A kind of disturbing-- not to mention inaccurate-- signature

Paul Mullin

unread,

Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97

to

Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote in article
<5pc86k$s...@news.interlog.com>...
>
> --
> Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
> web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
> email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com
>
> "The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
> guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand

Brad, as I read through your post I found several spelling and gramatical
errors. Not a big deal, even on a newsgroup supposedly for writers, but
when I saw your signature line I balked.

The Nazi's were anything but rigorous in their service of the facts or
reason. Hitler, and his smarmy thug Minister of Propaganda Goebbels went
out of their way to distort, supress and outright annihilate creativity and
cogent thought.

I get the joke; I just think it's particularly unfunny, unsubtle and
insensitive in a world still reeling from the damage inflicted by the
facists of the past AND of the present.

And while I'm mouthing off, might I suggest exploring alternative
philosophies-- something a little less frigid than Ms. Rand's? Lao Tsu,
perhaps?

Food for thought.

Yers,
pm

Brad Aisa

unread,

Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97

to

"Paul Mullin" <pmu...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>> --
>> Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
>> web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
>> email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com
>>
>> "The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>> guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
>
>Brad, as I read through your post I found several spelling and gramatical
>errors. Not a big deal, even on a newsgroup supposedly for writers, but
>when I saw your signature line I balked.
>
>The Nazi's were anything but rigorous in their service of the facts or
>reason. Hitler, and his smarmy thug Minister of Propaganda Goebbels went
>out of their way to distort, supress and outright annihilate creativity
>and cogent thought.
>
>I get the joke; I just think it's particularly unfunny, unsubtle and
>insensitive in a world still reeling from the damage inflicted by the
>facists of the past AND of the present.

Ah, then I assume you have been fighting all along against socialist and
communist regimes everywhere, right?

You obviously haven't got a clue why I use that sig.

The characteristic which unites most intellectuals of the modern
persuasion, is a rebellion against reality and reason. Anyone who attempts
to uphold reality and reason, they typically decry as "fascist" or "nazis".

There is an interesting psychological reason for this absurd projection --
what they are really doing, is objecting to someone who seems to be
imposing any kind of restriction on *their* consciousness, which they
equate with existence (according to the widely held doctrine that we all
"create" our own reality -- literally). So such a primacy-of-consciousness
type, a person who upholds reason and reality is literally seen as a mortal
threat.

I once had a conversation at a party with an intelligent, educated person.
I started explaining my views on education, that it should be fully
private, that parents should have the choice to send their children to
whatever school they wanted, and other similar laissez-faire ideals. The
person was soon hysterically *literally* calling me a Nazi, and supporter
of Hitler.

So, in the great tradition of ridiculing one's enemy's false smears, by
adopting them as one's own, and proudly wearing them, so do I to the
charges that my unremitting defense of objective reality, reason, and their
consequences (such as laissez-faire capitalism) make me a "fascist" or
"nazi".

>And while I'm mouthing off, might I suggest exploring alternative
>philosophies-- something a little less frigid than Ms. Rand's? Lao Tsu,
>perhaps?

"Frigid"?

Objectivism has served me extremely well for over 12 years, and seems to
serve all my Objectivist friends fine too. Perhaps it works so well because
it is an integrated philosophy of reason derived from the facts of reality.
That old buggaboo, objective reality...

And apart from the enormous intellectual benefits I've received from
studying Objectivism and related ideas in other disciplines, is the
benefits I've received from analyzing Rand's fiction, reading her book on
art and literature, and taking a (taped) course she gave on fiction
writing. I learned more useful things from her, than all the other books on
fiction and screen writing put together. She had a brilliant mind, and
dissected everything she analyzed down to its most fundamental roots, and
acccepted no premise, without first validating it completely first hand,
herself.

If more people were even a fraction as critical and fundamental in their
thinking, in whatever discipline, as Ayn Rand was, mankind would be far
more advanced, especially in the humanities, which is currently a mess.

