wsscherk's picture
Submitted by wsscherk on Sun, 2006-05-14 16:10.

(from an article on La Lucha Libre at

I have read and re-read the internet simulcast / essay "Dialectical Dishonesty." I have read Phil's summary above and I have read Phil's announcement that he is wrapping up his efforts on two other forums, the Objectivist Living list and Rebirth of Reason (Wrapping up the Sciabarra fight -- in which he asks those who have sat outside the bullring and flicked their Bics and tossed off Mexican wrestling slogans [¡Que Hombre! º ¡Que Wankero! º ¡Cerebro del Mal! º ¡Dogmatista!] to have the courage to enter the ring for a tag-team finale).

I have read some 17,000 comments by sane and insane on Noodlefood, here, RoR, OL, and in backstage chatter and chatbox. Burp.

Having reached the nutritional requirement for this Extreme 'Coaster, I now must show good faith, good will, and good humour. Hmmm. How about I show the faith, will and humour shown by the likes of the screaming and beer-tossing wrestling fans . . . ?

. . .

The weak, pathetic attempts by list leaders and their courtiers to herd people into one claque or another speak for themselves (yes, I disagree with Roger Bissell; I disagree with Barbara Branden on rules of engagement; I stand with Ellen Stuttle on this narrow point -- Chris Sciabarra can honestly and with integrity sit out the entire grudge match, others may step in as they wish; there need be no Party Line):

I discount these comments and snipings as they are the styrofoam popcorn of discussion, giving buoyancy and bounce and padding, but null value as intellectual food ('TOC fraud-board' º 'Coates Syndrome' º '¡Desnucadora!' º 'Polish' º 'weasel-piss' º 'Dizzy Vertigo and Java the Moron' º ¡Que Wankero! º 'You can stow that "Stalinist" shit yourself' º '¡Guillotina!')**


What remains are La Mertz' Four Points . . . and La Coates' Seven Wrestling Maniacs.

(Doctor Cerebro, from an image gallery
of Equator Books. Another good source of images can be found at
from which the movie picture at bottom is taken)

I only have enough time left above-ground to deal with two, one from La Mertz and one from La Coates. I have discussed hypocrisy and sham reasoning elsewhere.


(3) I've discovered that Chris now smears me as a turncoat and
dogmatist in private correspondence with others, despite recent
assurances to me of his persistent "fond feelings for our past
friendship." He grossly misrepresents my views on homosexuality
and scholarship. He wrongly implies that I've violated my
promise to refrain from public criticism of him and his work.
He's even called me "the veritable Comrade Sonia of
Objectivism." Even worse, he does all that while holding me to
silence about him through my promise, even though I offered
that consideration based upon the illusion of friendship.


2. called Diana a dogmatist, likened her to "Comrade Sonia",
said she rejects non-ARI scholarship, said that her calling
homosexuality suboptimal is a sneaky and dishonest way of
saying immoral [very recent 2006-email to joe] 3. said ARI
people are sucking up and prostitutes, several ARI scholars are
petrified of being cut off from support if they contribute to
JARS. [2002-email to diana]

To both of these numbered statements, I must reply that I lack full context. Diana has not published the full text of these notes, and I must reserve judgement.

With regard to the notion that it was Chris who held Diana to her promise, as if a knife to her throat -- this is risible. It was she who needlessly and bizarrely insisted on this unusual arrangement.

Purely personal impressions of the supposed "smoking gun" evidence are worthless, perhaps, but entertaining. Those who are prone to heart failure on reading plain talk must take a pill . . .










I don't find La Mertz has done her job. I would much rather read 12,500 words on philosophy. I believe she blundered badly in publishing the denunciation. She has hobbled her own reputation as she attempted to bring down Chris. It was unseemly and sad and a touch paranoid. She has gone on at massive length, and even dropped down out of the bleachers into an increasingly exasperated and mudslinging mexican wrestling match gone bad. She has ranted on at length while Sciabarra is serene and distant. She is all mucked up now. He is distant and clothed in white robes of silence. He can fairly claim in future to have been unaware of La Lucha Libre and La Cyclopa v. Diablo Dialecto.

That't the take home for me.

I look forward to Diana turning the frigging page and showing us some Real Work, turning the page back to her work, turning forward to her aims and goals, getting all one-eyed about Work, showing why some of us consider her near-genius, and a fine warrior princess of the Objectivist Movement. Even if she is the Temple Grandin of the O-world, there is no reason to deny her achievements, no reason not to cheer her on to further accomplishments. Sure, she stumbled, but she is a human of great promise, ever redeemable by any benevolent measure of humankind.

Let's clean up the arena now, spectators and combatants. Let's MOVE ON. To those Mysterious Strangers waaaay up in the nosebleeds, it's time to quit shrieking º '¡Que Hombre!' -- it makes you seem suboptimal and unfortunate in the extreme.



**(in reality, most consumers of Objectivist Death-Pit Lucha Libre Snack Bar will have a tummy-ache right now if they ate the popcorn. Judging by biliousness, some have had a bushel)