New Cult of Darkness

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In other words, you don't know who your intended audience is and how you'll reach it?

Ellen,

I have some ideas. It's too early to say right now, but I am not shooting in the dark. I do know the market is huge and the anti-regulation side is starting to lose big-time.

Gore sure built his thing right. Look at how they come... And they keep coming, and coming, and coming...

Do you think he selected his audience before he started? Or did he build it right (according to his convictions), then offer it to the public—any public who will listen?

Al Gore built it. We can too. Anyone can build it who wants to. And they will come.

Don't forget, OL itself grew out of my masterful non-answer.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly,

I think that the issue of whether or not Atlas Shrugged would be "better" if it were a different type of book than it is, is one of those on which we'll just have to disagree. I'm most unlikely to come to a different opinion than the one I've formed through a significant amount of thinking about the issue over a sizable number of years, and I doubt that you're going to change your opinion either.

As to the effectiveness of the book, done the way it was done, though: to whom? It was damned effective, seems to me, to those who became Objectivists. Thus in answer to your question (at the end of your post):

Who can be impressed by the impotent evil in AS, the laughable villains, who disintegrate when a man of integrity talks to them, when the villains in real life are much worse and much more dangerous?

I think the answer is obvious: her followers, that's who.

I was interested by a comment you made in regard to your own personal history with Atlas:

When I read it many times, I was still young, I think I couldn't read it anymore now. What I found fascinating was the writing technique, the fact that every word in every sentence was meaningful. At a first reading you only grasp a small part of that. Therefore it remains fascinating after more readings, as you discover more and more meaning in the words. But now I'm at a stage where I understand every hint in every statement, and then you're looking further and you see that there are also flaws, and serious flaws at that.

I, too, reread the book, though fewer times than you did, a couple times, from fascination with the writing technique, though I wouldn't describe the source of my fascination the same way. Instead, it was the intricacy of the structure (in relation to the scope of her message) and the dove-tailing of the details. On the other hand, I saw the flaws qua novel on first reading. Possibly an important difference there is that you're a native Dutch speaker and I'm a native English speaker.

I don't say that every personage in such a book has to be fully developed psychologically, but the main actors should be. There isn't any reason why AS could not have the same impact if the villains had been more believable than this and if the tone had been lesss preachy, on the contrary, I think the impact might have been even bigger. I've seen many people who reject AS still can admire The Fountainhead. How many people, the die-hard Objectivists excepted, are really fascinated by Galt's speech?

I think that very few (if any) except "die-hard Objectivists" are fascinated by Galt's speech. I've even met a number of people who say they loved reading Atlas, and that the book gave them a lift of courage in pursuing what they want instead of what others think they should be doing, but who say they didn't read the speech at all; they just skipped it.

Re your comment about there being no reason AS couldn't have had the same impact with more realistic villains and a less preachy approach, speaking to that from a different angle: For one thing, I don't find the heroic characters believable either. But more basic, I don't think that Ayn Rand could have written such a story as she wanted to tell in a different way than she did go about it. I think that AR's own lack of psychological insight was quite essential to her writing that book. I think that she would have had to have been a different person than she was for her to have approached her story differently. Thus the "what if" question seems to me, suppose some other author entirely had wanted to deliver a message similar to the one AR wanted to deliver, then what sort of book might result? Basically, I think that the counterfactuals change the parameters of who she was to such an extent as to pose impossibilities.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Do you think [Gore] selected his audience before he started? Or did he build it right (according to his convictions), then offer it to the public—any public who will listen?

I think Gore had been building his audience, and studying how to reach -- and to milk -- it for years before the time came to make that movie. And he had a staff of professsionals who knew every trick in the trade in putting the thing together.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Gore had been building his audience, and studying how to reach -- and to milk -- it for years before the time came to make that movie. And he had a staff of professsionals who knew every trick in the trade in putting the thing together.

