HOME INDEX  

Mysterious Noodles

The following speaks for itself, I think, and is a good example of what OINOs are, and of yours truly being accused of "advocating the mass extinction of mankind." Terrible man. We have a little fun, too, at the OINO's expense, I'm afraid.

[Note: These posts are from 2006 and some links will not work. I fixed as many as I could.]


Regi, Apr 6th, 2006
I posted the following this morning on Diana Hsieh's "Noodle Food."

Hi Gregg, Diana,

Here is an article with a slightly different take on this subject and the post about Dr. Pianka.

Saving The World

I doubt if you will agree with it but would be delighted by any criticism you might have.

Regi
Here is Diana's mysterious response:

I have deleted Reginald Firehammer's post about his article, since it is beyond vile. Under the banner of Objectivism, it advocates the mass extinction of humanity as a method of "saving the world" for the self-sufficient individualists.

I'm including the link, and the quotes below, simply to indicate just how revolting the article is -- and to show why Mr. Firehammer is no longer welcome to post on NoodleFood. I absolutely will not sanction this kind of atrocity in any way, shape, or form. I would not wish to ever give anyone the impression that he advocate anything like Objectivism.

***

Saving The World

"The most ironic aspect of the strange juxtaposition of methods for, "saving the world," is that the one despised by the Objectivists just might work. ...

"The world-wide catastrophe such a collapse would bring is impossible to fully comprehend. Not only would the economies of every country in the world collapse, world-wide famine would be inevitable, crime and violence would prevail as the last resort of the parasites who have been living on the productive efforts of others, plague and epidemics would wipe out huge numbers of people as sanitation, medical care, and drugs became non-existent.

"The survivors of such a catastrophe would be the independent individualists, the competent and self-sufficient, the only kind of men to whom the kind of society the Objectivists envision is possible and the only kind of men who deserve it. ...

"The world, that is, human society, in its present state, is probably not worth saving, and neither the Objectivist's or Dr. Pianka's method can save it. Dr. Pianka's method, which very well may occur, does have one advantage--while it cannot save the world, it would eliminate all that is not worth saving, leaving it for the independent individualists to rebuild."

***

Regi, do not post here again. Ever.
The mystery begins in the very first sentence: "I have deleted Reginald Firehammer's post about his article, since it is beyond vile." The reason I included my original post is because the antecedent of "it" in her sentence is confusing and might refer to the deleted post (is that vile?) or the article. I assume she means the article. If that is the case, the next sentence is even more mysterious.

"Under the banner of Objectivism, it advocates the mass extinction of humanity as a method of 'saving the world' for the self-sufficient individualists," she wrote. The Autonomist is not an Objectivist site and has never claimed to be. I have stated numerous times I do not label myself an Objectivist, as so many others fraudulently do, so it was certainly not under that banner (or any other except the banner of reason) the article was written.

Whether there is any difference between just "extinction" and "mass extinction," I do not know, but there is no such advocation in the article referred to. Maybe she does not really know what extinction is. If humanity is extinct, where does she think the self-sufficient individualists come from? Reason would have shown her the absurdity of her claim, and I am an advocate of reason.

The rest of her post is an out-of-context partially quoted portion of the article. The context she leaves out is this:

"He [Dr. Eric R. Pianka] does not propose the intentional extermination of men. While no benevolent human being could wish this on mankind, even from natural causes, the possibility and its consequences must not be ignored."

To say, as Diana did, that my article, "advocates the mass extinction of humanity," can only mean one of three things: a deliberate lie, a very poor reading comprehension, or simply a mistake. I will not accuse anyone of deliberately lying, and I assume she is capable of comprehending simple English, so conclude she did not read the article carefully. The conclusion of the article points out the subtle irony, that even in the face of the greatest evil, the virtuous man can succeed and prosper. We do not expect someone who missed or misunderstood explicit statements to understand the more subtle points, but the misrepresentation is wrong. I expect Diana is a woman of integrity and will have the courage to admit her mistake.

Regi

Cass, Oct 26th
I went to the Noodle Cart, read Ms. H's, comment (which was no comment), read again your article, and made my response.

I believe it is dispassionate, brings out certain points, and asks for discussion. Her response is reproduced here with a copy of my own post.

If theres one thing Perigo clone Objectivists don't know how to do it's discuss ideas. We see this on their sites all the time. But these weren't that hard, even for a modern day University lecturer to comprehend.

What is astounding to me is that Ms. H passes herself off as an intelligent person. ("I'm a University lecturer !!") - yet she seems unable to read, to analyse and comprehend, to understand simple English or to write a clear sentence. With academics of this standard, no wonder Universities are increasingly no place for the intelligent, and the future spread of Objectivism is highly unlikely.

Enough of these petty groupies. There are a few true individualists, who discuss ideas, not character assassination worthy of a lunchtime soap opera, but such as they are, they are gold, and the only people worth ones time or attention to interact with.

Here are my copies of my post and the intelligent, discussive response I got.


Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 11:26:26 mdt
Comment ID: link)
Name: Cass

Dear Ms. Hsieh,

I've read your response above referring to Regi Firehammer with mounting bewilderment, which I'm hoping you can perhaps help me with.

Your opening statement seemed to refer to a post at this blog unavailable for assessment by the reader. This seemed odd, but on further reading I deduced it was, presumably, not the post but Regi Firehammer's' article, which you found "beyond vile."

I was certainly astounded by your statement that it advocates "the mass extinction of humanity as a method of "saving the world" for the self-sufficient individualists". I would like to emphasis the word "advocates". This shocked me, as I have read at Mr. Firehammer's site, and nowhere has he ever expressed such an unbelievable idea. Indeed, I have read him frequently point out to readers that no disvalue, no evil or misfortune to another can ever be a value to anyone else. I found it hard to believe he could make such a contradictory statement. Thus I did read and analyse the article you provide a link to. This is my summary.

In my analysis of his article I made the following points:

(1). The article is an intelligent discussion concerning the self proclaimed "activism" of many "Objectivist groups", and asks the question, "given Ayn Rands' own statements regarding the individualism her philosophy promotes and addresses, her own statement that is not any individuals "job" to convince or convert others, are these so-called Objectivists truly living within and to the tenets of the philosophy they profess to espouse?" Regi Firehammer shows that in this regard they are not.

(2). At the conclusion of his writing, Regi draws attention to the writings by a "greenie" published at his site, by one of his contributors
<http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html> of the writings at his own blog of some disgusting University Professor who wishes to see 90% of humanity dead. (with the posters ironic aside - "nice**)

(3). Regi then refers to the state of Western Civilization as witnessed by more instances than we need to refer to, to claim that this outcome might well in fact occur, not from any infection but from "the growing collectivist statist hedonist destruction of Western culture and society". Ref: Saving The World

Further, Regi writes, "While no benevolent human being could wish this on mankind, even from natural causes, the possibility and its consequences must not be ignored.
The possibility of world-wide pandemic is always a fact, but something much more likely to bring the kind of world-wide devastation envisioned by Dr. Pianka is the continuation of the way things are already going; in fact, just the kind of oppression of industry and individual liberty that Dr. Pianka would wish imposed to save the environment. If the accelerating collectivist-welfare-statism in this country, and the near demise of European welfare states is not halted (and there is no reason to suppose it will be), the economic and social collapse of Western civilization is inevitable".

(4) Thus, in my analysis of his article, I conclude that Regi is drawing a parallel (an ominous one?) between the kind of "wish" of this Dr. Pianka, and a trend he sees as becoming inevitable given Western Civilizations' own behaviour.

(5) Finally, Regi then draws a further parallel to the activism wishes of Objectivists, and states that, given that they wish to "change the world (into an "Objectivist" one, whatever that is), the only way this desire might just happen to be acheived is if/when the Drs. desire does eventuate, since maybe Individualists who live by Objectivist principles might be able to build "a new world" from the ashes.

However, no-where do I read him "advocating" this. Simply pointing out a possible (or maybe probable) result of Western social/political trends, and that, undesirable tho this would be, its "ironic" consequences to Objectivists.

