The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I linked to Jabba's SLOP post in my post above, but it's good to have a link to the start of the thread. Sometimes in this thread I like to leave examples of the Tribal Mindset on record, which is why I posted it here. It's easier to reference later.

In Stuttle's case, I would like to say the issue is more than vanity, but it isn't. She went out on a limb playing games, made some preposterous statements and now doesn't want to admit she was wrong.

And she will fight to the death over this, too. She will talk and talk and talk and argue and argue and argue in circles over nothing at all until people cry the equivalent of, "Uncle! OK. You weren't wrong. Just shut up! You're boring the tears out of me!"

And for some reason, that reaction usually seems to satisfy her.

(Believe it or not, that has a tribal root. I intend to write a more serious work about all this. I already have the title—Dictatorship of the Soul: Hero Worship in Lockstep.)

Let me repeat mah lil' pome from elsewhere on the site:

Ah, dear Vanity!

How sweet thou art.

In the feces mill of the soul

Thou art the fart.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

It's sometimes quite funny. On Solo some fellow Jameson writes:

Neil Puerile, Robot Cambelt and the rest of the screw crew are sad and desperate little men. If their argument is boiling down to whether or not Rand really took her name from her beloved typewriter, then I'd say her integrity is well intact.

What is so comical is that nobody cared a whit about the typewriter story, until a certain Valliant presented this as incontrovertible evidence of the evil machinations and lying of the Brandens. So who was now making a Mount Everest out of a molehill?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some small-time crap I want to leave on record. It involves the tribal mentality from the angle this thread is about, so here is where I put it. But it's nothing of great importance. It's just something to point to later.

Robert Campbell referred to Ellen Stuttle as a "neo-Valliant." (See here.)

Ms. Stuttle's reference to Allan Blumenthal as possibly being the "Objectivist therapist" who saw Ms. Efron's son brings up another question. Isn't Ms. Stuttle now obliged to reinterpret the origins of Ayn Rand's article on "psychologizing"?

Surely no neo-Valliant would want to say that Ayn Rand engaged in improper moralizing.

She responded:

Since Robert's depiction of me as a "neo-Valliant" is a fantasy of his own creation, any contradictions he discerns in my neo-Valliantism are his problems, not mine.

Robert might have created the term, but I, for one, find it a perfect description.

Stuttle doesn't share Valliant's veneration of Rand as super-woman, and she fully knows the extent of the garbage she is promoting (and I know for a fact she knows it), but she is promoting it nonetheless.

That makes her "neo-Valliant" by any standard.

I only say that because I like clear language. I don't like the kind of language you see in almost any religion, and one which Stuttle uses often ("we are not really a religion as others understand the term" yada yada yada). If you allow someone to obfuscate correct identification, this usually serves the interests of the obfuscator, but not the interests of proper understanding.

A, after all, is A.

Why call it something else and laugh about it? To fool people?

(Those who know me already know what I think about that.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More to point to from Robert on SOLOP:

The reason I've started referring to Ms. Stuttle's efforts at biographical revisionism as "neo-Valliantism" is as follows:

1) Jim Valliant's book is one of the worst ever written on any subject, and Ms. Stuttle well knows it.

2) Ms. Stuttle nonetheless goes out of her way to defend Jim Valliant personally and to pretend to find redeeming social value in his book.

3) Ms. Stuttle does not share Mr. Valliant's top two objectives; she does not view Ayn Rand as a goddess-heroine and, so far as I can determine, has experienced no revelations as to the cosmic evil of TheBrandens ™.

4) Yet instead of fully disclosing her differences with Mr. Valliant, Ms. Stuttle has resorted to pretending that he did not take the positions that he took; e.g., that his book is not attributing moral perfection to Ayn Rand, or that Mr. Valliant is not necessarily making the TheBrandens ™ out to be the custodians of all stories that make Ayn Rand look bad.

5) In the process of defending Mr. Valliant and his opus, Ms. Stuttle frequently refuses to give straight answers to questions, or produces chains of bafflegab to rival Mr. Valliant's own.

If you want to read the entire post, and the one preceding it...

Er...

Hell...

Here's part of the one preceding it:

Ms. Stuttle has, in fact, impugned my motives on quite a few recent occasions, frequently accusing me of misrepresenting what I've read, going on about "distortings" and "inquisitings," calling me the "headless warrior," even opining as to how I'm the spittin' image of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

So where was I?

Oh yeah...

If you want to read the entire posts, click on the links.

As for me, I am contemplating the "A is A" question:

If Stuttle's defense of Valliant looks like bafflegab, sounds like bafflegab and acts like bafflegab, what, oh what, can it be?

Michael

[Greybird]

Well, as to this whole "debate," I'm with Madeline Kahn.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(sigh)...

