Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Martin Radwin]

George asked: "Has Peikoff always been this nuts, or has he gotten worse with age? "

Yes, George, he has always been this nuts, but there used to be people around him who would throw fits at some of his atrocities, and who had the clout to stop him from uttering them publicly. (He once came roaring into my apartment in New York, after having witnessed demonstrators protesting the Vietnam war, to announce that it would be morally proper to machine gun them all. )

Barbara

In case there was any remaining doubt about Peikoff's sanity, even back at the time of this incident, Barbara's description of Peikoff's behavior pretty much clinches it.

Not even counting the massive destruction and loss of life in Vietnam as a result of the American war effort (back then and even now, innocent victims of US military actions were not given much if any consideration by objectivists), Ayn Rand herself pointed out the gross immorality of the Vietnam War, just based on the fact that it was costing the US immense amounts in blood and treasure, yet served no national interest whatever. She also pointed out that one of the foundations that made the whole war possible was the draft, which provided the US military with the cannon fodder it needed to prosecute the war. And she had a thing or two to say about the immense evil of the draft, which violated one of the most fundamental of all principles of objectivist ethics -- the individual's right to his/her own life.

I wonder if it ever occurred to Peikoff that some of the demonstrators had either been drafted, were threatened by the draft, or had friends or family who had been drafted. Or had friends or family who were killed or maimed from the war. No matter. They all deserved to be machine gunned in the streets for daring to speak out against the US government's sacred crusade.

And yet Ayn Rand decided to leave her entire estate to this raving lunatic.

Martin

[Philip Coates]

> I'm just a bit curious if anyone knows of any potential medical problems he may be having.

Angie, he's well into his seventies, has always had a bit of that sort of voice pitch you hear now. Something his wife said to me a long time ago suggests he's not exactly had a robust healthy constitution.

(It's somewhat juvenile to make fun of his vocal peculiarities or to post Alfred E. Neuman or Jerry Lewis pictures.)

Edited June 29, 2010 by Philip Coates

[CNA]

Ninth,

I totally understand the time that this interview took place and the ramifications of all that happened and the effect it had on so many. He does seem quite lucid and mentally sharp. I listened to the video. But again, my being the medical junkie, I'm just picking up some issues that are characteristic of Parkinsons and/or another medical issue.

Angie,

From my experience with artists, I vote for stage fright.

Michael

May perhaps be true as well...stage fright and his being nervous but overall seems relaxed. I also picked up labored breathing in watching him without the audio and then listening to him as well which could account for any number of things. Anyway, just an observation and found it interesting. Hopefully he sees his doctor regularly.

[9thdoctor]

Ayn Rand herself pointed out the gross immorality of the Vietnam War, just based on the fact that it was costing the US immense amounts in blood and treasure, yet served no national interest whatever.

Slow down, Rand spoke very angrily about protesters who carried Viet Cong flags, I believe you’ll find this in the Q&A following the Apollo & Dionysus lecture (1969). That’s not like saying they should be shot, but don’t equate being anti-Vietnam with agreeing with whatever protesters Peikoff was raving about. Here's an analogy: imagine a group protesting the Iraq war today carrying posters saying "Convert to Islam so we can have world peace", plus some with the Ayatollah's face. If I saw that, and happened to have a carton of rotten eggs and a bucket of raw sewage handy, plus a sure escape route, I'd express a contrary opinion via improvised performance art. Just nothing lethal.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Brant Gaede]

He's well into his seventies, has always had a bit of that sort of voice pitch you hear now. Something his wife said to me a long time ago suggests he's not exactly had a robust healthy constitution.

(It's somewhat juvenile to make fun of his vocal peculiarities or to post Alfred E. Neuman or Jerry Lewis pictures.)

He has stated he is heart patient.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ninth,

I totally understand the time that this interview took place and the ramifications of all that happened and the effect it had on so many. He does seem quite lucid and mentally sharp. I listened to the video. But again, my being the medical junkie, I'm just picking up some issues that are characteristic of Parkinsons and/or another medical issue.

Angie,

From my experience with artists, I vote for stage fright.

Michael

May perhaps be true as well...stage fright and his being nervous but overall seems relaxed. I also picked up labored breathing in watching him without the audio and then listening to him as well which could account for any number of things. Anyway, just an observation and found it interesting. Hopefully he sees his doctor regularly.

