C. Jordan

Ellen Stuttle has brought up a difficult issue. Should we respond in kind to the Sisters Sans Mercy? This seems the appropriate time to mention that I have exchanged, at present, 5 E-mails with Diana Xie (or Hsieh, if you prefer.) The first was in reference to her insistence that Barbara Branden's evil was obvious to all. I asked her politely to explain what she meant. At this stage, if I were Diana, I would be reproducing her responses. I would re-print her E-mails, in excerpts, with the intention of insulting her as much as possible. Particularly the last one. Because I hope never to be mistaken for her, which I will simply paraphrase: due to her busy schedule, she hesitated to explain to me what she meant; then she read something I posted here, and decided I would not believe her explanation. I have already decided to behave differently from Diana, or for that matter Penelope. I have been tempted to respond to her on another forum. I badly wanted to respond. Then I changed my mind. I had nothing to say to her, that she would be willing to hear. (That sounds like Diana's attitude towards me.) Perhaps I should thank Ms. Hsieh and Ms. Beach for a lesson. In both women I have observed an ill-trained anger, straining at its leash, all too ready to attack at the slightest provocation. The responses of both ladies to Phil, on another forum, is very informative. I could not but observe, that what brought about their anger was to have Phil make jokes about "Þ®€mã†û®€ €jà¢ú£å†ïøñ" (Diana's comment) or about "$£¡ÞÞ€®ÿ fü¢k€®" (Penelope's comment). When Phil dared to behave as they did, this provoked outrage. What does it mean, that they dislike for other people to behave as they do? What does this imply for their self-esteeem? I am not saying that the Sisters Sans Mercy don't deserve a reply in kind. Quite the opposite. When Penelope makes the statement that "Barbara Branden has no experience with Objectivists," she becomes too easy a target. The same for Diana refusing (for whatever may be her reason) to explain her denunciations. To paraphrase Frank O'Connor, "Sister, you asked for it." Anyone here who wishes to respond in kind does not need my blessing. Nonetheless, you may have it. My policy shall be, to respond to them in a different manner than she responds to others. Instead of attacking the Sisters personally, I will limit my commentary to their ideas. No, I do not expect they will reciprocate. I don't think they'll respect my politeness. They may very well interpret me as being weak. Keep in mind, attempting courtesy does NOT mean yielding to them. However, they aren't the reason for my decision. I simply don't want to behave as they do. Years from now, few of us will care how many zingers the Sisters made, and all of us will have to face our own egos. How Diana Hsieh will feel about herself, is her business. How Penelope Beach will feel about herself, is her business. I'm not even comparing myself to them. I only wish to feel proud of my own rôle in these matters. Of what value would it be, for me to be "prouder of myself" than they are of themselves — if that means that they hold themselves in contempt, and being "prouder" means I have somewhat less self-loathing? On the other hand, should I be proud of myself, and learn that they are "prouder of themselves," that would be no skin off my knees. My self respect is not diminished in any way by their feelings. I should reiterate a point: Diana Hsieh does visit this Forum. She said so in her last E-mail to me, which I could reproduce should anyone have reasonable doubts about my honesty. She is free to read anything and everything I have written here, and to judge me however she wishes. She may attack me in any way she likes. Her words will speak for themselves. Her words have already spoken for her, eloquently so.

