RoR: Forum

Scott Schad, you wrote: "Is our Objectivist morality so heartless that we must lump these modest hypocrites with Islamic fanatics? Objectivists often discard a person's worth when they perceive a difference in kind, never considering degree. In doing so we pass over potential allies and miss the nuances of the world. An Objectivist that reserves friendship only for those of identical premises is lonely indeed."

I think you fail to understand the meaning of my first post to George, and perhaps of other Soloists posts in this thread. I am not lumping together, AS PEOPLE, the often-gentle Christians and Jews in our culture with Islamo-fascists. The differences in degree are of course important. What I am saying is that the acceptance of faith over reason is the menace endangering the existence of everyone on this planet, and that that fact, given our possession of weapons of mass destruction, has never been as evident as it is now. I am not suggesting that we say all people who believe in a god are worthless, that none of them can be our allies in certain ways, and that we must reject them. It is FAITH that we must reject.

Should we fail to fight the Islamo-fascists with, among other weapons, our absolute rejection of the blind faith that animates them -- it is the gentle Christians and Jews, along with those of us who are atheists, who will pay the price for NOT being fundamentalists.

Barbara

Post 21

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:25am

Miss Branden ,

You said: And don't forget that since you have named me The One Who Can Do No Wrong, you are stuck with the consequences.

You're not seriously going to hold me to that comment are you !?

Wait a minute, don't answer that.

Remember that whenever Snoopy would day dream he would see himself as a great World War I flying ace, patroling the skys on his winged dog-house. But each and every time he would be shot down by his nemises, 'The Red Baron'.

For some reason that image popped into my mind when I thought of you answering my initial question.

Post 22

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:41pm

Robert, you wrote:
I seriously can't believe I'm reading this on an objectivist web site.
Ah, well yu'see. Therein lies your problem.
It aint.

Remember these lines: ?

"If you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises
You will find one of them is wrong"?
All the Best,
Cass

Post 23

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:41pm

George: "You're not seriously going to hold me to that comment are you !?"

What do you think? How many chances like that does one get?

I may let you off the hook if you tell me where you get your pictures of my hero, how you get them onto your computer, and how you transfer them to Solo -- and how in the world you get Snoopy's head to move.

You may be interested to know, as a sign of my fanatical worship of said hero, that I have had two dogs named Snoopy -- and neither of them was a beagle. I probably would have called my cat Snoopy, but I'm not her real mother (her birth mother?) and she had a name before I adopted her.

Barbara

Post 24

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:44pm

Cass, since you're trying to get Robert (and others) to leave Solo and go to Regi's web site, where he can join the chorus of people attacking Solo and its members, why don't you have the courage to say so?

Barbara

Post 25

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:25pm

As it currently stands, I make posts on both Regi's and Linz's websites. And have at this time NO intents of "shrugging" from SOLO, whatever grudges Linz and I may have between us (and these, of course, are legion.). I've always been of the opinion that Objectivism's extreme tendency to form schisms that refuse to talk to eachother is one of the most idiotic things within the "objectivist movement".

Rand splits with Branden, Peikoff splits with Kelley, Linz splits with Kelley, The Noodlefood girl also splits with Kelley, Linz splits with Regi....

When I inform intellectual friends of more leftist traditions about things like this, they inevitably ask something to the effect of "What's wrong with you people?"

(Edited by Robert Bisno on 11/26, 6:26pm)

Post 26

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:27pm

But, Barbara, I didn't even mention Regis' site! When discussing a true Objectivist site, where did you get the idea...oh sorry. ..thanks for the pointer, tho?'
Cass

Post 27

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:28pm

But, Barbara, I didn't even mention Regis' site! When discussing a true Objectivist site, where did you get the idea...oh sorry. ..thanks for the pointer, tho?'
Cass

Post 28

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:04pm

Dear Barbara Branden,

Maybe you were only speaking in a rush of emotionalism, which I would certianly forgive, but what did you mean by this?:

"Cass, since you're trying to get Robert (and others) to leave Solo and go to Regi's web site, where he can join the chorus of people attacking Solo and its members, why don't you have the courage to say so?"

I have no doubt that Cass will defend herself against your psychologizing about her motives, and I have no interest in defending myself against anything you say about me, but would you, for the sake of others on SOLO please tell them, (and me) which members of SOLO I have ever attacked.

If it is true I have ever attacked any member of SOLO, I am sorry. I freely admit I do not agree with much that SOLO, in it's stated purposes stands for, and have argued strongly against those ideas (which you choose to call "attacking"), but I never attack individuals, because I regard all individuals agents who own their own lives and are free (and ought to be) to live them as they choose.

