Watch Michael Moore Squirm

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Watch Michael Moore Squirm

Look here what I caught on Real Clear Politics (sorry, you gotta go there, no embed code for the video):

Michael Moore: I'm Not The 1%

Here's just part of the text:

"No, I'm not. I'm not," Michael Moore said to Piers Morgan after the CNN host asked him to admit that he was in the "one-percent.

"How could I be in the 1%?"

Heh.

Here is how Piers Morgan put it too him, with all due emphasis.

I need you to admit the bleeding obvious. I need you to sit here and say, "I'm in the one percent."

Notice how visibly shaken and furtive Moore got--including the false machismo that eventually emerged.

This dude is smart enough to know how revolutions end.

I think he full well knows that if the folks he supports ever get power, this is exactly the way they will come after him (before confiscating his stuff and sending him to a reeducation camp--or taking him out and shooting him, of course).

To hear it come at him from a lightweight like Morgan can't have gone down well.

If I were a betting man, I would bet Moore is now losing sleep trying to figure out what to do if this moment ever comes for real.

Michael

[john42t]

This dude is smart enough to know how revolutions end.

I think he full well knows that if the folks he supports ever get power, this is exactly the way they will come after him (before confiscating his stuff and sending him to a reeducation camp--or taking him out and shooting him, of course).

Are you serious?

I'm pretty sure that every single do-gooder that is really active believes what he says. Few people are conscious in their hyporcrisy, that's why Rand called them "mystics".

In Michael Moore's case I'm especially sure, I can't believe he's acting. He actually believes he's fighting for the good. That's what makes these people so dangerous and that's why you can't convince him that another course of action is in his better interest, he doesn't consciously care about his interest. He cares about his cause with which he identifies.

[Selene]

Interesting. To a certain degree you are both correct.

Moore actually condemned the original media company for paying him for the movie. He said, at one point, to Pierce that he bets that they regret giving him that check and letting him make the movie.

As to Michael's point:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/25/leading-occupy-wall-street-activist-beck-has-a-better-analysis-than-most-people-on-the-left-about-where-this-could-go/

This is astounding video below Glenn's explanation of the clip.

I think Moore is very aware at one level that these folks would take him out and shoot him, but then self denial kicks in and, like Jim Taggart, he tries to verbally hustle his way to non-existence.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you serious?

John,

Yes I am serious.

In Michael Moore's case I'm especially sure, I can't believe he's acting.

Who said he was acting?

Not me.

I said he was squirming, like he was.

I don't mind disagreement. In fact I welcome it. But if you want me to take you seriously, I do insist on accuracy.

(Why do I have a bad feeling about this?...)

(Rather than delete this last comment, I scratched it out so no one will think I am trying to manipulate anything. The simple fact is that, after I thought about it for a minute, I concluded that it was too snarky on my part. So I prefer to delete it. Barring that, I prefer it not to be a formal part of the post.)

Michael

[john42t]

I think Moore is very aware at one level that these folks would take him out and shoot him, but then self denial kicks in and, like Jim Taggart, he tries to verbally hustle his way to non-existence.

On a very deep level, yes. But it's so deep, I'm sure it doesn't trouble him. I think Michael Moore sleeps like a baby in his self-righteousness. I bet even when he's already in a forced-labor camp he's still going to believe that it was just bad luck that the wrong kind of person "abused" the movement.

This is probably one of the most crucial things that I took from Objectivism: How utterly irrational people really are.

Here's some personal experience in that direction. I used to be close with a group of old school colleagues. One of them is a homosexual ex-muslim. So he's in for the death penalty in Iran for two independent reasons. Still, when I said something against Iran, he got mad at me.

Of course he knows all the facts I do, but that's immaterial. As a (clueless) immigrant from the middle east he feels profoundly alienated by German society and projects any insult of Iran onto himself.

I believe it's simply this: Most people think they can't win with reason. Michael Moore doesn't know what other kind of movie he could make money with. It's the only shot he's got.

My ex-friend doesn't know what to do with his life or why anybody should be his friend, only that people don't like the countries his ethnicity comes from. So that's what he blames.

All man-made bad comes from the irrational.