Finally, I understood the article to be calling for discussion of the points raised, nothing more.

I do appreciate that the article has depth, is multilayered, and subtle. Of course, in such an instance, misunderstandings often occur.
However, I did not find it difficult to analyse, and I fail to see any evidence of the "beyond vile" advocacy you claimed. I repeat Regi's own words, "[no] benevolent human being could wish this on mankind"
So you see, Ms. Hsieh, I am increasingly baffled. I don't understand, I truly don't, where and how you made this deduction.
I really would appreciate your response.

Regards.

* Regi has written often of his view that the environmentalists are, in his opinion, the most vicious and human hating people around, and he publishes articles written by others to substantiate the view that more than anyone, these are the people who wish "mass extinction" on human kind. See: <http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles13/toad.html>
<link>


Cass, Oct 26th
The copy of Ms.H's response didn't get through. Here it is:
Cass: People are more than welcome to read Regi's article for themselves, to judge for themselves. That's why I posted the link.

In my judgment, Regi's article is too vile for any kind of discussion. It is beyond the pale. I will not play host to anyone who regards the extinction of the majority of humanity as any kind of positive good, as Regi clearly stated. Nor will I play host to anyone who praises such an article -- as you have done.

Do not post any more comments here. Anything else you write will be deleted.
I spent some time as a tutor and lecturer at Australian Universities. The penny just dropped. Apart from being a Perigo psuedo Objectivist clone, of course Ms. H is a modern Uni. type which includes rabid PC and emotional reactivism.

I am reminded of this, by Thomas Dalrymple:

"Half the harm that is done in the world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't want to do harm—but the harm does not interest them . . . or they do not see it . . . because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves

"Eliot might have added: the endless struggle to look well in the eyes of their fellow intellectuals and the fear of losing caste. But as a result of their efforts, as Orwell also famously said, "We have sunk to a depth in which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

To me, that sums it all up famously.

Cass

Cass, Apr 6th
"I expect Diana is a woman of integrity and will have the courage to admit her mistake"

You're very kind Regi. But we're talking Uni academic here. Don't hold your breathe, please.

Cass.

Regi, Apr 6th
I'm sorry to say, you may be right. I thought she might have had the decency to examine the facts, but to admit a mistake would destroy her AH, I suppose. It's a kind of drug. There used to be an antidrug advertisement that showed an egg being fried and the voice-over said, "this is your brains on drugs." In this case I think we're seeing someone whose brain is on AH. That would be Academic Hubris. It gives one the delusion that reasonable discussion is unnecessary, and that one's degree clinches all arguments. Sad, really.

What kind of person smears someone with a disgusting accusation, then cuts off any opportunity to defend themselves. To say, "I will not play host to anyone who regards the extinction of the majority of humanity as any kind of positive good," and then says, in effect, "Oh, by the way, you can't post here anymore," is the kind of hit'n'run tactic one expects a coward or phony, not an Objectivist.

Not that I intend or care to defend myself against the lying and the pusillanimous, I do not care what the ignorant say about me, I do not answer to anyone else, and those who know me know what I am and what I stand for. Your right, Cass, I'm not holding my breath.

Thank you for all the good and kind comments, Cass. Looks like we've been run off together again.

Regi 

Frank Grimes, Apr 6th
What a bitch

Dagnee Sterling, Apr 6th
Hi All,

I have read Regi's article and agree totally with Cass' assessment of it.  What this professor of minute understanding has said is totally vile.  Perchance she doesn't care to hear the truth about how preposterous it is to try and force Objectivism on those who have no desire to even open one of Ayn Rand's novels.  Ahh--that's it!  Ms. Hseih hates the truth!  And that is what Regi valiantly stands for!

Dagnee

Regi, Apr 6th
Hi Dagnee,

Ah, the truth? Why would anyone want that when they have their "doctrine" and set of packaged ideas. Wanting to know the truth would mean having to think about something new. That might not be safe, it might mean going it alone without your little philosophical support group. Standing for the truth usually means standing alone.

"Notice how they'll accept anything except a man who stands alone. They recognize him at once .... There's a special, insidious kind of hatred for him." [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual - The Fountainhead, "The Nature Of The Second-Hander"] 

Now look what you've done. You've pointed me out as someone who stands alone, who stands for the truth. Now I'm going to be hated, and hated by the most unexpected group of people in the history of the world, Objectivist second-handers.

You know, of course, that's what really has Diana's panties in a wad.

Thanks, Dagnee,

Regi

Alexander, Apr 6th
I just posted this:

Diana, Brant, Joe,

I've read many articles by Regi on his site and have found no problem with them. Additionally, I've been a member of the forums on that site since around December, and Regi is possibly one of the nicest people I know. In none of his articles does he advocate genocide or mass extinction. I encourage anyone disgusted by his article currently being discussed to visit the site and see for themselves if he is indeed a disgusting person--and to reread this article and understand it for what it actually says. What he was doing in this article here was pointing out a scenario that may well occur, and stating that the aftermath would present a prime opportunity for independent individualists to rebuild society. Is it true? Yes, that opportunity would be there. Does it count as advocacy, does it mean he wants that state of humanity to come about? Absolutely not. It's like saying this: "I can afford to have only one pet. My dog is getting old. When it dies, it will present me with an opportunity to get a parrot, an animal which I have always wanted." Certainly that isn't advocating the death of the dog, nor does it state the will of the owner for the dog to die. It simply doesn't say it. Same for Regi's article.

Joe,

You may not wish to give such respect to Perigo. He and some others on his site are guilty of running others off on petty offenses, which shouldn't even be considered offenses. Also, he is trying to make Objectivism into something it isn't. Finally, Regi is correct that spreading a philosophy, without people willing to accept it, is fruitless. Better that superior character traits be spread. A philosophy is a philosophy. None is to be worshiped. And I can assure you that Cass and Regi are not weaseling around their thesis. Regi has spoken what he means, and he does not mean what you think he does. Words count for something. Read them. Not words you want to be there, so that you may despise the person. The words that are there.

Why not allow Regi and Cass to post here again, Diana? Don't you think misconceptions could be swept away by doing so?


Is this Joe guy a member of SOLO?

-Mark

Alexander, Apr 6th
Frank Grimes wrote:
What a bitch

Ditto. Thinner skin than that on a ball-point pen... that is to say, none.

John, this is an instance in which I support your profanity as a description.

Happy days.

-Mark

Alexander, Apr 6th
Just posted this, as well:

Diana,

"I will not play host to anyone who regards the extinction of the majority of humanity as any kind of positive good, as Regi clearly stated"

You seem to be a little confused. He does not regard the extinction as good. That is, he does not regard the deaths of so many people to be good. What he means is that the OPPORTUNITY present, were such a thing to occur, would be fertile soil for people of character to rebuild society.


Then she said this:

Mark, you can go away too. I don't wish to hear any further from any defenders of Regi. None are welcome to post comments on this blog. I will not sit around the fire and discuss the supposed benefits of mass extinction of humans as if it were a reasonable, legitimate topic of debate. It's not. Period.

All further posts in praise of Regi, his site, and/or his article will be deleted.


Before I noticed that, I posted this:

Diana,

Don't you care to reason with people? You're taking this entirely the wrong way. Say that such an extinction were to occur. Would you then not speak of how civilization could be rebuilt? What would you find? You would find that people of character would be the ones to rebuild it.

Regi is not advocating genocide or extinction. Read his article for what it says.


John, you're right. She's a bitch. "Any dissenting views must be silenced!"... or something like that.

-Mark

Alexander, Apr 6th
"I will not sit around the fire and discuss the supposed benefits of mass extinction of humans as if it were a reasonable, legitimate topic of debate."

There's a difference between a forecast and advocacy. Regi is making a forecast.

-Mark

Alexander, Apr 6th
The bitch deleted all but my first post. Well, at least she's consistent.

Nice damage control. Are any of us "defenders of Regi" welcome to post here concerning other topics?

Ok, I'll stop antagonizing her now... but I do get a laugh out of her damage control.

