world and every institution in it? This is the crux of the problem. The fight is a bloody one and it demands giving up a normal life if one really wants to fight totally for Ayn Rand's ideas. Knowing this, how many people will want to fight? The reality is that what faces you is a bloody, full-blown war that you may not survive. This is why you have people like Hudgins. They have no stomach for the fight and don’t want to get dirty or bloody.

Tell that to Rand who was in combat every day of her life.

OrgOism should narrow its focus

Doug Bandler's picture

I've said this before but it is becoming more apparent to me that Official Objectivism should keep its focus really narrow. It should aim to attract new people to Rand and Objectivism, especially the young (less than 25 years old). To that end I think it should focus on a few core things:

*the evil of altruism
*the evil of collectivism - all variants
*the nature of irrationality and the different forms it comes in
*the evil of the welfare state
*the evil of the confiscation and redistribution of wealth
*the evil of the hatred of wealth production
*the evil of the initiation of physical force

But it should chose only a narrow range of concretes to illustrate these. And I think that war policy, immigration policy, and foreign policy should NOT be the medium for advancing Objectivism. They are too complicated with too much unknown about how to implement a rational philosophy which is necessarily broad. Here are safe topics:

*pointing out the obvious moral injustice of the welfare state. How easy would it be to point out cities like Detroit and show that they are the product of welfare statism and thus altruism. You don't even have to point out that racial egalitarianism is involved. That's too complicated and smart Rand influenced people will eventually figure that out.

*Attacking regulation/preventative law and showing how it prevents wealth from being created

*Opposing attacks on free speech especially using leftist "hate speech" and anti-discrimination laws. They could also show that the Conservative "community standards" approach is rights violating as well.

*Defend 2nd Amendment and self-defense. Show why self-defense is connected to the right to life

*attack the federal reserve and the socialist monetary system we have, advocate for a free market in banking

*defend laissez-faire. First define it, then show that today's system is not laissez faire. OrgOism tends to defend big business giants but they often don't make Rand's distinction between market businessmen and "peddlers of pull". They should point out that so much of today's business activity is conducted within a "plutocrat" atmosphere.

*oppose public education and show how it more than anything else is responsible for the march towards socialism of America. Clearly point out how the government schools are in essence Marxist indoctrination centers.

There are other simple and easy things that they could focus on but here is what I would not focus on:

*immigration
*war
*overarching foreign policy
*issues that require a very specialized knowledge base

I would also minimize the pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage advocacy. I wouldn't eliminate it but I would minimize it. But in general OrgOism should focus on the assault coming from the Marxist Left and how the Conservatives assist that assault by not opposing it fundamentally. They should keep it simple. Let the Objectivist bloggers deal with the more complicated issues like national surveillance or how to deal with the Islam threat. But OrgOism should be KASS in opposing the welfare/regulatory state. Which means they should be KASS in opposing the Left. The destruction of Detroit is a great teaching point.

Blogging on a retarded law in Italy or fireman or all the good sense of life stuff is a waste of time. And the MAJOR emphasis should be on exposing and opposing the Left. Opposing Conservatism should be secondary. But OrgOism has it exactly ass backwards.

-----------------------

I wanted to add that ideally the Objectivist movement would be capable of identifying the racial egalitarianism of today's cultural Marxists and incorporate that into their advocacy. But that is hard and the culture's context is not really primed for it. Official Objectivism should keep it simple. However, if there were unofficial Objectivist think tanks (not associated with ARI) then they could put out the advanced stuff; i.e. the kind of points that Neil and I have been making here - that Hispanics are largely political leftists, that Muslims are a fifth column, etc. But that type of material is too incendiary for an organization that is trying to spread Rand's core philosophy. You have to start somewhere. But my main point is that OrgOism should eliminate its pro-leftist sentiments along with its KASSlessness. That is stomach turning.

Incomprehensible!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Beyond baffling. Way, way beyond.

The Objective Standard Is Brain Dead

Neil Parille's picture

Folks,

The OS is in a tizzy about an Italian Appeal's court holding that an Italian could be fined 1000 Euros for saying "Sh*t" on Italy, or something like that.

Noting that the law in question long predates Mussolini, we are warned:

This enforcement of an anti-free-speech code is a troubling reminder of Italy’s fascist past—and a frightful indicator of what may be in store for the country if its government and people do not check such blatant assaults on individual rights—especially the final pillar of a semi-free society: the right to freedom of speech.