E.H. Harriman

unread,

Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97

to

In article <01bc899a$65ce0260$6e3b...@pmullin.wolfenet.com>, "Paul
Mullin" <pmu...@wolfenet.com> wrote:

> Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote in article
> <5pc86k$s...@news.interlog.com>...
> >

> > --
> > Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
> > web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
> > email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com
> >

snip

>
> I get the joke; I just think it's particularly unfunny, unsubtle and
> insensitive in a world still reeling from the damage inflicted by the
> facists of the past AND of the present.
>

I have no criticism about the .sig being unsubtle and insensitive... (I
also like Jim Carrey and Bill Mahr). My problem just comes from it being
just plain unfunny and illogical.

But then over the last month I've seen this guy post some things that are
pretty nasty. I think he exists to offend for the sake of offending, and
not to provoke reaction, thought, or evaulation.

Brad Aisa

unread,

Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97

to

na...@inter.net (E.H. Harriman) wrote:

[my .sig]

>I have no criticism about the .sig being unsubtle and insensitive... (I
>also like Jim Carrey and Bill Mahr). My problem just comes from it being
>just plain unfunny and illogical.

It is not a joke -- in the sense you seem to mean, nor is it illogical. I
explained this in detail in my other post.

>But then over the last month I've seen this guy post some things that are
>pretty nasty.

"Nasty"? -- according to what standard of "niceness"?

My standard of justice is individual rights, reason, and productive
achievment. I treat kindly everyone who respects rights, is rational, and
who respects and embodies productive achievment, in whatever contextually
appropriate degree.

>I think he exists to offend for the sake of offending, and not to provoke
>reaction, thought, or evaulation.

Actually, I think what you really mean, is that only people who hold
acceptable ideas (according to what standard???) are worthy of
consideration. But that would be kind of dull, to only discuss ideas that
are officially accepted, wouldn't it?

I do not presumptuously claim to have originated most of the ideas I
champion, but they are fundamentally original, and challenge two thousand
years of the Judeo-Christian religious and Western philosophic tradition.
Man has only ever advanced by the grace of those who upturned the status
quo.

--
Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com

"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the

Paul Mullin

unread,

Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97

to

zzzzzz.... Hunh?!?
What?!?... Where am I?...

Oh, sorry, Brad. Must've dozed off there, buddy.
Where were we? Oh, right. Objectivism, fascinating stuff. By golly,
you're right: Ayn Rand's the frickin' savior of the world. If only we poor
schmucks really understood her, we'd be saved from ourselves.

Brad,

Get outta the house, will ya? Read a poem, or even some Nietzsche, or
SOMEthing, for crying out loud.

Rand's novels are BORING, the only truly cardinal sin of storytelling. Her
school of thought is the "D&D" of philosophy, attracting cultish dweebs
with intellectual superiority complexes and creative sensibilities stunted
in early adolescence.

Ok, ok, so don't read Lao Tzu like I suggested. Maybe you better start
with the Kama Sutra. Its instructions on various erotic positionings might
help you find a way to get your head out of your ass.

yers,
pm

Ron Drake

unread,

Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97

to

In article <nada-05079...@p01.hwts14.loop.net>, na...@inter.net
(E.H. Harriman) wrote:

> In article <01bc899a$65ce0260$6e3b...@pmullin.wolfenet.com>, "Paul
> Mullin" <pmu...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>
> > Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote in article
> > <5pc86k$s...@news.interlog.com>...
> > >

> > > --
> > > Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
> > > web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
> > > email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com
> > >
>

> snip
>
> >
> > I get the joke; I just think it's particularly unfunny, unsubtle and
> > insensitive in a world still reeling from the damage inflicted by the
> > facists of the past AND of the present.
> >
>
>

> I have no criticism about the .sig being unsubtle and insensitive... (I
> also like Jim Carrey and Bill Mahr). My problem just comes from it being
> just plain unfunny and illogical.
>

> But then over the last month I've seen this guy post some things that are

> pretty nasty. I think he exists to offend for the sake of offending, and

> not to provoke reaction, thought, or evaulation.

