ARI Watch


Chris Grieb

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My understanding of Dr. Peikoff's relationship to ARI and the Ayn Rand copyrights is the following. Dr. Peikoff was Ayn Rand's only heir. Peikoff owns all the rights to Ayn Rand's writings. Dr. Peikoff has supported and fund raised for ARI. Whether this relationship will change perhaps when Dr. Peikoff dies is information I do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I may be ostracized by some people here but, based on a quick review of several of the posts on this site, I'd say ARI Watch is absolutely first rate. It seems that the writers are well-versed in their Rand and ARI. They understand the issues, and they are no holds barred, letting the chips fall where they may. I endorse this website without reservation.

Someone I know who is a long time Objectivist and libertarian heard Yaron Brook deliver a talk at one of the ARI public forums in 2003 in favor of more aggressive war than had already taken place in Iraq.

He was in favor of immediately blowing away Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia too. The ARI crowd wants an explicit declaration of war against all those governments.

ARI's excuse is that the fascism represented there is so antithetical to the Randian view of human rights they deserve to be blown away. Moreover, they hold some silly kind of "tacit consent" theory that says the innocent people (victims) of those governments are even guilty too, and so there cannot be any innocence we need to worry about in regard to, for example, dropping nuclear bombs on Teheran or Mecca.

And then they have the gall to say, "when we have won, we can explicitly end the war" - unlike the pseudo-war on terrorism, which will never end. My friend was literally dumbfounded, as was I, to hear this kind of argument from someone in his position as "leader."

Does anyone out there know anything about this site?

It sounds like an excellent idea but no one is named as being a writer. They seem to be critizing the foreign policy ideas of ARI but I would like some names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

I do not think you will be ostracized here, at least not from me. Everybody has opinions. My issues arise when bigotry is preached on OL (ANY bigotry), posters call each other names or question each others' character because of disagreement with each other (like saying they are dishonest and so forth), etc.

I have mentioned that there is a lot of useful watchdog information on ARI Watch. I do not like the rhetoric of the articles and my criticisms of that rhetoric should not be understood as endorsement of bigotry at ARI where present, especially calls for killing civilians, bombing schools and residences (when occupied with women and children), etc.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

I do not think you will be ostracized here, at least not from me. Everybody has opinions. My issues arise when bigotry is preached on OL (ANY bigotry), posters call each other names or question each others' character because of disagreement with each other (like saying they are dishonest and so forth), etc.

I have mentioned that there is a lot of useful watchdog information on ARI Watch. I do not like the rhetoric of the articles and my criticisms of that rhetoric should not be understood as endorsement of bigotry at ARI where present, especially calls for killing civilians, bombing schools and residences (when occupied with women and children), etc.

Michael

Methnks u r bigoted against us bigots! Dicease! Immediately!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mentioned that there is a lot of useful watchdog information on ARI Watch. I do not like the rhetoric of the articles and my criticisms of that rhetoric should not be understood as endorsement of bigotry at ARI where present, especially calls for killing civilians, bombing schools and residences (when occupied with women and children), etc.

That is exactly what the Allies did in order to win the Second World War against the Fascists. Do you object? When one is in a war for survival one does whatever it takes to win. Evolution does not take prisoners. The fit survive and the weak sisters perish. That is the way of the world.

You have a good heart, but you would make a shitty military leader. In a war of survival we don't need Jesus Christ, who loves The Little Children. We need George Patton and if necessary, Atilla the Hun or Gengis Kahn. Be Terrible now, repent later, if you survive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mentioned that there is a lot of useful watchdog information on ARI Watch. I do not like the rhetoric of the articles and my criticisms of that rhetoric should not be understood as endorsement of bigotry at ARI where present, especially calls for killing civilians, bombing schools and residences (when occupied with women and children), etc.

That is exactly what the Allies did in order to win the Second World War against the Fascists. Do you object? When one is in a war for survival one does whatever it takes to win. Evolution does not take prisoners. The fit survive and the weak sisters perish. That is the way of the world.

You have a good heart, but you would make a shitty military leader. In a war of survival we don't need Jesus Christ, who loves The Little Children. We need George Patton and if necessary, Atilla the Hun or Gengis Kahn. Be Terrible now, repent later, if you survive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The "allies" would have won regardless, save for revenge for Pearl Harbor!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "allies" would have won regardless, save for revenge for Pearl Harbor!

