Birds of a Feather


Mark

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

New on  <a href="http://www.ARIwatch.com/">ARI <font size=1> </font>Watch</a><font size=1> </font><b>:</b>

<br><br>

    <a href="http://www.ARIwatch.com/BirdsOfAFeather.htm"><b>Birds of a Feather</b></a>

<br><br>

Despite that ARI writers denounce neoconservatism <br>

they promote some neoconservatives again and again.

I am not quite sure what to make of this. No argument is presented. The word neocon, which is repeated 114 times, is never defined. Why it should be taken as representing evil is never explained. It is just assumed. The effect is like listening to a speech by some segregationist endlessly repeating the word negrah, like some evil mantra, which as Christopher Hitchens notes, the reader can interpret as negro or nigger, depending on his particular viewpoint. The author apparently thinks his readers will choose the foulest connotations for the word neocon. And like some country-music radio-station commercial announcer, he counts on ever more insistent repetition--"neocon Neocon NEOCON"--rather than reason to make his point.

This pseudo-thoughtful well-referenced crap is what one expects (in the name of neutrality!) from a free online encyclopedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word neocon, which is repeated 114 times, is never defined.

There’s a definition of sorts at the bottom:

Neoconservatives The “Ayn Rand Institute”

Israel worship – Israel worship

Altruism as self-interest – Altruism as self-interest

Military action in the Middle East – Military action in the Middle East

And so on (check it out yourself, copying it and getting the formatting to work is a pain.

The article is definitely an exercise in guilt by association, but at least it announces itself as such. Tie it in with the ARI position on libertarians and you’ve made a solid demonstration of their hypocrisy. As it is, he shows ARI distancing themselves from partners of the recent past. Mark's evident feelings towards Pamela Geller match mine pretty well. I think it was Justin Raimondo who referred to her as a "screeching banshee".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the ARI making a horrible, horrible series of tactical mistakes? What happens when they completely, by their own hand, sever every possible kind of strategic alliance, both within, and without? What is going to be left? What efficacy? They are already a virtual non-factor in politics. Most people would go running if they got a load of that lot. Even informed people like we here have been running screaming for a long time. Again: what is going to be left? No sphere of influence. No kung fu. A small group of people that can't even manage their own internal affairs other than by excommunication. I see extinction in the future. What are they going to do? Hope they can ride off the Atlas Shrugged movie?

These guys are really jettisoning the fuel tanks. Pretty soon, no one is going to have any trade with them at all. They will become a dusty museum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a long article about neoconservatives Ted Keer is surprised — and annoyed — to find that the word “neoconservative” occurs often.

<br><br>

He exaggerates the often, by the way. In the current version “neocon” occurs 16 times, or 17 if you include a quote from a, pardon me, neocon. “Neoconservative” occurs somewhat over 50 times. Again, the repetition was unavoidable in a 14,000 word article about them.

<br><br>

Ted Keer claims that the article fails to define the word. Yet neoconservative is a common political label and about as necessary to define as conservative. The article does point out (Mr. Keer reads no better than he can count) that:  “The hodgepodge that constitutes the notion ‘neoconservative’ makes defining it difficult, but common to all who call themselves neoconservative are, in brief: big state at home, empire abroad, Israel forever.”

<br><br>

And there is the list at the end that Ninth Doctor points out. That it’s a package of disparate elements is their doing not the messenger’s.

<br><br>

Ted Keer claims that no reason is given that neoconservatism is evil, as if deceit, treason, statism, etc. were good.

<br><br>

Finally, Ted Keer knows what to make of “Birds of a Feather”: it’s mindless crap, with references no less.

<br><br>

I thought it wasn’t half bad myself, modest author that I am. Here’s one of the better lines regarding foreign policy:  “[ARI and neocons alike] use the language of selfishness – without the substance – like an incantation that transforms their desire into yours.”

