The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who are you fighting?

Judith,

Who am I fighting?

I am fighting Perigo. Valliant. People like that. I am also trying to make it clear that they stand for values and a worldview that is a polar opposite of mine.

Does that help?

I can try to make it clearer if it is not clear.

Michael

[sjw]

I don't need to wait because I am not angry in the manner you say.

No, but I think that the questions I asked need more thought than you gave them.

Michael, there ARE no "powers that be". No one is trying to "make" you do anything. Who are you fighting?

Judith

Judith--what a strange couple of posts! Obviously Ed is trying to get Michael to gag himself and encourage others to do the same and he's fighting that gag order. Specifically, Ed is calling for a ban on evaluating Perigo in a negative way, and for a ban on evaluating TAS in a negative way for inviting such a person to speak.

Why are you so confused about the nature of what is going on?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Actually, Kat told me that it might not be clear who "powers that be" are. So here is a more extended answer.

1. "Powers that be" refers to any and all directors or leaders of organizations that set "Objectivist movement" policy and imagine OL is an ally or enemy of their movement plans.

2. I do not know how to interpret "unify" other than by making peace. Those who want to "unify" the "Objectivist movement" by imagining my support when they honor Perigo & Co. are asking for me to make peace with Perigo. I will not do that. And I will keep repeating it until this is clear to those trying to effect this peace.

3. Ed just stated as clear as can be:

I have a public-policy background that informs my approach to this movement. Some of you know, for example, that as part of my work on international economic development, I helped lead Heritage Foundation delegations in 1989 and 1990 to the then-Soviet Union to conduct free-market seminars. I was under no illusions about the nature of that regime, and I accepted no "moral equivalence" view between the U.S. and USSR. I was looking for ways to undermine that Soviet regime. I didn't want simply to denounce it and argue against it from the outside. I looked for other ways to affect change, to actually make a difference. We were criticized by some of our supporters at that time for associating with members of the Communist Party. But we judged that our actions might hasten change, and I think we made some small, positive contribution to ending a terrible tyranny.

So, in the case of the present hostilities, I don't know who Ed thinks is the Soviet Union side or whatever, but he is clear that his methods come with a hidden agenda at root. I am not saying this is bad. I agree that hidden agendas are good in fighting tyranny. I am merely saying that I see it, especially since he admits it up front, and, to answer your question, I believe he is one of those trying to get me to kiss and make up with Perigo—but in a clandestine, "let's see what happens" manner.

And I am saying I am not going for it. I despise Perigo and what he stands for. The clandestine stuff ain't going to work in this case.

I hope that helps some more.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I don't need to wait because I am not angry in the manner you say.

No, but I think that the questions I asked need more thought than you gave them.

Michael, there ARE no "powers that be". No one is trying to "make" you do anything. Who are you fighting?

Judith

Arrrgh! Sometimes I think we are living in different universes! I don't know what else could explain the disconnect in the above. :logik:

Look, let me make it simple. Michael is talking about the administration of TAS. They are the ones who are in control of the atmosphere of what has been and could continue to be our "Atlantis," except for....

"Make" us do something? Yes, indeed. It's blackmail, Judith. If you want to attend Atlantis, you now have to put up with the guy who tried to make it crash and burn in 2006. Have you forgotten?? Have the powers that be forgotten?? Do any of you care??

We here at OL stood up for TAS, in the face of Pigero's and Valliant's efforts to subvert the 06 Summer Seminar, and in the face of all Pigero's and his cronies' horrendous insults of TAS (and a growing list of others). Have you forgotten?? Have the powers that be forgotten?? Do any of you care??

I think I understand Michael's stance toward. It reminds me of the old days, when some statesmen advocated a Fortress America, an isolationist foreign policy, entangling alliances with no one. Don't tread on me. If you want to be civil to me, we can exchange values to mutual benefit--but if you dare to attack me and those I love, I will bust your goddamned ass. And if you appease and team up with my attackers, you can have each other, I am through with you. Above all, I will not bow to guilt-mongers who say I'm "no better" than the ones attacking me. Bull....shit!

