More Collectivism from LP & ARI

[Rich Engle]

Leonard Peikoff's attempt to blackmail Objectivists -- "Anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election . . . does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism." -- is a ludicrous exercise in paranoia. His article is an insult to Objectivists: it consists of a series of assertions -- such as that Republicans are taking "ambitious strides" to give political power to evangelical Christianity -- without a single scrap of evidence, without even the pretense of argumentation, so that it must be accepted on faith or not at all. I suggest not at all.

Yup, and that makes him no better than any other whatchamacallit... those guys that dictate.

He was always second choice, and he was never strong enough. Age has not done him any favors. He is, without any doubt, not a leader. He's not even that good of a technician.

Read Nathaniel's essay called "The High Self-Esteem Leader." Even if you don't like Nathaniel, just look at the realities, the logic he presents. This is proven stuff in business, for one. Find me one place where LP has hit any of those benchmarks. He has no game. He's not even that good of a curator.

Second choice, and not even that good of one.

[Dragonfly]

It looks like a typical case of power play by Peikoff. His remark that someone who does not vote Democratic "means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world" can only be meant for those people in ARI who disagree with him on that point. With that remark he puts them on the spot: if they still have an ounce of self-respect, they should openly tackle Peikoff about that remark, which for them must be a deadly insult. But openly attacking the Godfather of their movement for that remark is of course the last thing they want to do, and probably they will cowardly evade such a confrontation and not call Peikoff's bluff. But the resentment must be enormous...

It's funny to see how this power struggle confuses some bloated toad on a certain forum, who suddenly is confronted with alleged soulmates who simply tell him that he doesn't understand Objectivism... Doesn't he realize that he always has been seen as a useful idiot, to be expended when he's no longer needed? He still doesn't dare to vent in his usual way, what he no doubt would have done if anyone else had told him that, so now we see only a lukewarm protest, more fitting to those he usually calls "limpdicks". Poor toad, he has completely lost his KASS!

Edited November 1, 2006 by Dragonfly

[Brant Gaede]

It looks like a typical case of power play by Peikoff. His remark that someone who does not vote Democratic "means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world" can only be meant for those people in ARI who disagree with him on that point. With that remark he puts them on the spot: if they still have an ounce of self-respect, they should openly tackle Peikoff about that remark, which for them must be a deadly insult. But openly attacking the Godfather of their movement for that remark is of course the last thing they want to do, and probably they will cowardly evade such a confrontation and not call Peikoff's bluff. But the resentment must be enormous...

It's funny to see how this power struggle confuses some bloated toad on a certain forum, who suddenly is confronted with alleged soulmates who simply tell him that he doesn't understand Objectivism... Doesn't he realize that he always has been seen as a useful idiot, to be expended when he's no longer needed? He still doesn't dare to vent in his usual way, what he no doubt would have done if anyone else had told him that, so now we see only a lukewarm protest, more fitting to those he usually calls "limpdicks". Poor toad, he has completely lost his KASS!

I wouldn't say he's lost any KASS, only he's never had much, really. He is taking exception to Diana H. and wondering where Valliant and Fahy are on the subject--outta there. It's hysterical to read how you have to take DIM to get it. If so, why didn't Peikoff tack on some DIM to his positioning so we could understand and (rationally?) agree with him, especially with the election so close?

--Brant

Edited November 1, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

It is interesting to see the Orthodox Objectivist "movement" fraction over something so trivial as mid-term elections. Leonard Peikoff comes out with a silly statement about how people who really understand Objectivism should vote and Diana Hsieh writes a rather long essay supporting him while the editor of the TIA Daily attacks Peikoff. Perigo doesn't understand what's going on except he's not having any of Peikoff's position. DH is complaining that she deserves better from Linz.

It's all rationalization of LP's intellectual power lust which DH has allied herself to. You can see this same story in the first two Godfather movies with Ayn Rand in the Brando role and Peikoff in the Pacino. How tiresome. At least young Objectivists can now see first-hand the virtue of independence and avoid or get out of that insanity.