Of course, no word from the OS about Geller and Spencer not being allowed into the United Kingdom. But the laws that prosecute people like Geller are recent -- and in part a result of Moslem immigration -- so it can't be discussed.

The Death Oriented Sacrificism of Hudgins

RationalMan's picture

Hudgins is an atrocious example of a deadly sacrificism and should be stricken from the record as a traitor. With his “sweet little Muslim nanny” he jeopardizes the life of the children especially if the mothers are Jewish. Reading the Koran one knows that Islam is at war with Jews period and to put children in the hands of a nanny, who may or may not be sympathetic to Jihad is to risk their safety and their future. This is an obvious fact, sort of like putting your Jewish kids in the hands of a "sweet Nazi nanny" or a "sweet crackhead nanny" who gives the kiddies little treats.

This is a form of sacrificism (altruism) that Rand fought against all her life. Hudgins is not only a fraud; he is a traitor and is someone who destroys the product from within.

Indeed

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As you noted earlier, "pathetic."

BTW:

I found it odd during the heated debates on enhanced interrogation, Gitmo, foreign surveillance, etc. there was not a peep from OrgOism.

Yes. It all makes sense now though. Gramscification. Orgoism turns leftward.

I read Diana's thing on handicapped kids that you linked to. Utter grandstanding. Wotta poseur.

I laugh to think that she once posed as an enemy of Dr Diabolical Dialectical. They should get married!! PhDs together. Doctors of Phoniness.

Bring on the genuine "new intellectuals" like you and Doug.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

They might be "jerking off", but mostly I think there are a lot of no-talents. That's the best they can do, or, rather, want to do.

Like I said, I don't follow OrgOism much anymore, and ceased caring about it a long time ago. A lot of smug non-entities riding Rand's coat tails -- with not much else to offer besides grandstanding. Unless you're interested in the Paleo diet or buying a timeshare on Mars.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I am sure there are many reasons for it, and groupthink appears to one of them, but I can hardly be bothered these days to waste my time thinking about why.

Well, that's the point I meant to make in my last post: it's Gramscification by Osmosis—and I am only now tumbling to that. Osmotic or not, it's contemptible.

Are firefighters rationally selfish? You're kidding me. No, I know you're not—no need to provide the link; I'd only throw up if I clicked on it.

Do you agree with me, Michael, that Orgoism's epitaph will be, "They jerked off while America burned"?

Linz...

Michael Moeller's picture

I hear ya.

I found it odd during the heated debates on enhanced interrogation, Gitmo, foreign surveillance, etc. there was not a peep from OrgOism. Meanwhile, the left was using these issues as a moral cudgel, and swinging wildly at America.

All that could be had from OrgOism is the same essay about bombing Iran and "total war" -- recycled over and over again in various forms. It was stale the second time.

Yet they avoided the controversial issues like the black plaque.

Do they expect to become relevant by avoiding the palpably controversial topics of the day? And instead write about colonizing Mars and whether firefighters are rationally selfish (see TOC)?

Pathetic.

I am sure there are many reasons for it, and groupthink appears to one of them, but I can hardly be bothered these days to waste my time thinking about why (or them).

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I hope you are not just now becoming aware of the cultural leftism among some Objectivists. Shades of it were apparent during the fatwa.

I expect they were, but at least the fatwa's main exponents advocated voting blanketly for the Left as a way of jolting the Republicans back to some semblance of pro-freedom principles. There was no suggestion (was there?) that Dem-scum were somehow noble or right; Peikoff's then-poodle Hsieh announced she'd vote even for Hillary Clinton (there was no Obamarx on the scene back then) to underscore how delinquent the Republicans had become. Now there appears to be a tacit, if not explicit, embrace of the Left, shockingly evident in Orgoism's silence on the Zimmerman issue and its capitulation to Islamofilth. Look at what's happened this very day, as reported or seen directly here: Ed "our sweet Muslim nanny" Hudgins posts about Mars missions, Brook tweets about farm subsidies, Armstrong posts about an anti-abortion bill—all of this as Obamerica (I like that, Michael!) is aflame with riots by insolent Leftist dregs. It is beyond mind-boggling. Objectivists should not favour Orgoism with any support, moral or financial, while this treachery is going on. They should hit the "Contribute" button right here—I can always use the help. And stand by for Authenticism, where cowardly evasion is no virtue and principled ferocity no vice.

