Lazy Fair City

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Seven people were swept to their deaths in a Zion National Park flash flood. I guess that fulfills Greg's prophecy (or is he passing the prophecy buck)?

Nope. I own it because I agree with the guy who made it.

Your world comes to an end when you die... and the same for me and everyone else.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Hahahahaha! So now I'm lying about being a painter? Hahaha! Damn, you're an emotional mess!

You ask if I'm so stupid that I don't understand that you're calling me out on my "lying." The answer is that, no, I'm not so stupid, since I just addressed the issue in asking you to specifically identify the alleged lies that you believe I've told about your darling "Wolf." You didn't do so. Instead, you once again vented your little feelings.

And what in the hell are you talking about when you say that thin-skinned whining has driven people from OL? WTF? I don't whine. Rather, I attack. I attack Objectivish-inspired falsehoods and poses. I bring facts to correct idiot zealots' wrongheaded arguments and self-contradictions. I bring potent, substantive arguments that they can't answer, and so the slink away.

As for being interesting, my participation here generally causes more interest and readership than most other posters.

You're not very good at identifying reality, probably due to your being so ruled by your emotions.

J

Why not start a substantial thread--or link us to an old one you once did--to add to your v.c.? I don't start too many myself, but I do frequently buff up my reactions to others' postings that way. You do some of that. I wish you'd do more.

I have to say if these recent postings of yours and Mikee's were audio, I'd have to push "MUTE." At least I can read and think at the same time.

I try to avoid conflict and argument with you. There's nothing in it for me. I don't know what's in it for your antagonist. You both have last-word-itis. So do I but I've learned to tamp it down. For a while I was 80% of the reason Greg posted here. (I think it's down to 50%.) His postings are all reactive with his constantly repeated "substance." If I stopped reacting to Greg I think he'd be 50% shut up--at least until he compensates. If Mikee had done that to you, this thread would be 40 recent posts shorter, give or take 5.

There must be value in being a warrior for right and logic. There are severed limbs and other body parts all over the place. I had a somewhat similar attitude in the army when being shot at, albeit to no effect and albeit not metaphorical. I saw a lot of real dead bodies too. What a waste.

--Brant

[moralist]

William writes:

Whether or not Jonathan has a real ugly attitude expressed in this thread, how could you possible know if Jonathan is or is not a 'failure' in his life?

No one could succeed in life with his toxic attitude because it would poison his business and personal relationships.

Greg

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

Rather, I attack.

By your own words is the cause of your failure revealed, Jonathan.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Rand] had no discussion with Roy Childs respecting his letter to her.

Do you have any evidence that Rand ever saw or was even told about Roy Childs' letter to her?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

[Rand] had no discussion with Roy Childs respecting his letter to her.

Do you have any evidence that Rand ever saw or was even told about Roy Childs' letter to her?

Ellen

No. I only read he didn't get a reply. (It's too hard to research for more detail.)

Roy was an interesting man, to say the least. He never quite got that big brain out of the barn like by writing a lot of books.

--Brant

I once wrote something for her in 1968 a few months before the break. A kind of prose poem. I didn't send it to her through NBI. I mailed it directly to 120 E. 34th St.

[Jonathan]

Hahahahaha! So now I'm lying about being a painter? Hahaha! Damn, you're an emotional mess!

You ask if I'm so stupid that I don't understand that you're calling me out on my "lying." The answer is that, no, I'm not so stupid, since I just addressed the issue in asking you to specifically identify the alleged lies that you believe I've told about your darling "Wolf." You didn't do so. Instead, you once again vented your little feelings.

And what in the hell are you talking about when you say that thin-skinned whining has driven people from OL? WTF? I don't whine. Rather, I attack. I attack Objectivish-inspired falsehoods and poses. I bring facts to correct idiot zealots' wrongheaded arguments and self-contradictions. I bring potent, substantive arguments that they can't answer, and so the slink away.

As for being interesting, my participation here generally causes more interest and readership than most other posters.

J

You evade again. I specifically said I wasn't talking about your remarks about Wolf. You are a bore, a habitual liar, and a nasty little man. Why don't you take a poll and count your fans?

