• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Mark last won the day on October 5

Mark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About Mark

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Mark Hunter
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A couple of new comments appeared beneath the TOS article, reviewed at Barney as Roark ?
  2. This is utterly revolting. It’s like something out of the history of the Bolsheviks or Soviets. Why is Julian Assange Being Tortured to Death?
  3. Jon, Your Bill Gates analogy is a good concrete way to show how ridiculous Barney is being. I shall steal it. The rumor you heard about the bulletproof vest may have been based on what Yaron Brook was doing at the time. Search Who’s Who on ARI Watch for “bulletproof” and you’ll find a firsthand account, not a rumor, by the late Steve Reed (OL’s Greybeard). MSK, Yes, Barney “dove into the tar pit” noticing his critics in public. As you say, in his circle I am a nobody. The explanation, I believe, is the extraordinary self-righteous self-deception of these Obleftivists. (Perigo isn’t my cup of tea but he hit a home run with that neologism.) Barney really believes he is innocent. To quote ARI Watch: Iago, rubbing his hands with glee at his own iniquity, is strictly a work of Shakespeare’s imagination. In real life evil is always self-righteous. You cannot tell the heroes from the villains by the emotional noises they make. Barney’s letter contains lots of legalese – perpetrated, malicious, defamation, harmed, damage, reputation – and it’s easily construed as the precursor to a lawsuit, designed to shut up critics even if he doesn’t go through with it. I wrote the New York Times headline parody to make fun of the idea. David and Goliath describes the situation pretty well. Of course if he did sue I would (1) make sure the New York Times knows about it, (2) counter-sue for calling me a liar and a merchant of hate good grief, (3) create a website detailing every step of the battle. But all this is a daydream. He’s no fool, anyway not fool enough to raise on a busted flush. Does anyone believe Craig Biddle’s story that Barney wrote him this letter and he convinced Barney to let him publish it? Mark
  4. The Objective Standard online published another extension of their article defending Carl Barney’s past involvement in Scientology – an open letter from Carl Barney himself, reviewed here: Barney Sticks to His Story To avoid a link that would boost TOS's search ranking, use the following. Paste it into either your browser's address or search window, then after entering choose the first listed link: theobjectivestandard·com/2019/07/regarding-carl-barney-and-scientology Mark
  5. Communism might better be viewed as a tool of the Powers That Be – perhaps a more palatable term than the Illuminati. Antony Sutton wrote about this. Rand’s The Objectivist favorably reviewed one of his books, about Western technological aid being responsible for the viability of the Soviet Union. Rand also recommended the book after one of her Ford Hall Forum lectures, in the Q&A. He went on to write more wide ranging books. This interview transcript is a good introduction to his later work. Here’s a list of video interviews and books.
  6. MSK, Your dates are about right. Barney was probably commercially involved by 1967 however the only hard date I know is that by 1970 he owned five franchises. He must have worked his way up to that number. Hubbard kicked him out in 1979, so I’d say probably 12 years of commercial involvement and certainly 9. I don’t have any theories about the coincidence of that period with Co$’s shenanigans. In an earlier post you suggested that Hubbard threw Barney out because he was, as Hubbard claimed, engaged in shady activity, and wanted to make Co$ look better to the FBI, which was beginning an investigation about that time. I don’t know, as I said at the time. It’s off my radar. Jon, Why you spammed this thread with obscenities and prolix nonsense only you know but please delete it.
  7. Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  8. In earlier essays Ron Unz writes about Israel and its Mossad. He is not the type to make gratuitous swipes. When reading him I feel in the presence of a powerful, truth-seeking intellect. Unz began his career as a theoretical physicist, eventually getting a Ph.D. in that field. To make money he wrote a software system used by financiers. It was hugely successful and he became wealthy. He then went into California politics. And failed. Eventually he started, writing and maintaining the hosting software. At the beginning the website was an archive of magazines from the 20s, 30s, and 40s – I pointed it out on OL not long after it appeared. Then he expanded to include controversial books and a sort of alternative media aggregator, eventually writing his own essays of social commentary, which was his goal all along in setting up the website. He’s a really smart guy. And anathema to Obleftivists.
  9. L. Rafael Reif is the current president of M.I.T. NOW he comes clean, after being exposed. ================================================================================= Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 5:00 PM Fact-finding and action on the Media Lab To the members of the MIT community, Last night, The New Yorker published an article that contains deeply disturbing allegations about the engagement between individuals at the Media Lab and Jeffrey Epstein. Because the accusations in the story are extremely serious, they demand an immediate, thorough and independent investigation. This morning, I asked MIT’s General Counsel to engage a prominent law firm to design and conduct this process. I expect the firm to conduct this review as swiftly as possible, and to report back to me and to the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation, MIT’s governing board. This afternoon, Joi Ito submitted his resignation as Director of the Media Lab and as a professor and employee of the Institute. As