The Effect by Mark ___(?)

[Roger Bissell]

The Effect

by Mark ____? on ariwatch.com

Every now and then you meet someone who claims that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is the philosophy of fascism, that in practice it eventually would lead to Hitler. Arguing with such people is difficult now that the “Ayn Rand Institute” has become the official representative of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. According to ARI her philosophy means violating individual rights while uttering patriotic bromides, placing halos above the heads of bold fearless leaders, reveling in war, torturing perceived enemies of the state – the whole playbook of fascism. That is what ARI says, not very consistently.

But of course Ayn Rand’s philosophy means none of these things. The coil of verbiage thrown out by the Ayn Rand Institute to ensnare the young and ignorant no more represents Ayn Rand’s philosophy than a con man’s spiel is an honest business proposition.

What a disgusting spectacle the official Objectivists make, now, when we need real insight the most.

Ayn Rand’s lifework and savings pay for the humbug generated by ARI, and for its advertisement. Leonard Peikoff, the man behind ARI and the executor of her estate, recently issued a new paperback printing of Atlas Shrugged to celebrate its semi-centennial. Printed on the back cover you find ARI’s website address. Bound among its pages is a "request-for-information" card which on mailing gets you an advertisement for Impact newsletter. People will read this literature expecting to find Ayn Rand’s ideas applied to current events, and instead find a grotesque caricature of her ideas, like biting into a mock apple pie and gagging on a mouthful of sawdust.

Decent people will respond: “If this is what Ayn Rand’s philosophy means, I want nothing to do with it !” ARI hinders the spread of Ayn Rand’s philosophy more than all her forthright enemies combined.

ARI is like Janus of legend, the man with two faces: a face on the front of his head and, hideous to imagine, a face symmetrically opposite on the back. One face of this monster works its jaws praising the pursuit of happiness and the virtue of benevolent self-interest. Then he turns around and presents to you his hind face. Just as animated as the first, this face praises dying for “freedom” everywhere on earth, and remains silent about the systematic destruction of authentic freedom here at home. This twofaced monster bumbles about showing each of its faces in turn, promoting inalienable human rights, honesty, and Ancient Greece with one face – and the expedient violation of human rights, the noble lie, and torture with the other.

The raft of contradictions is the last insult to the idea of ideas. Crate this monster and label it “To be sent to the zoo, Ash bin of History section.”

Ayn Rand once observed that her philosophy is its own avenger. The intellectual vandals at ARI won’t get away with aping her language while corrupting her ideas. The sincere and intelligent in their audience will be repelled once they see the true colors of ARI.

ARI must be fought continually, though, because Leonard Peikoff continually finances it from Ayn Rand’s estate. Each time someone buys a book by Ayn Rand part of the purchase price eventually goes to ARI, and every time someone looks at a paperback edition they see what appears to be Ayn Rand’s endorsement of ARI on the cover. When Ayn Rand chose Mr. Peikoff as her heir she ended up posthumously financing the perversion of her own philosophy. But again, there is good reason to believe that her real philosophy will win in the end. When a man says A is A and acts like Up is Down, most people won’t conclude A is not A, they will conclude the man is a hypocrite.

[iMPORTANT NOTE: I have made two egregious errors regarding the author of the above piece. As a result of my misinterpreting a graph on the ariwatch website, I erroneously identified its author as Jack Wakeland, and I miswrote his name as Jack Wakefield. The comments by Robert Bidinotto and Robert Campbell and Michael Kelly effectively clarify the situation, the actual writer being some guy named Mark (last name?), who runs the ariwatch website and has also run afoul of the managers of more than one Objectivist discussion website. My sincere apologies to Mr. Wakeland and to anyone who was angry or upset at seeing the above piece mistakenly connected to him, even by insinuation...REB]

[BaalChatzaf]

.................. some snippage to conserver disk space............................

Decent people will respond: “If this is what Ayn Rand’s philosophy means, I want nothing to do with it !” ARI hinders the spread of Ayn Rand’s philosophy more than all her forthright enemies combined.

......................snippage ...................................................................