--Brant

Edited November 1, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least young Objectivists can now see first-hand the virtue of independence and avoid or get out of that insanity.

Brant,

Bless you for that.

I also would like to point out the intellectual power lust in the other guru wannabees. Things to look for are a group scapegoating a target in a highly oversimplified manner, one central "guru" handing down decrees from on high, and the flock who changes its intellectual views--radically if need be, but always instantly--as the central "guru" changes his.

Another thing to look for is when the views of one guru-and-flock clash with another guru-and-flock.

On observing all this, I am reminded of the original working title of The Fountainhead: "Second Hand Lives."

Maybe a good project would be an article on how crowd psychology works (the "insanity" you mentioned), both in Objectivist circles and elsewhere, and how to avoid the pitfalls in order to preserve independence. From what I have observed over the last couple of years, there is a definite need to be filled here.

Michael

[Reidy]

Robert Tracinski, in TIA Daily, is sticking to his recommendation, contra Peikoff, to vote Republican, accusing him of the "Dominique Francon" theory of voting. The outcome be interesting to watch, as TIA has usually toed the orthodox line in the past.

Peter

[Robert Campbell]

A few months ago, when I was still a participant on SOLOPassion, I wrote a piece about the forging of unexpected alliances between Mr. Perigo and several persons in the orbit of the Ayn Rand Institute. It was titled "Fractious Factions, Unsteady Coalitions."

The modal response, over at SOLOP, was that I had succumbed to conspiracy theorizing.

Now Mr. Perigo and one of his erstwhile supporters, Ms. Hsieh, are on the verge of a break. Meawhile, a couple of his other recently acquired allies, Messrs. Valliant and Fahy, have elected to make themselves scarce.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1821#comment-22546

I couldn't have predicted the occasion. Frankly, I wasn't feverish enough to imagine that Leonard Peikoff would decide to throw his weight around by telling his followers that they must vote straight-ticket Democratic in November 2006.

But I predicted that there would be an occasion. And I expected that the subject matter would be pretextual. A lot of what power struggles profess to be about is pretextual.

Robert Campbell

[reason.on]

I find it rather disturbing that LP, "the world's foremost authority on collectivism", and his blind mewlings would assert--in no uncertain terms--that anyone who did not vote for the Democrat who wrote the following (and more) is immoral...

:sick:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm

– Lost Soldiers: "A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud

pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated

with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by

fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt.

The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and

put the boy's penis in his mouth."

Bantam Books, NY, 1st Edition, 2001, (hard cover), page 333.

Quote is from para. 10,.Chap. 34.

RCR

Edited November 1, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[Robert Campbell]

I'm still trying to make sense of the recent Peikovian fatwa to vote straight-ticket Democratic.

I don't like George W. Bush much, and I won't miss certain Republic lawmakers in Washington. I want to see Rick Santorum (an honest-to-God theocrat) soundly defeated. There's no real chance that Dennis Hastert (a mere abetter of business as usual) will lose his seat, but his ouster as Speaker is guaranteed if the Democrats take the House of Representatives, and a nontrivial possibility should the Republican majority hang on.

But Dubya is not up for re-election, and I don't live in Pittsburgh--or in Peoria. Let's look at the races in South Carolina, where I will actually be casting my vote.

Neither US Senator from SC (Graham or DeMint) is up for re-election. Both are improvements over the gerontocrats they replaced (Thurmond and Hollings).

The Congressman from District 3, Gresham Barrett, is a not especially distinguished conservative Republican. He is also running with no serious opposition.

Governor Mark Sanford, a Republican, is up for re-election. And Sanford is very religious. Should I therefore pull the lever for the Democratic challenger, Tommy Moore? According to Dr. Peikoff, my choice should be a no-brainer.

