The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Jonathan]

You have even framed it in an artistic manner for emphasis, the "Turandot Challenge," making obvious reference to Perigo's own mocking of the ARI folks for not answering his complaints against Peikoff's views on electoral politics and religion.

Heh. If I'm remembering correctly, the "Hseikovians" used similar excuses to the ones that Pigero and pals are using for avoiding answering my Turandot Challenge -- that it wasn't presented respectfully enough, that those avoiding answering it were too discerning and busy to jump through hoops and answer irrelevant questions, etc.

J

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

The dodges you are describing have long been in Diana Hsieh's repertoire.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael Newberry has ripped Lindsay Perigo's claim to be an exemplar of good taste.

Robert,

This was extremely well done and a first-hand account. I want it in a place easy to reference (in this thread).

Now the big issue over there is whether this dude uses sun-glasses. I think the sun-glass controversy is some kind of attempt to discredit the account. It's pretty lame when something so normal, that we all do at one time or another in life, is used as... ah... forget it...

Dayaamm!

My BS meter just jumped off the dial...

More Damage Than Good?

Submitted by Newberry on Sun, 2009-02-08 19:06.

Marcus: "It's a hard thing to judge outside of SOLO though, because most of its members consider themselves united by a political and moral philosophy, rather than an aesthetic one.

Linz hopes to change that, but in order to do that - I fear he would need to reconstruct Objectivism from scratch again."

When I read this I recalled my stay in Auckland, I was one of the speakers for the first Solo conference. The aesthetic experience of it in its entirety was pathetic, with the exception of gracious Peter Cresswell and his classic car.

I met Perigo in the evening. He was wearing a muscle T-shirt, two sizes too small for his out of shape body, and dark sunglasses. (I assumed he didn’t want others to see his eyes.)

In a flea bitten, dirty hotel room in Downtown Auckland he waxed poetically about a minuscule reproduction of a mediocre landscape in a used, dime store frame tacked on a grubby wall. He talked of the superiority of this awful thing compared to its equally awful, equally mediocre abstract companion on the other dirty wall. (I stayed mute on the subject.)

I had just flown 24 hours on Singapore Air, in which the comfort, class, quality, and beauty of the service, and excellent food made the trip as pleasurable as possible. The contrast was grossly palatable.

With the exception of the operatic voice, and the ability to alliterate Perigo as all of the aesthetic quality of an unkept boor. In regards to his stated cultural aims, Perigo, ironically, is probably doing more damage to wider acceptance of Objectivist aesthetics than any other single person alive.

Michael

www.NewberryGallery.com

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perigo just announced that there is a site devoted to the Jim Peron affair. The site is called Jim Peron Unbound and I have added some comments to my thread on this matter, "The Smearing of Jim Peron" (see here).

I was pleased to see that my thread was reprinted on that site. It is weird seeing something semi-objective coming from those quarters. Obviously Perigo isn't the one who is doing it.

EDIT: Brant mentioned something in that thread shortly after the announcement that Peron did not defend himself. This is not accurate. Peron did defend himself in the press at the time and made a Holy Mess out of it. That's what helped his opponents railroad him.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want this double standard on record with my comment. Perigo backpedaled a bit in a post addressed to Brant on calling Jim Peron a pedophile:

Out of deference to your sensibilities I have changed "pedophile" to "Namblaphile," which is how I used to refer to him. Winston Peters called him the former and challenged him to sue him. Nothing happened. I can't imagine anyone publishing that kind of magazine without more than an academic interest in the subject.

Now here is the double standard.

Perigo called Jim Peron a pedophile time and time again. Now he says, "Oops," and expects us to take him seriously. It's gonna be different from now on, right?

Jim Peron severed his bookstore's extremely short business relationship with Nambla in the 80's and never involved himself with them again. Yet he is judged as if he never severed his ties.

You judge people by what they say and what they do. What Jim Peron did over the last quarter of a century more than indicates where he is at.

On the other hand, I expect Perigo's new change of heart on what he calls Jim Peron to last until the next time he gets drunk. (I base this on his history. I hope I am proved wrong, but I don't think I will be.)

