About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 12:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Carl Barney is on the boards of the Ayn Rand Insitute, the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, the Cato Institute, and LePort Schools. New on ARI Watch:

Who is Carl Barney?

 

(Edited by Mark on 4/01, 1:05pm)



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I find your constant attacks on ARI to be disgusting.  Clearly this is your obsession and seems to me to be pathological.  We live in a world faced with Islamic fundamentalism, continuing Marxism in all of its variants, Fascism, progressivism, political correctness and a host of other real dangers.  But you take it upon yourself to engage in yellow journalism style attacks on anyone associated with ARI.

 

Who gives a damn if Carl Barney was once a devotee of Scientology... or Catholicism, or Marxism or anything else, given that he has since decided to support the ideas of Ayn Rand and now donates millions (MILLIONS!) - where all we get from you are cheap attacks.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

1.  A physician’s constant attacks on a disease are disgusting – not.

2.  ARI Watch articles are factual, neither “yellow journalism” nor “cheap.”

3.  The issue here is not merely that Barney was once a Scientologist.  Steve Wolfer may have skimmed the article he purports to criticize but he hasn’t read it.  



Post 3

Wednesday, February 21 - 6:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The latest Objective Standard features an interview with Carl Barney:

Carl Barney on Objectivism and Success

As usual he airbrushes out his Church of Scientology jumpstart.  His legal troubles too.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, February 27 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Who is "Mark Hunter"?

 

2.  ARI Watch articles are factual, neither “yellow journalism” nor “cheap.”

 

-- Paramita Mitra, Bangladeshi-American actress/model.  Miss Mississipi in 2012.

 

 

-- can we see a picture of "Mark"?



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, February 27 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Based on my reading and experience over the years, "standards of beauty" are almost the same worldwide. We all love the exact same girls, as William suggests above. Differing races, nations, and tribes have only minor differences in body and face preferences. 

But alt-righters are strange when it comes to race. I once heard "Doug Bandler" (another alt-righter who hides his name and face) on Solo Passion say that human racial hybrids are genetically inferior to the racially pure -- the exact opposite of what I've always read and heard.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, February 27 - 11:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

However, I do enjoy Mark Hunter's work on ARI Watch, generally. I think his exposés perform a truly valuable public service. 

 

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 2/28, 9:09pm)



Post 7

Saturday, March 3 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In reply to Kyrel’s post 5 I'll just quote Rand:

“In this respect [that is, harmony of features], a good example would be the beauty of different races of people. For instance, the black face, or an Oriental face, is built on a different standard, and therefore what would be beautiful on a white face will not be beautiful for them (or vice-versa), because there is a certain racial standard of features by which you judge which features, which face, in that classification is harmonious or distorted.”

She didn’t write this, it’s from the Q&A following the 11th lecture in “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series, as quoted in Binswanger’s Lexicon.



Post 8

Sunday, March 4 - 1:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mark -- That's a great quote. I'm glad you dug it up. But I'm suspicious as to why you know it.

I think Rand was mostly wrong in that quote. Overall, she said little about race and racism in her lifetime, even tho' it was a burning issue. She was generally evasive, dishonest, and cowardly. No wonder she got it wrong above.

Studies show that the differing races, sub-races, nations, and tribes tend to prefer almost the exact same proportions in body type, and almost the exact same features in faces. This is true for men liking women and the reverse. Everyone likes symmetry, which evidently indicates health. Everyone likes shapeliness in women, muscularity in men, neoteny in women, strong chin and high forehead in men, etc. This is why the Miss Universe-type contests -- involving all races and nations, which are judged by the same standards -- are uncontroversial and seen as universally valid. 

 

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 3/04, 1:32am)



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, March 4 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think Rand was mostly wrong in that quote.

 

Cultural anthropology says that Rand was right and you are wrong.  Standards of beauty are deeply influenced by local culture and these standards change over time.  The symmetry that you mention is a category that subsumes many different standards.  And "shapeliness" is a broad description (no pun intended) that can include many differing standards.

-------------------

 

Overall, she said little about race and racism in her lifetime...  She was generally evasive, dishonest, and cowardly.

 

That goes beyond wrong.  Why don't you re-read "Racism"?  It was a disgusting thing to say about about a person who was the essence of clear, brilliant, and direct communications - a person of striking honesty, and enormous intellectual courage.



Post 10

Sunday, March 4 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve writes in Post 9:

"That goes beyond wrong.  Why don't you re-read "Racism"?  It was a disgusting thing to say about about a person who was the essence of clear, brilliant, and direct communications - a person of striking honesty, and enormous intellectual courage."

I agree that generally Rand was hugely and impressively clear, brilliant, and direct, with notable honesty and amazing intellectual courage. But not always. And especially not on the subject of race and racism. She lived during an era of stunning black bigotry. Not just Martin Luther King, who advocated black favoritism in private conversations with President Johnson in 1963. But also loathsome "hate whitey, kill whitey" folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. She evidently condemned them by name not at all. And she condemned the black power movement and black supremacism seemingly not at all. How is this not a shocking moral failure on her part? How is this not massive cowardice, dishonesty and lack of integrity? Rand was guilty of the Objectivist sin of evasion. Peikoff, Kelley, and all the rest of her unthinking intellectual offspring are still guilty of it!

And I haven't even mentioned the evidently very important biological differences between the races, which virtually all of mankind lies about. The Ayn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society continue to be high evaders, and very cowardly and dishonest on this, even as we speak. These are all "not errors of knowledge, but breaches of morality" as Rand once put it.  



