Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Disgusting

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've seen this article too. It seems to be the latest thing that old people have to forward to everyone they know. If someone specifically sent it to me because they knew I liked Rand then I would be disgusted with that person.

The article itself is the journalistic version of a modern artist who finger paints with his own feces and expects people to take him seriously. The author is extremely cowardly and has revealed his mental impotence and inability to argue against anything Ayn Rand actually said. So he presents a lot of evidence against William Hickman and tries to make people take it as evidence against Rand. And his knowledge of Rand's opinion of Hickman is second hand information from a dishonest smear book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't even get past the first paragraph. I have become so tired of arguing against people who viscously denounce Objectivism without ever reading a word from the person who constructed it. Intellectual fraud.

"viciously"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Here was my response to the person who posted this on facebook "Atheism"

Very disgusting.

I have a very simple posting rule on this page: I don’t bring up Ayn Rand, and nobody else brings upAyn Rand. When “nobody else” breaks that rule, then I contend and chew them out. There is no excuse for posting articles like this.

First of all,

This article is the journalistic equivalent of a three year old using his fecal matter to finger paint. For a supposedly amateur writer who’s works are laughable and childish, people sure are desperate to throw dirt on her. On top of being saturated with sensationalism, it’s filled with intellectual dishonesty and fraud that is based on second-hand information. How desperate for fraud does one have to be to dig up dirt on someone that occurred 70 years ago? I’m absolutely sure that she was taken out of context here. I mean, seriously, has there ever been anyone who’s never admired a villain? Have people always worshipped the protagonists of a story, without being fascinated with the antagonists? I’m such a horrible asshole, because I’m fascinated with people like Ted Bundy, Lizzy Borden, Jeff Dahmer, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, and almost everyone who wanted to shoot someone. I better give up my degree in psychiatry, because HOLY FUCK my passion for psychology is clearly indicative of PURE EVIL! I am a murderer-lover, for shame! Please excuse me while I off myself for occasionally watching Dexter

But of course, since Ayn Rand is obviously the eugenicist baby-raping devil incarnate jewess hitleress naziess demon from hell, whatever some enraged journalist has to say about her must be taken as gospel. Except in a non-religious way!

‎"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

Clearly, Ayn Rand condones murderers! (Credit goes to a pal of mine for pointing this quote out to me!)

“smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere.”

Wow. NOT indicative of a sociopath!

I’ve managed to find two or three people who didn’t despise this woman so vitriolically.. but if people actually took the time to READ the supposedly amateurish nazi hitler viking rapist works she made, they’d discover that she really isn’t the bad. They’d also discover that she’s provided an answer for objective/scientific morality much long before Sam Harris went and embarrassed himself against William Lane Craig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't surprise me that the worst kind of attacks are reserved for AR. Other groups (conservatives, libertarians) merely argue with the leftists of this world, AR proved them wrong to a logical certainty.

The old socialists used to fancy that they had reason on their side and their enemies the conservatives were merely religious. But AR took that away from them, now they no longer have reason and the younger left-wingers are a lot more shrill and turning environmentalism is to their own secular religion to replace their lost reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is also rather telling that in order to critique Ayn Rand they have to dig into her personal journals and amplify sommething out of context and make it appear as though it contradicts everything else she's ever written. They then present this as indicative of her views. It is childish, everyone knows that personal journals are not written thinking about how others might interpret them. It just shows how hard it is to find some true faults about her ideas.

By the way, listen to this. I haven't seen this presented in a worse way. I don't know why ARI gets on his show anymore:

(Go to 5:30)

Edited by patrik 7-2321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's quite obvious that he portrayed Ayn Rand in the worst way possible on purpose. But it is a good idea for Ayn Rand Institute to get on his show, because, well.. how many leftists actually invite people on their show after talking trash about them? It's a chance to get publicity

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this very topic was discussed on Hacker News recently

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2456296

I think one of the major AR/O'ism sites on the net should just host the Hickman/Little-street chapter of Rand's diary in its full text for all to see. This issue will keep cropping up as bloggers get hold of the book, cherry pick quotes from it and play on it for shock value. People then have nothing to check their claims against, and then spread links to said blogs about the internet. We should petition Peikoff or whomever it may concern to licence the text for online display.

Just put a disclaimer before it saying something like

'When a gruesome murder story hit the news in 1923, Rand became interested in both the public reaction (much stronger than usual) and a statement by the killer - "I am like the state, what's good for me is right." Using details from the court case for inspiration, Rand began planning a fictional work based on the idea of 'the-outraged-mob' vs one man who disregarded its sensitivities (though, unlike Hickman, was not a danger to others). Her thoughts on this story, which she planned to name 'Little Street', and on the relevant elements of the Hickman case can be found in the following entry of her private journal.'

