What happend to solo passion

[Jonathan]

I think that Stolyarov was the guy who once proposed that Objectivists should wear a top hat that he designed. And he wanted to rid the English language of "ph" and replace it with "f." Filosofy and Fysics and fotografy, etc.

J

[Jules Troy]

He is a phucking retard.

[william.scherk]

Moeller had his moments, when he left well..that was a pretty big solop coffin nail..

I had some greatly challenging, close-fought discussion with Michael Moeller (on Guantanamo, etc). He was snide, arrogant, mocking and a lot of fun to take on, even if the house was entirely against me. He had heft to his arguments. I agree that without him, a strong attractor, SOLO was immediately diminished.

Who has the short-form blow-by-blow of the final Moeller showdown and departure? Did Lindsay accuse him of "flouncing" or was Michael trap-doored?

Jonathan, it is freakish that Lindsay gives a small gush over Stolyarov now, having dismissed him as an obdurate crank in the old days. His comment to Kyrel was kind of sad, in the end: "If I had my own YT channel I'd love to interview you. I suppose that's something I should get round to, but my current serial pessimism corrodes my motivation."

[Brant Gaede]

Moeller left because Linz went irrational on the Kennedy assassination.

--Brant

so I was told--I forget by whom--another OLer (Neil?)

[Jules Troy]

Basically Moeller called Linz to task over supporting JFK assassination conspiracy theory supporter. Moeller pretty much does what he does best. Shredded the fuck out of Linz's irrational and non existing evidence.

[Brant Gaede]

Basically Moeller called Linz to task over supporting JFK assassination conspiracy theory supporter. Moeller pretty much does what he does best. Shredded the fuck out of Linz's irrational and non existing evidence.

Lindsay used to gloat when Moeller did that to someone else: "He got Moellered."

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Yup he sure did, as did his site when the Moeller machine left in disgust.

Ahh well something about biting the hands that feed you comes to mind..

[william.scherk]

I wrote to MIchael Moeller, and got back a response he was willing to share with the numpties here. Take-home, he was neither red-buttoned nor flounced at SOLO. Here's what he sent to me:

Scherk! Minister of the Grand Guignol! Agent of the Vicar of Diddly!

I certainly didn't expect to have any sort of fans over on OL, although I am sure if you did a count I would get a thumbs down.

At any rate, no, I did not receive the red-button treatment from Linz. At the time, Linz was shutting down the site (temporarily), but the site had already been trending down in content and purveyors (eg. Doug's racist rants) for some time. There just wasn't much left there for me.

I hold no animosity towards Linz, and look back fondly upon our friendship and private conversations. We are just heading on different paths these days.

I understand Duncan's (and other's) expectations for the site, and lamentations on the subsequent collapse. However, I do not think it is anything out of the ordinary. Look in the comments section of any article on a politically-charged topic, or even listen *sports* talk! If people do not see vitriol elsewhere (and on much less controversial topics), then they aren't getting out much.

Acrimony, personality clashes, and personal attacks are by no means the sole province of Objectivism. Linz wanted a site of vigorous debate on highly-charged and controversial topics, and it is difficult to keep a site like that going. A fine line exists between vigorous debate on controversial topics and personal acrimony. You need a thick skin, to say the least.

As with many sites like that, personality and social dynamics cause people to splinter off into their own subgroups where they are more comfortable. Later, some recombine to challenge each other, then splinter off again -- and so the cycle goes. In my opinion, it has more to do with the oft-underrated personality dynamics and psychologies. FB has the same flame wars that encompass all variety of topics, so, again, Objectivists are not unique in this regard.

From my own perspective (and this extends beyond SOLO), I am just disenfranchised with the "Objectivist movement" -- to the extent there is one -- and have been for a long time.

When I see O-ist discussions online, it's like Groundhog Day for apocalyptic visions. What's wrong with the world? How fast will it collapse? Why does the general population suck? How the latest bad news item marks the end of Western civilization...etc. etc. A competition for the gloomiest visions/predictions, ad nauseam. Very dark, and very depressing.

I think Ed Hudgins was asking the right questions when he asked how Objectivists can attract the productive looking for a more positive vision. I was not compelled by his answers at the time, to say the least, as he was using the same old staid methods that haven't worked in the past, but at least he was asking the right questions.