A bit of disagreement: I just think Brad is exceedingly immature. He's got
that overweening arrogance you get from guys who've completed two semesters
of philosophy and "see it all." The only cure for it is life; a couple of
relationships, some failures, a few embarassments and the inevitable col-
lisions with wisdom might set him straight. That's why I've killfiled him.
He's still too young not to believe he knows everything.

--
+++

Don't forget to remove the "dot" from r.dr...@ix.netcom.com
or you won't reach me!

Peter McDermott

unread,

Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97

to

In article <r.drake2-060...@sjx-ca65-14.ix.netcom.com>,
r.dr...@ix.netcom.com (Ron Drake) wrote:

>> But then over the last month I've seen this guy post some things that are
>> pretty nasty. I think he exists to offend for the sake of offending, and
>> not to provoke reaction, thought, or evaulation.
>
>A bit of disagreement: I just think Brad is exceedingly immature. He's got
>that overweening arrogance you get from guys who've completed two semesters
>of philosophy and "see it all."

Just one quibble with this assessment. I find it hard to imagine
that anyone who'd even done *two* semesters of 'proper' philosophy
could take Ayn Rand seriously as a thinker.

But perhaps it was two semesters at Jim Bakker Divinity College?

Didi S. DubelyeW

unread,

Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97

to

Paul Mullin thought it appropriate to write on a public wall:

> you're right: Ayn Rand's the frickin' savior of the world.
>If only we poor
> schmucks really understood her, we'd be saved from ourselves.

> Rand's novels are BORING, the only truly cardinal sin of

>storytelling. Her
> school of thought is the "D&D" of philosophy, attracting
>cultish dweebs
> with intellectual superiority complexes and creative
>sensibilities stunted
> in early adolescence.
>
> Ok, ok, so don't read Lao Tzu like I suggested.
>Maybe you better start
> with the Kama Sutra. Its instructions on various
>erotic positionings might
> help you find a way to get your head out of your ass.

Paul:

While your first question to Brad seemed genuine,
so was his reply. Too bad you were bored.

I haven't seen too many previous posts of yours, so
I thought perhaps you didn't realize that most here
try hard to be accomodating of various points of view.

Yes, there are debates and disagreements, differences
of opinion. However, your spunky little diatribe above
has a particularly goading feel about it. You are
moreover not discussing screenplays, but ripping to
shreds another writer's philosphical beliefs.

I suggest that you might want to rethink all of the above.
Many of your comments were rude and inappropriate to this forum.
Kind of disturbing, not to mention quite possibly inaccurate.
Your cutsieness seems malicious.

(We also don't cross-post between mws & ratp, as they are
distinctly different arenas of discussion,
thus I dropped the latter from this response.)

Nikola Wilensky

unread,

Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97

to

Peter McDermott <ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<AFE6B6FB...@0.0.0.0>...

> In article <r.drake2-060...@sjx-ca65-14.ix.netcom.com>,
> r.dr...@ix.netcom.com (Ron Drake) wrote:
>
> >> But then over the last month I've seen this guy post some things that
are
> >> pretty nasty. I think he exists to offend for the sake of offending,
and
> >> not to provoke reaction, thought, or evaulation.

I too found his "Nazi" signature profoundly unfunny. This discussion has
got be wondering about something else though. How long do you wait before
using something horrible as the basis for comedy? The time-line between an
event being untouchable and drifting into the safe to poke fun at zone
seems to be getting shorter all the time. I don't mean political satire or
other comedic forms that depend on timeliness. I mean really horrible
events that become general references. For example, just a few weeks after
the Koresh incident Beverly Hills 90210 (...uh, my roommate watches it) did
a Waco joke.

My own humor is pretty dark, and I rarely worry about being offensive if
the laugh good enough. But, I do know someone who had to leave the theater
while watching "The Producers," because it made him sick to his stomach.

Has anybody used something like that, and then taken it out? Or struggled
with leaving something in?

-Nikola

Rich Wilson

unread,

Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97

to

D,

Sorry but gotta disagree here. Brad's previous post set up a division,
saying, in so many words, that there are two kinds of people in the world:
people like him -- who are RIGHT (he says) -- and the majority of people,
who (by a lack of "fundamental thinking" skill) believe that existence is
subjective and based entirely on a sort of Cartesian self-awareness.

