why is Richard saltzman kicked out of TOS?

[Kazaam]

I just got an email from The Objective Standard which says that objectivist professor Richard Salsman is no longer associated with them because he posted on Facebook a critique of ARI which included ad hominems and name-calling. I am generally not a fan of these repeated purges, but as someone who is not on Facebook, I can't read the thing for itself and draw my own conclusions.

Could someone who is on Facebook post here, not their own summary, but the full text of what Salsman said?

(Note that I spelled his name wrong in the title of his topic.)

 

[Mark]

See the last part of The Center of Mass Shifts Further.

[Jon Letendre]

Out of TOS?

Must be he is guilty of some decency or another.

[turkeyfoot]

It was deleted by Salsman.

His apology: In two recent posts I harshly criticized a handful of people who I know to have misused ARI to besmirch solid Objectivists and Objectivist organizations whom they oppose and in consequence have risked devaluing Ayn Rand’s reputation. That bothers me very much. It’s just not right. A just rebuke is warranted. But I here apologize because FB isn’t the forum for that, since the matter requires lots of information, background, context, and judgment that most readers don’t have. Those who know it, know it, those who can’t, can’t. It’s hard to be fully objective in so narrow a context. I wasn’t. Contributors to ARI, of course, would (or should) inquire about such things, but I leave that to them, as I should have in the first place.

 

This was the drift of it.

You said ARI supported the lockdown and the bailout. Can you support that claim with facts (chapter & verse) please?

 

 

[Mark]

All on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salsman (date unkown, quoted by Yaron Brook 5/5/2020)
Richard Salsman  To Todd Hartle.  Do you mean it, really?  The Yaron Brook Show?  sorry to say, but it’s garbage.  Second-hand trash.  Unoriginal.  Borrowed.  Filched.  Second-handed, Keating-Like, if you know what I mean.  Worse, it’s uninformed.  It took me at most 5 listenings to know it.  So sad.  he should know better.  he is now a mere wannabe Jordan Peterson.  Pathetic.  I’d say go elsewhere – else go insane.  But who really cares?  Most people, including many ex-Objectivists like YB, negotiate themselves out of the life of principle and integrity and consequently most detest those who retain those virtues.  Sunshine patriots, they cravenly flee to and podcast from the decadence of places like Starnseville – aka Puerto Rico.  Real heroes.  To Hell with them, I say – but no one need be victimized by choice, unless they’re clueless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Salsman, 4/29/2020
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism provides a consistent, comprehensive case for liberty, egoism, rights, and capitalism. One might think, therefore, that an institute many decades old with her name on the door would help the wider world know that crucial fact. Alas, tragically, it is no longer so, indeed hasn’t been so for many years, but especially in the years that one OG [Onkar Ghate] has been granted the title Chief Content Officer (CCO), or, more accurately, Chief Censor. A wholly unqualified charlatan who couldn’t get a job in academia, nonetheless he is venerated by the likes of YB, TS, HB and a host of other sycophants, who attempt to elevate themselves by trying to dissipate the great legacy of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. That’s impossible, of course, but they do still try. Now watch, if you can stomach it, this dishonest and pathetic performance by OG, the CCO at ARI whose simple task is to explain why AR’s philosophy is DISTINCTIVE. He cannot do it; his ramblings are vague, dilatory, subjective and wholly lacking in rational content. By the way, this is NOT a spontaneous, extemporaneous Q&A but a preplanned, “thought-out” opening statement devoid of any coherent argument. Her philosophy, he intones, is “new!” — “different!” — “pathbreaking! — “unconventional!” Different, how? No answer. True, in what way? Blank out. Why should I care? Because I’m OG, and here’s how it hit me, subjectively, in Calgary, many years ago.

This is waste; this is ridiculous; this is corruption. Why would anyone fund such tripe, who possessed even a scintilla of conscientiousness, or pride? It is using Ayn Rand’s illustrious name as a shield for incompetence. Don’t fall for it, Objectivist sheeple. It is the now the oak tree in Atlas Shrugged, if you know what I mean. I yearn nostalgically for the 15 years when the great Mike Berliner built that place, grew it, made it real, professional, viable, COLLEGIAL. All that’s mostly gone now, due not to MB of course, but to all those inferior successors who squandered his achievements and preferred to carve out personal sinecures. In the process they trashed and ostracized more than a few wealthy businessmen, who eventually left - shrugged - out of pride. Yet it still stands, like that oak tree, sentry at its side, the “Chief Content Officer,” ensuring unending content-less-ness. ARI supported the bailouts of 2008-09, then the Lockdown of 2020. There’s “content” for you - no different than what you’d find at Heritage or Brookings. The CCO remains, ever as smug, ever pretending to promote Rand’s views, hoping contributors won’t notice and won’t stop funding the fraud. But the CCO, thougn [sic] funded, is irrelevant; the truth will out, eventually; reality is the best avenger of all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yaron Brook 5/5/2020