(Just ribben' ya... )

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I can't say that Madeline Kahn's deconstruction of Dietrich inspired me to do it, but I'm now out of SOLOP for good.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

I can't say that Madeline Kahn's deconstruction of Dietrich inspired me to do it, but I'm now out of SOLOP for good.

Robert Campbell

Bob:

Always good to precede the rats.

I do not have the apparently horrendous travels that you folks have had with that forum. Just glimpses through your rear view mirrors is sufficient for me.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

I can't say that Madeline Kahn's deconstruction of Dietrich inspired me to do it, but I'm now out of SOLOP for good.

Robert Campbell

You mean you---

FLOUNCED?

[sister Jeffrina gives an evil laugh from behind her rosary beads)

Edited November 18, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I can't get an idea out of my mind for an article that deals with all this.

In Stuttle's case, there is a fundamental element going on that, I believe, goes deeper than her vanity (and her vanity already is very deep indeed). This fundamental element is actually the main reason I have focused on her. It is what I call a "Sense of Identity."

I admit that I got this notion by adding to Rand's concept of "Sense of Life," but it is different. I first dealt with it in 2005 on the old SoloHQ in my article: Understanding Addiction -- One Objectivist's View.

(Incidentally, I hate that title and I will change it once this article goes on to better things. That phrase "one Objectivist's view" was changed from the original "an Objectivist view" by Perigo against my will back then. This was one of my first articles ever. I was quite green and I allowed myself to be bullied into this, thinking that Perigo knew what in hell he was doing. It sounded wrong to me, but I imagined that there were things I did not see from my inexperience.

You should see the offline exchanges we had. Basically, he was worried that my phrasing would cast doubt on him as an Objectivist leader and the now defunct SoloHQ as the replacement of ARI and TAS. That was a terrible precedent for me to allow, too. Perigo got comfortable and started changing other stuff I wrote without even telling me. I had to discover it by rereading my work. That was when I first started getting irritated with him and getting a glimpse of just how dishonest and manipulative he was. Had I known then what I know now, I would have told him to go to hell and taken my work down.)

Back to the issue. I believe Sense of Identity is one of the main reasons that groups of people stay together. It is called "core self" by an Internet marketer I admire, Frank Kern. There are other names by others. People can be totally different on the surface, but soul-mates underneath. I will go into this much more in the article I am planning.

In the Objectivist world, I see many people distort the idea of hero and inject the image of a physical person in their core self in the place where their own fundamental interests should be. They refer to this as "hero worship." Notice that their achievements are usually not very productive or centered on their own lives. They are almost always in terms of striking a blow for the reputation of the Venerated One, erecting monuments to the same, spreading the message of the same, etc.

Stuttle is a little more complex than this since she demonstrates a strong element of snobbish name-dropping in the mix, vanity, terror of being wrong on an idea-level, and some other goodies, but essentially her Venerated One is a guy named Lindzen. Thus, even though she does not "hero worship" the same person that Perigo does (Rand), she does "hero worship" the same manner. This is what I believe makes her so comfortable in the SLOP environment. Those two are merely different breeds of the same species.

This goes for Valliant, too, which is why I believe Stuttle can now gloss over his twisted thinking and pretend that the primary themes of PARC are not what they are. She sees at the core that he is the same kind of animal as she is.

Substance-wise, though, these thoughts lead to a valid question: Does hero worship exist in a healthy manner that aligns with the Objectivist notion? All I can say for now is, "And how!"

But it has nothing to do with what those folks practice.

In my life, there are both physical and mental referents for my concept of self. I can point to them, too. These referents are universal and available to all for their own lives, but I will go into this in my future article.

The point here is that I have no need to mix up my self-image (Sense of Identity) on a fundamental level with a surrogate just so my abstraction of myself can stop floating. But that's precisely what these folks do. And it gets worse. To hide this process of social metaphysics from themselves and others, they call it "hero worship" and demand compliance from the rest of the world.

This is second-handedness on the deepest level of soul.

More coming.

(btw - I don't know if this was your intention, but you did one hell of a good job exposing this on SLOP, along with the obvious stuff like the nastiness, childishness, lack of professionalism, etc., of Perigo and the posters in his clique. After what you went through, though, I imagine you feel like you need to take a good long hot bath...)

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Substance-wise, though, these thoughts lead to a valid question: Does hero worship exist in a healthy manner that aligns with the Objectivist notion? All I can say for now is, "And how!"

But it has nothing to do with what those folks practice.

In my life, there are both physical and mental referents for my concept of self. I can point to them, too. These referents are universal and available to all for their own lives, but I will go into this in my future article.

The point here is that I have no need to mix up my self-image (Sense of Identity) on a fundamental level with a surrogate just so my abstraction of myself can stop floating. But that's precisely what these folks do. And it gets worse. To hide this process of social metaphysics from themselves and others, they call it "hero worship" and demand compliance from the rest of the world.