And to those of you on the Internet who would judge the Objectivist movement by our passionate defense of our values, know this: it's only because some of us ~are~ willing to fight intransigent evil and not try to "make nice" with it, that we still have a semi-free country and the rest of you can sit around counting swear words and epithets and figure out how best to appease the incorrigible.

REB

P.S. -- No, I haven't been drinking. And no, it wouldn't help!

P.P.S. -- Isn't it ironic that Pigero's website touts its vicious attacks on others as "rational passion," and that he receives an invitation to speak at "Atlantis," while those who ~respond~ vigorously to his vile attacks are labelled by him as the scum of the earth and told by his new hosts that ~we~ are threatening the good image of the Objectivist movement. Feh! (Do you hear me, Ed Hudgins and Robert Bidinotto?)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Arrrgh! Sometimes I think we are living in different universes! I don't know what else could explain the disconnect in the above. :logik:

Judith,

Along the lines of Roger's comment, frankly I think that this is another case of your not knowing what's going on in threads and on sites which you don't read -- similar to your not having been aware until the full shit hit the fan of the extent of Victor Pross' plagiarizing.

In brief: Linz extolls what he calls "rational passion," which means that he'll indiscriminately attack anyone who disagrees with him about most anything, ranging from the Iraq war to Barbara Branden. Linz has been invited to talk at the upcoming Summer Seminar on two topics -- of his choice, but the topics were accepted by TAS's program director Will Thomas:

(1) "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)";

(2) "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" -- which he said in his original announcement "will be about the pan-factional error of intrinsicism and religiosity generally."

The first talk no one should be invited to give. Linz subsequently tried to describe the title as a joke, but considering the history of his brow-beatings of persons who don't share his aesthetic tastes, his describing it thus can only be considered "a likely story" (i.e., not likely).

The second talk being given by Linz of all people is of itself an insult to any Objectivist who has tried to live a rational life according to Objectivism's teachings.

Now the situation has developed to the point at which Ed, in the effort to "unite" the Objectivist world, is tarring with an equal brush Linz and those who have objected to Linz over the years (increasingly so in the last couple years). Ed is in effect saying that none of Linz's "long history of abuses" is to be considered important, now, and that those who won't accept this are equally to blame for the current dissension. It doesn't wash. It's further insult added to injury.

Michael is saying, no, he will not make any attempt to get along with Linz Perigo. He despises Linz Perigo, and that's how it is, like it or not.

Ellen

___

[Roger Bissell]

Hmmmm, I took a break and calmed down, thinking that I might want to come back and edit out some of what I said in my previous post. (It's recorded for posterity, don't you know.)

But nope, it still looks pretty good. I stand by it. And I stand by Michael's statement and Ellen's interpretation of it.

REB

[Wolf DeVoon]

Time to straighten up my act.

Booty

There.

Now I'm a good Objectivist.

Michael

Sorry, boss, I'm having a hard time taking any of this seriously. OL is great. I don't see the point of talking about SOLO. I promise to shut up and go away for a while. Well... two weeks from now. Moving continents. Apologies to all who may be offended by humor in un-united immature movements.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys "get me."

What's more important, we agree as independent minds.

Michael

(EDIT: LOLOLOL... My posts crossed with Wolf's. He really "gets me." )

(EDIT 2 TO WOLF'S EDIT 1: Wolf, that was one of the funniest things I have read in a while. On a serious note, there is some truth to what you say. A year from now, only the good works will remain. I do hope my little satire remains. It turned out better than I hoped. But all this SLOP stuff will be flushed down memory hole, except for a vague unpleasant emotional residue.)

[Robert Campbell]

Judith,

Those who have never attracted the attention of Lindsay Perigo can indeed avoid the agita by following your advice and not reading any of his stuff.

But how does not reading any of Mr. Perigo's present-day outpourings help my good friend and colleague Chris Sciabarra?