And here is what Brad said about "the rest of us" in that second category
(with a typo corrected for clarity):

"[To] such a primacy-of-consciousness type, a person who upholds reason
and reality is literally seen as a mortal threat." And then, "If more

people were even a fraction as critical and fundamental in their thinking,
in whatever discipline, as Ayn Rand was, mankind would be far more
advanced, especially in the humanities, which is currently a mess."

Excuse me very much, but I think my intellectual skills are just fine. I
arrived at my own philosophical views after a LOT of observation,
education, contemplation, *life experience*, and "critical thinking."

But Brad's whole riff has been that people who don't buy into Rand are
lesser beings, and that we non-believers all live in fear that people like
him will destroy us somehow ("literally... a mortal threat.") Sounds like
a martyr complex with some sort of power trip mixed in, I dunno.

I've been trying to lay off such things lately, and I would have tried to
be a little more polite if I had replied, I suppose -- but still, I am
tired of seeing people using the group for their own personal agendas.

This group recently endured a long and demeaning "you don't get it" thread
about a single film, and now we have somebody trying the same exact thing
using Ayn Rand as the point of reference. Next week somebody else might
drag in some other book, film, person, or school of thought, and attempt
to use it/them as a criterion by which other users' intellectual abilities
will be disparaged in the same way. I'm goddam sick and tired of it, and
if such users, and such topics, receive a chilly reception, that's great.

So I agreed with the gist of Paul's interpretation and tone. Sure we can
tolerate diverse viewpoints, but we have the right to state our own. I
think Paul expressed the boredom and disinterest that many readers feel
when confronted with Rand's work; and the resentment we feel when talked
down to by people preaching their personal philosophies of life in the
middle of a writing forum. I am glad that you caught, and ended, the
cross-postings at least. Now let's try to get back to writing topics.

--
Rich Wilson
http://www.communicator.com

Paul Mullin

unread,

Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97

to

zzzzzz.... Hunh?!?
What?!?... Where am I?...

Oh, sorry, Brad. Must've dozed off there, buddy.
Where were we? Oh, right. Objectivism, fascinating stuff. By golly,

you're right: Ayn Rand's the frickin' savior of the world. If only we poor
schmucks really understood her, we'd be saved from ourselves.

Brad,

Get outta the house, will ya? Read a poem, or even some Nietzsche, or
SOMEthing, for crying out loud.

Rand's novels are BORING, the only truly cardinal sin of storytelling. Her

school of thought is the "D&D" of philosophy, attracting cultish dweebs
with intellectual superiority complexes and creative sensibilities stunted
in early adolescence.

Ok, ok, so don't read Lao Tzu like I suggested. Maybe you better start
with the Kama Sutra. Its instructions on various erotic positionings might
help you find a way to get your head out of your ass.

yers,
pm

Brad Aisa

unread,

Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97

to

Rich Wilson <in...@communicator.com> wrote:

>Sorry but gotta disagree here. Brad's previous post set up a division,
>saying, in so many words, that there are two kinds of people in the world:
>people like him -- who are RIGHT (he says) -- and the majority of people,
>who (by a lack of "fundamental thinking" skill) believe that existence is
>subjective and based entirely on a sort of Cartesian self-awareness.

People who accept the primacy-of-existence principle are correct; those who
accept the primacy-of-consciousness are incorrect.

>But Brad's whole riff has been that people who don't buy into Rand are
>lesser beings,

Excuse me, but I have never stated nor implied this notion. My basic
criterion for judging others are: 1) their intellectual honesty; 2) their
honesty (both intellectually and existentially); and 3) their
productiveness -- what have they *done* and *achieved*.

I am always pleased to discover that someone I otherwise admire for their
virtues, is also an admirer of Rand, or a serious student of her
philosophy. And I have never been able to understand people who are
outright hostile to Rand, given her obvious brilliance. But a person's view
of Rand per se is not my primary, or even a principle factor in my
estimation of them.

> and that we non-believers all live in fear that people like
>him will destroy us somehow ("literally... a mortal threat.") Sounds like
>a martyr complex with some sort of power trip mixed in, I dunno.