--Brant

Eventually, but brutality shortened the war and saved Allied lives. Winning is not enough. One must win with losses minimized, if possible. If being brutal to enemy children saves one life your your side, then do it. One of Yours is worth a million of Theirs. War is not a boxing match fought by the Queensbury Rules.

You should consult General Wm. T. Sherman on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] If being brutal to enemy children saves one life your your side, then do it. One of Yours is worth a million of Theirs. War is not a boxing match fought by the Queensbury Rules.

You should consult General Wm. T. Sherman on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob K., I've said nothing thus far about your me/mine-against-them, and generally racialist posts. Your comments on math, and on the history of science, keep me interested in those. But: Some of your views I find nothing short of disgusting. For one thing, Who are the "Yours" versus "Theirs"? Where's the individualism in that? And would you really kill, kill, kill, as you preach? You're proposing a world, outside the continental USA, turned to ashes to protect "One of Yours." Do you mean this?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] If being brutal to enemy children saves one life your your side, then do it. One of Yours is worth a million of Theirs. War is not a boxing match fought by the Queensbury Rules.

You should consult General Wm. T. Sherman on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob K., I've said nothing thus far about your me/mine-against-them, and generally racialist posts. Your comments on math, and on the history of science, keep me interested in those. But: Some of your views I find nothing short of disgusting. For one thing, Who are the "Yours" versus "Theirs"? Where's the individualism in that? And would you really kill, kill, kill, as you preach? You're proposing a world, outside the continental USA, turned to ashes to protect "One of Yours." Do you mean this?

Ellen

___

You betchum, Red Ryder. Killing for one's own sake and for the sake of family and ultimately countrymen is very egotistical and non-collective. It is mostly about ME and MINE. I fight for me and family because it is MY flesh. I fight for my countrymen because they make my comfort and health possible. When fighting a war for survival one wins by any means sufficient.

My health prevented me from becoming a front-line warrior I but have built weapons that have killed thousands of my enemies. I have scalps on my belt and I am god-damned proud of every one of them. If I could not be a killer, I became a weapon smith for killers. My kind of people.

I live by the creed: If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck, if feasible or run like hell if not. And never, ever, ever be a Loser if it can be avoided. And when they come for you skin, either win over them or make them pay a very steep price.

Planet Earth is a bad neighborhood where the strong, the fit and the cunning survive. The weak sisters and the sluggish perish or are enslaved. If you don't believe me, read a history book.

Now please tell me: Why are you adverse to winning wars in which we find ourselves? Is surrender your creed? Do you expect to overcome evil people by diplomacy? Have you ever studied history carefully? When the bastards come for you and yours do you plan to negotiate?

Better to learn from good examples. Think of Blind Sampson in the Temple of Dagon. Think of Joshuah at Jericho. Think of the Ten Plagues on the Egyptians. Think of Richmond. Think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And above all, don't get mad. Get even.

And when the Bad Guys are dead, the survivors can, at long last, be just and righteous with each other. That is the World to Come.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You betchum, Red Ryder. Killing for one's own sake and for the sake of family and ultimately countrymen is very egotistical and non-collective. It is mostly about ME and MINE. I fight for me and family because it is MY flesh. I fight for my countrymen because they make my comfort and health possible. When fighting a war for survival one wins by any means sufficient.

Maybe the problem is that Bob is an egotist instead of an egoist.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem is that Bob is an egotist instead of an egoist.

--Brant

A distinction without a difference. I put ME and MINE as the first order of concern. What do you think the difference is? Anyway you look at it, it is ME and MINE first, YOU and YOURS second.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem is that Bob is an egotist instead of an egoist.

--Brant

A distinction without a difference. I put ME and MINE as the first order of concern. What do you think the difference is? Anyway you look at it, it is ME and MINE first, YOU and YOURS second.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, an egoist knows he isn't an egotist while the egotist doesn't see the difference. Look:

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem is that Bob is an egotist instead of an egoist.