The Roman Church betrayed Christ in pretty much the same way. After the Founder dies almost anything goes.

Ba'lal Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I don't like the kinds of criticisms like the one presented by Mr. Wakefield. There's no evidence and no examples, it's just a rant. It throws around the word fascism and hopes the tag will stick to ARI. In my book being a fascist or an apologist for fascism or even anything remotely like it is the ultimate verdict of damnation.

There are a raft of untoward things ARI can be accused of with justice. Being "fascist" or something like it is not one of them.

Jim

Edited October 8, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Reidy]

This raises a couple of questions.

1. Does ARI actually collect royalties off Rand's books? Wakefield's statement is ambiguous enough for plausible denial, but that seems to be what he's saying. My understanding is that most of their income is from individual donations and that their startup money came from a donor (Ed Snider?) who later went over to what is now TAS. Peikoff may send them money, but I don't think he's a major source or that they have any formal or semi-formal royalty arrangement. Their annual budget, I recently read, is $7M, which is maybe 10 times what Rand's copyrights bring in.

2. Does anybody really judge Objectivism by the schisms or by the behavior of the ARI and its principals? The only people who pay any attention are either Objectivists, who've already decided they like the ideas, or antagonists who've likewise already made up their minds and are using this as an ex post facto rationalization for a judgement that patently has nothing to do with ARI. Jeff Walker and various conservatives come to mind, as well as people I've met (we've all met) personally. I have yet to yet to come across somebody who read Rand, thought her ideas over and decided against them on this basis. Would you really want to attract such frivolous people anyway?

Edited October 8, 2007 by Reidy

[Neil Parille]

I'm not sure what's so objectionable about having tear-out pages or a link to ARI. I don't I have a huge problem with Peikoff publishing his intros to Rand's books, but if he wants to advance Objectivism, maybe he should publish some original stuff.

Unfortunately, the ARI carries on some of the worse aspects of Rand's personality and movement. I bet that if she were alive, she would probably support its general approach to things.

[Chris Grieb]

Neil;

Peikoff is the sole heir. The books and the royalties are his property.

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

You don't have to support ARI or TAS. Advance Objectivism in your own way and with your voice.

[Robert Campbell]

I don't know who Jack Wakefield is, but I'm reasonably sure he's a different person from Jack Wakeland, who contributes on occasion to The Intellectual Activist.

In any event, Wakefield has wasted his own time, not to mention everyone else's, with this unfocused blast. If you are going to criticize the Leonard Peikoff Institute, or any other organization that claims to promote a point of view, you have to be prepared to provide specifics.

And of course it doesn't help that Wakefield fails to distinguish between the Estate of Ayn Rand and ARI.

ARI does not appear to get any revenue from the royalties that accrue to the Estate of Ayn Rand. Those go into Leonard Peikoff's pocket, and will flow in the future to his heirs and assigns, so long as the copyrights remain in force. (Depending on when Rand wrote the material in question, copyrights on everything except Anthem will variously expire between 2021 and 2077--unless Congress is prevailed upon to extend the terms again.)

However, Leonard Peikoff so effectively controls ARI that I prefer to call it the Leonard Peikoff Institute. This is partly because as Rand's heir, he commands the loyalty of the orthodox. It's also because, as the sole proprietor of the Ayn Rand Archives, he can cut off access to every ARI scholar should anyone with authority in the organization displease him. He can also expel ARI's cards from future printings of Rand's books whenever he wishes.

It is true that most of the activities of the Leonard Peikoff Institute are noticed only in Rand-land. And that reasonably well informed people will, for the most part, develop their impressions of Ayn Rand from reading her books.

However...

When the general public becomes aware of some of the political stands taken by ARI's principals and spokespeople, there can be negative consequences for the way Rand is viewed. Certainly Dr. Peikoff's infamously wild-eyed appearance on The O'Reilly Factor did nothing to promote Objectivism, unless it was among those already convinced of the imperative need to carpet-nuke Iran.

