<< Barney Sticks to His Story
Barney as Roark ?
- footnote to “Barney Sticks to His Story, more or less” -
About six weeks after Part Three of Craig Biddle’s “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” (The Objective Standard) appeared two new comments appeared beneath it. Mr. Biddle moderates all submissions.
The first new comment (16 October 2019) is by Jon Hersey, associate editor of TOS and consequently financially beholden to Barney. Mr. Hersey claims we “sneer at those who leave behind irrational ideas and adopt better ones,” referring to Barney. Barney’s defenders need to get their story straight. In Part Three Barney is completely unrepentant about the time he spent in Scientology (which we know to be well over ten years but so far he has been silent about the length of time). Scientology changed, he claims, not him; Scientology went from rational to irrational, he was always rational.
The word “sneer” does not describe our reporting and analysis. Deriding and mocking where appropriate is not sneering. Barney’s deception and limited hangout deserves to be made fun of and laughed at.
Mr. Hersey then says that people who criticize Barney are like Ellsworth Toohey fighting Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Barney as Roark ?
Mr. Hersey then says that when a teenager he tried Buddhism, Christianity, mysticism. Eventually he discovered Rand and later attended ARI’s Objectivist Academic Center, used ARI’s online courses, and read TOS – all three at the time partly funded by Barney (now just the last). Mr. Hersey concludes his comment:
“... anyone who cares about justice ought to thank him a millionfold for his staggering contributions to the advancement of Objectivism and the incalculable positive impact these have made for [sic] all our lives.”
He thinks Barney’s financial support of ARI etc. has helped spread Objectivism. We would say it has helped spread Obleftivism. Like ARI and its The Undercurrent, TOS promotes homosexuality and “same sex marriage.” As I write, the current issue of the magazine (Fall 2019) features the article “How I Avoided the Struggles of Most Young Gay People.” The magazine cover shows a photograph of two young men walking toward the camera, hugging each other with one arm, looking at each other and smiling – underneath which you read “Homosexuality and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.” The article is the latest in a series on the same subject. Coupled with Mr. Biddle’s podcast “The Morality of Sex for Pleasure, Fornication, and Experimentation,” anything goes: in a rational view of sex, says the podcast blurb, “all manner of consensual adult sexual experimentation are seen as good things.” All manner?
Now I’m no expert on the subject but it’s my understanding that a man can be a homosexual without—
... AUGH !!!! Don’t say it !! I don’t want to hear it, I don’t want to hear it !
Froggy, please stay out of my article. Anyway, I gather there are depths to which a homosexual need not sink but in Mr. Biddle’s rational view it is a good experiment.
Setting aside the homosexuality angle, how pathetic are Mr. Biddle’s listeners that they require such a lecture.
Like ARI, TOS promoted the invasion of Iraq. Like ARI, TOS promotes open borders. Its graphics are as anti-white as ARI’s. A new low was an article by Andrew Bernstein that makes a hero out of a mass murderer (see our review in “Valedictorians of Yesteryear.”)
Etc. Barney makes a fitting financial support for this cultural sludge.
The author of the second new comment (17 October 2019) begins by more or less repeating a comment she made after Part One, then she laments
“the deafening silence of the many who have benefited from Carl's many years of generosity; not just of his financial donations, but of his time and expertise as a businessman and man of integrity.”
Barney’s post-Scientology business methods and integrity will be the subject of a future ARI Watch article. In any case, how could a financial donation today affect Barney’s past, or our judgement of that past, or his current claims about that past? I doubt she means: “You have been bought, now step in line.” but it’s not clear what she does mean.