But wait a minute. Sanford is serious about cutting spending. He is the first governor in the history of the state to propose a detailed budget, with clear rationales stated for cuts. On this account, he is not much more popular with the average Republican legislator than with the average Democrat in Columbia. Sanford is also in favor of school choice (which hasn't passed the legislature yet, because of significant Republican opposition to it). In a state where combined spending on public K-12 amounts to $10K per student, yet only Washington, DC, has worse average SAT scores, school choice might just have something going for it.

A 28-year veteran of the state legislature, Moore has spent half of his life making backroom deals. Cuts in state spending are the last thing he would ever want. School choice is nearly as bad from his point of view. He reflexively supports the K-12 establishment, even though South Carolina is staunchly anti-union--so the dire situation here can't be blamed on pressure from the NEA or the AFT.

Could Moore be at least counted on to fight the anti-abortionists (a powerful force in this part of the country)? Nope. Whatever his private view on the subject, he publicly professes to oppose abortion. Could he at least be counted on to fight the state constitutional amendment, also on the ballot next Tuesday, to prohibit same-sex marriage? Are you kidding?

Let's see. State Treasurer: another good ole South Carolina gerontocrat (Democrat Grady Patterson), opposed by a Republican (Thomas Ravenel) who seems to have an occasional idea. State Superintendent of Education: a Republican whose campaign ads are lousy (Karen Floyd) but who favors school choice, versus a Democrat (Jim Rex) whose primary commitment is to preserving the public K-12 establishment, regardless of the number of kids who get taken down with it.

Now, I could see voting for the Democrat in the Lieutenant Governor's race (Robert Barber) because he isn't an egomaniacal flake, while the incumbent Republican (Andre Bauer) is an egomaniacal flake. But the Lieutenant Governor in SC will do virtually nothing, unless the Governor dies in office.

Have I just proven that I can't integrate worth a damn, don't understand Objectivism, and have sunk so far into the depths of depravity that no re-emergence is possible?

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

Looks like Webb can kiss the vegetarian vote goodbye.

[reason.on]

Have I just proven that I can't integrate worth a damn, don't understand Objectivism, and have sunk so far into the depths of depravity that no re-emergence is possible?

Yes, Robert, I am afraid so. You see, you are focusing much, much too much on "concrete" reality, and not nearly enough on LP's fantastical "fundementals". If you really want to understand "Objectivism", per LP, you'll need to move your head from observing reality, and place it solidly up your ass; nothing less will do.

B)

RCR

[reason.on]

Looks like Webb can kiss the vegetarian vote goodbye.

M'eh; what does that matter when you have the "world's foremost authority on Objectivism" on your side.

RCR

[Jonathan]

Bob Campbell:

A few months ago, when I was still a participant on SOLOPassion, I wrote a piece about the forging of unexpected alliances between Mr. Perigo and several persons in the orbit of the Ayn Rand Institute. It was titled "Fractious Factions, Unsteady Coalitions."

The modal response, over at SOLOP, was that I had succumbed to conspiracy theorizing.

Now Mr. Perigo and one of his erstwhile supporters, Ms. Hsieh, are on the verge of a break. Meawhile, a couple of his other recently acquired allies, Messrs. Valliant and Fahy, have elected to make themselves scarce.

It's not too late to get in on the fun and enter to win fabulous prizes:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...entry3185

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; Thanks for your post. It was a great anyalsis of the election in South Carolina and around the country. Objectivists need to use their independent judgement about candidates. We don't need to listen to Leonard and his rationailizing. Ayn Rand wrote an essay on judging candidates. Robert I think you followed Miss Rand and Leonard did not.

[zantonavitch]

Barbara writes:

Leonard Peikoff's attempt to blackmail Objectivists -- "Anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election . . . does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism." -- is a ludicrous exercise in paranoia. His article is an insult to Objectivists: it consists of a series of assertions -- such as that Republicans are taking "ambitious strides" to give political power to evangelical Christianity -- without a single scrap of evidence, without even the pretense of argumentation, so that it must be accepted on faith or not at all....The self-styled "world's leading authority on Objectivism" is clearly not an authority on political reality.