If you don’t know who Richard Salsman is, you should skip this post – it’s not worth your precious time. I’m posting this primarily for my Facebook “friends” who know Richard and might have missed his diatribes against The Ayn Rand Institute and its intellectuals, including this about me (see below before reading on).

Now I think this speaks for itself. It reeks of anger, resentment and envy. There isn’t even a point being made to respond to. Sad…

It’s especially sad if one knows, that for years I fought (against the advice of many, whose judgment I trust) to help Richard. ARI provided him with loans when he was in graduate school, and I actively helped raise the money that made possible his current academic position at Duke (in 2014).

But no acknowledgement of this. And now, apparently I’m so awful that he must condemn me publicly in such offensive terms. Although, I must admit that I’ve seen him do this before to people I respect.

I’m sure I often say things that many of you disagree with and/or that my style might offend some. I’ve been at the forefront of speaking about and applying Ayn Rand’s ideas to current events for 20 years. It’s inevitable that I offend some people. But, there are rational, respectful ways to express one’s disagreement, especially about intellectual issues. Unfortunately, Richard’s post seems unhinged, and rabidly personal. In such cases, there is nothing to discuss.

I hope that most of you can see the irrationality and injustice of Richard’s outburst. However, if you agree with or find plausible even part of what he has written here, then please “unfriend” me now. And if you see it for what it is – emotionalist drivel – then consider, in the name of justice, “unfriending” Richard.

It’s not the first time someone has written horrible things about me over the years, and I’ve kept quiet. Why speak up now? For a few reasons. No longer being the CEO of ARI frees me to express my personal views more forcefully, and Richard is considered a respectable member of our community – after all he is identified in academia with Objectivism, he’s a Contributing Editor of a journal with “Objective” in its title and he’s about to teach an “Ayn Rand Camp,” with the support of a Foundation supporting other similar efforts. Ultimately, his recent, dishonest attacks on ARI and intellectuals I admire and respect were the final straw.

I’m sure Richard and others will respond to this. I have no intention to engage and very much hope this is the last you will hear from me about this topic.

[attached graphical quote of Salsman’s reply to Todd Hartle]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salsman 5/6/2020

In two recent posts I harshly criticized a handful of people who I know to have misused ARI to besmirch solid Objectivists and Objectivist organizations whom they oppose and in consequence have risked devaluing Ayn Rand’s reputation. That bothers me very much. It’s just not right. A just rebuke is warranted. But I here apologize because FB isn’t the forum for that, since the matter requires lots of information, background, context, and judgment that most readers don’t have. Those who know it, know it, those who can’t, can’t. It’s hard to be fully objective in so narrow a context. I wasn’t. Contributors to ARI, of course, would (or should) inquire about such things, but I leave that to them, as I should have in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I say in so many words in The Center of Mass Shifts Further, there is no one to root for in this fracas.  PF/TOS is no better than ARI.  It will be interesting to see if Barney goes through with Salsman‘s “Rand Camp.”

[Brant Gaede]

The main problem is there never should have been an ARI in the first place, but it's the logical extension of how her philosophy was presented in the 1960s: autocratically.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

Richard Salsman has been very critical of the destructive lockdown policies, which any sane and rational person would oppose. ARI and some of the people there have been wishy-washy about them. Ultimately, I'm not particularly disappointed with ARI. That''s only because my expectations are so low.

ARI actually invited this guy to speak at the virtual OCON. Here we have an "Objectivist" gushing over a man who has spent 50 years as a bureaucrat.

During OCON, Amesh Adalja called Anthony Fauci "a hero" at least three times. He hardly ever said anything about free markets in medicine, although he did bring up the issue of certificate-of-need laws.

After watching all this, it is safe to conclude that epidemologists are even more incompetent at making predictions than investment advisors at picking stocks or meteorologists at predicting the weather.

 

 

[algernonsidney]

When and where did ARI support the bailouts of 2008? Please provide a source for this.