Linz...

Michael Moeller's picture

I hope you are not just now becoming aware of the cultural leftism among some Objectivists. Shades of it were apparent during the fatwa.

Need an example? Here is the beginning of Diana's faux-outrage against Rand's response re keeping retarded children separated in school:

OY. I’m not a fan of mainstreaming disabled children in schools, except on a case-by-case basis, when everyone benefits thereby. However, the idea that disabled children ought to be kept away from normal children just flabbergasts me...

Read the whole thing.

Somehow, Diana morphs Rand's statement that retarded children should be kept separate into keeping them "out of sight", and even potentially pushing granny down the stairs. Same PC/faux-concern as leftists (see, eg., Paul Ryan pushing granny off a cliff). Keeping healthy children separate in school means just that, simply keeping them separate. Nowhere does Rand say anything about treating them indecently or without civility.

Notice the glaring omission from her discussion? She says nothing about the effects of integrating retarded children may have on healthy, able, and gifted children. They apparently do not exist for her, as she says very little to nothing about these effects.

What about retarded children that have problems with mental control and have outbursts in class? Blank out.

What about retarded children that have problems with physical control and accost other children? Ignored.

Apparently the healthy, able, and gifted get in the way of PC grandstanding.

I actually encountered this in middle school. One time in gym class, we were paired-up for 2-on-2 co-ed basketball. Since I was one of the better athletes in the class, I got paired-up with one of the retarded girls.

Now, to make the game "fair", the boy could not take every shot. The rule was that we had to alternate shots. If I took a shot, she would have to take the next shot. Mind you, this girl couldn't run effectively, much less dribble or throw a basketball in a hoop.

So in our first game, I grabbed a rebound under our own hoop. Since I took the last shot, I passed her the ball and said: "Ok, now go take a shot".

Guess what she did? She turned around and threw the ball in our own hoop. And it was the only basket she made in all the games we played!

This was not even just a matter of being bad at athletics, she didn't even comprehend the rules. For the time this carried on, I absolutely hated going to gym class, and I love athletics!

What was I supposed to gain from that? "Compassion" for being forced into such a situation? Hell, what did she even gain from other kids laughing at her?

But that's PC cultural leftism for you. At best, ignore the able and gifted. At worst, morally browbeat those individuals and attempt to make them feel guilty for being physically and mentally superior. And this is accomplished by forcing them to "live down", as Rand rightly noted.

A real sickness in this culture.

Lindsay

Doug Bandler's picture

It may well be that the main players absorbed their Gramscism by osmosis rather than willful intent to pervert (though I'd hesitate to give the likes of Diana and Sciabarra the benefit of that doubt), but hey, Gramsci would have settled for osmotic puppets. The effect is the same.

I think that the very process of getting an advanced degree could make a person prone to a PC version of O'ism (i.e. more Leftist sympathy). Its a difficult challenge to simultaneously learn the knowledge of your field as taught to you by a majority of Leftist academics and maintain a strong commitment to your non-Leftist philosophic premises. Plus trying to correct the many errors you are undoubtedly taught is not something you can really do on the spot. It takes years.

I think Diana Hsieh stated once that she would rather spend time with Leftist university professors than Christian moms. Well that is a Hobson's choice but I think I would choose the Christian Moms (especially the hot single ones). I take Diana's remark as a broad statement of her greater comfort with the Left than with the Conservative Right. I think many Objectivists think the same, and apparently organized Objectivism is on the same wavelength (judging by the commentary from ARI and TOS).

But your general point is right. Larry Auster used to bemoan the fact that Christianity was stolen by "liberalism"; i.e. by the Left. All of his Traditionalist commentors said the same thing: many of today's churches are preaching cultural Marxism from their pulpits. Now granted, traditional Christianity is no bargain but the Left has made significant incursions into Christianity. The Left is *very good* at infiltration and subversion.

Objectivism may be in the process of being pacified by a general Leftist influence; i.e many Objectivists stressing "social liberalism" and thus ignoring the utter destruction that the Left will usher in. Also, many Objectivists have bought into both feminist and civil rights narratives; i.e. the white male devil.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Today, it seems like Objectivism has been PCed; i.e. turned into a Left-compliant philosophy.

