<< ARI Watch


Comments from readers who do not like ARI Watch.

[Regarding collective punishment, killing, and torture carried out by the Bush administration:]

In order to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs. The point is not to break the eggs. If someone points out the fact that you need to break eggs, you don’t post some [obscenity deleted] that screams “ARI ADVOCATES BREAKING EGGS.”

– “A. B.”

ARI Watch replies:

The Bolsheviks and their apologists said exactly the same thing.

By the way, ARI Watch does not scream.

ARI Watch is [by an] ARI-hater ... . Pay [his hack jobs] no bother.
– D. E.

ARI Watch replies:

To me it seems natural to resent the Ayn Rand Institute’s perverting of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, all the more so when the effect is to lead Americans to the slaughter. But ARI Watch is not about me. The point is not that anyone hates ARI, but rather why many of the things ARI does are hateful.

The articles may not get an A+ in English Composition, but hack jobs?

[Regarding “Honoring Virtue” on this website:]

... you missed the point of Andrew Bernstein’s article, “Honoring Virtue.” You claim that he was praising the Vietnam War, along with other similar wars. I do not think that Mr. Bernstein was praising these wars as good actions for the United States to take. Instead, he was making the CORRECT point that in all of these wars, whether they should have been doing it or not, Americans were fighting on the side of freedom against the side of tyranny.
– L. M.

ARI Watch replies:

The above is patent sophistry. Even setting aside the falsehood that the U.S. was  “fighting on the side of freedom”  (South Vietnam’s  Nguyen Van Thieu  was a dictator),  for whatever reason Mr. Bernstein did praise U.S. action in the Vietnam War. And the Korean War. And the Spanish-American War. Etc.  “American soldiers have fought and died for freedom around the globe.” – quoting Mr. Bernstein, and he wholeheartedly approves. His essay  “Honoring Virtue”  is a disgrace, there’s no way around it.

A few months later Yaron Brook boasted of that essay’s success, that it was reprinted in 30 newspapers across the country during the Neocon’s run-up to the Iraq invasion.  See  “What We Owe Our Soldiers”  on this website.  Our review of ARI’s last effort in this line is  “How to Truly Support Our Troops”.

[Regarding The Military Commissions Act of 2006 on this website:]

Your complaint about the ARI is that they didn’t comment on this legislation. I assume that you’ve already proven that they have received, read and understood the bill?

Because if they missed it then they are only guilty of not reading every single bit of paper that Washington DC produces.
So until you show that they endorse this new Act all you have done is create a storm in a teacup.

– R. W.

ARI Watch responds:

ARI published nothing about the Military Commissions Act during the congressional debate, when protest mattered the most. But R. W. has an excuse for the folks at ARI, namely:

Every ARI associate failed to find a copy or description of the Act, or having found such did not read it, or having read it did not understand what they read.

Brother what a stretch. We just didn’t think low enough of the folks at ARI ! Think lower, lower !

So low that all ARI associates either must live in a subterranean cave somewhere without newspapers, without Internet, or are illiterate, or just plain stupid.

Admittedly there is some evidence for that last.

The Act was widely publicized, described and discussed while it was still in Congress. The full text of at least one earlier version was on the Internet. Many commentators realized that, if passed, it would be a crucial turning point for America. The problem for ARI was not – as R. W. claims – “reading every single bit of paper that Washington DC produces.” That’s a straw-man he sets up and knocks down for his own self-deception. This Act was not just  any bit of paper,  my God.

When Roosevelt (FDR) proposed increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 15 – the idea being that he would be appointing the extra 6 and consequently gain total control of the Court – it was not just any old bit of White House chatter. Ayn Rand found time to protest along with many others (recounted in Ayn Rand on Creeping Tyranny on this website). She made it her job to protest. If she did this then, her alleged Institute should have protested the Torture Bill that likewise brought America closer to dictatorship. Fighting America’s decline into fascism is part of ARI’s self-appointed job.