Me? I'm prospering, and happy. I am looking for innovative solutions to those questions, and have been increasingly repulsed by the dark and depressing aura surrounding Objectivism. Criticism is right and necessary at the appropriate targets, but need not develop into pessimism as a way of life. It's not inspiring or attractive, which is why the O-ist movement is stuck in a 50+ year rut.

Objectivism should be the little boy looking out at Monadnock Valley, and feeling inspired to achieve his own greatness. That's my direction of focus these days, and the reason for my absence on SOLO and in Objectivist circles.

More than you wanted to know, I'm sure, but I figured I would give a full explanation in case anyone was interested, so feel free to post it at OL if you wish.

Cheers, Michael

-- here's a link to the full Monadnock Valley passage from The Fountainhead, "Ayn Rand's Monadknock" ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[1] I certainly didn't expect to have any sort of fans over on OL, although I am sure if you did a count I would get a thumbs down.

. . .

[2] ... personality and social dynamics cause people to splinter off into their own subgroups where they are more comfortable. Later, some recombine to challenge each other, then splinter off again -- and so the cycle goes. In my opinion, it has more to do with the oft-underrated personality dynamics and psychologies.

. . .

[3] When I see O-ist discussions online, it's like Groundhog Day for apocalyptic visions. What's wrong with the world? How fast will it collapse? Why does the general population suck? How the latest bad news item marks the end of Western civilization...etc. etc. A competition for the gloomiest visions/predictions, ad nauseam. Very dark, and very depressing.

. . .

[4] Objectivism should be the little boy looking out at Monadnock Valley, and feeling inspired to achieve his own greatness. That's my direction of focus these days, and the reason for my absence on SOLO and in Objectivist circles.

William,

I'm glad you had contact with Michael Moeller and he is doing well.

I want to comment on some of the assumptions he made and/or implied. I indicated the parts of his message in the quote above by numbers.

But before that, I want to emphasize that OL is not devoted to an Objectivist movement, formal or otherwise. I've said that several times and I just want to keep that clear. OL is devoted to independent thinking using interest in Rand, the Brandens, other relevant writers and Objectivism as a starting point. I realize MM didn't make a claim about OL's orientation re ideological movement, but I mention it to avoid any possible misinterpretation or insinuation.

1. I'm not so sure about MM's assumption regarding his reputation on OL. In my view, and I don't mean this unkindly, I'm just trying to be accurate, I don't think there is much of an opinion of him here at all. I rarely see him discussed. And when he is, frankly, the comments are usually favorable about him. Here's what I tease out the few times his name comes up. People seem to admire his intelligence and dislike his personality. But people feel he is a good person underneath. I know this is how I think about him. So thumbs up or thumbs down? I can't speak for others, but in my case, I would probably abstain from voting.

Should he ever wish to come here (and I'm not hinting--this is his life, so his interest), I would welcome him just like I do all who come in goodwill and request he observe the posting guidelines. As you have seen me say at times, when people come here, that's good for OL, when people don't come, that's good for OL, when people stay, that's good for OL, when people leave, that's good for OL.

OL always wins and the proof is in our high level of readers and contributors.

2. I fully agree with MM on personality and social dynamics in O-Land (good God! I actually said that I fully agree with Michael Moeller! ).

One of the characteristics I set as policy--in practice--on OL has nothing to do with ideas and everything to do with discouraging bullying. That's pure personality and social dynamics. I dislike bullies intensely and see no reason to host their precious utterances and intimidations, irrespective of their ideas or how they align or disagree with Rand. When passion is a synonym for bullying, screw passion. Or better, screw those who think like that.

As to the ideas, as you know, my thing is independent thinking. You yourself happen to be a socialist and there are some people around here with some very odd ideas.

3. I rarely see the excessive doom and gloom he refers to on OL. When it appears, it is usually ignored, dismissed or dissolves into banter.

4. I fully agree with him on this point (good God! I actually said that I fully agree with him again! )--with one caveat. And it gets worse because I suspect he would agree with me. "A person's own greatness" is best when it refers to the person's own terms, not the terms of--or in the name of--any ideological movement, Objectivist or otherwise.