Just under two years ago, Chris was the target of a coordinated campaign to trash his career and make him out to be a major-league slimeball--via publication of selected passages from his private emails to several different people. Mr. Perigo was a major player in that campaign against "Scumbarra," which he remains proud of having participated in. Mr. Perigo has even rationalized his publication of private emails on the utterly spurious grounds that Chris Sciabarra was "initiating force" against him.

Now, what is Chris Sciabarra's positive contribution? A book about Ayn Rand; an edited volume about her writings; two other books about libertarian political philosophy; the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies; and so on.

What is Lindsay Perigo's positive contribution? A magazine most of whose contributors become his bitter enemies--and SOLOPassion, a site whose contents you don't want to read.

Robert Campbell

PS. I don't call Mr. Perigo "Pigero," as Jonathan does, and I don't refer to his site as SLOP. I have, on a few occasions, referred to him as Swami Perigonanda, and I often abbreviate his site's handle to SOLOP. Have I, too, reverted to 7th-grade standards of deportment?

[Roger Bissell]

Here, folks, is the quote of the day, offered by Jeff Riggenbach over on "that other place," in response to Ed Hudgins' comments that were given prominent display over there, but merely embedded unobtrusively in this particular thread. It's a gem, and it deserves one's thoughtful contemplation:

As to "civility," the main thrust of this post - well, it remains unclear to me why it is "civil" to label one's opponents "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but it is somehow "uncivil" for one's opponents to say equally unkind things about *their* adversaries. Is it because they employ different words?

Is it "civil," for example, to label Mr. Hudgins's case for "civility" as "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but "uncivil" to label it as a load of horse shit?

Come on, Jeff, tell us what you really think!

REB

[Ed Hudgins]

MSK - Just a quick note. As I wrote about reducing Objectivist fratricide, "It does not mean expecting those who have suffered personally from Perigo-SOLO assaults to deal with him." I certainly would not expect Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra and others to simply forget the past. I made this post because I'm struggling to discover if there are ways to help reduce the nasty face Objectivism will present to people who look at much of the fighting on discussion boards. The answer might be "No."

Also, my Soviet Union example was meant to illustrate issues involved with overcoming long-standing conflicts without blinding one's self to moral differences. (As to which discussion board or institute represents the USSR, I expect there will be threads here and on SOLO and Rebirth of Reason soon to make that determination!)

[Martin Radwin]

Here, folks, is the quote of the day, offered by Jeff Riggenbach over on "that other place," in response to Ed Hudgins' comments that were given prominent display over there, but merely embedded unobtrusively in this particular thread. It's a gem, and it deserves one's thoughtful contemplation:

As to "civility," the main thrust of this post - well, it remains unclear to me why it is "civil" to label one's opponents "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but it is somehow "uncivil" for one's opponents to say equally unkind things about *their* adversaries. Is it because they employ different words?

Is it "civil," for example, to label Mr. Hudgins's case for "civility" as "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but "uncivil" to label it as a load of horse shit?

Come on, Jeff, tell us what you really think!

REB

The first paragraph of Jeff's post was also rather interesting, although not as relevant to this thread. He wrote,

"Were you criticized for associating with conservatives (the Heritage Foundation)? Were you under any illusions about the nature of their political movement? Why would a good Objectivist lend implicit moral sanction to a bunch of traditionalist authoritarians? It was not for nothing that Ayn Rand wrote, in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, that "Objectivists are *not* conservatives."

This is a lesson that many self-identified objectivists have still not learned.

Martin

[Roger Bissell]

Here, folks, is the quote of the day, offered by Jeff Riggenbach over on "that other place," in response to Ed Hudgins' comments that were given prominent display over there, but merely embedded unobtrusively in this particular thread. It's a gem, and it deserves one's thoughtful contemplation:

As to "civility," the main thrust of this post - well, it remains unclear to me why it is "civil" to label one's opponents "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but it is somehow "uncivil" for one's opponents to say equally unkind things about *their* adversaries. Is it because they employ different words?

