"Fact and Value," the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Anthem Foundation

[Ellen Stuttle]

I still find nothing about the fashion show in The Objectivist Calendar sections starting from January 1966 -- the earliest it could have been if "Lara's theme" was played in the background (the "Dr. Zhivago" film was released December 31, 1965) -- through April 1968.

Maybe it happened in the months between April 1968 and the "May 1968" edition actually published at the start of October 1968?

There were several film series. I'll compile a list of start dates later.

As I said in post #72, "I found a whole bunch else of interest in the announcements."

There's a history, informative in hindsight, that emerges from tracing sequences.

I quoted Barbara's statement in the November 1966 Calendar about the circulation figures.

As stated in the official notice below, the circulation of THE OBJECTIVIST has now reached 21,056 copies.

-B.B.

It looks like that was the height.

The subscription number was in decline by the official notice next year, 1967.

The Objectivist

November 1967, pg. 16

[underscore added]

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION [...].

[....]

10. [....]

Average No. copies each issue during preceeding 12 months: (A) Total No. copies printed (Net press run): 22,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 1,183. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 16,286. (C ) Total paid circulation: 17,469. (D) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 88. (E) Total distribution (Sum of C and D): 17,557. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 4,443. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 22,000.

Single issue nearest to filing date: (A) Total No. copies printed (Net press run): 22,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 793. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 16,643. (C ) Total paid circulation: 17,436. (D) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 91. (E) Total distribution (Sum of C and D): 17,527. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 4,473. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 22,000.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

If The Objectivist had published only one more issue before shutting down they would have been obligated to publish the next set of circulation figures. I said to myself at the time that the timing indicated a need to avoid embarrassment. Today I also think a desire to maximize the circulation of the new Ayn Rand Letter played a role in that the Objectivist movement inertia was dissipating. I think it cost like 10 bucks for 12 monthly issues of The Objectivist and 33 bucks for 24 or 26 issues of The Ayn Rand Letter. If we assume 10,000 subscribers for the latter and 20,000 for the former, Rand's income probably ramped by 50%. I suspect most of the value of her estate (about $550,000) directly came from the new publication. As it turned out she bit off more than she could chew--I thought it was nuts to commit yourself to bi-weekly publication of cultural and intellectual commentary, for more than one reason, but it was likely good while it lasted. The intellectual fires were burning out because she had given AS her all, her age, her health and no more Brandens in her life.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've started a separate thread for miscellaneous information from the Calendar sections of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist -- link.

The first set of posts is the subscription announcements for 1966-1970. There weren't such announcements reported in The Objectivist Newsletter, and The Objectivist discontinued with the September 1971 issue.

Ellen

[studiodekadent]

The information in this thread is fascinating. And it has made me come to an hypothesis.

We know John Allison is an Objectivist, now Prez of Cato, and ARI board member. Being an ARI board member implies he's orthodox, yet he's now Prez of a libertarian organization and thus going against one of the core tenets of the orthodoxy.

Allison has also funded the work of Stephen Hicks. Hicks is, IIRC, TAS-affiliated.

Cato, under Crane, invited the Brandens to speak and worked with TAS on the Atlas Shrugged anniversary.

Brook is speaking with Reason magazine now.

Intellectually, the orthodoxy has diluted the "closed system" argument to the point where they have accepted all the essentials of the open system argument (i.e. you can disagree with Rand on certain things she said and still be an Objectivist) but still do their best to retain the moralistic posturing of the NBI days.

Hypothesis: Either Allison alone or Allison plus several other high-level Objectivists are trying to unify the Objectivist movement and force and end to the schisms as well as bring the Objectivist movement more officially* into the libertarian movement, but are doing so quietly and discreetly so as to prevent Piekoff/Schwartz/Binswanger etc. from throwing a hissy-fit/temper-tantrum and generating another schism.

* Objectivists (including heterodox ones) have always been in the movement (Crane and most of Cato, apparently, were heterodox Objectivists), but by 'officially' I mean getting beyond Rand's vicious attacks on libertarians.