<br><br>

And another in the same vein:  “Perhaps one day a philosopher will write the book <i>The Subversion of Selfishness: How Ayn Rand’s Ethics Got Twisted Into Its Exact Opposite</i>. It would expose the ARI / neocon masquerade in philosophical detail: how they couch altruism in the words of self-interest, either in self-deception or Straussian lies for the masses.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even a good business analyst-consultant would be wanting to call this one quits.

Look--they infight, they cull their numbers (often exposing the whole mess). When you cut to lean, the idea, unless I have really missed something here, is to increase mobility, effectiveness. That's why you do that; so you can be nimble--"mobile, intelligent units." But they throw that away, because they can't (won't) develop strategic alliances. That's just arrogant. And what would a larger, potentially useful partner have to look forward from them? Judgment. Accusals of (urp) "dishonesty." I can't imagine one successful CEO on the planet that would put up with their shit, because their business model is failing on all cylinders. Certainly, they are unattractive to anything of any weight. The media thinks they are freaks. Correction: the media doesn't even think they are interesting enough freaks for a good story. I don't think the Dems or Repubs would touch them with a long poking stick. They can't/won't compromise anywhere on anything, and they don't make things happen. What do you have to look forward to on any level? Being sniffed at. What's left? Not even a good section of Ivory Tower.

These guys are horrible at what they do, and natural business laws will make them dessicate and die. It is not attractive, and I don't see any major buyers. In fact, what I see is interested buyers going to them (the supposed "source") and running off to places like HERE (which means they are sane, and in touch with their gut instincts).

They ought to just shut the thing down. Idea: We used to have this one strategy when there was one guy in the band we would want to get rid of. What we did was tell him we were breaking up the whole band, wait, and then start a new one.

But even that wouldn't work with this mess.

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the people at ARI, Rich Engle says that the media despises them.

They do pretty well on Fox News. Also Forbes magazine, in denatured form.

"They can't/won't compromise anywhere on anything ... ."

I don't think that’s the issue at all. What's wrong with them are the positions they hold, not that they are uncompromising in holding them.

Interested people go "to them (the supposed 'source')" and run off "to places like HERE (which means they are sane...)"

Is there a HERE, here? If OL is sane I must be crazy. Well, at least it tolerates some good posters, which is something. Some of these leave OL in disgust now and then, then come back because, indeed, there are precious few places to post at.

I think reports of ARI's imminent demise are premature. ARI possesses (via Leonard Peikoff) Ayn Rand's copyrights along with the money that comes from them, useful idiots like John Allison, the Ayn Rand trademark, and skill at fund-raising. They'll be publishing for some time, and ARI Watch will be there to write a review.

Anyway, this is off the thread’s topic, which is that the ARI crowd has a lot in common with Irving Kristol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word neocon, which is repeated 114 times, is never defined.

There's a definition of sorts at the bottom:

Neoconservatives The "Ayn Rand Institute"

Israel worship – Israel worship

Altruism as self-interest – Altruism as self-interest

Military action in the Middle East – Military action in the Middle East

And so on (check it out yourself, copying it and getting the formatting to work is a pain.

The article is definitely an exercise in guilt by association, but at least it announces itself as such. Tie it in with the ARI position on libertarians and you've made a solid demonstration of their hypocrisy. As it is, he shows ARI distancing themselves from partners of the recent past. Mark's evident feelings towards Pamela Geller match mine pretty well. I think it was Justin Raimondo who referred to her as a "screeching banshee".

It's basically preaching to the choir, with 114 "can I get an amen?" lines. I find such preature-creachers amateurs.

As far as I can tell, "ARI watch" is a pacifist/anarchist front that pretends it is concerned with Objectivism in order to get an audience. Yet more maggots feeding off Ayn Rand's corpse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Keer has as much taste as distilled water. If only he were as clean.

Right, I’m making buckets of money out of ‘ARI watch’. I’m being sarcastic. (And what of it if I got rich doing something that needs being done.)