I described in my previous letter, the acceptance of the Epstein gifts involved a mistake of judgment. We are actively assessing how best to improve our policies, processes and procedures to fully reflect MIT’s values and prevent such mistakes in the future. Our internal review process continues, and what we learn from it will inform the path ahead. Sincerely, L. Rafael Reif MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVE, W98-300 | CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 ================================================================================= Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jeffrey Epstein and MIT To the members of the MIT community, I expect you know that the late Jeffrey Epstein cultivated relationships with and supplied funding to leading researchers at several institutions, including MIT. I write to share some background on the gifts MIT received, to outline our next steps as an institution and to offer an apology. Here are the core facts, as best as we can determine: Over the course of 20 years, MIT received approximately $800,000 via foundations controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. All of those gifts went either to the MIT Media Lab or to Professor Seth Lloyd. Both Seth and Media Lab Director Joi Ito have made public statements apologizing to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and others for judgments made over a series of years. You may read their statements here and here. I appreciate their efforts to take individual responsibility for their past decisions. However, I believe the situation also requires a broader and deeper institutional response. MIT offers faculty great freedom in conducting and building support for their research; that freedom is and always will be a precious value of our community. Yet it is important to understand that faculty are not “on their own”; their decisions about gifts are always subject to longstanding Institute processes and principles. To my great regret, despite following the processes that have served MIT well for many years, in this instance we made a mistake of judgment. In response, I have asked Provost Marty Schmidt to convene a group to examine the facts around the Epstein donations and identify any lessons for the future, to review our current processes and to advise me on appropriate ways we might improve them. And to any MIT faculty member who has questions or uncertainties about a funder: Please know that MIT has staff who can help you in gathering the facts and coming to an informed judgment. If you have questions now or in the future, I urge you to begin by reaching out to the Office of the Recording Secretary. I know some members of our community are now struggling with the fact that they unknowingly or without full understanding accepted funding that came from Epstein, or worked in labs that received such support. Because the accusations against Jeffrey Epstein are so shocking, it can be difficult to maintain a fair understanding about what individuals at MIT could have been expected to know at the time, but I hope we can offer these members of our community the reassurance of our compassionate understanding. Last and most importantly, to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, on behalf of the MIT administration, I offer a profound and humble apology. With hindsight, we recognize with shame and distress that we allowed MIT to contribute to the elevation of his reputation, which in turn served to distract from his horrifying acts. No apology can undo that. In response, we will commit an amount equal to the funds MIT received from any Epstein foundation to an appropriate charity that benefits his victims or other victims of sexual abuse. Sincerely, L. Rafael Reif MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVE, W98-300 | CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 ================================================================================= Joi Ito, director of MIT Media Lab, resigns over ties to Jeffrey Epstein
  10. By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  11. Newton didn’t find Aristotle completely worthless. Sir Isaac Newton’s Note-Book, 1661-65 by A. R. Hall, (Cambridge Historical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1948) Footnote 14 on page 242: “At the top of the page [of Newton Fol. 88] in a fainter ink is written the tag ‘Amicus Plato amicus Aristotelis sed magis arnica veritas’.” Translation: “Plato is my buddy, Aristotle is my pal, but my best amigo is truth.”
  12. Mark

    New member

    After reading over what I last wrote I was surprised at how ambiguous it is. It could be taken to mean that ARI promulgates the best in Objectivism, and nothing could be further from the truth. For the most part ARI either perverts Rand’s ideas or repeats her errors. Leonard Peikoff lets ARI use the “Ayn Rand” trademark. Because of that, and the added financial backing of Barney (since dried up), Koch, Allison and a few others, its Internet presence has become huge. Those interested in spreading Rand’s better ideas need to counter it.
  13. Mark

    New member

    I wonder if “internecine” is quite the right word. I’m completely outside the orbit of ARI. If you are interested in promulgating the best in Objectivism you will be interested in ARI. Their Internet presence is huge and they claim to present Rand's philosophy and it’s application to current events.
  14. Mark

    New member

    Robert, I’m hardly in a position to extend a welcome because the administrator of OL periodically bans me for promoting ideas found at If you want to know anything about the Ayn Rand Institute, I’m behind – a critical review of it. The latest article was introduced in the thread here. A “closed system” is OK as long as the enclosure surrounds Rand’s Metaphysics, Ethics and (most of anyway) Epistemology. Changing what’s inside that enclosure would only traduce her philosophy. As for certain of her applications, evaluations, opinions, etc. Rand was wrong.