--Brant

A distinction without a difference. I put ME and MINE as the first order of concern. What do you think the difference is? Anyway you look at it, it is ME and MINE first, YOU and YOURS second.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, an egoist knows he isn't an egotist while the egotist doesn't see the difference. Look:

--Brant

You still have not said you mean by the words "egoist" and "egotist". I told you what I meant, and rather clearly. Why don't you do the same?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a good heart, but you would make a shitty military leader.

Bob,

Let me be master of the obvious. I am not in the military. I am an intellectual discussing issues on an Internet philosophy forum.

But since you like the tactics of ARI Watch so much, and seem to believe that military is the greatest thing since mankind discovered the wheel and fire, let's see if you like the following quotes from ARI Watch. Here are some choice ones for you from an essay entitled Ayn Rand on Israel:

Was socialist Israel our ally against communist Russia? During the Cold War Israel packaged itself as a bulwark against communism, an enemy of our enemy, the Soviet Union. It turned out Israel was pulling the wool over our eyes.

. . .

Did Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was?

. . .

Ayn Rand believed that Israel was America’s ally. Did she know how treacherous Israel really was?

. . .

What about private philanthropy, is it proper for individuals or private groups to aid Israel? If Israel really were the bastion of freedom and the ally that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute makes it out to be, then private philanthropy would be unobjectionable, even praiseworthy. But considering the history of Israel’s treatment of the U.S., giving to Israel is a traitorous act.

I do admit, this kind of stuff belongs in your world as how one should be in life. Not in mine. Enjoy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have not said you mean by the words "egoist" and "egotist". I told you what I meant, and rather clearly. Why don't you do the same?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm having too much fun. However, from The Random House Dictionary: "EGOTISM, EGOISM refer to preoccupation with one's ego or self. EGOTISM is the common word for obtrusive and excessive reference to and emphasis upon oneself and one's own importance....EGOISM, a less common word, is used especially in philosophy, ethics, or metaphysics, where it emphasizes the importance of or preoccupation with self in relation to other things."

Maybe you call yourself an egotist because of your denigration of philosophy generally? In any case, egoism is a stronger concept than explained by RH. The RH definition is stronger.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have not said you mean by the words "egoist" and "egotist". I told you what I meant, and rather clearly. Why don't you do the same?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm having too much fun. However, from The Random House Dictionary: "EGOTISM, EGOISM refer to preoccupation with one's ego or self. EGOTISM is the common word for obtrusive and excessive reference to and emphasis upon oneself and one's own importance....EGOISM, a less common word, is used especially in philosophy, ethics, or metaphysics, where it emphasizes the importance of or preoccupation with self in relation to other things."

Maybe you call yourself an egotist because of your denigration of philosophy generally? In any case, egoism is a stronger concept than explained by RH. The RH definition is stronger.

--Brant

My concern with my interests is rational and proportionate. ME and MINE are higher on my list of priorities than YOU and YOURS, which is completely rational is totally in line with your philosophy, Objectivism. I do not consider myself above the law that governs us all, nor do I think I have any more rights than my peaceful neighbor. However if my neighbor's kid is drowning and my kid is drowning at the same time and I can save only one, guess who I am going to try to save. Right! You guessed it!. If my neighbor's kid is drowning and mine is not, then I will call 911 and try to get a rescue party. I will do so for two reasons. One, I don't like to see innocent kids drown unnecessarily and Two, I don't need to start a war with my neighbor.

Now how do your principles guide your actions. I told you how I would handle the situation, why do you tell us what you would do?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have not said you mean by the words "egoist" and "egotist". I told you what I meant, and rather clearly. Why don't you do the same?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm having too much fun. However, from The Random House Dictionary: "EGOTISM, EGOISM refer to preoccupation with one's ego or self. EGOTISM is the common word for obtrusive and excessive reference to and emphasis upon oneself and one's own importance....EGOISM, a less common word, is used especially in philosophy, ethics, or metaphysics, where it emphasizes the importance of or preoccupation with self in relation to other things."

Maybe you call yourself an egotist because of your denigration of philosophy generally? In any case, egoism is a stronger concept than explained by RH. The RH definition is stronger.

--Brant

My concern with my interests is rational and proportionate. ME and MINE are higher on my list of priorities than YOU and YOURS, which is completely rational is totally in line with your philosophy, Objectivism. I do not consider myself above the law that governs us all, nor do I think I have any more rights than my peaceful neighbor. However if my neighbor's kid is drowning and my kid is drowning at the same time and I can save only one, guess who I am going to try to save. Right! You guessed it!. If my neighbor's kid is drowning and mine is not, then I will call 911 and try to get a rescue party. I will do so for two reasons. One, I don't like to see innocent kids drown unnecessarily and Two, I don't need to start a war with my neighbor.

Now how do your principles guide your actions. I told you how I would handle the situation, why do you tell us what you would do?

Ba'al Chatzaf

About the same, Bob, though I don't quite know what you mean by "the law that governs us all." This sounds more like egoism than egotism to me, but it would seem the difference to you if any is slight. Any more discussion about that by us would probably be semantical.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I am an intellectual discussing issues on an Internet philosophy forum.

I'm surprised — actually, it's probably my again being naïve — that one of the actions you apparently see as being appropriate for such "an intellectual" is to proceed to wildly extract quotes from context:

[...] let's see if you like the following quotes from ARI Watch. Here are some choice ones for you from an essay entitled Ayn Rand on Israel: [...]

Extractions mercifully elided. You're not even trying to deal with this writer fairly, Michael, and you're making any real discussion about his writing pointless. Mark Hunter provides or references examples for every element that you quote.

He doesn't have to do so, with how the Googling of either "Jonathan Pollard" or "U.S.S. Liberty" alone would almost crash your browser with examples, from thousands of writers, of the dubious (and, at times, murderous) quality of the State of Israel as an ally. Yet he does.

The strength or consistency of such support is itself eminently a matter for debate, but you're not even representing that such support exists. When, that is, Israel is at issue. In this, a refusal to even admit it to what you see as "your world," you're hardly differing from ARI at its frequent low points.

Getting in licks at the wanton, pointless bloodthirstiness of Bob Kolker — which I've long been tempted to do — is no excuse for, even in passing, distilling the rhetoric of someone else out of all reasonable context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting in licks at the wanton, pointless bloodthirstiness of Bob Kolker — which I've long been tempted to do — is no excuse for, even in passing, distilling the rhetoric of someone else out of all reasonable context.

My bloodthirstiness always has a point. There are some problems that cannot be solved without the effusion of blood. In a world from which the Bad Guys have been eliminated and the Good Guys can be just with each other, blood will very rarely have to be shed. The idea is to get to that world. The only way is killing the Bad Guys (plus the collateral damage, of course).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

There is NO context where I think the following is appropriate, examples or no examples:

But considering the history of Israel’s treatment of the U.S., giving to Israel is a traitorous act.

Traitorous?

Gimme a break!

The guy even confessed here on OL that he was antisemitic. He's telling you straight up. Believe it if you wish. I'll take him at his word.

There are other examples like the above. I merely excerpted one article. I simply don't have the time and interest to do the others. I have better things to do.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

There is NO context where I think the following is appropriate, examples or no examples:

But considering the history of Israel’s treatment of the U.S., giving to Israel is a traitorous act.

Traitorous?

Gimme a break!

The guy even confessed here on OL that he was antisemitic. He's telling you straight up. Believe it if you wish. I'll take him at his word.

There are other examples like the above. I merely excerpted one article. I simply don't have the time and interest to do the others. I have better things to do.

Michael

It is true that Israel has carried out its own espionage against the United States. I think the only thing we can do about that is use diplomatic pressure and give spies operating in the United States a life sentence.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Confessed” is the wrong word. Here’s the background Michael ignores:

Michael and some others noted that I criticize Israel (and I do, for reasons they evidently can’t bring themselves to address, as Greybird noted).

Then on that basis Michael refers to my “rhetoric that borders on antisemitism.”

Borders!

I’m not going to play that game. If ARI Watch be anti-semitic, make the most of it. I don’t confess to being an anti-semite, I proclaim it.

If Michael doesn’t like that tar-baby word, he can stop playing bait and switch. For more see Jeers on ARI Watch.

-oOo-

Michael says “gimme a break” about my saying “giving to Israel is a traitorous act.” That claim, as he must know, is at the end of a long essay containing evidence that Israel is not an ally but rather an enemy of America. Aiding such a country is traitorous. Michael doesn’t deserve a break when he pretends – and pretend is the right word – that this observation comes out of nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now