I saw Ayn Rand on television in 1971 putting it to the environmentalists. For whatever reason, she looked terrible. The worst I had ever seen her before or since. You have to be careful about speculating about health issues from appearances. Lack of sleep alone can make you look wacky.

--Brant

[CNA]

He's well into his seventies, has always had a bit of that sort of voice pitch you hear now. Something his wife said to me a long time ago suggests he's not exactly had a robust healthy constitution.

(It's somewhat juvenile to make fun of his vocal peculiarities or to post Alfred E. Neuman or Jerry Lewis pictures.)

He has stated he is heart patient.

--Brant

Bingo, that accounts for the breathing issues and heart disease 99 percent sure BUT there's other medical issues there that he may not be aware of or hasn't announced. His body movements just are interesting to me and a reason I think of Parkinsons Disease, the eye issues and the way he blinks as if it's forced so to speak is another issue. Idk. I don't know Peikoff at all. Even his being lucid, it's hard for me to tell any other issues with mental faculties from the short video I watched (one from so long ago) as I'm not one to stay up on the most current O'ist events and all the head honchos so to speak. Hmmm...perhaps I should listen to the podcast that was put up and giving me a bit more insight if you will. Anyway...ty, Brant, for the tad bit of info!!!

[CNA]

Ninth,

I totally understand the time that this interview took place and the ramifications of all that happened and the effect it had on so many. He does seem quite lucid and mentally sharp. I listened to the video. But again, my being the medical junkie, I'm just picking up some issues that are characteristic of Parkinsons and/or another medical issue.

Angie,

From my experience with artists, I vote for stage fright.

Michael

May perhaps be true as well...stage fright and his being nervous but overall seems relaxed. I also picked up labored breathing in watching him without the audio and then listening to him as well which could account for any number of things. Anyway, just an observation and found it interesting. Hopefully he sees his doctor regularly.

I saw Ayn Rand on television in 1971 putting it to the environmentalists. For whatever reason, she looked terrible. The worst I had ever seen her before or since. You have to be careful about speculating about health issues from appearances. Lack of sleep alone can make you look wacky.

--Brant

True and speculation but outward appearances can speak volumes about a person's overall health and any issues they are having. For instance, Hashimoto's disease is very easy for me to pick up and recognize when I see someone without even talking with them. There's always phsyical characteristics as you know when someone is having health issues. Peikoff in what I can see definitely has them. Anyway....perhaps back to the thread and topic...

[Martin Radwin]

Ayn Rand herself pointed out the gross immorality of the Vietnam War, just based on the fact that it was costing the US immense amounts in blood and treasure, yet served no national interest whatever.

Slow down, Rand spoke very angrily about protesters who carried Viet Cong flags, I believe you’ll find this in the Q&A following the Apollo & Dionysus lecture (1969). That’s not like saying they should be shot, but don’t equate being anti-Vietnam with agreeing with whatever protesters Peikoff was raving about.

To say that being very angry about protesters who carried Viet Cong flags is not like saying that they should be shot, is rather of an understatement. One can be justifiably angry about all kinds of things, but there's a huge difference between being angry and proposing machine gunning. Also, while there were certainly some Vietnam war protesters carrying Viet Cong flags, there were also plenty of protesters with no love for the Viet Cong. Hell, I was out protesting the Vietnam war a couple of times back when I was a student at UCSD. And I certainly had no love for the Viet Cong or for communism. Barbara didn't say whether the protesters were Viet Cong flag carriers or just demonstrators who were against the war. Perhaps Peikoff didn't tell her. But even if every last one of them were carrying Viet Cong flags, the suggestion that it would be moral to machine gun them in the streets is pure lunacy.

Here's an analogy: imagine a group protesting the Iraq war today carrying posters saying "Convert to Islam so we can have world peace", plus some with the Ayatollah's face. If I saw that, and happened to have a carton of rotten eggs and a bucket of raw sewage handy, plus a sure escape route, I'd express a contrary opinion via improvised performance art. Just nothing lethal.

Well, there's also a big difference between rotten eggs and raw sewage and machine gunning. And I wouldn't even go the rotten eggs route. I'm a free speech absolutist. As far as I'm concerned, people should have the right to demonstrate and to say whatever they want to say, no matter how repugnant I might find it. Throwing rotten eggs would constitute assault and battery, and would be a gross violation of the NIOF principle. I would never even consider it.