[Mark]

No one here said ARI or Brook supported the 2008 bailouts.  I quoted Salsman saying that they did.

Brook’s usual method of expression is the podcast and I have neither the time nor desire to listen to hours upon hours of his jeeringly self-righteous strident voice or watch his body spastically jerk about emphasizing what he says.  That said, I doubt he said right out that he supported the 2008 bailouts.  It would be too obvious a contradiction with Objectivism even for him.

AlgernonSidney, thanks for the link to Amesh Adalja praising Fauci to the skies.  

ARI supported local and federal lockdown at first, now they don’t – and pretend they never did.

I updated
The Center of Mass Shifts Further
Salsman’s “Rand Camp” was canceled, not because of his outburst but because the resort – or at least the hotel – was closed because of the virus concern.  They plan to hold it next year, May 2021.

 

[Peter]

I was watching "Celebrity Family Feud" last night and looked up one of the players with a rap name married to Kim Kardasian and he claims to be worth 3.3 billion but Forbes did an audit and thinks he is only worth 1.3 billion dollars. Seriously. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right . . .  

edit I looked him up and he doesn't have a rap name. He is Kanye West. But I can still gripe. Ever notice how some people constantly allude to their origins but they don't know squat about their origins and are too lazy to look it up? Should his real, authentic name be Kenya West but he is too stupid to know that?  

[Jon Letendre]

Kanye is Trump’s friend, Racist Fucktard. He visits him in the Oval, walks up and hugs him while he sits at his desk — do you need pics? Do you visit the President at his office, walk up to him and hug him while he remains seated, hugging back? You don’t. Kanye is a King compared to your lowly self but you are too stupid and racist to see it, so stupid and racist in fact that you see the opposite.

[Strictlylogical]

On 5/11/2020 at 7:21 PM, Mark said:

All on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salsman (date unkown, quoted by Yaron Brook 5/5/2020)
Richard Salsman  To Todd Hartle.  Do you mean it, really?  The Yaron Brook Show?  sorry to say, but it’s garbage.  Second-hand trash.  Unoriginal.  Borrowed.  Filched.  Second-handed, Keating-Like, if you know what I mean.  Worse, it’s uninformed.  It took me at most 5 listenings to know it.  So sad.  he should know better.  he is now a mere wannabe Jordan Peterson.  Pathetic.  I’d say go elsewhere – else go insane.  But who really cares?  Most people, including many ex-Objectivists like YB, negotiate themselves out of the life of principle and integrity and consequently most detest those who retain those virtues.  Sunshine patriots, they cravenly flee to and podcast from the decadence of places like Starnseville – aka Puerto Rico.  Real heroes.  To Hell with them, I say – but no one need be victimized by choice, unless they’re clueless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Salsman, 4/29/2020
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism provides a consistent, comprehensive case for liberty, egoism, rights, and capitalism. One might think, therefore, that an institute many decades old with her name on the door would help the wider world know that crucial fact. Alas, tragically, it is no longer so, indeed hasn’t been so for many years, but especially in the years that one OG [Onkar Ghate] has been granted the title Chief Content Officer (CCO), or, more accurately, Chief Censor. A wholly unqualified charlatan who couldn’t get a job in academia, nonetheless he is venerated by the likes of YB, TS, HB and a host of other sycophants, who attempt to elevate themselves by trying to dissipate the great legacy of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. That’s impossible, of course, but they do still try. Now watch, if you can stomach it, this dishonest and pathetic performance by OG, the CCO at ARI whose simple task is to explain why AR’s philosophy is DISTINCTIVE. He cannot do it; his ramblings are vague, dilatory, subjective and wholly lacking in rational content. By the way, this is NOT a spontaneous, extemporaneous Q&A but a preplanned, “thought-out” opening statement devoid of any coherent argument. Her philosophy, he intones, is “new!” — “different!” — “pathbreaking! — “unconventional!” Different, how? No answer. True, in what way? Blank out. Why should I care? Because I’m OG, and here’s how it hit me, subjectively, in Calgary, many years ago.