Dear Goblin! I've just realised! Doug, you've given me a Eureka! moment. The PC-fication of Objectivism is simply an extension of Antonio's Gramsci's Long March through the Culture, whereby the Left infiltrates and subverts its enemy's institutions rather than effecting their direct, forcible overthrow:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

They got the schools, the unions, the boardrooms, the churches, the media—now they're subverting what ought to be (and touts itself as) capitalism's/freedom's philosophical HQ: Objectivism. The Gramscification of Objectivism! It may well be that the main players absorbed their Gramscism by osmosis rather than willful intent to pervert (though I'd hesitate to give the likes of Diana and Sciabarra the benefit of that doubt), but hey, Gramsci would have settled for osmotic puppets. The effect is the same.

ARI = the Antonio (g)Ramsci Institute!

They appear as unreal and

Doug Bandler's picture

They appear as unreal and robotic, thus the word Randroid which is grossly unfair to Ayn Rand. This unreal and robotic personality repulses people.

Yes it is unfair to her. Most Objectivists are arm-chair rationalists. Its endemic to the movement. I was an example of it myself.

the real disaster began with Leonard Peikoff.

I don't know the history. All I know came from Branden's book and I don't know how credible that is. Branden was a dead end as well. But whatever flaws Peikoff has, he does have some KASSness to use Lindsay's term. And I notice a growing tension between him and the younger more libertarian Objectivists (Hsieh and Armstrong). But I agree that there was something wrong about the way he handled the Objectivist movement while he was in charge. It does seem like he caused a type of conformity which has killed whatever passion the movement had. Throw in Binswanger and Schwartz and the problem magnifies. Today, it seems like Objectivism has been PCed; i.e. turned into a Left-compliant philosophy. Its main focus is on the problems of Conservatism. As if the U.S. is a Conservative country that is on the verge of some Christian totalitarianism. Absurd.

Ditto with Pamela Geller who is another powerful personality but perhaps short on experience and ideological background.

I like Pam. As I like Spencer. As I like MacCarthy. As I like Greenfield. As I like Coulter. As I like Malkin.

All of them are ideologically mixed (with many errors some worse than others). But all of them are on the side of good vs (Leftist) evil. And they all have courage and guts. Especially Spencer and Geller. They are taking on Islam for god's sake. Objectivism doesn't have their equal. Objectivism has some technical expertise but it does not have great polemicists, great cultural commentators, great political analysts, etc.. Outside of cookie cutter stuff and technical stuff (like Tara Smith's great work on ethics), Objectivism is barren. Thus it is impotent. Really, O'ism is a non-factor in the culture wars. We've been subsumed into the soul-less pit of libertarianism.

Mars?

Doug Bandler's picture

Oh, do wait. It's about ... colonising Mars.

I just saw this and all I could do was shake my head. But not to be outdone 'The Objective Standard' just posted on a Texas abortion bill. Gee, the Left's race war is manifesting in nation-wide black riots and the killing of whites but TOS chooses to focus on those imminent Christian theocrats. While Rome burns literally.

The pattern continues. OrgOism of every variety is either focused on the relatively trivial (abortion, gay marriage) or on the irrelevant (Mars colonization, science breakthroughs, Ann Hathaway's work ethic). It is completely blind to the two major evils that threaten the existence of Western Civilization: 1) The Left and 2) Islam.

I am growing to hate the Objectivist movement.

--------

Actually its even worse. There seems to be anti-Zimmerman sentiment from a number of Objectivists including Ari Armstrong. Its of the "he should have never approached Trayvon" type. If ever there was a clear cut case of good vs evil, it is this. Zimmerman is on the side of law and civilization, the black race warriors (including ObaFilth and Holder) are on the side of racial socialism and violent anti-white racism; i.e. they are on the side of "the most primitive form of collectivism". I am seeing that most Objectivists are really little more than Rand-plated libertarians. This is clear with Hsieh and Armstrong.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm still waiting for the OrgOism commentary on this. If we ever get one I fell it might be cringe worthy.

Wait no longer, Doug! Ed has now posted TAS's first op-ed since the Zimmerman verdict.

Oh, do wait. It's about ... colonising Mars.

Makes one wonder quite literally what planet they're on.

Come on Ed. Give us some Randian Roar on matters of the moment!

There was a strong earthquake here in New Zealand's lower North Island as I typed this. The walls shook and the ground rumbled and one's heart quickened. That's what we want from TAS!

I'm repairing to calling it The KASSless Society till further notice.