Martin

[9thdoctor]

To say that being very angry about protesters who carried Viet Cong flags is not like saying that they should be shot, is rather of an understatement. One can be justifiably angry about all kinds of things, but there's a huge difference between being angry and proposing machine gunning.

My point was that the antiwar protesters weren’t all a savory lot. Your post implied (by omission) that Peikoff was pro-Vietnam, contrary to Rand. I agree that calling for machine guns against protesters is loony.

Throwing rotten eggs would constitute assault and battery, and would be a gross violation of the NIOF principle. I would never even consider it.

I must claim the “rhetorical excess” exclusion. I don’t ever carry rotten eggs or raw sewage with me, however, I might just deface the above described poster if the opportunity arose. If it were say, on a wall, or on a college campus billboard. Would that be kosher? I actually have a collection of Objectivist club meeting notices with added commentary that I took down and kept.

[9thdoctor]

A couple three people have emerged who agree with Peikoff in Hsiehkistan, but perhaps most predictably, Jabba is on board 1000%. So far no one’s supporting Peikoff here, but does anyone think the mosque should be stopped? Say, by using (abusing) zoning laws and such like to prevent it?

I might just deface the above described poster if the opportunity arose.

Here’s an article on what one might call “justified defacement”.

[Rich Engle]

Rich, I'm all for on-topic mockery, but the pictures making fun of the way Peikoff looks, they're not funny, and they just dumb down the thread

There's no crying in baseball. And if there was ever a time for a Nutty Professor joke, this, for sure, is one of them. I guess it is just good that I'm not finished making little movies. Yet. I have this one with two little windup robots worshipping a. . . never mind.

It just keeps getting worse with him.

The way I always figured it was simple: after the blowout with NB, she picked LP because at least she could be pretty sure that he would encase and close the system. I don't think she saw anyone around at the time that she believed to be profound enough to grow it, attempt integrations, anything like that. LP was a safe bet for keeping the work static. Unfortunately, he went past even static and did something more like embalming.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

The way I always figured it was simple: after the blowout with NB, she picked LP because at least she could be pretty sure that he would encase and close the system. I don't think she saw anyone around at the time that she believed to be profound enough to grow it, attempt integrations, anything like that. LP was a safe bet for keeping the work static. Unfortunately, he went past even static and did something more like embalming.

After the break with NB, Allan Blumenthal and Leonard Peikoff were named her joint executors. Allan Blumenthal couldn't have been expected even then to hew without divergence to her system. She changed the will, leaving Peikoff the sole executor, after the Blumenthals broke with her in 1977.

I strongly doubt that she *ever* gave the title "intellectual heir" to Leonard Peikoff.

Ellen

[Rich Engle]

I strongly doubt that she *ever* gave the title "intellectual heir" to Leonard Peikoff.

Agree. Maybe the best description would include "curator."

[Jerry Biggers]

I strongly doubt that she *ever* gave the title "intellectual heir" to Leonard Peikoff.

Agree. Maybe the best description would include "curator."

"Curator," sounds like a generic bullseye. Better than "embalmer," although a case could be made that his edict closing her system amounts to an attempt at intellectual embalming.

His speech pattern in his recent podcast is cause for concern. He speaks haltingly, like he was unprepared to speak extemporaneously. At any rate his producers should have re-edited the recording (or was it "live?") before releasing it.

Peikoff is scheduled to give a series of lectures at the upcoming ARI conference. If he does not appear, due to illness, or actually does give the lectures, his presentation ought to give more information on his health.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[9thdoctor]

His speech pattern in his recent podcast is cause for concern. He speaks haltingly, like he was unprepared to speak extemporaneously. At any rate his producers should have re-edited the recording (or was it "live?") before releasing it.

I definitely heard him turning pages, I think it was a written response. He excused himself at the outset, indicating that this was a very emotional issue for him, and that he was in effect holding back. Compare to this, which does come across as a extemporaneous statement.

[Dennis Hardin]

Check this out, even Comrade Sonia disagrees(!!). And her brethren are lining up with her, each fitting in something to the effect that “much as I respect Dr. Peikoff”, otherwise there’s not much difference to here. Note that at 10:45 he says to those who disagree: “you haven’t a clue what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying”, so this is 2006 all over again, but the cheerleading squad is perceptibly diminished.