-Mark


Alexander, Apr 6th
Mark just posted three further comments in defense of Regi's article. They have been deleted. Apparently, he doesn't quite understand that property rights are to be respected -- and that using another person's property contrary to her wishes is a violation of rights.

As if it would do her any harm to allow me to post on some other topic!

Mark, you certainly are not welcome to post on any topic, not after posting those three comments contrary to my explicit request. Regi is not welcome, nor is Cass. Others will be banned if they behave as badly as you have.

Go away -- now.


Fine, Diana. You're not worth my time or effort.

Gah. I wonder if I should still have an appetite for noodles...

-Mark

Cass, Apr 6th
Hi All,

Excellent riposts Mark, well done. You've made some excellent points - and been rewarded according the scale and value of the awarder.  As is always the case. And you've seen exactly what is in Regis' article too. It wasnt exactly hard was it. It makes one wonder what she's up to, but I think I can see it. Ms. H is - by her own admission - unable or unwilling to make rational discerning judgements, as seen by her own description of how she was taken in for years by the Brandens, accepting their characterising of Ayn Rand as truth. One only has to see who she's "in bed with" now, to understand the full picture.

I think these people hate  Regi infinitely more than they hate any altruist - collectivist. because with such people they can continue to fool themselves and each other that they are the rational, logical, honest, truth seeking Objectivists they claim to be. Indeed, they are assisted in maintaining their illusion. But not with Regi. His clear thinking and genuinine honesty and rational mind which isn't afraid to discuss anything and always "tells it like it is",  tears down the veils.  

Your succint observation was spot on Frank. I agree with Dagnee - fear of  the man who really does what they claim to and cant is the only explanation for the OINO's.

I 'll add comments about your article in the appropriate thread Regi.

Regards,  Cass 

Cass, Apr 6th
Mark,

Yes, Joe Maurone is a long-time Solo contributor. 

You're correct too in that the person is silenced, as well as the view. You dare to defend Regi, well not only are you to be silenced (she is, after all, a modern academic. Not noted these days for their open-minded intelligent discussions) on this topic, but any other.

But your summations is the accurate one. Not worth anyones time or effort.

I never did like noodles. Sloppy, slimey, things with little nutritional value noted for contibuting to health threatening obesity.!!

Regi, Apr 6th
Hi Mark,

Good work for the truth. I knew she'd delete all your posts so I captured them before she deleted them. Since you've already posted them here as well, it may not have been necessary, but the pusillanimous are so predictable.

I  have some more comments about this whole affair, but it has been a wonderful case study in the hatred the eminate's from those who are essentially second-hand posers, pretending to be Objectivists while attempting to leverage some kind of self-esteem by belonging to some supposed elite group that has never had an original idea, and would be terrified if they happened to trip over one.

I am going to do something I almost never do--which is explain when something I've said has been intentionally twisted into something any honest person would neither misunderstand or repeat.

I have never said, never thought, never desired the harm of a single other innocent human being, ever, in my entire life. I have never advocated the killing of a single human being, and even have expressed grave doubts about the death penalty as administered by most governments. Much less could I find anything but loathing in the idea of mass death of human beings. Only a person with the vilest of intentions and values could accuse me of approving or finding value in the mass extinction of human beings.

For the retarded idiots who cannot read English, I despise anything that brings harm in any way to any Human Beings. The accusations of these hateful creatures who call themselves Objectivists is beyond belief and is born of pure unadulterated hatred of the good for being the good. No honest decent person could say, and keep repeating the accusations that have been leveled at me.

I  do not care about the accusations, personally.  I've been accused of much worse, and by people of actual consequence, unlike these pretenders. I have no animosity at all toward them--quite frankly I feel sorry for them, and would, if I could help them see what they are doing to themselves.

Since we are honorable people, and respect the rights of others to use their property as they choose, those who have been "banned" from that site will respect the choice of those who own the property. If, by chance, there is one honest and courageous individual who is free to post on the, "Noodle Food," site, if you choose to, please post the bolded words above there, for those who might read there and not know what our true meaning is.

Regi

Alexander, Apr 6th
Heh, look who came to the damsel's aid: Valliant and Fahy.

Figures.

Alexander, Apr 6th
Cass,

I like noodles. You don't. Therefore, Regi should not allow you anti-noodlers to post anything more. Do so and you will be BANNED!!!

Heh heh.

-Mark

Regi, Apr 6th
Hi Mark, Cass,

Oh Mark, are you joking about "noodles?" I'm afraid you do not understand the seriousness of these things. Sorry, humor is not allowed. You might actually be enjoying your life. Can't have that when we're in the business of saving the world, you know!

Regi

Cass, Apr 6th
Mark,

Oh God. You're right. I made a clear statement of opinion which might "offend" someone. (Anyone reminded of Muslims around here ??)

I can only beg all noodle-lovers understanding, tolerance and forgiveness !! :> I promise never to say the truth, sorry nasty vile things, about noodles again. :> :>

Cass

Cass, Apr 6th
Hi Mark, Regi,

You're right Mark about who she needs coming to her "defence".  I did see Mr. V's name in the list of "whose online". Hmm, I  thought, will he post a comment here? With a wry smile I remembered the person. No, I figured, he'll go running to make snide viscious remarks where he can't / wont be challenged. And, lo, it came to pass. (Cassandra of mythology had second sight, you see.)

Re. his remarks. Regi promoted his little book when no-one else would (and for which he was denigrated by the Chief Solo-ite, when he  then also stood alone): when the Brandens JV was exposing were dearly loved by Solo-ites and noodle-eaters alike. I do not regret the critique I wrote, since I examined the writing only, with  no reference to the person. It's called being Objective, something I realise Objectivists (OINO's) completely fail to grasp. But I do regret it was written by the person it was. This latest reminds me of the punchline to a joke concerning a man required to identify three animals by descriptions*.  He managed the first two ok, but on "you crawl on your belly, you use  a viscious poisonous bite to steal from others and then run and hide in safe places" responded, "well, I dunno. Lemme see. You're either a snake or a lawyer"   Exactly so. 

Cass

* I paraphrased a bit. Cant remember the actual words, just the intent.

Frank Grimes, Apr 7th
I just posted this on noodles.


Hail to thee Diana!!!  Here is a short poem...

Oh, great keeper of the code of Rand!!!
How may I disagree with you without getting banned?
You throw out the dissenters with ruthlessness and spite;
And don't even let them put up a fight.
All your disciples are swimming in collectivism;
As you are the Pope of The New Church of Objectivism!!!



Oh great Diana of Arc, Show me the way to glory and faith and the technique of ruthless bashing of those who disagree!!!!  Oh Diana help me help me!!!!!  Save me from the evil ones who speak against you and your disciples... 

The first Commandment of Diana:
Thou shalt not have any discussion with someone you have misinterpreted...


OOOOHHHHHH DIIIIAAAANNNNNNAAAAA!!!!!!


A note from Regi;

"I am going to do something I almost never do--which is explain when something I've said has been intentionally twisted into something any honest person would neither misunderstand or repeat.

I have never said, never thought, never desired the harm of a single other innocent human being, ever, in my entire life. I have never advocated the killing of a single human being, and even have expressed grave doubts about the death penalty as administered by most governments. Much less could I find anything but loathing in the idea of mass death of human beings. Only a person with the vilest of intentions and values could accuse me of approving or finding value in the mass extinction of human beings."

Enjoy.

I will soon be banned and this post will soon be deleted.


It will probably be deleted by the time I get up.

John

Alexander, Apr 7th
That was great, John! How long did it take you to come up with that poem?

In any case, well...

you're definitely getting banned and Diana's... not happy, to say the least.

I'm not quite sure I support your tactics, but it was very creative and funny.

-Mark

Regi, Apr 7th
Hi Cass, Mark, John,

I hope you all know the terrible mistake you are making. Someone is going to think we don't take this all terribly seriously. We should be wringing our hands and moaning about people being " vile phreaks " and,  "totally sickening," and complaining that we "almost puked." Why, the way  you guys are carrying, anyone would assume you think the very serious criticism at the ramen cart is joke!