Mikee, what do expect me to do with your little emotional outbursts? Do you expect me to value them? Do you imagine that your emotions are so important that I'm going to follow you in being ruled by them? You appear to believe that losing control of yourself and throwing tantrums is going to convince me of something. What is it that you fantasize that I'm going to do with the knowledge that you're having extremely emotional reactions to my posts? What do you hope to accomplish? I have a very long history of laughing at whiners who can't or won't address substance and who prefer to emote instead. Doesn't that give you a clue that your best chance of having some impact would be to make a substantive argument rather than crying and screaming and moaning?

Yours truly,

Drake McVanDerHeem, a.k.a. Iron VaZoom, a.k.a Dr. Gust Leatherstrap, M.D., a.k.a. Brace Blackstone, P.I.

[Peter]

"When you force a man to act against his own choice and judgment, it's his thinking that you want him to suspend."

John Galt to Mr. Thompson Atlas Shrugged

Ellen asked: Do you have any evidence that Rand ever saw or was even told about Roy Childs' letter to her?

end quote

Roy Childs on anarchism 1949-1992 By RONALD N. NEFF

In the fall of 1969, when I was still a student at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, a Randian of my acquaintance who was a member of the Society for Rational Individualism showed me his copy of the August 1969 issue of SRI's magazine, The Rational Individualist. At that time the name of the publisher Jarret B. Wollstein was known to me only because he had been denounced in 1967 in the pages of Ayn Rand's periodical, The Objectivist. In this issue, he had published Roy Childs's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand," in which Roy argued that the political philosophy Rand had developed implied free-market anarchism, not the limited-state position she was defending . . . .

On the last occasion on which Roy met Rand, a young anarchist attempted to thrust a copy of the published Open Letter into her hands. Roy actually interfered with this attempt, saying, "Don't bother her with that." It is doubtful that the eager anarchist knew that it was the author himself who had prevented him from fulfilling his mission. Rand, of course, certainly never suspected it.

end quote

[Peter]

While searching for the name Roy I found the following old letters.

Peter

From: "Michael Miller"
To: objectivism@wetheliving.com
Subject: OWL: Ludwig von Mises on Rand qua man
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:14:13 -0500

I need to correct my Jul 28 02 final post on the gender-inclusive issue. I tried to close that post with the most pertinent set of words ever uttered by Rand on the subject, and I know now that I failed. Yesterday, deep in the stacks at the Google U. library, I stumbled on this infinitely superior anecdote:

Quote: Hazlitt relates that he was walking with Rand one day, and told her that Mises had told him, "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history." "Did he say 'men'?" asked Rand. "Yes," Hazlitt responded. At which point Rand clapped her hands in glee.
End quote.

"Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Movement: Part II" by Roy A. Childs, Jr. available at:
http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/randandlibertarian
s2.asp

Michael

From: "James A. Donald"
To: objectivism@wetheliving.com
Subject: OWL: Ludwig von Mises on Rand qua man
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:51:50 -0700
On 8/8/02 Michael Miller wrote:
Hazlitt relates that he was walking with Rand one day, and told her that Mises had told him, "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history."

On 10 Aug 2002 Sarah Lawrence wrote:
Could it be that Mises was, at the time he said that, under the impression that Rand was in fact a man?

Unlikely.

Here follows a little lesson on English/German etymology and usage, that you will not encounter in universities, but you will encounter in Oxford English Dictionary.

It is common and idiomatic to refer to use the word "men" to refer to people whose gender is unknown or irrelevant. However it is today unusual and unidiomatic among native English speakers to use the word "men" to refer to a subject whose gender is known and female, as Mises did. Mises, however, is a native German speaker. In modern German, and in the root language from which modern English and modern German descend, and in old English, it is and was common to use the word "man" or "men" to refer to an individual whose gender is known to be female, but is irrelevant or unimportant. Mises' use of the word "men" was correct, but unidiomatic in native English, but the word "men" exists both in his native language, and in the root language, and his use was correct and idiomatic in his native tongue, though not in the tongue in which he was mentally translating his thoughts to. It would be natural to say "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history." in German, and correct, but no longer idiomatic, in English, so probably the correct but odd phrasing is a consequence of mental translation.

Which brings me back to my old hobbyhorse. That this attempt to change the English language would cut us off from our history if it succeeded, and is doomed to fail, because you are up against the King James Bible.
--digsig
James A. Donald

[Brant Gaede]

I believe the correct word is "courageous," not "greatest." The first is a compliment. The second is silly.