Is it "civil," for example, to label Mr. Hudgins's case for "civility" as "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but "uncivil" to label it as a load of horse shit?

Come on, Jeff, tell us what you really think!

REB

The first paragraph of Jeff's post was also rather interesting, although not as relevant to this thread. He wrote,

"Were you criticized for associating with conservatives (the Heritage Foundation)? Were you under any illusions about the nature of their political movement? Why would a good Objectivist lend implicit moral sanction to a bunch of traditionalist authoritarians? It was not for nothing that Ayn Rand wrote, in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, that "Objectivists are *not* conservatives."

This is a lesson that many self-identified objectivists have still not learned.

Martin

Hear, hear!

And isn't it ironic that a real Conservative was smeared into ignominious defeat in 1964, on the insinuation that he would unleash nuclear weapons on the North Vietnamese -- while a real Objectivist organization openly embraces such a policy in regard to Iran!

[Philip Coates]

A number of you here on this website are not grasping why Bidinotto, Heaps-Nelson, and myself – long-standing members of O.L. who I think have all made thoughtful posts in the past-- are viewing a number of your posts with dismay, and distancing ourselves from activity on Objectivist Living, either temporarily or not. And why you are getting the reactions you’ve seen recently from Laure, Judith, and others who remain.

It's not about asking you not to speak up and fight for your position. It's about *how* you fight for your position...and whether you are in fact doing so.

Here's one last post attempting to explain this:

----------

***NINE OTHER MISTAKES BESIDES INCIVILITY***

Lack of civility is not the widest concept for the great variety of mistakes made by Mr. Perigo, Ms. Hsieh, and their supporters.

Here is a list of major mistakes of long-standing made by Mr. P (and by Mrs. H. before him) and of recent-standing by too many who are opposing him.

Ed Hudgins recent OL post included some of these concepts, but his post seemed to classify them all under too trivial a heading, “lack of civility”. This understates the full irrationality of these errors and allows people to brush them aside, telling themselves “Well, I’m a colorful straight-shooter . . . I fight fire with fire . . . I needed to get it off my chest . . . It’s only a post . . . Perigo is WORSE and he started it”. And the like:

1. Malevolent psychologizing and cynically assuming evil motives (or dishonesty or desire to gain power or influence or curry favor or being to ‘weak’ to fight for the right things, etc.) not only of their direct opponents but of many others -- including those who defend the opponent or have said anything positive about him or the opposing position.

2. Conspiracy theories as a form of psychologizing (who is secretly allied with who, or seeking to curry favor with whom).

3. Vulgarity – using language like ‘Scumbarra’ or ‘Pigero’ (not once because it seemed funny at the time, but in public, archived, and repeatedly). The thing that is wrong with this is that it gets in the way of any argument one might have to make.

4. Repeated name-calling (whether vulgar or not) as a predominant form of posting.

5. Misstatement or misreading of the opposing position – failure to look for a charitable interpretation (or even to understand simple, clear English) in one’s eagerness to fire back. [Example: When someone criticizes you for one of the points on this list, to misscharacterize that as his telling you that you shouldn’t ‘fight’ for what you believe.]

6. Focus on people rather than ideas. Endless discussion of the motives, records, mistakes, offenses of people – as opposed to spending one’s time primarily on what are the correct ideas. if you refute the ideas (such as “kass” or “passion” as a virtue or “sanctioning” people by debating them), then you don’t need to worry about the people who advocate these ideas. Or speculate about their character. You will have pulled the rug out from under them.

7. Obsessiveness and decibel level – when you do nothing but repeatedly denounce and make no new argument, it seems as if you have nothing better to do and as if you don’t grasp that when you endlessly repeat something, no one is listening but those already convinced. It carries no weight. You come across as a redneck.

8. Taunting – Is there an age or grade-level at which this becomes inappropriate? (Why don’t you come over to my board and say that? You’re afraid of me and that’s the only reason why you won’t respond?)