Per usual with this jerk he attacks motivation, which he cannot know:

> ‘ARI watch’... pretends it is concerned with Objectivism in order to get an audience.

And utters unjustified epithets:

> ‘ARI watch’ is ... pacifist/anarchist ...

From the perspective of 2010 a government of the proper size and scope would look a lot like anarchy. And from the perspective of empire minding ones own country would look a lot like pacifism.

The real pacifists are those who don’t fight the corruption in our government. To see how bad it is the books of Rodney Stich are a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] Is there a HERE, here? If OL is sane I must be crazy. Well, at least it tolerates some good posters, which is something. Some of these leave OL in disgust now and then, then come back because, indeed, there are precious few places to post at.

You're very perceptive. And entirely accurate. My count of leaving and coming back is up to three. It's likely to increase.

No discussion venue claiming to be "Objectivist" is free any more (if it ever was) of the bash-all-of-the-other-sectarians impulse, and the wasted, futile effort it creates. I long ago withdrew my initial assessment as to this site being an exception.

As for ARI, it's worth Mark's "watch"ing — which is far more factual than many here are admitting — because of the great deal of at least superficial damage it can do to Rand's legacy, due in turn to the special privileges it is extended. (The biggest being an exemption from how Rand herself, after 1968, didn't want anything like ARI to ever exist.)

One should keep half an eye on it, in the same way one ought to be wary of a gang of bored teenagers holding cans of spray paint. They probably won't wreck anything permanently ... but, ye GODS, what a mess they're likely to leave which will have to one day be cleaned up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] the special privileges [ARI] is extended. (The biggest being an exemption from how Rand herself, after 1968, didn't want anything like ARI to ever exist.)

Furthermore... As I noticed re-reading just today Henry Mark Holzer's "A Statement of Policy" which follows Rand's statement in which she said she wanted no organized movement and no school, she didn't want the name "Ayn Rand" used "in connection with any group or organization of any kind."

(See here and here for quotes from both AR's and Holzer's statements.)

"A Statement of Policy"

Part II--By Henry Mark Holzer

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

pp. 9-10

[emphasis added]

In the former policy statement (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1965), Ayn Rand gave her approval to the use of her name for study groups, in a form such as "The Ayn Rand Society" or "The Ayn Rand Study Club." As the context indicated, this was intended exclusively for college groups, but it has led to other and totally inappropriate uses of Miss Rand's name. Therefore, Miss Rand hereby withdraws the permission to use her name in connection with any group or organization of any kind. [....]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some strong disagreements with Mark, but I believe he does really good watchdog work.

He sources his stuff and that's a big plus.

I'm not a fan of fighting one bias with an opposite bias, but Mark does it well.

The great part about the Internet is that no one is allowed to control the message anymore. People who want to think for themselves can get information from all sides, then come to their own conclusions. (Incidentally, people who want to control others don't do well on OL because I maintain a policy of fostering conditions for people to come to their own conclusions, but that's another matter.) Thus, I believe that ARIWatch is a valuable site giving laser-targeted illumination on some ugly parts of the O-fundy underbelly.

Ironically, by showing the propaganda efforts of ARI for non-Objectivist political agendas, Mark helps to keep Objectivism a body of ideas to the public instead of propaganda. This kind of challenge is a very good thing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the ARI making a horrible, horrible series of tactical mistakes? What happens when they completely, by their own hand, sever every possible kind of strategic alliance, both within, and without? What is going to be left? What efficacy? They are already a virtual non-factor in politics. Most people would go running if they got a load of that lot. Even informed people like we here have been running screaming for a long time. Again: what is going to be left? No sphere of influence. No kung fu. A small group of people that can't even manage their own internal affairs other than by excommunication. I see extinction in the future. What are they going to do? Hope they can ride off the Atlas Shrugged movie?

These guys are really jettisoning the fuel tanks. Pretty soon, no one is going to have any trade with them at all. They will become a dusty museum.