I feel good that Michael Moeller is so optimistic about his direction. Even at such a great distance, it's inspiring. May he live long, achieve great things, be happy, and prosper.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I read an article of his once in "American Thinker" very cool that he got published anddd it was an excellent article. He isss a good guy, and I am glad he is doing well.

[william.scherk]

Loved your generous and even-tempered response to Moeller's note, Michael. I thought he would get a kick out of OLers praising him. He and I share a propensity (talent?) for ferocious rhetoric, and savage similes and so on. He may have mellowed or regressed to the mean, and so may have I. I am just not a huge fan of my worst excesses any more, the over-the-top rant.

I like what you say about bullying. I wish it were easy to hard-cast and sort out the rhetorical ploys and word-choices that are bullying. Sometimes they seem just stupid, angry and uninformed. Any fraught topic brings out the beast.

One of the characteristics I set as policy--in practice--on OL has nothing to do with ideas and everything to do with discouraging bullying. That's pure personality and social dynamics. I dislike bullies intensely and see no reason to host their precious utterances and intimidations, irrespective of their ideas or how they align or disagree with Rand. When passion is a synonym for bullying, screw passion. Or better, screw those who think like that.

As to the ideas, as you know, my thing is independent thinking. You yourself happen to be a socialist and there are some people around here with some very odd ideas.

Some one-eyed opinion would extend that socialist notion to, er, queenly, feminized leftist libertine liberal argha bargha ...

I consider myself in the Canadian context a centrist. I am cynical about the leftmost parties here (provincially and federally) and usually vote strategically, with the general aim of getting rid of tired and comfortable hacks who are too easy in their seats ... I always want to see the comfy-in-power to be humbled, and for them to be reminded that they serve the public, not simply party dogma and whoopee.

My favourite elections are when the incumbent party is sent packing. My favourite moments in British Columbia politics are those when a leader or party is forced out: VanderZalm, Glenn Clark, WAC Bennet. Bye-bye. Thanks for playing. As with the recent Alberta election in which the party in power for forty two freaking years unbroken was humbled. Bye bye. Thanks.

I guess by OL metrics I am a socialist, but I don't think I approach the Bernie Sanders or Communist edge, though I joke about my fiery Hot Redness. I don't worry too much about labels on the left-right axis alone.

This is where I end up on the simplified 'Where are you on the political compass?" metric. I am the red spot:

I think just about everyone here has taken this test ... it would be interesting to see where some of my hecklers would have their red spot land. For those who haven't done the test, it's at The Political Compass.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm right in the middle of right libertarian.

Makes me wonder how you screwed up.

--Brant

[duncan_bayne]

I hope you enjoy it here. Lots of really good people.

You are one, too.

Thank you I probably won't be a very regular poster here - so much to do, plus I'm several years into a mostly-successful crusade to not be this guy. But it does seem to be more in line with my values than most other fora I've seen over the years. Congratulations on building such a community. Goodness knows it isn't easy!

Weren't you the guy who decamped to Australia? Was that you in a bi-plane waving goodbye several years ago?

It's gotta be toxic if it drove away Michael Moeller.

Yes, that was me. Although my association with SOLO continued for some time after my decamping; the decamping was to co-found a (now mothballed) software company with an old and close friend of mine.

My abandonment of SOLO was roughly coeval with starting down the long path of correcting some of my own serious personal flaws. One of the consequences of regularly practicing much more thorough, honest introspection was that I realised that I was deeply dreading what I (correctly) predicted would be an emotionally painful flaming, should I state my recently formed opinions on the 'war on terror'. That realisation, combined with the predicted flaming when I did it anyway, lead me to re-evaluate my participation in SOLO.

Simply put: the cost-benefit wasn't there any more for me. The ratio of anger to discourse was all wrong.

[Jules Troy]

Lol Duncan the war on Terror is about as effective as "the war on drugs".

[duncan_bayne]

Lol Duncan the war on Terror is about as effective as "the war on drugs".

Depends how you measure effectiveness. As a means of funneling taxpayers wealth into the hands of politically connected moochers it's proved outstandingly effective, even more so than the War on Drugs.

In terms of actually combating a real enemy, political Islam (to be understood in the same sense as political Shintoism during and before WW2), it's a dismal failure.