Mike Hardy wrote: I've read Barbara Branden's book several times. I don't agree that her biography is contradictory. My perspective is, Barbara is saying that Ayn Rand often behaved in contradictory ways. One issue: that Rand, even when her name was Rosenbaum, disliked physical exercise. Barbara later describes how the young Alice (the future Ayn) liked hiking up mountains. I do not see that as a contradiction. The first case activity was calisthenics, which are repetitious; these exercises were required of her by her mother, whom she did not like. The second activity was something of Alice's [Ayn's] own choosing. This example is not a contradiction. As for contradictory behaviours, I will draw an example from one of the great Americans of the Revolutionary generation: Thomas Jefferson. Every American knows {or should know} that Mr. Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is certainly consistent with statements made by Howard Roark and John Galt. The record will show that the same Mr. Jefferson who wrote these words also owned slaves -- and perhaps never recognised the contradiction between the two facts. Another historical example is the Jenghiz Khan. Was the Khan a great man, or a monster? History suggests that he was both, and that both qualities came from the same source. If the Khan promised you that he considered you his brother, and would reward your loyalty — then he did. If he promisd you that he would destroy you, and your family, and make you wish you'd never been born — he did that, too. Both of these conflicting sides were the result of the Khan's sense of machismo and honour. Many of Ayn Rand's contradictions may well have risen from her idealism: this led her to feel uncomfortable at the hero-worship and disciple-like behaviour of Frank Lloyd Wright's students (because she meant what she said about valuing independent thinking) AND to later have such disciple-like followers around her (because she was convinced she was always right.) Now let me step down from the soap box, and ask Mike, or anyone else having read Valliant's book in detail: can you name specific cases of what Valliant claims to be Barbara's contradictions? From then, we can determine whether these are actually contradictions (statements that cannot both be true) or, alternately, something else.

Kat, I can't believe you said: Would you believe on my first reading of The Fountainhead, THAT WAS EXACTLY MY THOUGHT ABOUT ROARK? That he was to some degree autistic? More to the point, I more than recognise myself in that list you provided. This leads to another thought: if these traits are common in Roark, and if they're to be found in many fans of Objectivism…

To Whom May Give a Rat's Patoot: It seems I have been betrayed by Chrys Jordan, someone I considered a random internet correspondent. Mr. Jordan, however, has committed the unspeakably evil act of saying something nice about the Brandens. What is worse, Jordan ACTUALLY POSTS ON THE OBJECTIVIST LIVING FORUM. How dare he do such a thing? Boy, I’ve a had few tonight! I have detected Mr. Jordan’s evildoing through an objectively irrefutable process of emotional rationalizations, brought on by my drinking heavily. But never mind that. Jordan has dared to question my objectivity. He now stands revealed as an unmitigated member of The Objectivist Centre. Of course, the fact that these angry schisms happen almost monthly in my relationships I take no personal responsibility for, but attribute to my vast benevolence blinding me to the evil that surrounds me; combined with their underlying envy of my status as the one of the few true upholders of Ayn Rand’s glorious legacy. As a result I have decided the only moral course of action is to issue a hysterically overwrought public denunciation, while pretending that my hurt feelings are actually matters of profound philosophic importance After all, this is surely what would be done by a rationally passionate hero such as Ayn Rand herself, despite the fact that James Valliant has proved she never did anything of the sort and anyone who says so is an evading liar. And did someone call me an emotionally incontinent drama queen? What bullš#î†! I happen to be a dedicated philosophic individualist who understands and respect the value of individual privacy whenever it suits me to do so. However as my rational benevolence knows no bounds, to restore my sanction Mr. Jordan can buy (at full retail price) the TRUTH by Mr. Valliant, and read it from cover to cover. He will be tested on everything therein, and showing the slightest shadow of doubt will of course result in my withdrawing my sanction again! He never deserved it in the first place. Not that I spend any time thinking of so low a passion as swatting flies like Jordan. What, do you think I have nothing better to do but spend my time cooking noodles and accusing you folks of your properly unspeakably dishonest evasions. I am pursuing a career in Defending True Objectivism! According to the Heir to the Goddess Rand. What else should one do with one's life? Think independently? That is only for people who ALREADY AGREE WITH RAND'S LITERARY HEIR. If you're not an heir-head, you haven't got the brains of a constipated canary. Remember, what may appear to the philosophically uninitiated as an embarrassing series of obscure personal vendettas played out in public to a mixture of dismay, ridicule and ultimately self-parody is in the ultimate reality of my own mind a glorious battle fought by moi in the name of Ayn Rand for the very soul of mankind itself! I know this in my heart because unlike so many others I am a true Objectivist; therefore whatever emotional state I find myself in, it is always morally justified. Mr. Jordan: if I ever see you on my website, I will scream unprintable obscenities at the top of my lungs. I will revoke your library card. I will shave your cat. I will only issue denunciations of you ever 28 days, in case you think I have nothing better to do than worry about you AND Sciabarra AND Michael Kelly AND Phil Scoggins AND the Anti-Rand Brandens, AND the rest of your clique. I thought you were worthy of my friendship - but I know that you are better than that! ***modified *** You got that right, oh my Mother Superior. The REAL Dagny Taggart has said it all, nothing more needs to be added, but when I see such premature ejaculation, I MUST swat an arrogant fly like you, Jordan, you [unprintable], why don't you lie down on the tracks and wait for the REAL DAGNY to run you over? And don't bother replying, I don't have to put up with your profanity! Yours INsincerely, Banana laPeach.