I think the prediction and description are way off. They're growing, not shrinking. There are people there who are effective at reaching the public, and willing to talk places which earlier would have been frowned on. They're good at fund-raising. Their level of contribution has grown steadily, even steeply. They got a several-million-dollar grant not long back for setting up an on-line university.

Although the separation over the Harriman book might lead to a divide which cuts across the two organizations (ARI and TAS), this could result in cross-fertilization. ARI leaders are expecting to absorb TAS eventually and might succeed.

Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Keer has as much taste as distilled water. If only he were as clean.

Right, I'm making buckets of money out of 'ARI watch'. I'm being sarcastic. (And what of it if I got rich doing something that needs being done.)

Per usual with this jerk he attacks motivation, which he cannot know:

> 'ARI watch'... pretends it is concerned with Objectivism in order to get an audience.

And utters unjustified epithets:

> 'ARI watch' is ... pacifist/anarchist ...

From the perspective of 2010 a government of the proper size and scope would look a lot like anarchy. And from the perspective of empire minding ones own country would look a lot like pacifism.

The real pacifists are those who don't fight the corruption in our government. To see how bad it is the books of Rodney Stich are a good start.

I stand behind my conclusions. And you are a practiced smear artist to boot:

Daniel Pipes Like most political intellectuals he seems never to have held a real job. From 1986 to 1993 he directed something called the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He now directs the Middle East Forum, a self-styled “think tank” – rather propaganda mill – incorporated in 1994. It publishes The Middle East Quarterly edited by Michael Rubin. Mr. Pipes himself writes a syndicated newspaper column which, according to his website, appears “in the Jerusalem Post and other newspapers around the globe.” Apparently the Israeli newspaper is so important it relegates other newspapers to “other newspapers.”

This is insult and innuendo. You remind me of the crippled lawyer's queer boyfriend in Lady from Shanghai, a real practiced professional creep. I have read you before. You offer cattiness, bile and smarm. Without your targets you'd be nothing. And you seem to enjoy it. We can each be happy without the other, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the paragraph’s true enough. Daniel Pipes is dishonest. He could have been a dishwasher and made an honest living instead of telling us how Saddam would kill us all. His Middle East Forum really is a propaganda mill. And it is a bit odd that he would single out an Israeli newspaper to boast about.

Insults? Mr. Pipes deserves every one.

Innuendo? It’s always better to have the reader draw your conclusion. Catty entails envious, an emotion I’ll never feel regarding Mr. Pipes. Smarm and smear entail falsehood, the paragraph points out truths in – what was intended as – an entertaining way. I think any bile, or Lady of Shanghai analogy, applies to Ted Keer himself. (He is welcome to stand behind his previous conclusions.)

Since ARI holds up Daniel Pipes for our admiration he becomes a person of interest to ‘ARI Watch’. Pointing out his negative qualities is part of the job. He is not above criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated.

Intellectually they are neo-con nothings, under the thumb of The Great One.

--Brant

Brant, maybe you might learn something if you ever tried to find out what's going on at ARI these days instead of presuming you know what "they" are. Buzz-word knee-jerk reactions, anyone?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated.

Intellectually they are neo-con nothings, under the thumb of The Great One.

--Brant

Brant, maybe you might learn something if you ever tried to find out what's going on at ARI these days instead of presuming you know what "they" are.

Ellen had also written:

They [ARI] got a several-million-dollar grant not long back for setting up an on-line university.

ARI leaders are expecting to absorb TAS eventually and might succeed.

Although Brant has not yet followed Ellen's friendly suggestion, her two claims are a good place for anyone to start. Did ARI get a grant to set up an online university? If yes, where did the grant come from?

Similarly, Ellen says that unspecified leaders expect to absorb TAS.

Will she let us know which leaders, and will she give a clue as to how the unnamed leaders hope to accomplish the absorption? On the face of it, such a plan for 'absorbing' the Open Objectivism Org seems to originate in Cloud Cuckoo land.

