Wagons Being Circled


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

It looks as though some circling of the wagons is going on at the Ayn Rand Institute.

First, Ed Cline announced that his review of Anne Heller's book wasn't going to run in The Objective Standard after all.

Now, the Fall 2010 issue includes a review of a five-year-old out of print book ... PARC.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/

And it's by a colossal fool named Roderick Fitts.

Was there direct Peikovian intervention?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way I’m shelling out to read another review of PARC, I mean it’s been beaten to death already! I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the name Roderick Fitts before, you’ve read material that qualifies him as a colossal fool?

So there’s a lengthy article by Craig “bombs away” Biddle on the Ground Zero Mosque. Available for free. That’s bound to be a keeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Fitts opines about Mr. Valliant's opus here:

http://inductiveques...w-of-james.html

Yeah, Craig Biddle's piece on Imam Abdul Rauf's mosque is going to be a real draw for the non-ARIans.

I subscribed to TOS for a couple of years. Now that Harriman's articles are no longer appearing, I don't see what would bring me back.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I read part of it.

It felt like I have read the same review from previous years, so I just skimmed the rest.

When a person is comfortable with a high level of factual inaccuracies and lopsided insinuations (as provided by PARC) because it feeds into a legend he carries in his heart, reasoning becomes extremely difficult.

Once respect for facts goes out the window, what's left?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Did you read Biddle’s article on the Ground Zero Mosque? It appears to be available to non-subscribers. I am not sure I would describe this as “Circling the Wagons,” because Biddle takes a position that is clearly in radical opposition to Peikoff’s declaration of “bombs away.”

Check out these quotes:

The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts, by Craig Biddle

But for government to block a project such as the Ground Zero mosque solely because of its insulting nature, or because of its symbolic location, or because it aids the enemy by advancing Islam in America, or because its owners seek to change American culture and politics, would be to violate the basic principle of America—the principle of individual rights—and thus to set an extremely destructive precedent.

If we want to protect civilized society, we must unwaveringly uphold the principles of civilized society—no matter how justifiably outraged we may become about the irrationalities and injustices perpetrated by our enemies. If, in an effort to stop Muslims from destroying America, we trample individual rights and the rule of law, we will have surrendered the very thing we were supposed to be fighting to protect.

Biddle’s recommendation for stopping the Mosque is ostracism and boycotts:

Ostracize individuals and boycott businesses and organizations that in any way participate in evil, anti-American projects (such as the Ground Zero mosque).

If Americans unite in a concerted effort toward this end, we can make it practically impossible for such projects to succeed.

Needless to say, I’m thoroughly disgusted by the apparent sanction of PARC, but it looks to me like Biddle might be treading on some pretty dangerous ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I can't take anything Biddle says seriously. He's a spin doctor for the ARI party line and nothing more. Well... he's an incompetent one to boot.

Look at this crap:

In terms of enemy regimes, we are in a de facto (though largely unacknowledged) war with Iran and Saudi Arabia, the principal state sponsors of Islamic terrorism.1

When I saw that, I stopped cold. We are in an unacknowledged but de facto war with Saudi Arabia? On what planet?

But wait!

There is a footnote. And here is the beginning of the footnote:

1. Our government does not recognize Saudi Arabia as an enemy (in fact, our government calls the state our "friend")...

We are in a "de facto war," but our government calls the country we are at war with a "friend"? Both of these things are in the same essay, one referencing the other?

I am bothered precisely because we are not pursuing a "de facto" resistance against the Wahhabis, who come from Saudi Arabia. But "wishing for" ain't "is," except in Biddle-speak.

What in hell is a "de facto war" with an official "friend" in Biddle-speak?

Where are the goddam soldiers waging this "de facto war"? I'll tell you where. Training Saudi law enforcement. Some are even on friendly US Compounds inside the country.

Fer Keriiiiiist sake!

I think this guy Biddle and Valliant studied English composition and logic with the same person.

I didn't bother reading the rest.

One Valliant is enough for a lifetime.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I can't take anything Biddle says seriously. He's a spin doctor for the ARI party line and nothing more. Well... he's an incompetent one to boot.