Authenticism

RationalMan's picture

Lindsay said: “Au contraire. As someone has already observed, Mr Wright I think, it'll be a huge relief not to have to worry about discrediting or misrepresenting her or her philosophy by anything I might do or say. This will be *my* philosophy, heavily influenced by Objectivism but departing from it in some respects which will be clearly spelled out.”

Great! Free yourself from the chains and the endless fighting and arguments! You can be the new Mr. Danger, the Roark or Frisco that everyone was waiting for but who never emerged.

Although Ayn Rand changed after the break-up, the real disaster began with Leonard Peikoff. Knowing him since the sixties, you couldn’t pick a man more unlike an Ayn Rand hero so right at the base, you had a giant contradiction that undermined the whole process. Sort of like Pee Wee Herman leading Seal Team Six against Bin Laden.

Authenticism goes right to the point of the Objectivist problem in that Objectivists are not authentic. They appear as unreal and robotic, thus the word Randroid which is grossly unfair to Ayn Rand. This unreal and robotic personality repulses people.

Lindsay Perigo and Tommy Robinson would make a great team. Tommy has a lot of power but he is young and Lindsay’s experience and exceptional ability to communicate would be a great help. Ditto with Pamela Geller who is another powerful personality but perhaps short on experience and ideological background.

Ann Coulter - another excellent column

Doug Bandler's picture

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/a...

Instead of turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an occasion to announce, "The simple fact is, America is a racist society," liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What might that be based on?

Throw us a bone. It's because a disproportionate number of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2013/07/17/coulter-column-avoid-looking-criminal-dont-commit-crime#ixzz2ZPu4aWPh

I'm still waiting for the OrgOism commentary on this. If we ever get one I fell it might be cringe worthy.

Daniel Greenfield...

Michael Moeller's picture

Providing one of the best commentaries on the Zimmermann trial: George Zimmerman Wasn't on Trial -- We Were.

"...The race-baiting left had to tell its familiar story and they weren’t going to let anything get in the way of telling that story. They have to tell and retell that story because it establishes their moral authority to run our society and our lives.

The story is black and white with no room for ambiguities or gray areas. It’s about race as martyrdom. It’s about white guilt. The story is already written and the left is always looking to stick someone’s name in the empty space between “White racist” and “Minority victim.” The head of Stalin’s secret police once said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” The American left reverses that equation. They already know the crime. All they need is the man.

The goal of the rally organizers, the reporters putting their best face forward at the teleprompter and of Obama, rediscovering the son he never had, was not to indict or imprison George Zimmerman. That was a secondary or tertiary goal. It wasn’t George Zimmerman’s freedom that they wanted to take away. It was our freedom.

The left does not indict or convict individuals. It indicts and convicts entire groups. Their show trials indict individuals for the crime of being a member of a class and then convict the entire class based on the trials of those individuals..."

Read the whole thing.

The Prosecutor

Michael Moeller's picture

The trickle-down rule of men, as I like to call it. When you have politicos at the top setting the precedent that it pays to use political power to threaten, intimidate, and harass critics and dissenters (see, eg., Obama and Holder), you end up with prosecutors like Angela Corey. Just read her story.

Alan Dershowitz is on the money re Corey. She should be disbarred for falsifying an affidavit and withholding exculpatory evidence.

Falsifying affidavits to promote a political witch hunt...hmmm, sounds familiar. Oh yes, Holder claiming in affidavit that reporter James Rosen was part of a criminal conspiracy re a North Korean missile launch!?!?

ObamAmerica -- the rapid decline from the rule of law to the rule of men.

New Name

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I'm partial to terms like "passionate Objectivist/Objectivism" alliance/organization/group/site/discussion-club/etc. Also "energetic Objectivist/Objectivism" or "free-thinking Objectivist/Objectivism" or "high-spirited Objectivist/Objectivism" or "fiery/fearless/ferocious/vivacious/dynamic Objectivist/Objectivism" etc. A simple, clear, explanatory name which both insiders and outsiders can understand, agree with, and be guided and inspired by. Smiling

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I certainly won't be calling it "Randianism," since she herself hated that term, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to imply by such a title that I speak for her. Au contraire. As someone has already observed, Mr Wright I think, it'll be a huge relief not to have to worry about discrediting or misrepresenting her or her philosophy by anything I might do or say. This will be *my* philosophy, heavily influenced by Objectivism but departing from it in some respects which will be clearly spelled out. I said some time ago I was thinking of changing "Objectivism" in the title, "SOLO," to "objectivism," where the first question about anything would always be, "What is the reality here?" not "What did Ayn Rand say about this?" or "What does Objectivism say about this?" Now I realise that the shift will be bigger than that, as important as that is.