And they win in a climate of intimidation and shame in which they can be seen like the altruist or the victim. People will pity or admire them and that's the game they play - and the only game they can play. That's why my advice is: Glorify arrogance, pride, selfishness, ruthlessness.

Michael: That's why we don't get along.

[Selene]

John:

You can get along fine with Michael.

Secondly, I have never had a problem with Ayn's argument that the "mystic's," or, "looter's" psycho-epistemology is death.

I did not want to believe it at first. I read Atlas at about fifteen (15) years old in 1960-61 and I did not want to believe that an individual person would want to seek death. Yet they do. It is more non-existence which I think they actually believe they can achieve and still "be."

It's kind of like the Siddhartha "river of life" concept. You always are an existent, but just in a different form.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can get along fine with Michael.

John,

Adam is right here.

... my advice is: Glorify arrogance, pride, selfishness, ruthlessness.

Michael: That's why we don't get along.

This is going to depend greatly on what you mean by these terms.

As you know, I already think smirking and sneering on camera sucks for spreading a message.

EDIT: About Michael Moore, you think he is a hypocrite in one area, yet think he is consistent in another. In my experience, that's not the way consistency works.

Based on what I have seen, I think it's entirely possible for Moore to simultaneously believe in his cause and be aware of the evil nature--or at least the very dangerous accuse-and-punish-betrayers-of-the-revolution nature--of the people he imagines will take over.

Michael

[sjw]

Most of the economists I've seen talk about the changes in income inequality are not talking about the top 1%, they're talking about the top ~.01%. I this 99% talk is mostly a catchy marketing phrase, the knee of the income curve changes happens in a much smaller group than 1%.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex set of laws and exemptions from laws and taxes has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much less the top 0.1%.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Watch Michael Moore Squirm

Look here what I caught on Real Clear Politics (sorry, you gotta go there, no embed code for the video):

Michael Moore: I'm Not The 1%

Here's just part of the text:

"No, I'm not. I'm not," Michael Moore said to Piers Morgan after the CNN host asked him to admit that he was in the "one-percent.

"How could I be in the 1%?"

Heh.

Here is how Piers Morgan put it too him, with all due emphasis.

I need you to admit the bleeding obvious. I need you to sit here and say, "I'm in the one percent."

Notice how visibly shaken and furtive Moore got--including the false machismo that eventually emerged.

This dude is smart enough to know how revolutions end.

I think he full well knows that if the folks he supports ever get power, this is exactly the way they will come after him (before confiscating his stuff and sending him to a reeducation camp--or taking him out and shooting him, of course).

To hear it come at him from a lightweight like Morgan can't have gone down well.

If I were a betting man, I would bet Moore is now losing sleep trying to figure out what to do if this moment ever comes for real.

Michael

Moore is smart enough to know that he is a Useful Idiot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Agreed.

And I believe that his driving motor is hatred rather than productive effort. I think he wants to tear down as his main focus, not build up anything.

So much so that he tries to project arrogance, pride, selfishness, and ruthlessness to his "enemies" just out of spite.

Michael

[john42t]

Secondly, I have never had a problem with Ayn's argument that the "mystic's," or, "looter's" psycho-epistemology is death.

I did not want to believe it at first. I read Atlas at about fifteen (15) years old in 1960-61 and I did not want to believe that an individual person would want to seek death. Yet they do. It is more non-existence which I think they actually believe they can achieve and still "be."

Interesting. Here's where I depart with Rand (or "extend" her if you will) - I explain the root of mysticism with the Selfish Gene Theory.

The purpose of irrationalism is parasitism. If men wasn't a social animal but still rational, evolution wouldn't have shaped him such great self-deception powers.

These people don't want to die, they don't know how to live properly. A lot of the times, irrational ideas serve them better than to utilise the limited brainpower they have honestly. And I mean it, it really *does* serve them better. They live better, have more sex, procreate more, get older, etc.

Of course they consume their hosts energy, but in the short run, it doesn't matter, and their offspring doesn't have to assume the same ideology or the parasitic role in society - and it's the genes that are selfish, not the man (or even the species).

It wouldn't surprise me if that's actually how the human species (or any species with some intelligence) got intelligent in the first place: Not by defeating nature but by outwitting peers.

That's my primary reason (plus personal experience with irrational people) why I'm convinced they are all true believers.