And when academics become aware of the loyalty tests and exclusionary antics that prevail at both the Estate and LPI, there is further fallout. Texas State turned down a faculty position funded by the Anthem Foundation because of Andy Bernstein's public penance and call for a boycott of JARS.

What would Ayn Rand think of LPI, if she could come around for an inspection tour?

I agree with Neil that she would approve of a lot of its activities, including loyalty tests and exclusionary antics. Michael has demonstrated the "air brushing" process was initiated by Rand herself, though not carried to the lengths that have subsequently become customary. And it's not as though Rand had no idea what Leonard Peikoff was like when she wrote him into her will.

On the other hand, I can't see Rand having a whole lot of patience with Peter Schwartz inserting one of his third-rate essays into a collection of her writings, or with spokespersons for LPI praising Franklin D. Roosevelt and trying to put maximum distance between Objectivism and Austrian economics.

It isn't just that institutions move away from the principles of their founders, though obviously they do. Rand farmed out the systematic presentation of her philosophy to others. She wanted to make Objectivism an appellation d'origine contrôlée, but never wrote her own treatise on the philosophy. So, like it or not, she ended up presiding over some kind of blend of Randianism/Brandenism/Peikovianism/who-knows-who-else-ism. Objectivism was already the work of more than one author when NBI opened its doors; it just got more that way after she died.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

I do think Rand would be outraged at Mayhew editing her words (in Ayn Rand Answers) or Peter Schwartz reissuing The New Left.

Rand, it seems to me, wanted academic approval of Objectivism, but at the same time wanted to denounce academics with whom she disagreed no matter how sympathetic they might be to her ideas.

It's quite a tight rope.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Where did you get your information that the author of this article is Jack Wakefield? This article is taken off the ARI Watch website run by a guy named Mark. The original article The Effect can be found as linked and it does not say it was written by Wakefield. There is an author called Jack Wakeland who is associated with Robert Tracinski and The Intellectual Activist. The name Jack Wakefield is really close and sounds like a purposeful confusion to smear Wakeland (not by you, of course, but by the person who posted this from wherever you got it). The fact is that ARI Watch is highly critical of Wakeland (scroll down on the ARI Watch home page and you will see a separate entry for him).

What I have learned of ARI Watch is that the guy "Mark" has posted on a couple of websites as "Mark Hunter" (see here, where Kat asked him if he was the owner back in 2005, and here). He was posting on Noodlefood bashing the Brandens, but Hsieh threw him off the site (see here and following for the whole shebang). He used to be a regular poster on SLOP. I don't know about recently.

We have discussed this site a few times. Below are the threads to a couple of them:

Has anyone been to this new website, www.ARIwatch.com? (If this doesn't connect, type ARI Watch into Google, and click on the link).

Anyway, it is "new" to me. I don't know who set it up, but it has a running critical analysis of many positions that ARI has taken - and then compares it to what Ayn Rand, herself, had actually said on the selected topic.

Check it out! Anyone know anything about this site? It looks pretty good, so far!

My congratulations to whoever set the site up!

I don't think it's that new. I seem to recall finding that site a few months back.

One thing I am bothered with is that there is no info as to who is behind it.

This site belongs to a guy named "Mark." He posts on SLOP and sometimes on Hsieh's blog. He has a bug about ARI, but he is strongly anti-Branden.

I have looked over his site a couple of times. Its focus is strongly on US politics (Iraq war, etc.) to the exclusion of practically everything else.

Michael

Does anyone out there know anything about this site?

It sounds like an excellent idea but no one is named as being a writer. They seem to be critizing the foreign policy ideas of ARI but I would like some names.

Does anyone out there know anything about this site?

It sounds like an excellent idea but no one is named as being a writer. They seem to be critizing the foreign policy ideas of ARI but I would like some names.

Which site?

Ba'al Chatzaf

http://ariwatch.com/

I love it! 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! Thanks ARI Watch!

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

Michael

[Bidinotto]

I've posted elsewhere that this attack on ARI, which was circulated without attribution by another writer, was grossly unfair and unjust. I thought that the other writer was the person who wrote it, but this may not be the case. Regardless, it is a smear against an organization that does many good things -- and I say this as one who has been strongly critical of aspects of ARI.