This is second-handedness on the deepest level of soul.

Michael

I'll take a quick guess:

when a person finds in a hero traits and values they also have, or are at least which they are honestly attempting to emulate, that is healthy hero worship. When a person finds in a hero traits and values they do no have, and make no honest attempt to emulate them, then that is unhealthy hero worship.

So, a boy who tries to emulate Michael Jordan's basketball skills as a way to better his own is engaging in healthy hero worship, while a boy who claims MJ as his hero without attempting to emulate him in some way, is not.

Jeffrey S.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's part of the one preceding it:

Ms. Stuttle has, in fact, impugned my motives on quite a few recent occasions, frequently accusing me of misrepresenting what I've read, going on about "distortings" and "inquisitings," calling me the "headless warrior," even opining as to how I'm the spittin' image of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

For the record, no, I didn't "[opine] as to how [RC is] the spittin' image of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad." What I said is that "There is a bit of resemblance to the photo."

The text of my actual reply to Robert can be found here (post #81180 if it goes off the first page and the link no longer works).

The rest of what transpired between Robert and me, whoever cares can check for him/herself.

An outright factual misstatement, as opposed to the characteristic distortions, bugs me enough to bother to counter.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stuttle,

I don't see anything factual to misstate in a taunt. Taunts and mocking can be interpreted in a variety of valid manners. And you were taunting. There is only an "outright factual misstatement" in mockery if there is a misquote, and Robert did not misquote you.

For the record, here is the "bit of a resemblance to the photo" comment in a better context, i.e., the post you linked. (The part in italics is a quote by Robert. The references are to the kind of language habitually used on SLOP by Perigo's mini-clique to refer to him.)

"Ms. Stuttle says that she doesn't consider Michael Stuart Kelly 'scum.' That's mighty charitable of her.

"Does she consider me a cockroach, a member of the pedo-Mafia, Nambla-Campbla, conscienceless, a psychopath, irredeemably rotten, or the spittin' image of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?"

There is a bit of resemblance to the photo.

I think of you as "the headless warrior" -- a reference to headless chickens which run for awhile before dropping. You flail around brandishing weapons and never hit the target.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I admit that I got this notion by adding to Rand's concept of "Sense of Life," but it is different. I first dealt with it in 2005 on the old SoloHQ in my article: Understanding Addiction -- One Objectivist's View.

(Incidentally, I hate that title and I will change it once this article goes on to better things. That phrase "one Objectivist's view" was changed from the original "an Objectivist view" by Perigo against my will back then...

I want to add a footnote to this.

In my mind back then (now, too), if you use the methodology of a school of thought to arrive at conclusion, you should credit that school of thought. Since I was using "Sense of Life" to frame my "Sense of Identity" idea, it was (and is) clear to me that I was not presenting a Kantian view, an Existentialist view, a Nietzschean view, a Behaviorist view, a Popperian view or any other kind of view other than an Objectivist view.

It simply did not occur to me back then that the issue and values at stake for Perigo were essentially preaching the gospel of Rand.

The flavor of this emanates from "One Objectivist's View" and that is why I hate it. I am not witnessing for a religion in that article. I am analyzing a serious idea. But it sounds like I am witnessing.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle,

The whole bit about my alleged resemblance to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was obviously a taunt.

And by putting my point in a dialect that you would never use, I thought I made it sufficiently clear that I wasn't pretending to quote you.

All I meant to say is that you had joined in with one of Lindsay Perigo's taunts.

And those are so toxic, just one is all it takes.

It's of course MSK's call whether you are welcome on this board or not.

But I will not be responding any further to anything that you might post here.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

Robert,

At least you're not emulating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's wardrobe choices, jowls, neck fat and unruly hair styles (head and chest).

J

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9w3_3T3U5g

[Selene]

Robert,

At least you're not emulating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's wardrobe choices, jowls, neck fat and unruly hair styles (head and chest).

J

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Y9w3_3T3U5g

Jonathan

Are there any profile shots of the mug shots?

Adam

sorry could not resist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Once again Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo is calling for the murder of President Barack Obama. This time he threw in England's Prime Minister Brown for good measure.

On the thread: SOLO-International Press Release: Clueless in Copenhagen, Perigo made the following post on Tue, 2009-12-22 12:02: Well Marcus ...

Here is the text of his post:

Well Marcus ...

.... you should quit saying "Give Obama a break" on other threads. They're all evil, and actually, evil to the magnitude where they should be taken out, as Hitler should have been. Obama, Brown, Mugabe, Chavez ... all of them. Alas, no one has the guts to say it, let alone do it.

*Now* watch the Brandroids go nuts.