But what are our options, politically speaking?

In one corner we have Islam: submit to Allah, or be subjugated or slaughtered. In another, resurgent fundamentalist Christianity: same shit (as the Muslims), different day. In yet another, the 'liberals' who ought to be our allies but who blind themselves to the evils of Islam while enthusiastically (and correctly) criticising the folks who *won't* behead them for their temerity. Brave position, that. Finally you have the usual crop of racist fascists who have given their tired old xenophobic rants a veneer of modernity and respectability by claiming they're protecting Western values.

Not an appealing set of choices, to be sure. We need more voices like Hitchens, Dawkins, Ali, and Maher - but they're being drowned out by the aforementioned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shit, I had to look up coeval because I didn't know what it meant.

Michael

[Selene]

In one corner we have Islam: submit to Allah, or be subjugated or slaughtered. In another, resurgent fundamentalist Christianity: same shit (as the Muslims), different day.

Welcome to OL.

I understand you were trying to make a point here, however, the distinctions between the two are quite clear. I do not perceive the similarity between a peaceful evangelical and a political Islamist who will decapitate you for being a non Muslim.

A...

[duncan_bayne]

Welcome to OL.

I understand you were trying to make a point here, however, the distinctions between the two are quite clear. I do not perceive the similarity between a peaceful evangelical and a political Islamist who will decapitate you for being a non Muslim.

A...

Selene, thanks for the welcome.

The similarity is in the goals of both groups; the difference is how they apply violence. The Mujahideen do it like this:

... whereas your 'peaceful' Christians prefer this method:

Back in New Zealand I was on good terms with a man who was, at the time, highly placed in the Christian Heritage Party. His party had goals that included the criminalisation of homosexuality and abortion. I think I offended him on several occasions by pointing out that those policies represented literal violence against gays and women.

To be clear: the only difference between the Christian Heritage Party and the Mujahideen is that the latter do their fighting themselves; the former employ violence by co-opting the legal system, and thus the Police and occasionally Military to do the violence for them.

Everyone has a Christian friend who is the nicest person imaginable (I have several). Friendly, generous, helpful, a real 'love thy neighbour' type. But, he or she will happily vote for laws that would set the above group of night-stick-wielding to beat and imprison a man for having the temerity to want to marry the man he loves.

It's like being avowedly anti-hunting while still eating meat. You still want the meat, you just don't want to be elbow-deep in viscera on a Saturday afternoon when it's easier to visit the butcher.

Most people refuse to acknowledge the violence inherent in supposedly peaceful political systems. It's one of the reasons I became so disheartened with politics.

Edited: by 'only difference' I'm speaking of the difference between their intended societies; obviously, groups like the Christian Heritage Party are willing to work within the context of the democratic system to achieve their goals. This is actually one of the things that makes them so dangerous, as they have a veneer of respectability that the head-hackers and suicide-bombers lack in Western society.

[Flea]

At any rate, no, I did not receive the red-button treatment from Linz. At the time, Linz was shutting down the site (temporarily), but the site had already been trending down in content and purveyors (eg. Doug's racist rants) for some time.

(I miscut that; it's a quote from Michael Moeller.) Yeah, Bandler's a piece of work. Here's part of his latest rant:

"Still, if I was going to marry (and I still might) it wouldn't be to an Hispanic or Asian woman, even though I admit it is much easier to find a more virtuous woman from those groups than it is to find a virtuous white girl (and that is a real cultural tragedy that you'll never see the ARI write about). I would only marry a white woman because I would not want to have interracial children. I wouldn't feel connected to them. I don't care how that sounds."

Well, unfortunately for him, by his own admission (under his old name Madmax) he himself is interracial:

"For myself, growing up as a half-Asian in an all white suburb, I never had much exposure to black or Latin people until I spent a year in Brazil."

(And I seem to remember him writing in one of his posts that he was raised by a single mother, which leads one to suspect that like father, like son, and a poor reflection on both.)

Perhaps he was lying then; perhaps he's lying now. In either case, it's just another in his long history of lies and false personalities. Now we know why the high priest of "authenticism" admires him so much: Authenticity requires, well, authenticity. Authenticism doesn't even require talking the talk, much less walking the walk; it just has to elicit that tingling in Linz's loins when he hears the bellow of primal rage.