Now, John, I should have warned you before you posted there, that satire is not their long suit, nor is humor. But thank you, John, I appreciate satire, even when its doggerel, and pretty good doggerel at that.

By the way, if you want to see them go into paroxysms of hysteria and appoplexy, someone should send them this link http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html to Jonathan Swift's, "A Modest Proposal, from which I quote:"

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ..."

Now, of course, I'll be accused to advocating the eating of children, along with advocating the "mass extinction" of humanity. (Would someone please explain what the difference is between "mass extinction" and just plain old-fasioned "extinction?") Now, if I am accused of that, all I can say is, don't knock 'til you've tried it.

I hope you have all learned your lesson and will begin to take these things more seriously. Saving the world is no light task, especially for OINOs.

Regi

Regi
Everyone:

Bill Tingley posted a very dignified and intelligent post to Noodle Food. In the fashion typical of that site, instead of decently responding, it was simply deleted, without comment. I suspected that would be the result, (the pusillanimous are so predictable), so I preserved and have reproduced it here.

==========================

Dear Ms. Hsieh, Mr. Valliant, Mr. Fahy, et al.

You have been unfair to Regi Firehammer. While his article was provocative, he clearly did not advocate the evil of Dr. Pianka's fantasy nor express any hope that it might come to pass. What he did do was demonstrate the futility of the "Objectivist Project" -- i.e., the collective attempt to refound society upon Objectivist principles -- by showing how nothing short of the near-destruction of civilization could possibly bring that about.

I admit that I have the advantage of lengthy discussions with Regi about society and government to put his article in context. We have discussed how any government, even one founded upon Objectivist principles, would eventually devolve into tyranny. Therefore, the value of Objectivism to an individual is not political but ethical. It is a philosophy that benefits a man by living the autonomous life today, not by pining for the perfect society that will never be.

Of course, such an idea as provocatively expressed by Regi is counter to those who advocate the Objectivist Project. I fail to see how there can be any hope for the Objectivist Project if serious intellectual challenges are ignored and denied. The walls go up and those who won't complete reject those on the other side of the divide risk expulsion. That only furthers the sort of petty factionalism that is presently the hallmark of Objectivist groups.

You have defamed Regi and owe him an apology. If justice cannot motivate you to do that, then consider how the behavior you have engaged in works against the effort to spread Objectivist ideas into the culture.

Regards,
Bill Tingley

==========================

Thank you Mr. Tingley!

Regi

Frank Grimes, Apr 7th
"I'm not quite sure I support your tactics,"
Mark

Tactics? What tactics? Tactics imply a goal, like "saving the world."  I don't care what those people think.  The whole situation did illustrate perfectly the current state of "objectivists."  Jerry Falwell in "Objectivist" clothing.

I don't care to "save the world" or to "save" them.  I only care to "save" me. 

To paraphrase John Galt in his speech....

"This is to the last of you, to those who still possess half a brain"

For someone not blinded by (And I never thought I'd be writing THIS) objectivism, my satirical post would be enough.

It took about 5-6 minutes to write the poem.

Regi,

You are right, these people have  NO sense of humor!

Satire is awesome.

Everyone else had already tried to reason with them. So I decided to make fun of them.

Alexander, Apr 7th
Johann Sebastian Frank Grimes,

By tactics I was referring to the "in your face" approach you took. I don't usually take that approach, myself, even when people perturb me. So, it isn't quite what I'd do, but it was, as I said, quite hilarious and creative.

Satire is wonderful, isn't it?

-Mark

Regi, Apr 7th
Hi John, Mark, Everyone,

According to the Noodler, "I have just banned the IP address of the cretin busy vandalizing my property by posting his idiotic comments in defense of Regi here, against my express wishes. (I've been deleting these posts, so folks might not have seen them. He's posted over a half a dozen since last night. It's all just so very mature.)"

I am very curious about this. No one needs to explain to me what they do or why, but I would be very interested if anyone that frequents the Autonomist site is truly posting heaps of posts to that Noodle site. Since lying and false accusations are S.O.P. for that group, I want to be certain it is happening--if it is, I suggest to whoever is doing it, if there is anyone, they at least make it known somewhere else what you are posting (because she deletes the posts, she says, and then of course can say anything she wants about them).

The reason for my doubt is that I have monitored that thread on her site today and have only seen two posts she deleted--the one by Bill Tingley posted above, and a repeat of John's doggerel. I cannot swear there were not more. If there were, although she certainly deserves it, it is her site, and does have a right to determine what is and is not on it. A decent person will respect that right, even though in this case she is using it to hide the truth--she has to live with it, and ultimately her lies cannot hurt anyone certain of their own integrity. Besides, neither she or her site are worth the effort.

Regi

Frank Grimes, Apr 7th
Regi,

She is probably talking about me.  I reposted my poem a few times. 

It was a mistake, I agree.

Sometimes I can be a hothead.

Regi, Apr 7th
Hi John,

Sometimes I can be a hothead.
Sometimes we have a reason to be.

Cass, Apr 7th
Hi Regi, Bill, everybody,

Bill,  I would like to highly commend your thoroughly decent response to Ms.H and her associates smearing of Regi.  It does seem incredibly that your very rational, calm and reasonable statements should have been deleted without so much as comment to you. You certainly didn't deserve that, and I'm very glad Regi saw them in time to save them.

John, like Mark, I guess I wouldn't have responded quite as you did, but that's partly because I don't have the skills.  It was a great "poem", and had me laughing. As you say, since reason wasn't getting anywhere, poking fun seemed the way to go. Of course, as Regi said, apart from having no Objectivism, or even common decency, they also have no sense of humour. Thank goodness we do here.

I do agree with Regi, that basically the person and her site aren't worth bothering with. I never did go there  much after I first was directed to it some time ago. Something about the woman I just didn't like. And I found it boring.

If she chooses to behave in such an appalling manner - all she is doing is showing herself in her own true colours. And they aren't pretty.  Quite apart from the obvious one, of not tolerating anyone who remotely fails to meet with her Queenly "approval" in any way, not being willing (or probably able) to discuss issues with rational objectivism, and behaving with the lack of grace and manners one would expect of a thoroughly spoilt child, she has demonstrated two other shocking characteristics.

One is a desire to try and defy reality. By removing posts with no reference to them she is trying to make a reality in which no-one criticises her. It doesn't work of course - defying reality  never does. But worse, she is presenting readers of her pages with an image which is untrue - and she knows it.  She is falsy creating an image of someone whose every word is accepted and who has no critics of statements she makes, which must therefor be true. She is being fraudulent and a phony - essentially a liar. 

No way are people like this worth a second of our time and energy.

Although defending the truth - which we have all been doing - has certainly been worthwhile and fun. 

Regi, my Websters gives "mass" as a large number or quantity

"extinction" as dying out, as of a race, species, coming to an end, annihilation, total destruction as in "the extinction of a race"

So mass extinction is a large number will undergo total destruction or annihilation but of the entire specie Homo sapiens, which is totally wiped out i.e.everyone, but in large numbers of the total, which are all destroyed, but in large numbers.

er.....ummm....

Regards, all. Cass.

Regi, Apr 7th
Hi Cass,

You have no idea how you have helped me out. The explanation is priceless.

Regi, my Websters gives "mass" as a large number or quantity

"extinction" as dying out, as of a race, species, coming to an end, annihilation, total destruction as in "the extinction of a race"

So mass extinction is a large number will undergo total destruction or annihilation but of the entire specie Homo sapiens, which is totally wiped out i.e.everyone, but in large numbers of the total, which are all destroyed, but in large numbers.

er.....ummm....


I can see now this must be exactly the kind of clear thinking going on at the Ramen cart. Must be some kind of esoteric OINO knowledge. 

You have no idea how much I appreciate all your help in this matter. I'm truly enlightened (as in made lighter, not brighter).

Regi

G. Stolyarov II, Apr 8th
Regi,

I had Ms. Hsieh's intolerance and dogmatism figured out long ago-- from the first moment I read her statement of withdrawal from TOC. You, at the time, had given her the benefit of the doubt and were trying to defend her.

Do you now admit that I was correct in criticizing her?

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0551_1.shtml

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0551_2.shtml#57

I wrote:

"'Ostracism' comes from the Athenian practice of exiling citizens deemed 'dangerous' by a vote of more than 5-6 thousand citizens. The Athenians thus managed to exclude the best of their thinkers, artists, and statesmen, most notably, Themistocles, the admiral responsible for saving Athens itself at the Battle of Salamis. It is not the same as a mere condemnation.

Private property rights hold, but they are not a justification for the morality of a given action; and in not permitting challenges to her position to occur on her website, Ms. Hsieh is implictly admitting the inability to defend against them. Truth can stand by itself when challenged, so, if what she were stating were objectively proper, she would not need to suppress dissent in order to effectively propagate it."

To that, you responded:

"No one is obliged to answer every stupid and inane criticism of their views, much less provide someone else a platform for making those criticisms. Your assumption that Ms. Hsieh's desire to not waste her money on other's stupidity is some kind of moral fault is absurd. Your demand that she provide the means to her own criticism is the immorality here.

By not permitting stupid criticisms on her website, Ms. Hsieh is explicitly stating she will stand for no nonsense. Answering some absurdities lends them credibility. Whether you or I think they are absurdities or not does not matter. I know that is hard for you to believe, but other people use their own judgment in these matters and do not wait for Mr. Stolyarov, or me, or anyone else to pass judgement on them.

Now pay attention, because you don't seem to understand. Diana's Website is NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM. Got It?"

Do you now agree with me, or do you still endorse your past position?

I am

G. Stolyarov II

Frank Grimes, Apr 8th
I am

J. Wagner XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVIII
(218th)

Cass, Apr 8th
Mr. S,

I am not attempting to reply for Regi, to whom your post was addressed.

However I must point out that there is a world of difference between someone refusing to be criticised - especially for "inane" criticisms on their own site and vilifying and slandering someone then refusing them the possibility of defence which is what has happened here. A difference I would  have expected you to have seen.

Indeed, on at least 2 occasions here Regi has pointed out that DH is entitled to do as she pleases on her own site, however there are consequences for whatever we do. In this case, DH has demonstrated the sort of person she is more by the latter events than by any rejection of petty criticisms of herself. Attempting to defend oneself from the vile disgusting accusations she has made against Regi is not the same as making petty criticisms of her. The more vociferous criticisms have been made here, and to her truly disgusting behaviour.

I would also like to comment on the post itself. You haven't shown up here for some time, after a series of fairly trenchant - although fair - criticisms of some of your own views, thus giving the appearance of going off for a sulk (which may be unfair, maybe you were just busy !). When you do, it is to crow how smart and clever you were over Regi, and expect him to "eat humble pie".  If you are clearly confident that you were right, you would have no need to boast of it, nor demand someone elses recognition. Other peoples' acknowledgement shouldn't matter to you one way or the other. Morevoer there are, if you really want to make a point, ways and ways of doing it.  Expressing some understanding of the situation, and noting your own past experience and comments would have made your  point with a maturity and graciousness signally lacking in your above.

Regards,

Cass (the one and only !!) 

Regi, Apr 8th
Mr. Stolyarov, You asked: Do you now agree with me, or do you still endorse your past position? Mr. Stolyarov, why would I change my position. The truth does not change just because people do. We may not like what someone does with their property, but what we like or do not like does not trump property rights. We can point out when someone does something wrong on their property, but they never loose the right to dictate how their property is used. I've already said that twice on this thread. Regi

Regi, Apr 8th
Ah Cass,

Truly "the one and only." Thank you for answering Mr. G.S. in detail and saving me the trouble.

With regard to Diana, I am going to note, she did let your post and Mark's post remain, so she didn't completely close the door. I think she made a mistake cutting the debate off, and is still guilty of false accusation, but she has a right to be as pompous and foolish as she likes on her own site, as you noted.

Thanks again, "one and only" Cass.

Regi

G. Stolyarov II, Apr 8th
Regi,

Once again, I would like to emfasize that property rights are not the issue here. I have distinctly stated several times (in past discussions-- and in the post I quoted above) that Ms. Hsieh has the right to do what she pleases with her property. The issue is one of passing moral judgment. I had passed a highly negative moral judgment on Ms. Hsieh from the beginning-- which subsequent experience affirmed. You refused to pass said judgment and defended her. Do you now admit that your earlier opinion of Ms. Hsieh (not her property rights, which remain the same as ever) was mistaken?

Cass,

I was not "going off to sulk." I was exceptionally busy, and still am, which accounts for the brevity of any posts I can make. All I want is for Regi to be consistent; I want him to take the same attitude toward himself that he expects of others. If he expects Perigo-- after the latter's reversal on the Valliant issue-- to acknowledge that Regi has been right all along, then he should be willing to acknowledge that somebody else had also been right all along on an issue where Regi had reversed himself.

To date, I have never seen Regi concede a point to someone else-- no matter how rational the arguments against him might have been-- no matter whether experience itself had prompted Regi to shift his own position. I may be wrong about this, and if you have evidence to the contrary, please show it. I do not know if I can sympathize with Regi in this particular situation as it is. Right now, it seems to me that Regi is getting a taste of the full implications of his prior defense of Ms. Hsieh-- consequences quite unfortunate to him, as they result in him being slandered, defamed, and mischaracterized.

If Regi shows the courage to expect of himself the same high standards he expects of others, then this impression of mine will change. This will assist me in deciding for myself the merits of this issue; it has nothing to do with getting others' approval, but rather with understanding the natures and characters of the people involved and thereby passing personal judgment on them.

I am

G. Stolyarov II

Monart, Apr 8th
Regi, you wrote:

I'm sorry to say, you may be right. I thought she might have had the decency to examine the facts, but to admit a mistake would destroy her AH, I suppose. It's a kind of drug. There used to be an antidrug advertisement that showed an egg being fried and the voice-over said, "this is your brains on drugs." In this case I think we're seeing someone whose brain is on AH. That would be Academic Hubris. It gives one the delusion that reasonable discussion is unnecessary, and that one's degree clinches all arguments. Sad, really.

What kind of person smears someone with a disgusting accusation, then cuts off any opportunity to defend themselves. To say, "I will not play host to anyone who regards the extinction of the majority of humanity as any kind of positive good," and then says, in effect, "Oh, by the way, you can't post here anymore," is the kind of hit'n'run tactic one expects [of] a coward or phoney, not an Objectivist.


...Nor of any rational, polite person. Diana's shutting the doors on uncomfortable facts is asking for trouble later, including betrayal and corruption. She's doing what Perigo and others did to you before, elsewhere: closing the mind on that which challenges established beliefs.

When you don't want the answer, you won't get it. And you won't get it because you don't want it. But your wanting it or not, is influenced by what you believe and know. If you don't want to change, you won't want to know, you'll ignore that which prompts for (and even inspires and encourages) change. You'll draw the curtains on reality for the sake of...what?

The outrage is that Diana and her kind claim to be for truth, justice, courage, but treat thinkers like you with far less respect than a socialist or subjectivist.

The tragedy is that Diana believes she's right and this very belief will stop her change, and block or warp future contacts with what's really, truly important.

I find it intriguing that Diana took up "diplomatic" relations with Perigo, like James Valliant has. What's the common denominator?

Keep writing your Philosophy series, Regi. Maybe one day your unfair critics will change their beliefs and read your words without prejudice and bigotry, for the sake of unflinching truth.

-Monart

Regi, Apr 8th
Hi Monart,

Thank you so much for you always good comments and encouragement. I don't need it, but it is always especially appreciated when it comes from the right kind of individual--and you know what I mean.

I'll have a little more to say shortly, but am creating an important long response to another poster.

Thank you again. Don't be a stranger.

Regi

Regi, Apr 8th
 Mr. Stolyarov, Everyone,

It is beneath my dignity to respond to the following directly. Instead, I'm going to let everyone see just what kind of fool would write it.