I feel stupid. Why did I bother to ride my bike a mile up the road, to inspect an actual horse? Why did I not take the above syllogism at face value? I feel that I've lost context. Let me think. What did Leonard Peikoff do when he lost face before Ayn Rand? Oh, yes, he wrote a paper of self-criticism. Let me do that, as soon as the World Cup coverage is over.

Hey, Barbara. I must have. If I'm another "dishonest Brandroid," I feel I'm in good company. Have a good night. Chrys.

I have been learning something about Chinese, and will answer the question about Diana's name. "Hs" is not the same as "Sh." But I'd have to pronounce them both for you to hear the difference. That's why. Diana is using the old system of interpreting Chinese into our alphabet. In current use, her name would be written "Xie," with the "X" being used for the "Hs" sound that we don't have in English. Close to "Xyeh." is how I'd say it. Again, X is the "hs" sound. I don't actually speak Chinese, though. I just know some of the basics.

According to Penelope: Assuming this is true: This means that Barbara Branden never knew Ayn Rand. What else can we make of the statement that Barbara Branden has "absolutely NO experience" with Objectivists? Unless, of course, we don't consider Ayn Rand herself to have been an Objectivist. Which is a contradiction. But let'ts run with this thought: it follows from the above quote ; and that thought must bring the cheers to Penelope and her side of the story, because we can therefore write off EVERYTHING in The Passion of Ayn Rand. But wait, there's more. This means that James S. Valliant is ALSO wrong to say that Barbara Branden "lied to Rand." Remember, she never knew Ayn. But perhaps we shouldn't blame Mr. Valliant. After all, there are Ayn's journals. Was Ayn lying to mention knowing Barbara Branden? Was Ayn lying to mention Barbara's association with her in "To Whom it May Concern"? Ayn stated in public print that Barbara Branden was "no longer associated" with her, Ayn, or with Objectivism. [emphasis mine] Would Penelope insist that Ayn Rand was also lying, or possibly deluded? or would she admit that she made a mistake in what she, Penelope, said? Actually, there is a third possibility: "Chrys Jordan is being willfully dishonest. Look where he posts, and look at the nice things he said about Barbara Branden. He said he BELIEVES what Ms. Branden said, showing how biased he is. I never read Passion myself, because I know it's dishonest. Dr. Peikoff says so. He surely knows what he's talking about. As for Jordan, he must be a Brandroid. He's incapable of thinking for himself, because if he were, he'd agree with my BASIC position. Obviously he doesn't understand what I MEANT as opposed to what I SAID. I suggest we put a stamp on Mr. Jordan and mail him to Zimbabwe." The above is similar to the response I'm likely to get, should Penelope read anything I've written here. Then again, why should she come here? Does she not already know that this board is immoral, dishonest, et cetera? So I'm off the hook, at least for now.

A universal human failing is for a person to damn others for precisely the same sins which one has. This can be illustrated as follows: "I am determined; but today, I reconsidered my position. You are stubborn; but today, you changed your mind. He is obstinate; but today, he went back on his word." And where better to illustrate the point, than on that particular list. I wonder if Penelope isn't the Junior Queen to Diana? Both of them have Greco-Roman names.

