Mark

“Confessed” is the wrong word. Here’s the background Michael ignores:

Michael and some others noted that I criticize Israel (and I do, for reasons they evidently can’t bring themselves to address, as Greybird noted).

Then on that basis Michael refers to my “rhetoric that borders on antisemitism.”

Borders!

I’m not going to play that game. If ARI Watch be anti-semitic, make the most of it. I don’t confess to being an anti-semite, I proclaim it.

If Michael doesn’t like that tar-baby word, he can stop playing bait and switch. For more see Jeers on ARI Watch.

Michael says “gimme a break” about my saying “giving to Israel is a traitorous act.” That claim, as he must know, is at the end of a long essay containing evidence that Israel is not an ally but rather an enemy of America. Aiding such a country is traitorous. Michael doesn’t deserve a break when he pretends – and pretend is the right word – that this observation comes out of nowhere.

Michael is mistaken, I can’t do any better than what I wrote. In fact I think that it’s pretty good, and that I’ve made a good case for my statement. (COMMENT DELETED BY ADMINISTRATION.)

I could just as well say: Come on Michael, you can do better than secret reliable sources you’re afraid to expose. But I don’t say that.

I’d written:

The worst I see – and here I repeat my last post – is that my statement relies on the word “eventually.” But even though the statement is not perfect if you’re worried about the details, when I wrote the article there was no point in elaborating when I had more important things to say, and I still see no point in elaborating, though I have now done so.

How could we change the statement? Consider:

Or:

For that’s what Michael is really saying.

I’d written that Mr. Peikoff continually helps finance ARI. The claim has been made that this is backwards, not only does he not financially support ARI, it’s the other way around: he charges them for the use of some items bequeathed to him by Ayn Rand.

Believing that ARI pays for the right (in many cases the exclusive right) to publish copyrighted work is certainly reasonable, but the net effect is to the financial advantage of ARI as well as Mr. Peikoff. Elaboration in two parts:

1. Mr. Peikoff owns the copyrights, so royalties would go to him first. Now consider his attitude towards ARI in his talk “America versus Americans” given April 6, 2003:

Given Mr. Peikoff’s admiration and his ‘we’re all going to die’ outlook, isn’t it extraordinarily likely that he donates a lot, and regularly, to ARI from the royalty income bequeathed to him by Ayn Rand? (Of course ARI gets money from other sources as well.)

If Mr. Peikoff believed his house was on fire, would he charge the firemen an entrance fee? Of course not, he’d almost certainly help them all he can, and gratis.

This is not a sure thing. One can only infer with what I consider a high degree of probability that Mr. Peikoff regularly donates to ARI.

The part below is a sure thing.

2. Mr. Peikoff allows ARI to call itself the official Ayn Rand organization, and he allows ARI to be the exclusive distributor of many of Ayn Rand’s works. The cash value of both is enormous. Without question Mr. Peikoff continually provides value to ARI which translates into money, money over and above whatever ARI might pay for the privilege of receiving these favors.

One might reply that what I wrote is easily construed as something more specific. Here’s the entire contended phrase from my article (emphasis added):

It’s not so bad. Why burden the reader with text like this post? Making the lack of precision here into some sort of exemplary crime is ridiculous. The claimant should get some sense of proportion.

When I get around to it I’ll put this in the website’s “Jeers” section and perhaps reference it in the article.

Michael makes much of welcoming me but soon is referring to my “ham-handed lopsided rhetoric” and “nonstop voluminous haranguing” etc as if reading such epithets will convince me to mend my ways.

He descends to the level of Robert Jones. My writing, Michael says, “borders on antisemitism.”

No, Michael, it is antisemitism.

Michel refers to ARI Watch as “bashing” – the word not only means severe criticism but connotes mindless and reckless criticism. He claims my writing “exaggerates too much” – rather vague that. I would say, along with Greybeard (thanks Greybeard) that it’s frequently restrained – and anyway ARI is so bad on some issues it would be hard to exaggerate.

On first reading I didn’t understand why Michael next digresses into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim culture. But we soon see why.

Hold it right there. No he doesn’t. Israel does not represent Jewish culture (contrary to their propaganda), and not all Jews are Israelis (though they say something like that too). Michael continues:

Actually my disgust with the actions of Israel is as obvious as the Rock of Gibraltar. Michael would sail into the Mediterranean and with surprise declare: I have detected a big rock !

Note that my “bias” is not prejudice. I seek justice. After investigating, and getting over the “not perfect but the vanguard freedom” business, you’ll find that Israel is no ally of America. I elaborate on ARI Watch, replying to ARI with but a fraction of the articles ARI puts out promoting the contrary view.