As to the standard of presuming someone is guilty because they do not sue a person who slandered him, I use a different standard. In the USA, I learned you presume someone is innocent until proven guilty. Maybe they use a different standard in New Zealand.

That idiot NZ politician Peters (and Perigo and his toadies) called Jim Peron a pedophile. Nobody ever proved it. All they did was shout it.

So I prefer to call the lot of them disgusting liars. The size of my contempt for them is one of the largest I have ever felt in my entire life. They knew exactly what they were doing. They chose evil and practiced it with full knowledge of the false witness they bore. And they did it for politics.

Shame on them, all of them, Christians and Objectivists. They dishonor their souls.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

This is a lovely, delightful, tasty thread. Call it my cruel streak.

My main concern, though, coming off all of it, was if Newberry's olafactory senses ever recovered after that squalid fleabag muscle shirt incident. It had to smell like a ham and feet sandwich, at the very best.

rde

Never borrow an air conductor's baton unless you know where his fingers have been.

And, just for the record, I'm clocking in at exact fighting weight, a svelte 156lbs. I can even see all my equipment, ribs, everything. Nyah-nyah, wife-beater-shirt-dude. Suggestion: move to Australia, go to open ground, hope for self-combustion that no one will ever have to sniff. I'm just saying...

Edited February 10, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw the most amazing statement about Perigo from a semi-thinking person, Ms. Stuttle. She was presenting her objections to Jonathan's method of dialog on SLOP and came out with this gem:

And I think that his intent isn't to open paths for dialogue but instead to mock and to taunt Linz.

Thus from my standpoint what he accomplishes is (mostly) just to be in the way of getting anywhere productive.

Having seen Jonathan many times become extremely reasonable when his requests for information are met with information instead of hostility, even after a session of mutual hostility with a poster, I disagree with this. I believe he mocks and taunts because he despises hypocrisy, especially when it goes about parading as spiritual guidance. That's my opinion, not his statement, but I do base it on reading a lot of posts by him.

But taking the accusation at face value, what, pray tell, is it that Perigo does and intends—day after day—that is any different than mocking and taunting?

What did Perigo do and intend with Barbara Branden? With Jim Peron? With Chris Sciabarra? Hell, even with Diana Hsieh after he "did and intended" with the others? Did he intend to "open paths for dialogue" with these people and get somewhere "productive"? I could go on since the list is quite long, but that's enough for now.

When did that jerk get a pass?

Inquiring minds and all...

I had to see this one to believe it. All standards really are out the window.

As the saying goes, different strokes for different folks...

But that's too much slobbering for me to respect.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That might be a good idea: mocking and taunting. Might work on Obama.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

There is a cute little book called A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media by Bernard Goldberg.

The serious mocking and taunting of Obama has already started. I predict it will grow.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Brant,

There is a cute little book called A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media by Bernard Goldberg.

The serious mocking and taunting of Obama has already started. I predict it will grow.

Michael

Kimberly Strassel in today's(Feb 27) Wall Street Journal has a wonderful article about Obama's State of the Union which has great fun with him.

[Roger Bissell]

I just saw the most amazing statement about Perigo from a semi-thinking person, Ms. Stuttle.

I miss the "semi-thinking" Ms. Stuttle, but I understand why she left. :bye:

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Does that include understanding the why of kissing Perigo's ass in public?

Maybe you folks can forget about Barbara and Nathaniel and Jim Peron and Chris Sciabarra and others, but I don't.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

Does that include understanding the why of kissing Perigo's ass in public?

Maybe you folks can forget about Barbara and Nathaniel and Jim Peron and Chris Sciabarra and others, but I don't.

Michael

Michael, I confess I don't spend nearly as much time scanning Perigo's web site discussions as you seem to. (The price of rationality is eternal vigilance? Whatever.) I just looked at the discussion thread you linked us to, and it didn't seem to contain any of the said public Perigonian ass-kissing by Ellen Stuttle, just a criticism of Jonathan's style of discussion. Also, just a bunch of fairly interesting discussion -- though I'm not willing to hobnob with Linz and his cronies and expose myself to their manner and tactics in order to take part in it. Ellen apparently is; that's her choice.