I am reading the Bob Wallace article, and I would like to say that Mr. Wallace has proven one thing to my satisfaction: That Richard Condon was right. In The Manchurian Candidate, Condon wrote that the essence of brainwashing is "intensified repetition." Mr. Condon was making the point also made by the Nazis, that to convince someone that a lie is true, one must repeat the lie and repeat it and repeat it some more. Mr. Wallace tells us and Tells us and tElls us and keeping TELLING us that Rand was "narcissistic," without explaining how he came to that conclusion. He denounces Objectivism, again with very little explanation. He does repeat the word "narcissism." And he repeats that word again, and he continues to repeat the word. Mr. Wallace then discusses religion and psychiatry, all of which repeats his theme of narcissism. He has much to say on scape-goating. He has a point there. He has a point in discussing narcissism — did I mention that word yet? In fact, Mr. Wallace makes a number of points, and then he re-makes them. Never does he directly tie them to Objectivism, except by his saying so. I wonder what would happen, if the "true believers" read this article? I would be in a strange position. They surely would respond with accusations of "dishonesty" and "evil evasion." In this case, I would have to agree. (Gasps of horror. What? is this Jordan freak about to side with the Randroids? Call the police, call the fire department, and call the tabloids. Better yet, call Poodle Food. We have a scandal.) I would have to agree, because it takes one to know one. Reading Mr. Wallace's description of the personality disorders that he claims characterised Ayn Rand, and he claims are present in all Objectivists, begs the question: are there any Objectivists who BEHAVE according to his description? They know who they are. Mr. Wallace is right (in my opinion) to claim that narcissism is a universal human failing. I am not here to defend Ayn Rand against that charge. Nor to defend myself against that charge. Nor will I ask the easy question, as to how much of that is in Mr. Wallace himself. I will counter some of Wallace's point re: Atlas Shrugged. Wallace says that "[Rand] gleefully murders innocent children in a train-tunnel collapse." Having read that book, I am not sure where to begin with the flaws in that statement. The described victims of the tunnel incident are adults, for one thing. But the greater point: if someone writes about disasters and deaths, is that gleeful? I am writing about (among other things) a nuclear detonation. Does that mean I'm "gleeful" in murdering plenty of characters? Wallace also states that Dagny "sadistically" murders a guard. We may re-read the revelvant part of Atlas for ourselves, and decide if the adjective is right. Another point: Wallace repeats a common legend, that someone named "Sir Thomas Crapper" invented the commode. This fits with my assessment of the rest of his work: where he discusses Rand's work, he discusses less than 1% of the work itself and continues his arguments. He has more to say about narcissism, and he will repeat and refine and rehone and reiterate and regurgitate and recapitulate and again reiterate and in summary he will sum up the theme of his work. It's about N_rc_ss_sm. There are more mistakes about Rand's written philosophy in this work, which is as "overlong and repetitive" itself as he claims Rand's writing is. And there we have an illustration of projection onto others faults in one's self. I will close with that observation, #-o after repeating that according to Wallace himself, narcissism and projection are univeral human failings. Again, I agree with that. And he should know. It takes one to know one.

A few books I've read I can recommend, and be warned, most of them are historical: STALIN by Edvard Radzinsky. A more damning indictment of the man who cast such a shadow over the young Ayn Rand, I can hardly imagine. From time to time, I stopped and kept thinking of Atlas. But the book deserves mention for its own merits. One of Radzinksy's key points is, contrary to what we were taught in school, Hitler was not necessarily crazy to invade Russia while trying to conquer England. No, I'm not defending Hitler: I'm only saying that Stalin was making the moves to invade Germany, which meant Hitler in this case had no choice. (How might the history of the world be different had that been known during World War II?) GULAG by Anne Appelbaum. Again of specific interest to readers of Atlas. Appelbaum begins by questioning why it is that most Americans detest Hitler's crimes, but don't have the same contempt for Stalin's crimes? More will be added when I get some more sleep.

