Art Crimes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

You got it right.

It's my opinion and presented as such. I stand by it, too.

Other people are entitled to their own opinions.

Michael

EDIT: Let me add to that. Let's forget any other reason I might have for holding my opinion (and I do have my reasons), let's just look at the patterns.

1. This racist dude shows up with 3 discourses: (1) he's rich, knows about investments, yada yada yada, and has little tolerance for those without money, (2) he thinks white people are superior, and (3) he intends to make sure Siberia Passion will become a major force in NZ. All this is repeatedly on record for anyone who wants to read it.

2. Several SOLOP members, to their credit, were outraged because of the bigotry being promoted. Perigo became an apologist and/or "light" critic of the racist, depending on the climate. Then the boot, then the forgiveness. then, along with bouts of light criticism, Perigo stands up to his flock defending the racist.

3. People finally discover that the racist has no money and coincidentally (i.e., at the same time), Perigo miraculously sees the light and discovers that the racist is a racist. Epiphany and revelation! Rational passion! To thine own self be true!

(Monkeyshines with Libnz run in parallel, but this is another issue.)

There are those who believe in coincidences of this nature with people of that sort. There are those who interpret these patterns and people in a different manner. Like I said, I have other reasons, but based on this alone, I would think Perigo was selling out. It makes sense to me.

And like I said, others are entitled to think differently.

[Jonathan]

Little Callum McPetrie is obsessed with me:

Indeed, OL does have an obsession with SOLO amounting to no less than some sort of disorder. For proof, look at this thread by "Jonathan":

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=5822

That doesn't even involve any argument on SOLO's behalf, yet they still go after Lindsay and SOLO (not to brag, but me too; even after my complete non-involvement in this ongoing verbal war).

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Yeah, the fact that some of us here at OL sometimes have a good laugh about our bloated Kiwi Objectivist hillbilly cousins is "proof" that we are "obsessed" with SOLOP.

Anyway, if Callum took offense at the post of mine that he linked to, then I'd want him to know that my actual view of him is that I think he's a very bright youngster. Hell, he'd be bright for an oldster. I think he'll probably go very far in life.

J

Edited December 10, 2008 by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Michael, after going over every post, for the second time, on that SOLOP thread, I don't see any evidence Linz took a bribe or was influenced to tolerating a racist in the hope for some of his money. But why did he tolerate him anyway? I don't know. Interestingly, it was Joe Maurone who most savaged Linz over there but it was you they most dwelt on. You made your initial observation then Linz almost immediately referred to it and then the jackals came out. They made you big and obsessive on this when Linz started it all by getting hot under the collar about how he was treated by--the Libertarian Party of NZ? What a prima donna. I think it's called diverting attention. Joe savaged Linz up one side and down the other mostly not over this but because he had had enough of him overall for bullying and hypocrisy and his views on music. For this matter on Eli he admitted all he had was an "opinion" as you did.

--Brant

Edited December 10, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, Michael, after going over every post, for the second time, on that SOLOP thread, I don't see any evidence Linz took a bribe or was influenced to tolerating a racist in the hope for some of his money.

Brant,

I never said The Wise One of High Integrity took a bribe and I thought I made it clear that the money was allegedly available, just like funding SOLOP was insinuated (at least in public--I don't know what went on backstage between those dudes).

The items I mentioned in my previous post all developed over time and many threads over there, not just on the one you mentioned. Those who followed it know what I am talking about. Those who are interested are free to dig through all that crap and see for themselves. (Even that disturbed young man you mentioned presented--in the thread you examined--that he saw "money"--that was the word he used and I will link to the post if you like--involved in Perigo's sellout of allowing a racist to preach racist crap for a long time on his board while defending him/lightly chiding him.)

But here is the thing. I am harping on this a bit because I am sick and tired of hypocrisy passed off as virtue in our little world and good people, really good people, always swallowing it because the best part within them is being manipulated by an intellectual con. They give the benefit of the doubt to the intellectual con in just about as pure an example of sanction of the victim as I have ever seen.

Perigo is a vain bully seeking to promote his vanity in the world. There are sporadic flashes of intelligence, but nastiness and vanity are what really drive him. He won't tell you that, but that's what he does. Whenever I see a disparity between what someone does and what he says, I will go with what he does as the better indicator. That even goes for looking at his chump-change level.

Look at it this way by analogy. (I normally don't like this form of presenting an argument, but it is helpful in this case.) A woman comes on to you, but subtly. You know, smiling when you look at her, holding your glance a little longer than normal, laughing at your lame jokes, praising you for being insightful when you state a common cliche, etc. You've seen it a thousand times.

But something happens. Some irreconcilable difference. You are suddenly not interested and neither is she. The difference grows, irritation sets in and when she finally slings a nasty insult at you, you respond with, "You didn't seem to feel that way when you were coming on to me."

Then all hell breaks loose in an orgy of denial, how could you possibly imagine she would ever be interested in you?, you are delusional, ha ha ha, etc., etc., etc. "When did I ever say that?!!!" (This is often translated in the Objectivist world as "Show me the evidence, when did I ever say that?" or hairsplitting meanings obvious from context to twist them around.)

If you mention the extra smiles and locked eyes, etc., this triggers more denials and derision. But in reality, the signals were there and they did mean she was coming on to you. Yet people will usually side with her unless you are really adept this sort of thing.

This is the kind of behavior I see unfolding with the racist's stated promise of turning SOLOP into a force to be reckoned with in NZ (with the brilliant insightful Perigo with rational fire burning in his belly at the head to save humanity, which the racist fully endorsed), and the racist's insinuated wealth, and his insinuated promise to use it for this effect (i.e., on the surface, to save NZ from the jaws of disaster, but underneath, to promote Perigo's vanity).