--Brant

and I don't think he said "one of the"--Rand hated wishy-washy and wouldn't have liked that at all

[Selene]

Roy Childs on anarchism 1949-1992 By RONALD N. NEFF

In the fall of 1969, when I was still a student at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, a Randian of my acquaintance who was a member of the Society for Rational Individualism showed me his copy of the August 1969 issue of SRI's magazine, The Rational Individualist. At that time the name of the publisher Jarret B. Wollstein was known to me only because he had been denounced in 1967 in the pages of Ayn Rand's periodical, The Objectivist. In this issue, he had published Roy Childs's "Open Letter to Ayn Rand," in which Roy argued that the political philosophy Rand had developed implied free-market anarchism, not the limited-state position she was defending . . . .

Jarret is an interesting man. I subscribed to The Rational Individualist...

http://www.amatecon.com/etext/dosm/dosm-jbw.html <<<< info and link to his evisceration of the

http://www.freedomcircle.com/topic/Wollstein_Jarret <<<< rather prolific writer

https://www.theinvestorreport.com/home/IIR/4/a_nav_about_jarret.php <<<< investor adviser

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan writes:

Rather, I attack.

By your own words is the cause of your failure revealed, Jonathan.

Greg

How did the "attack" fail?

You might know something about that. Not what you meant.

--Brant

I think he's on a wrong crusade here or doing it wrong except I know it's the only way for him, but WTF?

shall we talk about your failure as a poster on OL?--no, we've been there and done that to no effect, but we can't use that to characterize the rest of you and what you do--don't or shouldn't--and I take you at your word, especially with those photographs

the only other person so full of himself as you in my experience was Nathaniel Branden--so it's a compliment

[Brant Gaede]

William writes:

Whether or not Jonathan has a real ugly attitude expressed in this thread, how could you possible know if Jonathan is or is not a 'failure' in his life?

No one could succeed in life with his toxic attitude because it would poison his business and personal relationships.

Greg

That's like saying since Newton believed in a Supreme Being he couldn't have been a great scientist--any kind of scientist.

It's precisely the way he posts here that may (or may not) make his other relationships primo. I don't know this. I only know it's possible.

You telling us these things is like me telling you how to wire a house. A general truth--if it be one--can be said to have exceptions in principle. This is not true in your special epistemology. I know you must address issues this way. If not all you could do is post about your bump and go philosophy, a philosophy which is quite valid and valuable as far as it goes. Driving a car, however, is not the same as flying a plane up there in the air of abstractions.

There's no more point in me telling you to read up on human psychology than you telling me to read up on electricity. Just warn me to wear rubber gloves and boots if I want to try a hands-on self education.

--Brant

I'd be grateful

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re Peter's #208 pertaining to the Roy Childs open letter to Ayn Rand, that's what I thought about the chronology, that it was sent in the stretch following the break between Rand and the Brandens.

Rand's mail was being stringently screened during that time frame, and I think that even before the break the letter wouldn't have had a chance of getting to her with its brash opening.

On the last occasion on which Roy met Rand, a young anarchist attempted to thrust a copy of the published Open Letter into her hands. Roy actually interfered with this attempt, saying, "Don't bother her with that." It is doubtful that the eager anarchist knew that it was the author himself who had prevented him from fulfilling his mission. Rand, of course, certainly never suspected it.end quote

I've previously read that story Peter repeats, but I don't remember who was the source of it. I think the source might have been Childs himself. I mistrust Childs' accuracy as a reporter, since (1) there was a particular story he told in his Liberty interview with Jeff Walker which I know for a fact had all details except one wrong (a story about a young woman who took the last name "Hugo," the only detail which is correct); and (2) Childs had a reputation for embroiderment in his raconteuring.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I believe the correct word is "courageous," not "greatest." The first is a complement. The second is silly.

--Brant

and I don't think he said "one of the"--Rand hated wishy-washy and wouldn't have liked that at all

The way I recall the story, Mises was reported to have said, "Ayn Rand is the most courageous man in America."

I think the story's told in Passion, but I haven't time to look it up now.

Ellen

PS: "compliment"

[Wolf DeVoon]

Any mention of Childs is extremely repulsive to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/as-doma-collapses-i-remem_b_3537107.html

[Brant Gaede]

Any mention of Childs is extremely repulsive to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/as-doma-collapses-i-remem_b_3537107.html

That was nasty of you.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Any mention of Childs is extremely repulsive to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/as-doma-collapses-i-remem_b_3537107.html

That was nasty of you.

