Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

This goes even for Rand's minor characters. Eddie Willers, for instance, was born to be a good guy and live in the shadow of greatness. Volition and acts would never grant greatness to him, nor even the possibility of becoming a great villain.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Perigo apparently thinks that kicking a spine to pieces is a good example of kicking ass and that people who object against the kicking of spines do that only while they hate and resent the wonderful abilities of the kicker. Genuine indignation is of course impossible!

"'Whatever they do, I can undo it. Let them build a track - I can come and break it, just like that!' He snapped his fingers. 'Just like breaking a spine!'

'You want to break spines?', she whispered, trembling."

Of course, Perigo would vociferously deny that his "sense of life" has anything in common with James Taggart.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

I think Roark loved Wynand for what he was, but not all of what he was.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Perigo apparently thinks that kicking a spine to pieces is a good example of kicking ass and that people who object against the kicking of spines do that only while they hate and resent the wonderful abilities of the kicker. Genuine indignation is of course impossible!

"'Whatever they do, I can undo it. Let them build a track - I can come and break it, just like that!' He snapped his fingers. 'Just like breaking a spine!'

'You want to break spines?', she whispered, trembling."

Of course, Perigo would vociferously deny that his "sense of life" has anything in common with James Taggart.

Martin

And recall Cheryl Taggart's recounting and interpretation of that to Dagny:

"But … but nothing is, any more. Jim and his friends—they're not. I don't know what I'm looking at, when I'm among them, I don't know what I'm hearing when they speak… it's not real, any of it, it's some ghastly sort of act that they're all going through… and I don't know what they're after.… Dagny! We've always been told that human beings have such a great power of knowledge, so much greater than animals, but I—I feel blinder than any animal right now, blinder and more helpless. An animal knows who are its friends and who are its enemies, and when to defend itself. It doesn't expect a friend to step on it or to cut its throat. It doesn't expect to be told that love is blind, that plunder is achievement, that gangsters are statesmen and that it's great to break the spine of Hank Rearden !—oh God, what am I saying?"

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Martin Radwin]

In the SOLOP Veitch thread,

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4987#comments

James Heaps-Nelson writes,

"The motive for this voyeuristic glee at Tony Veitch's downfall is hatred of his virtues. Brilliant men will not always be perfect and the soul-sucking mob will always have an insatiable desire to expose their warts in an attempt to destroy their virtues."

So this is the only possible motive of anyone believing that Tony Veitch's downfall is a good thing? What about the motive of seeing justice done to a miserable son-of-a-bitch who broke a woman's spine? I guess that in James Heaps-Nelson's world, the only possible motive is envy, not a desire for justice. Isn't justice one of the primary virtues of Objectivism?

Later in the thread, Elijah writes,

"So she preferred to trouser a six figure sum rather than lay a complaint with the Constabulary...and engaged in subtle blackmail to get the money."

So receiving $170,000 in compensation for having her spine broken is "subtle blackmail", rather than meager compensation for being the victim of a despicable act of violence? I wonder whether Elijah would volunteer to have his spine broken in exchange for a $170,000 payment?

Martin

[Ruth]

This whole issue is disgusting - and Perigo and his groupies are destroying what support the Libertarian Party has with their uncontrollable egos.

As I'm sure most here know, Perigo has made a career out of transmitting extremist beliefs into the mainstream of public discourse by reframing and repackaging them for wider consumption, mostly by studiously avoiding the more noxious and often racist elements of those beliefs - until the arrival of Lineberry. He assisted in the promotion of Lineberry's racist Maori Badges - akin to Judenstar - which demonstrates unquestionably that he has extremely poor judgement, especially regarding whose ideas and agendas he helps promote.

The primary role of govt is to protect its citizens from violence -human rights do not stop at the door of the family home. Paying hush money is what the Mongrel Mob do - it is not how decent society rolls. It is how Grand Theft Auto rolls.

His ego will destroy the Libertarian Party in NZ - character is now more important here than policy - similar to the US I guess.

Give him enough rope - wait and see with the election results. He will blame the foul-smelling, ignorant brown masses for not having the intelligence to vote Libertarian instead of taking responsibility for his own big mouth.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Ruth

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

His ego will destroy the Libertarian Party in NZ - character is now more important here than policy - similar to the US I guess.