And let people make their own mind up. To me, Rand found something off about the 'public' reaction to the case - although outrage was appropriate, to some extent 'the mob' was the same beast as ever, and she wanted to get a close look. Rand was starting to pinpoint the collectivist tendencies/mindsets that she saw as detrimental to broader life. She admits that Hickman really is a 'monster,' and that any sympathy she felt for him was 'involuntary,' and that he probably lacked the qualities she supposd he might have had (based on his 'what's good for me is right' statement), but the question of how the same mob (specifically the people attending the court case, and people who commented on the case publically) would treat an innocent man was worth pondering. Other readers might come to different conclusions, but it's better than these partisan bloggers monopolizing the topic.

Edited by Tyco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is also rather telling that in order to critique Ayn Rand they have to dig into her personal journals and amplify sommething out of context and make it appear as though it contradicts everything else she's ever written. They then present this as indicative of her views. It is childish, everyone knows that personal journals are not written thinking about how others might interpret them. It just shows how hard it is to find some true faults about her ideas.

By the way, listen to this. I haven't seen this presented in a worse way. I don't know why ARI gets on his show anymore:

(Go to 5:30)

I don't know how Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein can stand to argue with that fucking freak.

Edited by iflyboats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the major AR/O'ism sites on the net should just host the Hickman/Little-street chapter of Rand's diary in its full text for all to see. This issue will keep cropping up as bloggers get hold of the book, cherry pick quotes from it and play on it for shock value. People then have nothing to check their claims against, and then spread links to said blogs about the internet. We should petition Peikoff or whomever it may concern to licence the text for online display.

Won't happen. Or if it does, it would surprise me. How much damage did Nathaniel and Barbara Branden do, for how many years (answer: about 20!) before someone at ARI finally decided to take the bull by the horns and they got behind Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics? Personally, I was taken in by the Brandens for many years.

There's an attitude in place there that they won't dignify smears with a response. 99% of the time I agree with that policy, however every once in a while a smear "grows legs" and becomes part of what "everyone knows" about somebody, and to not answer it at that point simply is interpreted as being embarrassed by the truth. The Hickman smear is a case in point. It's also possible that the "she took welfare and/or did drugs, the lying hypocrite" smear(s) will achieve the same status of "everyone knows" before someone at ARI decides maybe silence is not the best policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the major AR/O'ism sites on the net should just host the Hickman/Little-street chapter of Rand's diary in its full text for all to see. This issue will keep cropping up as bloggers get hold of the book, cherry pick quotes from it and play on it for shock value. People then have nothing to check their claims against, and then spread links to said blogs about the internet. We should petition Peikoff or whomever it may concern to licence the text for online display.

Part of it can be found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante, yes that's where I read the thing myself, but I only found it because I browse this forum frequently. And until I found that article I had many doubts and questions and bad feelings about the whole issue myself.

However, that article is not easily found. You can get it on google books too, but only in the USA. What I'm suggesting is that an AR site host it, then people can find it (because it will show up in the google results near the top). No need to address the smearers directly, but at least just make the source material available so people can judge for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." — Mahatma Gandhi

Edit: According to Wikiquote, that quote's attribution to Gandhi is disputed.

Regardless, it's apt.

I was actually thinking of the exact same quote. It makes me wonder: are they currently in the laughing stage, or the fighting stage? Because the article posted in the OP sounds like it's literally calling for war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting analogue to this situation is the film 300. (or the old one, perhaps)

We like watching the Spartans fighting off the invading hoards because they represent great skill and courage, and most of all freedom (and for the altruists, sacrifice for the greater good). But in reality Sparta was closer to Nazi Germany than any heroic republic: allegedly Sparta subjugated a neighbouring state/city for centuries and as part of their warrior training rituals, sent their teenagers to kill one of these people, as their rite of passage. All 300 of those Spartans must have been murderers.

However in reading about the true story of the battle of Thermopylae, filmmakers have obviously discarded these horrible truths, and kept the noble elements, because even though that's not what DID happen, it's what MIGHT have happened, and it makes better art. Similarly Rand saw some inspirational qualities in Hickman (and conversely, some cynical qualities in his accusers), and wondered what sort of story they would make if she left out the evil traits and deeds. If you enjoyed the film 300, or 300 Spartans, then you should be able to sympathize with Rand's perspective. Certainly, liking 300 doesn't make you a Nazi/Fascist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...