Gatekeepers

[Mark]

Over at Solo Passion the other day someone referenced and linked to

... "Presidential Elections – Ayn Rand & ARI: 1932-1980"

on ARI Watch in a thread they started called

... "How Ayn Rand Voted (or Didn’t), and Why."

Later in the thread Lindsay Perigo (owner of Solop), in a reply, quoted the ARI Watch article (quoting Ayn Rand), using it to make a point about Ayn Rand’s thinking. In other words he used ARI Watch as it was intended to be used -- probably inadvertently.

A day or two later that entire thread disappeared ! The link was

... www.solopassion.com/node/9227

All of which is to illustrate why some of these so-called Objectivist forums are so uniformly nutty. Their gatekeepers don’t allow a really contrary voice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

Periog's a dork who tries to be a manipulator. A few years ago I saw a post by him where he bragged that he was not an intellectual in the book-learning sense, but more of an intellectual thug.

He deleted it the next day. I didn't get a screen shot and I have no doubt he would now deny it, so consider this as gossip. But I saw it and I'm saying it. (And I'm still kicking myself for not taking a screen shot.)

Most of the forums in O-Land do not restrict postings merely because of trolling (which is what I try my best to do--although I admit my policy of flexibility can obscure that somewhat and I also admit I'm not perfect, i.e., I sometimes mess it up). Their greatest sin, in my view, is that they restrict posters in order to block people of good will from saying what is on their minds. In other words, they openly promote dogma (Objectivism according to the way they think it is) over independeint thinking.

Well, what are you supposed to do when someone has a strong view on something--like you? Hell, I find you to be a valuable member of our small community, even though we have differences. I don't think I've ever seen you do the stuff I really dislike, which goes something like this:

Poster A - What a beautiful day.

You - It would be beautiful if not for the pigs at ARI.

Poster B - What did Ayn Rand mean by stolen concept?

You - It's when you eliminate the foundation from a concept, like how those neocons at ARI gutted Rand's work while keeping the name Objectivism.

Poster C - Has anyone seen that movie about The Three Stooges?

You - Yeah. It was a hoot. Starring Peikoff, Brook and Schwartz.

Poster A - Does everything with you boil down to your hatred of ARI?

You - I don't hate ARI. Whatever gave you that idea? Seriously, get a grip and try to read my actual words for a change.

Poster A - Well, isn't it a beautiful day?

You - Not while ARI is on the planet.

OK, I'm having a little fun. But sometimes we get a fanatic against Muslims or some other target and that's basically what they do. (I know, I know, there's Gulch and his One Note Samba about Ron Paul. But he gets a pass because he's just so darn nice. )

I have no problem with someone presenting a case in the manner you do. I can agree or disagree. That is the space in the reader I rarely see you invade. I don't think I've ever seen you try to hog this forum or any other and try to shove your criticism of ARI down people's throats. I respect that. A lot.

And, frankly, I believe your ideas have more impact--and more people are persuaded to examine what you want them to--by being that way than if you did the preaching through scapegoating routine.

You and I agree on some stuff and disagree on some other stuff. But I'm glad you're here.

If I ever quote you, especially in agreement, it will be with my highest regards.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Mark,

Perigo is so far gone now, there's no telling what he'll do.

Robert Campbell

[Mark]

I didn't expect the "disappearing" to be confirmed here. Apparently I'm not the only one who goes slumming. The gist of the story is that Perigo insulted the people who took the trouble to participate in the thread apparently just to get rid of references to ARI Watch.

It has to be said: naturally I didn't like part of Michael's post. What's the point of praising me for not saying some [stupid thing]? The effect is to insinuate into the reader's mind that I say something rather like that [stupid thing]. This may not have been the intent but it's there. In any case I'm glad Michael's forum exists. I'm sure it's a lot of work managing it.

My hatred of ARI couldn't be all that consuming because new articles appear so infrequently.

ARI Watch is necessary now more than ever. ARI just keeps growing. It's been speculated that John Allison might become another John McCaskey but it's not going to happen. I have it on good authority that Yaron Brook and John Allison are very close. And Peikoff seems to like him, he quotes him in his podcast on torture (see "Leonard Peikoff on Torture" on ARI Watch). Not to mention Allison probably has more money than McCaskey. Though to be sure the change would be gradual, CATO might eventually become yet another Neocon think-tank. I say "might" because I'm not clear how much control Allison has over CATO.

Anyway, yes, the world would be a little better place if the Ayn Rand Institute were driven into the Pacific, metaphorically speaking of course.

(ADDED: The link underneath "podcast" above was automatically added by the forum software, not me.)

(ADDED: The link underneath the quoted word above, ditto.)

[Robert Campbell]

Mark,

John Allison was put in at Cato after Charles and David Koch finally pushed Ed Crane out.

It's hard to know what effect Allison will have on Cato.

It is odd, though, that while ARI still officially stands behind Peter Schwartz's denunciation of libertarianism, one of its own is now running the Cato Institute.