[sbeaulieu]

Michael,

When you refer to Piers Morgan as a lightweight, in what area do you refer? I'm guessing in the media in comparison to Michael Moore? I just thought that someone who takes over for Larry King would be a heavyweight contender ;)

~ Shane

[anthony]

Of course they consume their hosts energy, but in the short run, it doesn't matter, and their offspring doesn't have to assume the same ideology or the parasitic role in society - and it's the genes that are selfish, not the man (or even the species). It wouldn't surprise me if that's actually how the human species (or any species with some intelligence) got intelligent in the first place: Not by defeating nature but by outwitting peers. That's my primary reason (plus personal experience with irrational people) why I'm convinced they are all true believers.

John,

An interesting point of view. If I could summarise or expand - "outwitting peers", developed into 'outwitting' oneself: Thus, rationalization, or self-justification - therefore, "true believers".

Or is this what you mean?

I've had some rough thoughts about this too, without concluding anything.

Tony

[john42t]

An interesting point of view. If I could summarise or expand - "outwitting peers", developed into 'outwitting' oneself: Thus, rationalization, or self-justification - therefore, "true believers".

Or is this what you mean?

I've had some rough thoughts about this too, without concluding anything.

Fankly, I muddled two things into one that should be separate. There's the conscious outwitting of peers that is also seen in some other higher animals such as crows - I believe that could be what got animals their rational faculty.

If that is so, then the outwitting oneself must have come later: Decepting yourself has only an advantage when used as an instrument to deceive others (because conscious lies are expensive to maintain, a matter of unit economy in Randian parlance) because you can only deceive somebody (on the level of ideas) who's already rational to some extent.

So more precicely, my working theory is that "social metaphysics" (conscious plotting against others) made life intelligent, and has the side effect of making animals more adaptive towards nature (the Randian hero).

Since all healthy ecosystems know parasites, these then develop on this new level (genes for self-deception become more frequent in the gene pool to allow for good hypocrites). That new parasitism is Rand's mysticism.

And it's not in one set of people but not in others. It just *shows* in a set of people who are in such as situation that being a hypocrite is more beneficial to their genes. By and large: net tax receivers and people who feel they have nothing to offer.

In my heretical opinion that's also many Objectivists behave like Randian villains. If it was only about knowledge or "meaning it well", you would think that reading Rand should make everybody well-meaning and compatible to every one else who understands her.

It doesn't work because even when you understood Rand, you still need to feel you have something of value to offer in order for you to remain on the "good side". Those that feel they've lost it will have those genes for mysticism make them be consumed with hatred. No matter what they know or how smart they are, they'll going to find a way to deceive themselves.

That would also explain a lot of the Objectivist movements dark sides: People read Rand, alienate themselves from society, fail, become mystics for said reason, outsiders see this and are reinforced in their delusion of Objectivism being a cult of sociopaths.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When you refer to Piers Morgan as a lightweight, in what area do you refer?

Shane,

I could have been clearer here. I was referring to his radicalism and intent to overthrow the system.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

That would also explain a lot of the Objectivist movements dark sides: People read Rand, alienate themselves from society, fail, become mystics for said reason, outsiders see this and are reinforced in their delusion of Objectivism being a cult of sociopaths.

Have you met any such people?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

I agree with you that Objectivism suffers from an incomplete view of human nature (that is, if I understand your message correctly).

I do not agree with your view of human nature, though.

If you want to speculate based on evolution, here is a passage similar to your idea, but actually quite different. It is from a book called Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney. (I'm using a desktop Kindle edition, so I can't give you a page number, but the following passage is from the Introduction.)

As psychologists were identifying the benefits of self-control, anthropologists and neuroscientists were trying to understand how it evolved. The human brain is distinguished by large and elaborate frontal lobes, giving us what was long assumed to be the crucial evolutionary advantage: the intelligence to solve problems in the environment. After all, a brainier animal could presumably survive and reproduce better than a dumb one. But big brains also require lots of energy. The adult human brain makes up 2 percent of the body but consumes more than 20 percent of its energy. Extra gray matter is useful only if it enables an animal to get enough extra calories to power it, and scientists didn’t understand how the brain was paying for itself. What, exactly, made ever-larger brains with their powerful frontal lobes spread through the gene pool?