This is waste; this is ridiculous; this is corruption. Why would anyone fund such tripe, who possessed even a scintilla of conscientiousness, or pride? It is using Ayn Rand’s illustrious name as a shield for incompetence. Don’t fall for it, Objectivist sheeple. It is the now the oak tree in Atlas Shrugged, if you know what I mean. I yearn nostalgically for the 15 years when the great Mike Berliner built that place, grew it, made it real, professional, viable, COLLEGIAL. All that’s mostly gone now, due not to MB of course, but to all those inferior successors who squandered his achievements and preferred to carve out personal sinecures. In the process they trashed and ostracized more than a few wealthy businessmen, who eventually left - shrugged - out of pride. Yet it still stands, like that oak tree, sentry at its side, the “Chief Content Officer,” ensuring unending content-less-ness. ARI supported the bailouts of 2008-09, then the Lockdown of 2020. There’s “content” for you - no different than what you’d find at Heritage or Brookings. The CCO remains, ever as smug, ever pretending to promote Rand’s views, hoping contributors won’t notice and won’t stop funding the fraud. But the CCO, thougn [sic] funded, is irrelevant; the truth will out, eventually; reality is the best avenger of all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yaron Brook 5/5/2020

If you don’t know who Richard Salsman is, you should skip this post – it’s not worth your precious time. I’m posting this primarily for my Facebook “friends” who know Richard and might have missed his diatribes against The Ayn Rand Institute and its intellectuals, including this about me (see below before reading on).

Now I think this speaks for itself. It reeks of anger, resentment and envy. There isn’t even a point being made to respond to. Sad…

It’s especially sad if one knows, that for years I fought (against the advice of many, whose judgment I trust) to help Richard. ARI provided him with loans when he was in graduate school, and I actively helped raise the money that made possible his current academic position at Duke (in 2014).

But no acknowledgement of this. And now, apparently I’m so awful that he must condemn me publicly in such offensive terms. Although, I must admit that I’ve seen him do this before to people I respect.

I’m sure I often say things that many of you disagree with and/or that my style might offend some. I’ve been at the forefront of speaking about and applying Ayn Rand’s ideas to current events for 20 years. It’s inevitable that I offend some people. But, there are rational, respectful ways to express one’s disagreement, especially about intellectual issues. Unfortunately, Richard’s post seems unhinged, and rabidly personal. In such cases, there is nothing to discuss.

I hope that most of you can see the irrationality and injustice of Richard’s outburst. However, if you agree with or find plausible even part of what he has written here, then please “unfriend” me now. And if you see it for what it is – emotionalist drivel – then consider, in the name of justice, “unfriending” Richard.

It’s not the first time someone has written horrible things about me over the years, and I’ve kept quiet. Why speak up now? For a few reasons. No longer being the CEO of ARI frees me to express my personal views more forcefully, and Richard is considered a respectable member of our community – after all he is identified in academia with Objectivism, he’s a Contributing Editor of a journal with “Objective” in its title and he’s about to teach an “Ayn Rand Camp,” with the support of a Foundation supporting other similar efforts. Ultimately, his recent, dishonest attacks on ARI and intellectuals I admire and respect were the final straw.

I’m sure Richard and others will respond to this. I have no intention to engage and very much hope this is the last you will hear from me about this topic.

[attached graphical quote of Salsman’s reply to Todd Hartle]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salsman 5/6/2020

In two recent posts I harshly criticized a handful of people who I know to have misused ARI to besmirch solid Objectivists and Objectivist organizations whom they oppose and in consequence have risked devaluing Ayn Rand’s reputation. That bothers me very much. It’s just not right. A just rebuke is warranted. But I here apologize because FB isn’t the forum for that, since the matter requires lots of information, background, context, and judgment that most readers don’t have. Those who know it, know it, those who can’t, can’t. It’s hard to be fully objective in so narrow a context. I wasn’t. Contributors to ARI, of course, would (or should) inquire about such things, but I leave that to them, as I should have in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I say in so many words in The Center of Mass Shifts Further, there is no one to root for in this fracas.  PF/TOS is no better than ARI.  It will be interesting to see if Barney goes through with Salsman‘s “Rand Camp.”

Are TOS and ARI Imperfect?  Likely yes.  Are some individuals of these organizations doing good, I have to say yes (keeping in mind what “good” means). In particular I find Tara Smith’s work to be of the highest order.

 

What’s your beef with these organizations?  

Are the effects of the flaws in their pronouncements on other individuals in society at large inimical to your flourishing or incrementally beneficial to your flourishing?  

Do you “wish” someone better qualified would step up to take their place in publicly disseminating and engaging the modern world in Rand’s ideas?  

Are you simply disappointed that they have nothing to offer you, your having already studied and understood the source material fully?

Finally, are you simply angry with the sheer fact (alleged), independent of any consequences to you, that they get it wrong?