Ruth,

Heh.

What ego?

Without a flock and an audience, this guy is nothing. He doesn't produce anything.

Perigo literally needs other people to be real as an "ego."

However, if "ego" is used within the context of standing out among other people (being a showoff), being an infantile narcissist, etc., I agree with you. The precondition for destroying the Libertarian Party in NZ, though, is that people take this clown seriously as a mouthpiece for that party.

In the Objectivist subcommunity, I did a branding thing and put a strong and clear barrier between what I stand for and that crap. I humbly offer the same suggestion to members of Libertarianz who are appalled at this situation.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] until the arrival of Lineberry.

When was that? Lineberry is fairly new on SOLO. Did Linz and Cresswell know him before, or is he a fairly recent friend of theirs?

Ellen

___

[Ruth]

Oh absolutely Michael. Without the audience he is nothing - and his opinion is nothing. This is why he tries to be as offensive as possible on as many issues as possible - to keep in the public eye. No matter the cost to the cause he says he believes in. It is the ego that matters.

In spite of him not being officially involved with Libz he is seen by all NZ as their main spokesperson.

Lineberry appeared out of nowhere and was quickly clasped to the bosom of the party and become a close friend of Perigo and Cresswell. Make of that what you will.

Perigo may or may not be a racist and an elitist -- Lineberry certainly is both -- and arguing about it is likely to end up nowhere. But what is unmistakably true about Perigo is that he is an extremist and an outright nutcase when it comes to certain issues - like domestic violence.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

This goes even for Rand's minor characters. Eddie Willers, for instance, was born to be a good guy and live in the shadow of greatness. Volition and acts would never grant greatness to him, nor even the possibility of becoming a great villain.

Michael

And yet that strain of implication is so at odds with the strong "self-made soul" strain -- and with her view of her own "distinctive attribute" being "intellectual honesty," as recounted in a passage I posted up-thread:

See

"My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir"

The Objectivist Forum

June 1987, pg. 13-14

originally delivered as a speech at

the Ford Hall Forum on April 26, 1987

"You are suffering the fate of a genius trapped in a rotten culture," I would begin. 'My distinctive attribute," she would retort, "is not genius, but intellectual honesty." "That is part of it," I would concede, "but after all I am intellectually honest, too, and it doesn't make me the kind of epochal mind who can write Atlas Shrugged or discover Objectivism." "One can't look at oneself that way," she would answer me. "No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'" So, for understandable reasons, we reached an impasse. She kept hoping to meet an equal; I knew that she never would. For once, I felt, I had the broad historical perspective, the perspective on her, that in the nature of the case she could not have.

___

Edited July 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Perigo may or may not be a racist and an elitist -- Lineberry certainly is both [...].

Do you happen to know if Lineberry really is as wealthy as he indicates he is?

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Lindsay is getting the worst of it on his own site. He doesn't seem to get it that his hero is shit regardless of the shits that are denoucing the shit. Maybe this is "Going Down to the Sea in Shits" (and drowning).

If I found someone kicking a woman in the back I'd just shot him. Then I'd put his head on a pike in front of my house. And then I'd post on OL about what a shit he was, but not "My Hero the Shit."

--Brant

[Ruth]

Perigo may or may not be a racist and an elitist -- Lineberry certainly is both [...].

Do you happen to know if Lineberry really is as wealthy as he indicates he is?

Ellen

___

Lineberry talks a load of amateur rubbish to those who know no better. He plays the indexes - the most amateur thing one can do in the share market.

The settlement processes he details are laughable.

He would not know a derivative if it bit him. He may well be 'upper middle class' but that is not from share trading, I can assure you.

[Brant Gaede]

Perigo may or may not be a racist and an elitist -- Lineberry certainly is both [...].

Do you happen to know if Lineberry really is as wealthy as he indicates he is?

You can be wealthy for a variety of reasons. He once posted some very mediocre investment advice about writing covered call options and generating an unbelievable +30%/year just that way. I'm personally not wealthy even though I've been posting on "Financial Mayhem," but like E.L. you don't really know. I may be wealthy, but don't want that to get out.