This posting is in response to the character of William Hickman. I had never heard of him before. Although I suspect his crime has inspired at least one more writer. I refer to Agatha Christie, from her most-famous Murder on the Orient Express. It may be noted that early on, an elderly man asks Christie's detective hero for help; the detective refuses. After he is murdered, it turns out that this man was responsible for a crime virtually identical to Hickman's Now, back to Hickman — and to Rand. Michael Kelly wrote: I am reading one of the links provided; and it makes me wonder why Ayn Rand would have overlooked the evil this man did, and only focused on his individualism. I can not imagine the individualist Howard Roark behaving like that; let alone John Galt, because "no one may initiate…violence." Surely, John Galt stands poles opposite to Hickman, for that statement alone. I am aware that Ayn Rand once created Bjorn Faulkner (from her play Night of January 16th) based on a Ivar Krueger, who was a swindler. According to Barbara Branden, Rand said later that the morality of a swindler, "taken literally, is the opposite of mine." I wonder, what (if anything) is the relation between these two facts? Next we may consider the lines that were cut out of We the Living — to wit, Kira telling Andrei "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods…" Again, this was Branden's biography. My copy of We the Living only has, "I loathe your ideals." I will agree with Barbara Branden, in saying it was "unfortunate" that Rand did not address this deletion. I find this fact disturbing, and the quotations of Rand's journals more disturbing. I should begin by questioning those in a position to know: Are the quotations listed http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm genuine quotations? Are they presented in a fair and just manner? And if they are, what conclusions may be drawn?

While we are on the subject, let me begin (apparently off topic) by noting that when I first read The Fountainhead, I kept trying to imagine exactly what a Roark building would look like. That may be because I hadn't seen any good "modernistic" buildings before. I felt as though I were hearing descriptions of Roark's buildings from Ayn Rand herself, as if the book were a dialog with me. This led to the obvious question: would I like a Howard Roark building if I saw one? Because, strange as it may sound, I wanted to see the Heller house or the Stoddard Temple for myself, to judge them. (Precisely as Roark would have wanted.) What helped me decide that I would, was when I observed the same kind of deceptive simplicity which is NOT easy in writing. That has been one of my greatest stumbling blocks: trying to focus on the essentials of a story, analogous to the skeleton of a building. Trying to create beauty, harmony and (dare I say) poetry with a minimum of ornamentation -- again, like a Roark building, and again, much more easily said than done. What was a good analog, in writing, of what Roark was doing in architecture? An obvious question. The answer was across my knees as I read it. Which brings me to the topic: because one of the greatest strengths of Barbara Branden's biography is that she has learned that architectural form of writing. More to the point, I believe she has been INFLUENCED by Rand without IMITATING Rand. The analogy there was in having read Les Misérables. I can recognise from there the influence Hugo had on Rand, which is not to say that Rand imitated Hugo. Both, I daresay, are compliments well deserved.

My first thought was: Diana Hsieh wrote this? Perhaps we should all think twice about "immoral pricks." Or to realise that few of the people we dislike in real life, are as purely evil as the humanitarian [sic] Toohey or the scientist [sic] Ferris.

This one is still funnier than slied bread.

Barbara, one quick question: what "blasphemy" did Alan Greenspan commit to be excommunicated? I assume that Peikoff (not Rand) expelled him from the Garden of Reason; though we all know what to make of the word assume.

Thank you indeed for the links. I will check on them when I've had some sleep.