9. Worse than occasional incivility, is a highly anti-intellectual, even juvenile level and endless repetition of incivility. A “seventh grade” level of insult and a personal, non-intellectual level of name-calling. Occasionally people do lose their temper and make a personal insult. sometimes they are even rash enough to do it on the internet where it is archived.

But to repeat it over and over in post after post on thread after thread?

................

So along with garden variety “incivility”, those are ten major forms of irrational behavior. Here is something to consider:

You can’t fight against improper psychologizing and denunciation of opponents as having feet of clay if you do the same thing.

You can’t laugh at conspiracy theories if you concoct them yourself.

You can’t condemn someone else’s constant vulgarity and name-calling and leave yourself a loophole to imitate this form of discourse. (Hey, it's funny when I do it.)

. . . And so on for the rest of my list.

[Jonathan]

I made this post because I'm struggling to discover if there are ways to help reduce the nasty face Objectivism will present to people who look at much of the fighting on discussion boards. The answer might be "No."

Okay, so your organization invites to its annual seminar the person who is most responsible for the current nasty face of online Objectivism, and when good, polite, reasonable people, who don't want him to represent the face of Objectivism, get upset and protest that you're likely reviving him after he has all but destroyed himself and disappeared down his own nasty, shrinking rat hole, you wonder what you can do to help reduce the nasty face of Objectivism?

I don't know. My solution would be to avoid empowering or legitimizing the person who is the opposite of what you want the face of Objectivism to be, but you apparently think that's totally irrational nonsense, and not an option. So I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you could find someone even worse to shine the spotlight on at your seminar? Maybe there's, say, a remorseless Objectivist murderer doing time in prison somewhere who you could try to draw attention to as the face of Objectivism, extend the olive branch and try to change him into a nice person?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil,

A question: How much effect do you think your lectures have had in all the years you've been posting them on various O'ism-connected elists?

Here's a little pithy saying of Nathaniel's which I often think of reading your exhortations:

"Doing more of what doesn't work, doesn't work."

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK - Just a quick note. As I wrote about reducing Objectivist fratricide, "It does not mean expecting those who have suffered personally from Perigo-SOLO assaults to deal with him." I certainly would not expect Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra and others to simply forget the past. I made this post because I'm struggling to discover if there are ways to help reduce the nasty face Objectivism will present to people who look at much of the fighting on discussion boards. The answer might be "No."

Also, my Soviet Union example was meant to illustrate issues involved with overcoming long-standing conflicts without blinding one's self to moral differences. (As to which discussion board or institute represents the USSR, I expect there will be threads here and on SOLO and Rebirth of Reason soon to make that determination!)

Ed,

I have a problem with that word "fratricide." There is no brotherhood between Perigo and me. We both use the term "Objectivism," but I have a HUGE problem of fundamentals with his approach.

The orthodoxy periodically goes on a campaign to keep a monopoly on the word, "Objectivism." My particular objection to Perigo is similar, but without all the power struggles, mind games, demands for obedience and semantics.

What he does and what I do are not the same animal.

Both might be under the nominal heading of Objectivism, but that is where the similarity ends. Calling them both Objectivism actually shows a stolen concept floating around somewhere. (This is almost a vindication of that silly little idea of the epistemologically arbitrary that is in vogue with the orthodoxy right now.) We could both be called Edward and lumped together in some people's minds as "fraters" with all the other Edwards out there ("brothers in Edwardhood"), but does that mean we think and behave and value the same?

Perigo's worldview, viciousness, tribalism and mediocrity have been adequately discussed. It is all on display on SOLOP for those who look with their conscious awareness turned on. (Out-of-focus people might miss it and swallow the rhetoric instead, but even some of them get it.) None of that has anything to do with Objectivism as I understand it. I simply refuse to stand by someone like that screwed-up person and say we are brothers, but errant ones engaged in "fratricide." We are not brothers. The difference between us is about the same as the difference between a Nazi and a Jew, but both called "Edward."