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, March 5 - 5:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel, can you be more specific about "the evidently very important biological differences between the races"?



Post 12

Monday, March 5 - 1:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug -- I don't want to be critical, but the way you phrase your question, and in broad context, and based on your previous responses, I tend to think that on this subject, and many others, you're a liar and a coward and a scumbag. Please give me some indications you're not moral vermin. You answer first: What are the biological differences between the races? I'll answer if you will.  



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, March 5 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel,

 

Rand lived in an era where the black bigotry was no where near as intense as it is today.  And it was an era that had the KKK and Southern Democrats fighting to keep some degree of segregation.  It was an error where many Southern states had laws that prohibited blacks for using the same hotels, eating places, schools, bathrooms or drinking fountains.  Back then, there was institutionalized racism that blacks encountered.

 

The fact that Rand didn't name MLK, Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is NO reason to damn Rand!  She condemned racism.  More than that she provided the moral foundation for understanding why racism is wrong - and she did so in a way that made it clear that it was not just about whites being racist, or those who were antisemites, or the black race hustlers.

 

This appears to be a "shocking moral failure on her part" ONLY in your mind.  Your evidence and your reasoning fall far short of adequate support of those claims.  Your condemnations of Rand as engaging in "massive cowardice, dishonesty and a lack of integrity" is flat out absurd.

 

You are spending time condemning Rand, not those who are active racists - that is just plain strange!

 

Until you say what you mean by "important biological differences between the races,"  that can't even be commented on.



Post 14

Monday, March 5 - 3:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Come on, there are flamingly obvious differences.

Since my focus is on immigration I would cut the Gordian knot and opt for “pure racism” when it comes to immigration policy. That is, I DON’T CARE what the racial differences are.  All that matters is this fact: Vastly different races don’t get along well on a personal level.  This is built in.  It is natural.  Rand herself called it “atavistic,” which is just a derogatory way of saying natural.  

I call her derogation the Objectivist version of Original Sin.  Like the proverbial Victorian who was supposed to deny sex, we are supposed to deny that “preference racism” or “pure racism” is natural.

But it is natural, and like sex, what is natural cannot be evil per se.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, March 5 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Aren't Objectivists supposed to judge men individually by the use of their mind, not statistics, color of skin, or heredity?



Post 16

Monday, March 5 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Korben, to answer your (rhetorical) question:  Of course yes.  The contrary would be “judgmental racism” which is indeed wrong.  Rand defined this as  “ascribing [with certainty, not just to averages – my qualification] moral ... significance to a man’s genetic lineage.” For example, all blacks are criminals, stupid, etc. which simply isn’t true.  She used the unqualified word “racism” to refer to this idea.

I tweeze apart what is really going on and contrast that racism with “preference racism.”  By that I mean generally preferring to physically be around those of your own race regardless of other attributes.  There is NO IMPLICATION in this preference that any individual of another race must have some attribute besides race.

This is unlike judgmental racism which means thinking a given individual of another race must possess some negative, non-racial, characteristic.  Preference racism is simply a preference based on nothing more than race.

Preference racism – pure unadulterated racism – is perfectly natural.  For example from a white’s point of view white flight is natural, insisting on dating white girls is natural, preferring to live and work around whites is natural.  Birds of a feather flock together.

It doesn’t mean one can’t with profit deal with non-whites.  It does affect immigration policy.

Sometimes I take preference racism to be the default racism, that is, I might leave off the qualifier “preference” – it freaks out cultural leftists.  Indeed that is the way cultural leftists use the word “racism,” either that or they package their definition with that of judgmental racism and switch between the two as it suits them.

Rand herself was confused on this issue.

Kyrel and I have argued over this subject for a while.  At the end of the day no matter how much we protest, cultural leftists are going to call us immigration patriots racists anyway.  We need to get used to the word “racism” ringing in our ears and make it our own.

If you want to denounce racism denounce “judgmental racism.”

 

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 3/05, 5:10pm)

 

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 3/05, 5:10pm)



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, March 5 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel,

 

The most obvious difference is in the color of the skin,  Also, in skin, darkness tends to be combined with thickness.  One consequence is that whites sunburn more easily than blacks.  Another is that whites build up vitamin D from sunlight more easily than blacks.  Also, it can affect how easy or hard it is to diagnose some skin conditions.  

 

I understand there is a difference in the bone structure of the heel which affects how shoes fit.

 

Some genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anemia, are more common in one race than another.   (In areas with a lot of malaria, the individuals with the best chance of  survival are those with one copy of the sickle cell gene, since it confers resistance to malaria.)

 

There are some differences in facial features and hair texture.

 

Just how important is any of this?

 

Am I missing anything?

 

One complication is that in this country people of mixed race have traditionally been considered black, even if they have more white genes and characteristics than black ones.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, March 5 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mark,

 

Preference racism is a personal preference which can be influenced by culture.  Not having any racial preferences is probably at least as natural, but there is enough racial preference in our culture to obscure this.

 

An atavistic characteristic in human beings is one that was natural to our nonhuman ancestors but is not natural to us.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, March 5 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"immigration patriots"?    "preference racism"?

 

Sickening intellectual masturbation being used to pretend that bigotry isn't bigotry.  Anyone whose preferences aren't based upon personality, character, intelligence, and values.... but rather is based upon skin color IS racist - and putting the word 'preference' in front of it doesn't make a difference.

 

Personally, I perferred the old-fashioned racist that didn't try to 'tweeze' out weasle-like intellectual justifications.



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.