Also, as far as I know, Ellen has never scourged any of the four mentioned enemies of Linz, and I happen to know she is friends with at least two of them and has vigorously defended Jim Peron. And why you would insinuate that I have forgotten about any of these people is totally beyond me. You know better than that; or you should. And why you seem so determined to put her and her thinking ability down is not clear to me either. But like I said, I may not be aware of certain details you have noticed on SOLO Passion.

It seems obvious to me that the value of OL to Ellen dried up, partly perhaps because there isn't much going on here that interests her -- but also at least to some extent because of how you treat discussants you disagree with. Perhaps she will grow tired of SP for a similar reason eventually. But for now, it seems clear that she is engaged in discussions she enjoys, and that there is probably more of what interests her available on SP than on OL. And she's probably ~not~ looking back here to see what you think of her. So, again, why diss her so? Is there something wrong with us if we don't agree with your evaluation of her?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Best let it be. It's not your conflict and your presumptions are wrong.

If you want more information, I suggest you write Ms. Stuttle. On my side, I have no wish to involve you.

Sorry about insinuating you hold little regard for NB, BB, JP, CS, and others. You don't kiss Perigo's ass, so I should have been clearer.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was alerted to this thread and to Michael's accusation that I'm kissing Perigo's ass. I suppose Perigo would be amused by the description. I find it merely indicative of the lengths to which Michael will go trying to make a case where none is to be made. As Roger indicated, there isn't even anything in the post to which Michael linked which is justifiably described as "ass-kissing." Indeed, most of the post expresses agreement with certain of the criticisms of Perigo's thesis, and the two sentences Michael wrenched out of context to use as evidence pertain to Jonathan's way of going about his argument, a way which I find counterproductive to getting anywhere with the subject.

Roger, your remarks are spot-on, and I thank you for them.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not in the habit of making "arguments" with—and praise—irrational bullies who wage blatant and vicious campaigns to destroy the reputation of people I profess to admire.

But then again, I kiss the ass of whomever I please. So I think all people have the freedom do the same.

I believe kissing ass is the inalienable right of every free individual on this green earth.

I also have heard that Perigo calls it butt-licking.

Slobbering over butts is a personal value thing...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Having seen Jonathan many times become extremely reasonable when his requests for information are met with information instead of hostility, even after a session of mutual hostility with a poster, I disagree with this. I believe he mocks and taunts because he despises hypocrisy, especially when it goes about parading as spiritual guidance. That's my opinion, not his statement, but I do base it on reading a lot of posts by him.

Thanks, MSK. I do indeed try to be open and reasonable in discussions, and although everything about my history of conversing with Pigero online tells me that he's a buffoonish windbag who will not address substance when it comes to the issue of aesthetic judgments of music, I'm still willing to consider anything intelligent that he would have to say on the subject. If he were to actually define his terms and identify his criteria, I'd be more than happy to politely discuss the aesthetic implications of his views.

But let's face reality. The likelihood of Pigero's ever doing so is probably about the same as the "Hsiehkovians" getting around to addressing the substance of Pigero's original "Turandot Challenge."

J

[Selene]

Folks:

I have to tell you how happy I have been to have missed all this internecine drama - I know that the Emperor in Waiting O'Biwan's staff had a massive internet blogging operation because they saw what I saw in terms of the political organizing on the crowd connected to the internet. Therefore, they had a very well paid and focused operation to take over the "bloggasphere" [sp ?? no clue]. Therefore, it would not surprise me to find paid disruptors to screw up a potential movement.

The Medium is the Message

Faith Popcorn was a futurist in the 60's and boy did she nail a lot trends including the smoke alarm. She posited the "cocooning of America" gated communities, etc. Going from the cocoon of your living space to the cocoon of your vehicle to the cocoon of your office or work station. Your media will be portable.

Adam

Edited February 28, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

Realizing how unwelcome Noam Chomsky is here, I have always enjoyed listening to him and selectively pulling the needles out of his new left haystack.