One early explanation for the large brain involved bananas and other calorie-rich fruits. Animals that graze on grass don’t need to do a lot of thinking about where to find their next meal. But a tree that had perfectly ripe bananas a week ago may be picked clean today or may have only unappealing, squishy brown fruits left. A banana eater needs a bigger brain to remember where the ripe stuff is, and the brain could be powered by all the calories in the bananas, so the “fruit-seeking brain theory” made lots of sense—but only in theory. The anthropologist Robin Dunbar found no support for it when he surveyed the brains and diets of different animals. Brain size did not correlate with the type of food. Dunbar eventually concluded that the large brain did not evolve to deal with the physical environment, but rather with something even more crucial to survival: social life. Animals with bigger brains had larger and more complex social networks. That suggested a new way to understand Homo sapiens. Humans are the primates who have the largest frontal lobes because we have the largest social groups, and that’s apparently why we have the most need for self-control. We tend to think of willpower as a force for personal betterment—adhering to a diet, getting work done on time, going out to jog, quitting smoking—but that’s probably not the primary reason it evolved so fully in our ancestors. Primates are social beings who have to control themselves in order to get along with the rest of the group. They depend on one another for the food they need to survive. When the food is shared, often it’s the biggest and strongest male who gets first choice in what to eat, with the others waiting their turn according to status. For animals to survive in such a group without getting beaten up, they must restrain their urge to eat immediately. Chimpanzees and monkeys couldn’t get through meals peacefully if they had squirrel-sized brains. They might expend more calories in fighting than they’d consume at the meal.

Although other primates have the mental power to exhibit some rudimentary etiquette at dinner, their self-control is still quite puny by human standards. Experts surmise that the smartest nonhuman primates can mentally project perhaps twenty minutes into the future—long enough to let the alpha male eat, but not long enough for much planning beyond dinner. (Some animals, like squirrels, instinctively bury food and retrieve it later, but these are programmed behaviors, not conscious savings plans.)

In other words, these guys do claim that social concerns is one of the main reasons for the evolution of the neocortex, but according to their explanation, parasitism is not the root of getting along with the group. Avoiding a beating is a biggie, and so is learning how to eat in group with some kind of etiquette.

(In fact, my quote comes from the start of a section with the subtitle, "Evolution and Etiquette.")

As to herding, this is standard behavior among primates. It is a characteristic of most all primate species and has nothing to do with being a parasite.

And none of this has anything to do with being rational or mystic in a Randian sense--not even in an incipient stage.

Michael

[sjw]

I have a somewhat opposite opinion from John's.

Consciousness in all animals is primarily an integrative faculty: it is the faculty that makes what's "out there" be available to the action-oriented aspects of the organism. Therefore, a correct integration is the natural, default state, the one that natural selection would select for. Irrationality on the other hand actively seeks to destroy this natural purpose of consciousness.

Humans can take control of the integrating mechanism itself, they can train it and direct it, and to abstract purposes. It is the fact that humans are in control of the integrating mechanisms of consciousness that distinguishes them from the animals. But this very fact creates the possibility that they can choose to subvert it. In other words, the potential for irrationality is a side-effect of being in control. The (obvious) advantages of being in control are the primary evolutionary driver.

An individual that stays true to his nature will always seek truth. But as Rand pointed out, such seeking is generally not rewarded by today's social systems nor was it in the known past. In the Dark Ages you were burned at the stake, Galileo was imprisoned. Nowadays you are mocked or ostracized, and if you act on truth, you will be imprisoned just like Galileo. So an individual that remains true to his nature is punished by society. You do not need more explanation for widespread irrationality than that -- most people can only put up with so much punishment before they give in.

All that needs to be explained is why, historically, mankind got stuck into a vicious cycle of irrationality, but I think that if we broke the social cycle, then most individuals who were born and raised in a sane household and community, one that encouraged rationality and discouraged irrationality, would naturally tend to be rational. Which is to say, I think the natural state of man (i.e., one where he is not threatened by other men) is to be rational.

Shayne

[john42t]

That would also explain a lot of the Objectivist movements dark sides: People read Rand, alienate themselves from society, fail, become mystics for said reason, outsiders see this and are reinforced in their delusion of Objectivism being a cult of sociopaths.