-- I generally enjoy reading Ellen's excerpts from documents that illuminate points of Objectivist history; can she back up her assertions and statements with further information? In this case, her statements about ARI are unmoored at the moment.

As for her similarly unmoored "Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated" -- who reported on an imminent demise? Who is she talking to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated.

Intellectually they are neo-con nothings, under the thumb of The Great One.

--Brant

Brant, maybe you might learn something if you ever tried to find out what's going on at ARI these days instead of presuming you know what "they" are. Buzz-word knee-jerk reactions, anyone?

Let's see: Peikoff just did what to cause who to resign from what acting like a bully?

--Brant

tell me what's going on at ARI five years after they bury him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen had also written:

They [ARI] got a several-million-dollar grant not long back for setting up an on-line university.

ARI leaders are expecting to absorb TAS eventually and might succeed.

Although Brant has not yet followed Ellen's friendly suggestion, her two claims are a good place for anyone to start. Did ARI get a grant to set up an online university? If yes, where did the grant come from?

"University" might be an overly stated description used in haste. Educational program -- I forget the details of the proposal. It was announced in the last maybe 6 months in "Impact." The donor is anonymous.

Just in the most recent "Impact," which is still sitting in the pile of papers on our dining table, the September 2010 issue, there's an announcement headed:

"Expanded Internship Program Brings Ten Interns to ARI"

The article starts:

For the past six years, ARI's Academic division has invited one or two student interns to study and work in the Irvine, California, office during the summer. The success of that program led this year to a substantial expansion of it, when ten students were brought to Irvine to participate in an intensive, three-week paid internship [...].

[....]

The ten promising students came from top schools across the country and were chosen from one hundred applicants.

Plus there's the announcement of a New Forbes.com column sponsored by ARI, and of a new essay contest for former participants, and a report of Atlantis Legacy events at the Las Vegas conference, and a quarterly update from the Anthem Foundation (talk about timing!).

The reports of activity going on are typical. There always are in each issue of "Impact" reports of activities actually happening.

Similarly, Ellen says that unspecified leaders expect to absorb TAS.

Will she let us know which leaders, and will she give a clue as to how the unnamed leaders hope to accomplish the absorption? On the face of it, such a plan for 'absorbing' the Open Objectivism Org seems to originate in Cloud Cuckoo land.

Yaron Brook more or less said as much in a meeting with David Kelley which was circumspectly reported some while ago -- I can't recall by whom; Ed Hudgins is a plausible guess -- in one of the IOS update things.

As to "how" -- just waiting would work, the way TAS seems to be proceeding.

As for her similarly unmoored "Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated" -- who reported on an imminent demise? Who is she talking to?

Well, were you to refer to my post #13, where the comment was made, you might notice that I quoted in full and was responding to Rich Engle's post #4.

A question for you, WSS: What's any of it to you? Why would you care what's going on in O'ist land?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARI leaders are expecting to absorb TAS eventually and might succeed.

Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I expect neither the "imminent demise" of the Ayn Rand Institute nor the near-term triumphal sweep projected by those who get carried away with their marketing or just with their daydreaming.

To put ARI's media profile in perspective, the New Yorker finally noticed Charles and David Koch (and labeled them evil geniuses pulling Republican and Tea Party wires) in 2010. When entities such as the New Yorker are sufficiently afraid of ARI that they decry its sudden omnipotence, ARI will have arrived, so far as this manner of recognition is concerned.

And one never assesses the cultural significance or the concrete achievements of an organization on the sole basis of what is said in its fund-raising periodical. At the very least, cross-checking against outside sources is necessary. Track record also matters: I expect the Institute for Justice newsletter to be a lot more reliable than an ARI or, for that matter, a TAS publication.

ARI has built up its fundraising, and reached out into fora that it previously considered infra dig. (Not that this will ever result in the rehabilitation of anyone who spoke to, say, libertarian groups before the green light was finally received.)