I don't believe for a second that this semi-literate screed was penned by Robert Tracinski's associate, a man who in his writing has shown himself to be a much clearer, more subtle thinker than this, and much more honorable. I appreciate Michael's efforts to clarify who may have been the purveyor of this nonsense.

[Robert Jones]

I am -- to say the least -- not at all found of ARI.

But, fair is fair.

But, Roger, et al., let us not be led down the garden path: The anti-Semitic bile spewed forth on this website, its anonymous nature, and its shrill cant render it beneath debate.

While we oughn't ignore it, I think debating it, or even analysing it seriously (even if to point out its myriad flaws and inconsistencies), is a serious mistake.

As long as it is anonymous in nature, we ought to simply ridicule it for what it is: A child's whining harangue and a fruitcake's political hallucinations.

I have voiced elsewhere that it looks like the work of some CAIR-wannabe. I think the wisest course is for some computer nerd among us to find out who owns the url. There are records of that somewhere on the web. ARI has long been making statements in the War on Radical Islam for years, and this thing simply smells like CAIRs smear tactics. I see this as a set-up -- to establish some kind of atmosphere on the web that ARI is a bigoted, anti-Arab/anti-Moslem hate group -- and then bring in the REAL CAIR to finish off the job (i.e., lawsuit by CAIR and the ACLU). This is a hunch on my part, but I've seen it happen for real before.

What I'm getting at is this: It really had ought to be looked into.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

An Islamist element behind Ariwatch is an interesting theory. It certainly is plausible from the rhetoric. You are right. It should be looked at.

Michael

[Selene]

The Effect

by Mark ____? on ariwatch.com

Every now and then you meet someone who claims that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is the philosophy of fascism, that in practice it eventually would lead to Hitler. Arguing with such people is difficult now that the “Ayn Rand Institute” has become the official representative of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. According to ARI her philosophy means violating individual rights while uttering patriotic bromides, placing halos above the heads of bold fearless leaders, reveling in war, torturing perceived enemies of the state – the whole playbook of fascism. That is what ARI says, not very consistently.

But of course Ayn Rand’s philosophy means none of these things. The coil of verbiage thrown out by the Ayn Rand Institute to ensnare the young and ignorant no more represents Ayn Rand’s philosophy than a con man’s spiel is an honest business proposition.

What a disgusting spectacle the official Objectivists make, now, when we need real insight the most.

Ayn Rand’s lifework and savings pay for the humbug generated by ARI, and for its advertisement. Leonard Peikoff, the man behind ARI and the executor of her estate, recently issued a new paperback printing of Atlas Shrugged to celebrate its semi-centennial. Printed on the back cover you find ARI’s website address. Bound among its pages is a "request-for-information" card which on mailing gets you an advertisement for Impact newsletter. People will read this literature expecting to find Ayn Rand’s ideas applied to current events, and instead find a grotesque caricature of her ideas, like biting into a mock apple pie and gagging on a mouthful of sawdust.

Decent people will respond: “If this is what Ayn Rand’s philosophy means, I want nothing to do with it !” ARI hinders the spread of Ayn Rand’s philosophy more than all her forthright enemies combined.

ARI is like Janus of legend, the man with two faces: a face on the front of his head and, hideous to imagine, a face symmetrically opposite on the back. One face of this monster works its jaws praising the pursuit of happiness and the virtue of benevolent self-interest. Then he turns around and presents to you his hind face. Just as animated as the first, this face praises dying for “freedom” everywhere on earth, and remains silent about the systematic destruction of authentic freedom here at home. This twofaced monster bumbles about showing each of its faces in turn, promoting inalienable human rights, honesty, and Ancient Greece with one face – and the expedient violation of human rights, the noble lie, and torture with the other.

The raft of contradictions is the last insult to the idea of ideas. Crate this monster and label it “To be sent to the zoo, Ash bin of History section.”

Ayn Rand once observed that her philosophy is its own avenger. The intellectual vandals at ARI won’t get away with aping her language while corrupting her ideas. The sincere and intelligent in their audience will be repelled once they see the true colors of ARI.