So.... any thoughts re. my hypothesis?

[Robert Campbell]

Hypothesis: Either Allison alone or Allison plus several other high-level Objectivists are trying to unify the Objectivist movement and force and end to the schisms as well as bring the Objectivist movement more officially* into the libertarian movement, but are doing so quietly and discreetly so as to prevent Piekoff/Schwartz/Binswanger etc. from throwing a hissy-fit/temper-tantrum and generating another schism.

* Objectivists (including heterodox ones) have always been in the movement (Crane and most of Cato, apparently, were heterodox Objectivists), but by 'officially' I mean getting beyond Rand's vicious attacks on libertarians.

So.... any thoughts re. my hypothesis?

Andrew,

Just a few years ago, the talks between Yaron Brook and David Kelley ended with Brook's declaration that Kelley had definitively gotten Objectivism wrong, so no cooperation would ever be possible—while John Allison was busy trying to convince all of TAS's big money donors to switch their allegiances to ARI. So I doubt your hypothesis.

I think that Brook, Allison, and some others are indeed taking steps they believe will prove advantageous, personally and to their organization's mission as they understand it, while trying to stay on the right side of Leonard Peikoff. (Meanwhile, I don't believe that, at present, there's a cost to getting on the wrong side of Harry Binswanger. He's allowed an occasional pet project, most notably 100 Voices, but he and Peikoff have been on the outs for some time. If David Harriman had been Binswanger's protégé and not Peikoff's, John McCaskey would still be with ARI. I further doubt that Schwartz carries independent weight any longer.)

However, their understanding of unifying the Objectivist movement and ending the schisms isn't yours.

They retain the overriding goal of reserving a monopoly on Objectivism for ARI. This, of course, must include a final reaffirmation of all past expulsions. All excommunications, from Rand's circle and subsequently from Peikoff's, have been "irrevocable"; no one has ever been rehabilitated, even posthumously. Brook and Allison have no plan to change that.

So Kelley must remain persona non grata, even while Brook and Allison expect rewards to accrue to themselves from "the sanction of libertarianism."

Nathaniel Branden must remain unmentionable (except for an occasional condemnation) and must remain uncitable.

For that matter, Jarret Wollstein and Roy Childs must never be restored to good standing.

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies must remain off-limits to persons affiliated with ARI.

The Ayn Rand Society must become a forum for ARI-approved intellectuals only (it is close to that status now).

Now it could be that Allison's involvement with Cato and Brook's willingness to be interviewed by Reason magazine will ultimately bring down retribution from Leonard Peikoff.

Or that other cracks will open up, on account of their simultaneous affirmation of "Fact and Value" and cultivation of libertarians. (The question is whether anyone is sufficiently offended by their rank hypocrisy to push back against it.)

But as long as they can endorse "Fact and Value" and cultivate libertarians without adverse consequences to themselves, they'll do both.

Quod licet Jovi. The rules they propound are for others to follow.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Too many holes in the dike for Leonard to keep plugging them up with his fingers.

--Brant

[anthony]

Too many holes in the dike for Leonard to keep plugging them up with his fingers.

--Brant

3-4 years ago when I was first learning about lovers and schisms and things (hey, i'm slow), I came

across an interview with Branden where he was asked about Peikoff: "Ah, poor Leonard..." he

said. A long time time had to go by before I could begin to understood that.

[studiodekadent]

Hypothesis: Either Allison alone or Allison plus several other high-level Objectivists are trying to unify the Objectivist movement and force and end to the schisms as well as bring the Objectivist movement more officially* into the libertarian movement, but are doing so quietly and discreetly so as to prevent Piekoff/Schwartz/Binswanger etc. from throwing a hissy-fit/temper-tantrum and generating another schism.

* Objectivists (including heterodox ones) have always been in the movement (Crane and most of Cato, apparently, were heterodox Objectivists), but by 'officially' I mean getting beyond Rand's vicious attacks on libertarians.

