wherein lies the sadness?

[Roger Bissell]

William Scherk wrote of Chris Sciabarra and Diana Hsieh:

I only wonder at the depth of friendship claimed, and find it sad that these two never looked into each other's eyes or clasped hands. Sadder still that they likely never will.

How can it be sad that one will never look into the eyes or clasp the hand of someone who has revealed herself to be a lying, backstabbing snake? It came at a great price, but Chris has learned that there is one person whom he can NEVER trust for truth, loyalty, or anything worthwhile.

And Chris is not the only person who has learned that lesson from this hideous brouhaha flowing (oozing?) from the "Dialectical Dishonesty" posting. (I cannot imagine a better self-description for its author, unless she had used the word "Diabolical.")

Diana et al COUNT ON Chris being too much of a gentleman and a respecter of people's "privacy" and "intellectual property" to fully and decisively defend himself against the scurrilous false charges that have been made against him.

But as all parasites and power-lusters find, they will eventually run out of victims and "host bodies," and they will turn upon each other in their zeal to exorcize demons and rise to power in the movement. If Robert and Phil would lay off for even 1-2 weeks and stop feeding these people, they would see that this is so. (Even so, cracks are already appearing in the facade of false fellowship on So-Low Bashin.')

They are so anxious to find demons and monsters to slay. All they really need do is look in the mirror.

REB

[Paul Mawdsley]

Roger, so I take it you see Phil's actions as more in alignment with Rearden's?

Paul

[Kat]

I do

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... Chris has learned that there is one person whom he can NEVER trust for truth, loyalty, or anything worthwhile.

Roger,

In terms of people Chris cared about, there are at least three (and probably a couple of others).

That's not so bad either. There are precious irreplaceable minutes and hours of his life that will not be wasted with these people any longer.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Michael -- yes, certainly. Dizzy Vertigo and Java the Moron, to name two (and probably ~the~ two you are thinking of).

Paul -- Rearden's actions, as opposed to whose? You mean the Strikers? Unfortunately, the metaphor is not fully applicable. I am not suggesting that we secede from the Objectivist movement. I am suggesting that we withdraw our sanction from Dizzy & Company, which means that we don't grant them the unearned dignity of replying to their scurrilous, false accusations against us and our friends.

Contrary to what some believe, this "Dialectical Dishonesty" syndrome that Dizzy & Company are wallowing around in is ~not~ honestly, innocently mistaken behavior. It is deliberate, calculated, distortion aimed at destruction of people's reputations and (if possible) livelihoods, and the motive is sheer power lust.

And to those who think that some kind of rapproachment is possible: smiles and olive branches from the "good cop" faction of these people have a great price tag attached to them (surrendering integrity and opening oneself to further attacks). Moral: a smiling snake is still a snake. Beware.

REB

P.S. -- This ~is~ the Rant folder, right? Thanks for listening.

[Rich Engle]

I see the tired and inevitable has finally come around. Bad enough that it got down to arguing over author acknowledgments on Phil's Questions for Diana thread, but now Casey Fahy is starting haul out the "dishonesty" warhorse on Phil.

Ugh. How utterly, tediously predictable.

"Dishonesty." "Evidence" (ah, the beloved evidence).

Dishonesty is the O'ist (at least the dark ones) equivalent of Yo Mama-ing someone in the town where I work.

"Evidence" is the O'ist (at least the dark ones) equivalent to crack cocaine in the town where I work.

Yup, Dishonest Phil.

Way to make things attractive for the interested, Fahy. Roger gets it:

"They are so anxious to find demons and monsters to slay. All they really need do is look in the mirror. "

[Barbara Branden]

Paul wrote: "Roger, so I take it you see Phil's actions as more in alignment with Rearden's?"

Roger, I suspect Paul is thinking of the sanction of the victim.I know I am.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

An addendum to my last post.

Roger, you wrote: "Diana et al COUNT ON Chris being too much of a gentleman and a respecter of people's "privacy" and "intellectual property" to fully and decisively defend himself against the scurrilous false charges that have been made against him."

Several of us are in the same boat. Yes, Diana, Perigo, Valliant, Joe M and others are counting on the sanction of the victims. Perhaps we will one day have had enough, and withdraw that sanction and that silence.

Barbara

[JennaW]

"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." --Leo Tolstoy

I don't want to deal with people who strive to cage their own minds while at the same time I'm trying to break my own mental chains.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Barbara wrote:

Roger, I suspect Paul is thinking of the sanction of the victim.I know I am.

Absolutely right, Barbara. Thanks for clarifying my meaning.

Sorry Roger for not picking up the ball and clarifying that myself earlier. You said:

Paul -- Rearden's actions, as opposed to whose? You mean the Strikers? Unfortunately, the metaphor is not fully applicable. I am not suggesting that we secede from the Objectivist movement. I am suggesting that we withdraw our sanction from Dizzy & Company, which means that we don't grant them the unearned dignity of replying to their scurrilous, false accusations against us and our friends.

Rearden's actions as opposed to Ragnar's. I suggested, on another thread, the idea that Philip's actions might be compared to Ragnar: entering the dangerous domain of the damned while others feared for his safety. I have come to doubt this suggestion.

I'm only taking my first tentative steps into the Objectivist culture. I'm certainly not suggesting we hand over the keys to the image manipulators and social climbers. That's why I suggested Philip's actions are more in parallel to Rearden's. His strength is providing the illumination to the self-images of the spiritually damned and the symbol of his corpse will ultimately provide them with another brick supporting their social status. They are consuming him with his sanction. His value is paying for their place in the Objectivist social world just as is Chris Sciabarra's. Any energy directed towards a spiritual void will be consumed and never be reflected back. They will bleed you dry. The only answer is to direct no energy towards them. Withdraw your sanction. Stop being a victim.

There are many things Rand really got right. I think she would have been able to see right to the soul of SOLO Passion. I think she would have been disgusted with how her philosophy could be so distorted to be held as means of extorting value. On the other hand, there is some value, symbolic and real, to having the spiritually damned end up in one place. They are easier to identify that way.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Any energy directed towards a spiritual void will be consumed and never be reflected back.

Dayaamm!

That's one helluva nice phrase!

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Holy sheep-dip Batman, I got a "Dayaamm!"

Thanks Michael.

Paul