Two farmers in a field. Both are dressed in work clothes and drive old pickup trucks. You can't tell 'em apart. One is a multi-millionaire, the other his hired-hand. Several years later the hired-hand dies and leaves a huge estate. His employer never knew. A businessman flies in his own private plane, rides in limos and eats and entertains in the best places imaginable. Declares bankruptcy. Ten years later he has more money than Scrouge McDuck.

Wealth is primarily spiritual--or characterogical. Howard Roark was never poor. Ayn Rand was never poor. The worst poverty for such people is bad physical health.

Read: The Richest Man In Babylon.

--Brant

Edited July 13, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Daniel Barnes]

Well, I basically agree with Dragonfly that Perigo is having a Hickman moment. (Never mind the window dressing about "vile and inexcusable" - that phrase plays roughly the same fig-leaf role in his piece that Valliant's reference to Rand's "unjust anger" does in PARC).

Regardless the facts of the case (which no-one knows fully precisely because there hasn't been a police investigation) the point I was making however was the sheer degree of novelisation - specifically Objectivist novelisation - going on in it. The central thesis is simply a fantasy: The public do not despise Veitch for his "exceptional talent" as a sportscaster. (Duh! If the public despised him for his talent, then one would assume his television ratings would be poor, and his bosses would have long ago replaced him with someone far more mediocre). They despise him because he is a man who seriously assaulted his partner, and paid her to keep quiet about it. His talent has little or nothing to do with this, though of course his fame does.

This is a completely PARC-like approach, it seems to me, and it suggests why Solopassion is one of the few places left in the known universe that takes Valliant's nut-gone book seriously. Just take the generic Objectivist storyline of social-metaphysical evil vs self-evident greatness and select your facts to fit. Who needs trouble themselves with the difficulties of reality when you have such comforting fairy-stories to tell yourself?

[Alfonso Jones]

I wonder what fraction of the browser traffic at SOLO is now people who frequent OL browsing to SOLO in response to a posting (with link) here.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Read: The Richest Man In Babylon.

Brant,

Hear hear!

Some things never get old.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ruth,

My God! Let me digress for a moment.

I was going to write something about having a lopsided view of New Zealand because my main contact comes from the Perigo mob's blustering, but then I remembered that I was once very good friends with a couple (Wally and Pam) who played cello in the same orchestra where I was working (in São Paulo, SP, Brazil) who went to play in the Auckland orchestra. This was years ago and I lost contact with them.

Because of writing to you, I decided to Google them and see if they were still in New Zealand. Lo and behold, they are in Los Angeles. (See Waldemar de Almeida on this page. You have to scroll down. Dayaamm! Wally got older! )

I intend to migrate to LA eventually. You can be sure I will look him and Pam up. I know you had no intention of producing anything like this, but you were one hell of a catalyst in making me feel good.

Talk about good vibes coming in the middle of discussing crap...

Michael

[Ruth]

There is no need to have a lopsided view of NZ Michael. A good friend of mine - he is pretty much far right by the way - said:

I venture to suggest that revulsion at the Veitch affair unites Kiwis of all political colours and his only supporters are a barrel of rotten apples who reveal their true corruption and cynicism by their support of Veitch.

Veitch also left this woman lying on the floor for 6 hours before getting help. Still Perigo supports him as a Jesus like figure.

I don't care what they say about me - I know I am not evil like they are.

[Robert Campbell]

I've now made a couple of comments over in Mr. Perigo's lair, about his addled press release concerning Tony Veitch:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4987

With this ill-considered outburst, and his subsequent refusals to admit fault, Mr. Perigo is managing to alienate what little remained of his base.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Perigo apparently thinks that kicking a spine to pieces is a good example of kicking ass and that people who object against the kicking of spines do that only while they hate and resent the wonderful abilities of the kicker. Genuine indignation is of course impossible!

Dragonfly,

Mr. Perigo said a lot of inexcusable things in his lousy press release on Tony Veitch—but he did not praise Mr. Veitch for kicking Kristin Dunne-Powell's spine to pieces.

Apart from his apparent desire to ape the immature Ayn Rand who wanted to write The Little Street—except that Ms. Rand got the sense to abandon the project—Mr. Perigo has misused the strongest forms of moral condemnation so often that he seems no longer capable of making relevant distinctions.

An assessment of Mr. Perigo's press release in perspective makes him look bad enough. There is no need to exaggerate.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

You sure are giving that silly little man and his diaper brigade a hard time. I almost want to say take pity on them.