It doesn't matter how tight Allison is with Yaron Brook. If Allison displeases Leonard Peikoff, he will be purged. If he keeps pleasing Peikoff, he will stay.

Robert Campbell

PS. Any thoughts about Yaron Brook saying that "Fact and Value" is "part of Objectivism," followed by Debi Ghate claiming that Brook didn't really say that?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... naturally I didn't like part of Michael's post.

Mark,

Heh.

You didn't expect unconditional praise, didja?

What's the point of praising me for not saying some [stupid thing]? The effect is to insinuate into the reader's mind that I say something rather like that [stupid thing]. This may not have been the intent but it's there. In any case I'm glad Michael's forum exists...

No, no, no.

That's not how you do it.

Where's the impact, man?

Take a look at my little dialog above. It follows a story pattern I have done a lot in lampoons, but never saw it formalized until I came across a story template from a copywriter just the other day. A guy named Andre Bell. Here's the link to his signup form to be able to watch the video where I saw it (don't worry, it's free): Insider Secrets of Successful Direct Response Copywriting. btw - I signed up.

But, as I know not everyone is interested in copywriting and the video I saw will probably be changed over time, here is the direct link to his video: "Stolen" Hollywood Story Selling Method. No signup needed.

And the PDF file he mentions in the video, where he gives the source of his template as Igor Ledochowski (a prominent hypnotism guru who apparently got it from Hollywood insiders).

Bell gives a great story structure template. Here it is in short:

1: Start with a routine (i.e., a situation with a character who wants something).

2: Break the routine.

3: Change someone. This means make it so one of the characters (mostly the main one) is altered in a perceivable manner.

4: Re-incorporate, or bring back something from before and highlght it. This can be something insignificant.

By itself, without all the hypnotism or copywriting stuff, this might seem vague, but that's what makes it so valuable. If someone is listening to a story you are telling and they begin to suspect you are telegraphing what happens next, in other words, if your story gets too predictable, they get bored and move on. The structure above (which I think of more as a frame than a formula) is a wonderful way to keep logical and narrative consistency while keeping the listener (or reader) off balance enough to keep him interested.

Notice in my little imaginary dialog:

Step One: I established a routine and repeated it twice before breaking it. In comedy, it is common to do that once or twice or even more times (especially in a formula called "The Ruie of Three").

Step Two: I broke the routine by having a poster address the imaginary you directly about your beefs.

Step Three: I made the imaginary you get huffy and even do a denial. In other words, a character altered.

Step Four. I brought back the "beautiful day" thing.

Believe it or not, I wrote that dialog without thinking about the structure and only noticed it later.

The following is outside the scope here, but I believe it is important to add something more basic to the structure if you want to do more serious story writing. I have been doing a lot of study about this, especially where recent breakthroughs in neuroscience and psychology are concerned. The best books I have found that link story with neuroscience are Wired for Story by Lisa Cron and Story Proof by Kendall Haven.

Wired for Story just came out. When I saw it, I had to have it and I have already read it. It's great and a very easy read. It's nice to know how (and where) the different elements of a story cause the brain to light up, and what to do to flood the reader's brain with dopamine.

Story Proof is a little older (2007) and, frankly, tough going. But it's well-worth it. In fact, for fiction projects, I believe the definition of story below should be wedded to Ledochowski's formula. It's by Haven from his book. Keep in mind that this definition refers to a kind of mental operation that causes a "story trance," not just a simple narrative like a description of an action. Here goes:

Story: A detailed, character-based narration of a character's struggle to overcome obstacles and reach an important goal.

Believe it or not, you can use this stuff to analyze Rand's works and get some awesome insights that no one talks about regarding why her fiction is so effective and stays in the mainstream.

Oh, dayaamm!

I forgot.

This isn't supposed to be about useful and/or interesting information. It's supposed to be about hating...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Mark,

John Allison was put it at Cato after Charles and David Koch finally pushed Ed Crane out.

It's hard to know what effect Allison will have on Cato.

It is odd, though, that while ARI still officially stands behind Peter Schwartz's denunciation of libertarianism, one of its own is now running the Cato Institute.

It doesn't matter how tight Allison is with Yaron Brook. If Allison displeases Leonard Peikoff, he will be purged. If he keeps pleasing Peikoff, he will stay.

Robert Campbell

PS. Any thoughts about Yaron Brook saying that "Fact and Value" is "part of Objectivism," followed by Debi Ghate claiming that Brook didn't really say that?

I don't think Brook is a spokesman for Objectivism but for the ARI. Being a thing, not a person, the ARI isn't a spokesman for Objectivism either. Back in the 1960s it was most people's--who were sympathetic to Objectivism--job to say that it was while the principals' job was to tell what it was. Really now, that's deader than a doornail. No spokesman exists or can exist, any more. Back in NBI-time, when official Objectivism was like a "mighty fortress" (N. Branden), there was some cultural-intellectual logic to it all.

--Brant