I would despise Perigo regardless of what philosophy or religion he preaches, just as I despise others like him who have crossed my path. He reminds me of a real nasty piece of work in Brazil called Diogo Pacheco, for instance. Those two are the same animal, not Perigo and other Objectivists (and certainly not me). I take strong issue with Perigo's values and metaphysics—the ones he practices, not preaches.

I admire your attempt to be productive, but in this case, you are operating on a premise of similarity that exists in name only.

"Can't all the Edwards in the world stop or diminish the Edwardhood fratricide?" (One is Nazi and other Jew, but that is incidental.)

That is how your attempt sounds to me by lumping Perigo and me under the same category. I don't care what it is called. We are not the same. Not in essentials.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You tickle me. You know, honey attracts flies and so does manure.

Most recently, I personally have posted on the following topics in addition to the TAS thing:

Explaining the FED

This issue of Frank's drinking in O-Land

I placed on guy on moderation for nasty trolling

Measurement as component of standard (in the smoking thread)

Banter about cults

An online game for shooting presidential candidates with paintballs

And inspiring quote about love of work

Free coupons and money-saving on the web

The effect of mobile phones on sleep

Philospher jokes

A "postmodernism generator"

Review of The Passion of Ayn Rand

Scientific method for laypeople

Web 2.0

The reliability of tests on what is good for you or harmful

Sewing projects for automobiles

Armed lady defending herself against an intruder

How to lose weight

Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book online

All this was during the last 5 days and plenty of people not only read this, they posted and even posted on other topics.

You complain about forum behavior, but dude, you are the greatest consumer of that issue I know of. You don't appear to be interested in anything else. Find the manure and the Phil-fly is buzzing around. For some reason the Phil-fly doesn't like honey.

If the hostilities stopped, I fear you would run out of things to read and think about.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

you wonder what you can do to help reduce the nasty face of Objectivism?

Put Perigo on Xanax maybe?

Hell, put all ARI and orthodox forums (i.e. Noodle Food etc) on Xanax.

We need someone to photoshop an "Objectivist-Strength Xanax" bottle.

MSK wrote in "Schism blues" that Perigo thinks his drinking is rational. Given the stress this schisming generates, I think I need to have a nice, rational bottle of Champagne right about now and wash it down with some Chivas.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

Most recently, I personally have posted on the following topics in addition to the TAS thing:

[....]

Measurement as component of standard (in the smoking thread)

[....]

Scientific method for laypeople

[....]

Oh, well, none of us is perfect.

Ellen

___

[Jerry Biggers]

Before I resolve the issue of Lindsay Perigo’s appearance at the 2008 TAS Summer Seminar, I first want to weigh in again on the issue of civility.

I have voiced objections to Lindsay’s past incivility and I have challenged him to help undo the damage he has done by committing himself to a higher standard. But this is not to overlook the personality-focused incivility that is occurring on other discussion boards, including this one.

It is one thing to offer us reasons why you may think it is not a good idea, or why it might not serve TAS’s mission, to have Lindsay Perigo speak about the Objectivist movement at this event. I have received personal emails from some providing information that might be relevant to this matter.

But I have been deeply disturbed by some of the intemperate and speculative statements about him and us that are appearing on the discussion boards of both sides of this controversy. There is almost a kind of glee with which some pile onto Lindsay, in the same way that many at SOLO-Passion pile onto TAS. Just as I've criticized as counter-productive the juvenile name-calling on the SOLO-Passion site, so I criticize similar behavior on Objectivist Living--or anywhere else. (And seriously, folks, Mr. Perigo and his associates are not plotting to take over TAS; for one thing, I doubt they would want the responsibility of raising millions of dollars for our ongoing activities!)

Let me put into a personal context my interest in fostering a commitment to a mature, civil Objectivist movement--a movement that will attract rational and passionate adherents, rather than a vulgar and spiteful one that will drive away the thoughtful and distintegrate into ineffectual fratricide.