Over at poodlepoop [or whatever it's called], Comrade Sonia seems concerned that the mosque-bombing controversy may cast a pall over the wonderfully benevolent ambience of OCON, which begins in a few days in Las Vegas. Some hard-line Objectivists appear to be upset with her for disapproving of Lenny’s wet dream about bombing lower Manhattan, and she hopes that “people who dislike and disrespect each other can politely avoid the other without undue fuss.” She warns her fellow comrades: “Personally, I don't want to hear any sniping about this debate, nor hear any reports about sniping.”

I have no idea why she would be concerned. Objectivists are all such calm, rational types, always eager to reason these things out. What is she worried about, some sort of crazy schism? Get serious. It’s not like Objectivists are a bunch of religious zealots or something, condemning each other to eternal damnation at the drop of a tomahawk cruise missile.

I’m sure OCON 2010 will be just like Galt’s Gulch, that they will have a chance to talk things out, that all wounds will quickly be healed, and everyone will live happily ever after. After all, isn’t that how good little Objectivists like Comrade Sonia have always treated dissenters in the past?

Edited June 30, 2010 by Dennis Hardin

[Brant Gaede]

If Anne Heller shows up will this ruin OCON?

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

If Anne Heller shows up will this ruin OCON?

--Brant

Actually, both Ann Heller and Jennifer Burns will be across town, at Bally's, speaking at Freedomfest 2010.

With all those True Believers and renegade Objectivists in such close proximity, I hope Las Vegas doesn't implode.

[Brant Gaede]

If you're going to Vegas in the coming month call the Tropicana. I just learned you can get a room for 50 bucks and they'll give you 50 back to play the slots.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Check this out, even Comrade Sonia disagrees(!!). And her brethren are lining up with her, each fitting in something to the effect that “much as I respect Dr. Peikoff”, otherwise there’s not much difference to here. Note that at 10:45 he says to those who disagree: “you haven’t a clue what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying”, so this is 2006 all over again, but the cheerleading squad is perceptibly diminished.

Over at poodlepoop [or whatever it's called], Comrade Sonia seems concerned that the mosque-bombing controversy may cast a pall over the wonderfully benevolent ambience of OCON, which begins in a few days in Las Vegas. Some hard-line Objectivists appear to be upset with her for disapproving of Lenny’s wet dream about bombing lower Manhattan...

The fact that Comrade Sonia has stopped french kissing Peikoff's ass and has begun to publicly disagree with him signals that she no longer sees him as either a threat or a means of advancement/personal gain. I would guess that she knows something that we don't -- perhaps that Peikoff is well on his way out and someone else in the movement now has more power and control over her future.

J

[Jerry Biggers]

I am assuming that Comrade Sonia foresaw an upcoming leadership crisis in the Empire (err, ARI) and that that insight played a prominent role in her decision to switch allegiances. How else to account for her complete renunciation of everything good she ever said about the Brandens, David Kelley, Sciabarra, et al and everything bad she had said about Peikoff and tribe?

However, like many former empires, there are many cliques and connivers that are waiting in the wings to assume either the role of "emperor," or of a "Darth Vader." Some of them (e.g., Binswanger) have given every indication that they can be as bad or worse than Peikoff.

I don't think that Peikoff can yet be ruled-out. His recent apparent difficulties may be temporary. Those attending the ARI conference will probably get a better idea of his condition. For me, however, that is not sufficient grounds to attend that conference.

[Philip Coates]

Guys, you need to accept the possibility that someone states a view because they actually agree with it, not because they have their finger in the wind and are dishonest about the view.

[Dragonfly]

Perhaps we can start a new thread "The Kremlin ARI Watchers".

[Libertarian Muslim]

Do people actually listen to this Peikoff?

He seems quite insane..

Also, the Imam refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization, so what? Peikoff himself stated that terrorism is a tactic and not really a label for groups. That is quite correct and I believe the Imam was stating the same thing.

In fact, I've met this Imam, he's a great guy and is wholly devoted to peace and building positive relationships between Muslims and other religious groups with events such as the Cordoba Initiative etc..

Edited June 30, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos