All,

In light of my (albeit short) contact with and other people's experiences with Diana Mertz-Hsieh, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on her actions overall since they match nearly perfectly with what George H. Smith points out in his book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

On page 220 of Smith's book he delves into his observations of a religious Objectivist. Smith points out that a religious Objectivist will pass moral judgement for the purpose of intimidation which is supposed to evoke guilt and shame making the term "immoral" as the secularization "sin".

George Smith delves into 3 examples that seem to match Diana Hsieh's actions perfectly! Pointing out that such ex-cathedra denunciations of people like the Brandens and Chris Sciabarra that would turn the Pope green with envy.

Aside from being a great book, George Smith's observations about this are very insightful and I am wondering if the condemnations Hsieh likes to delve out are indicative of the kind of ostracization she experienced at the hands of the Front Range Objectivists she hangs out with.

After finally giving in and joining ARI she is now in a position to damn everyone else because, in her mind, after feeling the heat, she has seen the light.

I am guessing she was so passionate about Objectivism she felt that ARI was the best resource to achieve her goals of wanting to pursue philosophy as a career. Which is fine. Except she decided in order to win ARI's trust she has burned all of her bridges and condemns anyone who is not an ARI Objectivist.

Similar in many respects to Leonard Piekoff.

She not only is her own worst enemy but I believe she is the epitome of everything Ayn Rand spoke out against by selling her soul for the cause.

I've never had the pleasure of speaking to her personally but that is the impression I have from her writings. A while back someone posted her exchange on an Objectivist forum (I think it was the HBL) in which she burns the ARI for its closed minded approach - the exact same approach she has now. I don't know about how she was treated by Objectivist groups before her ARI conversion but I assumed she converted mainly for, as you said, pragmatic reasons; the perceived inability of the TOC to match the 'progress' and visibility of the ARI.

Do you have any sources of her possible mistreatment at the hands of the Brandens, Sciaberra (etc)? I'd like to read them.

For that matter, since it is on topic, if anyone has sources on her online would you mind posting links?

You know, I thought this thread was about Princess Diana...

anyway.



AFAIK, Diana has never had any dealings with Barbara.

She WAS, for a time, Nathaniel's webmaster. I guess he rubbed her the wrong way, and she no longer liked him, but only when she got involved with the ARI-crowd did she adopt the official anti-Branden attitude.

AKAIK, she was never mistreated by Sciaberra. For reasons I can only assume is due to her involvement with the ARI-crowd, she turned on him. This dispite his apparent help to her in the past, as I understand it.

Her website, Noodlefood, is a decent repository of her attacks and disavowment of people.

Yes and in order to appease the ARI hierarchy which she hopes will lead to further opportunities for getting published or in ARI leadership she bashes the people she used to associate with.

Very similar to someone who lives to please other people (in this case ARI) and I believe Ayn Rand rejected in The Fountainhead.





I tried looking for it but can't pull it up but I recall seeing a post by Barbara Branden titled "Enough is Enough!" which I believe was due to Hsieh criticizing or scolding Sciabarra and possibly Barbara too at Diana's blog or SOLO Passion.

Something Diana seems to do on a regular basis.



Perhaps the best source is her own blog Noodle Food.

I would also like to add that, while there is nothing wrong with criticism and no one (not even Ayn Rand) is beyond it, Diana seems to do so in order to agitate her former colleagues and not out of any genuine interest in Objectivism itself.

Thanks for clarifying and you make a good point about her blog. Hsieh's attitude is similar in many respect to card-carrying members of the Red Guard who would would criticize members of their own group to point of ostracization and demand confessions of guilt.

The attitudes of ARIans, like Diana, are indicative of many members of utopian movements in the past.

Like George Smith points out in his book, Rand is a passionate writer and they can attract passionate readers. But by some quirk of fate, missed their calling as Christian missionaries.