ARI has a severe structural constraint, however, in that many of its activities require the close cooperation of the Estate of Ayn Rand, and, so long as he is still on the planet, Leonard Peikoff is the Estate.

It seems unlikely that ARI would otherwise be suddenly losing a guy who brought in a bunch of money and helped to build its academic cred. I seriously wonder how many ARI supporters know one lick about philosophy of science, know that ARI has kept David Harriman on its payroll for 10 years or more, or care whether a history/philosophy of science scholar questions Harriman's work. McCaskey's dissent led to his departure because Leonard Peikoff sponsors David Harriman. Period.

Further, once Leonard Peikoff is gone—and whatever his overall condition, the guy barely seems compos mentis now—ARI will be functioning in a different world.

If Kira Peikoff inherits the Estate, as is generally reported, is she going to have her junior disciples rewriting Rand's unpublished material? Will she care whether the technical philosophical views of one of her protégés receive deference from the machers at ARI? Will her works appear in the bookstore catalog with a special status marker not even accorded to Ayn Rand's?

We'll all soon be seeing what closed Objectivism will amount to, once Mr. Closed Objectivism makes his exit.

As for Yaron Brook declaring that ARI will eventually absorb TAS, I've never heard that one before. As Ms. Stuttle is one of the least credible sources imaginable, I'll pay it some mind when someone who actually knows something confirms it.

I can say that if Brook ever made any such proclamations, he's a complete fool. And he's never come across like a complete fool.

The chain of events that would lead to ARI being the only Objectivist organization is not one where ARI, ever onward and upward, lures away all the remaining talent and donors from TAS.

Most likely would be one that leads to TAS disbanding because not enough people want an open Objectivist organization any more—in which event there would be nothing for ARI to absorb.

And such circumstances are not necessarily ones that would promote robust demand for a closed Objectivist organization ... unless ARI has by then become a frank religious domination (didn't Frank Forman use to argue that Objectivism would persist as a movement only if it managed to become one of the world religions?).

The idea that there must be an organized Objectivist movement is one that always had real problems. NBI blew up so spectacularly that Rob Bradley once called it the Enron of Objectivism. Ayn Rand spent the rest of her days acting ambivalent about the idea. Whether Peikoff violated her express wishes or not, what has happened since her death has done little to bolster the case for such a movement.

I have heard from a source that I do credit that John Allison tried, a few years ago, to persuade TAS's remaining big donors to become donors to ARI. The pitch failed.

Although I appreciate many things that Allison has done, I'm unpleasantly surprised that a retired CEO who has had to deal for many years with corporate politics in a highly regulated business could either be so naive about the organizational culture of ARI or, actually knowing what it's like, be inclined to view it with approval. At least, if this report is true, Allison has not repeated his effort.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for you, WSS: What's any of it to you? Why would you care what's going on in O'ist land?

Ms. Stuttle senses her spotlight being blocked.

The question she asks when rivals reappear can and should be turned around:

Ms. Stuttle is not a Randian, Ortho or otherwise. So why would she care what's happening in Rand-land?

There wasn't much frisson in it, but Ms. Stuttle's decision to embrace PARC and kiss up to its author was genuinely novel.

I mean, why would an admitted non-worshiper of Ayn Rand ever want to endorse the Rand-worshiping author of a book whose only function was to whip up the worshipful contingent?

It's not like Ms. Stuttle is going to make a Valliantoid out of a single other non-worshiper.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Yaron Brook declaring that ARI will eventually absorb TAS, I've never heard that one before. As Ms. Stuttle is one of the least credible sources imaginable, I'll pay it some mind when someone who actually knows something confirms it.

I can say that if Brook ever made any such proclamations, he's a complete fool. And he's never come across like a complete fool.

I didn't use so strong of language as "declaring" and "proclamations." "More or less said as much" isn't so outright. Brook isn't a fool, let alone a "complete" one.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARI leaders are expecting to absorb TAS eventually and might succeed.

