| | Mr. Wolfer replies:
You really believe you can tell all that by just looking?
Yes. In fact it is impossible not to notice it. Since the mind controls the body, the contents of the mind are projected through body language. The character traits a person possesses are expressed in this manner. It is possible to distinguish between mystics and rational people, selfless and selfish people, collectivist and individualist people just by the way they behave. Character traits may be projected more obviously in some cases than others, requiring in some cases less or more perceptivity than others, but in the case of Leonard Peikoff the selflessness and ethnic collectivism of the jews is so plainly visible that a five year old could not mistake them.
He continues:
. . . and the antisemitism is offensive. Antisemitism should not be offensive to any advocate of reason. The jews recognize and accept two pathways into judaism. The first is the acceptance of the religion of judaism, the second is being born of jewish parents. This makes judaism not only a form of mysticism, but also a form of ethnic collectivism, leaving it in contradiction to rational philosophy on two central points. No advocate of rational philosophy should have anything but contempt for the jews, (as well as the advocates any other form of mysticism or ethnic collectivism.)
It is important to remember that the choice of a philosophy, and this includes any form of religion, represents a free choice for which one is morally accountable. You can blame christians for being christians, muslims for being muslims, etc. and there is no reason to exempt jews from the same. This is not like being of a given sex or race to which the issue of choice does not apply.
He continues:
. . . your pompous pronouncements about Rand's character are laughable. Actually, my judgement about Rand's character is quite accurate. Reading "The Passion of Ayn Rand" I observed a picture of a very disturbed and irrational woman. For example,
1) Rand was a two pack a day smoker for many years. She tossed away any concerns for the unhealthiness of this with the argument that relation between smoking and lung cancer were mere correlations and proved nothing. But when Rand contracted lung cancer herself, she immediately stopped smoking. Why was it when other people smoked and got cancer it is merely a correlation, but when it happened to her it suddenly became a causal relationship? And after years of falsely advising her own followers about this and it became apparent that she had made a mistake, her response to making a statement of correction? "It's nobody's business." She was willing to make it somebody else's business prior to this point, why it is not their business now? All I can see here are the rationalizations of a drug user and the insecurity of a person afraid of tarnishing her intellectual aura by admitting a mistake.
2) She stated that she did not think a woman should be president because man should be the leader, and woman should look up to man, the essence of her femininity being hero worship. Yet she herself married a man who was only a bit part player actor and a retail clerk in a tobacco shop, who because of her affair with Nathaniel Branden became an alcoholic, and thus who was grossly inferior to herself both in intellect and personal strength. And if this were not enough, she often complemented him, in front of others, about his intellect and perceptiveness. What I see here is a person who just made up reality to suit herself.
3)Rand went to Hollywood and worked as a writer. Any association with the Hollywood movie establishment is immoral because it employs actors. Acting is an immoral profession, since it requires that one pretend to be someone else, thus contradicting the virtue of rationality through pretension and selfishness through the abandonment of one's one identity, and thus all of Hollywood is immoral by association. Rand should have seen the blatant contradiction in this but she failed to do so, and from this I can only conclude that she simply evaded it.
4)Of all the things that Rand did that convinced me she was a fame seeking hypocrite, her selection of Leonard Peikoff as her heir was the one that pushed my judgement into the realm of certainty. For her to call this loud mouthed jackass "brilliant", to judge him worth all the hours of her time she expended pounding philosophy into his thick head, to even imagine a man this small could lead a philosophical revolution of this scale, would require a person who truly lived in a fantasy world.
I can go on with other examples, but this should be sufficient, to support this conclusion: Rand did not to any significant extent live up to her principles, and her Objectivism existed only in the fantasy world of her novels and in abstract philosophical discussion.
And finally,
Why don't you tell us a little about the great accomplishments that have rolled forth from the actions of your sterling character - we need to know so that we don't mistakenly categorize you as an inconsequential mediocrity. I could, and I have developed quite a bit of new theory that is light years ahead of the current level, but this has nothing to do with the correctness of my criticisms of Rand and Peikoff.
Now Mr. Keer writes,
What a tall order- demonstrating that a typical sort of collectivism is characteristic of the Jews . . .
No, this is easily done. When the principle of self ownership, is suspended, some new ethical standard must take its place, and this standard must be ownership by others. It is in this way that individualism is supplanted by collectivism. This gives the tribe the right to impose its own ways upon the members, and each of various tribes, being separate from the other, will set up its own standards, ie. beliefs, social customs, traditions etc. which will uniquely characterize its own form of collectivism. For example, Nazism is a form of collectivism characterized by atheism, socialism, fascism and aryan supremacy, communism is a form characterized by atheism, socialism, totalitarianism but without racial considerations, etc. Judaism is characterized by its religious beliefs and ceremonies, social customs such as bar mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs, dress, beards, etc.
And also,
. . . that Rand shared that collectivism! I did not say Rand was a jewish collectivist, but that she was a fame seeking hypocrite. And the above establishes this quite well.
Now Mr. Malcom writes,
That is the error many make - she did not so designate - he was only designated as her executor On this point I may be wrong. I thought she made him her legal and intellectual heir, as I have read so. If this is not true all I can say is that Peikoff's appropriation of this title only goes to further prove my point about him, and for Rand to give him even this was a disastrous mistake not far removed.
|
|