Once again, I would like to emfasize that property rights are not the issue here. I have distinctly stated several times (in past discussions-- and in the post I quoted above) that Ms. Hsieh has the right to do what she pleases with her property. The issue is one of passing moral judgment. I had passed a highly negative moral judgment on Ms. Hsieh from the beginning-- which subsequent experience affirmed. You refused to pass said judgment and defended her. Do you now admit that your earlier opinion of Ms. Hsieh (not her property rights, which remain the same as ever) was mistaken?

Mr. Stolyarov has chosen to come here with the intention of insulting me, mistakenly supposing he could, or if he could, that I would care, for reasons, I suppose, only a 19-year-old megalomaniac would understand.

I think it would be interesting, as a glimpse into this kind of mind, to look at the "debate" which has his feathers in a ruffle. It began with my defense of Diana Hsie's, "A Public Statement on The Objectivist Center" [ ]http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Hsieh/
A_Public_Statement_on_The_Objectivist_Center.shtml]


The general response to Diana's announcement of her separation from TOC was negative, at what was the SOLO forum at time, including Mr. Stolyarov's here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0551.shtml#6

My response led to a debate with Mr. Stolyrov. I've included the entire debate in the next post, so everyone can see the absurd arguments he was making and just how far removed his views are from Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

By the way, my defense of Diana was never acknowledged or even mentioned by her.

Regi, Apr 8th
The Debate:


Matthew Graybosch said, "Having read your reasons for doing so, Ms. Hsieh, I understand and agree with your breaking away from TOC. You're doing the right thing."

I suspect Matthew is either the only one who actually read what Diana wrote, or the only one that understood it. (I've since seen David Ostroske's post, who also seems to have read and understood Diana's article.)

When someone of character and intelligence makes a hard choice, one neither desired or enjoyed, based on objective principles, and that choice and resulting action are called, silly childish "I won't play with you anymore", the very nature of what moral values means is being demeaned. In this case, it would not matter if Diana was wrong in her evaluation of the TOC's teaching or motives, a courageous choice is still a courageous choice. Something Objectivists used to admire.

And what does: It is proper to voice one's disagreements in published form and put forth one's concerns/suggestions for improvement, but dissociating oneself from a whole organization (and even a whole person) for such flaws (warranted, perhaps) as mentioned in the statement neglects many of Dr. Kelley's essential contributions to Objectivism, including the very open-theory doctrine that Ms. Hsieh decries, mean?

Diana was not publishing, "concerns/suggestions for improvement," which might be appropriate in the meeting of some collectivist club. What is someone morally supposed to do when an organization's essential principles, the one's it promotes, are contrary to one's own principles? Compromise?

You do not publish, "concerns/suggestions for improvement," when there are "underlying philosophical causes of systemic problems at TOC..." [emphasis added]. When you discover you have stepped into a cesspool, you don't stop to examine the contents or make suggestions for improvement. You get out as quickly as you can.

Ms. Hsieh argues in favor of a false dichotomy between complete absorption of all "new" thoughts into the doctrine ... and complete isolation of the doctrine from filosofical (sic) innovation.

Diana never makes such an argument. Her argument is that she has major disagreements on fundamental issues: I was surprised to find myself in strong disagreement with critical elements of the arguments on almost every issue: moral judgment, tolerance, sanction, and Objectivism as an open system. None of my disagreements are minor. All seem to bear upon TOC's disturbing trajectory over the years. But I regard the last, that Objectivism is an "open system," as the most widely misunderstood, deeply flawed, and practically dangerous of the lot ... In the open system view, Objectivism is only limited by the principles Kelley cites as fundamental to the system.

I certainly consider that a major difference, and a major mistake. No matter how "open" you think Objectivism is, or how much you think can be added to or taken away from Objectivism as Ayn Rand explicated it, and still call it Objectivism, when someone presumes to redefine its essential nature, that is out-of-bounds.

I would not care if Diana Mertz Hsieh were completely wrong, I would have to applaud her courage and her action in being willing to take a stand on what she believes, especially in the face of the criticism and resistance she will receive from those who supposedly admire individualism and character. In this case, I also think she is right.

I do not have any respect at all for those who believe the way truth is to be promoted is by means of mini-collectivist movements, organization, and coalitions. Objectivists can get along with anyone, even those we strongly disagree with. I strongly disagree with Linz, for example, mostly on one issue, but I certainly get along with him. We both work to promote the truth. We don't have to form a coalition to do it.

Regi



Mr. Firehammer has referred to certain arguments I had made in regard to Ms. Hsieh's statement, and I respond here.

Mr. Firehammer: In this case, it would not matter if Diana was wrong in her evaluation of the TOC's teaching or motives, a courageous choice is still a courageous choice. Something Objectivists used to admire.

Mr. Stolyarov: A courageous mistake? In what respect is severing contact with an entire organization on the basis of pinpointing disagreements (even underlying disagreements) courageous? You refer to TOC as a "cesspool," but this is entirely unjustified, even if several articles from its members or words from its students were less than pristine Objectivist. Severing all contact implies deeming the entire organization absolutely worthless, which TOC is not, just as ARI is not, just as SOLO is not, though both of us disagree with some of their members on some issues. In Ms. Hsieh's severing of all contact, I see the same mistake that Peikoff made when he labelled Kelley as a greater detriment to Objectivism than open cultural opponents (such as Marxists).

Mr. Firehammer: I certainly consider that a major difference, and a major mistake. No matter how "open" you think Objectivism is, or how much you think can be added to or taken away from Objectivism as Ayn Rand explicated it, and still call it Objectivism, when someone presumes to redefine its essential nature, that is out-of-bounds.

Mr. Stolyarov: Would you, Mr. Firehammer, care to present your interpretation of "the essential nature of Objectivism" and your reasons for thinking that Kelley is attempting to redefine said nature?

Mr. Firehammer: I do not have any respect at all for those who believe the way truth is to be promoted is by means of mini-collectivist movements, organization, and coalitions.

Mr. Stolyarov: I am afraid that the above statement exhibits the fallacy of "lone-wolfism," rejecting all cooperative action as "collectivist," and forging a (false) association between collectivism and coalition. Individuals still retain their autonomy to employ their own minds and conduct their own endeavors in coalition (unlike the total subordination to the "organic whole" that collectivism requires). Unlike the "organic whole," coalition is essentially a "mechanical whole," made, not of any self-renunciation, but of a pooling of intellectual resources to accomplish results at an improved pace and on a larger scale. This is the same purpose as a business entrepreneur has in mind when he hires workers or contracts franchises to expand his enterprise's productivity. Each member of an intellectual coalition is still essentially autonomous, posts his own ideas, writes his own articles, books, and speeches, but, where he agrees with others on the need for change in a particular field, he collaborates with them to bring said change about.

I see nothing collectivist about this.



Hi G. Thanks for the comments!

A courageous mistake? In what respect is severing contact with an entire organization on the basis of pinpointing disagreements (even underlying disagreements) courageous?

I already explained it, thus:

"When someone of character and intelligence makes a hard choice, one neither desired or enjoyed, based on objective principles," that is courageous.

You refer to TOC as a "cesspool," but this is entirely unjustified, even if several articles from its members or words from its students were less than pristine Objectivist.

It is called rhetoric, in this case a combination of hyperbole and metaphor. The term "cesspool" refers to no individual or organization, but to anything promoting bad principles one has become involved in. I am surprised a poet would make this mistake.

Severing all contact implies deeming the entire organization absolutely worthless...
 
Since when? Most religious organizations do many good and useful charitable works. How many of them do you support and belong to. Almost anything has something of value to someone in it. We usually try to support that which is most valuable, not just anything that has any value at all. Our resources are limited.

Would you, Mr. Firehammer, care to present your interpretation of "the essential nature of Objectivism" and your reasons for thinking that Kelley is attempting to redefine said nature?
 
No! I would not presume to do what Diana has already done very well. I could not improve on it or make it easier for you to understand. She said:

"...I regard the last, that Objectivism is an "open system," as the most widely misunderstood, deeply flawed, and practically dangerous of the lot...