ARI must be fought continually, though, because Leonard Peikoff continually finances it from Ayn Rand’s estate. Each time someone buys a book by Ayn Rand part of the purchase price eventually goes to ARI, and every time someone looks at a paperback edition they see what appears to be Ayn Rand’s endorsement of ARI on the cover. When Ayn Rand chose Mr. Peikoff as her heir she ended up posthumously financing the perversion of her own philosophy. But again, there is good reason to believe that her real philosophy will win in the end. When a man says A is A and acts like Up is Down, most people won’t conclude A is not A, they will conclude the man is a hypocrite.

[iMPORTANT NOTE: I have made two egregious errors regarding the author of the above piece. As a result of my misinterpreting a graph on the ariwatch website, I erroneously identified its author as Jack Wakeland, and I miswrote his name as Jack Wakefield. The comments by Robert Bidinotto and Robert Campbell and Michael Kelly effectively clarify the situation, the actual writer being some guy named Mark (last name?), who runs the ariwatch website and has also run afoul of the managers of more than one Objectivist discussion website. My sincere apologies to Mr. Wakeland and to anyone who was angry or upset at seeing the above piece mistakenly connected to him, even by insinuation...REB]

It is alleged that Freud said on his deathbed to his closest friend, "Please protect me from the neo-Freudians".

[Selene]

I'm not sure what's so objectionable about having tear-out pages or a link to ARI. I don't I have a huge problem with Peikoff publishing his intros to Rand's books, but if he wants to advance Objectivism, maybe he should publish some original stuff.

Unfortunately, the ARI carries on some of the worse aspects of Rand's personality and movement. I bet that if she were alive, she would probably support its general approach to things.

Precisely, I was fortunate enough to have attended NBI before, during and a very short time after the purge of the Branden's. However, true believers are true believers - A is A. Rand was not the most personable person to ask a question of at these meetings in the basement of the Empire State Building. I watched her excoriate young, wide eyed acolytes who never had a chance asking a question. However, does anyone know how Aristotle "taught" his students?

[BaalChatzaf]

[

Precisely, I was fortunate enough to have attended NBI before, during and a very short time after the purge of the Branden's. However, true believers are true believers - A is A. Rand was not the most personable person to ask a question of at these meetings in the basement of the Empire State Building. I watched her excoriate young, wide eyed acolytes who never had a chance asking a question. However, does anyone know how Aristotle "taught" his students?

Most of the surviving Aristotelean corpus are his lecture notes. Writings for wider and more popular consumption, such as Aristotle's dialogs (mentioned by the Roman, Cicero) apparently did not survive. From A's lecture notes we can reasonably infer that his style was even tempered, very cool and "academic". In class, Aristotle, did not engage in polemic, if his surviving writings are any indication. Think of Ragnar teaching a class. Ragnar without a pirate ship that is.

Plato's surviving writings, are largely literary works and even in translation one can sense how urbane and witty they were. Plato did not get dull until his later years when he wrote -The Laws-. In his earlier dialogs one can sense that he was having a lot of fun.

Of Rand, what can we say? Well, fun, was not her thing. She was mostly Serious.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 11, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam Selene,

Let me extend a very warm welcome to OL. I don't know who you are, unless Athena-like you sprang forth fully formed from the head of Heinlein, but I like what I have been reading.

I hope you enjoy it here.

Michael

[Robert Jones]

Adam Selene,

Let me extend a very warm welcome to OL. I don't know who you are, unless Athena-like you sprang forth fully formed from the head of Heinlein, but I like what I have been reading.

I hope you enjoy it here.

Michael

TANSTAAFL!!! HA HA! Welcome, Selene!

[Mark]

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.

[Mark]

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:

“... we at the Ayn Rand Institute are doing what we can to spread some better ideas. Dr. Yaron Brook alone, its executive director – sitting right there – in the last six months has been interviewed on 59 radio and television programs and in the press, and has given 31 speeches to groups large and small, trying to get the word out. But no one man even he, no one institute, can change the world.”