Ellen,

So long as we are speculating, do you think Gore believes in what he is doing science-wise, or do you think he is lying to the public, saying to himself, "I am going to lie to the public right now," i.e., doing it on purpose to gain some personal benefit?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think Gore had been building his audience, and studying how to reach -- and to milk -- it for years before the time came to make that movie. And he had a staff of professsionals who knew every trick in the trade in putting the thing together.

Ellen,

So long as we are speculating, do you think Gore believes in what he is doing science-wise, or do you think he is lying to the public, saying to himself, "I am going to lie to the public right now," i.e., doing it on purpose to gain some personal benefit?

Michael

I think that Gore does NOT believe in what he's doing science-wise. I think that numerous aspects of the scientific issues are beyond his own ability to understand, but a few -- not an exhaustive list -- of for instances: he's dumped from committees scientists who have told him things he didn't want to hear; I think he has to know that Revele (sp?) doesn't think that his work conclusively shows what Gore says it does; he continues to use the hockey-stick model, though that's in severe scientific disrepute; I don't see how he could not know if he really were trying to know the scientific truth that many things he presents either aren't true or are in serious dispute (e.g., the polar bears business, the ice cap melting, the stuff about insects having anything to do with global warming, the issue of glaciers and of Mt. Kilamanjaro; and things like his using the pictures of smoke stacks as if CO2 were smoke, and his speaking of "CO2 pollution"; and his leaving out that a decrease in temperature differential between the poles and the tropics would decrease hurricance intensity, and his saying nothing about the figure-fudging which had to be done to get rid of the Medieval warm period, or about temperature increases preceding CO2-concentration increases).

I think that Gore knows that the questions are mounting rapidly and that the timing which is critical is getting legislation passed while he can profit from it, not in time to save the planet for future generations.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Fair enough. You think Gore is a flat-out liar who lies to his constituents.

Next question: How do you propose to convince his constituents that he is a flat-out liar?

Maybe a question should precede this one: Are you interested in trying to convince his constituents of anything at all?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen,

Fair enough. You think Gore is a flat-out liar who lies to his constituents.

Next question: How do you propose to convince his constituents that he is a flat-out liar?

Maybe a question should precede this one: Are you interested in trying to convince his constituents of anything at all?

Michael

Time will reveal the truth to them.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

As to the effectiveness of the book, done the way it was done, though: to whom? It was damned effective, seems to me, to those who became Objectivists. Thus in answer to your question (at the end of your post):

Who can be impressed by the impotent evil in AS, the laughable villains, who disintegrate when a man of integrity talks to them, when the villains in real life are much worse and much more dangerous?

I think the answer is obvious: her followers, that's who.

No doubt, but how important are Objectivists in this world? Now I don't think the influence is only on the true-blue Objectivists, it may also direct people to libertarianism (which was for example unknown to me before I read Rand), so the influence is not limited to the tiny group of Objectivists. But even if you take this into account the real influence in the world has been negligeable, in spite of all the boastful rhetoric about successes.

I, too, reread the book, though fewer times than you did, a couple times, from fascination with the writing technique, though I wouldn't describe the source of my fascination the same way. Instead, it was the intricacy of the structure (in relation to the scope of her message) and the dove-tailing of the details.

I think that's not really different from what I wanted to convey.

On the other hand, I saw the flaws qua novel on first reading. Possibly an important difference there is that you're a native Dutch speaker and I'm a native English speaker.

Oh, but I also saw the flaws, only they seemed not that important in the beginning. As there was still a lot to discover, I ignored them at first, or perhaps even repressed them. I found for example Galt always a very unrealistic (and unsympathetic) personage, and the last part of the book, where all those evil people are screaming and dropping like flies I've aways found weak. The description becomes quite childish when the heroes jump through the windows or Francisco paralyzes everyone merely by reciting all his dozen names, I found that rather embarrassing to read, but somehow I managed to ignore it more or less in the beginning. In contrast, I found the beginning of the novel masterful; I'm afraid Rand became so obsessed with promoting her message during her writing of the book that it gradually became more important than the literary aspects of her writing. As I said before: Rand the ideologue killed Rand the writer.