In the open system view, Objectivism is only limited by the principles Kelley cites as fundamental to the system. All the rest may be debated, refined, altered, reorganized, and even outright rejected within the bounds of Objectivism so long as a person "defends his view by reference to the basic principles" (T&T 69). The open system thus minimizes the importance of the wide range of insights, applications, principles, methods, arguments, and logical connections found in the full and rich system of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. It downplays the necessity of a deep and thorough study of that system, promotes casual and superficial criticisms of it, and trivializes Rand's tremendous philosophic achievement. Such is why I do not regard the persistent problems at TOC as fundamentally due to poor management, insufficient funds, meager talent pool, or whatnot. Instead, I see them as the natural, practical consequences of TOC's view of Objectivism as an open system." [Emphasis added]

I am afraid that the above statement exhibits the fallacy of "lone-wolfism," ...

I'm afraid you've got. Though a long-time student of logic, I admit I have never run across this fallacy, or even heard of it. I have seen the term "lone-wolf" used by certain collectivists and modern "liberals" as a slur for anyone who does not, "support the team," or, "go along with the program," but have never heard of any such fallacy. Could you kindly point out a source so I may add it to my nearly exhaustive list of Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal?

... rejecting all cooperative action as "collectivist," and forging a (false) association between collectivism and coalition. Individuals still retain their autonomy to employ their own minds and conduct their own endeavors in coalition (unlike the total subordination to the "organic whole" that collectivism requires). Unlike the "organic whole," coalition is essentially a "mechanical whole," made, not of any self-renunciation, but of a pooling of intellectual resources to accomplish results at an improved pace and on a larger scale.

Only a collectivist could construe the observation that one does not have to be submerged in an organization or be a card carrying member of any coalition or movement as rejecting all cooperative action. As the Autonomist says, "There is nothing that people want to do together or commit themselves to that they cannot do just as well without joining something."

Collectivism does not require subordination to the "organic whole", it is not totalitarianism. Whenever a group, an organization, a movement or any other "collection" of individuals becomes the object to which any particular individual's values, purposes, or personal goals are subordinated, it is collectivism. An individual's autonomy is reduced by the extent they are required to support or go-along with what they do not agree with or like, just as you would require Diana Mertz Hsieh to do, if not literally, than by browbeating her into submission with accusations of  "lone-wolfism," or accusing her, like Peikof, of not knowing the difference between minor opponents and Marxists.

I see nothing collectivist about this.

A collectivist wouldn't.

Regi



Mr. Firehammer:  I would not presume to do what Diana has already done very well. I could not improve on it or make it easier for you to understand.

Mr. Stolyarov: What you had posted in response was merely Ms. Hsieh's statement concerning what Dr. Kelley did to allegedly undermine yours and her interpretation of Objectivism. You still never stated what said interpretation was.

Ms. Hsieh wrote: "The open system thus minimizes the importance of the wide range of insights, applications, principles, methods, arguments, and logical connections found in the full and rich system of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand."

Are all insights, then, created equal, if we are to question none and accept the entirety of them without regard to the hierarchical nature of Objectivism? Does Rand's glorification of smoking assume the same moral character as her commitment to capitalism? Am I to be branded collectivist (again) because I deem tobacco a vile poison? An open system is necessary precisely for the purpose of prioritizing in favor of fundamentals and seeing whether derivative claims can stand up to the test. Many of Rand's ideas definitely could, but her embrace of smoking is an example of a notion disproved by every scientific study with relevance to human health (and by her own early death at 77, from lung and heart problems). Moreover, however rich Rand's system, she was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. She could not claim to (legitimately) have had the final word on filosofy. More always remains to be discovered and linked to the fundamentals.

Mr. Firehammer:


I'm afraid you've got me. Though a long-time student of logic, I admit I have never run across this fallacy, or even heard of it. I have seen the term "lone-wolf" used by certain collectivists and modern "liberals" as a slur for anyone who does not, "support the team," or, "go along with the program," but have never heard of any such fallacy. Could you kindly point out a source so I may add it to my nearly exhaustive list of Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal?

Mr. Stolyarov: I refer you to a source which you may have overlooked, Philosophy: Who Needs It by that very collectivist and modern "liberal" author, Ayn Rand. (Extreme irony and sarcasm intended.)

Page 46: Chapter 5: Selfishness without a Self:

"All tribalists are anticonceptual in various degrees, but not all anti-conceptual mentalities are tribalists. Some are lone wolves  (stressing that species' most predatory characteristics)."

Rand describes lone-wolfism most compellingly on page 50:

"... they seek escape from the two activities which an actually selfish man would defend with his life: judgment and choice... they prefer the tribe (the given) to outsiders (the new)-- they prefer commandments (the memorized) to principles (the understood)..."

Mr. Firehammer: Whenever a group, an organization, a movement or any other "collection" of individuals becomes the object to which any particular individual's values, purposes, or personal goals are subordinated, it is collectivism.

Ms. Rand (from that same chapter, page 49): If a man subordinates ideas and principles to his "personal interests," what are his principles and by what means does he determine them? ... With all of his [emfasis] on "himself"... the tribal lone wolf has no self and no personal interests, only momentary whims. He is aware of his own immediate sensations and of very little else.

Mr. Stolyarov: If one does not see it in one's self-interest to promote the spread of ideas that can make life livable and free of constant government intrusions upon one's welfare, I (and Rand) question that person's understanding of his/her own self-interest.

G. Stolyarov II 



Mr. Stolyarov,

To my statement: "I'm afraid you've got me. Though a long-time student of logic, I admit I have never run across this fallacy [lone-wolfism], or even heard of it. I have seen the term "lone-wolf" used by certain collectivists and modern "liberals" as a slur for anyone who does not, "support the team," or, "go along with the program," but have never heard of any such fallacy."

Mr. Stolyarov quoted various passages from Ayn Rand's "Selfishness Without a Self," Philosophy: Who Needs It in which she describes a "tribal lone wolf." Even if what she was describing were some generic concept that could be called, "lone-wolfism," it would still not be a fallacy.

In fact, what Ayn Rand was describing is the very opposite of independent individualism. It was Mr. Stolyarov who described my statement: "I do not have any respect at all for those who believe the way truth is to be promoted is by means of mini-collectivist movements, organization, and coalitions," as lone-wolfism. But what I said is the opposite of Ayn Rand's description of the characteristics of the "tribal lone wolfe," who has, she said, "only one constant in his behavior: the drifting from group to group, the need to cling to people," or, in other words, the insatiable desire to belong to something.

If my views are lone-wolfism, then we would have to accuse Ayn Rand of it:

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hiter can live your life that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence." [Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," quoted in For the New Intellectual, p. 128]

And here ...

"The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any for of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary." [Ayn Rand, "The Soul of an Individualist," For the New Intellectual, p. 79]

And here ...

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone. [Ayn Rand, "The Soul of an Individualist," For the New Intellectual, p. 80]

Whatever it is you wish to accomplish, or promote, or achieve, if it can only be done by "standing together," with others, then do so, with my blessing. Personally I am only interested in what can be accomplished by, "the man who stands alone."

"The reasoning mind ... cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever.

If that is "lone-wolfism," I am guilty of it.

Regi 

Regi, Apr 8th
Cass, Mr. Stolyarov,

[I've included you on this, because he addressed these words to you, Cass, but they are about me.]

All I want is for Regi to be consistent; I want him to take the same attitude toward himself that he expects of others. If he expects Perigo-- after the latter's reversal on the Valliant issue-- to acknowledge that Regi has been right all along, then he should be willing to acknowledge that somebody else had also been right all along on an issue where Regi had reversed himself.

I shouldn't have bothered, because your insipid self-aggrandizing rants aren't really worth addressing, but you have made some accusations here that might concern some others. For their sake, I included the major part of our debate above, where I made my position  abundantly clear and any honest person who cares will see I have not changed my position on anything one iota--and for you to say I have is the same kind of false accusation made by Diana Hsieh, and it's just as despicable.