Q: How many Objectivists does it take to change a light-bulb? L. Peikoff: That is not funny. The answer should have been obvious; I see ominous parallels between your question and… N. Branden: If we had only 5% more light, that would be a step towards improving one's self-esteem. B. Branden: It was the nature of Rand's psychology not to tolerate a lack of light, when she was working. The bulb was changed. D. Hsieh: Are you making fun of me? I knew you were a dishonest Þ®¡¢k who keeps evading the truth. R. Bissell: It takes 1 to change the bulb, 2 true believers to deconstruct the immoral motives of the bulb-changer, 3 more true believers to slander the motives of anyone who would change the bulb, and 4 of us to rebut their comments in an intelligent manner, after which 5 true believers return to the assault… E. Stuttle: The bulb won't be changed, given the in-fighting. Kat: Do you mean real Objectivists? In that case, only one. C. Sciabarra: Removing the old bulb, replacing it with a newer model, does not lead to a dialectical contradiction. J. Valliant: Given that this question was asked by a man who has read the work of the Brandens, we must assume immoral motives. Certainly he gives no evidence of a burnt-out light bulb that would stand up in court. M.S. Kelly: Amazing how many true believers have a hard time with actually changing bulbs. Given the emphasis Rand put on dealing with reality, I find that surprising. Dayyaam. E. M. Toohey: Isn't that selfish of you? Worrying about whether you have enough light, when your poor brothers in Zambia don't have any light bulbs!! G. Wynand: Toohey, change that bulb or you're fired! P. Keating: My firm changed the bulb with (uh) a little help… D. Francon-Keating-Wynand-Roark: The world doesn't deserve a new light bulb. Dr. F. Ferris: Why do you think that there are light bulbs? H. Rearden and/or E. Wyatt: A light-bulb? Either of us can electrify the whole neighbourhood. It only takes enough motive power. E. Lawson: I couldn't help it, that the bulb went out. I need wider powers. D. Taggart: I will hold out, without light, in order to maintain my world against the irrational. K. Argounova: Life should be bright. I'd change the bulb, but the Soviet government has stolen all the bulbs. A. Rand: Changed the bulb, and went back to writing. (I don't think she liked the joke.) H. Roark: He didn't just change the bulb, he redesigned the ceiling and improved the rest of the house. J. Galt: He changed the bulb for a newer model: an improved variety of glass and a filament of Rearden metal, such as would not burn out. It goes without saying that the electricity is now generated by Galt's own invention.

To the best of my knowledge: Ayn Rand once said that homosexuality was "disgusting." That would be a statement of opinion; not a fact, let alone a mandate. But it does not surprise me to hear that "true believers" are up in arms about that issue. Why that issue in general, is a question I wonder. I don't just mean about Objectivism or about Chris Sciabarra. Why do people in the culture in general make such an issue of that? "Because," said the first caller, "it's a sin. It says so in the Bible. And don't tell me that there are other sins that are worse. All sins are wrong in the eyes of God." That touches my point. If "all sins are wrong," then why make such a fuss over that sin? Adultery is also a sin, according to the Bible. Why do people crusade against homosexuality, and not adultery? "That's not true," said the second caller. "Nobody condones the sin of adultery." Perhaps not. My point is, why do people not DENOUNCE adultery with COMPARABLE VEHEMENCE to the way they denounce homosexuality? If we accept your premise, that the Bible is a-priori true, and if we agree with the first caller, that all sins are equally wrong… I think this is a big issue; and that it involves something more than hypocricy, though that also plays a rôle here. I have some thoughts on why it is that people are more bothered by that particular "sin" than by other sins which (according to their beliefs and philosophy) are equally wrong. But that would be another post. In the meantime, is Chris Sciabarra's writing on the subject available? I would like to read it. He may very well be thinking in the same direction.

I like the rhyme scheme in particular. I played it as a drum beat on my thighs: AA-B, A-BB, AA-B, A-BB …and that showed me what I suspected: the rhythm of a train going over the tracks. I was wondering, though: would Ayn Rand have liked this poem? Somehow O:) I cannot imagine Rand writing lyrically about a train. Whoever heard of such a thing? %? Next thing you'll tell me, is Rand wrote a book about an architect. :eek:

That was beautiful.