Disregarding his assumptions of the interior minds of the evil founders, what doth folks say about the concept he expounds on in this video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/572.html

Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud. Purported to be the first to put Freud's theories in practice on a major scale by founding the American Public Relations industry.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

This video is stunning despite it's total left wing tilt, e.g., FDR was really a people's President, the statement that democracy and capitalism were not together, which of course they are not. The founders were terrified of democracy which is part of why this incredible Constitution is perfect.

This is Justice Brandies quoting Justice Marshall in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States [1928]. http://supreme.justia.com/us/277/438/case.html

"Legislation, both statutory and constitutional, is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils, but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions

Page 277 U. S. 473

and purposes. Therefore, a principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall 'designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.' The future is their care, and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophecy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be. Under any other rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value, and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality."

Brandeis then in his conclusion in his dissent on the critical case on wiretapping in the State of Washington by reminding us that:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. [Footnote 12]

Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. By the laws of Washington, wiretapping is a crime."

Sorry to be so long winded on a Saturday night, but with the way I see the rapidity at which Emperor O'Biwan is moving in the first 39 days, I think we really need to rethink the centrist wishful thinking.

I personally read a lot of Jacques Ellul, a French marxist, anarchist became a christian at 22 and wrote an excellent book Propaganda [1973] which buttressed his overall tyranny of technology. Here is his wiki section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellul,_Jacques

Hmm, things were so much simpler when I was heavily involved in the anarcho-capitalist movement lol!

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They are discussing this thread on SLOP right now. According to Ms. Stuttle, this thread has died although the view count shows it is still being read. One thing is for certain. This thread has not died for them because they are yacking up a storm about it.

I do want to correct one item, which includes the mistaken supposition I just mentioned. Ms. Stuttle is referring to my identification that she has kissed Perigo's ass.

No one else there took him up on his charge; the thread died.

I want to mention the following for the purpose of clarification.

I realize that it is difficult for crusader type tribal-thinking people who like to demonize "enemies" to imagine a person can make a pure expression of contempt about someone's acts without trying to engage in a group movement, but that is exactly what I was doing.

I was not rallying anyone for anything. I don't do that unless it is for a big cause (like a Presidential election), and even then I am highly suspicious of group movements. I was expressing contempt for an individual—which I still hold. I don't really care about anyone "taking me up" or anything else of that nature.

About SLOP, I don't care who posts there. That's their business. But when I see blank-out ass-kissing going on, I will register my observation and evaluation.

I think kissing Perigo's ass is disgusting by a normal person. But when someone who has professed to admire people this jerk has tried to damage and insists on continuing in his attempts to damage them (however feeble and inconsequential such attempts may now be)—I refer to Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, Jim Peron, Chris Sciabarra and others—and the ass-kisser is intimately aware of such acts and has been for years, it is disgusting multiplied exponentially. The hypocrisy makes me want to vomit. That is bad character and there is no better term for it. I would never do something like that in my own life, but that's me.

Other people may think differently—the concretes of their lives may be so distant from this issue that they don't even care about it, or they may think the ass-kisser deserves a pass for whatever reason—but that's them.

I prefer to let people read and decide for themselves. I trust in the good character of individuals of good will to do right by their own values, not by my values. I'll take care of my own interests.

Not one of them needs me—or anyone else—to think for them or value for them.

That is a vision of human life I don't expect a crusader-type tribal-thinking person to understand. But that is what OL is really all about.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a footnote to my previous post, given as an example of what I am talking about. It is in a post from Perigo addressed to Ms. Stuttle (he starts by quoting her):

(Ironically, MSK meanwhile accused me of kissing your ass. Between the devil and the deep blue sea.)

Why would you worry about the opinion of a scumbag like that? They don't come any lower, apart from his lying, smearing mentor Babs, the kissing of whose ass is the basis of his whole phony career on the coat-tails of Brandroids clinging to the coat-tails of Objectivism.

I don't care about what this dude says about me. I have already said I want him to talk bad about me. I mean it. We are fundamentally different in our value choices and I like this to be public so long as both have public voices. If he ever started praising me, I would get worried.