Re your comment about there being no reason AS couldn't have had the same impact with more realistic villains and a less preachy approach, speaking to that from a different angle: For one thing, I don't find the heroic characters believable either. But more basic, I don't think that Ayn Rand could have written such a story as she wanted to tell in a different way than she did go about it. I think that AR's own lack of psychological insight was quite essential to her writing that book. I think that she would have had to have been a different person than she was for her to have approached her story differently. Thus the "what if" question seems to me, suppose some other author entirely had wanted to deliver a message similar to the one AR wanted to deliver, then what sort of book might result? Basically, I think that the counterfactuals change the parameters of who she was to such an extent as to pose impossibilities.

Well, that's always the problem with counterfactuals, it's like the so-called "problem" of free will: you may say you could have made a different choice in a particular instance, but the fact is that you didn't, so some of the parameters should have been different for a different choice. At most you could say that in a similar situation you shouldn't have been surprised if a different choice had been made. And I think that applies to the writing of AS as well. Her previous books, We the Living and The Fountainhead were definitely better in that regard, even if they are in other, more technical aspects inferior to AS, so I think that in a sense she could have done better, for example if she had had better and more critical feedback, instead of the rather uncritical adulation of her inner circle. After all she did make some minor changes after suggestions by NB among others. Who knows how receptive she would have been to more encompassing suggestions by NB at the time? She probably would have been very stubborn with regard to any outside editor who had only a vague understanding of what she wanted, but she might have listened to the person who then was her "intellectual heir".

[Ellen Stuttle]

[skipping the lead-up; I've nothing to add there.]

[...] how important are Objectivists in this world? Now I don't think the influence is only on the true-blue Objectivists, it may also direct people to libertarianism (which was for example unknown to me before I read Rand), so the influence is not limited to the tiny group of Objectivists.

I think that her directing a number of people to libertarianism -- two? three? four or more times as many? as became self-styled Objectivists -- was an important effect she had. It's developed from there, because some of those people have done important writing bringing awareness of the older classical liberal tradition to modern readers. So this was a kind of "unanticipated consequence" which I do think was a good one.

But even if you take this into account the real influence in the world has been negligeable, in spite of all the boastful rhetoric about successes.

I agree, and my prediction is that the influence will become even more negligible. There is that problem of Rand versus science. I think the majority of those who would like to have a naturalistic ethics are scientifically inclined and soon run into troubles over the sort of issues which have been coming up here on other threads.

Oh, but I also saw the [literary] flaws, only they seemed not that important in the beginning. As there was still a lot to discover, I ignored them at first, or perhaps even repressed them. I found for example Galt always a very unrealistic (and unsympathetic) personage, and the last part of the book, where all those evil people are screaming and dropping like flies I've aways found weak.

LOL

The description becomes quite childish when the heroes jump through the windows or Francisco paralyzes everyone merely by reciting all his dozen names, I found that rather embarrassing to read, but somehow I managed to ignore it more or less in the beginning. In contrast, I found the beginning of the novel masterful; I'm afraid Rand became so obsessed with promoting her message during her writing of the book that it gradually became more important than the literary aspects of her writing. As I said before: Rand the ideologue killed Rand the writer.

I described in an earlier post how I came to a halt on the "volitional consciousness" phrasing in the speech, and then, about a week later, decided to hold off on finishing the rest of the speech (till my family's impending vacation in Colorado) and just to finish the rest of the story then. I didn't say, but shall add, that I found the story a let down after the speech, sort of like a B grade swashbuckler, shades of Erroll Flynn (SP??). On the other hand, the part of the book which to this day I can still enjoy reading is the part up through the ride on the John Galt line.

[editing to highlight certain points]

[ES]I think that AR's own lack of psychological insight was quite essential to her writing that book.

I think that in a sense she could have done better, for example if she had had better and more critical feedback, instead of the rather uncritical adulation of her inner circle. After all she did make some minor changes after suggestions by NB among others. Who knows how receptive she would have been to more encompassing suggestions by NB at the time? She probably would have been very stubborn with regard to any outside editor who had only a vague understanding of what she wanted, but she might have listened to the person who then was her "intellectual heir".