I called our then-new group Sense of Life Objectivists at the time because it seemed so many Objectivists didn't have one, which was strange for obvious reasons. It still seems that way, but now I believe the problem lies ultimately in parts of the philosophy itself, especially in that evasion of the animality in man. The plethora of Randroid automatons is not an accident. The blanket condemnation of "whim-worship" has served as a powerful authenticity-suppressant. Therefore, best to remove Objectivism from the title altogether. Acknowledge my debt and register my areas of heartfelt agreement, but move on. Flesh out my disagreements, and lay out my philosophy in the process. "Authenticism" is the name I'd been considering, but I didn't think it was very sexy. An ad-wanker's nightmare, in fact. But I've been bolstered by the response to it here, and it best denotes what the philosophy will be all about. Life on the level. It'll still be very much a matter of "rational passion and passionate reason" and "say what you mean and mean what you say."

It won't have to contain screeds of specialised knowledge, such as an Evolutionary Psychologist's, which I don't possess. A philosophy is painted with broad brush-strokes. Heck, I may even post a standing-on-one-foot version. Eye

Oh, and I'm not about to die, Doug. Eye These pesky "insidious infirmities of age" keep me from working at the computer for any length of time at the moment, but that's temporary. I'll be back, fiercer than ever, soon enough—and Authenticism will be part of my return. Eye

Randianism as opposed to Objectivism

Doug Bandler's picture

I'm certainly going to proceed with "Authenticism," both because of my niggles with Oism and because I no longer wish to share an umbrella with such an unedifying blancmange of gelatinous eunuchs.

Yes Lindsay. I think it is time to inaugurate the Randian philosophic movement as opposed to the Objectivist movement. OrgOism is only good for cookie cutter info to expose newbies to Rand. They are useless for anything else. Perhaps this is best, a sort of intellectual division of labor as it were. Let Brook teach basic Objectivism to college freshman. When they graduate that course they can move beyond the ARIans and Randroids and Tolerationists to Authenticism or Randianism or whatever it will be called.

Silence

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil writes:

"The Zimmerman/Martin shooting has probably been the biggest story since it took place, perhaps other than the election. Nonetheless, not a single Objectivist, other than here, has commented on it."

If this is true, and TAS and ARI have really been silent thus far, then that's one helluva moral failure! It constitutes the Objectivist sin of "evasion." Very cowardly, dishonest, and slimy. Maybe these guys should just step aside and admit they're not really Objectivist groups.

Quite so

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Doug—you wrote:

If Rand were alive today, I think she would dislike America. Its hard to have any allegiance to the country as it is now. When I think of America I think of the Founders and their stature and their decency and their wooden shoes. America for me is now officially historical. I think Rand would see it the same way. As Auster used to say: its their country now.

I'm sure she would despise what America has turned into, and the simpering milksoppery of those who claim to be Objectivists in the face of America's demise.

I despise them too, both what America has become and Orgoism, whose epitaph will be, "They wanked off while America was burned by her enemies within." Cowardly, ineffectual milquetoasts. Ready to lay down their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour? "Totes hilaire," to quote the aggressively self-righteous airheads whose country America now is.

I'm certainly going to proceed with "Authenticism," both because of my niggles with Oism and because I no longer wish to share an umbrella with such an unedifying blancmange of gelatinous eunuchs.

Leftist Codespeak from the Cathedral

Doug Bandler's picture

The Cathedral (i.e. the Left) has its own lexicon. Allow me to explain:

And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.

"Compassion" is Leftist speak for more socialism and more handouts to the poor (especially the non-white poor).

We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.

Leftist code for more gun control and therefore more disarming of the citizenry, especially the white citizenry.

We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this.

The Left doesn't want to prevent future "tragedies", it needs them to create the climate for its ultimate power grab. So in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict blacks are rioting all over the country. And they are killing. Soon they will be raping. This will in turn cause white Americans to be even MORE suspicious of blacks in general especially thuggish looking blacks (like Trayvon). More incidents like the Zimmerman/Martin one will occur. The cycle will repeat.