Michael

How can you maintain that Biddle is a "spin doctor for the ARI party line" when ARI = Peikoff, and he takes a position in radical opposition to Peikoff? In fact, Biddle's position supporting the property rights of the people behind the Ground Zero Mosque is the same position Peikoff condemned by saying that anyone who believed that "has no clue about what Objectivism says."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't usually bother with articles by Craig Biddle, but I'll take a look at this one.

He may be trying to stake out a position some distance from Leonard Peikoff's, though not nearly as far as we would like to see.

Good luck doing that and retaining Peikoff's favor...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Fitts, to his credit, says this about the McCaskey situation: "From the content of the Dr. Peikoff's letter, he seems to be reacting to his judgment that Dr. McCaskey thinks that either the way Harriman and himself applied the philosophy (i.e. his theory) is wrong, or that Objectivism is wrong due to its inadequacies in this area. Either reason appears good enough for Dr. Peikoff to deem a person unqualified for a position on the Ayn Rand Institute's Board. It should grab one's attention that this applies to not only public assertions of such judgments, which I could understand for obvious reasons like public image, but also for private judgments, such as those of Dr. McCaskey's."

This post was cited approvingly by DH in the comments to a Noodlefood entry, so there may more to Fitts (and DH? Biddle?) than meets the eye, at least at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I can't take anything Biddle says seriously. He's a spin doctor for the ARI party line and nothing more. [MSK]

No, you are logically required to judge each position or article on its merits, not put him in a "camp" and then dismiss everything based on that. That's as bad as Schwartz and the libertarians.

> it looks to me like Biddle might be treading on some pretty dangerous ground.

My worry is that Peikoff might says if Yaron Brook or anyone from ARI writes for The Objective Standard "one of us has to go and will". The proportionate response to applying the same philosophy differently in complex issues is ostracism ands severing of ties? The proportionate response to jaywalking is a firing squad?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

On the surface, he is at odds with Peikoff. But he seems to be smoothing over Peikoff's wackiness instead of flying in the face of it.

If I understand him, he is saying instead of using the government to prohibit the building of the mosque, we should organize efforts to demonize the mosque people and prohibit it that way.

I might be wrong, though, and you may be on to something.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I can't take anything Biddle says seriously. He's a spin doctor for the ARI party line and nothing more. [MSK]

No, you are logically required to judge each position or article on its merits, not put him in a "camp" and then dismiss everything based on that. That's as bad as Schwartz and the libertarians.

Phil,

After reading me for a while, in order for you to say this, you have to have what is called in Objectivism a "concrete-bound mentality."

And the error is two-fold:

1. You eliminate context by saying one should never judge a work within the context of the author (and say you are "logically required" to do so at that).

Even so, you appear to have missed my quotes from Biddle's article.

2. You equate me with dogmatists like Schwartz.

The ONLY way you can do that (without an agenda) is to be concrete-bound and deny contexts.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

On the surface, he is at odds with Peikoff. But he seems to be smoothing over Peikoff's wackiness instead of flying in the face of it.

If I understand him, he is saying instead of using the government to prohibit the building of the mosque, we should organize efforts to demonize the mosque people and prohibit it that way.

I might be wrong, though, and you may be on to something.

Michael

Michael,

We need to give credit where it's due. How can principled opposition to government intervention represent "smoothing over" Peikoff's impersonation of Dr. Strangelove? I think Biddle's position is very well stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I wasn't talking about the part about opposition to government intervention. That was the part being blurred over.

I was talking about that other part he highlighted.

Anyway, I didn't read it all. Did Biddle outright say Peikoff was wrong about his position, or even that he disagreed with Peikoff?

If not (and I would bet money he did not), do you think he has the cojones to do so?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Fitts, to his credit, says this about the McCaskey situation: "From the content of the Dr. Peikoff's letter, he seems to be reacting to his judgment that Dr. McCaskey thinks that either the way Harriman and himself applied the philosophy (i.e. his theory) is wrong, or that Objectivism is wrong due to its inadequacies in this area. Either reason appears good enough for Dr. Peikoff to deem a person unqualified for a position on the Ayn Rand Institute's Board. It should grab one's attention that this applies to not only public assertions of such judgments, which I could understand for obvious reasons like public image, but also for private judgments, such as those of Dr. McCaskey's."

This post was cited approvingly by DH in the comments to a Noodlefood entry, so there may more to Fitts (and DH? Biddle?) than meets the eye, at least at present.

PDS,

I read the Fitts piece you mentioned and it is definitely better than his blog review of the Valliant book.

I'll make a further comment on it in the thread about John McCaskey's resignation (New Developments re: Harriman Book, in the ARI Corner).

Diana Hsieh said nothing about McCaskey for several days after his resignation. There are a lot of wet ARIan fingers being held up to gauge wind direction... I don't read her site often, so I missed that September 13 comment where she cited the Fitts piece. She indicated, however, that her own piece (still being written) will take a different line. My prediction is that Dr. Hsieh will choose outward obedience to Leonard Peikoff, but we shall see.

It's interesting that when the McCaskey resignation was announced, Fitts had not yet read the Harriman book. I noticed on FARF that several of the commenters hadn't read the book, either.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> My prediction is that Dr. Hsieh will choose outward obedience to Leonard Peikoff, but we shall see.

Robert, has anyone told you recently that you are a rather extreme cynic, especially about people who disagree with you in the Oist movement? :rolleyes:

You simply can't credit the possibility that -any- of your strongest adversaries - Hsieh, Valliant, Perigo - could be honest and honorable but mistaken.

Would you extend that cynicism to Peikoff's motives, Would you say his McCaskey ultimatum is because he is on a power trip?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Biddle's piece.

He rebuts some of Peikoff's arguments (though, of course, without attributing a single one to Peikoff by name).

Despite a lot of formulaic blather, he does get around to saying that Muslim Americans have rights to life, liberty, and property, and that nothing presently known about Imam Abdul Rauf or his business partners would justify forbidding them by law from building a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

On the other hand, he accepts the Peikovian contention that the United States is already in a state of undeclared war with Sa'udi Arabia and Iran. On that basis, he calls for an immediate declaration of war with both countries, followed by invasion (though he seems to think that won't be necessary with the Sa'udis) and military occupation. (And he recycles the World War II rhetoric for which latter-day ARIans have become known.)

It's interesting that Craig Biddle and LM actually agree about something: that the United States and Iran are already at war. Of course, they are after very different outcomes. Biddle wants to see the US crush Iran, and LM often talks as though he wants Iran to crush the US.

Biddle also condemns Islam in such harsh terms that, in the end, he concludes that the only morally good Muslims are those who have chosen to become ex-Muslims.

And he condemns tolerance at length, using language that evokes "Fact and Value," though I didn't see a citation to it.

I read him, then, as trying to object to Peikoff's call for bombing Cordoba House, while leaving himself lots of wiggle room...

Did Biddle leave himself enough, or is the next "him or me" letter that comes to the ARI Board going to call for Craig Biddle's removal?

Stay tuned.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You simply can't credit the possibility that -any- of your strongest adversaries - Hsieh, Valliant, Perigo - could be honest and honorable but mistaken.

Who that has the misfortune of even a passing familiarity with these characters could possibly credit such a thing?

Are you familiar with Valiant's behavior at wikipedia? I read every single one of his edits on the Ayn Rand article and reverted many of them myself. The edits themselves were often dishonest representations about the facts. He was dishonest about his own identity. He was dishonest about his desire to present a neutral description of events. And as I have said repeatedly, even the cover of his book was a doctored photograph intended to make NB look shifty.

Perigo is simply a moral monster, no further comment on him could serve any possible purpose.

And Hsieh's self-serving behavior is calculated and purposeful, not accidental.