Incidentally, I cannot resist a small jab. I was criticized a while back for coming down hard on James Heaps-Nelson and exposing a hidden agenda he had concerning PARC that was leading him to make up facts and so forth to support it (and bash the Brandens obliquely). I later retracted my bad manners, but he later made some statements so boneheaded that this has caused some people's jaws to drop. I don't have time to look them up right now, nor the reactions, but I do have time to mention a couple of things:

1. His behavior is exactly what I saw initially and countered so strongly. In essence, his behavior has vindicated my initial judgment of anti-Branden bias to the point of constantly distorting plain and obvious facts (but always presented with a sanctimonious self-description of objectivity).

2. The latest JHN comedy (farce, actually) involved you and William Scherk. Let's look. (See here for the full quote).

Also, why the continual campaign against PARC and only PARC? Why not a campaign against Jeff Walker's Ayn Rand Cult? It's the same type of polemical book in the opposite direction. I haven't seen Neil Parille or you with huge blogs and critical commentary over that one.

On the surface, this looks like a reasonable observation, but in this context it blanks out too much. The fact is that Walker has already been discredited as a shoddy scholar (but admittedly a very thorough shoddy biased and spiteful scholar). His reputation suffered and deservedly so. His book had all the makings of a great critique of Objectivism, one that would have served friend and foe alike, but he opted for sleaze in his quest to present an image of a two-fisted kickass journalist who will get to the bottom of this, by God, or else!

Now in the case of Valliant, it's his turn. I think you really nailed PARC and its author with one of the best succinct descriptions I have read in a long time (the paragraphs I put in bold below):

There is a much simpler hypothesis to explain the lack of support for Mr. Valliant on this board.

First, he wrote a lousy book, full of poor scholarship, misleading presentations of opposing positions, and attempts to hector his readers into agreeing that passages in Ayn Rand's journals don't mean what they obviously do mean.

Second, third, fourth, and so on interminably, he has put forward "defenses" of his book that further undermine its credibility with any sensible person.

After all of Mr. Valliant's leaps of illogic, bursts of ill-considered arrogance, and outbreaks of Valliantquoating® and Valliantciting®, what's amazing is that he has any supporters left at all.

Meanwhile, I doubt that any of Mr. Valliant's critics either denies the existence of heroes, or seeks to demolish any hero candidate who steps forward with a credible case.

Ayn Rand was heroic.

It does not follow that she was morally perfect—as Mr. Valliant wants everyone to believe but doesn't want everyone to believe that he wants everyone to believe.

She did her heroic acts without being perfect. Acknowledging that beats religious veneration for her any day — just as objectivity beats subjectivity any day.

And there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that if Mr. Perigo shouts loudly enough about the perfection of Ayn Rand, some of that perfection will rub off on him.

It certainly hasn't so far.

Nor should the present lack of public support for Mr. Valliant among the ARI-affiliated be so difficult to fathom. It has begun to dawn upon many of them, even those who are personally inclined to venerate Ayn Rand religiously, that Mr. Valliant is doing them more harm than good, by making them all look like boneheads and sleaze artists.

Well, I certainly don't know anyone who holds Jeff Walker up as morally perfect, not even him himself. But Valliant declares certain people to be morally perfect, (for instance Fahy: "He is morally perfect -- and then some!"). That of course includes himself, shoddy lousy dishonest writing and all.

Now, back to your dear darling critic who wants you to expend your energies bashing Jeff Walker instead of James Valliant. JHN knows damn well that Walker has been discredited and that Valliant is on the way. He is not too concerned that Valliant made up so much stuff, but he is concerned that Vallaint might become discredited. So the best thing, he asks of all Valliant critics, is to stop finding fault with PARC and Valliant, merited or not, and do something else.

Is that an agenda or is that an agenda?

It would be reasonable to ask why he does not properly defend Valliant instead of making stuff up and bitching about you, Neil and others. It would be even more reasonable, nay, outright proper, to ask why doesn't he bash Jeff Walker if he thinks this to be more important than the discussions he himself participates in? He always shows up when Vallaint's name comes up. But Walker? Does JHN suddenly lose his powers of communication when the issue is put up or shut up?

Well, the truth is, he does shut up.

William Scherk opened an entire thread chock full of quotes and information over on Siberia Passion devoted to Heaps-Nelson's complaint:

Parsing Walker's "The Ayn Rand Cult"

This was going on 2 days ago. If this thread had been about Valliant, there would have been a minimum of 30 posts, 4 of which would have been his. But about Walker?

Not a peep.

Not out of Heaps-Nelson.

Not out of anyone.

Nada.

Hmmmm...

Is that an agenda or is that an agenda?

Objective, my foot!

Michael

[william.scherk]

Also, why the continual campaign against PARC and only PARC? Why not a campaign against Jeff Walker's Ayn Rand Cult? It's the same type of polemical book in the opposite direction. I haven't seen Neil Parille or you with huge blogs and critical commentary over that one.

On the surface, this looks like a reasonable observation, but in this context it blanks out too much.

It's not reasonable, in the context at SOLO. James Valliant, bless his heart, has published redacted chapters of his book on SOLO, angled for an honourable critique, and mans the city desk himself . . . if Walker wanted to put up some chapters on SOLO and invited a critique, then the analogy would hold. As it is, since the Walker passages take the hammer to Nathaniel Branden, no one has yet found fault.

In the meantime there is some cross-fertilization between the sororities, wherein SOLO's peewee team captain takes time to trawl OL. And wherein Moonberry confesses his crush for Scherk while fluffing The Perigo.

Who said Objectivishism isn't entertaining?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Is that dude Lineberry bankrolling Siberia Passion?

I made a nasty forecast a while back when Perigo and Rowlands were still partners. Perigo announced to the world he would write daily articles (which started in October 2005—he wrote a series of 21 articles for SoloHQ called "Daily Linz"). It is a bit hard to research this nowadays because Rowlands selectively removed many files from back then (mostly dealing with administrative matters) and the archives on Siberia do not have a fully working search function (it works for some things but not others, especially dates).

The issue was that Perigo lost his job back then and needed an income. He convinced Rowlands to pay him an income to write a daily article. Knowing both of them, I knew it would not work and said so to several people. There's no way in hell Perigo had the discipline to write one article a day for very long (and he still doesn't). It did not take very long for "Daily Linz" to turn into "Linz When He Feels Like It." If you look in the archives, you will eventually find posts to back all this up, even the money stuff.

On Rowlands' side, what little he has stated in public about his investments, the amount announced has always been quite small and it has been accompanied by an attitude of rigidity often bordering on pettiness. Regardless, there was no way in hell he was going to shell out for too long to a person who refused to meet deadlines.

Boom.

It had to happen. All this stuff was played down at the time and public commentary about it has been avoided like the plague since then, but I sincerely think this small money was behind the breakup of SoloHQ. At least it was a major contributing factor.

Now I see a racist dude on board at Siberia defended tooth and nail by Perigo, and I see him make comments like "My own view is to have solopassion.com in the top 500 of NZ websites and we are well on the way to that important objective."

Hmmmmmm...

I smell money.

(Don't mind me. Just gossiping. Hell, all standards have flown out the window by now anyway... )

Michael

[william.scherk]

William,

Is that dude Lineberry bankrolling Siberia Passion?

Doubtful in the extreme. There is no pay-off. What would he pay for?

I sincerely think this small money was behind the breakup of SoloHQ. At least it was a major contributing factor.

Really? Isn't it more likely that getting rid of Perigo was a court power struggle: Rowlands was tired of the moralistic rampages by The Perigo and claque, and wanted his extremist diatribes off the list.

Now I see a racist dude on board at Siberia defended tooth and nail by Perigo, and I see him make comments like "My own view is to have solopassion.com in the top 500 of NZ websites and we are well on the way to that important objective."

Hmmmmmm...

I smell money.

Oh well. I don't think there is any money being invested or passed-through SOLO. Lineberry is blowing smoke.

He had been disciplined and then banned for a time, for stupid, thoughtless comments imbued with racist attitudes. I don't find Lineberry defended tooth and nail since his reinstatement -- least by Lindsay. Lindsay will happily red-button him again should he injure SOLO by his big sloppy stupid Mr Mississippi mouth.

In any case, your gossipy speculations have led to more cross-cultural forays by the cognoscenti.