Well, unless you are confessing to being a rabid social constructionist,
then you have really just strawmanned yourself and put matches in my hand.

>So I agreed with the gist of Paul's interpretation and tone.

Mr. Mullin is not someone for whose ideas or style I have the slightest
respect, and not because he doesn't like Rand...

>Now let's try to get back to writing topics.

Philosophic ideas are often germane to many discussions about writing,
especially fiction writing. All writing and writers embody a philosophic
viewpoint, whether implicit or explicit. I often to like to make explicit,
what is often commonly accepted and only implicit.

--
Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com

"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the

Brad Aisa

unread,

Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97

to

ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com (Brad Aisa) wrote:

>Excuse me, but I have never stated nor implied this notion. My basic
>criterion for judging others are: 1) their intellectual honesty; 2) their
>honesty (both intellectually and existentially); and 3) their
>productiveness -- what have they *done* and *achieved*.

I also admire people who proof edit before posting.

pmu...@wolfenet.com

unread,

Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97

to

> (We also don't cross-post between mws & ratp, as they are
> distinctly different arenas of discussion,
> thus I dropped the latter from this response.)

I agree it's not ALWAYS appropriate to cross-post to these two groups,
and in this case, I agree, it probably should have stayed where it
originated.

HOWEVER, as both a playwright and a screenwriter, whose work SOMETIMES
crosses from one field to another (e.g. my play HITTING THE GROUND went
on to become an independant feature film of the same name) I think
sometimes posts regarding theme, format, characterization, etc. are
appropriate for cross-posting.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Fred Hebbert

unread,

Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97

to

Brad Aisa wrote:
> I treat kindly everyone ... in whatever contextually
> appropriate degree.
>
Brad, you did it again.

Fred Hebbert

unread,

Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97

to

Brad Aisa wrote:

> There is an interesting psychological reason for this absurd projection --
> what they are really doing, is objecting to someone who seems to be
> imposing any kind of restriction on *their* consciousness, which they
> equate with existence (according to the widely held doctrine that we all

> "create" our own reality -- literally). So such a primacy-of-consciousness

> type, a person who upholds reason and reality is literally seen as a mortal
> threat.
>
>
>

> "The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
> guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand

Brad, Brad, Brad...
your prose is almost as pretentious, though less intelligible, than Ayn
Rand's.

Gary Pollard

unread,

Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97

to

Rich

Hi, long time no see.

Rich Wilson <in...@communicator.com> wrote in article
<33C12D...@communicator.com>...

>
> Sorry but gotta disagree here. Brad's previous post set up a
division,
> saying, in so many words, that there are two kinds of people in the
world:
> people like him -- who are RIGHT (he says) -- and the majority of
people,
> who (by a lack of "fundamental thinking" skill) believe that
existence is
> subjective and based entirely on a sort of Cartesian
self-awareness.
>

> And here is what Brad said about "the rest of us" in that second
category
> (with a typo corrected for clarity):

I do see a danger in Ayn Rand's thought that it tends to lead to a
form of arrogance that I have noticed in many "objectivists". On that
I agree with you.

However, between that mode of thought and the contemporary idea that
"Everyone has their own truth" (I have noticed this particularly in
debates with certain "minority" groups in the US, and it usually
comes up when logic or evidence has failed them), I think Rand tends
to have more sense on her side than many.

Paul mentioned that Rand was "cold" (or some such adjective). And
yet I'd agree that "cold" logic should sometimes be applied to
precisely the issues about which we tend to get most emotional,
otherwise you can never get beyond people fighting for their own
interests.

Frankly, while I hold no great brief for Rand, the "subjectivist"
mental processes of today often strike me as taking us frighteningly
back to the middle-ages. I have heard people defend their belief in
ludicrous urban myths (kidneys removed in New Orleans hotel rooms,
slave ships on Snapple bottles) with the statement that "each of us
have our own truth". It scares me. I'd rather put logic above that
(i.e. a kidney removed in a hotel room would not be tissue-matched
and would be useless for medical purposes).