So.... any thoughts re. my hypothesis?

Andrew,

Just a few years ago, the talks between Yaron Brook and David Kelley ended with Brook's declaration that Kelley had definitively gotten Objectivism wrong, so no cooperation would ever be possible—while John Allison was busy trying to convince all of TAS's big money donors to switch their allegiances to ARI. So I doubt your hypothesis.

I think that Brook, Allison, and some others are indeed taking steps they believe will prove advantageous, personally and to their organization's mission as they understand it, while trying to stay on the right side of Leonard Peikoff. (Meanwhile, I don't believe that, at present, there's a cost to getting on the wrong side of Harry Binswanger. He's allowed an occasional pet project, most notably 100 Voices, but he and Peikoff have been on the outs for some time. If David Harriman had been Binswanger's protégé and not Peikoff's, John McCaskey would still be with ARI. I further doubt that Schwartz carries independent weight any longer.)

However, their understanding of unifying the Objectivist movement and ending the schisms isn't yours.

They retain the overriding goal of reserving a monopoly on Objectivism for ARI. This, of course, must include a final reaffirmation of all past expulsions. All excommunications, from Rand's circle and subsequently from Peikoff's, have been "irrevocable"; no one has ever been rehabilitated, even posthumously. Brook and Allison have no plan to change that.

So Kelley must remain persona non grata, even while Brook and Allison expect rewards to accrue to themselves from "the sanction of libertarianism."

Nathaniel Branden must remain unmentionable (except for an occasional condemnation) and must remain uncitable.

For that matter, Jarret Wollstein and Roy Childs must never be restored to good standing.

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies must remain off-limits to persons affiliated with ARI.

The Ayn Rand Society must become a forum for ARI-approved intellectuals only (it is close to that status now).

Now it could be that Allison's involvement with Cato and Brook's willingness to be interviewed by Reason magazine will ultimately bring down retribution from Leonard Peikoff.

Or that other cracks will open up, on account of their simultaneous affirmation of "Fact and Value" and cultivation of libertarians. (The question is whether anyone is sufficiently offended by their rank hypocrisy to push back against it.)

But as long as they can endorse "Fact and Value" and cultivate libertarians without adverse consequences to themselves, they'll do both.

Quod licet Jovi. The rules they propound are for others to follow.

Robert Campbell

If your explanation is correct (and it is more likely than my hypothesis, since you know more of the schisms than I do), then I am depressed as all hell.

That said, remember that Ed Crane (an Objectivist, albiet probably an heterodox one) worked with TAS when he ran Cato. He had enough respect for Allison that he agreed to have Allison replace him.

This does slightly complicate things; Cato was Ed's baby. He wouldn't give it to someone he considered a cultish nutcase.

Maybe Allison's condemnation of Kelley was exclusively about PR/pleasing Leonard/etc rather than about actual philosophical convictions?

Either way, the infighting amongst Objectivists is so embarrassing...

[Robert Campbell]

Andrew,

I don't know how many degrees of freedom Ed Crane had.

The Koch brothers' attempt to take over Cato was, as I suspected, mainly an attempt to get rid of Crane.

What if the alternatives who were acceptable to the Brothers Koch were all Bush Republicans?

One early indicator is whether John Allison continues the occasional cooperative efforts between Cato and TAS. If I have read the situation correctly, he will not.

Robert Campbell

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

I don't know how many degrees of freedom Ed Crane had.

The Koch brothers' attempt to take over Cato was, as I suspected, mainly an attempt to get rid of Crane.

What if the alternatives who were acceptable to the Brothers Koch were all Bush Republicans?

One early indicator is whether John Allison continues the occasional cooperative efforts between Cato and TAS. If I have read the situation correctly, he will not.

