| | Adam says:
As for the efficacy of nagonka, consider the fact that Linz himself endorsed the judgement of a government official whose own moral character is so debased, that he has taken on the job of forcibly censoring what his fellow citizens are allowed to read. If that is not the effect of nagonka, then it is inexplicable.
Adam, you're skating on very thin ice.
I did not endorse anything. I reported the censor's finding as part of my response to Mr. Riggenbach's inquiry. I specifically said I was not, in that post, going to deal with questions of the propriety of censorship, immigration laws, etc.. I observed that the censor who classified Peron's magazine as indecent is frequently abused by conservatives for being too liberal in his findings. Regardless of the censor, the magazine, as a matter of demonstrable fact, promotes pedophilia. I object to "libertarians" who insinuate pedophilia into the libertarian agenda. That's my beef with Peron, but it has nothing to do with his being banned by our authorities. The NZ Government may or may not be treating him unjustly, but believe it or not, I have no influence over the New Zealand Government.
Barbara was defending Peron. My point in raising this again was not to revive that whole matter but simply to highlight a disturbing discrepancy in standards of evidence applied by her. She defends (or am I to understand that's past tense now?) Peron in the face of very strong evidence against him; she brands me an alcoholic in the face of no real evidence at all. Given, then, my first-hand experience of these peculiar standards, I am left quite sceptical when BB claims Frank was an alcoholic. Previously I had assumed he was because BB said he was.
I had also assumed that any mistakes in BB's book—& there inevitably would be some—would be innocent, inadvertent & inconsequential. I accepted the judgement of friends who told me the Valliant book was based on tortuous, inconsequential minutiae, used to justify outrageous conclusions. I am on record as saying we should all be looking forward, not backward–that I couldn't care less if Rand's name was taken from a Rand-Remmington type-writer; what's important is what she wrote on it. I privately urged Barbara to ignore the book & get on with important matters. Recent events, however, have persuaded me that at the very least I should read the bloody thing for myself.
I've also been impressed by James's & Casey's demeanour here. If they are truly crazed Branden-haters, then they disguise it very well. I don't think their cause was helped by the fact that the book was heralded on SOLORejects.com as "The end of the Brandens," or by the fact that James went on to that site to bask in the applause of all phive nut-cases who post there. The chief phruit-loop there definitely is a crazed Branden-hater, & it was imprudent of James to be seen in his company.
MSK—Barbara could have no better defender than you, & I salute your fierce loyalty to a friend. I hope it doesn't turn out to be misguided. I appreciate the awful dilemma you're in, given your loyalty to me as well. Ultimately, only you can resolve it.
I'm not thrilled that BB & I have ended up pitted against each other. We go back many years, to the radio interview I recorded with her in 1995 that is for sale here at SOLO. I defy anyone to listen to the last part of that interview dry-eyed. In the years since, we had this running gag where she was "Majesty" & I was "Humble." We collaborated on many projects together, most recently, of course, Holding Court, right here. To lose such a friendship in such a bitter way is a terrible wrench. I wish it could be retrieved. I've no interest in Branden-bashing. But I must say that everything Casey & James are writing here, given Drooling Beast, is giving me cause for pause in a way I never thought it would.
Linz
|
|