I do not care what you say about me, but Barbara, why do you accuse me of attacking the members of SOLO? I do not agree with the things you say or promote, and plainly say so; is that an attack? If I could make you see what I believe are your mistaken views, whatever the price, I would pay it. Is that an attack?

Barbara, if I am mistaken, I am mistaken, but how can you mistake the obvious desire of someone who wants nothing but for every human being to know what life is, and what to fully enjoy it means. Do you think I am mistaken in my views about what that means? If you do, you must plainly say so, and explain where my mistakes are, and I will be eternally grateful for it.

Barbara, review my 719 post to SOLO here. If you find even one example of what you think is an attack, I will immediately confess and repudiate it. Barbara, I do not attack people, ever. The reason is very simple. There is nothing in me that desires anything from others except their happiness.

Regi

Post 29

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:30pm

Cass, now you're being ridiculous.

Regi, lying is not consistent with your pretense to be an Objectivist.

Barbara

Post 30

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:02pm

Robert Bisno wrote:

"I've always been of the opinion that Objectivism's extreme tendency to form schisms that refuse to talk to eachother is one of the most idiotic things within the objectivist movement. Rand splits with Branden, Peikoff splits with Kelley, Linz splits with Kelley, The Noodlefood girl also splits with Kelley, Linz splits with Regi.... When I inform intellectual friends of more leftist traditions about things like this, they inevitably ask something to the effect of 'What's wrong with you people?'"

All human organisations, especially ideological ones, form schisms. I offered some cursory thoughts on this apparently inescapable part of the human condition in "Perigo's Law." The Left is most certainly no exception to it, & Objectivism most certainly has no monopoly over it. Regrettable it may often be, but there are also times when to split is the only sensible & decent thing to be done. No point in staying in a relationship where irreconcilable breakdown has concerned. There is no virtue in *not* splitting just for the sake of not splitting.

In the case of me & TOC, which was hardly comparable to Peikoff/Kelley, I stated my disagreements with TOC upfront but indicated a willingness to collaborate if & where appropriate. That, as everyone here knows, is now the position of *both* sides, & some mutually beneficial cross-fertilisation has occurred. As everyone equally knows, I continue to fault them for hibernating most of the year & for their lack of KASS on those rare occasions when they are awake. They, I'm sure, regard me as some sort of dangerous incendiary device to be approached & handled with the greatest of caution. But we've made our limited relationship work.

There is simply no point in making overtures to the ARI, since they are a closed cult, like the Exclusive Brethren. In their warped view, Objectivists who have the temerity to operate independently of them are on a par with Hitler or Stalin. One cannot reason with such unhinged mentalities, so one may as well not try.

If I may put this in singing terms: SOLO, of course, is Mario Lanza or Maria Callas, with far & away the greatest voice, occasionally off-key, most often "nailing it," always larger than life. TOC is Andrea Bocelli with a sleeping disorder that causes him to be asleep most of the time. When awake he displays a somewhat timorous voice which he uses primly & properly, invariably. ARI is a hysterical nuns' chorus in a closed retreat, screeching & squawking about the depravity of those in open orders (they are joined by the occasional yapping Chihuahua that scampers through the cloisters, clamouring, in vain, for attention).

Schisms? "This above all to thine own self be true" is more important than being false to oneself just to *avoid* a schism.

And this site, of course, remains uniquely open to *all* comers.

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 11/26, 9:25pm)

Post 31

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:28pm

Mr. Firehammer,

Though your post is addressed to Barbara, I am responding to you because my name is one that has come up numerous times on your site as an example of what is wrong with SOLO. My presence here has been called "pointless and idiotic" by Mr. Bisno. Cass has implied that I "really know how to get those Atlas points!", that I am very "SOLO Correct", and averse to thinking. Oh, and of course, I talk too much about sex, which is very, very bad.

To read such things attached to my name, to be referred to as a hedonist, and someone subject to whim, is laughable. To see people pick apart my character though I have never communicated with them is curious. (I'm wondering if any of them have read a single article I've written?) To know that when my clients do a search on my name to find my projects, that the "pointless and idiotic" comment is in the top 5 listings, is infuriating.

This is the kind of environment that is supposed to be one dedicated to reason? And SOLO is accused of being a high-school environment??

So in my case, Mr. Firehammer, while you may not personally be doing the attacking, your members are certainly having a wonderful time hurling the accusations and slurs around like teenagers. Congratulations on a fine site.

Jennifer

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 11/26, 9:57pm)

Post 32

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:56pm

Jennifer, while I would not dream of psychologizing, I find myself wondering if it can possibly be that some of your female critics are motivated by a monster with very green eyes. I rather think so.

Barbara

Post 33

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:27pm

Barbara,

When did I ever pretend to be an Objectivist. Do you know anything at all I have ever said?

