RoR: Forum

Isn't this guy an affiliate of ARI? I wonder if he will be excommunicated for breaking with the Peikoff party line...

Post 1

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:50pm

The era of excommunications is over. Peikoff is semi-retired now. The new boss at ARI is Yaron Brook. Yaron thinks that intellectual independence is a good thing, and does not discourage disagreement, as long as that disagreement is not motivated by outright rejection of Objectivist principles. So John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are for Kerry, based on constitutional church-state issues and Bush's association with Saudi Arabia; Binswanger and Tracinski are for Bush because of Kerry's perceived multilateralism.

Post 2

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:54pm

Mr. Reed,

Can you tell us in detail what you know of Mr. Brook?

George

Post 3

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 1:07pm

Binswanger's argument is persuasive. But I'll boil it down to what I believe to be the truth, and a bit of pragmatism that should suffice for you on Nov. 2 (after that, we can go back to our principles): If Kerry is elected, you have a greater chance of dying.

Post 4

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 1:13pm

Msr. Reed-

So when is the ARI going to publically apologize to Chris Sciabarra, or to every airbrushee from Nathaniel Branden to the present?

Or perhaps the church desires only to reform such corruptions as impede its efficiency but keep its proud record of burned witches and heretics intact?

curious woman again.

Jeanine Shiris Ring

Oh, and for clarity's sake, Chris Sciabarra is not a Witch.

Post 5

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 1:49pm

One good thing that Yaron Brook did was to refrain from endorsing Bush or Kerry, under the claim that ARI is a non-profit organization, so he is not allowed to endorse political candidates. Thus, each person must decide for himself rather than rely on anybody's endorsement, whether Brooks', Peikoff's, Binswanger's, etc.

Post 6

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 2:21pm

Jeanine,

Chris Sciabarra was never in the ARI "Church," and so was never excommunicated. I, on the other hand, was, in 1965, with one of NBI's first "Holzer letters" - and now I've been printed in the Intellectual Activist. So yes, times are changing.

I've seen no overt change in ARI's despicable memory-hole practices. I, for one, will not be "coming back into the fold" until Robert Efron and Ron Merrill are credited again for their contributions to Objectivism, which were considerable.

As for NB, I hope that the "air-brushing" will be corrected for the sake of truth. But if anyone has earned the distinction of having his name erased, Nathaniel Branden has earned it in spades. And NB's despicable behavior continues. Earlier this year, Diana Hsieh's blog forum site was cyberstalked by a troll calling itself "Hellen" (with two ells, as in "Hell".) Diana Hsieh tracked the troll to NB's computer. I ran several stylometric programs on the samples, and every index says that "Hellen" was NB, or perhaps one of his alternative personalities. So he is one "victim" I am not sorry for.

Post 7

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 2:23pm

That's an outstanding article. It displays what the hysterics who see a theocracy being instituted under Bush lack: a sense of perspective (one might almost call it "context-keeping"). It hammers home the point that the Islamo-fascists are a far greater & more urgent threat to America than the Moral Majority or whatever it calls itself these days. I especially like the quote from Tracinski:

"The growing influence of the religious right at home is indeed an ominous threat to liberty. But whether or not America retreats in the War on Terrorism will be decided in the next four years. Whether or not America maintains the separation of church and state is an issue that will be fought over a much longer time. It is a threat that is gathering strength, not one that has come to a head."

A vote for Kerry is a vote against the War on Terror. Simple. Kerry's rhetoric about waging the War on Terror more effectively is mere tokenism, because he knows that his real agenda - appeasement in conjunction with the despicable Europeans - would not wash with the voters. The creep couldn't lie straight in his bed.

As for the days of ARI excommunications being over - the excommunications are more subtle currently, that's all. They give a person a year to think about whatever issue it is on which he's out of favour. Yaron Brook's explosion about SOLO when asked about us was a sure sign that the old mentality still prevails.

Linz

Post 8

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 3:07pm

Linz, I am not aware of the Brook "explosion" over SOLO. Any links you can provide on that?

Post 9

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 3:09pm

Adam Reed-

Oh, I know Chris wasn't in ARI; apologies if my analogy was unclear... he falls into the 'witch' not the 'heretic' category, which is why I had to divest any inadvertant kisses of death.

my regards,

Jeanie Ring

P.S. I had no idea about Nathaniel Branden, though I'd prefer to reserve judgement on personal disputes. With regards to his work since the Break, I have the mixed feelings of being, I suppose, more attuned to the resonance of some of his views. but dismally disappointed by the plummeting quality of his intellectual substance.

Having said as much for philosophic explicitness' sake, I politely step away from this discussion.

Post 10

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 6:25pm

Here are Yaron Brook's comments, as published in FreeRad 59, just after SOLOC 3 in Philadelphia. He was responding to a question from Andre Zantonavitch, who scribbled the answer down.

____________________________________________________

The what? SOLO? What�s that? Oh, you mean the folks from New Zealand? I don�t have any message for them. I have no message at all. Or else maybe this: Get a life! Get a mind!

I think that group is very immoral. They call themselves �Objectivist� but I think they�re completely subjectivist. I don�t even understand why they exist. I think they�re ridiculous.