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.”

[Mark]

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:

1. She valued individual rights, ARI says they’re expendable.

2. She opposed FDR’s war, ARI uses it as an object lesson.

3. She thought torture was what thugs do, ARI thinks it’s a legitimate method of state inquiry.

4. She hated the National Review and its ilk, ARI pays lip service to that hatred while embracing their policy.

5. She supported Israel in ignorance of its past and future crimes against America, ARI has no such excuse (and neither would she today).

6. She valued the truth, ARI by its actions holds the truth in contempt.

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

[Mark]

Robert Campbell calls “The Effect” an:

“... unfocused blast. If you are going to criticize the Leonard Peikoff Institute ... you have to be prepared to provide specifics.”

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:

“When the general public becomes aware of some of the political stands taken by ARI’s principals and spokespeople, there can be negative consequences for the way Rand is viewed. ...

...

“... I can’t see Rand having a whole lot of patience with Peter Schwartz inserting one of his third-rate essays into a collection of her writings, or with spokespersons for LPI [ARI] praising Franklin D. Roosevelt ... .”

[Mark]

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:

... grossly unfair and unjust

... (insinuation) crude

... (insinuation) dishonorable

... a purveyor of nonsense

I disagree, but then you knew that already.

[Mark]

Regarding ARI Watch, Robert Jones refers to:

“The anti-Semitic bile spewed forth on this website ...”

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:

“... I think debating it, or even analysing it seriously (even if to point out its myriad flaws and inconsistencies), is a serious mistake.”

“... a fruitcake’s political hallucinations.”

“... this thing simply smells like CAIRs smear tactics. I see this as a set-up – to establish some kind of atmosphere on the web that ARI is a bigoted, anti-Arab/anti-Moslem hate group – and then bring in the REAL CAIR to finish off the job (i.e., lawsuit by CAIR and the ACLU). This is a hunch on my part ...”

“... It really had ought to be looked into.”

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:

“... accusing them [ARI] of Zionist conpiracies ...”

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.

“... shrill cant render it beneath debate.”

“A child’s whining harangue ...”

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.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I posted this on another thread. Many of the comments are appropriate for this thread, so I am giving it as is.

Mark,

Before all else, let me welcome you to OL. I am going to operate under the assumption that you are the same person who runs ARI Watch. If I am wrong, please correct me. This being the case, there are a few comments I would like to make. To start, let's get to your post.

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

As regards the charge of making stuff up, here is a direct quote from The Effect on ARI Watch (and this essay is discussed on another thread, so I might copy this post over there):

ARI must be fought continually, though, because Leonard Peikoff continually finances it from Ayn Rand’s estate. Each time someone buys a book by Ayn Rand part of the purchase price eventually goes to ARI, and every time someone looks at a paperback edition they see what appears to be Ayn Rand’s endorsement of ARI on the cover.

There is no way you could have known the income part of this because it isn't true that copyright fees go to ARI, not even partially. I have heard from more than one reliable source that Peikoff keeps the income from Rand's works. They go into his pocket. Peikoff even charges ARI for the use of some things from his inheritance. ARI is maintained by private donors, including a few millionaires. The main funding when it was founded came from the piggy-bank of Ed Snider, who later migrated to TAS in disgust. I personally think this funding was a rusty nail driven through Snider at the time as a rider on him getting the motion picture rights to Atlas Shrugged.

You stated your contention about ARI's funding as a fact and did not check or cite a source, thus you made it up. This could have been avoided easily by qualifying your speculation as speculation and not presenting it as a fact.

As to the other so-called slurs, I have not presented my criticism as such and that was not my intent. (Believe me, when I want to say something bad about someone, I do not mince words, so I really have no use for slurring.) I honestly do not like your rhetorical approach and I even think it is counterproductive to your goals. Your ham-handed lopsided rhetoric is what I mean by trying to cure hemlock poisoning with battery acid. One does not effectively counter propaganda with more propaganda from the other end. One kills propaganda with the simple truth. Thus, I am not trying to play oneupmanship or gotcha or smearing. It you have any discussions with me, you will find that I am a stickler for precision. I hold myself to that standard and I hold others to it.