I have thought further about the issue. Keeping in mind, I'm something of an outsider to the controversy. I know only what I've seen. Many years ago, I read Ayn Rand's interview in Playboy magazine. It was a highpoint in my intellectual life: a debate between two knowledgeable people. Alvin Toffler asked the right questions, and Ayn Rand gave the right answers — with one exception. [The following is a paraphrase; I'm sure someone here can provide the exact quotation.] Toffler: Could Objectivism become a dogma? Rand: If practiced correctly, Objectivism requires one to think through one's premises; and therefore, no. Rand's response missed the fact that Christianity is the religion of love, which does not prevent people from behaving barbarically in the name of Christ. Islam is the religion of justice, which has not prevented people from behaving barbarically in the name of Allah. Buddhism is a pacifist philosophy; that did not prevent a Buddhist monk named Zhu Yuanzhang from becoming a warlord. (Zhu is better known as the Hongwu Emperor, founder of the Ming Dynasty.) Barbara Branden has written about a young Ayn Rand's discovery of the importance of consistency, and that "her proudest boast about the philosophical system she would later devise was that if one accepted any part of it, consistency required that one accept the total of it." This has not prevented people from treating Rand's works as though they were divine Scripture, not to be challenged. This despite the proud statement of Dagny Taggart that she never put anything above her first-hand perception, and her individual reasoning. It could be argued that one should not denounce someone with wrong ideas, particularly if that someone is not open to criticism. Instead, one should let them follow their wrong ideas, and accept the consequences. This is how Howard Roark behaved, with respect to Peter Keating. This is contained in the statement of Hugh Akston, as to why he withdrew his mind from society at large, and why he would no longer argue with someone who said that philosophy is an explanation on why there is no such thing as thinking. This same attitude was implicit in the strike led by John Galt. That has not stopped angry denunciations, excommunications, psychologising and demonising of opponents. Objectivism should not be a dogma; Ayn Rand was right, to say that if one practices Objectivism, then it cannot be a dogma. She was wrong, to imply that Objectivim cannot be a dogma. I am glad to have visited Diana Hsieh's little bubble of opinion; now I have seen the "true believer" in full anti-glory. That site was as educational for me as visiting North Korea's official site, and for the same reason. This "true believer" mentality reflects the flaws in Ayn Rand, as opposd to the virtues in Ayn Rand. But more deeply, it reflects the flaws of the true believers. I could discuss the Theory of Opposite Virtues, and point out that the true believers are carrying all that they lack — but that would be another posting. :-({|=

1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced? Far from it. How can an advocate of reason condone such an action? It's akin to saying "…because I said so." That was how the villains of Atlas Shrugged behaved. 2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism? No. 3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism? No. 4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism? I would say, more in the errors of the true believers. 5. Does it arise from virtues in the personality and character of Ayn Rand? Not hardly. 6. Does it arise from flaws in the personality and character of Ayn Rand? Yes, that is more likely to be true. 7. Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism? It is found among those who treat Objectivism as a closed system of thought, more than anything. It is found among those who more closely mirror Ayn Rand's flaws, as opposed to her virtues. 8. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations? I have seen it at Leonard Peikoff's web-site, and in the blog of Diana Hsieh. I don't know enough of the many organisations to say; but I can certainly recognise a true believer from their style. 9. Is its source to be found in a handful of nut cases of no importance or consequence? The sad thing is, I do not think these people are necessarily "nut cases." But that would be another post. 10. Is it none of the above? My answers above should answer this.

Hello, Barbara. My name is Chrys, with a Y. That Ayn Rand referred to herself as "Alice" fits perfectly. She was proud to be an American. I have seen that before, when I was wearing a stars-and-stripes bandanna and people from China said they were glad to see me showing pride in my country. I'm turning over what you said about Dominique in my mind. I never quite thought of her that way before.

As I post this, I have only read the first third of this thread, and I'm already impressed. I'm still trying to figure out precisely which master plot I'm using. The protagonists are identical twin brothers. They're certainly travelling, given that their setting stretches from Siberia to Iran. Then again, I'm reading your (and Tobias') comments on the other master plots, and recognise that I've got that part as well. Perhaps the best lesson is, don't ever try to write something as big and complex as I. Then again, I started. I may as well finish.