[Mark]

Flea, why do you believe “MadMax” = “Doug Bandler” (the latter an admitted pseudonym)?

The MadMax message you linked to says of “racialist / white nationalist movements” that “these racist viewpoints” are “contemptible.” Bandler on the other hand more or less approves of them.

[Flea]

Flea, why do you believe “MadMax” = “Doug Bandler” (the latter an admitted pseudonym)?

The MadMax message you linked to says of “racialist / white nationalist movements” that “these racist viewpoints” are “contemptible.” Bandler on the other hand more or less approves of them.

(ETA correct attributions) Bandler started as an opponent of your type around 2007, then morphed into your type by about 2011 or 2012, as Neil Parille pointed out and Larry Auster publicized back in 2012, quoting a comment in which he logged on as Madmax and signed off as Bandler.

More than that, Bandler posted on SOLO long before his morphing, so in 2010 he started a thread critiquing Larry Auster for his racial views but considered him the best thing since cat's pyjamas by 2012. He doesn't seem to have made any bones about his change of views; it's one of the few things he does seem to be honest about.

[PDS]

I wrote to MIchael Moeller, and got back a response he was willing to share with the numpties here. Take-home, he was neither red-buttoned nor flounced at SOLO. Here's what he sent to me:

Scherk! Minister of the Grand Guignol! Agent of the Vicar of Diddly!

I certainly didn't expect to have any sort of fans over on OL, although I am sure if you did a count I would get a thumbs down.

At any rate, no, I did not receive the red-button treatment from Linz. At the time, Linz was shutting down the site (temporarily), but the site had already been trending down in content and purveyors (eg. Doug's racist rants) for some time. There just wasn't much left there for me.

I hold no animosity towards Linz, and look back fondly upon our friendship and private conversations. We are just heading on different paths these days.

I understand Duncan's (and other's) expectations for the site, and lamentations on the subsequent collapse. However, I do not think it is anything out of the ordinary. Look in the comments section of any article on a politically-charged topic, or even listen *sports* talk! If people do not see vitriol elsewhere (and on much less controversial topics), then they aren't getting out much.

Acrimony, personality clashes, and personal attacks are by no means the sole province of Objectivism. Linz wanted a site of vigorous debate on highly-charged and controversial topics, and it is difficult to keep a site like that going. A fine line exists between vigorous debate on controversial topics and personal acrimony. You need a thick skin, to say the least.

As with many sites like that, personality and social dynamics cause people to splinter off into their own subgroups where they are more comfortable. Later, some recombine to challenge each other, then splinter off again -- and so the cycle goes. In my opinion, it has more to do with the oft-underrated personality dynamics and psychologies. FB has the same flame wars that encompass all variety of topics, so, again, Objectivists are not unique in this regard.

From my own perspective (and this extends beyond SOLO), I am just disenfranchised with the "Objectivist movement" -- to the extent there is one -- and have been for a long time.

When I see O-ist discussions online, it's like Groundhog Day for apocalyptic visions. What's wrong with the world? How fast will it collapse? Why does the general population suck? How the latest bad news item marks the end of Western civilization...etc. etc. A competition for the gloomiest visions/predictions, ad nauseam. Very dark, and very depressing.

I think Ed Hudgins was asking the right questions when he asked how Objectivists can attract the productive looking for a more positive vision. I was not compelled by his answers at the time, to say the least, as he was using the same old staid methods that haven't worked in the past, but at least he was asking the right questions.

Me? I'm prospering, and happy. I am looking for innovative solutions to those questions, and have been increasingly repulsed by the dark and depressing aura surrounding Objectivism. Criticism is right and necessary at the appropriate targets, but need not develop into pessimism as a way of life. It's not inspiring or attractive, which is why the O-ist movement is stuck in a 50+ year rut.

Objectivism should be the little boy looking out at Monadnock Valley, and feeling inspired to achieve his own greatness. That's my direction of focus these days, and the reason for my absence on SOLO and in Objectivist circles.

More than you wanted to know, I'm sure, but I figured I would give a full explanation in case anyone was interested, so feel free to post it at OL if you wish.