Thus insinuating that the rhetoric of yours truly is “scapegoating.” The word is pejorative. By itself it’s just name-calling.

Michael’s question is not based on anything except the ridiculous notion that only a Muslim would critique Israel. Michael’s introductory phrase “Based on all this” makes his question a loaded one.

And why ask the question? It’s an arbitrary insinuation I made fun of in an earlier post. (On the other thread “The Effect by Mark ... on ariwatch.com” post 23)

This seeming concern for an alleged muslim’s sensibilities is, I suspect, only a way of saying yet again that ARI Watch looks like it was written by muslims.

OK, which is it, one lapse or riddled with errors?

How shall I reply? Forget it Michael, I don’t value accuracy ? Stating the above premise is like beginning: If you aren’t beating your wife ... .

Another insinuation in the same vein: ARI Watch “would benefit greatly from using a fact-focused approach ... .” As if it uses some other approach.

Michael says he once wrote in my style. I didn’t know he wrote articles and have read only a few of his posts here, but maybe he flatters himself.

In his earlier post Michael claimed that in general ARI Watch makes things up. In his post considered here he insinuates several times (though once says otherwise) that ARI Watch is generally wrong. He refers to a plurality of errors. I trust even he will agree that his one alleged example – and presumably he put his best foot forward – is a very minor error if error it be.

There’s a mass of data on ARI Watch, hundreds of statements. Naturally I don’t think there are any factual errors but I will appreciate it if anyone brings any to my attention. I address Michael only substantive criticism in the next post.

One last thing. After all the insults, Michael has the fatuity to say:

Who’s he trying to fool? Fortunately my home-life’s a lot more pleasant !

Regarding ARI Watch, Robert Jones refers to:

Oh brother. As I said on the other thread called “ARI Watch, Any Information,” where Robert makes a similar noise, anyone who criticizes Israel must get used to such treatment. To be sarcastic, I could care less.

Robert continues:

AUGH! The Arabs did it ! Or maybe the Persians?

Robert writes the above (before my little joke) after reading – or more likely just glancing at – some reasoned and evidenced criticisms of Israel in response to ARI’s massive promotion of same. On that basis very possibly I’m an Arab, a member of C.A.I.R., and part of a conspiracy to use the legal system to take down ARI.

Now what was that about the political hallucinations of a fruitcake?

In another post Robert imaginatively refers to ARI Watch:

ARI Watch does point out, with abundant quotes, that ARI considers Israel an ally of the United States. Is this a Zionist conspiracy?

Or does Yaron Brook being a native of Israel, which ARI Watch mentions, make a Zionist conspiracy?

All in all Robert is super-touchy and slings smears with abandon.

These epithets more appropriately describe Robert’s own post (I hope to ignore him in future). Like Robert Bidinotto he takes his hatred of the content of ARI Watch and judges the style to match.

Robert Bidinotto calls my little article a “semi-literate screed.” In other words: half illiterate and tiresomely long.

I gather he didn’t like it. But I think a more objective consideration would find that the article (the conclusion of a series – which Robert well knows) is short (not that length by itself matters), literate, and obviously has stirred up some people. Perhaps Robert confuses content with style: he hates the content so the style must be bad. Other epithets in his brief post are:

I disagree, but then you knew that already.

Robert Campbell calls “The Effect” an:

Indeed. Please see the website of which “The Effect” is but the conclusion. Too bad Roger didn’t provide a real link because at the top of each page is: ARIwatch.com.

We can agree on the following:

Neil writes:

“I bet that if she [Ayn Rand] were alive, she would probably support its [ARI’s] general approach to things.”

And Chris:

“I suspect Ayn Rand would probably approve of what ARI is doing.”

Consider:

These points and others can’t really be put in sound bites but I’d bet the other way.

Reidy asks (see also Robert Campbell’s post):

1. “Does ARI actually collect royalties off Rand’s books?”

Mr. Peikoff owns the copyrights, so royalties would go to him first. Now consider how he praises Yaron Brook to the skies and refers to himself as belonging to ARI, in his talk “America versus Americans” (near the end) given April 6, 2003:

Given his admiration and his we’re all going to die outlook, isn’t it extraordinarily likely that he donates a lot and regularly to ARI from the royalty income bequeathed to him by Ayn Rand? (Of course ARI gets money from other sources as well.)

2. “Does anybody really judge Objectivism by ... the behavior of the ARI and its principals?”

The answer may be few, that those familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas can see their value and stand aghast at ARI. But for those just starting to investigate her ideas, having read little or nothing of her work, the idiots at ARI may well turn them away.