> This group recently endured a long and demeaning "you don't get it"
thread
> about a single film, and now we have somebody trying the same exact
thing
> using Ayn Rand as the point of reference. Next week somebody else
might
> drag in some other book, film, person, or school of thought, and
attempt
> to use it/them as a criterion by which other users' intellectual
abilities
> will be disparaged in the same way. I'm goddam sick and tired of
it, and
> if such users, and such topics, receive a chilly reception, that's
great.

As a participant in the "you don't get it" thread, as were you, I'd
point out that there were two sides here, both of which were equally
intolerant to the other's views on that particular film. What annoyed
the "supporters" was the apparent belief that such a film did not
deserve to get made or feted.

I imagine you only feel that the "side" that disagreed with you
deserves the chilly reception. Maybe an indication that
"subjectivism" does have its problems.

> So I agreed with the gist of Paul's interpretation and tone. Sure
we can
> tolerate diverse viewpoints, but we have the right to state our
own. I
> think Paul expressed the boredom and disinterest that many readers
feel
> when confronted with Rand's work; and the resentment we feel when
talked
> down to by people preaching their personal philosophies of life in
the
> middle of a writing forum.

Is there any such thing as a serious writer who does not preach his
or her personal philosophy of life? Sometimes I doubt it, whether
he/she does so by commission or omission. Even if you write Porky's 5
a personal philosophy is in evidence.

Not that much of this has much to do with scriptwriting, although
there IS, I think, a movie or two in it.

Gary

Brad Aisa

unread,

Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97

to

ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:

>I find it hard to imagine that anyone who'd even done *two* semesters of
>'proper' philosophy could take Ayn Rand seriously as a thinker.

Gee, I'm in the middle of reading a fascinating book called *Moral Rights
and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith, an Objectivist professor of
philosophy at the University of Texas. I've attended many interesting and
illuminating lectures on the historical influence of various historical
figures such as Hegel, Locke, and Rousseau, by Dr. John Ridpath, an
Objectivist professor of economics and intellectual history at York
Univerity here in Toronto (he's also been voted a "most popular" professor
in some student surveys). I've attended a couple of excellent lectures on
Aristotle, by the Aristotelian Objectivist philosopher Robert Mayhew, of
Seton Hall University.

These are just examples. Many, many more professional intellectuals
exist, both within and outside academia, who are either outright
Objectivists, or who are highly sympathetic to and respectful of Rand's
ideas.

I'd sure love to know on what premises the poster is basing his assertion.

Maybe he isn't aware that the tired old technique of trying to dismiss
Rand's ideas with a sneering smear can't possibly work anymore, due to the
persistent and growing level of interest in her ideas, and the stature and
growing numbers of those who are serious students and practioners of her
ideas.

There are newer and more plausible techniques for trying to subvert and
oppose the burgeoning Objectivist movement. I'd be happy to post some, if
the poster (or anyone else) is interested.

--
Brad Aisa, Fact Fascist & Reason Nazi -- and damn proud of it!
web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisaATinterlog.com

"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the

Paul Mullin

unread,

Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97

to

> Paul mentioned that Rand was "cold" (or some such adjective). And
> yet I'd agree that "cold" logic should sometimes be applied to
> precisely the issues about which we tend to get most emotional,
> otherwise you can never get beyond people fighting for their own
> interests.

I called her "frigid" actually, with an intentional semantic undertone of
"sterility". (I have a fantasy that involves Walt Whitman pulling Ayn Rand
into a threesome with Sylvia Plath, but that's a whole other post.)

I agree with you, Gary, that reason has a role-- a very much-needed role--
to play in many current debates. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother putting
two words together. However, I also believe that some of the other great
human capacities such as compassion, honor, sensuality and even-- I am
happy to admit-- a smidgen of well-tempered mysticism, all have a place in
human discourse, and what's more to the point on this newsgroup, human
storytelling.

Also, I feel I should confess that I scratched an itch to spank Brad
because, in addtion to his longwinded and high-horsed public post, he sent
me a private email in which he simply instructed me to "fuck off" after my
post regarding his offensive signature. I thought this was cowardly, but
in no way inconcruous with his proudly self-professed "reason nazism and
fact fascism".