Yet visit ARI’s website and look at their recent Media Op-Eds, Letters to the Editor, and Press Releases. Look at the political issues they’ve been discussing and worrying over. Many are trivial compared to the Military Commissions Act. ARI has time to urge the freedom to poison yourself with trans-fatty acids, but no time to worry about torture prisons.

ARI had time to boost Israel, but no time to protest one of the worst Acts of Congress in U.S. history.

No time? Why I plum forgot. The folks at ARI embraced government torture long ago. They may not have endorsed the Military Commissions Act per se, but they endorsed its point long before it was even in Congress.

So R. W. can forget about ARI not endorsing the Act. They didn’t have to endorse it. Their silence is complicity and their speech is damning.

And yet, don’t underestimate an ARI man’s capacity for contradiction. The same clowns who urged every – every – neocon argument for invading Iraq during the run up to the war, and then two years later said the neocons were a menace to America (because they weren’t neocon enough), are capable of denouncing the Military Commissions Act after it’s been signed into law even though they were partly responsible for its passage and endorsed its main point. Just as with the Iraq War they will say, and self-righteously: We didn’t mean this! (See “What We Owe Our Soldiers” on this website.)

I think ARI Watch funny. The people that run the website must be retarted. [sic] Their theme seems to be that ARI supports neo-cons.  [Yet] Yaron Brook (at OCON) gave a speech last week [July 2005] on the neo-cons being the greatest threat to America, good timing! LOL
– G. H.

ARI Watch responds:

Yaron Brook, president of ARI, and the other folks at ARI promoted the Iraq War, and used the same arguments – every one – that the neocons used to do it. Yet in his recent speech he pretends otherwise. That Mr. Brook began criticizing the neocons only after the Iraq fiasco became apparent is his inconsistency, not mine.

What Mr. Brook now objects to about the neocons is that they are not neocon enough. They aren’t killing enough Iraqis and they aren’t going to bomb Iran fast enough.

Mr. Brook has long supported Daniel Pipes and other hard-core neocons. See  Birds of a Feather  on this website.

... “ARI Watch” – a vicious anti-ARI web page
– F. W.

ARI Watch responds:

Criticizing the so-called Ayn Rand Institute, or for that matter Ayn Rand, is not ipso facto bad.

... ARI Watch is nothing but a smear of ARI
– F. W.

ARI Watch responds:

Can anyone but the folks at ARI help it if they make themselves ridiculous?  Is a  fact  a  smear?

... your entire ARI watch site never commends ARI for anything – it is all attack.
– S. W.

ARI Watch responds:

For those who want to read praise there are plenty of websites where they can find it. The purpose of ARI Watch is to criticize ARI.  I chose that purpose before July 2005 when the website went up. It requires no defense. You might disagree with the criticism, but that's something else again. Yes, there's much to agree with in some of ARI's editorials etc., but the authors are hypocrites given the rest and the rest is substantial.

Your ARI watch site is swill.
– S. N.

ARI Watch responds:

It’s difficult not to get the impression that some people don’t like this website.

... you anti-semetic [bleep].
– P. 
... you’re an Israel-hating piece of  [bleep]
– C. C.
He’s an anti-semitic Israel-hating piece of  [bleep].  Everything else [that is, any other possible criticism] is secondary.
– F. W.
ARI Watch responds:

I get many attacks like these, the gist of which is  “You said something bad about Israel!  Anti-semite!  Anti-semite!”  The method in this madness is obvious: The epithet “anti-semite” is supposed to silence critics of Israel. And it’s a Tar Baby – fight it and you get tarred by that very act.

Should you ever experience hectoring like this in a debate, my advice is:  Never deny the charge. Don’t fight the Tar Baby.  If you reply at all, reply with something like:  “I’m critical of Israel and its worshipers. If this be anti-semitism, make the most of it.”  If that sounds difficult, consider: Your opponents are acting like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty; when they use the word “anti-semite” it means just what they choose it to mean. Use “anti-semite” as they in practice use it – if their response makes any sense at all – and thus expose their game.

That won’t end their hectoring though, nothing will. Any American critic of Israel must get used to the sound of “anti-semite.” It has come to mean  “Israel is above criticism. I hate your guts.”  It’s about them, not you.