The only changes which she's said to have made were two: Marrying Ragnar and Kay Ludlow at Barbara's request; and then, at NB's commenting on the weirdness of Ragnar's going to Galt's place instead of off to see his wife upon his arrival in the valley, changing the order of those events. On the other hand, NB says he objected to the business of Galt refusing to allow word to be gotten to Hank Rearden that Dagny was still alive. She worried, according to NB's accounts, about Galt looking wishy-washy if she did that. I really, really, very much doubt that she'd have been amenable to any suggestions of softening the preachiness or changing any of the characterizations. I further doubt that NB would have made such suggestions. He himself was impressed then by her psychological acumen. What if any of them had spoken up to her, tried to challenge the theory of human nature which she was crystallizing in process of writing Atlas? Imponderable question. My belief, though, is that anyone who had tried to challenge her -- I mean in any strong way, in a way which put up a convinced resistance to her views -- would have soon not been around her to try to be convincing her. Catch 22. Only someone close to her might have had a chance; but no one who would have earnestly tried to take the chance would have been close to her...

That's how I see it.

Ellen

___

Edited April 11, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Mike Hardy]

So often people who become Objectivists at least go through a phase of developing characteristics which make them a trial to be around. Another thing is that they often become carpingly critical of their own inner life, worrying about whether or not they're being "moral" in a way I don't suppose is much improvement over a fundamentalist Christian constant searching oneself for "sin." I haven't much acquaintance with fundamentalist Christian types; I knew a few of them in my school years but not well except in a couple cases. People I met in the O'ist world seemed to me to have very similar strictures about their inner world to those few Christian fundamentals I did know well.

Things do seem to be loosening up in this regard among younger-generation O'ists, at least of the TOC/TAS variety. I even hear reports of things improving among the ARI youngsters.

Why are they a trial to be around? (Rhetorical question---keep reading.) Three answers:

(1) They're 18-year-olds who got all their information from only one source and have a lot of enthusiasm and little knowledge, and they don't know that there's a whole lot more to learn.

(2) They think they're heroes like John Galt and Howard Roark, already complete and perfect.

(3) Some things about NBI culture. Reading Nathaniel Branden's _Judgment_Day_ caused me to suggest this one; I've also seen it corroborated to some extent by people who were there, commenting in various internet forums. He says he loved having his students be in fear and awe of him, and when Ayn Rand lost her patience with various people, he always leapt in to support her. Her not infrequent impatience with those who misunderstood was emotion; his leaping in was calculated to keep NBI students in awe of the Authorities. It's been a long time since I've cracked that book open, but that's one of the impressions I'm left with.

Reason #3 would explain things loosening up to some extent since NBI's been gone for a long time now.

Reason #1 is certainly something I've seen happen. #2 seems very much related; I think I've seen that too.

(Recently I saw #1 and something approaching #2 operating in some doofus with whom I exchanged some views back and forth for a while on Diana Hsieh's site. But he was probably about 60 years old, so I guess some don't outgrow it. He said that every concept must be referred to by just _one_ word, never a multiple-word phrase, and if I thought otherwise then my epistemology is so different from his that it was impossible for us to communicate. He cited Ayn Rand's _Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_ as a source of that proposition. I asked if Ayn Rand's concept of "conceptual common denominator" was not in fact a _concept_ that she introduced in that book, denoted by a three-word phrase. I also cited her concept of "sense of life", referred to by a three-word phrase. He went away without answering and was never seen again.)

#2 is a reason why Rand's heroes might be considered not a good influence. Ellen, is that what you had in mind?

-- Mike Hardy

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Fair enough. You think Gore is a flat-out liar who lies to his constituents.

Next question: How do you propose to convince his constituents that he is a flat-out liar?

Maybe a question should precede this one: Are you interested in trying to convince his constituents of anything at all?