Since I want to keep this on record, I took a screenshot. Here is my unaltered screenshot from today:

Here are the pertinent parts highlighted in red. The timestamp in the right left corner was obtained by hovering my mouse over the time. For some reason the mouse pointer does not copy into the Print Screen command when it is over the Task Bar.

In light of this and other similar sruff, I think it is reasonable to characterize Solo Passion as a typical hate site.

I know there are no lack of loons within the Objectivist movement. I do hope no one is looney enough to take Perigo's words to heart, get the "guts" and actually try to assassinate President Obama or Prime Minister Brown.

That is not what Objectivism is about.

Hat tip to Dennis. I got wind of this here.

This is the third time this despicable human being has called for the murder of President Obama, implying that he speaks from an Objectivist orientation. How many times does this stuff have to happen while other Objectivists keep their eyes closed to it?

People may think Perigo doesn't really mean real murder, but I hold he does. He keeps saying so in public.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Wouldn’t it be sweet payback (thinking of Peron) if Jabba were banned from entering the US for repeated incitement to murder the president? Not that he’s liable to be invited to appear at an Objectivist conference stateside, barring an impossibly convincing public conversion to ARIanism.

Kudos to Brant for his recent escape from the Rancor’s lair. The fewer reasonable voices over there the better.

[Greybird]

I'll state here (below the quote) what I posted about this on SOLO Passion.

[...] In light of this and other similar stuff, I think it is reasonable to characterize Solo Passion as a typical hate site.

I don't. I'm getting tired (from years of either lurking or posting) of the constant petty, vicious sniping going in both directions. Both that site and this one have sizable faults and notable virtues. It depends on what, and whom, you choose to look at, as with any site.

I did want to state, though, that Lindsay Perigo's opinions, or anyone's, about what should, or should not, be done to the President of the United States are no proper concern of the authorities. Not in any society that has even a semblance of respect for freedom of speech from governmental control.

[Robert Campbell]

Lindsay Perigo is extremely unlikely to act on any of his calls to "take out" Barack Obama, et al.

So I would agree that, based on his public utterances, he should not be barred from entering the United States.

However, Mr. Perigo, while applauding the exclusion, has yet to produce any credible reason as to why Jim Peron should have been kicked out of New Zealand and permanently banned from returning.

So turnabout would be fair play, in Mr. Perigo's case—not terribly different from a Congressman getting nailed for income tax evasion.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

I don't. I'm getting tired (from years of either lurking or posting) of the constant petty, vicious sniping going in both directions. Both that site and this one have sizable faults and notable virtues. It depends on what, and whom, you choose to look at, as with any site.

I don’t think there’s anything remotely comparable going on over here, and certainly not coming from the site’s owner. Granted the SLOP global warming thread is really good, and Boydstun, Keer and very few others (that I regard as worth reading) still post there. If it were only Perigo and his henchmen (Gregster, Moeller etc.) there’d be nothing there worth reading.

I did want to state, though, that Lindsay Perigo's opinions, or anyone's, about what should, or should not, be done to the President of the United States are no proper concern of the authorities. Not in any society that has even a semblance of respect for freedom of speech from governmental control.

People have been barred from entering the country for less. Do you think what he’s writing is intended as a joke? It’s stated too plainly. I’m not going to research the exact definition of incitement to murder (maybe another time), so I’ll just close with a bit of Clint:

[Selene]

I just think it must be the water, unless these morons are his parents.

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

by Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker Isabelle Toussaint And Jurgen Hecker S

PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle. But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.

And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.

"If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale.

"If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."

Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Selene

[Alfonso Jones]

I'll state here (below the quote) what I posted about this on SOLO Passion.

[...] In light of this and other similar stuff, I think it is reasonable to characterize Solo Passion as a typical hate site.

I don't. I'm getting tired (from years of either lurking or posting) of the constant petty, vicious sniping going in both directions. Both that site and this one have sizable faults and notable virtues. It depends on what, and whom, you choose to look at, as with any site.

I did want to state, though, that Lindsay Perigo's opinions, or anyone's, about what should, or should not, be done to the President of the United States are no proper concern of the authorities. Not in any society that has even a semblance of respect for freedom of speech from governmental control.

Greybird -

There's some silly stuff posted on OL - granted. But have you seen the owner of this site post statements that the President of the USA should be killed? What's the most outrageous or borderline criminal thing you have seen by the owner? I've seen some plagiarism instances (not by the owner, but someone who is now banned). I've seem some rude interpersonal sniping (not involving the owner). But NOTHING approaching the material Michael quotes above. Can you provide the examples which you view as comparable, if you view there as having been comparable instances at OL to the one Michael has just quoted?

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm getting tired (from years of either lurking or posting) of the constant petty, vicious sniping going in both directions.

Steve,

Well that's simple.

Don't read.

Don't post.

Start your own site if you want to.

I'm not going to change.

Nobody's forcing you to hang around.

Michael