But look at what he is saying about Barbara, and by extension, those who do not demonize the Brandens (which, with his tribal sense of life, he can only see as a tribe). He is saying she is scum, supposedly lower than me, the scumbag of his delusions. He is not making an opinion to the world at large. He is addressing Ms. Stuttle.

What I expect from her is silence, like she has been doing up to now. (Maybe not, since I am making this post.) And I expect her to continue treating this jerk's infantile musical opinions as worthy of intelligent discussion. Not only are good people of stature (like "Babs") grossly insulted in Ms. Stuttle's presence, the entire field of musical aesthetics is becoming dumbed down to the level of a fan club with her active participation and instigation.

I know what my reaction to this crap is. Whoever reads this is reading my reaction. It's disgusting.

If I really get riled, I will take time from my projects, go through past posts over there and properly document the slobber-fest. Just for easy reference.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I swear I can't resist this. I have tried and tried, but I am an ex-addict.

From Perigo on the same thread as above (he starts quoting Ms. Stuttle and they are discussing the obvious, with "him" and "that entity" being me):

I'm amused at getting obverse-symmetric accusations from you and from him.

Darling, I don't accuse you of anything, let alone of kissing that entity's derriere. I know you have far better taste than that.

Better taste?

Hmmmm...

So kissing one ass is poor taste and kissing another ass is "better taste"? Like kissing Perigo's ass is "better taste"?

(Well, at least he's kissing her ass this round.)

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

For a good example of Perigonian infantility, see his "review" of Sibelius's Symphony #2, which Jonathan recently reminded the SOLOPpers about:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1673#comment-21054

I've listened now for the zillionth time to the Sibelius 2nd Symphony, since that was the one that came highly recommended. It's rubbish. Discrete (as opposed to discreet) passages that would make good movie accompaniments (& that's not a put-down), & that's it. The rest is gratuitous padding, utterly devoid of musical merit. What crap gets talked here that suggests this is romantic music's apogee. It's portentous, pretentious dribble redeemed by a few bars of authentic, but disconnected, romanticism every once in a while. Poseurism Writ Large.

Unlike the Perigonian blasts at Frank Zappa's music, this "review" was apparently done after listening to the entire work—on more than occasion.

There is absolutely no point in trying to conduct a serious discussion of music with someone who writes like this.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

For a good example of Perigonian infantility, see his "review" of Sibelius's Symphony #2, which Jonathan recently reminded the SOLOPpers about:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1673#comment-21054

I've listened now for the zillionth time to the Sibelius 2nd Symphony, since that was the one that came highly recommended. It's rubbish. Discrete (as opposed to discreet) passages that would make good movie accompaniments (& that's not a put-down), & that's it. The rest is gratuitous padding, utterly devoid of musical merit. What crap gets talked here that suggests this is romantic music's apogee. It's portentous, pretentious dribble redeemed by a few bars of authentic, but disconnected, romanticism every once in a while. Poseurism Writ Large.

Unlike the Perigonian blasts at Frank Zappa's music, this "review" was apparently done after listening to the entire work—on more than occasion.

There is absolutely no point in trying to conduct a serious discussion of music with someone who writes like this.

Robert Campbell

Unless the discussion is two different ruses by two of the three primary participants.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

For a good example of Perigonian infantility, see his "review" of Sibelius's Symphony #2, which Jonathan recently reminded the SOLOPpers about:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1673#comment-21054

I've listened now for the zillionth time to the Sibelius 2nd Symphony, since that was the one that came highly recommended. It's rubbish. Discrete (as opposed to discreet) passages that would make good movie accompaniments (& that's not a put-down), & that's it. The rest is gratuitous padding, utterly devoid of musical merit. What crap gets talked here that suggests this is romantic music's apogee. It's portentous, pretentious dribble redeemed by a few bars of authentic, but disconnected, romanticism every once in a while. Poseurism Writ Large.

Unlike the Perigonian blasts at Frank Zappa's music, this "review" was apparently done after listening to the entire work—on more than occasion.

There is absolutely no point in trying to conduct a serious discussion of music with someone who writes like this.

Robert Campbell

Apparently he did not like the Sibelius 2nd symphony.

Ba'al Chatzaf