Ouch! I think this falls under the category "The truth hurts."

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

Hmm, I'd forgotten about the pool. Your predicted date of November 23, 2006, could well turn out to be correct. We'll have to stay tuned.

Kat thought that Mr. Perigo and Ms. Hsieh would split in late September to early October. Early... but maybe not by much.

Robert

[Reidy]

I'm in trouble now. Can someone help me? In #25 I said that Peikoff brags about not having read the secondary literature on Objectivism, and sure enough someone asked me for a source. This was an allusion to his widely-quoted claim that he hadn't read Barbara Branden's biography. Does anyone out there have a citation on this?

Peter

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm in trouble now. Can someone help me? In #25 I said that Peikoff brags about not having read the secondary literature on Objectivism, and sure enough someone asked me for a source. This was an allusion to his widely-quoted claim that he hadn't read Barbara Branden's biography. Does anyone out there have a citation on this?

Peter

I don't have the wording, though I've seen it quoted several times on one list or another. When, reportedly, he said it was at the Ford Hall Forum in '86, the year the biography was published; also something to the effect that he had no reason to think that informational content in the book was anything but arbitrary.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

What year did Peikoff reveal that Ayn Rand had had an affair with Nathaniel Branden?

[Ellen Stuttle]

What year did Peikoff reveal that Ayn Rand had had an affair with Nathaniel Branden?

Two or three years after BB's book was published. He thought Barbara was lying when PAR appeared, but then his wife (Cynthia, not Amy) came across material in Ayn's private writings which made clear that there had been an affair.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pete,

Here is a quote by Leonard Peikoff from The Intellectual Activist (Vol. IV, No. 7, page 5), June 26, 1986 issue. (Note: ARI was established in 1985.) This was actually written on May 26, 1986, before the TIA publication date and before PAR hit the market:

The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand's wishes. Miss Rand severed relations with Mrs. Branden in 1968, regarding her as immoral and as an enemy of Objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden's longtime hostility to Ayn Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death—attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation—I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate on this project. I had no reason to believe that the book would be either a faithful presentation of Ayn Rand's life or an accurate statement of her ideas. Advance reports from several readers of the book in galley form have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it and do not intend to do so.

I don't know if he ever read PAR later, but in 1986, he stated in writing that he would not do so.

Also, the speech given at the Ford Hall Forum in 1986 was "Religion Versus America." On browsing through it in The Voice of Reason, Rand was mentioned only once in passing, so if he stated that he would not read secondary literature, it would have been in the Q&A.

In 1987, Peikoff's Ford Hall Forum speech was "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand" (also in The Voice of Reason). Note that this was one year after PAR and 2 years before Judgment Day by Nathaniel Branden. In a quote presenting the view given in PARC of the dishonesty, immorality, guilty weakness, etc., of the people with whom Rand has ruptured relations, without mentioning the name of his cousin, Barbara "the one" became Barbara "the many" (a sui generis feat of analysis and synthesis—and certainly not a dichotomy):

Several of these individuals are now publishing their memoirs in the hopes of getting even with Ayn Rand at last—and also of cashing in on her corpse. At this latter goal, regrettably, some of them seem to be succeeding.

Had anyone else outside of Barbara published memoirs of Rand at that time?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Here is a story by Robert Bidinotto from an old SoloHQ post dated March 21, 2005 concerning the announcement by Peikoff of the affair at The Ford Hall Forum.