Reports of imminent demise of ARI are greatly exaggerated.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I expect neither the "imminent demise" of the Ayn Rand Institute nor the near-term triumphal sweep projected by some get carried away with their marketing or just with their daydreaming.

To put ARI's media profile in perspective, the New Yorker finally noticed Charles and David Koch (and labeled them evil geniuses pulling Republican and Tea Party wires) in 2010. When entities such as the New Yorker are sufficiently afraid of ARI that they decry its sudden omnipotence, ARI will have arrived, so far as this manner of recognition is concerned.

And one never assesses the cultural significance or the concrete achievements of an organization on the sole basis of what is said in its fund-raising periodical. At the very least, cross-checking against outside sources is necessary. Track record also matters: I expect the Institute for Justice newsletter to be a lot more reliable than an ARI or, for that matter, a TAS publication.

ARI has built up its fundraising, and reached out into fora that it previously considered infra dig. (Not that this will ever result in the rehabilitation of anyone who spoke to, say, libertarian groups before the green light was finally received.)

ARI has a severe structural constraint, however, in that many of its activities require the close cooperation of the Estate of Ayn Rand, and, so long as he is still on the planet, Leonard Peikoff is the Estate.

It seems unlikely that ARI would otherwise be suddenly losing a guy who brought in a bunch of money and helped to build its academic cred. I seriously wonder how many ARI supporters know one lick about philosophy of science, know that ARI has kept David Harriman on its payroll for 10 years or more, or care whether a history/philosophy of science scholar questions Harriman's work. McCaskey's dissent led to his departure because Leonard Peikoff sponsors David Harriman. Period.

Further, once Leonard Peikoff is gone—and whatever his overall condition, the guy barely seems compos mentis now—ARI will be functioning in a different world.

If Kira Peikoff inherits the Estate, as is generally reported, is she going to have her junior disciples rewriting Rand's unpublished material? Will she care whether the technical philosophical views of one of her protégés receive deference from the machers at ARI? Will her works appear in the bookstore catalog with a special status marker not even accorded to Ayn Rand's?

We'll all soon be seeing what closed Objectivism will amount to, once Mr. Closed Objectivism makes his exit.

As for Yaron Brook declaring that ARI will eventually absorb TAS, I've never heard that one before. As Ms. Stuttle is one of the least credible sources imaginable, I'll pay it some mind when someone who actually knows something confirms it.

I can say that if Brook ever made any such proclamations, he's a complete fool. And he's never come across like a complete fool.

The chain of events that would lead to ARI being the only Objectivist organization is not one where ARI, ever onward and upward, lures away all the remaining talent and donors from TAS.

Most likely would be one that leads to TAS disbanding because not enough people want an open Objectivist organization any more—in which event there would be nothing for ARI to absorb.

And such circumstances are not necessarily ones that would promote robust demand for a closed Objectivist organization ... unless ARI has by then become a frank religious domination (didn't Frank Forman use to argue that Objectivism would persist as a movement only if it managed to become one of the world religions?).

The idea that there must be an organized Objectivist movement is one that always had real problems. NBI blew up so spectacularly that Rob Bradley once called it the Enron of Objectivism. Ayn Rand spent the rest of her days acting ambivalent about the idea. Whether Peikoff violated her express wishes or not, what has happened since her death has done little to bolster the case for such a movement.

I have heard from a source that I do credit that John Allison tried, a few years ago, to persuade TAS's remaining big donors to become donors to ARI. The pitch failed.

Although I appreciate many things that Allison has done, I'm unpleasantly surprised that a retired CEO who has had to deal for many years with corporate politics in a highly regulated business could either be so naive about the organizational culture of ARI or, actually knowing what it's like, be inclined to view it with approval. At least, if this report is true, Allison has not repeated his effort.

Robert Campbell

Here is Frank Forman's essay on the Prophet Rand: http://www.panix.com/~checker/cs4.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now