Michael

Michael,

As I've told you twice previously, once in private correspondence and once on the "Inconvenient Truth" thread, I am not spending any direct efforts on the global warming issue in trying to reach the populace at large. That includes non-scientist members of Gore's constituency. I get into conversations with people I encounter on the usual rounds of my life, at restaurants, musical events, folks involved with the Jungian organization I'm on the board of directors of. I'm not planning out any sort of campaign with these people. When the subject comes up, I explain to them -- according to their amount of interest and adjusting according to how much of a scientific background they have -- why I think there is not in fact a global-warming catastrophe looming -- even a natural-climate-cycle one, let alone a man-made one. I almost always succeed at planting doubts in their thoughts over what they've read/heard in the media, seen in Gore's film, wherever they've acquired a sense of alarm. But my primary efforts in this area are assisting my husband with his discussions/presentations with scientists and others he knows in academe.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No doubt, but how important are Objectivists in this world? Now I don't think the influence is only on the true-blue Objectivists, it may also direct people to libertarianism (which was for example unknown to me before I read Rand), so the influence is not limited to the tiny group of Objectivists. But even if you take this into account the real influence in the world has been negligeable, in spite of all the boastful rhetoric about successes.

I agree, and my prediction is that the influence will become even more negligible.

Alan Greenspan?

Jimbo Wales?

How about the last part of The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden? That was back in 1986.

If you guys are talking about card-carrying Objectivists, OK. But the people who have studied and been influenced by Rand are legion and they are growing. There are oodles of important people—human events shapers and movers—in the world who fall in this category.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

#2 is a reason why Rand's heroes might be considered not a good influence. Ellen, is that what you had in mind?

-- Mike Hardy

See MH's post #85 above for his full comments. Yes, reason #2 has a lot to do with it, the imitatio Galti. It's also their accepting her psychological theories in general, so that they believe that those who are rational will quickly come to see how right AR's views are on most everything and their trigger-quick speed with the "evasion" charges when/if conversion isn't promptly forthcoming (as oh, so often, it isn't).

Ellen

___

Edited April 11, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

If you guys are talking about card-carrying Objectivists, OK. But the people who have studied and been influenced by Rand are legion and they are growing. There are oodles of important people—human events shapers and movers—in the world who fall in this category.

There are lots of people in the world who have been influenced, in some degree, by Rand, yes, as I said in speaking of all the people out there who loved Atlas (though maybe entirely skipping the speech) but never came to consider themselves Objectivists. I was talking about the influence of Rand's total "package," as summarized in the speech -- a speech she later captioned "This is the philosophy of Objectivism." -- as I think Dragonfly was also.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

On the other hand, NB says he objected to the business of Galt refusing to allow word to be gotten to Hank Rearden that Dagny was still alive. She worried, according to NB's accounts, about Galt looking wishy-washy if she did that.

I was only aware of Nathaniel bringing this up after the break in 1968, perhaps in one of the Reason interviews. I never knew of any other account such as objecting during the writing of the novel.

--Brant

Edited April 11, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

I'd expected Victor to delete his post #68 upon being confronted by his incorrect reportage, but, no, instead he's "explained" how, really, he was right while being wrong.

Ellen,

If you are calling me on the issue of global warming and a new ice age, all I can say to that is, before making hasty judgments yourself, read Gore’s “'Earth in the Balance”. (That is, if the subject interests you at all). If it is the issue of the “future generations” that you take issue with, I stand by what I have already said.

Michael,

I, for one, am very interested in listening to any ideas you may have about “reaching lay people”--if you are truly able to do so without straddling the fence with feet on both sides of the issue.

-Victor

Edited April 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

I'd expected Victor to delete his post #68 upon being confronted by his incorrect reportage, but, no, instead he's "explained" how, really, he was right while being wrong.

Ellen,

If you are calling me on issue of global warming and a new ice age, all I can say to that is, before making hasting judgments yourself, read Gore’s “'Earth in the Balance”. (That is, if the subject interests you at all). If it is the issue of the “future generations” that you take issue with, I stand by what I have already said.

-Victor

Victor, I have read all +2000 of your posts (last night) and have compiled a list of 989 posts I expect you to delete. If you want the list I'll send it to you free of charge. :shifty:

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

I'd expected Victor to delete his post #68 upon being confronted by his incorrect reportage, but, no, instead he's "explained" how, really, he was right while being wrong.