This is the future for America. This is the future for all multi-racial welfare states under control of the Left (which is the entire Western world). But mainstream O'ism has NOTHING to say about this phenomenon. 'Atlas Shrugged' is playing out right in front of our eyes but it has a racial dimension that Rand could never have envisioned back in the 89% white America of the 40s and 50s. She never envisions cultural Marxism. She just saw the economic variety combined with the post-modern attack on standards and beauty ('The Fountainhead'). She didn't see the likes of Al Sharpton, Eric "my people" Holder, and the ObaMarx. She also didn't see the reality of a nation full of Trayvon "no-limit-nigga" Martins. I don't think that Rand could have thought the Comprachicos could do that much damage.

If Rand were alive today, I think she would dislike America. Its hard to have any allegiance to the country as it is now. When I think of America I think of the Founders and their stature and their decency and their wooden shoes. America for me is now officially historical. I think Rand would see it the same way. As Auster used to say: its their country now.

"Tragedy"

Neil Parille's picture

One of the things Auster commented on was the misuse of the word "tragedy."

If a depressed guy kills himself that's a tragedy. If he murders his family prior to killing himself, that's not a tragedy - it's a crime.

9/11 and Boston weren't tragedies.

Obama said:

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

Honor Trayvon Martin?* Even if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman, he was on the path to becoming just another statistic. Thank Galt Zimmerman had a gun that night.

_______

*This is code for "Martin was the victim and the jury was wrong."

on the money Neil

Doug Bandler's picture

As I said before, if Dr. Diana Hsieh, Ph.D. ever gets around to commenting on the Zimmerman case, she'll probably tell us that because Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are ministers, we are about to see the convergence of the Religious Left and the Religious Right to hasten the Imminent Christian Theocracy.

In her latest podcast, which I forced myself to suffer through, she does touch on the subject of racism. But only to bash Paula Deen as a vicious slavery promoting racist. Also, we learn that she won't ever say the word "nigger" because of the horrible history of that word. How SWPL of her. Oh, and she views feminism as a "mixed movement" that "contributed much good to America". With Objectivists like Hsieh, who needs Leftists?

Also Neil, if you follow Jim May's twitter ramblings, which I do to see what mainstream O'ists think regarding the major events, you will see that he links to two Salon articles on the Trayvon/Martin affair. Both are sympathetic to Trayvon. Gee, what would you expect from Salon. Apparently, May thinks that Martin was hot headed and should have known better. (But he's still pro-gun rights!!)

Nowhere in the Objectivist movement is there ANY recognition that this is a Leftist engineered race war driven by a black hatred of whites and white Leftist self-loathing. Well, nowhere but here. The Objectivist movement is DISGRACEFUL. I am disgusted beyond words. I feel that the entire Objectivist movement has betrayed Ayn Rand. She deserved better. I hope one day she has a true legacy.

The hatred of the White for being the White.

No one but you and I understand this Neil. That's because we are both influenced by the late Larry Auster. I don't care what his flaws were, the man was smart. He understood a great many things. I miss him.

[Oh, and John Derbyshire was/is largely right in his view on the black community; as we see now with all the rioting. But of course mainstream O'ism sees him as a racist. Hell, even the NRO sees him as a racist!]

---------------------

Note to Lindsay, you sir are the most honorable man in O'ism land for letting discussion like this take place. Every other O'ism outlet self-censors discussions of race, immigration, Muslims, etc.. Please, stay healthy and live a long life. Don't go out at 62 like Larry Auster.

The Zimmerman / Martin

Neil Parille's picture

. . . shooting has probably been the biggest story since it took place, perhaps other than the election. Nonetheless, not a single Objectivist, other than here, has commented on it.

One thing is that Objectivists don't have an interest in sociology or rather, to the extent they do, it's all "the individual versus the collective" and any such problems can be solved by having better philosophers.

As I said before, if Dr. Diana Hsieh, Ph.D. ever gets around to commenting on the Zimmerman case, she'll probably tell us that because Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are ministers, we are about to see the convergence of the Religious Left and the Religious Right to hasten the Imminent Christian Theocracy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Holder brings "civil rights" charges against Zimmerman. The Left pretty much gets what it wants out this administration. I heard one commentator say that a federal jury in Semiole county would likely resemble the state jury (unlike the Rodney King case).

I watched an interview last night of Dr. Dimaio by a black former prosecutor. She admitted that she couldn't refute his opinion that Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head bashed in and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him. Nonetheless she asked him "are you on the wrong side of history?" The hatred of the White for being the White.