I have a public-policy background that informs my approach to this movement. Some of you know, for example, that as part of my work on international economic development, I helped lead Heritage Foundation delegations in 1989 and 1990 to the then-Soviet Union to conduct free-market seminars. I was under no illusions about the nature of that regime, and I accepted no “moral equivalence” view between the U.S. and USSR. I was looking for ways to undermine that Soviet regime. I didn’t want simply to denounce it and argue against it from the outside. I looked for other ways to affect change, to actually make a difference. We were criticized by some of our supporters at that time for associating with members of the Communist Party. But we judged that our actions might hasten change, and I think we made some small, positive contribution to ending a terrible tyranny.

In this case, we all profess to be Objectivists—individuals who start from the same premises and who profess adherence to a rational philosophy and a benevolent worldview. That’s why I am trying to devise ways to reduce the irrationality and malevolence found in the movement. I want “regime change.” That means stepping outside of fights that have no end in sight, and instead upholding standards to maintain the kind of public image consistent with a philosophy of reason.

This does not mean blinding myself to past wrongs, or ignoring the fact that some are morally more culpable than others for instigating these problems and exacerbating the current toxic atmosphere. It does not mean expecting those who have suffered personally from Perigo-SOLO assaults to deal with him.

It does mean, for those of us who are in a position to do so, trying to secure commitments from all to at least one common goal--repudiating undignified statements and irrational behavior that only sully the public image of our philosophy.

There will always be factions in any movement or school of thought. I also know that debates and discussions--especially online--can become heated, especially among Objectivists, who have deep-seated moral commitments. And there will always be personal differences that will prompt certain individuals not to deal others.

But there are effective ways to communicate, clearly and unmistakably, one’s disagreements with others--even one’s harshest moral assessments of them--without sinking to childish taunts, or obsessive, never-ending preoccupations about their latest words and deeds. Some seem to forget that statements published on the Internet are archived forever for the entire world to see, and for future generations to ponder. It therefore would be useful for those who have been critical of SOLO and Lindsay Perigo, as I have, to give at least a little thought to the harmful impact that their own personal insults, gratuitous psychologizing, conspiracy theorizing, and juvenile name-calling are having on their reputations--and on the reputations of our movement and philosophy.

It might turn out that the Objectivist community will always be divided into feuding factions. It might be that neither SOLO nor Lindsay will ever change their ways. It might just take a lot of time to change things--or it might be that I am wasting my time by expecting anything better.

We at TAS certainly will keep most of our focus on promoting Objectivism through our own efforts. We are always looking for improvements for our Summer Seminar, The New Individualist, and our other activities. Those are things under our direct control.

But the wider Objectivist movement is not. All we can do is to try to serve as a better example and try to call others to a higher standard. Objectivism is, above all, a philosophy of reason; and to win hearts and minds, it must be promoted reasonably.

That is why I sincerely hope that all of us will uphold the standard of reason in our own statements and actions, even--or perhaps especially--when we are provoked by justifiable anger to sink to the very behavior that we criticize.

Ed -

When you "resolve the issue of Lindsay Perigo's appearance at the 2008 TAS Summer Seminar," I assume you are referring specifically to his invitation as a speaker, and not if he just shows up for a few beers and some of the conviviality that he has displayed on his website. But I would like to raise a few other issues from your post:

1) Critical statements made about Mr. Perigo stem from his own writings, and that of his "current friends" on SOLOP, about TAS and its leadership. The vituperative, insulting, and ridiculing tone of his statements do not indicate a person who is interested in seeking a rational accommodation and a meeting of the minds with those he has targeted with his remarks.

2) You wish to point out that remarks made on internet boards will be archived forever and therefore people should be careful of what they say because current and future generations will be pondering them. Unfortunately, being an Objectivist does not necessarily cause a remake of human personality characteristics (gross understatement).

As an historian, I am sure you have read what this country's "Founding Fathers" and their supporters in the newly-founded Federalist and Republican-Democratic party presidential campaigns said about each other. Nothing said on this board (or on SOLOP, for that matter) even come close to the mean-spirited accusations that they threw at each other. Yet somehow, we tend to forget these unpleasant parts and remember them for all the good things that they accomplished.