I don't know that it was nasty. It strikes me as a very obscure remark, and liable to be misunderstood.

Wolf, can you explain your repulsion to your readers? (my guess, probably wrong, is that you dislike 'queers' of all stripes, obese or slender, libertarian or socialist, old secular lesbian couples or young Christian folks struggling with messages of damnation and disgust ... if I am right, though, it would be interesting to read about your laissez-faire law notions regarding said 'queers' and their place in the world. How many 'queers' did you know in Laissez-Faire City?)

Edited September 21, 2015 by william.scherk

[Peter]

The only other time I could find anyone talking about Roy Child meeting Rand or Rand reading Child’s open letter was when Ellen Stuttle asked George H. Smith what he knew in 2011. He knew nothing directly. I could find no other references to the Mises quote calling Rand a man.
Peter Taylore

From: BBfromM@aol.com
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:04:37 EST

Ellen Lewitt wrote me off-list, asking some questions about Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and saying I might send my reply to Atlantis if I wished.

Here is my reply: You asked if the rumor -- about Ayn Rand telling Murray Rothbard he must divorce his wife because she was religious -- was untrue. It was totally untrue. I was present at each of the (very few) meetings between Ayn Rand and Murray, and no such thing ever happened. Besides, it would have been totally out of character for her: she never told one spouse what he or she ought to do with regard to the other spouse.

To answer your other questions:

Murray was never at all close with Ayn Rand. Despite his writings to the contrary, he met with her only a few times -- because she disliked him from their first meeting. When I later interviewed him for THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, he spoke to me about their meetings, clearly acknowledging that this -- that they met only a few times -- was true; obviously, he knew that I knew the truth, and that he could not pretend with me. I have the entire interview on tape.

Murray did not leave of his own choice. He had written an article (I forget for which publication) in which he clearly plagiarized my Master's thesis on the subject of free will -- that is, he used my arguments without giving me credit for them. Nathaniel asked him to rectify this, perhaps in a letter to the editor of the publication; he would not have had to admit to plagiarism, but could say something to the effect that he had neglected to credit me. He refused, denying the obvious fact that he had plagiarized me -- and we ended
our relationship with him.

Barbara

From: BBfromM@aol.com
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: On the Psychology of Bush and Guliani (was The Psychology of Terrorists
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:23:56 EST
Andrew Taranto wrote: I'm curious to hear anyone's assessment of Bush's (or others') psychology. He in particular seems to have been rising to the occasion with a decent amount of aplomb. Guiliani, more so: I actually feel an affection for him that I didn't before, like I felt for Gayle Wynand.

Guiliani has been wonderful. And Bush surprisingly good. It seems as if, psychologically, both have been floating most of their lives, in some sense waiting for the moment in history that would allow them to utilize the best within them. Both have a certainty they didn't have before, as if they understand the position they now are in, in a way that they never understood any position in which they found themselves before. The world they now are in is a world, however horrible and fearful, they understand and can deal with. I don't mean any of this to denigrate them; I mean to say that the moment and their psychology have meshed, and that they have found the circumstances they best understand.

I've been watching Bush very carefully on television. His face seems to have thinned down and become more intense; the laid-back Texan is gone. He walks almost with a strut, and the uncertainty he once projected is also gone. Whatever mistakes he is making and will make, we are now seeing a dedicated and certain man we never saw before, that probably no one ever saw before, and that only he knew was somewhere inside him, waiting for its time.

I've seen this before in a very few other people. That is, that a man or woman finds the circumstances that in some very deep way they understand; their world becomes something that they comprehend and can cope with and they are able to rise to an occasion more demanding than they ever faced, an occasion they feel they were (psychologically) born to cope with, despite its difficulties.

I imagine that generals in war feel the same way: that being in battle is their moment, the moment they have been waiting for all their lives, and that they never before knew how intensely it was possible to live.

I experienced some of this personally, so I can understand it quite deeply. During my years with Ayn Rand, I was confused by many of my emotions and by my often ambivalent attitudes. But when it came time to break with her, I felt a clarity and certainty I had not felt for a long time. This, now, was I situation I could understand; I knew what to do and what I wanted, I felt that at last I was fully myself, acting according to values I deeply cherished. I felt a confidence that was new to me, that I was in a situation I was peculiarly able to deal with, and that the world I was dealing with at last made full sense to me. There was no more conflict between my reason and my emotions; in this situation, I knew without question what was right and
what was wrong.