I am only discussing what is openly available to all if they wish to verify the reasons for my opinion. I have other reasons for believing what I do, but they involve third parties (good people at that) and I see no reason to get them into this particular little pile of garbage.

So let's just stay with what is openly available. For me that's enough. You are, of course, free to look at all that and draw different conclusions. I stand my mine.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael & Everyone! Doesn't everyone have better things to do. Lindsay needs to be in place where he is kept away from sharp objects and given a crayon to write with but no one here needs to go there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

The problem is that people keep going there and then start slowly holding that crap up as the good after a while, irrespective of anything that has happened and keeps happening.

I want none of it.

If it takes being a bit inconvenient at times to keep that clear, that's a price you have to pay. My differences with bullying and malicious irrationality held up as the good are much more than a personal spat. A totally different worldview and take on virtue is involved.

But the dust will settle down in a bit.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since I am in a mischievous mood, I can't resist a brief comment about a post Ellen made on Siberia Passion that mentioned yours truly:

It is not true that the members of OL in general have any obsession with Linz. A number of the posters there find him of no interest, and if you were to do a percentage break-down of threads, you'd find that Linz isn't even remotely the subject of the vast majority of threads.

. . .

There is one example of why I'm not a fan of Linz's. What, actually, would you call different between MSK's taking advantage of any opportunity to try to discredit Linz and Linz's habitual smearing of every poster on OL with such descriptions as "lying" and "obsessed" by him and Rand-diminishing?

This is where I get amused. The standard is "When you do it, it's wrong. When I do it, it's making a case."

Here's what I am talking about. Ellen objects to Perigo's over-generalization of lumping all posters on OL into the same alleged obsession (him, of course—heh).

Yet she does not object to lumping all of my attention into that alleged obsession. On the contrary, she proclaims it to be true.

Let's look at the standard she used. "... if you were to do a percentage break-down of threads, you'd find that Linz isn't even remotely the subject of the vast majority of threads."

OK. Sure. That's true for OL as a whole.

Now let's look at my posts and threads. I have as of this posting 8,305 posts (332 pages of snippets) and 591 threads (24 pages of titles). (Links are provided so that there will be no excuse in claiming difficulty of examination.)

My posts and threads cover an enormous array of subjects and some of them are full-fledged reports. When you look, surprise, surprise: "... if you were to do a percentage break-down of [MSK's threads and posts], you'd find that Linz isn't even remotely the subject of the vast majority of [MSK's threads and posts]."

I do admit that I have a small number of well targeted threads and posts bashing Perigo's malice, intrigues and irrationality—including people's appeasement of it—in the Objectivist subcommunity. I even admit that I have more than other posters on this topic. But it no where approaches Ellen's phrase of "taking advantage of any opportunity."

When Perigo does that to her, that's wrong according to her beliefs. When she does it to me, that's making a case and the standard she used on Perigo is thrown out the window to make that case.

It's funny that this happened in the same post, in the same breath so to speak. That's pretty ragged by any standard.

But hell. Who cares about numbers and facts when you can get high on crusades?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a footnote to the last post, if the phrase "taking advantage of any opportunity" suddenly takes on a different meaning to make it easier to get out of the other one (which is now disproved), this meaning is wrong, too. The plain fact is that there are way too many opportunities for any one person to ever take advantage of them.

All you have to do is read a thread where Perigo posts and you will usually find something malicious, irrational or blatantly tribal, and that something is most often in the plural.

In this sense, I don't "taking advantage of any opportunity." I merely put a few of the more obvious examples of scurrrility, malice and hypocrisy in the light of day so that people who would prefer to pretend that they are not really scurrrility, malice and hypocrisy can see it. (And normal readers can see it, too.)

I am not of the "defend Rand at all costs" ilk, but I admit it bothers me to see her banner flown in such a sewer-like environment as when Perigo allegedly "defends" her.

He has a right to fly that banner, but I have a right to speak my mind about it.

I have great faith in people. So I have no problem with letting them decide what to think about all this for themselves.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was mentioned once again on that thread on Solo Passion, with an anchor text "smearing" for the link. I was not quoted, so I checked. Here is what I wrote in March 2007:

Around Perigo and his minions, the goddess is the same as for the 70's true-believers, except she is dead and nobody knew her personally. The form of worship, however, is much different (after all, there is the gay issue with Rand's pronouncements against homosexuality). Still it is worship. It is pure true-believer mentality—the need to overly-aggrandize and raise to moral perfection a central figure, with strong emotional appeal of serving something/someone outside of one's own life, and demonize another figure or figures to offset and illustrate it.

The power issues among the clergy are much different, which explains the distaste for Binswanger and Schwartz (and now Peikoff once again). The excommunication rituals are different, of course, but they exist, and pomp and public display (to teach the others a lesson) are made of them.

And the goddess is the same.

Let's say the NZ faction around Perigo is is a rebel denomination of the Church of Rand. It is even openly claiming to be the One True Way. (Ever see that show before in religion? You mentioned rage. Ever see a hellfire-and-brimstone backwater revival preacher? He, for example, has issues with Catholicism...)

Obviously, I cannot mean all people in New Zealand and I don't.

The organization of this thrust is currently in shambles, but I still see the spirit alive in flashes of peer pressure and nastiness, and the interminable "defend so-and-so" from the demons on earth, mostly here on OL at the present (whether defending Perigo, Rand, "hero" in general, or whatever).

All I can say about my former analysis, is: "Damn, I'm good!"

Michael