|Here's the kinder, gentler version:
Adam stokes the rumor mill by bringing up the possibility that NB will even treat clients who are political activists holding different ideologies.
"I have encountered reports of would-be psychotherapy clients in all 3 categories in the memoirs of psychotherapists. The third category - a client seeking to become a more effective political activist, for causes that an Objectivist would condemn - is very, very common; it accounts for a substantial fraction of actual psychotherapy clients in California. I would not be at all surprised if Nathaniel Branden had actually "worked" with the latter."
1. NB doesn't know any better. Maybe he needs to do a better job screening out "undesirables", regardless of any psychic pain they may be suffering. Else, he has run the ancillary risk of exposing himself to corruption, I say!
2. NB is actively undermining Objectivism by helping potentially opposing activists run faster and jump higher. Reasons unknown. Clearly, he's up to no good. I have reports from a friend who said he could''ve sworn he saw Branden tooling around in his Volvo on Rodeo Drive the other day, wearing one of those cute organge Peace Frogs shirts, and sporting a Greenpeace bumper sticker. What's next? Pat Robertson offering a Branden-licensed sentence completion course? Fuck!
3. NB doesn't give a shit about his clients' politics- he is acting as a psychotherapist, which means dealing with clients, not political parties.
1. If it is true, what of it? The implication is clearly that, somehow, this would be wrong. I know of no ethical precedent for that anywhere in the medical or psychology professions. The standards and practices are pretty straightforward, including those which address situatons involving crime and criminals.
2. What was the actual purpose behind making the statement? What was the purpose of tying unsubstantiated hearsay ("reports", in this case) with a freshly-birthed rumour (this is a main way that rumours are born) that you go on to manufacture on the spot ? Doesn't such a combination of "A" being unsubstantiated hearsay coupled with "B" being rumor generation create the product "C," innuendo? Don't Objectivists, er, object to putting together things that aren't solidly grounded in our beloved "evidence"? Above all, Mr. Reed (snaps suspenders like Spencer Tracy did in that monkey movie), does this not all qualify as blatant, overt, trollcraft? If it's not directly identified in that opus magnus you wrote, it clearly should be, by solid logical extension.
I made a mistake by using an allegory that could be taken for "Jew-baiting" rather than its actual intent, and for that mistake I have apologized. What I would like to know is if Adam's also represents an honest mistake. I do not see how it could be so, but I am certainly open to explanation, just as I hope others are open to the explanation of how my own error was made, and that I am not an anti-Semite.
Transcending all races, colors, and creeds since 1958
(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/29, 2:55pm)