Robert Campbell

Well, Objectivism isn't exactly friendly to the Republicans either... even neocon-warmongering ARI has backed an anti-Neocon book (Neoconservatism: An Obituary For An Idea). And Objectivism has always been anti-conservative on culture war issues (gay marriage, abortion etc), even if Objectivist think-tanks (including both TAS and ARI) haven't talked about it sufficiently, IMO.

Again, Crane agreed to Allison as well so I doubt Allison is just a neocon Bush-ite.

Worst case scenario is Cato drops talking about social issues entirely and starts persuing an hawkish foreign agenda. I doubt that will happen because Crane accepted Allison as well.

But yeah.... there's a danger, I agree, in this. In orthodox Objectivism strengthening its monopoly.

I say TAS should try and get Ed Crane to sign up with them.

[Ellen Stuttle]

deleted duplicate -- ES

[Ellen Stuttle]

(Meanwhile, I don't believe that, at present, there's a cost to getting on the wrong side of Harry Binswanger. He's allowed an occasional pet project, most notably 100 Voices [...].

I don't understand that statement. Did Binswanger have some role in 100 Voices beyond being extensively interviewed?

[...] but [binswanger] and Peikoff have been on the outs for some time. If David Harriman had been Binswanger's protégé and not Peikoff's, John McCaskey would still be with ARI. [....])

Harriman wouldn't have been Binswanger's protégé. For one thing, Harry does know something about physics, despite his championing of Lew Little's TEW. Also despite his praise of The Logical Leap, which I suspect is a political gambit in hopes of an increased role after Peikoff's death.

Harriman was chosen as Peikoff's house physicist and given financial support for ten years to do what Peikoff wanted, present the history of physics so as supposedly to illustrate Peikoff's thesis. I think Peikoff was looking for the right physicist as early as '69 at the latest, and that he cased Larry out as a candidate, maybe the first candidate. Lew Little didn't work out well between his pet theory and some actual honor as and knowledge as a physicist, despite his not accepting no on his theory.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I quoted Barbara's statement in the November 1966 Calendar about the circulation figures.

As stated in the official notice below, the circulation of THE OBJECTIVIST has now reached 21,056 copies.

-B.B.

It looks like that was the height.

The subscription number was in decline by the official notice next year, 1967.

That report is misleading. In fact, the highest paid subscription rate was 17,430 in 1968, the year of the break.

Also the subscription total for 1970 was just about identical to that for 1966 (15,599 in 1966, 15,593 in 1970). The difference in total is accounted for by the big difference in Single/Bulk sales.

For details, see post #18 on the "Calendar" thread.

Ellen

[Guyau]

. . .

Yaron Brook and John Allison answered questions at OCON 2012 on Allison’s new post at CATO. I was unable to attend.

. . .

A report is here.

[Robert Campbell]

(Meanwhile, I don't believe that, at present, there's a cost to getting on the wrong side of Harry Binswanger. He's allowed an occasional pet project, most notably 100 Voices [...].

I don't understand that statement. Did Binswanger have some role in 100 Voices beyond being extensively interviewed?

Leonard Peikoff is not interviewed in 100 Voices. Harry Binswanger is.

My inference has been that Peikoff consented to the production of 100 Voices, but it was never his project.

Peikoff has had lots of pet projects. The Early Ayn Rand. All of the subsequent rewrites of Rand's unpublished material (by Berliner, Harriman, Boeckmann, Mayhew, and Podritske/Schwartz). Even the black-bag job that he entrusted to Valliant.

He let Binswanger have one pet project, for old times' sake.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Harriman was chosen as Peikoff's house physicist and given financial support for ten years to do what Peikoff wanted, present the history of physics so as supposedly to illustrate Peikoff's thesis. I think Peikoff was looking for the right physicist as early as '69 at the latest, and that he cased Larry out as a candidate, maybe the first candidate.

Don't you suppose that Peikoff also "cased out" Nick Bykovetz?

Bykovetz was present during some of the workshops later edited by Binswanger for the 2nd edition of ITOE.

Robert Campbell