Back in the mid-1980s, when rumors of Barbara's forthcoming biography began circulating, I vividly recall the "official" Objectivist position -- stridently maintained for years by Peikoff, Schwartz, et al. -- that the Brandens were filthy liars for even daring to absurdly suggest that there ever had been an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I just as vividly remember the "reasoning" offered to support these denials: that Ayn Rand was madly in love with and faithful to her husband; that Branden was a low-life and that a relationship with him would have been morally and psychologically impossible for "a heroine" and a "spiritual giant" like Ayn Rand; that Leonard Peikoff, as an intimate friend of Rand's and as her "intellectual heir," would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter, and that he had always vigorously denied it; that you'd have to believe Ayn Rand was less than she was, and that her Intellectual Heir was a bald-faced liar, in order to believe the claims of the sleazy Brandens; etc., etc.

That, my friends, was the official Party Line about the affair...before Barbara's book came along.

Around that same time, I was still on speaking terms with ARI people, and in fact had been writing for Peter Schwartz's Intellectual Activist. As a reviewer for other publications as well, I received an advance copy of Barbara's book in galley form, and of course devoured it quickly. It blew me away, to say the least. The details provided by Barbara were utterly compelling, and left no doubt in my mind that the disastrous relationship had, in fact, occurred; that it had been covered up for years; and that Rand's own account of the reasons for her break with the Brandens was -- to put it in Objectivese -- a highly selective re-creation of reality.

Given that I already knew Schwartz's hatred of the Brandens and his pre-publication hostility toward Barbara's book (which he had not even yet read), and given that I knew I'd be giving it an enthusiastic early review, I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)

About the same time, still prior to the book's publication, I went to a party in New Jersey at which some people prominently affiliated with ARI were present. The subject of Barbara's forthcoming book came up, and I mentioned that I had read a review copy and would be reviewing it soon. One of those prominent ARI people, an artist, asked with an indignant tone: "Well, does she [barbara] contend that Miss Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair?"

I remember the sick look on all their faces when I replied, "She supplies a great deal of compelling detail that convinces me that there was an affair."

Even after publication of Barbara's book, the "official" position was still heated denial: continuing accusations that the Brandens were liars, that their accounts were "non-objective." But I noticed cracks in the public facade. In his own published screed against Barbara, Peter Schwartz asked in his closing paragraphs: So what if any of the claims in Barbara's book happen to be true? The real importance of Ayn Rand, he said, lay in her philosophy and novels: "It is her books that she should be judged by."

A curious position coming from people who had long argued that Objectivism permits no breach between mind and body, theory and practice -- and who had, since 1968, used that very argument against the Brandens.

Then -- FINALLY -- at a Ford Hall Forum speech which I attended, Peikoff revealed during the Q&A that he had recently "discovered" among Ayn Rand's personal papers some letters that confirmed that, Yes, there had been an affair.

Folks, you would have had to have been there to appreciate the thundering silence that greeted this stunning revelation. Imagine the sounds of hundreds of trains of thought suddenly screeching to a halt before hitting some unexpected obstacle on the track...then trying frantically to somehow reverse direction prior to impact. I mean, you could see it in the eyes around you: the smugness of moral superiority suddenly replaced by darting sideways glances, each person wondering how he should take this cataclysmic news, what others were thinking about it, how to reconcile it with all the previous self-righteous denunciations of the Brandens being liars...

The best historic analogy I could come up with was how U. S. Communist Party members responded early in the World War II period to sudden news from Moscow of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact." Overnight, the hated Nazis, denounced for years, were to be considered allies. Many of the more honest Party members quit in disgust. What remained was an unthinking contingent of dogmatists whose first loyalty was not to reality, but to their venerated icons: Stalin and the Party.

But just as new rationalizations flowed forth to encourage the Party faithful to navigate this startling ideological about-face, so too did Peikoff & Co. soon offer what have now become the familiar rationalizations for Rand's private behavior. No longer was their argument the one Schwartz had advanced in print -- i. e., that Ayn Rand should be judged only by her books. No, now they offered a new defense: that Ayn Rand had done absolutely nothing wrong. And more: that there was nothing wrong with extramarital affairs generally; that Rand had entered this one with everyone's full "rational" knowledge and complete "moral" consent; that the only thing wrong with it was that Nathaniel Branden had deceived her about his moral character, before, during and after the relationship began. In short, Ayn Rand was a totally innocent victim of the devious Branden. This was the new Objectivist Party Line.