Have you met any such people?

No, I merely inferred that from what I've read about the Objectivist movement. Godess of the market is my primary source plus various forums on the net.

I'm living in Germany, so in fact I haven't even met anyone yet in real life who even heard about Objectivism.

I may have committed an error here. It could actually be that all people who alienate themselves thoroughly (this bit is not disputed, is it?) still do better than if they've never come accross Rand. Impossible to say.

[john42t]

All that needs to be explained is why, historically, mankind got stuck into a vicious cycle of irrationality, but I think that if we broke the social cycle, then most individuals who were born and raised in a sane household and community, one that encouraged rationality and discouraged irrationality, would naturally tend to be rational. Which is to say, I think the natural state of man (i.e., one where he is not threatened by other men) is to be rational.

I completely agree with rational being healthy, or simply better, superior. I hope I don't come accross as condoning anything immoral.

It's just that when I look at *who* is irrational in my own life (where I can be rather sure of the motives as I know their life situation), then it's not the stupid or the one raised by crazy religionists. It's those who maneuvered themselves into a dead end: Got a job in the government and being confronted with conformism, studied something breadless and seeing no future, etc.

Those people are irrational *when* they enter that situation. They are reasonable before that and I'm sure they could get reasonable again. But as long as they are trapped somewhere where they see no way out (without their ego hurt significantly), they go mystic.

If it was only by whom they are raised or what they happen to decide regardless of outside factors, why are these people so often teachers, professors, media-people, wifes of accomplished men and those living on welfare or being securely employed in union-infested companies? What do all of those people have in common? They all are not in control of their existence. They all have reason to fear freedom.

Who are the most extreme of them? The students, who often enough deluded themselves into a vision of earning so-and-so-much but face a future scrubbing the floors as they see their education was in fact worthless. So they are, in fact, egoistical - only not consciously and rationally so.

It also matches with my own feelings over the course of my life.

That doesn't excuse them, of course. But it provides the answer to the problem: Get rid of the schools and universities, employee protection, alimony laws, feminist family laws, and mysticism will be greatly diminished. And, surprise surprise, that's exactly what these people would hate to happen the most.

Michael:

You are probably right that I departed quite a bit from the Rand's view of human nature. I can't see that I disagree with anything she said, but what she didn't say is very telling: She never said "you professors believe what you do because it suits you - after all you could never pay your bills in a free market", as far as I know, which I find very odd. Isn't that rather obvious? Was Rand just another appeaser, after all? An good girl that wanted to be liked by everybody? :-)

As for the quotation: I agree with intelligence being a property of social species and I don't object to anything in the excerpt. I'm merely suspicious about the selection of only mentioning nice reasons for being intelligent. The distrustful cynic in me hears the authors saying: "And so if your not nice, you're not intelligent/healthy/normal, see?" Mystical con-jobs are everywhere.

[Selene]

That would also explain a lot of the Objectivist movements dark sides: People read Rand, alienate themselves from society, fail, become mystics for said reason, outsiders see this and are reinforced in their delusion of Objectivism being a cult of sociopaths.

Have you met any such people?

No, I merely inferred that from what I've read about the Objectivist movement. Godess of the market is my primary source plus various forums on the net.

I'm living in Germany, so in fact I haven't even met anyone yet in real life who even heard about Objectivism.

I may have committed an error here. It could actually be that all people who alienate themselves thoroughly (this bit is not disputed, is it?) still do better than if they've never come across Rand. Impossible to say.

John:

See, now that surprised me. There appears to be one Objectivist Meetup group forming in/near Berlin, but it is listed as "forming."

http://objectivism.meetup.com/

Interesting map.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

She never said "you professors believe what you do because it suits you - after all you could never pay your bills in a free market", as far as I know, which I find very odd.

John,

Odd?

Look again.

But let's be more precise for just a second.

Rand never condemned an entire profession as far as I know. She certainly had deep respect for the human need of the teaching profession qua activity. And she never claimed that bad ideas were impossible to sell on the free market. On the contrary, she went to the free market to compete with bad ideas.

She was really nasty about modern philosophy professors, though. And she often lumped college professors with intellectuals in general, then commented favorably on the ones she agreed with and condemned the ones she did not.