Ellen,

If you are calling me on issue of global warming and a new ice age, all I can say to that is, before making hasting judgments yourself, read Gore’s “'Earth in the Balance”. (That is, if the subject interests you at all). If it is the issue of the “future generations” that you take issue with, I stand by what I have already said.

-Victor

Victor, I have read all +2000 of your posts (last night) and have compiled a list of 989 posts I expect you to delete. If you want the list I'll send it to you free of charge. :shifty:

--Brant

Brant,

You must have been drinking a lot of coffee reading all those posts. Sure, Brant, send it to me. :turned:

Victor

P.S.

Don't ask me to delete my love posts to Angie, please!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I, for one, am very interested in listening to any ideas you may have about “reaching lay people”--if you are truly able to do so without straddling the fence with feet on both sides of the issue.

Well, hell.

Let's use the language that the laypeople among Gore's constituents will understand, without straddling a fence of course. Maybe it can go something like this:

"You people are either goddam fools to be taken in by a meely-mouthed bald-faced liar, or you are just as green-bellied and slimy as he is. This is war, folks and you are the enemy. Don't think you are going to weasel your way out of this one.

You have two choices: surrender or else.

And don't even think about voting for environmental laws. I mean it. You will be very, very sorry.

Read Ayn Rand and get a life, you bastards!"

There. That should convince them.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

I, for one, am very interested in listening to any ideas you may have about “reaching lay people”--if you are truly able to do so without straddling the fence with feet on both sides of the issue.

Well, hell.

Let's use the language that the laypeople among Gore's constituents will understand, without straddling a fence of course. Maybe it can go something like this:

"You people are either goddam fools to be taken in by a meely-mouthed bald-faced liar, or you are just as green-bellied and slimy as he is. This is war, folks and you are the enemy. Don't think you are going to weasel your way out of this one.

You have two choices: surrender or else.

And don't even think about voting for environmental laws. I mean it. You will be very, very sorry.

Read Ayn Rand and get a life, you bastards!"

There. That should convince them.

Michael

Michael,

A lesson in satire and humor: for it to be effective—it must have some basis in truth. The approach you try to caricaturize surely does not speak of me, but may very well be true of other Objectivists. Maybe Damage? But so what? And even then, your purported point lacks wit. That’s okay, I am not saying every painting I complete is a masterpiece and I do miss the mark many times, so really, I don’t lay any blame at your feet. :turned:

Seriously though, I don’t think that the works of, say, George Reisman—who wrote the extremely well reasoned and compelling “The Toxicity of Environmentalism” or Peter Schwartz’s own work should be subject to your caricature. Both men's work relies on a conveying of facts and well-reasoned arguments. Don't you agree? Or do you use one big paint brush to do a wholesale wash on the ARI canvas?

Victor

Edited April 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seriously though, I don’t think that the works of, say, George Reisman—who wrote the extremely well reason and compelling “The Toxicity of Environmentalism” or Peter Schwartz’s own work should be subject to your caricature. Both men's work relies on a conveying of facts and well-reasoned arguments. Don't you agree?

Yeah, you're right.

I see the laypeople in Gore's constituents reading Reisman and especially Schwartz every day of the week. They are jumping ship in droves because of it and damning Gore as a liar to boot. I don't know how they got taken in by Gore, but thank goodness those gentlemen came along.

Frankly, I am grateful you straightened me out on this. I don't know what I was thinking. My priorities somehow got turned upside down. Ain't no laws going to be passed ever. What on earth is wrong with me?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Seriously though, I don’t think that the works of, say, George Reisman—who wrote the extremely well reason and compelling “The Toxicity of Environmentalism” or Peter Schwartz’s own work should be subject to your caricature. Both men's work relies on a conveying of facts and well-reasoned arguments. Don't you agree?

Yeah, you're right.

I see the laypeople in Gore's constituents reading Reisman and especially Schwartz every day of the week. They are jumping ship in droves because of it and damning Gore as a liar to boot. I don't know how they got taken in by Gore, but thank goodness those gentlemen came along.

Frankly, I am grateful you straightened me out on this. I don't know what I was thinking. My priorities somehow got turned upside down. Ain't no laws going to be passed ever. What on earth is wrong with me?

Michael

Michael,

Please, let’s reduce the huffy tones and be reasonable. Really, if you can make yourself and your ideas accessible to Gore’s constituents–-or whatever you have in mind to affect change, then I welcome a demonstration. You have been rather cryptic in your exchange with Ellen, but I am still intrigued by your passion and inspired activism—if indeed that is what it is. In regard to Reisman and Schwartz's work, I merely put it to you that you should not avoid bringing their works to light merely because they are central ARI figure heads. Do you think they are doing a good job---their arguments, that is?

-Victor

[Brant Gaede]

Seriously though, I don’t think that the works of, say, George Reisman—who wrote the extremely well reason and compelling “The Toxicity of Environmentalism” or Peter Schwartz’s own work should be subject to your caricature. Both men's work relies on a conveying of facts and well-reasoned arguments. Don't you agree?

Yeah, you're right.

I see the laypeople in Gore's constituents reading Reisman and especially Schwartz every day of the week. They are jumping ship in droves because of it and damning Gore as a liar to boot. I don't know how they got taken in by Gore, but thank goodness those gentlemen came along.

Frankly, I am grateful you straightened me out on this. I don't know what I was thinking. My priorities somehow got turned upside down. Ain't no laws going to be passed ever. What on earth is wrong with me?

Michael

Anthropogenic global warming has become a green religious crusade fulminating with calls for action and demands to cut off dissent--literally. This whole thing has been building for a long, long time and really all one can do is hunker down and let the storm expend itself. In the meantime merely speak and publish the truth so that the formerly deranged can find it later.

For example, here is what my ardently environmentalist grandfather wrote in his last book (1988--he died in 1976):

"Will human error dissolve the ozone layer of the atmosphere at the edge of space and bring down on us the destructive ultraviolet radiation of the sun? A six-or seven-degree change in the earth's climate, down or up, would produce a new ice age or melt the polar ice caps and flood great cities and lowlands. Will excessive burning of fossil fuels produce such a change of climate?" (Irving Brant, "Adventures In Conservation With Franklin D. Roosevelt," Northland Publishing, p.322)

And Michael, how are you going to convince Victor his tactics are wrong using the very tactics you are criticizing him for?

--Brant

Edited April 11, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

I'm disappointed in the -tone- this thread has taken in recent posts:

Victor, Ellen, and Michael are not using outright insult toward each other, but sort of a hostile, cutting, sarcastic tone in 'rebutting' each other.

It's not very edifying or helpful. Or worth reading. (And, no, it doesn't matter who 'started it').

[Victor Pross]

I'm disappointed in the -tone- this thread has taken in recent posts:

Victor, Ellen, and Michael are not using outright insult toward each other, but sort of a hostile, cutting, sarcastic tone in 'rebutting' each other.

It's not very edifying or helpful. Or worth reading. (And, no, it doesn't matter who 'started it').

Yes, Phillip, I am growing tired of it myself—-both when I am guilty of it and even less so when cheap shots are taken at me. You are the cool voice of reason. In regards to making any impression to, say, some one like OL’s own Elizabeth (who is still coming to terms with concepts like “evil” and the world of ideas) I would like to bring to her attention the book “The New Primitive.”

There are two essays in the book ‘Return to the primitive’ that deal with Environmentalism. One by Ayn Rand - it's called 'The Anti-Industrial Revolution'. And one by Schwartz called 'The Philosophy of Privation'--an excellent work! It will help the reader identify Environmentalism for what it is--because it names the fundamental ideas that this ideology rests on. THAT is key. Finally, it also gives the reader what I think is a very clear-cut picture of the anti-science approach that Environmentalists have. That is, contrary to their publicity agents they do not rest their views on Science. In fact, they are ignorant of science.

Anyway, I would like to return to talking about ideas.

-Victor

Edited April 11, 2007 by Victor Pross