I felt the same way during the writing of THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, a rather odd but total certainty that I knew exactly what to do, what needed saying and what did not. I felt that this was the book I was born to write, and that nobody else could do it. The book was *mine* and I knew I could write it as it should be written. I remember especially that before I came to it in the writing, friends would ask me how on earth I intended to deal with the affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel. I always answered, truthfully, that I hadn't
the least idea -- but that when I came to it, I would know how to handle it. And I did. The writing of PASSION was my moment, engulfing me in a drama and a life I understood.
Barbara

[Wolf DeVoon]

it would be interesting to read about your laissez-faire law notions regarding said 'queers' and their place in the world.

"Bums, scoundrels and pirates [i.e., all freemen]... delegate and divide the work of discovery, employing specialized investigators to attack the Unknown. In certain areas of speculative inquiry, they use Occam's Razor and a laissez-faire tradition of tolerance, especially in regard to cosmology and sexual preference." [Laissez Faire Law, pp. 55-56]

"As far as I'm concerned, liberty is non-negotiable and I am not susceptible to universal moral principles, utilitarian or otherwise. I view morality as a personal matter, in the context of my unique situation, inquiring What shall I do? (not what must all men and women in all circumstances do). To me it seems plain that women and men have contrary moral purposes. More importantly, each individual is a separate case... Homosexuals and heretics know precisely what I'm talking about. The NAP-guided dominant "morality" is a prison. Am I defending perverts, hoodlums, terrorists, and playboys? – Yes. [ibid, pp.121-122]

My first feature film project was written by and starred a gay dancer. My second feature starred a gay actor.

[Brant Gaede]

What is repulsive about Roy Childs to you? That was awfully strong?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

it would be interesting to read about your laissez-faire law notions regarding said 'queers' and their place in the world.

My first feature film project was written by and starred a gay dancer. My second feature starred a gay actor.

I suppose we have to take your word for it, but I will ask anyway: what is the name of the 'gay dancer' and what was the name of your first feature project? Your second feature 'starred a gay actor' -- what was his name and what was the name of the feature?

With regard to Roy Childs, are you going to tell us more about the repulsion you feel at any mention of him? I am guessing no, but hey, it's worth a try.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The way I recall the story, Mises was reported to have said, "Ayn Rand is the most courageous man in America."

I think the story's told in Passion, but I haven't time to look it up now.

Ellen

Here it is:

The Passion of Ayn Rand

pp. 188-89

[The time frame is the early 1940s, after Ayn and Frank had bought the California ranch.]

Through the Hazlitts, Ayn met the brilliant economist Ludwig von Mises[.] [barbara gives some identifying information.]

Ayn was charmed by Von Mises. Along with a vast and searching intellect, he had a gentleness, a warmth, and communicated a respect for whomever he talked with, that made him much beloved by his friends and his students. "He seemed very impressed," Ayn recalled, "that a woman had read his books and was seriously interested in economics. He had read The Fountainhead, and he seemed to think highly of it. I didn't like his separation of morality and economics, but I assumed that it simply meant that morality was not his speciality and that he could not devise one of his own. At that time, I thought - about both Henry [Hazlitt] and Von Mises - that since they were fully committed to laissez-faire capitalism, the rest of their philosophy had contradictions only because they did not yet know how to integrate a full philosophy to capitalism. It didn't bother me; I knew I would present the full case."

Henry Hazlitt said to Ayn one day, "I just talked with Lu Mises a few days ago. He called you 'the most courageous man in America.'" "Did he say man?" asked Ayn. "Yes," he replied. Ayn was delighted.

Ellen

[moralist]

Peter quotes:
Quote: Hazlitt relates that he was walking with Rand one day, and told her that Mises had told him, "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history." "Did he say 'men'?" asked Rand. "Yes," Hazlitt responded. At which point Rand clapped her hands in glee.
End quote.

That's high praise in my opinion.

A woman who can think like a man is such a uniquely remarkable personal success, it has the power to shatter false paradigms.

In contrast, males who think like females are a dime a dozen because personal failure is far more common. You'll find them thick as flies on dung in the government.



Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

I searched but couldn't find Peter's last name. The story of making "Zooty Brisko" (1973) is recounted in my book First Feature. I went to prison, Technicolor closed their Chicago lab, and 22 rolls of negative were thrown in a dumpster. "The Marionette" (1984) co-starred Huib Broos.