I certainly have enjoyed watching the discussion blossom.

pm

Paul Mullin

unread,

Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97

to

E.H. Harriman

unread,

Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97

to

<<<a lot of Ayn rand/Objectivist propaganda snipped>>>

After lurking though this thread for the last week, I have a few things I
can't hold in anymore...

First, Brad's steadfast adoption of the terms "Nazi" and "facist" are
disgusting. His claim that they are badges of honors is nothing more than
a pathetic attempt to gain attention and make himself the focus of
contraversy. The methodology by which he "arrives" at his proclaimed
proclivities -- by maintaing certain social and political arguments --
scarily mirror those of Eichman. Read his "Volkspapier, Munich Volkfrei
Presse Grunstrasse, 1938". The fact that he has adopted the methodology
(if not the message; I do not know enough about him to make that
statement) by controlling the language and perception of people about a
subject is scary.

Eichman controlled people by using the Nazi equivalent of "political
correctness". By infusing an ideology that does not encourage debate, but
a rigid (I believe that somone else used the term "frigid" with respect to
he ideology and Ms. Rand) "process" that really serves to channel people
into "cold" black-and-white paradigms, which Objectivism admits to doing
(as does Scientology and other pseudo-belief-"religons"), you supply
people in these brutal roles and trains of thought with a fundamentally
false reason. And even worse, you eradicate the social or intellectual
need for re-evaluation. People fall into line and stay there, fearful of
questioning a result or thier entire psych-social makeup. What you end up
with are Stormtroopers, not philosophers. However, the Stormtroopers
beleive they are exactly that.

Control the language, and you control perception. Control perception, and
you can control a people. Just 5 years after Eichman's Volkspapier, the
Final Solution began. I do not pretent that Brad wants to eradicate
anyone in particular, but I find the danger of endorsing a system that
easily allows it is nauseating. Furthermore, an individual adopting any
language that would willfully associate themselves with that institution
is pathetic, and serves only an argument, not a person or "philosophy". I
did the same thing in High School when I insulted everyone as a junior
Rodney Dangerfield -- I wanted attention. So I guess that Brad is being
successful at that.

Okay, and on to the second point, which happens to be more relevant to
screenwriting...

Objectivism is an impossibility for human beings. The thought that a
specific process would lead everyone to an "objective" conclusion is
foolish. Here's the proof:

The very nature, structure, and results of the film industry prove that.
Is there one single film that *everyone* proclaims as being perfect,
beautiful, or even entertaining. I have friends who think that
"Casablanca" is boring, that "Citizen Kane" is pretentious and dry.
Others think that "ID$" -- I mean "ID4" was a great film.

And you know what? Many of the people who disagree on those films are
Objectivists. And you know why? It's because the individual spirit of
each person -- the cumulation of their experiences -- dictate what a
person's tastes are. No one process -- which Objectivism claims to do --
will lead everyone to the same conclusion, unless the people following the
process have predetermined themselves to follow the chain, making
"evaluation" more of a formality than a thought. But then, at parties,
they get to shout they are zealots or devotees of BRAND XXX philosophy so
they feel important.

WriteTV

unread,

Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97

to

ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com (Brad Aisa) writes:

>Rich Wilson <in...@communicator.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry but gotta disagree here. Brad's previous post set up a division,
>>saying, in so many words, that there are two kinds of people in the
world:
>>people like him -- who are RIGHT (he says) -- and the majority of
people,
>>who (by a lack of "fundamental thinking" skill) believe that existence
is
>>subjective and based entirely on a sort of Cartesian self-awareness.
>

>People who accept the primacy-of-existence principle are correct; those
who
>accept the primacy-of-consciousness are incorrect.
>

Brad, statements like this do nothing to endear a person to anyone in any
business. If you are indeed a screenwriter, and if you ever hope to have
a career as such, get it out of your head that you're right and everybody
who doesn't think like you is wrong. You only get to believe that when
you're the head of a studio -- and then only until your slate of movies
bombs.

> [snip]

unread,

Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97

to