Ask Mr. Perigo. Ask Dr. Sciabarra, who himself admits he does not call himself an Objectivist, if I ever said I was an Objectivist. Ask them how many times I have said I cannot call myself an Objectivist, because I will not usurp the name of that philosophy which is Ayn Rand's as my own.

Who is not telling the truth? I am not suggesting you intentionally said what is untrue, only that what you said is a mistake, but one that you should have known better than to make.

What in the world is the motive for these things you are saying? Is it really a desire to know the truth and live by that, or is it something else. If it is anything else, no matter what it is, it is wrong.

Regi

Post 34

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:30pm

Jennifer wrote: Oh, and of course, I talk too much about sex, which is very, very bad.

Hey Jennifer, is there 'any' truth to that?

If so I will be sure to pay a much closer attention to your post in the future! In fact, I think I will spend the next 20 minutes clicking on your old post at this site.

George

Post 35

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:32pm

Miss Branden,

I sent you an email.

George

Post 36

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:36pm

Barbara's motives are beyond reproach, & I will not stand idly by & see them questioned by someone so squalid.

It's true that Regi occasionally sees fit to point out that he is not an Objectivist; it's also most emphatically true that this is the case! It's additionally true, however, that most of the time, Regi not only pretends to be an Objectivist but pretends to be Objectivism's avenging angel, protecting Objectivism's honour against such "perversions" as SOLO. In the process of doing so, he has ejaculated such smegma as this:

'Let me go on record, "repress, repress, repress," is exactly what virtue, character, and morality is, and repress, repress, repress is the means to human happiness. If anyone disagrees, please give me an example of anything anyone has ever done that is self-destructive or wrong they did not desire to do. Then give me an example of anyone who has overcome a desire to do what is self-destructive or wrong without suppressing (which only means refusing to submit to) it. Better yet, give me an example of anyone who is a worse individual because they repressed a desire to do something self-destructive or wrong. Or best of all, give me an example of someone who refused to repress a desire to do something self-destructive or wrong who was a better person for it.'

Now, I confess I have merely skimmed Regi's multiple diatribes against SOLO, & I may have missed the point at which, in these diatribes, Regi 'fessed up to not actually being an Objectivist himself. But if he did so, & I missed it, I *still* say he should put it up in lights, in that darkness, much more prominently, every step along the way through his sick, miserable monologues: "This is not Objectivism and I am not an Objectivist."

Regi's is a classic example of the *inversion* of Objectivism I mentioned in my Thanksgiving article ... someone who believes we live in order to be moral (*his* warped idea of morality, to boot), not the other way round. He is a classic case of someone who thinks a desire is something to be repressed, something automatically "self-destructive & wrong," just *because* it is a desire. He has long since forgotten, if he ever knew, the truth of Ayn Rand's words: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer & die, but to enjoy yourself & live." He pretends that to say such a thing is to endorse hedonism.

So it's good that he owns up to *not* being an Objectivist. He should do it more often & more conspicuously, just in case someone other than his two phriends, the phascist & the phakir, get taken in by his protestations of defending Objectivism from usurpers.

Ordinarily I wouldn't dignify such dishonesty with any kind of response, but decency & gallantry require that I defend Barbara's honour against someone who has none.

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 11/26, 11:40pm)

Post 37

Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:37pm

Regi, I'm glad to see you back at SOLO.

Post 38

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 12:35am

Regi wrote: I have no interest in defending myself against anything you say about me, but would you, for the sake of others on SOLO please tell them, (and me) which members of SOLO I have ever attacked.

ALL OF US! Each and every person that post here, that submits articles here, that finds value here, that shares with each other here, that argue and piss each other off here!

When a person writes an article entitled: Solo a Perversion of Objectivism, he does not need to mention anyone by name; it is an implicit indictment of every single member of the site.

I am a Solo member, love the company here, enjoy many people here, dislike a few , and despise a couple. I am among your 'Perverse Objectivist' Regi. I suppose when I run my mouth (or keyboard) here I make errors or arguments that are not perfect. Well Gezzzz, hell man the reason I run my mouth here is not only to teach or share, but to BE taught and as a forum to 'check MY OWN premises'. The standard that you hold this site to, Miss Branden to, and even Linz; is one that you do not hold yourself to. If you did hold yourself to that standard, your next article would be titled, " Reginald Firehammer: A Perversion of Objectivism"

Regi wrote: When did I ever pretend to be an Objectivist.

For God sake man, you give lectures on proper objectivist ethics! What the hell for, your health? You preach with the fire and brimstone of a Jimmy Swaggert, and then want to end the sermon with the disclaimer, "by the way, I am not an Objectivist" !!!

You're a smart man Regi, you turn a good phrase from time to time, your right quite often, and you display a passion for ideas. But Regi, your intellectually dishonest.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 11/27, 2:01am)

Post 39

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 12:55am