I have never changed my mind or position regarding anything I've said about Diana Hsieh. I commended her for the act of separating from the TOC and called it courageous and still think it was. I condemned her for falsely accusing me of holding views I've never held or defended and still condemn her for that. I only explain this so others will know just how low your accusation against me of reversing my position like a Perigo or Valliant is.


To date, I have never seen Regi concede a point to someone else--no matter how rational the arguments against him might have been--no matter whether experience itself had prompted Regi to shift his own position. I may be wrong about this, and if you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.

No one has to show you anything, Mr. Stolyarov. Nobody cares what you think. Who the hell do you think you are demanding people to show you something--have you set yourself up as the judge of the world. Guess what, the world doesn't  care what some  whiney adolescent, pounding his little fists and demanding to be shown, thinks.

I do not know if I can sympathize with Regi in this particular situation as it is. Right now, it seems to me that Regi is getting a taste of the full implications of his prior defense of Ms. Hsieh-- consequences quite unfortunate to him, as they result in him being slandered, defamed, and mischaracterized.

Good grief! Your hubris knows no bounds. Do your really think anyone around here needs the "sympathy,"  of a pathetic little whiner. Do you think I'm as small as you are, that I care at all about the slander, defamation, or mischaracterization of the small minded and inconsequential, such as Diana and yourself?

If Regi shows the courage to expect of himself the same high standards he expects of others, then this impression of mine will change. This will assist me in deciding for myself the merits of this issue; it has nothing to do with getting others' approval, but rather with understanding the natures and characters of the people involved and thereby passing personal judgment on them.

You are totally incapable of deciding the, "merits of this issue," because you don't know what the issue is. The issue is this, there is a world of grown-ups busy about grown-up matters, and they really don't have time or resources for dealing with stubborn self-absorbed ignorant teenagers stamping their feet and demanding to be heard.

Mr. Stolyarov, either grow up and behave like a grownup or expect the kind of treatment your juvenile debating team silliness deserves.

Regi

G. Stolyarov II, Apr 8th
Mr. Firehammer,

I did not come here intending to engage in ad hominem attacks against you. Yet you did, in the most disrespectful fashion-- as a response to my innocent query. You insulted me as a person simply because I disagreed with a stance you held. I do not consider it worthwhile to associate with you any longer. I see that you are as unwilling to engage with dignity criticisms your views as are Perigo, Valliant, and Hsieh.

What appalls me especially is that I had hitherto considered you-- if not as a friend-- then at least as a pleasant acquaintance whose conversation and ideas were of some value. I am sorry I was mistaken. I suppose your refusal to accept criticism with grace is more important to you than an objective evaluation of the people who have staunchly supported-- if not everything you said-- then at least your general endeavor here. Those people will cease to do so if you continue-- I among them.

Your age-ism-- your refusal to judge individuals as individuals-- and instead use their youth as an epithet against them-- is as inimical to individualism as any stance that exists. I am a person, not a number, and I at least act like one. I do not insult you for being in your sixties (or older-- I do not know), because I do not see that as deserving insult. But your behavior here has affirmed a view I have long held-- that virtue is independent of age-- that someone young can hold far greater integrity, honesty, justice, and adherence to reality than someone much older-- who is simultaneously much more willing to deceive himself.

This will be my last post here. I have hereby severed all association with The Autonomist, and hope fervently that I might go my own way-- without further mud-slinging from you and those who would indiscriminately accept everything you have to say.

I am

G. Stolyarov II 

Regi, Apr 8th
Mr. Stolyarov,

I'm sorry to say, it's exactly what I expected. "I'm taking my marbles and going home." Well, good  luck to you, Mr. Stolyarov. If you ever decide to grow up, your views are welcome here.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Regi

Cass, Apr 8th
Hi Regi, everyone,

Good grief. A girl goes to work for the night and comes home to a room full of gunsmoke and cordite !! :-)

Forgive the levity. But Regi, Bravo. It did need saying.  It's a pity, Mr.  S. is an intelligent young man with some thinking ability and some ideas. But the growing arrogance and hubris have been getting more and more difficult to deal with,  with patience and forbearance. At least, for me.

And the "I'm taking my marbles and going home" seems to be yet another typically groupiest Objectivist action. I wonder why so many of them behave like spoilt children, flouncing off in a tantrum when they discover someones principles are incorruptible after all.

You make a good point Monart. And it has a very wide application, not only to Objectivists like DH and GS - until one uses one's mind to see the possibility of something, then one cannot even accept enough of it to make a reasoned judgement, and change and grow. Of course, challenge and change are the two things just about everyone is most afraid of and will fight tooth and nail to avoid. It was Churchill who said "most men trip over the truth in their lives, but they pick themselves up and hurry off as tho nothing had happened"

It's what occurs when you close you mind to anything as Ms H (and GS) have done. But one can't defy reality, and it'll come back to bite them in the end.

I re-iterate Monarts' call Regi. Keep going with your Philosophy. I truly believe more people than you realise read and respect it - and keep coming back for more.

Salutations Illustrious One

Grasshopper.

Publius, Apr 10th
That's hysterical (in every sense of the word).  I love the firm requests "not to post here anymore."

I'm reminded of the purges that frequented the U.S.S.R. as well as those that routinely happen in left-wing organizations.  "Objectivists" truly are a marvelous mix between the mideval church and Communism (and not just because none of them have a sense of humor).  There is this unrelenting focus on dogma and doctrine (divorced from reason in reason's name); and when there is any individual dissent from the received dogma, the individual is excommunicated.  Sad little Objectivists.  So blinded by their moral certitude, they have become, without even realizing it, that which they despise the most.  I love irony.

Let us read from the Book of Rand:  None come to the proper orthodoxy of rationality except through the Savior, Rand.  Verily, She is the way, the life, the truth.  Those who disagree shall receive a grevious chastisement!!  You will be declared individuals and spurned by the group!!

(Anyone ever see Monty Python's the Life of Brian:  "We're all indidivuals."  "I'm not.")

Regi, Apr 11th
Hi Publius,

So blinded by their moral certitude, they have become, without even realizing it, that which they despise the most. I love irony.
Yes, so true, and the reason so many of us choose not to call ourselves Objectivists, even though we have the greatest respect for Objectivism and Rand, greater than most of those who fraudently use that name and do the most to damage her reputation.

The most ironic thing of all is that Rand herself warned against this very thing and repudiated any kind of Objectivist "movement."

Regi

Kevin Perry, Apr 11th
Regi & all the other "vile phreaks",

Diana and all her back-patting/back-stabbing ilk on NoodleFood can go to Hell.

And Stoly can go back to maintaining his "important" magazine, wearing funny hats, and trying to live forever.

Incidentally, has anyone else realized the intense irony that Atlas Shrugged describes almost exactly the same kind of catastrophic collapse-from-within (which anyone with more than three functioning neurons could have gotten by actually reading the article) and *gasp* shows how the individualists remaining carve a niche to live out their own lives  I know I am not a super-genius here, so if I could pick up this obvious parallel, I have to believe that it was the satirical tone that killed it for Diana et. al.

I mean, c'mon, you can't talk lightly about millions of people dying; who would be left to read NoodleFood if they did?

Kevin

Cass, Apr 12th
Hi Kevin,

Well said. I agree with every word. It seems pretty clear to me that either none of the "bandwagon" crew actually read the article or they're all more stupid than even I gave them credit for being.

It was the theme in Atlas that jumped to mind for me, thinking over this brouhaha too. A small point that seems to have missed everyones' attention at noodlers, although Regi mentioned it somewhere. In a response post I think.

Don't forget, the millions who'd not be there to read noodlers are all the collectivists, sycophantic groupies. Cant think of too many intelligent autonomous individuals who'd be bothered.

Regards, Cass 

Regi, Apr 12th
Hi Kevin,

Incidentally, has anyone else realized the intense irony that Atlas Shrugged describes almost exactly the same kind of catastrophic collapse-from-within (which anyone with more than three functioning neurons could have gotten by actually reading the article) and *gasp* shows how the individualists remaining carve a niche to live out their own lives?

Well, don't tell Diana, or she'll be saying Rand advocated the "mass extinction" of mankind.

Regi