Cheers, Michael

-- here's a link to the full Monadnock Valley passage from The Fountainhead, "Ayn Rand's Monadknock" ...

I was always pretty impressed by this guy's mind. Still am after reading this...

[PDS]

[1] I certainly didn't expect to have any sort of fans over on OL, although I am sure if you did a count I would get a thumbs down.

. . .

[2] ... personality and social dynamics cause people to splinter off into their own subgroups where they are more comfortable. Later, some recombine to challenge each other, then splinter off again -- and so the cycle goes. In my opinion, it has more to do with the oft-underrated personality dynamics and psychologies.

. . .

[3] When I see O-ist discussions online, it's like Groundhog Day for apocalyptic visions. What's wrong with the world? How fast will it collapse? Why does the general population suck? How the latest bad news item marks the end of Western civilization...etc. etc. A competition for the gloomiest visions/predictions, ad nauseam. Very dark, and very depressing.

. . .

[4] Objectivism should be the little boy looking out at Monadnock Valley, and feeling inspired to achieve his own greatness. That's my direction of focus these days, and the reason for my absence on SOLO and in Objectivist circles.

William,

I'm glad you had contact with Michael Moeller and he is doing well.

I want to comment on some of the assumptions he made and/or implied. I indicated the parts of his message in the quote above by numbers.

But before that, I want to emphasize that OL is not devoted to an Objectivist movement, formal or otherwise. I've said that several times and I just want to keep that clear. OL is devoted to independent thinking using interest in Rand, the Brandens, other relevant writers and Objectivism as a starting point. I realize MM didn't make a claim about OL's orientation re ideological movement, but I mention it to avoid any possible misinterpretation or insinuation.

1. I'm not so sure about MM's assumption regarding his reputation on OL. In my view, and I don't mean this unkindly, I'm just trying to be accurate, I don't think there is much of an opinion of him here at all. I rarely see him discussed. And when he is, frankly, the comments are usually favorable about him. Here's what I tease out the few times his name comes up. People seem to admire his intelligence and dislike his personality. But people feel he is a good person underneath. I know this is how I think about him. So thumbs up or thumbs down? I can't speak for others, but in my case, I would probably abstain from voting.

Should he ever wish to come here (and I'm not hinting--this is his life, so his interest), I would welcome him just like I do all who come in goodwill and request he observe the posting guidelines. As you have seen me say at times, when people come here, that's good for OL, when people don't come, that's good for OL, when people stay, that's good for OL, when people leave, that's good for OL.

OL always wins and the proof is in our high level of readers and contributors.

2. I fully agree with MM on personality and social dynamics in O-Land (good God! I actually said that I fully agree with Michael Moeller! ).

One of the characteristics I set as policy--in practice--on OL has nothing to do with ideas and everything to do with discouraging bullying. That's pure personality and social dynamics. I dislike bullies intensely and see no reason to host their precious utterances and intimidations, irrespective of their ideas or how they align or disagree with Rand. When passion is a synonym for bullying, screw passion. Or better, screw those who think like that.

As to the ideas, as you know, my thing is independent thinking. You yourself happen to be a socialist and there are some people around here with some very odd ideas.

3. I rarely see the excessive doom and gloom he refers to on OL. When it appears, it is usually ignored, dismissed or dissolves into banter.

4. I fully agree with him on this point (good God! I actually said that I fully agree with him again! )--with one caveat. And it gets worse because I suspect he would agree with me. "A person's own greatness" is best when it refers to the person's own terms, not the terms of--or in the name of--any ideological movement, Objectivist or otherwise.

I feel good that Michael Moeller is so optimistic about his direction. Even at such a great distance, it's inspiring. May he live long, achieve great things, be happy, and prosper.

Michael

MSK: if I may say so, your post above is one significant reason you are such a fine host around here. Well said.

[Jules Troy]

I was pleasantly surprised by the warm welcome I received when I first came on board. (Brant made me laugh "fee fie fo fum..!"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK: if I may say so, your post above is one significant reason you are such a fine host around here. Well said.

David,

Thank you.

(Send the bill to my email address... )

Er...

Holy shit!

I just said that to a lawyer.

Just joking! Just joking! Just joking!

Michael