Moving on, there are a few matters not related to the above post.

1. I do believe the watchdog work you are doing is valuable. It needs doing because the excesses by ARI are numerous and you have a good eye for them. I think you water your message down, though, and do not convince many people because of errors like the above and because of your overly-flamboyant rhetoric that borders on antisemitism and exaggerates too much when bashing ARI (or whomever/whatever you are bashing at the moment). I saw your site ages ago, but turned off at the time precisely for these reasons (and I was even into the flamboyant bashing style back then—I have since eschewed that).

If you have read much on OL, you will have perceived that there is probably not any Objectivist site out there that is friendly to understanding Islam and Muslims like you find here (see the Mideast section). I also run strong interference when the boundary of anti-Muslim bigotry or total misrepresentation is reached. (See this post as an example. For the record, none of the posters on that thread are racists to my knowledge, but I did pull the covers off the racism issue to show how it can be present with certain kind of rhetoric. btw - On that same thread, you can see part of the way I am presently approaching the issue of Islamism here.)

I am now on the other side of the fence on another thread defending the achievements of Jews and trying to keep the racism issue out of it. The Jewish culture encourages education and this results in high achievement. Any culture that encourages education harvests results of high achievement. I applaud this (see here, despite the horrible title I let slip by—see here for explanation).

The point is that if I am asked about which side I am on, Jew or Muslim, I say, "Neither," or "Both." I side with one or the other on specific issues, depending on whatever objective facts I can find and how they align with reason, thus I tend to piss off both sides. I have found an enormous amount of distortion in all quarters so far and not one person with a diploma of sainthood. Lots of loud honking, though, and lots of plain good people, Jews and Muslims, who try to stay out of all the yelling. At the present, I favor the works of Bernard Lewis, which I find to be the most level-headed, factual and insightful in interpreting a big picture view of the troubles.

I say this because I have detected a strong anti-Israel bias in your writing. I have no problem with you presenting your reasons and conclusions, but I will discourage preaching if that ever starts arising. I am not a big fan of scapegoating-type rhetoric.

2. Based on all this, I would like to ask you a question. Do you have a pro-Muslim bias or are you affiliated with any kind of Islamic organization, or is ARI Watch? (I hope I have managed to convey that I favor speaking well of cultures on matters like achievement, and that includes the different Islamic cultures.)

3. I have read your posts where you give some pretty nasty opinions about the Brandens on Internet discussions at other sites. I want to draw your attention to something in our opening orientation (from Basic Objectivist Living stuff):

For the detractors of the Brandens, please be advised that Objectivist Living is a haven for them. People can get a positive image of them here. They can learn about the Brandens and learn from them. The Brandens were fundamental to the creation of Objectivism and we feel lucky to be able to interact with them. Disagreements with them on specific issues are OK, but Branden bashing is not tolerated. Instead, we wish to honor them.

Please honor our policy in this matter when you post on OL.

As an aside on this, despite the lapse I mentioned, I do find your standard of scholarship on ARI Watch generally pretty good (albeit lopsided and stretched at times). I did not detect you using this same standard in relation to the Brandens. You seem to have relied on PARC and the general folklore. There are many discussions on OL of PARC's defects and shoddiness (the name of its shortcomings is "Legion"). If you are interested in accuracy as a value, I would like to draw your attention to two articles by Neil Parille here and here.

As another aside, I think your message on ARI Watch would benefit greatly from using a fact-focused approach like Neil used and omit the constantly repeated opinions. Impact and convincing power would certainly increase enormously. I know this is an unsolicited suggestion, but one good strong opinion after a mountain of facts showing errors and biases is far more effective than the nonstop voluminous haranguing interspersed around facts and quotes I have read in your articles.

That is what I have to say for now. I hope you find value here and, please, make yourself at home.

Michael

[Greybird]

I posted this on another thread. Many of the comments are appropriate for this thread, so I am giving it as is. [...]

And I responded here to MSK's quoted post.