3) I would like to point out that the "foreign policy" of your organization was stated in one of its founding documents by the founder of IOS/TOC/TAS, David Kelley, and reprinted in THE CONTESTED LEGACY OF AYN RAND (p.122):

Some of our members have asked us whether the breach in the Objectivist movement can be healed. Our policy is comparable to the one that Israel long adopted toward its Arab foes. We prefer to live in peace with our intellectual neighbors, but we see no basis for a civil relationship with those who deny the legitimacy of our existence as an independent Objectivist organization, and who launch unprovoked and irrational attacks on us.

Irrationality of this sort can usually be ignored, but we reserve the right to respond as we think necessary to preserve our reputation."

And now I ask, Does The Atlas Society still stand by this statement? If so, your course in this matter is clear. If not, and TAS is disavowing the document which defined its very meaning and mission, please say so.

I do not think that "turning the other cheek" is consistent with Objectivist principles.

[Dragonfly]

The tassers have discovered who should be blamed for the mess: it's those people at OL. They are sooo disappointed that these Ollies say nasty things about Perigo (an Objectivist for God's sake!). But why should they be surprised? After all the forum is owned by a piece of shit, a vicous man with an evil agenda, a fascist, an idiot, a scumbag, a low-level creep and an imbecile, and the guest of honor is a filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch. In such an environment you can of course expect such vicious and disgusting name calling like "Pigero"! O the horror!

[sjw]

Philip,

That was a really great analysis of the flaws of Perigo and those he nurtures on SOLOP. I don't think Perigo deserved the time it took you, but you've hit the nail on the head with that over and over.

What I don't get is why you've taken this reality-oriented analysis and then dumped it on OL, and without so much as a sliver of evidence that it applies (well, I do get why you left off any evidence). Just right off the bat, I don't see any evidence that Michael encourages any of that on this site. Over here, you could perhaps pin some of those items on some of the members. But that should be expected since we're all individuals and Michael does not do heavy-handed moderation. It doesn't prove an underlying pattern. With Perigo the pattern you identified is an underlying problem, as anyone who is awake and has ever spent any time over there can testify.

So you just come off as preaching moral equivalence. If you were a parent and heard children angrily yelling at each other in the other room, you'd probably just walk in, give them a lecture on being nice to each other, and punish both children.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[....]

Most recently, I personally have posted on the following topics in addition to the TAS thing:

[....]

Measurement as component of standard (in the smoking thread)

[....]

Scientific method for laypeople

[....]

Oh, well, none of us is perfect.

Ellen

___

Isn't she lovely when she gets feisty?

Michael

(EDIT: Oops. Didn't mean to encourage the... uhm... er... what Phil said. )

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perigo has responded to Ed's thread on SOLOP.

I just held my nose and went to Lying to see what kind of reception Ed's (and Bidinotto's) admonitions had received. Depressingly predictable. The outpouring of implacable hatred continues, with Linz as the Anti-Christ and TAS as his enabler.

The rest continues in this vein. Bla bla bla bla bla bla poor little me. It is appropriately entitled "Burn Him!"

Barbara was incredibly astute with the beleagered rebel wanting to be a martyr observation. Now I wonder how many people are going to fall for Perigo's act this time. Let's all feel pity for Perigo, the staunch defender of Rand and all that is tribal, er... holy... whatever...

God, how he flatters himself. "Anti-Christ" was Hitler... Saddam Hussein... people like that. This guy is just a washed up TV/radio hack and overall loser who caught the ear of some Objectivism heavies for some damn reason.

As to his critics, I speak only for myself, but from what I have seen here on OL, many feel as I do. I don't want to burn or roast that nasty little nobody. I just want him to go away and stop making a mess out of Objectivism in public at the places where I tread. I don't give a damn what he does otherwise.

Michael