In any case even if ARI didn’t repel either adepts or beginners, ARI is a noxious cultural influence and provides ammunition to Ayn Rand’s enemies. There’s a place for an “ARI Watch.”

Jim,

Regarding “The Effect” article you say:

“There’s no evidence and no examples, it’s just a rant.”

I can see how you might think that if that’s all you read. Roger should have made it easier to view the source ( http://ARIwatch.com ), where you’ll find that “The Effect” is the concluding article in a series.

Reading it alone is like reading the last paragraph of a lawyer’s brief all by itself. Indeed, where’s the evidence?

There’s plenty of evidence.

Robert Jones visited ARI Watch and had an unpleasant experience:

“... read a whole lotta hooey. This site is ONLY about ARI’s positions vis-a-vis the War On Islam.”

I guess there are two points here: ARI Watch is “a whole lotta hooey” and, in addition, it should address other things besides the war.

Leaving the ‘hooey’ charge aside, could it be that ARI Watch – which calls itself a critical review of ARI – finds little to criticize about ARI other than its position on the war and related subjects? And that this position is far more important than the others? And that ARI itself gives it prominence?

Regarding ARI:

“... I do believe their hearts are in the right place.”

Good people can make mistakes, but I find it incredible that ARI acts as it does out of some fumbling good will.

(Considering the remainder of Robert’s post and his other posts I don’t share his idea of a well positioned heart anyway.)

Robert then says ARI Watch is so bad it makes him want to defend ARI – for the first time in his life!

ARI Watch does repel many sorts of people. It’s pro Ayn Rand, and liberals hate Ayn Rand. (Paleo-conservatives were never too keen on her either.) It’s anti the Bush administration, and neo-conservatives love the Bush administration. It’s critical of ARI, and “official-minded” Objectivists love ARI. (The other organized group – TOC/TAS – has pretty much the same position on the war as ARI.)

Read the ARI Watch “Cheers” page to find some positive remarks about it.

Then Robert Jones goes robotic:

“If all you know how to do in foreign policy is bash Israel, then, yes, you ARE an anti-Semite!”

Well, Robert, nobody asked you. In any case, anyone who criticizes Israel for anything soon gets used to such attacks. You are immediately called an anti-semite. (Such an anti-semite!) Not to mention obsessed (which in fact applies to ARI). And your argument is characterized as bashing.

Robert again:

“Betcha dollars-to-doughnuts it’s owned by some CAIR offshoot.”

The assumption here is that practically everyone who criticizes Israel is Arab. Be that as it may, and it ain’t, Robert loses his bet.

Renee writes :

“... Thanks to ARI Watch I now know that not only is the Ayn Rand Institute actually detrimental to the Objectivist Movement, but they may very well be responsible for 9/11! ...”

Getting into the swing Chris responds :

“... Thank you! I thought George Bush did all of 9-11. I guess it was Lenny Peikoff.”

If you disagree with ARI Watch, silence will persuade your readers better than silly remarks.

Michael’s latest post insinuates that the attitude of ARI Watch towards ARI is:

“... demonize, i.e., distort and omit facts and make things up ...”

“Make things up” is an indefensible slur. As for “distort and omit facts,” though that too is a slur, if I were charitable I could see how someone might think it at first. Sometimes ARI will turn 180 degrees on an issue and then pretend they were going in that direction all along. But that they contradict themselves is their problem not mine. For an analysis of one case see the review of ARI’s

“What We Owe Our Soldiers”

While acknowledging that ARI is poison (‘hemlock’) Michael in an earlier post claims that ARI Watch is just another (‘battery acid’). I myself view ARI Watch as herbicide (Roundup) for weeds in the garden of Objectivist discourse. Purple prose that, but Michael’s metaphor asked for it.

“ARI has done some very good things and has some products I buy and use.”

I too have been reduced to ordering ARI products. I do it through a bookstore though. That way ARI takes a 40% hit (anyway that’s what the bookstore discount was with Second Renaissance some years ago), and you pay no shipping (which may be more than the sales tax you will pay). Also it costs you nothing to return something if it’s damaged.

Mark Hunter

ARI Watch

Chris Grieb,

.... "In the early years of NBI a book called

..... Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

..... was sold by NBI. The book was collection

..... of revisionist essays about the US involvement

..... in World War II."

Amazon.com lists three books of that title. The only one around at the time you mention is:

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath

edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, with essays by William Henry Chamberlin, Percy L. Greaves Jr., George A. Lundberg, George Morgenstern, William L. Neumann, Frederic R. Sanborn, Charles Callan Tansill.

1953, republished 1982.

http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-War-Peace-...6797516-6268652

and

http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-Peace-Harr...6797516-6268652

Is that the one?