-Neil Parille

Can Your Name Make You a Criminal?

gregster's picture

From that leftie rag Time.

"Does this mean we all have to name our kids something boring like John? What about the Baracks who manifestly overcome their name's unpopularity ? Isn't Silverstein right: Won't a boy named Sue learn to be strong? Sometimes, yes. In a 2004 paper, Saku Aura of the University of Missouri and Gregory Hess of Claremont McKenna College point out that many African-American kids with what the authors call "blacker" names reap an important benefit: they have an improved sense of self as a member of an identified group."

Improved sense of self? It didn't work for Trayvon.

No, White People Have Nothing To Fear

Doug Bandler's picture

Do they?

Truth

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Here's the likely truth about this whole evil, obscene, ugly, racist trial:

An experienced and expert crime-watchman successfully profiled, and then reported and followed, somebody he knew was highly criminal in aspect. He based this accurate judgment on many, obvious things: how the suspect 1) looked, 2) acted, and 3) dressed, as well as 4) his general body language, and 5) his body language in response to being successfully identified and followed. All of this is legitimate anti-crime behavior. None of it is racist, classist, etc. And it doesn't matter that the thug probably wasn't involved in crime at the time. Criminals don't work 24/7. But this punk almost certainly didn't like being correctly identified and so, as a point of odd principle or pride, he decided to sneak up on, and beat the living hell out of, the innocent crime-fighter. The criminal assailant was also intensely motivated by racism.

Just because Zimmerman was possibly over-aggressive in following Martin, or under-cautious in following this thug, doesn't mean Zimmerman deserves to DIE. The mental and psychological "pain" Zimmerman inflicted in monitoring someone not currently up to no good isn't enough to justify Martin beating him to DEATH. Many shop-lifters deeply resent being correctly spotted and then followed around the store. Sometimes they aren't even currently involved in stealing. That hardly means they then have the right to turn on the not-PC enough, not-sensitive enough store detective, and savagely beat or KILL him.

The weakling Zimmerman had a full right to defend himself against the totally unjustified and brutal beating by the animal Martin.

Here come the Feds

Doug Bandler's picture

The Dept of Injustice is looking to revive a "Civil Rights" investigation into Trayvon "no-limit-nigga" Martin's death. The political persecution of Zimmerman continues.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

But here's my question, does the ARI and other organized O'ist organization and all those O'ist bloggers still think that we face a dire threat from Conservatives and Christians? Was it Conservatives and Christians that pressured the Florida DA to try this case in the first place? What does the Zimmerman case tell us about America, the Left, Blacks, the Democrats, the Media and the general culture?

With every passing major cultural event it becomes increasingly clear that the Left DOMINATES ALL areas of our society. Yet nowhere will you learn this from Objectivists. Is that not a major failing?

Black Racism in Decline

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Score one for the Good Guys! Smiling I consider our current historical period to be a solidly decadent and depraved Dark Age which long ago rejected the late 1700s Age of Reason and Enlightenment. That glorious and Golden Age -- dominated by the epistemology of logic and science, the ethics of self-interest and personal happiness, and the politics of liberty and individual rights -- is long gone, and its noble values stand maybe 67% defeated. This intellectual and moral failure seems to manifest itself in five major ways: anti-Westernism, anti-Americanism, anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and anti-Semitism.

In the current Zimmerman/Martin self-defense case we saw, and still see, huge levels of black racism in the popular culture and media. And yet...truth and justice seem to have prevailed! True racial equality, tolerance, and non-bigotry seem to have won out in the current murder trial. In my judgment, this is more evidence that what I call Western neoliberalism is ascending and the popular, applied evils and philosophical/cultural failures of anti-Westernism, anti-Americanism, anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and anti-Semitism are in decline.

At any rate, that's my quick, overall analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin murder or self-defense case. Anyone who thinks I'm missing or misrepresenting something should feel free to correct me! Smiling

An excellent Ann Coulter article

Doug Bandler's picture

A great article from Ann Coulter on this case:

http://townhall.com/columnists...

She explains the reality of black crime in the complex that Zimmerman lived in. Black theft and home invasion was a very real thing to that community. Ann Coulter may be a Conservative but damn she has guts and is great on so many things. Give me one of her to a hundred Diana Hsiehs.

Heh

gregster's picture

A new Linzism - Celebretards

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.