One hell of a story from an eye-witness.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Peter: "This was an allusion to his widely-quoted claim that he hadn't read Barbara Branden's biography. Does anyone out there have a citation on this?"

Peter, I didn't understand that you were referring to my biography. Here are the details:

June 26, 1986 issue of THE

INTELLECTUAL ACTIVIST (Vol. IV, No. 7, page 5). Peikoff was

quoted within a black border:

===

In Response to Inquiries . . .

Editoral board member Leonard Peikoff has asked us to publish the

following statement, which he issued on May 26: "The forthcoming

biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss

Rand's wishes. Miss Rand severed relations with Mrs. Branden in 1968,

regarding her as immoral and as an enemy of Objectivism. Being aware of

Mrs. Branden's longtime hostility to Ayn Rand, including her public

attacks on Miss Rand after her death--attacks interlarded with

protestations of adulation--I have refused for years to meet with Mrs.

Branden or to cooperate on this project. I had no reason to believe that

the book would be either a faithful presentation of Ayn Rand's life or

an accurate statement of her ideas. Advance reports from several readers

of the book in galley form have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I

certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it

and do not intend to do so."

===

As a separate insert for THE INTELLECTUAL

ACTIVIST August 20, 1986 issue, Peter Schwartz wrote a two-page letter

"with reluctance, in response to the letters asking about Barbara

Branden's book, THE PASSION OF AYN RAND."

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Our posts crossed and we both cited the same passage by Peikoff. But that passage bears citing twice. Here is the next-to-last paragraph of Schwartz's insert review dated August 20, 1986 to The Intellectual Activist:

It is only in this context that the question can be raised of whether to believe any of the concrete factual allegations Mrs. Branden makes about Ayn Rand's behavior. When the truth of such allegations rests entirely upon the testimony of the author (and of unnamed “friends” she regularly cites),o one must ask why she is to be believed when she has thoroughly destroyed her claim to credibility. It is very easy to accuse the dead of almost anything. I could readily assert that Ayn Rand met with me at dawn on the first Thursday of every month to join me in secret prayer at a Buddhist temple—and who could disprove it if I maintained that no one else knew about it? Epistemologically, conclusions reached by a categorically non-objective method have the status of the arbitrary. They are not true and not false, but are, rather, entirely outside the cognitive realm—because they are not genuine attempts at cognition. Admirers of Ayn Rand need not—and should not—feel compelled to try to rebut each and every concrete charge made by Barbara Branden (and others who are sure to follow). Let the authors of any such charges first establish their credentials as honest, objective reporters intent on presenting the truth, not on trying to salvage their own sadly wasted lives.

Does anybody see a sadly wasted life floating around here somewhere? I can't seem to find one...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

MSK wrote: "Also, the speech given at the Ford Hall Forum in 1986 was 'Religion Versus America.' On browsing through it in The Voice of Reason, Rand was mentioned only once in passing, so if he stated that he would not read secondary literature, it would have been in the Q&A."

He was asked about it in the Q&A according to people I know who attended that year.

Interesting, considering the topic of the current thread, that his speech was on "Religion Versus America."

MSK quotes Peikoff as saying, "Several of these individuals are now publishing their memoirs in the hopes of getting even with Ayn Rand at last—and also of cashing in on her corpse. At this latter goal, regrettably, some of them seem to be succeeding."

And then asks:

"Had anyone else outside of Barbara published memoirs of Rand at that time?"

I think Rothbard had. There was a whole spate of reminiscences of Rand by people who knew her which followed PAR's publication, but I'm not sure how many of these had already appeared by 1987.

Ellen

___