Look, either you�re for toleration or you�re not. Either you take David Kelley�s side on this whole thing � or you don�t. Now there�s a third group? A group which says, "We�re not as intolerant as ARI but we�re more intolerant than the Kelley group"? I think it�s ridiculous. It makes no sense.

Why should I have any message for them? After what they�ve said about us? After all the lies they�ve told about us & Ayn Rand? After all the bad things they�ve said? I think they�re horrific.

Look, I�ve never attacked that group in print. We�ve never gone after them or attacked their leaders publicly. They can do what they want.

Maybe there are some good people there. Maybe there are some innocent minds over there. There probably are. But they need to read our web site. They aren�t getting the proper information.

I just want to say one last thing: Just because they call themselves Sense of Life Objectivists doesn�t mean they have a good or objective sense of life. That name is very arbitrary. Very meaningless.

So I really have no message for them.

Post 11

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 6:28pm

So I really have no message for them.

Au contraire, mon frere. His message was loud and clear. Jackass.

Post 12

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 6:52pm

Maybe there are some good people there. Maybe there are some innocent minds over there. There probably are. But they need to read our web site. They aren�t getting the proper information.

Dear Goddess, I remember reading this exact same statement before... in a Jack T. Chick track.

Oh, I'm sorry! This is the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible?? These aren't the true words of Christ??? I would have been saved, had my eyes stumbled upon your uncorrupted version of the scripture? No! Satan's deceived me!

I'm sorry, good ARI fathers. I've read a few of the world's sacred texts. Rand is up to their standards, and she could think besides. Somehow, however, your internet site simply doesn't have what it takes to bring forth the Spirit it me.

But perhaps I lack the requisite innocence.

ROTFL,

Jeanie Ring

Post 13

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 8:22pm

I'm voting for Kerry, not because I like him or agree with him, but because I think Bush is one of the more ignorant cowboy round-'em-up rednecks I've ever been exposed to, and I'd rather have a president who's a flip-flopping idiot than one who's an idiot consitently. Regardless of which one is in office, I won't be happy, but when the entire world already hates America and would like to blame Bush for it, why not change? I don't think Kerry's going to do any better necessarily, but at least if we have a new president, we can blame everything the world hates us for on Bush and be looked upon favorably again. :)

*For some people with no sense of humor, please note that this was not a dead serious post.

Post 14

Friday, October 22, 2004 - 9:56pm

Jamie,

You write, "Binswanger's argument is persuasive. But I'll boil it down to what I believe to be the truth, and a bit of pragmatism that should suffice for you on Nov. 2 (after that, we can go back to our principles): If Kerry is elected, you have a greater chance of dying."

You have the right criterion, but the wrong conclusion. If I die from the election of either, it will be because Bush's steel tariff destroyed our chance of getting South Korea to cooperate in a total blocade of North Korea. If we don't put this blocade in place, North Korea will get to ship nukes to terrorists, who may set one off in Los Angeles. Getting rid of Bush is our only chance to put South Korea back on our side. Therefore my chance of dying is *greater*, not smaller, if Bush is re-elected.

And then there is Bush's ban on medical research into therapeutic cloning. Cloning is the only known technology that can create cellular therapies without immune rejection in my expected lifetime. Electing Bush will delay therapeutic cloning by 4 years. I am 58, so my chance of dying unnecessarily because of this delay will be considerable. My life expectancy is significantly shorter under Bush than under Kerry.

Post 15

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 5:12am

Adam, you wrote:

If I die from the election of either, it will be because Bush's steel tariff destroyed our chance of getting South Korea to cooperate in a total blocade of North Korea. If we don't put this blocade in place, North Korea will get to ship nukes to terrorists, who may set one off in Los Angeles. Getting rid of Bush is our only chance to put South Korea back on our side.

Why do you think Kerry will repeal the steel tariff? Do you have evidence for this?

Michelle

Post 16

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:22am

Michelle,

It is not possible to have "evidence" about the future. Bush has already repealed the steel tariff, because it was destroying jobs as effectively here in the US as in South Korea. But Bush's incompetent economic team of neo-conservative Keynesians will continue in place if he is re-elected; Bush's blundering neglect of the effects of his decisions on our relations with South Korea and other foreign countries will continue; and the United States will have a president whom the South Koreans have good reason never to trust again.

The Democratic economic team are the same people who achieved free trade and balanced budgets for Clinton: they are hard-core free market neo-Liberals. And Kerry, unlike Bush, has the intelligence to coordinate and integrate economic and security policies, and to take into account the impact of his policies on people whom we need to be our allies. So while I have no "evidence" of what will happen in the future - no one has - I have evidence that Kerry has a reasonable chance of undoing Bush's blunder on South Korea, and reasonable chance of being able to put an effective blocade of North Korea into place.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 10/23, 10:25am)

Post 17

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 12:30pm

Adam,

I did not mean to ask for evidence that will predict the future, but for evidence that will generate reasonable confidence that a Kerry's administration will be better than a Bush administration. Anyway, why doesn't the Kerry campaign mention these neo-Liberals and their free-market plan? It would have been a gerat way to attract secular capitalists from the right.

Post 18

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 1:23pm

they are hard-core free market neo-Liberals.

Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one!

Post 19

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 1:31pm