But here's an example of her bashing college professors in general (since the broad view seems to be the your favorite perspective so far). In this excerpt, she explicitly said professors were paid for by duped businessmen, (not by the "free market"). The quote is from the end of her essay called "The Comprachicos."

If, in the chaos of your motives, some element is a genuine desire to crusade in a righteous cause and take part in a heroic battle, direct it against the proper enemy. Yes, the world is in a terrible state—but what caused it'? Capitalism? Where do you see it, except for some battered remnants that still manage to keep us all alive? Yes, today's "Establishment" is a rotted structure of mindless, hypocrisy but who and what is the "Establishment"? Who directs it? Not the big businessmen, who mouth the same collectivist slogans as your professors and pour out millions of dollars to support them. Not the so-called "conservatives," who compete with your professors in attacking reason and in spreading the same collectivist-altruist-mystic notions. Not the Washington politicians, who are the eager dummies of your professorial ventriloquists. Not the communications media, who publicize your cause, praise your ideals and preach your professors' doctrines.

It is ideas that determine the actions of all those people, and it is the Educational Establishment that determines the ideas of a nation. It is your professors' ideas that have ruled the world for the past fifty years or longer, with a growing spread of devastation, not improvement - and today, in default of opposition, these ideas are destroying the world, as they destroyed your mind and self-esteem.

You are miserably helpless and want to rebel? Then rebel against the ideas of your teachers. You will never find a harder, nobler or more heroic form of rebellion. You have nothing to lose but your anxiety. You have your mind to win.

You will find she has a lot of similar stuff if you look for it.

Michael

[john42t]

You will find she has a lot of similar stuff if you look for it.

That's only as I know her. No mentioning of a motive.

The only motive I know from her is "hatred of the mind". While I believe this to be a good metaphor or first approximation, I think the deeper reason is: Give me your life, I don't have my own - subconscious parasitism explainable with selfish genes switching the mind into self-deception mode.

Where did she make the connection between professors being paid for by the state and their opinions? Not in the bit you quoted.

And you don't have to condemn a profession in order to make that connection. Except you think being provided for by a collective is part of a definition of a particular profession.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where did she make the connection between professors being paid for by the state and their opinions?

John,

I had no idea that this was what you were claiming Rand did not notice.

Anyway, that's an easy one.

Here is a section from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 18 June 5, 1972, "'Fairness Doctrine' For Education."

The most ominously crucial question now hanging over this country's future is: what will our universities teach at our expense and without our consent? What ideas will be propagated or excluded? (This question applies to all public and semi-public institutions of learning. By "semi-public" I mean those formerly private institutions which are to be supported in part by public funds and controlled in full by the government.)

The government has no right to set itself up as the arbiter of ideas and, therefore, its establishments—the public and semi-public schools—have no right to teach a single viewpoint, excluding all others. They have no right to serve the beliefs of any one group of citizens, leaving others ignored and silenced. They have no right to impose inequality on the citizens who bear equally the burden of supporting them.

As in the case of governmental grants to science, it is viciously wrong to force an individual to pay for the teaching of ideas diametrically opposed to his own; it is a profound violation of his rights. The violation becomes monstrous if his ideas are excluded from such public teaching: this means that he is forced to pay for the propagation of that which he regards as false and evil, and for the suppression of that which he regards as true and good. If there is a viler form of injustice, I challenge any resident of Washington, D.C., to name it.

Yet this is the form of injustice committed by the present policy of an overwhelming majority of our public and semi-public universities.

. . .

Controversy is the hallmark of our age; there is no subject, particularly in the humanities, which is not regarded in fundamentally different ways by many different schools of thought. (This is not to say that all of them are valid, but merely to observe that they exist.) Yet most university departments, particularly in the leading universities, offer a single viewpoint (camouflaged by minor variations) and maintain their monopoly by the simple means of evasion: by ignoring anything that does not fit their viewpoint, by pretending that no others exist, and by reducing dissent to trivia, thus leaving fundamentals unchallenged.

Most of today's philosophy departments are dominated by Linguistic Analysis (the unsuccessful product of crossbreeding between philosophy and grammar, a union whose offspring is less viable than a mule), with some remnants of its immediate progenitors, Pragmatism and Logical Positivism, still clinging to its bandwagon. The more "broadminded" departments include an opposition—the other side of the same Kantian coin, Existentialism. (One side claims that philosophy is grammar, the other that philosophy is feelings.)

Psychology departments have a sprinkling of Freudians, but are dominated by Behaviorism, whose leader is B.F. Skinner. (Here the controversy is between the claim that man is moved by innate ideas, and the claim that he has no ideas at all.)

Economics departments are dominated by Marxism, which is taken straight or on the rocks, in the form of Keynesianism.

What the political science departments and the business administration schools are dominated by is best illustrated by the following example: in a distinguished, Ivy League university, a dean of the School of Business recently suggested that it be renamed "School of Management," explaining that profit-making is unpopular with students and that most of them want to work for non-profit institutions, such as government or charities.

Sociology departments are dominated by the fact that no one has ever defined what sociology is.

English departments are dominated by The New York Times Book Review.

I do not know the state of the various departments in the physical sciences, but we have seen an indication of it: the "scientific" writings of the ecologists.

As a result of today's educational policies, the majority of college graduates are virtually illiterate, in the literal and the wider sense of the word. They do not necessarily accept their teachers' views, but they do not know that any other views exist or have ever existed. There are philosophy majors who graduate without having taken a single course on Aristotle (except as part of general surveys). There are economics majors who have no idea of what capitalism is or was, theoretically or historically, and not the faintest notion of the mechanism of a free market. There are literature majors who have never heard of Victor Hugo (but have acquired a full vocabulary of four-letter words).

So long as there were variations among university departments in the choice of their dominant prejudices—and so long as there were some distinguished survivors of an earlier, freer view of education—non-conformists had some chance. But with the spread of "unpolarized" unity and Federal "encouragement"—the spread of the same gray, heavy-footed, deaf-dumb-and-blind, hysterically stagnant dogma—that chance is vanishing.

I just don't have time to look through all her work for other examples, but if you do, you will find more.

There is a very popular pastime among Rand critics. They like to say she said this or omitted that in order to show how much more they know than she does, and they usually get it all wrong.

I'm not sure if this is your case. I need more familiarity with your views to judge this properly.

But, as I said earlier, I insist on accuracy in order to take someone seriously. I don't mind criticizing Rand. I have some beefs of my own, especially with the scope of several of her ideas. But the least we can do is present what Rand said and didn't say correctly before criticizing her.

That way, we can be sure we are talking about her ideas, not something originated in our own heads that we wrongly attribute to her.

Michael

[john42t]

Where did she make the connection between professors being paid for by the state and their opinions?

I had no idea that this was what you were claiming Rand did not notice.

My question (the one you answered to this time) was ambiguous (although I don't believe the previous comment was), and this time I have to blame myself that you misinterpreted it (although I think the first time it was your fault).

I don't mean the reason why the wrong kind of professor gets elected by government interference and how this creates an intellectual establishment. I'm familiar with this article.

I mean the motivation of professors to be drawn to the wrong ideas, especially the collectivist ones:

She never said "you professors believe what you do because it suits you - after all you could never pay your bills in a free market"

Did Rand ever accused the professors *as per net-tax-receivers* of being marxists because they are essentially the precursor of the bureaucrats that are dominanting society in Communism?

There is a very popular pastime among Rand critics. They like to say she said this or omitted that in order to show how much more they know than she does, and they usually get it all wrong.

I'm not sure if this is your case. I need more familiarity with your views to judge this properly.

But, as I said earlier, I insist on accuracy in order to take someone seriously. I don't mind criticizing Rand. I have some beefs of my own, especially with the scope of several of her ideas. But the least we can do is present what Rand said and didn't say correctly before criticizing her.

That way, we can be sure we are talking about her ideas, not something originated in our own heads that we wrongly attribute to her.

That is very well said.

And let me tell you that you will never see me reject a valid argument or even not acknowledging its validity no matter how condescending or hostile you made it. And the level of your condescension is rather mild.

As for my being a potential "Rand critic":

I don't have any beef at all with anything she said. On those few issues I disagree with her (Russel's maths being my best example) I see *why* she came to her conclusions and I know I would have concluded the same given only the information she must have had. In that sense Rand appears to be a perfectly rational person.

I admire that woman more than any human being I know of.