Are you simply being contrarian or are you annoyed at Robert, Phil? What is the purpose of your asserting that these people might be honestly mistaken? It is about as epistemologically honest as saying that the people OJ Simpson stalked and murdered might have been killed by Colombian drug dealers.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hseih: disingenuous intellectual Objectivist power seeker

Valliant: lawyer who wrote a prosecutor's brief sponsored by Leonard Peikoff implicitly attacking Ayn Rand to get at the Brandens

Perigo: nothing in particular, out of stuff to be vicious about, best on radio but out of stuff to be good about

-- Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You simply can't credit the possibility that -any- of your strongest adversaries - Hsieh, Valliant, Perigo - could be honest and honorable but mistaken.

Would you extend that cynicism to Peikoff's motives, Would you say his McCaskey ultimatum is because he is on a power trip?

Good Lord, Phil, can't I find stronger adversaries somewhere? :)

Lindsay Perigo has alienated so many people that now he sits around at SOLOP feering ronery. Not even Ellen Stuttle wants to keep him company.

Jim Valliant has managed to write the only book that (1) contains significant amounts of previously unpublished work by Ayn Rand and (2) is out of print. I don't think the publication of Roderick Fitts' review will restore his reputation, even amongst the ARI folks.

Diana Hsieh is a lot more adept than Perigo at keeping her eyes on the prize, and a lot saner than Valliant. She staged her transition out of TAS and into ARI with great care and precision. Since then, she has kept her eye out for paths to advancement within ARI and has carefully cultivated the support of senior figures there.

Her backing to Peikoff's fatwa to vote for Democrats was no more an expression of personal conviction than her sudden adoption of Peikoff's latter-day view that being gay isn't immoral, but is unfortunate and suboptimal. Her departure from Peikoff's position on Cordoba House probably reflects her real views, but also suggests that she senses Peikoff's hold beginning to weaken. So the way she positions herself regarding McCaskey's departure will be most interesting.

And do I think Peikoff went after McCaskey as a way of asserting his power?

Phil, how could you deny this? He practically said so in his ultimatum to the ARI Board.

Now, do any of these folks ever act from honest and honorable motives?

I suppose Perigo did once upon a time. But it was long ago and I doubt he can remember it.

Valliant is vindictive and sleazy, but he is also so out of it that not all of the sleaze is consciously motivated.

Dr. Hsieh probably still does act from honorable motives these days. Rarely, though, when it's anything to do with Objectivism.

Leonard Peikoff wasn't always on a power trip, but I don't see how he could have taken much time off from it since, roughly, 1986.

I don't think it's cynicism to conclude that some people are strongly motivated by the desire for power or get their jollies from harming others. This is human reality.

How are you going to protect yourself and others close to you if you can't tell who frequently acts from such motives and who doesn't?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't think it's cynicism to conclude that some people are strongly motivated by the desire for power or get their jollies from harming others. This is human reality. [Robert]

Some people obviously are, but it is a lot less than most people think. But judging it in a particular case requires that you have enough knowledge to rule out alternatives.

> How are you going to protect yourself and others close to you if you can't tell who frequently acts from such motives and who doesn't?

Normally what I need to know is the content of what the person is offering/advocating if it's an intellectual issue. I don't need to see into his soul to determine whether he is dishonest or honestly in error. The error is the thing I will act on or respond to. On a personal level, business relationship or friendship, I am likely to have found plenty of other things wrong with a dishonest or manipulative or insincere person and have distanced myself from him long before I have to decide if he is a monster or someone who deceives self or others.

To use incivility as a (minor) example, I reject the conclusion and approach. I don't need to know the motives...and can't in most cases. Another example: when someone is constantly condemning all adversaries, doesn't act as if there was a lot of honest error around, or condemns a 'fallen' world full of bad people (I'm not using you as an example here), I don't really need to know if he honestly believes it to his core, is seething with hostility and is misleading himself, was brainwashed by his Christian childhood or misreading Rand, or is a Toohey who is putting it all on as an act so he can appeal to certain demographic. Or some other possibility like being a rageaholic.

I will distance myself from the end result (the approach and the worldview) and attack it, wage war on it intellectually. I don't need to know by what winding path it was arrived at.

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